Deficit Spending And Populist E-Mail Chains

This has been circulating in Nashville's music community this week and, at first, I was surprised to see the progenitor was-- at least inspirationally-- Warren Buffet, rather than Jimmy Buffett. "Let's see," it begins, "if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about."

Salary of retired US Presidents ... .. . . ..$180,000 FOR LIFE.

Salary of House/Senate members ... . . .$174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House ... .. . . ..$223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid

Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . ..$193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid

Average Salary of a teacher . . ... .. . . .. $40,065

Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .$38,000

In July of 2011, as the Republican threat to shut down the government was heating up, Warren Buffett, was on CNBC, went after the debt ceiling and deficits, although as Snopes.com notes, "more in the nature of a wry commentary on the workings of Congress than a serious proposal for tackling the budget deficit."

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

Without deficits there is no progressive agenda and no big things to work towards accomplishing. It's as absurd a proposition as the assertion that Buffett asked his statement be sent around in an e-mail chain (which he never did). The people who did, however, knew exactly what they wanted, which is what all conservatives always want: shutting down the progressive agenda and ending all social safety net programs. "Warren Buffett," they claim dishonestly, "is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise." It then devolves into a hodgepodge of proposals that a bunch of Obama haters came up with in 2009, ideas not remotely connected to Warren Buffett. Today they're calling it the Congressional Reform Act of 2017, which sounds pretty alluring... until you get the #7, the actual key to what these people are trying to accomplish.

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman / woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 3/1/17. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people in the U.S. to receive the message. It's time!

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on

And if you're smart, don't. Just ignore it and work to defeat corrupt conservatives in Congress and elect progressives instead. I contacted Stephanie Kelton, formerly the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee Democrats, about the Buffett quote (the real one) and she was surprised. "He’s got to be kidding," she told me. "If he’s not, then it is one of the most economically illiterate things I’ve ever heard. First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with a budget deficit-- it’s simply a mechanism to put more money into the economy. Deficits can increase because of voluntary choices made by policymakers-- eg the Trump tax cuts-- but they can also increase on their own, say, in a depressed economy as tax receipts fall off and spending to support the weak economy (unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) automatically increase. This is what happened during the Great Recession, when federal budget deficits automatically rose to about 10% of GDP. As Krugman observed, those Deficits Saved the World. With this 'Buffet Rule' in place, not only would we have added 535 more people to the ranks of the unemployed, but we would almost certainly have ended up with a full-blown depression on our hands."

Alan Grayson: TPP "Would Give Away The Sovereignty Our Founding Fathers Fought For In Exchange For... Nothing"

The Establishment-- the Democratic Party Establishment-- has fallen to new lows. Wall Street growled about cutting DNC, DSCC and DCCC funding because of Elizabeth Warren and BOOM!... Chuck Schumer, the biggest recipient of Wall Street bribes, excluding presidential candidates, in history is on the road to be the new Senate Democratic Leader. The DSCC and DCCC are working full-time to disadvatage-- to put it mildly-- primary candidates against the conservative, pro-Wall Street hacks they're backing. 

No top Democrats seemed all that thrilled yesterday when Bernie Sanders hinted broadly that he plans to jump into the presidential campaign and challenge Hillary Clinton on 3 major issues: campaign finance reform, climate change and income inequality. The Democratic Establishment does not care about the issues. Apparently they don't even care that the Clintons were using Hillary's position to personally enrich themselves. Democratic activists and Democratic voters care about both, but the Democratic careerist political Establishment? Not even a little-- outside of how issues fit into winning electoral strategies. The Establishment has no interest in dedicated, serious progressives like Bernie Sanders running for president, or Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson running for Senate, or for stalwart progressives like Alex Law (NJ), Jamie Raskin (MD), Jason Ritchie (WA) and Nanette Barragán (CA) running against corrupt conservatives for House seats. Matt Taibbi understands what Bernie is trying to do. The Democratic Party Establishment fears what he's trying to do.

So-called "free trade" is one of the points of contention between the Establishment and normal Democrats. Corporate shills-- from Obama and Rahm all the way down into the depths of Wall Street ass-kissers like Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patrick Murphy (D-FL), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Isadore Hall (D-CA), etc. With even the overwhelming majority of Republicans opposing Fast Track authority, the White House is on a jihad against Democrats in Congress who are standing up against corporate hegemony in regard to the TPP. It's an ugly mess.

Next month, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is offering legislation to back up an idea by Warren Buffett that requires importers to provide certificates for the goods and services they sell, a stream of income that could be used to bolster Social Security and Medicare and rebuild U.S. infrastructure and cut middle class taxes. Grayson sees his bill as "the light at the end of the tunnel... It's time to stop digging that hole any deeper. Let's fight back against the scheme that has robbed the Amercian middle class now for decades. Let's fight it and let's defeat it right now while we still can. Let's put our workers back to work earning a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Let's heal our economy and heal our nation. Let's show our courage, show our unity; let's climb out of that hole. Let's raise ourselves up and let's rebuild the American middle class."

