Republican economics has been stated a thousand ways by a thousand (always paid) voices. But the basic idea behind all the schemes has been hard to pin down. Finally Republican front-runner Donald Trump has spelled it out in a way anyone can understand.
Thursday’s Progressive Breakfast (you should subscribe, it’s free, it’s really good) contains a story in which Trump clearly articulates the Republican/Billionaire/Wall Street case for a low-or-zero tax on corporate profits: “because they don’t want to pay the tax.”
Trump Sides With Multinationals Donald Trump backs repatriation in Time interview: “Pfizer is talking about moving to Ireland. Or someplace else … Do you know how big that is? It would wipe out New Jersey … They have $2.5 trillion sitting out of the country that they can’t get back because they don’t want to pay the tax. Nor would I … We should let them back in. Everybody. Even if you paid nothing it would be a good deal. Because they’ll take that money then and use it for other things. But they’ll pay something. Ten percent, they’ll pay something.”
There it is in a nutshell. The Republican case for low or no taxes: “because they don’t want to pay the tax.”
Conservatives deride using government to help American companies export their goods as “picking winners and losers,” even when the winners are American exporters and workers.
So Republicans have closed the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank, hopefully temporarily. The Ex-Im Bank provides financing guarantees to customers of American exporters if they cannot obtain financing elsewhere. This helps American companies make the sale.
ENRON BILLIONAIRE ARNOLD HAS A PROBLEM WITH LIBRARIANS’ PENSIONS
Former Enron trader and hedge fund billionaire John Arnold is launching a multimillion dollar national PR campaign attacking the hard-earned pensions of public sector workers. Arnold has already quietly poured tens of millions of dollars into his efforts to persuade politicians to reduce middle class retirement security and now it looks like he may really just be getting started.
The interest rate that rich countries with super-safe debt (in the case of the eurozone, that means Germany but not Spain) pay is astonishingly low: lower than the growth rate of nominal gross domestic product (that is, GDP before subtracting inflation). In the U.S., the Treasury yield has gone from roughly equal to growth in nominal GDP in 2005 to 3 percentage points lower today.
By Mr. [Brad] DeLong’s reckoning, this means those countries are borrowing too little. Bond yields and prices move in opposite directions, so low government bond yields equate to very valuable government bonds. Mr. DeLong asks, “Isn’t the point of the market economy to make things that are valuable?” Since the debt of rich countries is “very cheap to make… shouldn’t we be making more of it?”
Here is the argument. There is a huge demand for U.S. government bonds. There is so much demand that interest rates are exceptionally low. You almost have to pay the government to hold your money.
Remember the “law of supply and demand”? When there is a huge market demand for something, isn’t that supposed to mean that more of that thing should be produced?
Shouldn’t government be supplying more bonds? Saying that the government should be producing more government bonds is another way of saying the government should borrow more. This is what it means when the government “makes” bonds to sell.
If the government borrowed more, it could use the proceeds to maintain and modernize our infrastructure (which has to be done at some point, no?) We could build out a modern energy grid, high-speed rail across the country, double the number of community colleges, expand scientific and health research… And of course doing those things would end up employing millions, and making wages go up.
And if everyone had the job they wanted and wages went up, wouldn’t that boost market demand, which would trigger business investment?
And if we did all of those things – high-speed rail, smart energy grid, modern infrastructure, expanded scientific research, expanded educational opportunity, wouldn’t it mean that our economy was positioned to prosper, and everyone’s lives would be better?
And wouldn’t a revitalized private economy mean that people didn’t need to park their money in government bonds, so the supply wouldn’t have to go up any more to meet demand? And wouldn’t all the tax revenue from that revitalized private economy and full employment pay off those bonds over time?
But no, we can’t maintain, never mind modernize our infrastructure. We can’t expand educational opportunity. We can’t increase scientific and heath research. We can’t do any of those things. Because government spending. We have to cut back, cut back, cut back.
Conservatives say they are about the belief that markets are better than government (and, by implication, better than democracy). But when it comes down to it, they really are about one and only one thing: They hate government and want to strangle it, period – no matter the cost to our economy and our people.
The “Gore effect” has struck again, this time forcing thousands of Canadian eco-activists to march through the snow over the weekend, rallying against global warming on a cold Quebec City day.
… But the “Gore effect” may, once again, blunt environmentalists’ message on global warming. The “Gore effect” is when cold weather appears as activists protest global warming. These Canadian groups aren’t the first to be hit by the “Gore effect” this year.
