What Could $104 Billion Buy (Besides War)?

From The Contrarian. 

Voters Don't Agree With Most Of The GOP's Cost-Cutting Agenda

 The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 26th and 29th of a nationwide sample of 1,420 registered voters, with a 3.1 point margin of error.

Most Don't Want Cuts To Programs The GOP Is Planning

The chart above is from the AP/NORC Poll -- done between October 5th and 9th of a nationwide sample of 1,163 adults, with a 3.9 point margin of error. 

The Discretionary Budget: How Congress Spends Your Money

The Republicans are once again wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare, claiming they must to get the budget deficit under control. Don't fall for that LIE! Those programs are paid for through payroll deductions, and even if you completely eliminated them, it would not reduce the deficit or the national debt.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (pictured) tells you how your tax dollars are really spent:

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress claim that America spends too much on things like food stamps, welfare, and foreign aid. 

But let’s look at how the government actually spends your federal tax dollars each year. We’re going to look at what’s known as the “discretionary budget,” which has to be reappropriated by Congress each year.

Start with foreign aid, the conservatives’ favorite boogeyman. It’s $29 billion a year. That may sound like a lot but it’s only 2 percent of all discretionary spending. Add all spending on international affairs, it’s 4 percent.

What about science and technology, including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and research in clean energy, which conservatives love to hate?Just 3 percent.

The environment and natural resources – money for clean air, safe drinking water and protecting public lands? Another 3 percent.

Roads, bridges, highways, airports, all transportation funding: Another 3 percent.

Community and regional development: 2 percent.

Law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the entire federal court system: 5 percent

The Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and rural health clinics: 5 percent.

Food stamps, energy assistance, child care, other income security: Just 6 percent.

Education and workforce training gets just 7 percent.

Veterans benefits account for 7 percent of the budget as well.

All other government services–including Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce–account for only 1 percent of the discretionary budget.

But that’s only 46 percent. The remaining 54 percent of annual spending is on the military, which is more spent on the military than the next 7 nations combined. It’s huge. It’s about the only really big thing the federal government does.

You may be thinking, but what about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act? 

By law, these programs are mandatory spending, which don’t require Congress to approve funding every year. Americans have paid into Social Security and Medicare over their entire working lives.

Yet they’re still vulnerable. In fact, if Trump and Republicans in Congress aren’t going to cut discretionary spending – especially on the military – the only places they can look to make way for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  

That’s been their goal all along. 

Know where the money is really going. And know what they have in mind. 

New GOP Norm Is Trillion Dollar A Year Federal Deficits

The chart above (from MarketWatch) shows the federal debt projected by the CBO before the Republicans passed their massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Thanks to those cuts, the areas in red on the chart above will be much larger.

The Republicans have always claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. That wasn't actually true. They just wanted to do their spending on the military instead of programs to help most Americans. But their new tax cut, coupled with their profligate spending, means they have tossed fiscal responsibility out of the window.

They have ushered in a new era of yearly minimum deficits of at least a trillion dollars a year, which will balloon the federal debt far faster and bigger than ever before.

The following is just part of an article by Stan Collender at Forbes.com:

The new U.S. normal of $1 trillion or more annual federal budget deficits will officially begin this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases its economic and budget outlook report showing that the deficit will be at least that high every year Donald Trump is president.

Although there have been private sector projections for months (including my post from last October) that the government's red ink will hit and exceed a trillion dollars for years to come, this will be the first report by Congress's official budget watchdog since last year's big tax cut and this year's spending deal were enacted that will show the deficit rising precipitously and staying at that very high level through the next 10 years.

The official CBO projections are likely to be lower than the budget deficits that actually occur. CBO's report is based on current law and makes no political judgements about what Congress and the president will do in the future. That means the deficit projections will be based on the presumption that the tax cuts enacted last year that currently phase out will in fact end. That means the CBO forecast will assume that future revenues will be higher and the deficit lower compared to what is likely to occur.