We are activists and organizers trying to build a broad, effective movement for democratic change. We come from different backgrounds, and were inspired by different issues and fights for peace, rights and the planet. Our goal is a government that carries out the will of the people, and not serve to increase the profits of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

To that end we support Bernie Sanders in his bid to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.  We stand firmly behind Senator Sanders as the strongest progressive challenger to Hillary Clinton-- the bold alternative.

As a truly progressive candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, Senator Sanders has the chance to inspire millions of Americans with policy proposals that put the interests of the 99%, front and center.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called out the “economic royalists” of his day. Senator Sanders is picking up the banner. He answers to “We the People” and not to the corporate and financial sectors. Bernie brings the kind of leadership that is necessary to building a real, living democracy.

The initiators of this letter are veteran grassroots organizers of Occupy Wall Street, and are joined by many energized brothers and sisters we have met along the way. In September 2011, our efforts changed the narrative of American politics, helping to focus it on the issues of our time: inequality, surrender to the power of concentrated wealth, the corruption of our democracy by moneyed interests, and the need for solutions as radical as our problems.

We are signing as individuals hoping to kickstart a small ‘d’ democratic movement. People For Bernie won’t be a corporate-style, staff-driven, controlled-message, top-down enterprise. It will reflect diverse constituencies from a broad range of movements, which in many cases haven’t seen the Democratic Party as a home for their deepest aspirations. It will reflect our commitment to fundamental change, not just a change of faces at the top of the political pyramid. People for Bernie it will reflect the urgency of more and fiercer grassroots political activity at the base.

We call on all other progressive forces to unite behind Sanders so we can have a united front in this important campaign.

Winnie Wong-- participant in OWS, @OccupyWallStreetNYC, Organizer, RFW, AFW
Charles Lenchner-- participant in OWS, former member of Tech Ops, co-founder, Ready For Warren
Howie Klein
Nadya Stevens
Andrew Smith (Rockaway Wildfire, OWS
Stan Williams (OSA, OWS)
Shana East (Ready For Warren)
Heidi Chua (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Daniel Sieradski (Occupy Judaism)
Kim Fraczek (The Peoples Puppets of Occupy Wall Street)
Jesse Myerson (Occupy The Ballots)
Ethan Young Left Labor Project
David Unger
Ethan Earle (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Kazembe Balagun (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Diane Sweet
Gan Golan (MayDay Space)
Matt Hopard (OWS)
jackrabbit (Interoccupy)
Nadine Bloch
Thiaggo de Mello Bueno (OWS)
Mark Provost (Us Uncut)
Zak Solomon (MayDay Space, Rising Tide NYC)
Aly Johnson-Kurts (Teachout-Wu)
Robel Tekleab (Ready For Warren)
Moumita Ahmed (Ready For Warren)
Caleb Michael-Files (Ready For Warren)
Angela Linneman
Phillip Anderson (The Albany Project)
Lane Hall (Overpass Light Brigade)
Lisa Moline (Overpass Light Brigade)
Joe Brusky (Overpass Light Brigade)
Damien Crisp (member @OccupyWallStNYC)
Melissa Byrne (Occupy DC-Mcpherson, Project Springboard)
Amber Frost
Paul Russell (Occupy Faith, Judson Church)
Gabriel Johnson
Bhaskar Sunkara, Jacobin Magazine
Mary Clinton
Betsy Avila, Young Democratic Socialists
Maria Svart, Democratic Socialists of America
Beth Becker
Kelli Daley
Justin Molito

No labor leaders? If you're looking for their names, you haven't been paying attention. Labor leaders whose lives revolve around the Beltway are part of the Establishment. They are overwhelmingly self-serving and will gladly support an outrageous hack like Patrick Murphy, Hillary Clinton, Chis Van Hollen or any repulsive Blue Dog or New Dem before backing someone from the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party.

Who Is Financing The Right Wing Jihad Against Mike Honda-- And Why?

Two weeks from today will likely be the last time anyone ever hears about Ro Khanna, unless he gets arrested for criminal activities up the road. His campaign is one ultra-expensive failure financed by conservatives-- both Republican conservatives and Democratic conservatives, all eager to replace progressive icon Mike Honda with a sleazy conservative disguised as a Democrat. Alexander Kaufman wrote up a report of the interview Politico did with Warren Buffet, the second richest man in America (after Bill Gates), worth $67.3 billion. Buffet says he thinks wealthy people like himself, you the multibillionaires particularly, shouldn't be paying taxes at lower rates than their servants. Some of the richest people in America pay as little as 10% on their income taxes, far less than when the middle class was being built and people paid 90% on income over a million dollars.

Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.” He has frequently pointed out that his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. Debbie Bosanek, his secretary since 1993, has been a symbol for tax inequality since Buffett began touting the disparity in their tax rates as far back as 2007. During a 2012 interview with ABC News, Bosanek said she paid a tax rate of 35.8 percent, while Buffett paid 17.4 percent.

