Thomas Riggins
Now that the Republicans and their neofascist fellow travelers have taken control of the House they have set them themselves the goal of repealing the recent health care reform the Democrats enacted. Flawed as that reform is it at least will enable 35 or so million people to get some sort of health insurance in the coming years. There are around 50 million without insurance at present. Hopefully these extra 15 million will also be covered.
The Republican reactionaries keep harping that we have the "best" health care in the world (we actually rate 37th among developed countries). Here are a couple of examples. The US has "the best medical care system in the world"-- Bob McDonnell, Republican Gov. of Virginia. We have the greatest medical care "the world has ever known"-- Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. So while reactionaries and rightist may consider denying this to be heretical, the following information from Science Daily may call their flights of fancy into question.
On November 29th Science Daily reported the results of an 11 nation study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund: "US Adults Most likely to Forgo Care Due to Cost, Have Trouble Paying Medical Bills, Survey Finds." Of the 11 advanced industrial countries studied the US came in dead last with Americans having the highest numbler having to give up seeking health care due to cost, they also had the most trouble paying their medical bills [some 60 per cent of personal bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills another study showed].
Americans, even with insurance, have higher bills, more disputes with insurers, and more often have insurers refuse to cover procedures they thought were covered. This is, of course, because of the for profit nature of health insurance. This is an industry that should be run out of business by a single payer government run system such as Medicare for all. Here are some facts the study found. 1. 33% of Us adults went without necessary care, couldn't see a doctor, or couldn't afford to get medicine; in the U.K. and the Netherlands it's 5 to 6%. 2. 20% of Americans had problems paying for their care while in France it was 9%, Netherlands 4%, Germany 3% and U.K. 2%. 3. 35% of Americans paid $1000 or more out of pocket for medical care last year-- significantly more "than all of the other countries." It goes without saying that the these figures are correlated along class and income perameters.
The politicians who most oppose health reform for the poor have, of course, fully covered health care at taxpayer expense which, if made available to regular citizens they denounce as socialism. The lead author of the study, Cathy Schoen, wrote, "In fact, the U.S. is the only country in the study where having health insurance doesn't guarantee you access to health care or financial protection when you're sick."
The study also found out that the people on Medicare have less problems with the US medical system than adults under the age of 65. One can hardly imagine, given these grim realities, how Republicans and other reactionaries are able to carry off election victories of the magnitude they did in the 2010 midterms. The vast majority of the American people will continue to suffer not only with respect to medical coverage, but economically, socially, and in education. Yet they have the power of the vote and of wielding it to improve their lives and those of their children. They only need access to the facts, not readily provided by the establishment media. Lets work for and hope that the Left will do a better job of getting the truth out to the American people.
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
A Very Bad Wizard
This is reposted from Phil Ebersole's Blog.
Phil is a progressive and a member of the Greater Rochester Bertrand Russell Society.
You should google his blog; he has many insightful articles. I thought I would share this one
because it reminds us that President Obama can't make the changes we want unless we fight with him to get them-- tr
A very bad wizard
by philebersole
In L. Frank Baum’s story, the Wizard of Oz promises Dorothy and her friends, the scarecrow, the tin woodman and the cowardly lion that if they succeed in their quest, he will grant the scarecrow’s wish for a brain, the tin woodman’s wish for a heart, the cowardly lion’s wish for a lion’s courage and Dorothy’s wish for a way back to Kansas.
When they succeed, however, the Wizard is unable to grant their wishes. Instead he gives them other things he says are just as good. The scarecrow gets a college diploma, the tin woodman a flowery valentine card and the cowardly lion a military medal. Only Dorothy can’t be helped because the way back to Kansas is something real.
President Obama promised his followers that, if they succeeded in putting him in office, he would make an all-out effort to achieve certain goals – a public option for health care as an alternative to private health insurance, a “cramdown” allowing federal bankruptcy judges to reset mortgages, the preservation of Social Security. But when they achieved their quest, they were given other things that President Obama says are just as good – the Affordable Care Act, the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Deficit Reduction Commission.