The Conservative/Wall Street/1 Percent/Republican anti-government strategy is to set government up to fail (usually by starving it of funding). Then they point to the resulting “crisis” they created and say it proves that government doesn’t work so we should “privatize” it – in other words, rig the system against We the People by handing our common wealth over to a few wealthy people to harvest for personal profit.
Now they’re coming for the U.S. Postal Service.
Manufacturing A Crisis
Republicans created the problems with the Postal Service. In 2006 Republicans in Congress required it to come up with $5.5 billion per year to pre-fund 75 years of retiree costs. This means the Postal Service has to set aside money now for employees who are not even born yet. No other government agency – and certainly no company – has to do this.
They also require the Postal Service to make a profit – or at least break even. But democratic government is supposed to provide services to We the People. It is not supposed to be about making a profit off of us. Yet Republicans say government should be “run like a business.” Then they hamstring it, preventing it from competing with businesses because they say it has too many advantages and any competition would be unfair.
Here are a few things you need to know about the Postal Service “crisis”:
The Postal Service is the second largest employer in the United States after Walmart. But unlike Walmart, which gets away with paying so little that employees qualify for government assistance, the Postal Services is unionized, pays reasonable wages and benefits and receives no government subsidies.
Republicans have been pushing schemes to privatize the Postal Service since at least 1996. In 2006 Republicans in the Congress pushed through a requirement that the Postal Service pre-fund 75 years of retiree costs. The Postal Service has to pay now for employees who are not even born yet. No other government agency – and certainly no company – has to do this.
Unlike other government agencies (like the military) since 1970 the Postal Service is required to break even.
While required to break even the Postal Service has to deliver mail to areas that are unprofitable for private companies to operate in. A letter sent from a small town in Alaska is picked up and transported across the country to a farm in Maine for 46 cents. … [M]any people for one reason or another still send letters. In a democracy these people are supposed to count, too.
But along with requiring the Postal Service to break even, Congress has restricted the Service’s ability to raise rates, enter new lines of business or take other steps to help it raise revenue. … [W]hile detractors complain that the Postal Service is antiquated, inefficient and burdened by bureaucracy, the rules blocking the Postal Service from entering new lines of business do so because the Postal Service would have advantages over private companies. …
The Postal Service is a public service for We, the People, not a business. The Service is hamstrung by people who pretend it is supposed to compete and then won’t let it. They won’t help with taxpayer dollars and say it has to compete in the marketplace … they give it rules that no private company could survive. Then when it gets into trouble, say that government doesn’t work, start laying people off, selling off the public assets, and saying it has to be “privatized” …
Privatization Destroys People And Communities
Privatizing the various parts of the postal service will move the workforce from good union jobs to low-wage, no-or-low-benefit private-sector jobs. Aside from the effect this would have on employees and their families – not to mention the inexpensive delivery of mail to even the most remote locations – privatization also destroys the surrounding communities. The USPS is the country’s second largest employer, so in this case the surrounding communities are … all of the communities in the United States.
“In the face of aggressive attacks, a wide range of national organizations have come together to create A Grand Alliance to Save Our Public Postal Service. These organizations are united in the demand that the public good must not be sacrificed for the sake of private investment and profit. A strong public Postal Service is our democratic right. The Alliance is fighting to protect and enhance vibrant public postal services now – and for many generations to come.”
This Grand Alliance consists of a large number of organizations (At least “63 religious coalitions, retiree organizations, educational and postal unions, lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups”, according to The Washington Post, and more being added as I write) as well as individuals (you) who sign the pledge to “support the fight to protect and enhance vibrant public postal services now—and for many generations to come.”
Two Years In The Making
At his swearing-in ceremony in November 2013, APWU President Mark Dimondstein pledged to build a “Grand Alliance” to save the postal system, saying,
“We must build a grand alliance between the people of this country and postal workers. We must mobilize our allies and their organizations, including seniors, retirees, civil rights organizations, veterans groups, the labor movement, community and faith-based organizations, the Occupy movement, and business groups in defense of America’s right to vibrant public postal services.”
Two years later, at a press conference Thursday, Dimondstein explained that this alliance is forming “because the postal service belongs to the people and it is in danger.” He said there are “two competing visions of the future” – privatizing vs. staying public – and that there will be a conversion from “living wage to low-wage jobs” if the Postal Service is privatized.
Dimondstein said that the Postal Service “is our democratic right” and that it can operate cost-effectively “if you get rid of the manufactured crisis created in Congress.”
Also at the press conference, Melanie Campbell, President and CEO of the National Coalition of Black Civil Participation and convener of Black Women’s Round Table Public Policy Network said, “this is a fight for the people, we the people.” She called the Postal Service “a national treasure” and said, “We’re here today to stand in solidarity … Our national postal offices have faithfully served communities.”
The United States Postal Service is a wonderful national treasure, enshrined in the Constitution and supported by the American people. Without any taxpayer funding, the USPS serves 150 million households and businesses each day, providing affordable, universal mail service to all – including rich and poor, rural and urban, without regard to age, nationality, race or gender.
The U.S. Postal Service belongs to “We, the People.” But the USPS and postal jobs are threatened by narrow monied interests aimed at undermining postal services and dismantling this great public institution.
Even some postal executives have been complicit in the drive toward the destruction of the Postal Service and ultimate privatization: They have slowed mail service, closed community based Post Offices and mail processing facilities, slashed hours of operations, tried ceaselessly to end six-day service as well as door to door delivery, and eliminated hundreds of thousands of living wage jobs.
Good postal jobs are vital to strong, healthy communities, and have provided equal opportunities and the foundation for financial stability for workers from all walks of life, including racial and ethnic minorities, women and veterans. Postal services are essential to commerce and bind together families, friends and loved ones. In the day of e-commerce, a public postal service is as relevant as ever.
Yet those corporate forces who want to privatize public services allege that curtailing postal services and eliminating jobs are necessary due to diminishing mail volume and “burdensome” union wages and benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, a Congressionally manufactured USPS “crisis” imposed an unfair crushing financial mandate on the Postal Service that no other government agency or private company is forced to bear. (The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 compels the USPS to pay approximately $5.5 billion per year to fund future retiree healthcare costs 75 years in advance.) Without this unreasonable burden, the USPS would have enjoyed an operating surplus of $600 million in 2013 and over $1.4 Billion in 2014.
The people of this country deserve great public postal services. We advocate expanded services, such as non-profit postal banking and other financial services. We call on the Postmaster General and Postal Board of Governors to strengthen and champion the institution.
The public good must not be sacrificed for the sake of private investment and profit. A strong public Postal Service is our democratic right. Join us in the fight to protect and enhance vibrant public postal services now – and for many generations to come.
1) I say silly to contrast with deadly propaganda that tries to start wars, etc., or toxic conservative propaganda that tries to make people hate Muslims, blacks, Hispanic or poor or sick people, public schools, government, Europe (especially France), etc.
2) The Volt’s gas engine kicks in to charge the battery when it runs low — something that is hard to even notice. The car certainly didn’t stop in the tunnel or anything like that.
Republicans in the Senate on Monday unanimously filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act. Did you see this on the news? Did you hear about it on the radio? Did you read about it in your local paper? There is an election coming and accurate, objective information is essential for democracy to function.
The Paycheck Fairness Act “amends the portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) known as the Equal Pay Act to revise remedies for, enforcement of, and exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in the payment of wages.” It “revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.”
To sum up, it would put in place measures to ensure that women will be paid the same as men if they do the same work.
Eric Cantor was a congressman from Virginia and was House majority leader. He was known for being particularly friendly to Wall Street and the giant, multinational corporations.
In the June Republican primary, his Virginia constituents got fed up with this and booted him, choosing to nominate Cantor’s challenger, David Brat, instead. Conservative Erik Erikson explained at FOX, that Cantor’s Virginia constituents did this because, “K Street, the den of Washington lobbyists, became his chief constituency.”
Cantor didn’t bother to finish his current term supposedly representing his Virginia constituents. He resigned from office effective August 18.
Just two weeks later Cantor has gone to his reward. Cantor will receive a huge, fat, lucrative, awe-inspiring, 1-percent-making, mansion-jet-and-yacht-buying, zillion-figure paycheck from his Wall Street/corporate constituents. He will become board member, vice chairman and managing director of investment bank Moelis & Co. (It typically takes longer than two weeks to negotiate a senior position like this one, if you know what I mean.)
Cantor earned this senior investment banking position with his vast experience in investment banking, if you know what I mean. (Cantor has a law degree, and a Masters in real estate, and worked in real estate development for his father before entering the clearly more lucrative field of representing certain constituencies, if you know what I mean.)
“Eric has proven himself to be a pro-business advocate and one who will enhance our boardroom discussions with CEOs and senior management as we help them navigate their most important strategic decisions,” Moelis CEO Ken Moelis said in a statement.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, if you know what I mean.
Neil Barofsky was Special United States Treasury Department Inspector General overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). In the preface to his book Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, Barofsky explained that people in government are given two choices, “the gold or the lead.” From the NY Times review, (emphasis added, for emphasis)
Mr. Barofsky, wearing an unseasonal wool suit at odds with a “Washington-appropriate wardrobe,” is poised to let the hostess seat them at a front table of her choosing, but Mr. Allison insists on a private table in the rear. Then he gets down to business.
“Have you thought at all about what you’ll be doing next?” Mr. Allison asks Mr. Barofsky, soon adding, “Out there in the market, there are consequences for some of the things that you’re saying and the way that you’re saying them.”
“Allison was essentially threatening me with lifelong unemployment,” Mr. Barofsky concludes, and alternatively suggesting a plum government appointment some day if Mr. Barofsky would simply “change your tone.”
When Mr. Barofsky tells his deputy of the exchange, the deputy says, “It was the gold or the lead,” resorting to the lingo of their joint experience prosecuting Latin American drug kingpins in New York: Cooperate and share the riches, or don’t and get plugged.
There are “consequences” if you don’t play ball. But if you do play ball, there are rewards. And everyone knows it.
Cantor represented Wall Street instead of Virginia in the Congress. His Virginia constituents didn’t like it, and booted him. Cantor has gone to his reward: a big pot of Wall Street gold. And everyone knows it.
Solution? Make it a law: No person employed by the government in any capacity may receive compensation in any form that is significantly greater than the compensation they received for their public service, for a period of five years.
Corporate tax rates used to top out at 52.8 percent. Later rates were lowered to 48 percent and then 46 percent. Then in 1986 corporations complained that this (lowered) rate made them “uncompetitive” and demanded “corporate tax reform.” Because job creators. So the rate was lowered to 35 percent.
Now in 2014 corporations are complaining that this (lowered) rate makes them “uncompetitive” and are demanding “corporate tax reform.” Because job creators – or something. This time they threaten to – or do – renounce their U.S. citizenship, saying it is because of too-high tax rates.
So, here we are again. They want rates lowered even more. But are corporate tax rates really “uncompetitive?” And what does that even mean?
Last week one more example of Republican obstruction occurred – blockage of an important “Make It In America” bill – and one more time not a single corporate media outlet reported it.
The House Republican leadership last Tuesday blocked a bill to secure for American companies critical minerals used in the production of energy-efficient products, renewable energy systems, electronics and other technologies. The result is companies – and the Defense Department – continue to be forced to turn to China to make or obtain critical electronics components.
The China Problem
Put simply, China undermined most of the world’s other sources of these strategic minerals by such practices as underpricing, putting them out of business. Once an industry leaves a country it becomes enormously difficult to start it up again. The supply chain is gone. The expertise is gone. The educators are gone – and so on. And, of course, with the industry goes the jobs and the ability for a country to make a living in the world. A huge investment is required to rebuild all of this.
Now China is the main source (90 percent) for many critical minerals used in electronics manufacturing. China is using that 90 percent advantage to force other industries to come to China. China has been using export controls and other restrictions to drive up the price of manufacturing outside of China. If you simply cannot make or obtain certain critical electronics products anywhere else you either get them from China or go out of business. And yes, that includes our military.
The Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act of 2014 (H.R. 1022) from Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-Calif.) was written “to assure the long-term, secure, and sustainable supply of energy-critical elements to satisfy the national security, economic well-being, and industrial production needs of the United States.” It would have increased exploration, research and development, and other national means to secure these critical minerals by coordinating the actions of federal agencies to:
promote an adequate and stable supply of energy critical elements,
identify energy-critical elements and establish early warning systems for supply problems,
establish a mechanism for the coordination and evaluation of federal programs with energy-critical element needs, and
encourage private enterprise in the development of an economically sound and stable domestic energy-critical elements supply chain.
A majority of the House voted for the bill, but House leadership set it up for failure by requiring a two-thirds vote to pass. It was voted on “under suspension of the rules” requiring the two-thirds instead of the normal majority.
The reason? Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth objected to our government helping American companies compete with China. They said that the American government securing necessary materials for American companies to manufacture is “interference with the free market.”
To some there apparently is no national interest, only “market” interests.
Of course, it is not a “free market” because China subsidizes its companies and uses strategic chokepoints like this to take over entire industries. China sees itself as a country with a national interest. Conservatives say we should not.
Heritage argued that government “interference in a functioning market is self-defeating.” In other words, let China have the business.
It really is time to find out if Heritage Action and Club for Growth receive funding from China as part of China’s national strategy to capture the world’s strategic industries. China would be foolish not to. But, on the other hand, maybe China doesn’t have to.
This is important stuff. Really important. You should help spread the word that this happened.