...Buffett urged the federal government to charge higher tax rates on income earned from some stock dividends and capital gains. Currently, such income is taxed at rates far lower than ordinary income. This helps widen income inequality and is an example of one way that wealth gained from assets such as stocks and property grows much faster than wages or the actual economy, as French economist Thomas Piketty argued in his bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

Up top is a new campaign ad from Mike Honda, one of the staunchest supporters of ordinary working families in the entire Congress. The ad contrasts Honda to Khanna, who is the quintessential handmaiden for the wealthy greed-hogs who don't want government services because they want lower taxes for themselves. Right wing billionaires, like extremist sociopaths John & Laura Arnold and Peter Thiel, as well as Romney's 47% dirt-bag Marc Leder, all of whom normally only give to Republicans, are maxing out to Khanna and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to slimy SuperPACs running smear campaigns against Honda on Khanna's behalf.

Why do these greed-obsessed billionaires love Khanna so much? Simple: Khanna insists that the current corporate tax rate is too high, adamantly opposes increasing taxes on the one percent and wants to tax capital gains income as ordinary income as well as lowering repatriation of profits taxes from companies that have hidden their assets overseas to avoid taxes. Oh, yeah-- and he wants to cut Social Security benefits. He has vociferously attacked Honda for proposing to increase Social Security benefits-- a position Honda has led on and shares with every progressive in Congress-- and insisted it was "just a campaign tactic." Khanna:

"We need to have an honest conversation about Social Security and Medicare. Mike Honda has been campaigning on increasing, increasing Social Security benefits beyond what the current cost of living adjustments will allow. He knows that's impossible, he knows he's never going to get the votes for it. He knows the budget doesn't work, but it's just a campaign tactic. And the reality is, we need to start having an honest conversation."

Does that sound like a Democrat to you? Khanna has been running for office ever since he was caught stealing an election for student body president at the University of Chicago in 1966. He also once lied to California voters, claiming that Bill Clinton had endorsed him. Clinton, who had been neutral in the primary, immediately endorsed his opponent, Congressman Tom Lantos, who proceeded to wipe the floor with Khanna. Khanna tried insinuating that President Obama was backing him too-- but Obama endorsed Honda in no uncertain terms:

"Congressman Mike Honda is the right leader for the 17th district. Together, we’ve worked hard these last four years to bring meaningful, positive change to our nation, but there is much more to do. As we continue rebuilding our economy from the middle out, we know expanding educational opportunities is critical. Congressman Honda's lifelong commitment to education and fierce advocacy for innovation and technology is exactly what this nation needs as we continue to move America forward. We need Congressman Mike Honda in the United States Congress, and I urge you to vote to keep him there."

Khanna's a liar and a creep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA), the president of the congressional freshman class typifies the high regard in which his colleagues hold him:

Mike Honda is a great American, and one of our living icons in the Democratic ranks of the United States House of Representatives. In much the same way that Rep. John Lewis of Georgia is a living, breathing reminder of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, Rep. Honda of California takes us back even further, to the 1940s of the Japanese-American internment camps. I often mention with pride that a Pennsylvanian, Justice Owen Roberts, dissented, in Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Executive Order creating those internment camps. Mike Honda, born in 1941, spent his early childhood years in an internment camp in California.

…Nelson Mandela once said that “resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” Mike Honda could easily have turned to resentment or bitterness over the mind-boggling unfairness of his family’s wartime internment. Instead, he has devoted his life to the positive and uplifting work of making America a more just, more peaceful, and more progressive nation. I am deeply honored to be a fellow member of the House Democratic Caucus with Mike Honda, and even prouder to serve alongside him in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I urge my fellow Democrats to support Representative Honda’s reelection in whatever way you can.

Warren Buffett On The Myth Of High Taxes On Corporations

There's a certain amount of wonkishness and numbers soup in the above video, but the most important takeaway is that Warren Buffett is calling bullshit on the unending Republican Party claim that American corporations pay too much in taxes. They don't; in fact, they don't pay nearly enough. They're not carrying their weight-- and that means the rest of us are carrying their weight. "The interesting thing about the corporate rate," explained Buffett, "is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it… Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness."

Needless to say Joshua Holland had something to say essential to this discussion in his book The 15 Biggest Lies About The Economy. In fact, the whole book is essential to this discussion. But let's take just one aspect, the Republican Party lie that "tax cuts generate jobs." It's part of their crazy mantra that gets proven wrong over and over again but doesn't slow them down one bit.

The basic problem with the claim that “tax cuts stimulate the economy” is that “taxes” aren’t generic. You can cut taxes on companies or individuals or dole out cuts that fall more heavily on the rich or the poor. You can target tax cuts at investors or low-income families with young children. You can cut taxes on specific goods-- food or yachts-- and services, or in a specific geographic zone to encourage investment. And various recipients of those breaks-- whether companies or individuals-- will respond to those cuts with different kinds of changes in their economic behavior.

Yet another problem also exists... [T]here simply isn’t much correlation between various countries’ tax burdens and the relative strength of their economies. Some economic powerhouses have relatively low tax rates; others’ rates are relatively high.

...In 2008, [Larry] Beinhart took a look at a fog fact about taxes. He compared two sets of data, historic income tax and GDP growth rates in the United States, and concluded, “The brute facts” are as follows:

• High income taxes correlate with economic growth.
• Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.
• Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.