The same is true for spending. For this report, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't presume that any of the reductions proposed in the Trump 2019 budget will be enacted. That will increase the deficit outlook compared to what the White House will say it will be.

For the record (and before the trolls come out to play), there were indeed four consecutive trillion dollar federal deficits during the Obama administration from fiscal 2009-2012. Those deficits were primarily caused by the Great Recession and were temporary. By contrast, the trillion dollar Trump deficits are permanent changes to the federal budget outlook caused by enacted reductions in revenues and increases in spending.

The Trump deficits assume a relatively high-level of economic growth. If the economic outlook doesn't turn out to be as rosy as the White House is promising, the very high Trump era federal budget deficits will be even higher.

Will The New Trump/Republican Tax Cut Pay For Itself ?

The new Trump/Republican tax plan is now law. They have told us that those cuts (which go mainly to the rich and the corporations) will not increase the national debt, but will pay for themselves by massively increasing economic growth. They say this growth, by producing more taxable profits from business and more workers employed and paying taxes, will actually negate the amount of revenue lost by cutting taxes (or magically increase government revenues).

This is not the first time we've heard this from the Republican. It's just the old "trickle-down" argument they have been trying to sell for decades. We were told the same thing when Reagan made large tax cuts, and again when Bush II made large tax cuts -- both of which mainly benefitted the rich.

It didn't work. Note in the chart above, the Reagan and Bush II administrations had the largest increases in the national debt of any presidents since World War II. Both administrations more than doubled the national debt -- Reagan increasing it by 186%, and Bush II increasing it by 101%. They were the only presidents increasing the debt by a triple figure percentage.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy if done correctly -- aimed at lower income workers who will spend that money. But it's just silly to say that tax cuts in general, especially those aimed mainly at the rich and corporations, will increase government revenue or be revenue neutral. That was not true in the past, and it is not true today. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves.

Don't be fooled by this same old lie now that it's being told by Donald Trump and the current crop of congressional Republicans. This new tax cut law will decrease government revenue, and combined with their wish to spend more for an already bloated defense budget, will increase the national debt massively.

And the increase under Trump is likely to be the largest increase we have seen. Thanks to the loss of revenue from those cuts, the government will be borrowing an additional trillion dollars this year -- an 84% increase over last year.

It's amazing to me that when a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans scream long and loud about budget deficits and the national debt. But when a Republican is in the White House, spending more money and increasing both the deficit and national debt is of no concern to them. It is hypocrisy on steroids.

Most Believe The Government Should Be Doing More

This chart is from a new NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll -- done between April 17th and 20th of a random national sample of 900 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans think the government should be doing more to help meet the needs of American citizens, while only 39% say the government is doing too much. That 57% is a new record high since 1995, when NBC/WSJ started asking this question. And it shows significant change just since 2015 -- when 50% said government should do more and 46% said it was doing too much.

This is bad news for Trump (who wants to drastically cut nearly all domestic programs) and the Republicans in Congress (who continue to preach cutting government spending). If they follow through on the cuts they want, they will be doing the opposite of what most Americans want.

This is nothing new though. The Republicans (and Trump) seem to be out-of-step with the wishes of the public on nearly every issue.

Trump Cuts Funds For Most To Spend More On Himself

Donald Trump has only been president for eight weeks now, and in that time he has spent more time away from the White House than any other president in their first eight weeks. In fact, he has gone to a facility that he owns on seven straight weekends (the only exception being his first weekend in the White House).

Five of those visits, including this last weekend were to his Florida golf club, Mar-A-Lago. Each of those visits cost the U.S. taxpayers at least $3 million. On the other two weekends, he visited his golf course in Virginia and his D.C. hotel. Note that every time he leaves the White House, it's to go to a facility that he owns -- a facility that he makes money from (since he has refused to extricate himself from his business interests). In short, he is making himself richer at the expense of taxpayers.

