| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Ryan’s Private Savings – Path to Prosperity | ||||
|
||||
As we prepare for today’s speech from Barack Obama on his response to the draconian cuts to social services proposed by Paul Ryan in his deficit reduction plan, it is very informative to watch Jon Stewart’s perfect dismantling of that plan from last night’s Daily Show. Stewart is right to poke fun at the “creepy music” to which Ryan presents his plan that the Washington villagers laud as so bold and decisive, but the real value of Stewart’s piece comes in his demonstration that the exact same amount of deficit reduction can be achieved by ending the Bush tax cuts. There were hints yesterday that Obama might actually suggest ending at least some tax cuts, but it remains to be seen just what kinds of revenue improvements Obama will suggest and, more importantly, how hard Obama will fight for them when it comes time to put his plan through Congress.
In the meantime, it helps to keep perspective on where we stand on taxes today. Back in December, I wrote a piece on the death of the middle class in the US. Parts of that piece are repeated below for reference as we enter the discussion of Obama’s speech. It is vitally important to realize that taxes now are at a historic low point, especially for the ultra-rich and corporations. If Obama is not serious about increasing revenue from these sources, then he has no hope of restoring our economy to what it could be.
How did American culture change so dramatically within the lifetimes of these children of the Depression? In The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman describes “The Long Gilded Age” that preceded the Depression as a time of extreme disparity in wealth accumulation, when only the extremely wealthy could afford a “comfortable” life. He then describes “The Great Compression” when the strong middle class emerged:
Part of the great narrowing of income differentials that took place between the twenties and the fifties involved leveling downward: the rich were significantly poorer in the fifties than they had been in the twenties. . . By the mid-fifties the real after-tax incomes of the richest 1 percent of Americans were probably 20 or 30 percent lower than they had been a generation earlier. And the real incomes of the really rich–say, those in the top tenth of one percent–were less than half what they had been in the twenties.
/snip/
Meanwhile the real income of the median family had more or less doubled since 1929. And most families didn’t just have higher income, they had more security too. Employers offered new benefits, like health insurance and retirement plans.
/snip/
Returning to Krugman’s book, we see that one of the primary means by which “The Great Compression” was achieved was through taxes:
In the twenties, taxes had been a minor factor for the rich. The top income tax rate was only 24 percent, and because the inheritance tax on even the largest estates was only 20 percent, wealthy dynasties had little difficulty maintaining themselves. But with the coming of the New Deal, the rich started to face taxes that were not only vastly higher than those of the twenties, but high by today’s standards. The top income tax rate (currently only 35 percent) rose to 63 percent during the first Roosevelt administration, and 79 percent in the second. By the mid-fifties, as the United States faced the expenses of the Cold War, it had risen to 91 percent.
/snip/
We have Senate Republicans openly announcing that they will block passage of all legislation until tax breaks for the highest income bracket are extended. We have unemployment benefits expiring, just a few short weeks before Christmas, for nearly two million people who have been unemployed for extended periods. In the face of those ills, we have a President, elected to stave off the New Depression, who is so willfully ignorant of the past and so cowardly in the face of a demented political opposition, that he is guaranteed to negotiate an extension of the 35 percent tax level on the highest income bracket rather than let it return to a mere 39.9 percent. What a far cry that is from Roosevelt’s 63 percent upper tax bracket that got the nation moving toward equal economic opportunities for all. When Obama signs the legislation for extension of tax breaks for the highest income bracket, that will be the final death knell for the middle class.
So, just as Senate Republicans last December were threatening to shut down all legislation just to enshrine the top tax bracket at 35 percent rather than 39 (which they wound up getting as a “temporary” arrangement for now), now all Congressional Republicans have taken us to the brink of a total government shutdown just a few months later because they insist on cutting social services rather than addressing debt through increasing revenues above the current historically low tax rates. There is no other way to describe this situation than as a class war. Sadly, Obama will be approaching the situation as if it is merely a minor disagreement to be worked out through negotiations between parties who want the common good, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Republicans will insist, once again, on policies that benefit only the rich and corporations at the expense of the middle and lower classes. What the Republicans fail to realize, though, is that their past thievery from these groups has left them with nothing more than what they are using to subsist. Taking the last few crumbs through trillions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare is cruel beyond measure. Or, as Stewart put it at the close of the segment, “To avoid a future that would be painful for us all, all we need is a present that is painful for some.” And, of course, the “some” are the poor whom Stewart depicts as literally bleeding to prevent pain for the rich.