Beinhart went through the specifics:

1. High taxes correlate with strong economic growth. The four periods of greatest economic growth in U.S. history, by pretty much any measure, are World War II (1941–1945): The top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent. Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent. The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush’s top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent. The first two Roosevelt administrations (1933–1940). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

A lot of ink, sweat, and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office to when the United States entered the war. Some of that anti–New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.

Likewise, many right-wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28 percent to 31 percent) and was soundly thrashed by the conservatives for doing so. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute called it “The Crime of the Century” and explained at length how it had brought ruin to America.

2. Tax increases are followed by economic growth. Three of the four high-growth periods cited previously followed significant tax hikes. The fourth, the Truman-Eisenhower years, began with a top tax rate of 91 percent-- it couldn’t get much higher.

3. Moderate cuts are followed by flat growth. John F. Kennedy is generally credited with starting the tax-cut craze. He proposed it, but, as with all of his ideas, it was Lyndon Johnson who actually got it enacted. The top rate was cut from 91 percent to 77 percent, then to 70 percent, on all income more than $200,000 for a single person and more than $400,000 for a married couple. That’s where it stayed, through the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. The Dow Jones average was pretty much the same when that period ended as when it began. Median personal income stayed roughly the same.

Of course, just because B follows A doesn’t mean that A caused B to occur. Correlation isn’t the same as causation. Obviously, all kinds of factors other than the top tax rate helped drive those growth spurts. Just one example is the huge competitive advantage the United States enjoyed for several decades following World War II, simply by virtue of the fact that it had developed a ton of industrial capacity during the war, while its major competitors had seen half of their infrastructure blown to pieces. But if B stubbornly refuses to follow A in every circumstance, then you can be pretty sure that A isn’t responsible for B. A lack of correlation disproves causation.

So when Kennedy cut the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, that may have unleashed a lot of economic activity, but... all but the sketchiest economic thinkers agree that when George W. Bush cut it from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, he only succeeded in leaving a big hole in the budget.

Tax cuts, properly targeted, can be effective tools of public policy. The idea that cutting taxes always spurs growth, creates jobs, and leads to magic rainbows and puppies, on the other hand, is pure fantasy.

Austerity: Class War Against Working People, An International Plague

Unless you think you'll be winning a lot of lotteries in the future, you're never going to be as rich as Warren Buffett. A significant number of Americans-- rational people in other countries don't think this way-- hold out hope that they will be the exception and that they want to be certain that tax rates on billionaires are low... just in case. Meanwhile, they could be making $40-50,000 a year and paying a higher effective tax rate than the billionaires they're protecting by voting for the billionaire protection racket known as the Republican Party. In yesterday's New York Times Buffett himself begged Americans-- and their representatives in Congress-- to stop coddling the super-rich. (You can watch Buffett discussing his editorial with Charlie Rose Monday night.)

Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill-- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf-- was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income-- and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine-- most likely by a lot.

...Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone-- not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77-- shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion-- a staggering $227.4 million on average-- but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million-- there were 236,883 such households in 2009-- I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more-- there were 8,274 in 2009-- I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

We've been watching with alarm what the Austerity approach has done to social cohesion in Greece and England. I expect it will be even worse in France and Italy, which the international banksters are forcing in that direction. Italy's largest labor union threatened a general strike yesterday, after Berlusconi hastily pushed through an Austerity plan demanded by World Plutocracy.

Critics say the package-- a mix of spending cuts, job cuts and tax increases, including a "solidarity tax" for high-earners-- will strangle Italy’s stagnant economy, which is now expected to grow by only about one per cent this year.

Other critics, including nine members of Berlusconi’s own coalition, say it unfairly targets the middle class and fails to tackle Italy’s massive tax evasion problem.

Susanna Camusso, leader of the CGIL labour union, criticized measures aimed at liberalizing Italy’s labour market and targeting its pension system, saying a strike is the only way to "change the inequity of this package." She told the La Repubblica newspaper that union officials will meet Aug. 23 to set a strike date and invited other unions to join.

I don't trust Labor's Ed Miliband to get it any more right in England than Obama has here in the U.S., but yesterday Miliband launched a flashy (for him) attack on Cameron's reactionary approach to the riots, calling it "shallow and simplistic." Take that, fascist dog!

Reiterating his call for a national inquiry into the causes of the violence, he said the country had a "deep need" to explain and understand what had happened, but that Cameron had responded with "gimmickry."

The Labour leader said nothing could excuse or justify the actions of the rioters and looters but that, unless the causes were understood properly, the violence could be repeated.

...Miliband said writing the riots off as "pure criminality" or simply blaming parents would not get to the root of the problem. In a direct attack on Cameron, he characterised the government's response as "kneejerk gimmicks," citing talk of water cannon, "supercops" and the "harassment" of gangs.

"A prime minister who used to say 'hug a hoodie' now says the answer is to reform our health and safety laws," he said.

"A crisis like this tells us something about our political leaders. Day by day, the prime minister has revealed himself to be reaching for shallow and superficial answers."