But while he doesn't mind making himself richer, he wants to cut programs that help the poor and elderly in this country. His budget would cut programs like free lunches for poor children and hot meals for elderly shut-ins (Meals on Wheels), among others. He is not only greedy, but uncaring.

Meals on Wheels, which provides the only hot meals many elderly shut-ins get in a day, only costs the federal government about $3 million a year -- the cost of one Trump weekend at Mar-A-Lago.

It didn't take long for Trump to show his true colors -- that he only cares for himself. This man is truly a national embarrassment.

Could We Eliminate Poverty In The U.S.? - YES!

(The chart above is from the Economic Policy Institute.)

Could the United States eliminate poverty within its borders? It's an interesting question. Sadly, too many Americans don't think we could. They will quote the saying that "the poor will always be with us". They think it would take a prohibitive tax rate to eliminate poverty -- a rate that the working and middle class could not afford to pay. They believe the best we could do is for the government to provide a subsistence level for the poor.

I believe they are wrong. The United States is the richest country on Earth, and the richest country that has ever existed in the world. We have the economic means to eliminate poverty, and we could do it without a lot of new government spending. All we need is the moral and political will to do so.

How could it be done? Well, look at the chart above. It shows that 65% of the poor have the ability to work, while 35% do not (children, students, the disabled, seniors). Of that 65%, 63% are already working. They just aren't paid enough to lift them out of poverty. That in itself is shameful. No one willing to work hard should have to live in poverty.

We could lift the working poor out of poverty by simply raising the minimum wage to a livable level (like $15 an hour), and index it to the level of inflation so they don't slip back into poverty. That wouldn't cost anything in new taxes or government spending. In fact, it would save money, because taxpayers would no longer have to subsidize these people through government assistance.

The truth is that far too many corporations and businesses don't adequately pay their workers. They rely on taxpayers to pay what they should be paying themselves. But taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing the payroll of private companies.

Then we could address the 37% who could work, but aren't. Republicans would have you believe these people don't want to work -- that they are lazy and want to live off the government. That is bullshit. No one wants the stigma of having to live off government assistance -- and believe me, our politicians have made sure those receiving assistance are stigmatized as much as possible. These people would love to have a job paying them a livable wage.

This should be dealt with through effective job creation and job training. This would require some government spending, but would actually or nearly pay for itself by also getting these people off of the government dole.

That leaves only the 35% who are unable to work. Seniors living in poverty could be lifted out of poverty by expanding Social Security benefits. This would not require higher income taxes, since Social Security is paid for through payroll taxes (FICA tax). That payroll tax revenue could be increased by simply raising the cap on income subject to that tax (or eliminating it). This would require the rich and upper middle class to pay more, but would not affect the huge majority of workers at all.

That leaves us with the disabled that can't work and children and students. Those will always be with us, but there is no reason they should have to live in poverty. The children who have parents will be lifted out of poverty by requiring a living wage for their parents. The rest could be lifted out of poverty through more government assistance (using the funds saved by the measures above). And if it required a little more money, we have a bloated military budget that could be trimmed without affecting national defense.

We have the money to eliminate poverty in this country, and it could be done without massive new spending by the government. All we need is the will to do it.

People Don't Seem To Understand How The Economy Works

Americans like a lot of sensible economic ideas. They support a raising of the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. They oppose benefit cuts to Social Security (and most would like to see those benefits enhanced). They oppose abolishing Medicare or repealing Obamacare. They support a small increase in taxes for the rich, and want corporations to be made to pay their share of income taxes. They support a realistic job creation program, and oppose the exporting of good American jobs. And they believe the government should enact policies that would reduce the wealth/income inequality in the United States.

Those are all good things. But every now and then something comes along that makes me think that most Americans don't really understand how our economy (or any capitalist economy) works. And one of those things is the new Rasmussen Poll -- taken on January 27th and 28th of a random national sample of 800 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

In that survey (whose results are in the chart above), about 54% of all adults think an across-the-board cut for all government programs would be a good thing. They seem to have accepted the Republican argument that cutting the budget would be a good thing for the economy -- that "austerity" is the way to get a sluggish economy moving again.

There is one thing wrong with that argument. That's not the way our economy works (or the way any regulated capitalist economy works). Cutting government programs actually shrinks the economy by taking money out of it. Cutting government spending would actually hurt everyone in this country. It would hurt businesses because a huge number of people would have less money to spend in those businesses. It would hurt workers because when sales go down for business, wages are stagnated and those businesses will lay off more workers. And it would hurt consumers, because businesses would have to raise prices to cover the drop in sales.

The truth is that in a recession, or an economy still trying to recover from a recession, shrinking the economy by cutting government programs is the worst thing you can do. The economy needs to be expanded, even if that means more government spending. This would give the masses more money to spend, and that increased spending would create more demand for the goods/services of businesses, which would create more jobs to service that increased demand (and keep prices from rising since business sales are profits are up).

Some of you may be saying at this point -- wouldn't that increase the budget deficit and national debt? Only in the short term. The increase in jobs and profits would actually increase government revenues and, over the long term, would pay down that deficit and debt -- and a small increase in taxes on the rich (and making corporations pay their taxes) would help pay down the deficit and debt even faster. We don't need to make government cuts to decrease the deficit and debt.

Don't accept the Republican lie that budget cuts are needed. They aren't really interested in paying the deficit and debt down. They are the ones that created the current deficit (remember, Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus -- which the Republicans instantly turned into a huge deficit with tax cuts for the rich and two unnecessary wars). Republicans just want those cuts so they can give the rich even more tax cuts -- and they don't really care what it does to the economy or struggling Americans.

Budget Cutting Is Not A Bad Idea (If It's Done Right)

The chart above was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll. That survey was taken on September 11th and 12th of a random sample of 1,000 likely voters nationwide, and has a margin of error of 3 points. It shows the American people want the budget cut, and 52% say they are afraid the budget won't be cut enough (while only 38% are afraid it will be cut too much). It seems that a lot of people are buying the Republican argument that the federal government is spending too much.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think we have a bigger problem with the reduction in tax revenues instituted by the Republicans (mainly for the rich and the corporations) than in government spending. The spending has been cut, but the revenues remain inadequate -- because many of the rich pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class, and many corporations pay no taxes at all (even though they make billions in profits).

I may surprise some regular readers with my next statement. I agree that government spending could be cut, and those cuts could be drastic cuts.

I have railed against the cuts proposed (and passed too many times) by Republicans. But my opposition was not against spending cuts -- it was against where those cuts were being made. The GOP wants to cut everything that helps ordinary Americans (education, unemployment benefits, poverty programs, environmental programs, clean energy research, job creation, infrastructure repair & rebuilding, etc.). The only thing they don't want to cut is defense spending. They want to increase that (to funnel even more money to their corporate buddies.

The Republicans claim cutting domestic programs would cure our faltering economy, but they are wrong. Cutting domestic programs would take money out of the economy -- which would decrease demand (since there would be less money to spend), and that would depress business profits and job creation and worker wages. In fact, it could push our already faltering economy back into another recession.

So, where could cuts be made if not in domestic programs? The two charts below show where those cuts could be made. Note that more than half (52.74%) of the discretionary budget (that part of the budget that Congress controls each year) goes to defense spending (military spending) -- and that does not include spending for Veterans Affairs or Homeland Security or Intelligence.

And according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), that military spending is 39% of the entire world's military spending -- and that's a conservative estimate (since it doesn't include the spending for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). It would take the next 11 biggest spending countries to equal the percentage spent by the United States (and more than that if you count the war spending).

That makes it pretty clear where the U.S. federal budget could be cut. The defense budget could be drastically cut without affecting this nation's ability to defend itself. Much of that money is spent to intimidate other countries -- not to defend this country.

You may be asking at this point -- wouldn't defense cuts also take money out of the economy? No, not if it is done right. We have more than 800 military bases in other countries around the world. Do we really need those bases? Do they exist to defend this country or to intimidate other countries? We could close many, if not most, of those bases without hurting the economy (or hurting our national defense).