52 Comments

Yesterday, Casual Observer (@Casual_Obs) tweeted :”Roosevelt died 66 years ago today”, to which I replied “New Deal died Friday night”, in reference to Obama’s “compromise” on the budget that has started us down the path to dismantling of the social safety net Roosevelt pioneered.
Good analysis. obama is so desparate to cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid because the motu want it and he wants to please them. Unless the goopers get past the group now trying to run for pres, we will probably have another obama term (I think we will see JEB about Dec). What a shame that would be. He would be able to complete is mission of utterly destroying the dim party and the obamabots will be cheering him on.
Anyone else grown weary of Jon Stewart? I can’t say exactly why, but I just can’t stand the dude anymore. His moderation campaign didn’t help raise my estimation of him. IMO he gives off a very elitist vibe.
“…the real value of Stewart’s piece comes in his demonstration that the exact same amount of deficit reduction can be achieved by ending the Bush tax cuts. There were hints yesterday that Obama might actually suggest ending at least some tax cuts, but it remains to be seen just what kinds of revenue improvements Obama will suggest and, more importantly, how hard Obama will fight for them when it comes time to put his plan through Congress.”
jim, i completely agree with you re budget spending priorities (and probably changes to tax code as well). but i disagree v strongly that deficit reduction is something progressives should accept, even rhetorically. i beg you to consider my comment from the previous thread (which i won’t repeat here) on “the real role of and need for gov sector deficits… and why the banksters, and therefore the D party, are so dead set against us knowing the truth.”
According to testimony submitted to congress by economist Mark Zandi, each dollar of tax cut/increase will increase/cut the GDP by roughly 30 cents. By contrast, each dollar of social services spending that is cut/increased will cut/increase the GDP by roughly $1.50.
So cutting both by a dollar cut the GDP by $1.20, and increasing both by a dollar increases the GDP by $1.20.
Obama and his people know that. And if he wanted to go the sane route, he could have let Bush’s tax cuts expire. Nobody could have stopped him. But he didn’t and won’t.
He is loyal to the 1%, and is doing his best to blame the epublicans for his failure to look after our interests. His function is to tell us when to bend over and how far.
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, at 14%, are slightly lower than their historic range of 15-20%.
FY 2010 GDP 14.7T, receipts 2.1T (14.2%)
The federal government has collected between 15%-20% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Federal revenue has remained relatively steady, holding between 15 and 20 percent of GDP.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as of the end of fiscal year 2010, the balance of reported unpaid federal taxes was about $330 billion.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-272
If these taxes were collected then receipts would be in range.
FY 2010 GDP 14.7T, receipts 2.4T (16.3%)
normal range 15-20%
Expenses have to be cut and the best place to do it is in the military, as noted in this op-ed.
A Leaner and Meaner Defense
Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman
The military has grown by 92,000 ground forces over the past decade in order to conduct long counterinsurgency and nation-building campaigns — part of what [past] Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey calls the “era of persistent conflict.” But persistent conflict is unlikely because the U.S. can choose the conflicts in which it will engage. The ground force growth should gradually be reversed.
[snip]
Rarely has this task been more urgent. Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently concluded that “the single-biggest threat to our national security is our debt.” He is right, and now is the time to address it. U.S. national security permits us to spend less on defense, and our fiscal circumstances require it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/opinion/22iht-edadams22.html?_r=1
For me Mr. Obama’s speech will be
diagnostic.
Will he say something about the middle class
heavily subsidizing the ultra rich?
maybe even about its being suckered by a
health insurance cartel?
mention this was once a nation with lavish,
award-winning (safety / efficiency / effectiveness)
mass transit?
something about fairness and democracy? equality
in civil discourse?
If not, who is he?
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
Nabisco will promote its new cookie, the Oboreo, immediately following Obama’s cave-in speech. Sources say that there will be a special catfood topping sprinkled carefully around the embossed image of Obama’s happy give-away face on the top.