Miliband said individuals were responsible for their actions, questioning why some parents were failing to teach their children right from wrong, but added that everyone had a responsibility for the society we live in.

He also questioned whether an economy that dictates that some parents have to work up to 70-hour weeks, meaning they are largely absent from their children's lives, might have a role in family breakdown.

But he added: "Children's ideas of right and wrong don't just come from their parents. And we can't honestly say the greed, selfishness and gross irresponsibility that shocked us all so deeply is confined to the looters, or even to their parents.

"It's not the first time we've seen this kind of me first, take what you can culture. The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings-- greedy, selfish and immoral. The MPs who fiddled their expenses-- greedy, selfish and immoral. The people who hacked phones to get stories to make money for themselves-- greedy, selfish and immoral.

"People who talk about the sick behaviour of those without power should talk equally about the sick behaviour of those with power.

"Let's not pretend that the crisis of values in our society is confined to a minority only at the bottom when we see the morality of millions of hardworking, decent people under siege from the top as well."

He said the last Labour government, as well as the coalition, had failed to address the issues of inequality in society, arguing that there is a culture of aspiration for success that is out of the reach of people at the bottom, creating frustration.

Class Warfare

I know Warren Buffett famously declared that the rich had already won... but they're still on the attack... more than ever. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” That was 4 years ago and we've elected a Democratic president with substantial Democratic-- albeit not exactly progressive-- majorities in both Houses of Congress since then. There is the little problem of the Third Branch, of course, with their 5-4 conservative thumb very much on the scale on Mr. Buffett's class' side.

I can't tell you how excited I was yesterday when I read that Oregon Democrat Pete DeFazio is investigating impeachment charges against the Supreme Court's Chief Corporate Shill John Roberts (on perjury during his confirmation hearings), primarily due to the blatant rightist power play at the base of Citizens United vs FEC. I'm used to reading posts by Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, at the White House blog. Friday he reached out to the Huffington Post, presumably to reach a wider audience, asking the question that only the naive don't already know the answer to: What do they expect in return?

Pfeiffer gets right down to it: "[U]ndisclosed contributions will give special interests even more power over politicians. And, with that power, they plan to return to the days when lobbyists wrote the laws in Washington to benefit special interests at the expense of the American people." That pretty much sums it up and Obama has been warning the public-- and the Democrats in Congress. Keep in mind that when the House passed the DISCLOSE Act 219-206 on June 24 the vote was so close because 36 corporate shills (5 of whom are now being financed by both the DCCC and the Chamber of Commerce: Jim Marshall, Bobby Bright, Frank Kratovil, Glenn Nye, and Travis Childers) crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against reform. I've listed some of the worst offenders below, along with the amount of money the DCCC has spent on trying to help each win re-election with I.E.s so far this year:

Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog- GA)- $489,623.23
Allen Boyd (Blue Dog- FL)- $167,094.27
Bobby Bright (Blue Dog- AL)- $1,135,508.36
Travis Childers (Blue Dog- MS)- $732,562.57
Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog- PA)- $236,851.58
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog- IN)- $506,290.91
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog- SD)- $81,964.25
Baron Hill (Blue Dog- IN)- $828,906.06
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)- $747,873.39
Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog- MD)- $1,118,981.78
Jim Marshall (Blue Dog- GA)- $30,981.15
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog- AZ)- $808,762.11
Glenn Nye (Blue Dog- VA)- $699,932.53

Pfeiffer didn't denounce any of them. He held his fire for the Republicans. "Congressional Republicans blocked every attempt we made to put our democracy back where it belongs-- in the hands of the American people. Their opposition wasn't rooted in policy differences, because they've supported this type of legislation in the past. Rather, it was a cynical decision based on electoral considerations. And now, thanks to aggressive investigative reporting, we are getting a glimpse of the consequences lax disclosure rules have on our political process." He went on to comment on the big NY Times exposé this week-- a follow-up on the ThinkProgress investigation we've been referring to almost daily-- about how GOP front groups as using massive contributions from corporations and foreign powers seeking a weaker U.S. to finance a campaign to make John Boehner Speakers and Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader.

The New York Times reported today that one Texas billionaire alone has given at least $13 million to outside groups that are able to accept donations of unlimited size and are spending tens of millions of dollars on misleading, negative ads. This donor refused interviews, but his spokesman said, "We'll let the donations speak for themselves." And NBC News reported yesterday that this special interest money has been pouring in to these shadowy groups at such a rate in the past few weeks that they expect to raise as much as $250 million between now and Election Day.

Donations to many of these groups never have to be disclosed, which means the American people no longer have the right to know who is financing ads that are "overwhelmingly spreading exaggerations and falsehoods" in an attempt to influence an election. As the President said yesterday: "They could be insurance companies. They could be Wall Street banks. We don't know. We don't know who it is."