We could also cut a lot of the money going to the military-industrial complex -- particularly those programs producing items that either don't work or that our military leaders say they don't want (and are not needed). These cuts would take some money out of the U.S. economy, but most of it is just sitting in corporate bank accounts rather than being used to purchase goods/services. And the bit that is spent in the economy could easily be replaced by using some of the money saved by the defense cuts to invest in other domestic programs (the ones the GOP is trying to cut).

We could make drastic cuts in defense spending, and none of it would have to come at the expense of our troops, our military readiness, or our defense capability. We are spending too much for the military budget and most of it goes into corporate pockets via the military-industrial complex. A significant portion of that money should be spent to help hurting Americans, and to reduce the budget. That kind of budget-cutting would make sense.

You're Paying Wal-Mart - Even If You Don't Shop There

Wal-Mart may well have the best scam of any of the giant corporations. They not only have have the lawyers to help them take advantage of many tax loopholes (so they pay very little in taxes), but by paying their employees poverty level wages they rope the American taxpayer into subsidizing the salaries of those workers (through food stamps and other government programs paid for by taxpayers).

And it doesn't matter whether you ever set foot in a Wal-Mart store or buy anything from one of those stores -- you are still, through your tax dollars, paying a substantial share of worker wages and contributing to the profits of that giant corporation. And the crazy part is that it's unnecessary. Wal-Mart could afford to pay its workers a livable wage and pay its full share of taxes, and still wind up with billions of dollars of profit.

How much are they soaking the American taxpayers for? Well, the Americans for Tax Fairness just did a study into that question, and they found that the taxpayers are providing billions in extra profits for Wal-Mart. Here is the summary of that report:

On tax day, when millions of American taxpayers and small businesses pay their fair share to support critical public services and the economy, they will also get stuck with a multi-billion dollar tax bill to cover the massive subsidies and tax breaks that benefit the country’s largest employer and richest family.

Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States, with 1.4 million employees. The company, which is number one on the Fortune 500 in 2013 and number two on the Global 500, had $16 billion in profits last year on revenues of $473 billion. The Walton family, which owns more than 50 percent of Walmart shares, reaps billions in annual dividends from the company. The six Walton heirs are the wealthiest family in America, with a net worth of $148.8 billion. Collectively, these six Waltons have more wealth than 49 million American families combined.

This report finds that the American public is providing enormous tax breaks and tax subsidies to Walmart and the Walton family, further boosting corporate profits and the family’s already massive wealth at everyone else’s expense. Specifically, our analysis shows that:

Walmart and the Walton family receive tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies estimated at more than $7.8 billion a year – that is enough money to hire 105,000 new public school teachers.

The annual subsidies and tax breaks to Walmart and the Waltons include the following:

• Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsi- dies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
  
  
• Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
  
  
• The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart div- idends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
  
  In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoid- ing an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
  
  Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year. 
  

There Is A Better Way To Cut SNAP (Food Stamp) Spending

(This cartoon image is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

Ever since they crashed the American economy and sent it into recession (while destroying or shipping overseas millions of jobs), the Republicans have been whining about the increasing enrollment in the SNAP program (food stamps) and its rising cost. Seemingly oblivious to their own responsibility for the growing need, the Republicans have only one solution for it -- cut the money for the program, thus taking food out of the mouths of the hungry. But they aren't even serious about saving this money, because they turned right around and gave it to rich agribusiness interests.

While the Republicans weren't able to get the huge cuts they wanted (more than $20 million), they were able to con the Democrats into agreeing to about $4 billion in cuts for the SNAP program. The sad part of all this is that there was a way to save even more in SNAP spending -- and do it without taking food away from the hungry. It turns out that simply raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would save $4.6 billion in food stamp spending -- and indexing it to inflation would extend those savings for years ($46 billion in the next 10 years).

And it gets even better, because the SNAP program is not the only government program that would save substantially by raising the minimum wage. The government would also save big money through a reduction in the amounts spent on Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Republicans will be quick to tell you that businesses couldn't afford  to pay more than the current minimum wage, and that forcing them to do so will cause them to lay off workers or go out of business. Nonsense. Study after study has shown that there is no significant job loss after a rise in the minimum wage -- and any business that cannot pay its employees a livable wage is probably destined to fail anyway.

The truth is that far too many businesses are passing their own labor costs on to the American taxpayers -- by paying such a small wage that those employees must seek help through government programs (like food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit). It is time for businesses (many of them giant corporations like Wal-Mart) to pull their own weight and pay their own labor costs.

Any business that hires a full-time employee should assume the responsibility for paying that worker a livable salary. It is just wrong for that employer to expect the American taxpayers to pay for any part of those labor costs. The minimum wage needs to be raised immediately to $10.10 an hour (which would only be about $21,000 a year, or less than half of the U.S. median wage), and it should be indexed to the inflation rate (so it won't immediately start to shrink again).

Simple Math

The math really is that simple. We could easily take enough money out of the defense budget to eliminate poverty in the United States -- and we would not hurt our ability to defend ourselves at all. In fact, we would still be spending more money on the military than any other nation in the world.

Tuition-Free State Universities Would Be Cost-Effective

(This image is of the campus of West Texas A&M -- a state university in Canyon, Texas.)

I have posted several times on this blog about the crushing costs of a college education in this country. It is my belief that the United States should provide a free college education for those who qualify (by having good high school grades and a decent score on college entrance exams) -- or at least provide free tuition at state-supported colleges and universities. This nation can afford it, and it would be cost-effective (since those getting a college education will make more in income over their working life, and will pay far more in taxes on that increased income than it would cost to give them free tuition).

On January 12th, a contributor at Think Progress also came out for providing free tuition to college students. Here is what Bryce Covert had to say in that article for TP:

Tuition at public colleges came to $62.6 billion in 2012, according to the latest government data. That’s less than what the government already spends to subsidize the cost of collegethrough grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds, which comes to about $69 billion. It spends another $107.4 billion on student loans.

That means that with the money it already spends to make college affordable, the government could instead subsidize public college tuition, thereby making it free for all students. This would not just mean anyone could attend a higher education institution without worrying about cost, but it could incentivize private ones to reduce their costs in order to compete with the free option.

It would also address the government’s current patchwork attempts to make college affordable, which isn’t working for many low- and middle-income families. Tax-based aid ismostly delivered to wealthy families, not the ones in need. Pell Grants, on the other hand, were cut in 2012, which meant students got less aid or kicked out altogether, after alreadycovering the smallest percentage of college costs since the program was created. (House Republicans have had the program in their sights for even more cuts.)

The cost of college has been rising dramatically in recent years, with the price tag for attending a public four-year university climbing 27 percent and the cost of a private education rising by 13. At the same time, more and more students have been taking on debt to help finance their educations, with total debt now past the $1 trillion mark. This puts the burden of rising costs on them, which can sometimes be heavy. One in eight of those student borrowers is now in default.

There are other ways to address this growing problem. One would be to allow student debtors in dire straits to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, something that is nearly impossible to do now. Another, which could help stop the problem before it gets so bad, would be to automatically enroll children in college savings accounts at birth that get publicly matched, which would help families pay for college and would give low-income students better chances of enrolling.

President Obama has proposed a “pay for performance” system to help rein in costs, which would create a ratings system that measured college’s performance and tie aid to how they perform, eventually incentivizing them to improve on metrics like graduation rates and the debt their graduates carry. But the evidence from similar state-based efforts is mixed on how big of an impact it can have.

Fast Food Costs You More Than You Think

(The image above was found at the website eslpod.com.)

The Republicans would like for all of us to think that those receiving help from government programs are lazy and undeserving of that help. But that is not even close to the truth. About 73% of those enrolled in public benefits programs in the U.S. are from working families -- that's nearly 3 out of every 4 people. These people work hard, and do work that is not only necessary, but work that many who are advantaged by that work would not do themselves. The problem is not that they are lazy (because they aren't). The problem is that they just aren't being paid a livable wage for their hard work.

And one of the primary industries benefitting from vastly underpaying their employees is the fast food industry. Most workers in fast food restaurants are paid at or near minimum wage. More than half of the families of fast food workers are enrolled in government benefit programs -- and that includes more than half of the families of fast food workers who work full-time.

Many of us eat at fast food joints (at least every now and then) because the food is cheap and tastes good. But that is really an illusion. We are paying a lot more for that "cheap" food than most of us realize. That's because the owners of those fast food joints (especially the corporations) are passing on their costs to taxpayers -- costs they should be bearing themselves. By refusing to pay their workers a decent livable wage, those corporations are forcing taxpayers to bear a substantial part of those costs through government benefit programs their workers need just to adequately support their families.

The families of fast food workers receive about $7 billion dollars in public assistance every year -- including $3.9 billion for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, more than a billion dollars in food stamps, and about two billion dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit payments. This is all money the taxpayers shouldn't have to be paying, and it amounts to billions of dollars to subsidize the profits of corporations -- a subsidization that is not necessary, since it just pushes healthy profits into the range of exorbitant profits.

It doesn't have to be this way, and both parties have offered solutions. The solution of congressional Republicans is just to kick more people off public assistance -- a hard-hearted solution that doesn't take into account the needs of those hurting families, many of them with children. The solution of congressional Democrats is to raise the minimum wage to a livable level (at least $10 an hour) -- a solution that would make the fast food corporations bear their own costs of doing business, and would take many workers off of public assistance. And the crazy part is that the fast food corporations could absorb those costs fairly easily, with only minimal price raises.

It comes down to a choice. Do you want to pay a few pennies more when you buy fast food, or do you want billions of your tax dollars going to subsidize the profits of corporations. You pay either way, but making the corporations bear their own production costs makes a lot more sense (and it doesn't punish those who don't eat fast food).

Everyone who works hard for a living should be paid a decent and livable wage -- and the taxpayers shouldn't have to be responsible for paying part of that wage through government subsidies to the rich owners.

Shutdown Is Hurting The Economy Through Reduced Consumer Spending

Although the rich and the corporations have recovered from the recession (and are making record-breaking profits), most Americans have not -- and the economy as a whole is barely limping along. The last thing that was needed was a government shutdown. Most economists have predicted that shutting down the government would harm the economy by taking government money out of the economy (which would harm the sales of all kinds of businesses, and thus reduce overall GDP).

Now there is evidence that the shutdown's harm to the American economy may be significantly larger than expected. That's because consumers, scared by the possible ramifications of the shutdown, have also reduced their own spending. A new ICSC / Goldman Poll (conducted between October 10th and 13th of 1,025 nationwide adults -- 505 men and 520 women) shows that at least 40% of the general population says they have reduced their spending as a result of the government shutdown.

And that reduced spending spans all income groups. While the lower income groups have reduced their spending the most, even a significant portion of the upper income group (those making more than $100,000 a year) has reduced spending (about 32%).

Making matters even worse, we are very close to entering the holiday season. Many American businesses, especially small businesses, just get by most of the year, and count on the holiday season for their profit. Reduced holiday spending could be disastrous for those businesses. If the shutdown was to end quickly, the spending might go up again and not affect the holiday season. But if the shutdown lasts longer, it could well mean a poor holiday buying season for business. And that could push our barely positive GDP back into negative territory -- perhaps even touching off a new recession (when most Americans are still struggling to cast off the effects of the last recession).

This shutdown has negatively affected the public's view of the Republican Party. And that is well deserved, since their actions in shutting down the government (and threatening to cause a government default) is hurting the economy (and therefore the well-being of many, if not most, Americans). The GOP is playing with fire, and that fire  could burn us all.

House GOP Reaches New Heights Of Mean

(The cartoon image above is by Julio Carrion Cueva [Karry] at karrycartoons.blogspot.com.)

The Republican economic policies cost this country millions of jobs when they resulted in a huge recession during the administration of George W. Bush. In addition, they have encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries by giving tax breaks to corporations that do the outsourcing. They have also blocked all efforts of the president and the Democrats to pass a real jobs program -- and they currently block efforts to raise the minimum wage.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that those things have combined to increase the number of people who need assistance to buy food for themselves and their families. In fact, the number of people receiving assistance from the SNAP program (formerly called the Food Stamp program) has reached record levels -- and that has naturally resulted in higher spending needed to fund the program.

There are reasonable things that could be done to take care of this increased spending. Taxes could be raised slightly for the richest Americans (who are making record-breaking incomes). Tax loopholes could be closed for corporations making billions in profits (many of whom pay no taxes, or very little in taxes). A bill could be passed to rebuild our infrastructure, thus creating jobs -- or another type of job creation bill could be passed. The tax break for outsourcing jobs could be eliminated. Or the minimum wage could be raised to a livable wage.

All of those things would reduce the need for food stamps and result in less money needed to support that program. But the congressional Republicans are opposed to all of them. They have decided on a new path -- and yesterday the Republican-dominated House voted to just cut nearly $40 billion from the SNAP program over a ten year period (about $4 billion each year). And just to show how disingenuous they are, the Republicans are trying to call this cut a "jobs" bill.

But there is not a penny in the bill to create a single job. The only thing the bill would do is throw millions of hungry people out of the SNAP program. It represents a new height in meanness for the GOP -- the party of the rich. It will make the poor and working class people pay for the economic mistakes of the Republicans, while the rich continue to skate by paying less of a tax rate then many in the middle class. The bill is an abomination, and shows just how uncaring and hard-hearted the Republican Party has become.

I want to say they should be ashamed, but I no longer believe they have the capacity to feel shame.

12 Years Of War (And Waste)

I have always been amazed that our government can't find the money to help Americans, but they can easily find trillions to fight ridiculous and unnecessary wars. Why must we cut programs that help give Americans a hand up, but we continue throwing money down the rathole called the Afghan War (while accomplishing nothing)? We are being ruled by fear instead of love -- and that will always lead a nation astray.

Austerity Reduces Deficit - Hurts Economy

The latest figures from the Treasury Department show the budget deficit has dropped significantly. In August of 2012, the deficit  was about $1.2 trillion dollars (for an eleven month period, running from October through August). But the deficit this year is about 37% lower through August of this year (only about $755 billion). Some might think that's a good thing, and under some conditions it would be.

If the budget deficit was being reduced through an increase in revenues (taxes), or if it was being reduced in the midst of a healthy & booming economy, the drop in the budget deficit would be something to be celebrated. Unfortunately, neither of those things are true. The Republicans won't let the government increase its revenues by raising taxes (even on the wealthy, who are enjoying record income levels and very low taxes). They have insisted that the deficit be reduced through austerity -- cutting government spending, and most of those cuts have been the across-the-board cuts from the sequester.

These austerity measures have taken money out of the pockets of hurting Americans, and that has reduced spending by the public (which takes money out of the economy in general -- reducing demand and depressing the job market). That reduction in demand and depression of job creation has contributed to keeping our sluggish economy from recovering. In other words, the Washington politicians have done the wrong thing for an ailing economy. Instead of giving it a shot in the arm with more spending (paid for with more revenues), they have cut spending and further damaged the economy.

A recession (which most Americans are still mired in) is never cured by cutting government spending. Spending cuts will only work in a healthy economy that can absorb the cuts. An economy trying to recover from a recession must be spurred on by increased spending (spending which will circulate through the economy, increasing demand and job creation). Sadly, our politicians are either too stupid or too greedy to understand that -- and that means it will be a lot longer and more difficult to recover fully from the recession.