Stewart nails it, as usual. And Robert Scheer is up today on the subject…
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_false_debate_on_the_debt_20110412/
“draconian cuts to social services”
Terrible phrasing. Medicare is not a “social service”.
Clever attempt to skew the debate…that word elite is so loaded.
i love robert scheer, but he’s wrong about this: “… the alarming rise in the federal debt that is crushing this nation.”
Exactly!
And, thanks for the piece by Jamie Galbraith that you posted in the comments of the previous thread.
Jim: Great clip from Jon Stewart… and your text was as excellent as it usually is.
Closing night if the regular NBA season. Every team is playing. I refuse to watch or listen ti the sanctimonious liar in the WH.
He’s doing what I always expected him to do.
There is no fiscal crisis and deficits do not need to be reduced. Those are fals right-wing frames.
The current account deficit is what’s going to destroy this country. That and the fact that nothing was done to fundamentally change the financial system after the huge bailouts/looting that took place in 2008, opening the door for an even larger meltdown/theft within four years.
Great comment. End government welfare for the deadbeat rich who couldn’t innovate themselves out of a paper bag and save everybody else!
Color me not-weary.
If he gives off an elitist vibe to you, consider–that may just be because he is, in fact, truly l33t.
Eight minutes on the Daily Show reaches more people, more effectively, than a month’s worth of your posts, and mine, and his, and hers. And the message conveyed is almost always spot-on progressive, presented in a way that’s palatable to the politically naive as well as to geniuses like you and me.
And, it’s not beholden to any Demopublican bankster worldview, either. If we break out of this bipolar cycle of uniparty hell, it’s going to be because of pieces like the one Mr. White is diarizing here.
amen!
for anyone who has not already read randy wray’s “Teaching the Fallacy of Composition: The Federal Budget Deficit,” here is the key bit:
current account deficit is a result of the role of the dollar as global reserve currency. imo, the problem that usually gets attributed to trade deficit (or more correctly, as you have done, the current account deficit) is our own policies (or lack thereof) re full employment.
agree completely re the desperate need to reform (and reduce the size of) the financial system.
So, perhaps “public service” would be the more accurate term. Per the Wikipedia:
thanks for reading the link! (and many many thanks to galbraith who has done so much to explain to progressives the economic issues we face).
Mr. Obama addresses every problem as if it were minor. I suspect that’s a function of two driving forces.
His intellect allows him quickly to grasp the essential theory of every problem. Whether he is able to devise and execute practical ways to solve those problems is an entirely unrelated matter.
He underrates problems so that failure to fix any one of them is immaterial to reality and, more importantly, his ego. See, above.
Ok, so let’s reduce those words to equations, and not ignore the trade deficit. I have problems parsing all those words and comprehending their impact. Let’s try some equations:
P – Private Sector
G – Government Sector
F – Foreign Sector
e – Expense
i – Income
s – Saving
d – Debt
Basically Sum of Income = Sum of Expense, thus
Pi + Gi + Fi = Pe + Ge + Fe
Substituting to get savings (and including the trade deficit)
(Pe + Ps) + Ge + Fe = Pe + (Ge + Gd) + (Fe + Fd)
Simplifying:
Ps = Gd + Fd
Interesting, Private Saving also increases with trade deficit.
or
Exporting Jobs = Increased Private Savings
Conclusion
Now we know Progressive taxes redistribute wealth away from the wealthy. Cutting progressive taxes concentrates wealth.
The net effect of cutting progressive taxes and running a trade deficit (exporting jobs) is to accelerate the concentration of wealth concentration.
Analysis
What we’ve had for many years of stagnating wages and exporting jobs is not a bug, it’s a feature.
I need to put this after Selise’s comment, or it is not in context. Sorry for the duplicate post.
Ok, so let’s reduce those words to equations, and not ignore the trade deficit. I have problems parsing all those words and comprehending their impact. Let’s try some equations:
P – Private Sector
G – Government Sector
F – Foreign Sector
e – Expense
i – Income
s – Saving
d – Debt
Basically Sum of Income = Sum of Expense, thus
Pi + Gi + Fi = Pe + Ge + Fe
Substituting to get savings (and including the trade deficit)
(Pe + Ps) + Ge + Fe = Pe + (Ge + Gd) + (Fe + Fd)
Simplifying:
Ps = Gd + Fd
Interesting, Private Saving also increases with trade deficit.
or
Exporting Jobs = Increased Private Savings
Conclusion
Now we know Progressive taxes redistribute wealth away from the wealthy. Cutting progressive taxes concentrates wealth.
The net effect of cutting progressive taxes and running a trade deficit (exporting jobs) is to accelerate the concentration of wealth concentration.
Analysis
What we’ve had for many years of stagnating wages and exporting jobs is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Thank you for your continued, erudite explanations about the USG budget & the “deficit.” The corporate-owned rightwing/fascist media *deliberately* frames “discussions” about the US budget as if it was *exactly* like a family/household budget. It’s not. Emphatically it’s not.
This whole con-job is a flim-flam to further erode public benefits that the middle & working classes *deserve* to get due to the taxes that we PAY. Yet the Elites, like the Kochs, are investing hugely in deliberately bamboozling at least certain segments of the middle/working classes into *believing* that any public services are, de facto, BAD, very very bad, evil, sinful, you name it.
All that’s happening is a giant con-job to rip off the middle and working classes to enure to the benefit of the upper 1%, who are totally & blissfuly clueless about the definition of the term “enough.”
Cannot stress how angry all of these lies make me. Thanks for shedding some logical light on the true FACTS of the situation.
Precisely. By focusing on false, less immediate and minor problems, this debate avoids dealing with major, immediate real ones. Fixing those would rationally be top priority. Doing that, in many cases, would also fix a lot of the minor problems.
Increasing taxes ten percent on the wealthy, shutting loopholes and vigorously collecting corporate taxes, funding infrastructure renewal programs to spur the economy and replace failing infrastructure, for example, would greatly increase government revenues, reducing the supposedly dangerous deficit and increasing Social Security revenues. Developing longterm solutions to our health care needs, rather than succoring private insurers by legislating them new revenues, would also substantially lower waste and government expenditures.
All of those tread on the toes of wealthy private interests. A Congress beholden to them for electioneering cash and too lazy or afraid to perform its job is not likely to take that approach.
I think not. The wealthy have decided to continue the growth of their wealth. Obama is caught between wanting to survive and the money.
It is the conundrum of the age, our politicians are required to get votes to remain in office, but answerable their paymasters.
That conundrum is at the root of all their actions.
Thanks. Simple and to the point. Exactly. Cutting taxes for the super-wealthy results in loss of jobs, along with loss of funds to run the nation in a healthy way. It’s ludicrious to keep stating that cutting taxes for corporations and the super wealthy will somehow result in tons of jobs for the middle/working classes, yet we read that canard being typed in here daily on that blog.
Who said that to keep doing the same thing over & over & over & over, but expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity??? Was it Einstein? Whomever… whatever…
The FEATURE of which you speak, above, is also an indication of insanity on the part of working/middle class voters who somehow believe the fantasy that this all will – some day magically – inure to their personal benefit and gain. Quite simply: it will NOT.
Thus the reason for a multi-pronged attack: outsourcing, de-regulation, and union-busting so that private income could be annihilated and savings plundered; tax-cutting, privatizing divestment and unfunded domestic initiatives as well as foreign aggression to deplete government assets both federal and local; trade policy and profligate borrowing to magnify foreign debt. Incredible that such a concerted effort was not intentional to benefit a global wealthy class.
Unlike the history that Krugman relates in the piece, this time they were careful to include foreign debt as the third prong of the attack.
You know, just for once I’d like to hear Obama give a sustained argument as to why his policy of cutting taxes and public services is good for the country. What’s his model, if he has one? The last time out in November/December, he claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts would prevent the economy from falling into a depression; but the recent expenditure cuts wipe out the (doubtful) improvement in aggregate demand offered by the extension, not to mention the earlier tax cuts in the 2009 stimulus package. What’s the logic?
I fear there is none, and that we have an empty suit as President, who does not understand the simplest elements of economics. At least Clinton understood, or at least took the effort to understand them. The alternative is that he understands what he is doing, but is too weak to stand up to the special interests funding his campaign.
I don’t hold with the cynical view that he is just papering his nest for post-Presidential life. He could have feathered it right out of Harvard Law. On the other hand, it is very hard to understand exactly what he is trying to accomplish as President. Nobody knows. Bush had a plan: dominate the Middle East and help the super-rich. At least people knew where he stood. We don’t know where Obama stands. By his actions, he stands with the super-rich, but it doesn’t make any sense. I am beginning to think he is a weak man and can’t stand up to pressure.
Thank you Selise. These basic points of income accounting cannot be re-stated too often. The other point is as bit more sophisticated, which is the rate at which an economy (or the world for that matter) can absorb growth in American (or other) debt. For that we need to know projected growth rates in GDP and prices. I haven’t heard anyone deal with the simple arithmetic of sustainability. There is demand as well as supply of public debt.
EVERYONE should view this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#
DEBT aka DEFICITS are what make the world go round.
Why the personal insults? Is Jon Stewart really that important to you to get so bent out of shape? Never get between an American and his celebrity worship I reckon.
if you want the equations, here is a good link from bill mitchell: Stock-flow consistent macro models
Yes! Debt keeps this ole world spinnin.
Google “money as debt” or follow my link above.
Not really, no subterfuge intended. I found his “both sides are soextreme, let’s meet in the middle” routine similar if not identical to the bi-partisan memes peddled by other media and political elites.
thank you knut! i’m so obviously a novice, but there are some basics ideas i’d like to see included in our discussions.
i’ve been trying to think through the current account balance issues for some time and i’m sure i don’t have them straight yet, if i ever will (if you could point me to some good reading material, i’d be very grateful).
what i should have been clear about is that my comment on the current account balance and reserve currency status was meant only for the short term (whatever that is)…
here is bill mitchell answering a question from me on this:
“A nation’s external trade deficit arises because the foreign sector is willing to ship more goods and services to it than the nation has to ship out. The reason this happens, given that net real resource costs are incurred by the trade surplus nation and net real resource benefits are enjoyed by the trade deficit nation, is because the trade surplus nation wishes to accumulate financial claims (assets) denominated in the currency of the trade deficit nation. Otherwise, the surplus nation would have rocks in its head giving away net real resources for no purpose.”
this doesn’t look so stable to me for the long term (so, i’m definitely not trying to say anything about stability) as the saving preferences of the foreign sector are not set in stone.
…. anyway, that’s where this student (me)’s thinking is today.
please see my link above for the equations… thanks!
“What’s his model, if he has one? ”
maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but i’m going to post a diary (probably tonight or tomorrow morning) with a transcript of a talk galbraith gave in january at the denver meetings…. that might give you some food for thought, if not about obama’s motivations then at least about the motivations of those who’s interests he appears to represent…..
(however, if you’ve already read and thought the politics of chen and galbraith’s papers, it will probably not be of so much interest)
I agree. His ‘let’s meet in the middle’ frame was suspiciously ‘bipartisan-y’.
Other than that, he’s used his bully pulpit
well with some righteous rants.
Hey mods.
I agree that the disappeared comment from this threadlet was ugly, over the top, and violated the TOS.
But what ever happened to moderating things and leaving a note, rather than rewriting the history utterly? In other words, MODERATING, not censoring?
It’s disconcerting to the reader, and Orwellian, to just pour whitewash over the bad stuff and go on like it didn’t happen. In my opinion. Revisionism sucks no matter how well-intended.
I would have said often inane and immature. But that would describe all MSM. But, until the middle finger graphic, it wasn’t a bad analysis for the disengaged.
…and the next question is: Will Jon Stewart point out the folly of O’s Simpson- Bowles- Petey Peterson plan?
Thanks
me too!
“But if everyone tries to increase saving, we cannot ignore the effects of lower spending on the economy as a whole. That is the point that has to be driven home.”
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. As long as the saving is on an individual, micro level, and only on that level, the advantage of thrift holds true, because others are not following that same specific behavior. When done on a macro level, whether by a multitude of individuals or by a large single agent like a government, the economy suffers. As simplified as his analogy is, it is still lost on the conservatives and neoliberals. So we are called upon to tighten our belts until all are stricken. Decades have been lost, a prosperous economy crippled, all for this fallacy.
you read think link!
thank you thank you thank you!
please help others to understand….
think
thelink…
my queendom for an edit button, or even a preview!
Like totally, Your Queeness.
lol!