And this kind of activity is not limited to election season; it is a year-round campaign to take over our democracy as these groups attempt to bully lawmakers and distort key legislation on behalf of corporate interests. Additional reporting, based on corporate records, revealed a number of contributions from major corporations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. For instance, Dow Chemical gave the Chamber $1.7 million last year as it fought rules tightening security requirements at chemical facilities. Prudential Financial gave the Chamber $2 million last year as the Chamber led a national advertising campaign against new financial regulations. And there was little doubt that Prudential expected a return on its investment. The company spokesman admitted that the money was designed to influence votes. "I am not suggesting it is a coincidence," he said in the Times story.

These types of stories about special interest power grabs will only become more common until Congressional Republicans end their blockade against stronger disclosure rules, like the DISCLOSE Act. Otherwise we risk a situation where laws are being made with shadowy special interests who hide behind their checkbooks, and not based on what's in the best interest of the American people.

And, more importantly right now, these groups spending millions ought to be straight with the American people. Who is funding your ads-- and what do they expect in return?

And why is China so eager to see John Boehner in the Speaker's Chair and Miss McConnell running the Senate? It sure isn't because they want to see a strong and vibrant U.S., take my word for it. Chinese money, Russian money, Arab money, Indian money... it's financing attack ads against Russ Feingold (D-WI), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jack Conway (D-KY), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Robin Carnahan (D-MO), Ann Kuster (D-NH), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), and dozens more supporters of ending GOP incentives for corporate outsourcing. Watch President Obama warning about this last January and then again two weeks ago on a campus rally for Martin O'Malley at Bowie, Maryland:

Blue Dogs Show Their True Color On The Estate Tax-- And It Ain't Blue

People who live in nice houses like this have pretty tulips-- and the clout to get out of paying their fair share of taxes

The battle over the Estate Tax is heating up again. The simplistic way to look at it is that the defenders of wealthy elites-- the Republican Party and DLC and Blue Dog Democrats (particularly Blanche Lincoln)-- are opposing real Democrats, who want to reform a system that the Bush Regime re-jiggered to save a handful of billionaires immense amounts of money (which is, at least in part, what put the deficit out of whack). That story line works, but it doesn't tell the whole story. It really isn't just the obvious villains who are currying favor with the richest 1 percent of Americans.

Tuesday CQPolitics carried a report that the House was likely to delay consideration if any kind of estate tax. Recall that when Blanche Lincoln and Jon Kyl tried to lower the rate on estates worth more than $7 million (under which the rate is zero; they pay nothing), their efforts (in her case on behalf of the Walton family which owns so much of WalMart) met some success.

Congress is under extreme pressure to act by the end of the year. If it does nothing, current law will make the estate tax disappear on Jan. 1, only to return in 2011 at higher rates and lower exemptions... Democratic leaders [K Street toadies Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel] want to move a permanent extension of the 2009 structure of the estate tax, which features a $3.5 million per-person exemption and a top rate of 45 percent.

Liberals are upset that such an extension-- which would cost $233.6 billion over 10 years and benefit the country’s wealthiest families-- would not be offset, even as they have to scrape up every dollar they can to offset health care legislation.

Meanwhile, a moderate faction led by Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., has offered a proposal that would be more favorable to estates. It would gradually bring the top rate down to 35 percent, and push the exemption up to $5 million and index it for inflation.

Berkley’s legislation mirrors a plan supported by a bipartisan group of senators during the budget debate earlier this year. The amendment-- offered by Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.-- was adopted by a 51-48 vote, signaling that Republicans and moderate Democrats had the clout to get a better deal for estates than the 2009 rates.

Wednesday's CQPolitics followed-up with the story of a revolt from the Democratic congressional ranks. Real Democrats are telling Hoyer and House Ways and Means Committee Chair-- and notorious crook-- Charlie Rangel that they're not going along with this proposal that puts an unfair tax burden of the middle class to clean up the mess that corporate America made on behalf of the very wealthiest families. John Larson (D-CT) and Richard Neal (D-MA) led the revolt that ended in a Ways and Means Committee vote that backs a one-year extension and ties it to a broader overhaul of the tax code next year.

That move would spare Democrats from endorsing a tax cut for the wealthiest few families during a time of double-digit unemployment.

But Rangel, D-N.Y., and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., have been seeking a permanent extension of current law, which would cost $233.6 billion over 10 years but would not have to be offset under the budget framework backed by Democrats.

An estate tax bill is expected to reach the floor after the Thanksgiving recess.

Under current law, the tax includes a top rate of 45 percent and a per-person exemption of $3.5 million. If Congress does nothing, the tax disappears Jan. 1 and then returns, with a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent top rate, in 2011.

Rangel said that no final decisions had been made and that committee Democrats would meet again later Wednesday.

But Larson and Neal said the direction Democrats were heading was clear. A one-year extension would make the estate tax levels expire at the same time as many other provisions in the tax code, potentially giving members an opportunity for a broader rewrite of the revenue structure. It was unclear whether the estate tax measure would include specific language that would somehow trigger a broader tax measure.
A one-year bill could face some difficulty, however.

A leading Ways and Means moderate, Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., warned that the push for a one-year extension might falter in the broader Democratic caucus.

“It’s not about that room,” he said, gesturing toward Rangel’s off-the-floor office, where Democrats met Wednesday morning.

He threatened to vote against the rule that would bring such a bill to the floor and said other members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Caucus might do the same.

