For those who think the stimulus wasn't effective:
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Stimulus Provided Large Jobs Boost, Says CBO Report
India's Growing Pains
A lesson on balancing government and private investment to avoid imbalanced development of infrastructure:
Highest Corporate Profits on Record
Last quarter's corporate profits were the highest on record, and the middle class and poor have gained nothing over the past few decades (adjusting for inflation). Can someone tell me again what's the argument for NOT letting the tax cuts for the richest 2% expire?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Millionaires Who Want Tax Cuts to Expire
In order to restore fiscal health to the US, dozens of millionaires are requesting an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy:
From their website:
- Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%
- During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal rate of 68%
- In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%
- In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%
- Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%
- Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
- 44% of Congress people are millionaires
- The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent
- Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as schedule would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years
Friday, November 19, 2010
California and the Green Revolution
Here's an article by Arnold Schwartzenegger on how California is doing in the Green Revolution:
Top 5 Social Security Myths
From moveon.org:
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.
Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?
Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?
Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=1 If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.
Top 5 Social Security Myths
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team
Sources:
1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=4
2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=5
3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=6
4. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=7
5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=8
6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22140-540687-eKliZnx&t=9
Raised Taxes, Growing Economy
Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America's top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation's average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower -- ranging between 35 and 39 percent -- the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan's 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan's 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase.
Republicans and Climate Change
Over half of all Republicans still don't accept that climate change is happening:
Ack! Think about the implications of this kind of thinking....
The US has dropped from #1 to #13 in education (only 38% of 12th graders are proficient in reading and only 26% are proficient in math: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nations-report-card-shows-american-students-struggle-reading/story?id=12186446), and we're rapidly losing our edge in science (China is massively increasing R&D spending in science and technology: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/26/research-development-spending-china.html). But science and technology are what made this country great, and they're the MOST important endeavor to develop for a planet that needs to support billions of people with diminishing resources, growing pollution problems, and to pull the majority of humanity out of poverty and significantly raise standards of living. No other option can accomplish this. None. Yet we spend less than half what we should on developing new technologies, and the source of our scientists--our educational facilities--are falling rapidly behind.
The largest group of anti-science people in the US today are Republicans (largely made up of religious conservatives: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx), and they were just elected to take over the House of Representatives. Whereas 57% of Democrats accept the science for evolution--a pathetic number, certainly--more than TWO THIRDS of all Republicans reject evolution (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) and, as you can see by the first link above, over half reject the notion of climate change. Even the Republican replacement for the House Science Committee is a climate change skeptic (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45279.html), and the Republican Energy Committee chairman candidate insists humans can't destroy the planet...because the Bible says so (http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/energy-committee-chairman-candidate-says-god-promised-no-more-catastrophic-climate-change-after-noah.html). This despite the overwhelming consensus by climate scientists worldwide confirming human-caused climate change (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/climate/scientists-say-global-warming-is-undeniable-20100816-12701.html).
This is the result of falling education standards in this country: ignorant people electing ignorant representatives to make ignorant policy. Our education system has problems and needs help, but cutting funding would only make things worse. Yet that's exactly what the new Republican House appears prepared to do, along with abolishing the Education Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/new-house-majority-might-hit-education/). Talk about penny wise, pound foolish.
You can't fix a crumbling building by digging at its foundations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)