In the story, the scarecrow manifested brains, the tin woodman heart and the lion courage in their actions, not as a gift from a wizard. And Dorothy was able to browbeat the wizard into taking her along in his balloon ride back to our world.
The lesson is that we the people should not depend on the gift of a charismatic political figure. If we want a full employment economy, if we want to curb the power of Wall Street over the government, if we want affordable health insurance, if we want to stop the erosion of labor rights and the social safety net, we need to create a political force that has to be reckoned with no matter who is in office, as the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the labor movement and the civil rights movement did in earlier eras.
Because President Obama may well be a very good man, but he certainly is a very bad Wizard.
Phil is a progressive and a member of the Greater Rochester Bertrand Russell Society.
You should google his blog; he has many insightful articles. I thought I would share this one
because it reminds us that President Obama can't make the changes we want unless we fight with him to get them-- tr
A very bad wizard
by philebersole
In L. Frank Baum’s story, the Wizard of Oz promises Dorothy and her friends, the scarecrow, the tin woodman and the cowardly lion that if they succeed in their quest, he will grant the scarecrow’s wish for a brain, the tin woodman’s wish for a heart, the cowardly lion’s wish for a lion’s courage and Dorothy’s wish for a way back to Kansas.
When they succeed, however, the Wizard is unable to grant their wishes. Instead he gives them other things he says are just as good. The scarecrow gets a college diploma, the tin woodman a flowery valentine card and the cowardly lion a military medal. Only Dorothy can’t be helped because the way back to Kansas is something real.
President Obama promised his followers that, if they succeeded in putting him in office, he would make an all-out effort to achieve certain goals – a public option for health care as an alternative to private health insurance, a “cramdown” allowing federal bankruptcy judges to reset mortgages, the preservation of Social Security. But when they achieved their quest, they were given other things that President Obama says are just as good – the Affordable Care Act, the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Deficit Reduction Commission.
In the story, the scarecrow manifested brains, the tin woodman heart and the lion courage in their actions, not as a gift from a wizard. And Dorothy was able to browbeat the wizard into taking her along in his balloon ride back to our world.
The lesson is that we the people should not depend on the gift of a charismatic political figure. If we want a full employment economy, if we want to curb the power of Wall Street over the government, if we want affordable health insurance, if we want to stop the erosion of labor rights and the social safety net, we need to create a political force that has to be reckoned with no matter who is in office, as the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the labor movement and the civil rights movement did in earlier eras.
Because President Obama may well be a very good man, but he certainly is a very bad Wizard.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Senate Rules Block Progress
Senate Rules Block Progress
The U.S. Senate should revise its rules on filibusters and consent for judicial nominations in order to stop a recently growing trend of gridlock and indecisions, argues a new report from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more here...
The U.S. Senate should revise its rules on filibusters and consent for judicial nominations in order to stop a recently growing trend of gridlock and indecisions, argues a new report from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more here...
Friday, November 12, 2010
Reflections on "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage" NYT headline 11-12-10
Reflections on "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage" NYT headline
11-12-10
Thomas Riggins
1. Interesting headline: Instead of "US Economic View" etc, the Times has personalized it to seem as if it is the president's personal view.
2. China, Britain, Germany and South Korea are the culprits. China is understandable it is not our "ally" but a revolt in the client states bodes ill for the empire.
3. BO (the US) wants to procure economic growth before reducing deficits. This core strategy is being outright rejected by other world leaders. This is a first for an American president at a G20 meeting.
4. The other leaders are upset over the Federal Reserve's devaluing the dollar and accuse the US of doing so to make the rest of the world pay for the American trade deficit instead solving its problems by decreasing spending at home. Nice try, but no cigar.
5. Here is what China told the US-- since the dollar is the world's reserve currency (for the time being) the US should consider the "global economy" not just its "national circumstances." Right. BO is supposed to come home and put US national interests second to those of China and others. That's a lead balloon if ever there was one.
6. Greenspan agreed that we were weakening the dollar to make the rest of the world pay for our mistakes!
7. Geithner denied this, saying we would never do that just "to gain competitive advantage."
8. Many other "big" powers see it Greenspan's way! The leaders of the UK (PM David
Cameron) and Germany (Chancellor Angela Merkel) dismissed BO's plea for stimulus spending and favored austerity.
9. This whole G20 disagreement is between the capitalists of the US and their allies (plus China) on how to get the world economy out of the doldrums but to the advantage of capitalists. BO's plan would favor American workers-- stimulus = more jobs-- and if the "world" follow's suit a bigger market for US goods so US capitalists also benefit.
10. The other nations reject this and want to help their capitalists through austerity-- balance their budgets by cutting social programs and reducing benefits to the masses of the working population and retired people. This allows for longer working hours and less taxes on the corporations to sustain benefits.
11. The US was more or less getting its way until this current G20 meeting-- the Europeans and others were reluctantly letting the US call the shots-- but the tea party takeover in our mid-term elections has weakened BO in the eyes of other world leaders so they are rejecting his leadership vís a vís the world economy.
12. The free trade accord with South Korea fell through as it was felt by BO's advisors better to return empty handed than to look as if (because he had) given too many concessions to get it signed.
13. Now that the world thinks WE manipulated the value of the dollar (as we did) to help our economy, we can't complain about the Chinese "under valuing" their currency. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
14. The sub-text of this G20 meeting is that plans are afoot for the creation of "rules for a new global financial order" not dominated by US capital-- that will truly be a New World Order-- but not the one the US planned on. First the decline, then the fall.
11-12-10
Thomas Riggins
1. Interesting headline: Instead of "US Economic View" etc, the Times has personalized it to seem as if it is the president's personal view.
2. China, Britain, Germany and South Korea are the culprits. China is understandable it is not our "ally" but a revolt in the client states bodes ill for the empire.
3. BO (the US) wants to procure economic growth before reducing deficits. This core strategy is being outright rejected by other world leaders. This is a first for an American president at a G20 meeting.
4. The other leaders are upset over the Federal Reserve's devaluing the dollar and accuse the US of doing so to make the rest of the world pay for the American trade deficit instead solving its problems by decreasing spending at home. Nice try, but no cigar.
5. Here is what China told the US-- since the dollar is the world's reserve currency (for the time being) the US should consider the "global economy" not just its "national circumstances." Right. BO is supposed to come home and put US national interests second to those of China and others. That's a lead balloon if ever there was one.
6. Greenspan agreed that we were weakening the dollar to make the rest of the world pay for our mistakes!
7. Geithner denied this, saying we would never do that just "to gain competitive advantage."
8. Many other "big" powers see it Greenspan's way! The leaders of the UK (PM David
Cameron) and Germany (Chancellor Angela Merkel) dismissed BO's plea for stimulus spending and favored austerity.
9. This whole G20 disagreement is between the capitalists of the US and their allies (plus China) on how to get the world economy out of the doldrums but to the advantage of capitalists. BO's plan would favor American workers-- stimulus = more jobs-- and if the "world" follow's suit a bigger market for US goods so US capitalists also benefit.
10. The other nations reject this and want to help their capitalists through austerity-- balance their budgets by cutting social programs and reducing benefits to the masses of the working population and retired people. This allows for longer working hours and less taxes on the corporations to sustain benefits.
11. The US was more or less getting its way until this current G20 meeting-- the Europeans and others were reluctantly letting the US call the shots-- but the tea party takeover in our mid-term elections has weakened BO in the eyes of other world leaders so they are rejecting his leadership vís a vís the world economy.
12. The free trade accord with South Korea fell through as it was felt by BO's advisors better to return empty handed than to look as if (because he had) given too many concessions to get it signed.
13. Now that the world thinks WE manipulated the value of the dollar (as we did) to help our economy, we can't complain about the Chinese "under valuing" their currency. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
14. The sub-text of this G20 meeting is that plans are afoot for the creation of "rules for a new global financial order" not dominated by US capital-- that will truly be a New World Order-- but not the one the US planned on. First the decline, then the fall.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The "Emissions Power" is a Myth
null
Despite China’s total carbon emission, which shows China is a major CO2 emitter, its per-capita emissions in 2007 were only 4.6 tons, less than 25 percent of the United States and only half of the EU.
Additionally, China has done the best job in CO2 emission reduction in the world through its strenuous effort in recent years. From 1990 to 2007, the average global per-unit CO2 reduction rate stood at 15.4 percent, with the United States at 27 percent, the average of developed countries 22 percent and the average of developing countries 10.2 percent, while China’s figure stood at 49.2 percent.
Despite China’s total carbon emission, which shows China is a major CO2 emitter, its per-capita emissions in 2007 were only 4.6 tons, less than 25 percent of the United States and only half of the EU.
Additionally, China has done the best job in CO2 emission reduction in the world through its strenuous effort in recent years. From 1990 to 2007, the average global per-unit CO2 reduction rate stood at 15.4 percent, with the United States at 27 percent, the average of developed countries 22 percent and the average of developing countries 10.2 percent, while China’s figure stood at 49.2 percent.
Book Review: Generations of Resistance » pa
Book Review: Generations of Resistance
Generation of Resistance: The Electrical Workers Unions and the Cold War
by John Bennett Sears
Conshohocken, PA, Infinity Publishing Company, 2008.
In the first half of the 20th century, there were two major schools of labor history. The established, anti-socialist one represented by John R. Commons, Selig Perlman and Philip Taft dealt with the institutional political history of the trade union movement, relating in a fairly narrow fashion that history to the larger pattern of U.S. history.
Generation of Resistance: The Electrical Workers Unions and the Cold War
by John Bennett Sears
Conshohocken, PA, Infinity Publishing Company, 2008.
In the first half of the 20th century, there were two major schools of labor history. The established, anti-socialist one represented by John R. Commons, Selig Perlman and Philip Taft dealt with the institutional political history of the trade union movement, relating in a fairly narrow fashion that history to the larger pattern of U.S. history.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Check out the new PoliticalAffairs.net
Welcome to the new PoliticalAffairs.net. A fresh look and easier to use tools will make our presentation of working class ideas, culture and politics exciting every day.
There are four basic sections on this site.
In the near future, readers will be able to use and share educational tools in various multimedia formats. So look for that content soon.
As a reader, you will be able to share your favorite content with your friends and social networks through the "share" function on each page. You will be able to post your comments on each article and blog post.
You can stay connected with PoliticalAffairs.net by joining our e-mail list by clicking the "receive our newsletter" link on the home page, or by finding us on Facebook or Twitter. We want to hear from you and join with you to build an activist community online.
E-mail us with article submissions or story ideas at editor@politicalaffairs.net.
There are four basic sections on this site.
- Each month we will present in our "Features" section the monthly issue, which includes articles and other content that represent the core theoretical mission of this online publication.
- The "What's New" section are the latest updates and analysis on major events, cultural happenings, and other issues of the day.
- The "Editors' Blog" section hosts the ramblings and opinions of PA editors and friends.
- And, fourth, the "Podcast" section will feature the latest audio recordings of interviews with activists and others.
In the near future, readers will be able to use and share educational tools in various multimedia formats. So look for that content soon.
As a reader, you will be able to share your favorite content with your friends and social networks through the "share" function on each page. You will be able to post your comments on each article and blog post.
You can stay connected with PoliticalAffairs.net by joining our e-mail list by clicking the "receive our newsletter" link on the home page, or by finding us on Facebook or Twitter. We want to hear from you and join with you to build an activist community online.
E-mail us with article submissions or story ideas at editor@politicalaffairs.net.
Capitalism sucks unless you are very, very rich
By Joe Sims
This article originally appeared at peoplesworld.org, October 27, 2010.
Capitalism sucks, unless you are one of the 74 wealthiest Americans who made profits five times bigger than the previous year, while most working-class people were catching hell in the Great Recession.
If you are one of the gilded Americans whose earnings were more than $50 million a piece last year, you actually saw your average income "skyrocket from $91.8 million in 2008 to a mind-boggling $518.8 million in 2009."
These guys - the group of 74 - made more than the combined total of the 19 million lowest paid workers in the country.
These findings and more are based on statistics recently released by the Social Security Administration and analysed almost exclusively by David Kay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winning former New York Times reporter.
At the height of the election campaign, it's a surprise, even startling, that the media has said scarcely a word about this.
Johnston comments, "Not a single news organization reported this data when it was released October 15, searches of Google and the Nexis databases show" - a curious silence indeed given the debate in Congress on extension of the Bush tax cuts.
The superprofits raked in by the 74 added up to a combined $38.4 billion in 2009, up from $11.9 billion earned by 131 individuals with wages above $50 million in 2008, according to Social Security Administration data, writes Bloomberg news.
Keep in mind, the data, based on Medicare payments only, pertains only to wages and salaries and not investment income.
While the rich are growing fabulously richer - a fivefold increase in fact - wages for most of us fell, Johnston points out. Equally significant, he says, "Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar."
This massive transfer of wealth, he contends, began in 1981 when there was "an abrupt change in tax and economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, along with much lower tax burdens."
Thus it was Reaganism and GOP policy that set these forces in motion, a process that has had a devastating impact on the working class both economically and ideologically. "This systematic destruction of the working class and middle class has come during an era notable for celebrating the super-rich just for being super-rich," Johnston writes. "From the Forbes 400 launch in 1982 and Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" in 1984 to the faux reality of the multiplying "Real Housewives" shows, money voyeurism has grown in tandem with stagnant to falling incomes for the vast majority. There has also been huge income growth at the top and the economic children of income inequality: budget deficits and malign neglect of our commonwealth."
It was hoped that the Obama election two years ago signaled the end of that era of unprecedented capital accumulation that resulted in the Great Recession. That is precisely what's at stake next Tuesday.
The peoplesworld is part of the independent and free press tradition in the U.S.A. We are funded exclusively by our subscribers and supporters — no corporate money.
This article originally appeared at peoplesworld.org, October 27, 2010.
Capitalism sucks, unless you are one of the 74 wealthiest Americans who made profits five times bigger than the previous year, while most working-class people were catching hell in the Great Recession.
If you are one of the gilded Americans whose earnings were more than $50 million a piece last year, you actually saw your average income "skyrocket from $91.8 million in 2008 to a mind-boggling $518.8 million in 2009."
These guys - the group of 74 - made more than the combined total of the 19 million lowest paid workers in the country.
These findings and more are based on statistics recently released by the Social Security Administration and analysed almost exclusively by David Kay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winning former New York Times reporter.
At the height of the election campaign, it's a surprise, even startling, that the media has said scarcely a word about this.
Johnston comments, "Not a single news organization reported this data when it was released October 15, searches of Google and the Nexis databases show" - a curious silence indeed given the debate in Congress on extension of the Bush tax cuts.
The superprofits raked in by the 74 added up to a combined $38.4 billion in 2009, up from $11.9 billion earned by 131 individuals with wages above $50 million in 2008, according to Social Security Administration data, writes Bloomberg news.
Keep in mind, the data, based on Medicare payments only, pertains only to wages and salaries and not investment income.
While the rich are growing fabulously richer - a fivefold increase in fact - wages for most of us fell, Johnston points out. Equally significant, he says, "Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar."
This massive transfer of wealth, he contends, began in 1981 when there was "an abrupt change in tax and economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, along with much lower tax burdens."
Thus it was Reaganism and GOP policy that set these forces in motion, a process that has had a devastating impact on the working class both economically and ideologically. "This systematic destruction of the working class and middle class has come during an era notable for celebrating the super-rich just for being super-rich," Johnston writes. "From the Forbes 400 launch in 1982 and Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" in 1984 to the faux reality of the multiplying "Real Housewives" shows, money voyeurism has grown in tandem with stagnant to falling incomes for the vast majority. There has also been huge income growth at the top and the economic children of income inequality: budget deficits and malign neglect of our commonwealth."
It was hoped that the Obama election two years ago signaled the end of that era of unprecedented capital accumulation that resulted in the Great Recession. That is precisely what's at stake next Tuesday.
The peoplesworld is part of the independent and free press tradition in the U.S.A. We are funded exclusively by our subscribers and supporters — no corporate money.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Obama Rejects Tax Cuts for the Rich, Calls for Big Oil to Pay Fair Share
by Joel Wendland
This article originally appeared at PoliticalAffairs.net, Sept. 9, 2010
The President came out swinging in a major economic policy speech in Cleveland, Sept. 8, against Republican Party obstructionism on economic recovery. He flatly rejected GOP plan's to give mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans and accused its leaders of pushing the "same philosophy that was tried for the last decade which led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression: tax cuts for millionaires, cut rules for corporations, and leave the middle class to fend for itself."
Instead, President Obama called for a new package of tax cuts for working families, tax credits for businesses to purchase new equipment and for research and development, and infrastructure projects to spur job growth.
To pay for these proposals, administration officials told reporters the President wants to close tax loopholes for big oil companies and other companies that move jobs out of the country.
President Obama said he favors extending tax cuts for Americans earning $250,000 or less, while letting the Bush tax cuts for the very richest Americans sunset.
"We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," the President said. "For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton."
He rejected Republican claims that this move would be bad for the economy, citing the high deficit. "We can’t afford the $700 billion price tag [for tax cuts for the rich]." He also recalled that with a similar tax code in place in the 1990s, the U.S. economy created 22 million jobs.
When the economic crisis began, President Obama said, "My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. "
"But as we all know, things didn’t work out that way," he said. Ideological and partisan considerations caused "[s]ome Republican leaders [to figure] it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess."
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, R, Ohio, offered his party's views on the economy late last month, but, the President said, they were awfully familiar.
"There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner," he explained. "There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade – the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."
Instead Republicans want to scale back the major accomplishments of the past year and a half. They want to allow health insurance companies to once again deny care for people who are sick and allow the credit card companies to raise interest rates unfettered, Obama pointed out. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and voted against family tax credits for higher education.
Indeed, the President continued, Republicans have kept tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs out of the country. "For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open," he said.
"In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes – and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job," the President noted.
Referring to the jobs bill passed by Congress last month, President Obama explained that the closed tax loopholes will help pay to keep teachers in schools, cops on the beat, and firefighters protecting our families.
But Boehner "dismissed these jobs … as quote 'government jobs' – jobs that I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving," President Obama added.
"Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail," Obama emphasized.
"Though I should say that didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit," he said, referring to to the fact that numerous Republicans who voted against the recovery act have claimed credit for money brought to their home districts. "That’s always a sight to see."
Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy earned additional fire from White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer who told reporters by a teleconference with the press, Sept. 8, Boehner and the Republicans want to return to the same policies that caused the crisis and hurt America's working families in the first place.
"We know the policies that Leader Boehner and the Republicans are advocating," Pfeiffer said, citing the huge deficits, the financial meltdown, and jobs crisis. "We know what they'll do. We're still reaping the consequences of that."
Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Jason Furman touted the Obama administration's accomplishments in the economy. In addition to the recovery act, President Obama's legislative accomplishments include the "cash for clunkers" program, extension of the homebuyer tax credit, tax credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and those involved in infrastructure projects, and the passage of the new jobs bill last month.
Furman also noted that new tax credits the President has proposed would be designed to benefit companies who do research and development here in the U.S. He added that the President wants to pay for new tax credits and infrastructure projects by ending massive government tax subsidies for the biggest oil companies.
"The big oil companies actually pay lower tax rates on their profits than most other corporations in the economy," he said. "Get rid of those tax breaks so the big oil companies are being treated just the same as every other corporation when it comes to taxes."
Furman added that new revenue could be created by closing some 350 remaining loopholes that still provide incentives for companies who move their profits, investments and jobs out of the country.
This article originally appeared at PoliticalAffairs.net, Sept. 9, 2010
The President came out swinging in a major economic policy speech in Cleveland, Sept. 8, against Republican Party obstructionism on economic recovery. He flatly rejected GOP plan's to give mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans and accused its leaders of pushing the "same philosophy that was tried for the last decade which led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression: tax cuts for millionaires, cut rules for corporations, and leave the middle class to fend for itself."
Instead, President Obama called for a new package of tax cuts for working families, tax credits for businesses to purchase new equipment and for research and development, and infrastructure projects to spur job growth.
To pay for these proposals, administration officials told reporters the President wants to close tax loopholes for big oil companies and other companies that move jobs out of the country.
President Obama said he favors extending tax cuts for Americans earning $250,000 or less, while letting the Bush tax cuts for the very richest Americans sunset.
"We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," the President said. "For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton."
He rejected Republican claims that this move would be bad for the economy, citing the high deficit. "We can’t afford the $700 billion price tag [for tax cuts for the rich]." He also recalled that with a similar tax code in place in the 1990s, the U.S. economy created 22 million jobs.
When the economic crisis began, President Obama said, "My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. "
"But as we all know, things didn’t work out that way," he said. Ideological and partisan considerations caused "[s]ome Republican leaders [to figure] it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess."
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, R, Ohio, offered his party's views on the economy late last month, but, the President said, they were awfully familiar.
"There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner," he explained. "There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade – the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."
Instead Republicans want to scale back the major accomplishments of the past year and a half. They want to allow health insurance companies to once again deny care for people who are sick and allow the credit card companies to raise interest rates unfettered, Obama pointed out. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and voted against family tax credits for higher education.
Indeed, the President continued, Republicans have kept tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs out of the country. "For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open," he said.
"In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes – and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job," the President noted.
Referring to the jobs bill passed by Congress last month, President Obama explained that the closed tax loopholes will help pay to keep teachers in schools, cops on the beat, and firefighters protecting our families.
But Boehner "dismissed these jobs … as quote 'government jobs' – jobs that I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving," President Obama added.
"Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail," Obama emphasized.
"Though I should say that didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit," he said, referring to to the fact that numerous Republicans who voted against the recovery act have claimed credit for money brought to their home districts. "That’s always a sight to see."
Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy earned additional fire from White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer who told reporters by a teleconference with the press, Sept. 8, Boehner and the Republicans want to return to the same policies that caused the crisis and hurt America's working families in the first place.
"We know the policies that Leader Boehner and the Republicans are advocating," Pfeiffer said, citing the huge deficits, the financial meltdown, and jobs crisis. "We know what they'll do. We're still reaping the consequences of that."
Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Jason Furman touted the Obama administration's accomplishments in the economy. In addition to the recovery act, President Obama's legislative accomplishments include the "cash for clunkers" program, extension of the homebuyer tax credit, tax credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and those involved in infrastructure projects, and the passage of the new jobs bill last month.
Furman also noted that new tax credits the President has proposed would be designed to benefit companies who do research and development here in the U.S. He added that the President wants to pay for new tax credits and infrastructure projects by ending massive government tax subsidies for the biggest oil companies.
"The big oil companies actually pay lower tax rates on their profits than most other corporations in the economy," he said. "Get rid of those tax breaks so the big oil companies are being treated just the same as every other corporation when it comes to taxes."
Furman added that new revenue could be created by closing some 350 remaining loopholes that still provide incentives for companies who move their profits, investments and jobs out of the country.
Monday, October 4, 2010
One nation working together
Here is the New York Times coverage:
WASHINGTON — Tens of thousands of union members, environmentalists and peace activists rallied at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, seeking to carry on the message of jobs and justice that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. trumpeted at a rally at the same site 47 years ago.Read the whole article here
More than 300 groups organized Saturday’s march on Washington to build momentum for progressive causes.
A spirited crowd spread out along both sides of the reflecting pool.
More than 300 groups organized Saturday’s march to build momentum for progressive causes like increased job-creation programs and to mobilize liberal voters to flock to the polls next month.
The rally’s sponsors, including the N.A.A.C.P., the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Sierra Club and the National Council of La Raza, said they also hoped to demonstrate that they, not the Tea Party, represented the nation’s majority.
Organizers called the march “One Nation Working Together,” saying they hoped it would be an answer and antidote to what they called the divisiveness of the Tea Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)