Before you listen to Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), who is both a multimillionaire and the single most reactionary Democrat in Congress, please remember that assets left to spouses (or charities) are exempt from estate taxes, as are family farms. The idea behind an estate tax is to ameliorate the accumulation of tax free wealth in the hands of a small number of families. Estate taxes in America are far too low and have already led in the dangerous direction of perpetuating the nation's wealth in the hands of a few powerful families. Even conservative icon Winston Churchill famously argued that estate taxes are argued that estate taxes are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich," and argument entirely embraced by two of America's wealthiest men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. As Buffett pointed out in 2006, in regard to predators like Griffith: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” That same year he also said "I would hate to see the estate tax gutted. It's a very equitable tax. It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged."

Now please listen to this neo-Confederate Blue Dog scumbag reading Republican Party talking points, all distortions, about the estate tax:



And speaking of slimy, greed-obsessed and selfish rich people like Parker Griffith, the IRS announced this week that their crackdown on off shore banking cheats will produce billions of dollars. Almost 15,000 Americans who were cheating have come forward in time for the leniency window.

A rush of tax evaders applied before the program's Oct. 15 deadline-- nearly double the IRS preliminary tally-- taking advantage of guarantees that they wouldn't face criminal prosecution if they paid taxes, interest and reduced civil penalties... The leniency offer accompanied the IRS' legal battle with UBS, which in February agreed to a $780 million settlement of criminal charges that it had secretly sent bankers into the U.S. to help American clients evade taxes. The bank later turned over data for up to 250 Americans whose accounts had alleged signs of tax evasion.

Under the federal civil settlement, Swiss authorities have until August to disclose accounts for 4,450 American clients of UBS. Federal officials said the first 500 would be identified by month's end.

The targeted UBS accounts include those that held more than 1 million Swiss francs-- roughly $985,000-- any time between 2001 and 2008 for which "tax fraud or the like" is suspected.

And a bonus-- Forbes is reporting that the IRS will be looking for patterns that point to specific financial advisors and companies that were steering their clients into cheating on their taxes. I sure hope there's no amnesty or leniency for them.

WE REALLY DON'T NEED TO BE EATEN ALIVE BY PREDATORS

On Thursday the Senate voted to continue funding Bush's occupation of Iraq by an overwhelming majority. There are parts of it Bush doesn't like but the majority is veto-proof. Is that good? Usually when we hear veto-proof, we wag our tails. "Veto-proof" means a thumb in the eye for Bush. Is a quick trial, a final cigarette and a blindfold next? But in this case we're talking about $200 billion mostly to keep his failed Iraq policies moving forward in place. The Senate tried making it more palatable-- and this is the part Bush doesn't like-- by larding it up with lots of domestic pork and by a passing popular amendment to provide benefits for veterans. (They also defeated legislation calling for an end to the occupation.) The Army Times had a clear-eyed look at it on Friday:

[T]he price tag of war and domestic funding portions of the bill top $200 billion, setting up a showdown with President Bush, who has said he will veto any supplemental that features enough domestic spending to drive the overall cost of the measure above his $180 billion request.

“There is a time and place where domestic funding should be debated and considered on its merits, but that is not in a bill focused on the emergency needs of our troops,” the administration said in a May 15 policy statement on the war-funding bill.

Republicans began breaking with the president on inserting domestic spending into the measure May 15 during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the panel’s version of the bill, which proposes money for energy assistance for low-income households, a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, prisons, more money for the Food and Drug Administration and other domestic items. That trend continued as many Republicans helped Democrats approve the domestic funding portion of the bill, 75-22.

But some Republicans objected, charging a war spending bill was the wrong legislative vehicle for pushing through spending for important domestic projects and a major overhaul of the GI Bill.

...Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned Congress that money in some key accounts, including Army personnel and operations funds, will run out by mid-June.

Gates said the Pentagon could move money between accounts in what he called a “shell game” to prevent severe disruption, but only until some time in July.

Gates on Tuesday said the Army’s military personnel account will run dry June 15 and the Army’s operations and maintenance fund will do the same around July 5.

The Army’s payroll problems can be solved temporarily by shifting money from the personnel accounts of the Navy and Air Force, but there is no easy resolution because all of the services are short in the same budget account.

It seems to be that the neither the Pentagon nor any other arm of the Regime-- can be trusted (not even a little) to "move money between accounts" or play any "shell games." In fact, according to a report in CongressDaily the same day the budget was passed, we are seeing more and more hard evidence that billions of dollars have "gone missing." They're not missing between the cushions of sofas; the billions of dollars have been stolen. (Keep in mind my earlier allusion to last cigarettes and blindfolds because this war has been a giant subterfuge for the transfer of billions of dollars from the taxpayers (present and especially future) to the creation of generational wealth for a new and dangerously powerful American aristocracy. The robber barons never came close to pulling of a heist like these guys.

