I BEGIN WITH THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS that frame the current great economic debate in these United States.
The first, as framed by the right: Do we intend, against every rational consideration, to cripple the “job creators” with an increase in tax rates on productive wealth in the interests of the parasitic?
Second, and directly related to the above: Do we propose to challenge that noble pledge on taxation that has so successfully guided our nation in these most recent halcyon years?
Are these not sentiments worthy of enshrinement in the annals of American patriotism?
I paraphrase the pledge to reflect my own understanding of its powerful content and intent:
“I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist and to the Republicans with whom he stands, one party dedicated to mammon, with freedom from taxation for all. To these ends I commit my life and my sacred honor.”
In Norquist’s own inspiring words, the goal in this righteous battle is to reduce our government to the size that “it can be drowned in a bathtub.” For the true patriot, what sacrifice would be too great in the pursuit of so noble a goal?
There are those who will accuse me of a vulgar debasing of irony with these words. My answer would be that I have difficulty imagining an American society so debased, so shorn of reality, so at odds with any legitimate system of morality or social responsibility that Grover Norquist’s operations and quest can have any legitimacy. That an entire political party has wed itself to this obvious scam in the service of the uber-rich is a remarkable demonstration of the potential disintegration of its legitimacy. (It will come as no surprise to learn from The Nation that Norquist’s battle against reality in the name of greed is funded in significant part by a Koch brothers-funded center and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, at $4 million each.)
Let us take a hard look at some economic developments and realities with respect to taxation and wealth in this land.
First, what do we perceive as the current distribution of wealth in this country? A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) compares Americans’ perceptions of wealth distribution with actual wealth distribution, and with their view of an ideal distribution. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90 percent or more of the 5,522 respondents — whatever their gender, age, income level or party affiliation (!) — thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20 percent has about 60 percent of the wealth. “In fact, of course, the top 20 percent control about 85 percent of the wealth,” author Dan Ariely wrote. “Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40 percent of the population. … (T)he lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3 percent of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8 percent and 10 percent, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2 percent — seven times too high.
“Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the ‘ideal’ wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20 percent owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20 percent actually own. They also said that the bottom 40 percent — that’s 120 million Americans — should have between 25 percent and 30 percent, not the mere 8 percent to 10 percent they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3 percent they actually had.”
In a commentary on the study, David Cay Johnston notes: “The disconnect between belief and reality is being exploited by those who laugh all the way to the bank with their tax savings and the burdens they have subtly shifted off themselves and onto the rest of us.”
In a piece from April 2010, Rhonda Winter highlighted the wealth gap as follows:
“The greater the disparity in wealth between the very rich and everyone else, the more unstable an economy becomes. Our nation has now created a larger gap in the distribution of wealth than the massive chasm that helped fuel the Great Depression.
“In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001 percent of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90 percent of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001 percent of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90 percent. This is not sustainable, and makes for a very volatile economy.”
According to a study by University of California-Berkeley economist Emanuel Saez, by 2007 the wealth disparity had grown to its highest number on record, based on U.S. tax data going back to 1917.
“The top 0.01 percent of earners in the U.S. are now taking home 6 percent of all the income, higher than the 1920s peak of 5 percent, and a whopping six-fold increase since the start of the Reagan administration, when the top 0.01 percent earned 1 percent of all the income,” Saez wrote.
“The last time the U.S. saw similar differences in income was in 1928 and 1929, just before the start of the Great Depression.”
All of the above leads comfortably into a few relevant excerpts from a 2010 essay in the New York Times, “Our Banana Republic,” by Nicholas Kristof.
“In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.
“But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s (2010) election, it may get worse.
“The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.”
Just one more tiny statistic to stimulate the senses and flick the outrage button. From the website Executive Paywatch, we learn that the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between the heads of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. Back in 1980, the average CEO of a large company only received 42 times the average worker’s pay.
Finally, a note with respect to the question posed earlier: Do we intend, against every rational consideration, to cripple “job creators” with an increase in tax rates on productive wealth in the interests of the parasitic? According to a year-old report from a group of University of Massachusetts economists (“19 Million Jobs For U.S. Workers: The Impact Of Channeling $1.4 Trillion In Excess Liquid Asset Holdings Into Productive Investments”), corporate America is currently sitting atop approximately $3.6 trillion in liquid assets. Perhaps all those comfortable “job creators” are waiting until some other corporation risks a buck, generates worker income and creates worker buying capacity, enabling corporations to sell their products, expand, create more jobs and …
Well, until they decide and while we wait, how about we try another approach — tax those folks and invest some of that mammoth pulsating pot of cash in desperately needed infrastructure, thus creating jobs and spinning the cycle.
Just a thought — promise me you won’t tell Grover!
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Friday Night Fights
Jerry the issue I have with your article is very simple. Tell me what the solution is? Jerry you do not have one.Tax the rich and give to the needy. That is Ok. Are we not doing that now at a very esculated rate and it is not working. Jerry is that your solution?: So if you do well we will take it away from you. Jerry you know that has never worked and never will.; Yes FDR had some success with that approach. But remember Jerry the rich in most cases were long gone. I believe in placing the rich in a position of providing for their employees and others is good if everyone including the unions agree. That means most everyone is in very a good position. Remember the God Father of social justice was FDR. Guess what it did not work. All you Liberals will remeber it took a war that FDR said would never happen.; Guess what it did. Thar is the only thing that saved America at that time at a great expense that I do not believe we want again., The USA has the assets and the wonderful people to make this country continue to be greatest. Jerry is there a greater country than America? The answer is no. So lets all do our part just like you did Jerry to make this country great as it is now., I do believe that is hard to argue with. GOD BLESS AMERICA.,
see correct name
Great comments, tired of being penalized for achievement. What line do I get in, how many children do I need to have without a father, where can I vote to keep my life style, will my new kitchen have grante counter tops?
Grover Norquist is a cyst on the ass of progress. Allegiance to him is insanity, blatant intimidation and cowardice. Amen and Hallelujah. –pb
The politicians need only pledge allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.
RKJ – There you go again bringing logic and truth to an otherwise fun filled trip down Progressive Lane.
Mr. Page wrote: corporate America is currently sitting atop approximately $3.6 trillion in liquid assets.
There is no disputing that fact, as corporate America has been sitting on those funds since 2008, a fact which has contributed significantly to first the financial collapse and second to the slow recovery.
What would be of interest is your perception of the above in response to two questions regarding corporate lack of investment :
1) Why are they sitting on these funds and not investing?
2) What can be done by our leaders in DC to encourage that these funds be invested in the good old USA?
The answers to both of those questions are a key to differentiating between the opposing sides as to both the causes for holding the funds as well as the proper function of our government.
3) Who is John Galt?
The pledge to Grover which in effect overrides the pledge to uphold the American constitution, is literally treasonous and I am amazed those who took it are so unaware of the purpose of this country –founded in part radically at that time— to create a democratically determined balance of private enterprise and pulbic good—not to choose one over the other!–that they openly admit to this pledge.
The only humans you should pledgE to is your spouse your family and those you are elected to serve. To take a pledge that overrides the needs of these others merely to enrich yourself with a Norquist bribe or stay in the good graces of the greedy should be cause for impeachment of every lawmaker involved.
In Capra it’s a wonderful life Grover and his ilk are potter who looted our treasury then sat back and watched the crisis. The 2012 election was all the people demonstrating that they knew whom to trust. The power of the truth –and the power of brotherhood an sisterhood–won this election. I pray that the bullies such as Norquist finally get it go off to their mansions and leave us alone to restore what they tried to steal from us .we had the biggest surplus in 2000 and the Cheney norquist enron types looted it. But instead if going off to enjoy their vast wealth they want more. And like any addict they will lie (watch competing clips of romney) steal(Pension funds raided) Or cheat (Openly admitting voter suppression) to get it and it is never enouh. They need a recovery program for greed and bullies anonymous. Maybe they will figure out where this deep need to impoverish others (which is an illness and drive personified by Norquist et all) comes from and why their source of joy and security is to take away from others even though they have far far more than they will ever need. Lets pray for these people. And also lets impeach them for dereliction Of duty. Nothing else has worked to unscriogify them!
Carolyn said: we had the biggest surplus in 2000 and the Cheney norquist enron types looted it.
In 1993 the national debt was $4.7 trillion. (Clinton’s first year in office). By year at the end of his Presidency the debt was:
1998/99 – $5.65 trillion
99/00 – $5.67 t.
00/01 – $5.8 t.
There was no “surplus” as our national debt was increased in each of the last years.
This is the kind of thing Republicans tell themselves to maintain the self-delusion of fiscal responsibility. Now tell us why cutting taxes while waging two wars is a good thing. C’mon I need a laugh on a rainy Saturday.
No, stick with the subject addressed in my comment.
Explain to us how the above statement is wrong or tell me how we can have an excess of funds, while simultaneously borrowing more money.
C’mon, everyone could use a lesson on progressive economics.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/
This explanation may be too complex for your Manichean Republican mind, but try to read all the way through. I’ll add my conclusion: Still better than any Republican president of the last 40 years.
Now address my subject, and tell me why you turkeys should ever be trusted at the helm of the economy again.
For some reason the Webgodess is not allowing me to post a complete response to you.
But your link states Clintonls comment as being a “half-Truth”or in other words, he is lying about some things, but not others.
He paid down the debt, by borrowing money, robbing Peter to pay Pauline. It was a shell game and some still fall for it.
Here is a key quote from your link:
“We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That’s not retiring debt. That’s just shifting it from one lender to another.”
Thought you might be selective in your interpretation. That’s always a danger with you “don’t-do-nuance” types. But of course the reality is more complex than you convey or comprehend. And as I said, still better than any GOP president you care to name.
Still waiting to hear your defense of the great wisdom of slashing revenue while waging two wars.
Selective? LOL!!
Your own “proof” said Clinton is lying!
Here are some more facts for you to ponder. Yes I know, math is difficult for women, but try and suffer through it:
Total debt today is about $16,500,000,000,000 (16.5 Trillion)
Since Gerald Ford it has increased by about 15.8 trillion.
Republicans: Reagan,Bush, Bush total (20 years): 8.3 trillion
Demoncrats: Carter, Clinton, Obama (16 years) : 7.6 trillion
Demoncrats are actually ahead on a per year average basis. This data is grossly skewed though as Saviour Barrack increased the debt more in four years than the total for the other 12 by his fellow Demons.
All of this though does not take into consideration the impact of Congress, which truth be told (no, I am not expecting that from you) has as big or bigger impact than the President on this issue.
LOL? WTF! OMG. BTW, you’re an idiot. You read that and came away with “Clinton is lying”? I urge everyone to read the post I linked to, all the way through. Steer clear of Bubble Lund’s GOP fantasies.
“I know, math is difficult for women, but try and suffer through it”
A math dig from the side that thought Romney was going to win in a walk! Why, LOL! Learn to read a (non-GOP push) poll and we’ll talk.
You are as sexist as you are stupid. Why should anyone take seriously someone too ignorant to learn to spell the president’s name? You also apparently don’t understand the difference between deficits and debt, though it’s laid out nicely in the aforementioned link. Read, Bubble Lund, read …
No, I don’t think Barack Obama is my savior (note the non-UK spelling), unless by savior you mean the man who rescued the nation from the GOP-caused Depression we were headed for. Which brings me back to the question you keep avoiding: What do you think it did for the economy to pass two huge tax cuts at a time of two wars? Do you think that helped matters?
I am in too good of a mood to take your comments seriously, so I will ignore your childish outburst, as well as your, once again pointing out careless typos.
Here is a quote from your defensive link:
“So on balance, we rule Clinton’s statement Half True.”
Yes, half true and half false. He is misleading regarding the facts.
And yes I do understand the difference between deficits and debts. But to claim a “surplus” (back to the original subject) while increasing the debt, is BS.
W called it a surplus when he spent it. I remember. I got a check. It was a surplus then, when it served a political purpose for the GOP.
PS: No one ever accused Bush or his crony colleagues of being bright or even statesman-like—Moronic clods prefer to being “deciders” until the jig is up…Notice “W” and Darth Vader Cheney were NOT keynote speakers at the RNC. Too many skeletons in their closets–Who now dominates the oil fields of Iraq and at what cost?–Do we have any or how many “hardened military bases” there?–Brilliance is not a prerequisite for a hgh-paying job anywhere near Washington, DC…pb
DDL , good job checking up on the facts here.
Thanks RKJ!
I agree with most of what you said Carolyn, the Norquist pledge puts handcuffs on polititions, they should use their own mind and not follow a pledge like a robot
Where do the Usual Suspects stand on the pledge?
I don’t know who the usual suspects are but I have always been against it
I understand Kaiser Soze is very much in favor of the pledge as he knows that Norquist has he showed those men of will what will really was.
.
RKJ, when one considers the Norquist pledge, rather than looking at a faulty recollection of the pledge, as stated by Mr. Page:
”I paraphrase the pledge to reflect my own understanding of its powerful content and intent: “I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist and to the Republicans with whom he stands, one party dedicated to mammon, with freedom from taxation for all. To these ends I commit my life and my sacred honor.”
It is preferred refresh ones memory by reading the pledge :
“oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”
I know of no one who is advocating “freedom from taxation for all”, including Mr. Norquist. What is advocated is a better use of the tax money already obtained (at existing rates) so as to eliminate the waste and excess spending which is endemic to both parties.
Yes we must cut waste and spending, cut taxes after the bills are paid, gotta pay up! right?
Maybe raise social security past the 110,000 dollar limit.
With this fiscal cliff It seems most of the politicians are suffering from Potomac fever, which Truman described the symptons as a swelled head and a general decline in common sense.
More on Mr. Norquist, for the community to consider…
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171475/analysis-grover-norquists-budget-largely-financed-just-two-billionaire-backed-nonprofits#
More on Mr. Norquist, for the community to consider…
http://www.thenation.com/blog/162206/grover-norquists-culture-corruption
Real American what is with the name calling? You are Mike.
The one question I would ask of Mr. Page, after reading more than a palatable number of his editorial submissions to this publication is “Why are you still here”? Would you not be less miserable in a third world paradise somewhere in South America, or the Caribbean, or some African country where the populace struggles to survive under the thumb of a genocidal despot? Are there not myriad locations in this world providing the ‘Republican Free’ solace which you so obviously desire? Lord knows that there are more than enough environs where your idolatry of the’ Democrat Party’ and the ‘Liberal Social Utopia’ which you obviously believe they can provide, do genuinely flourish and prosper. One could ponder as to why a presumably wise, articulate and intelligent person would subject themself to the continuing horrors and unending oppression that is the existence of living in the US A. Dear Sir, save yourself and find a place where you can be happy! Presumably, a place where the institution of government is of the people, by the people and for the people and does not exist for its own sake.
According to the unalterable views of your ilk, Mr. Harley, you undo your case. Mr. Page, just as you do, surely understands that President Obama is creating the USA in the image of a utopian, “European” socialist, banana republic. Why would you imagine he needs to move somewhere else?
It’s really a shame, sir, that one who can manage English syntax as well as you do, should show such deep confusion between fact and interpretive delusion.
Well, Mr. Shelby either I have misinterpreted Mr. Pages essays over the years or I fail to comprehend the concept of ‘Interpretive Delusion’. A short coming which I’m sure could be easily remedied by securing a US Congressional seat. I also commend your command of English syntax.
RMS Stated: the unalterable views of your ilk, Mr. Harley
Mr. Harley,
Welcome to Mr. Shelby’s ‘People of your ilk’ club, from a charter member.
😉
It’s good to have an ‘ilk’!
Indeed, Kaiser Soze would, without communicating it to him, advise Grover Norquist to write his will. Kaiser would then write it for him and at once demonstrate why Grover should have been so advised.
“The Usual Suspects” may cover a broad realm, but certainly covers much of what has been debated here, be it fact or interpretive delusion!