All those batches of missing ten million here and 5 million there add up to a lot of money. And in a time when no one is quibbling about whether or not there is a Bush Recession-- only how long and how deep and if it will turn into a Depression-- the last thing the economy needs is a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector to the hands of the rich and powerful, long the most consistent hallmark of the Bush Regime.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee used a hearing to publicize a Defense Department inspector general's report, released today, which estimates that of $8.2 billion used to buy commercial goods and services in the war, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service processed $7.8 billion in payments without adequate documentation. For $1.4 billion of payments, the Army lacked the minimum justification required for payment, the report estimates. "We don't know what we paid for," testified Mary Ugone, the Defense Department's deputy inspector general for auditing. The IG made estimates by extrapolating from a sample of 702 commercial payments; a methodology the Army questioned in a written response to the report. Lawmakers highlighted some of the largest single payouts made without adequate paperwork, such as voucher showing an $11.1 million payment in 2005 to contractor IAP Worldwide Services that "was missing both the receiving report and invoice," the report said, and a $5.6 million payment made in 2004 to an Iraqi company without any description of how the money was used.

The report also highlights $135 million in payments made without documentation through the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which was created to give local U.S. military commandeers in Iraq the ability to back small local projects. While the program is generally used to pay Iraqis for supporting U.S. forces, the report notes large lump sum payments of up $8 million made to foreign governments with troops in Iraq. The United Kingdom got $68 million, Poland $45 million and South Korea $21 million. But the IG report says of 22 related vouchers reviewed "none contained sufficient supporting documentation to provide reasonable assurance that these funds were used for their intended purpose." The report says auditors could not identify any reconstruction project resulting from the funds. Ugone denied that war conditions excuse sloppy record keeping. She said auditors used standards significantly less rigorous than those for domestic spending to decide if payments were adequately documented. "There are challenges, but there should be some semblance of accountability," she said. "No documentation, from our perspective, is not acceptable." Ugone noted that from 2003 to 2006, the audit found accounting did not improve.

But it isn't just naked theft from the Iraq morass. The Bush Regime and the Republican Party and Blue Dog enablers have systematically dismantled the entire regulatory structure set up to defend ordinary Americans from powerful and insatiable predators (i.e.- the lobbyists and corporate campaign donors for both political parties). Warren Buffett is pretty rich, maybe the richest man in the world. When endorsing Obama the other day, he sited the dismantling of the regulatory system and the return to an unstable law of the jungle capitalism that is great for the greed-obsessed super-rich and powerful and ruinous for everyone else and for society and the economy as a whole. Yesterday Buffett was in Berlin warning about the impending economic implosion built into the Republican economic policies of the past decade.

"It's not right that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being eliminated, that entire industrial sectors in the real economy are being wiped out by financial bets even though the sectors are actually in good health."

Buffett complained about the lack of effective controls.

"That's the problem," he said. "You can't steer it, you can't regulate it anymore. You can't get the genie back in the bottle."

Nearly 33 million people have watched this video I want you to take a look at-- think about that number for a moment; it's more than the combined population of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, San Francisco and Columbus, the 15 biggest cities in America. In this clip, the predators are the Republican Party serving the interests of their corporate masters. The equally vicious but ineffective crocodile would be the Blue Dogs and DLC wannabe Republicans. The water buffalo are... us-- ordinary Americans-- and our sometimes political protectors, the Democrats. Now watch:

OBAMA STILL ISN'T THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR AND THE MEDIA IS STILL SPREADING THAT ABSURD LIE

GOP/Media smear says these 2 are the most liberal senators-- not even close

A couple days ago, we talked a little about how the GOP smear machine has been busy as little beavers trying to create some conventional wisdom that paints Obama as "the most liberal senator." It's patently absurd-- especially considering his voting record isn't even in the top half of liberals-- but that doesn't stop Republican media shills from repeating it every time they get near a TV camera. It's part of the strategy. And the networks and cable news Infotainment hosts are either too stoopid and uninformed to question the assertion... or don't want to.

Today over at Crooks & Liars, John and I dug deeper.

This year, their utterly meaningless ranking system, ready-made for Republican smear attacks, defined “liberal” as members who voted, on January 18, to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. Given the Republican Culture of Corruption that still rules the Beltway, that may be anti-Republican, but what makes it “liberal?” Similarly anyone who agreed in mid-March to the final passage of a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission’s Homeland Security recommendations, is suddenly “liberal?” And on May 9, Obama joined many other senators in voting to block individuals from serving on Food and Drug Administration drug advisory panels if they have conflicts of interest.

And today, Warren Buffett, the richest man in America and not exactly some flaming, wild eyed liberal, endorsed Obama, pointing out that McCain, in his roile as third Bush term, will continue to destroy the economy and the American middle class. "I think that the US has followed and is following policies which will cause the US dollar to weaken over a long period of time," all policies rubber stamped by McCain whose only excuse is that he doesn't know anything about economics. Meanwhile, it looks like Buffett isn't the only American endorsing Obama. The newest Gallup poll shows him with a staggering 55-39% lead over Hillary, his biggest lead ever. That was reflected in the turn out in Obama's rally in Portland yesterday-- somewhat different from the kountryklub koffee klatches McCain has been speaking at. Last week over 124 people (not counting lobbyists) turned out for one of his events: