How can we take it back?
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Dear Evangelicals: You’re Being Had
By Jay Michaelson
Why are you trying to solve a cultural problem with a political solution?
Because the Republican Party is using you.
Dear Conservative Evangelicals,
I drive a Prius, enjoy Vanilla lattes, and am married to a man.
I know it’s unlikely for me to be writing you this letter, and even more unlikely for you to read it.
But unlike most of my Obama-loving, liberal friends, I am no longer afraid of you.
It’s clear to me that “your side” is losing the battle for public opinion, and I know that many of you agree with that assessment.
So why am I writing you this letter?
Because, also unlike my liberal friends, I’m actually on your side, in some ways.
I’m an ordained rabbi, and someone deeply concerned with the vulgarization and sexualization of our society.
You and I disagree about the solution to this problem, of course, but we agree that there is a problem.
The trouble is, you’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions–because politicians have convinced you to do so.
I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous.
In the first half of the twentieth century, most Christians distrusted this party, controlled as it was by “urban bankers” and others opposed to the Jeffersonian values of rural America.
But in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the switch began–and by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, it was complete.
Republicans catered to conservative social attitudes on racial integration, and eventually moved rightward on issues like abortion and feminism, too, although you know as well as I do that they never really believed in them.
They just realized that they could gain power by uniting two very different groups: the same moneyed elites as always, and you.
Now, let’s see who has won, and who has lost, in the ensuing 34 years.
It’s clear that the rich–call them the 1 percent if you like, but I prefer to think of them as the moneylenders whom Jesus threw out of the Temple–have prospered enormously.
In 1983, the wealthiest 1 percent were 131 times richer than the average American.
In 2009, they were 225 times richer.
In 2012, the top 20 percent made $13.5 trillion in income; the entire bottom 80% made $1 trillion.
These are disparities not seen since before the Great Depression.
Whether for better or for worse, the ultra-rich have done extremely well in the 30 years you’ve allied with them.
How have you done, in the same period?
Not well at all.
Not only is gay marriage now the law for over two-thirds of Americans while the value of marriage in general has been declining for decades; not only are television, film, music, and video games more vulgar than we could have imagined in 1980; but more Americans are declaring themselves “Nones,” that is, people of no religious affiliation, than ever before in our history.
Sure, some churches are expanding, but overall, your way of life is in steep decline.
In short, you are losing horribly.
So, who is using whom here?
Have the rich Republicans been good for you, or have you been good to them?
I look at the alliance you’ve forged with these people, and I don’t understand why you’re in it.
Their agenda keeps winning, and yours keeps losing.
Moreover–and I don’t want to speak out of turn here–their agenda is even eating away at yours.
What happened to the Christian concern to “love the least of these,” the most vulnerable, the most destitute?
In my opinion, supply-side Republicans have convinced many Christians not merely that the welfare state is a bad idea, but that generosity itself is a vice, that public assistance equals dependence, and that giving the wealthy even more breaks is the way for benefits to “trickle down” to the rest of us.
That theory, by the way, has never been proven.
When it’s been put into practice, it’s only made the ultra-rich richer.
It’s done nothing for the middle class, the working class, and the poor.
And its mean-hearted message, in my opinion, has corrupted the social gospel.
Of course, prosperity is a good thing.
But our current moment isn’t one of prosperity–it’s of inequality on the scale of ancient Rome.
Now, I’m not saying that you should jump on board with the Democrats’ agenda either.
I’m saying that this Republican claim that you can build a Christian nation through politics is bogus, and only serves their goals.
You’re fighting the wrong fight.
You should be making your case in culture, not in Congress.
Look around.
Atheism is highest in Europe, where there are established churches involved in the political process.
But according to most historians, America is the most religious country in the Western world precisely because of the separation of church and state.
That “wall of separation” that liberals like to talk about?
The original metaphor was: erect a wall to keep the garden of the church free from the wilderness of politics.
The more you try to force your beliefs on others, the more people dislike you.
Of course, there are now multi-billion-dollar organizations dedicated to Christian politics.
But how effective have they been?
What has all that money bought?
I’ve worked in the LGBT movement for 15 years.
At first, we, too, tried a political approach, talking about equal rights, civil rights, and so on.
But the movement’s PR people found these messages weren’t working.
So, in the 2000s, we shifted.
We worked in the cultural arena instead, with pioneers like Ellen and Will & Grace.
We went into churches and synagogues, testifying about our lives and our families.
We changed people’s hearts, not their laws.
We also found messengers who could communicate the truth of our lives.
Sure, there are radicals in the LGBT community who really are opposed to mainstream values–and some of them are my friends!
But there are also moderates, even conservatives.
The LGBT movement looked for places where we could find common ground, and focused there.
But because the public face of Christianity is now made up of the political operatives who can shout the loudest, your “wingnuts” are in center stage.
I know that most Christians are not bigots or homophobes.
I read the data, and I have Christian friends.
But you have to admit: you’re putting your worst feet forward.
Many of your spokespeople are loud and mean, because they can turn out the votes.
This all feeds into that devil’s bargain with the Republican Party.
They stir you up about social issues in order to get you to the polls, and then they don’t really do anything about them.
Because, in fact, they can’t.
These are cultural questions, not political ones, and they have to be solved in the cultural arena.
To be clear, I’m not alleging any vast, right wing conspiracy to hoodwink Christians into voting Republican.
I know that many of your values do, indeed, align with Republican policies.
But from the outside, from my side of the aisle, the situation seems very clear.
The Republican rich are doing very well, and you’re losing badly.
There’s only one conclusion I can draw from that: you’re being had.
By Jay Michaelson
Why are you trying to solve a cultural problem with a political solution?
Because the Republican Party is using you.
Dear Conservative Evangelicals,
I drive a Prius, enjoy Vanilla lattes, and am married to a man.
I know it’s unlikely for me to be writing you this letter, and even more unlikely for you to read it.
But unlike most of my Obama-loving, liberal friends, I am no longer afraid of you.
It’s clear to me that “your side” is losing the battle for public opinion, and I know that many of you agree with that assessment.
So why am I writing you this letter?
Because, also unlike my liberal friends, I’m actually on your side, in some ways.
I’m an ordained rabbi, and someone deeply concerned with the vulgarization and sexualization of our society.
You and I disagree about the solution to this problem, of course, but we agree that there is a problem.
The trouble is, you’re trying to solve cultural problems with political solutions–because politicians have convinced you to do so.
I am referring here to establishment Republicans, which for 150 years have consistently been the party of the rich and ungenerous.
In the first half of the twentieth century, most Christians distrusted this party, controlled as it was by “urban bankers” and others opposed to the Jeffersonian values of rural America.
But in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the switch began–and by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, it was complete.
Republicans catered to conservative social attitudes on racial integration, and eventually moved rightward on issues like abortion and feminism, too, although you know as well as I do that they never really believed in them.
They just realized that they could gain power by uniting two very different groups: the same moneyed elites as always, and you.
Now, let’s see who has won, and who has lost, in the ensuing 34 years.
In 1983, the wealthiest 1 percent were 131 times richer than the average American.
In 2009, they were 225 times richer.
In 2012, the top 20 percent made $13.5 trillion in income; the entire bottom 80% made $1 trillion.
These are disparities not seen since before the Great Depression.
Whether for better or for worse, the ultra-rich have done extremely well in the 30 years you’ve allied with them.
How have you done, in the same period?
Not well at all.
Not only is gay marriage now the law for over two-thirds of Americans while the value of marriage in general has been declining for decades; not only are television, film, music, and video games more vulgar than we could have imagined in 1980; but more Americans are declaring themselves “Nones,” that is, people of no religious affiliation, than ever before in our history.
Sure, some churches are expanding, but overall, your way of life is in steep decline.
In short, you are losing horribly.
So, who is using whom here?
Have the rich Republicans been good for you, or have you been good to them?
I look at the alliance you’ve forged with these people, and I don’t understand why you’re in it.
Their agenda keeps winning, and yours keeps losing.
Moreover–and I don’t want to speak out of turn here–their agenda is even eating away at yours.
What happened to the Christian concern to “love the least of these,” the most vulnerable, the most destitute?
In my opinion, supply-side Republicans have convinced many Christians not merely that the welfare state is a bad idea, but that generosity itself is a vice, that public assistance equals dependence, and that giving the wealthy even more breaks is the way for benefits to “trickle down” to the rest of us.
That theory, by the way, has never been proven.
When it’s been put into practice, it’s only made the ultra-rich richer.
It’s done nothing for the middle class, the working class, and the poor.
And its mean-hearted message, in my opinion, has corrupted the social gospel.
Of course, prosperity is a good thing.
But our current moment isn’t one of prosperity–it’s of inequality on the scale of ancient Rome.
Now, I’m not saying that you should jump on board with the Democrats’ agenda either.
I’m saying that this Republican claim that you can build a Christian nation through politics is bogus, and only serves their goals.
You’re fighting the wrong fight.
You should be making your case in culture, not in Congress.
Look around.
Atheism is highest in Europe, where there are established churches involved in the political process.
But according to most historians, America is the most religious country in the Western world precisely because of the separation of church and state.
That “wall of separation” that liberals like to talk about?
The original metaphor was: erect a wall to keep the garden of the church free from the wilderness of politics.
The more you try to force your beliefs on others, the more people dislike you.
Of course, there are now multi-billion-dollar organizations dedicated to Christian politics.
But how effective have they been?
What has all that money bought?
I’ve worked in the LGBT movement for 15 years.
At first, we, too, tried a political approach, talking about equal rights, civil rights, and so on.
But the movement’s PR people found these messages weren’t working.
So, in the 2000s, we shifted.
We worked in the cultural arena instead, with pioneers like Ellen and Will & Grace.
We went into churches and synagogues, testifying about our lives and our families.
We changed people’s hearts, not their laws.
We also found messengers who could communicate the truth of our lives.
Sure, there are radicals in the LGBT community who really are opposed to mainstream values–and some of them are my friends!
But there are also moderates, even conservatives.
The LGBT movement looked for places where we could find common ground, and focused there.
But because the public face of Christianity is now made up of the political operatives who can shout the loudest, your “wingnuts” are in center stage.
I know that most Christians are not bigots or homophobes.
I read the data, and I have Christian friends.
But you have to admit: you’re putting your worst feet forward.
Many of your spokespeople are loud and mean, because they can turn out the votes.
This all feeds into that devil’s bargain with the Republican Party.
They stir you up about social issues in order to get you to the polls, and then they don’t really do anything about them.
Because, in fact, they can’t.
These are cultural questions, not political ones, and they have to be solved in the cultural arena.
To be clear, I’m not alleging any vast, right wing conspiracy to hoodwink Christians into voting Republican.
I know that many of your values do, indeed, align with Republican policies.
But from the outside, from my side of the aisle, the situation seems very clear.
The Republican rich are doing very well, and you’re losing badly.
There’s only one conclusion I can draw from that: you’re being had.
Asks some good questions...
Robert Reich: How a Wealthy California Town Makes Sure No Poor Kids Attend Its 'Public' School
A California school district hired a private detective to build a case against a 7-year-old Latina.
America is embroiled in an immigration debate that goes far beyond President Obama’s executive order on undocumented immigrants.
It goes to the heart of who “we” are.
And it’s roiling communities across the nation.
In early November, school officials in Orinda, California, hired a private detective to determine whether a seven-year-old Latina named Vivian — whose single mother works as a live-in nanny for a family in Orinda – “resides” in the district and should therefore be allowed to attend the elementary school she’s already been attending there.
On the basis of that investigation they determined that Vivian’s legal residence is her grandmother’s home in Bay Point, California.
They’ve given the seven-year-old until December 5th to leave the Orinda elementary school.
Never mind that Vivian and her mother live during the workweek at the Orinda home where Vivian’s mother is a nanny, that Vivian has her own bedroom in that home with her clothing and toys and even her own bathroom, that she and her mother stock their own shelves in the refrigerator and kitchen cupboard of that Orinda home, or that Vivian attends church with her mother in Orinda and takes gym and youth theater classes at the Orinda community center.
The point is Vivian is Latina and poor, and Orinda is white, Anglo, and wealthy.
And Orinda vigilantly protects itself from encroachments from the large and growing poor Latino and Hispanic populations living beyond its borders.
Orinda’s schools are among the best in California — public schools that glean extra revenues from a local parcel tax (that required a two-thirds vote to pass) and parental contributions to the Educational Foundation of Orinda which “suggests” donations of $600 per child.
Orinda doesn’t want to pay for any kids who don’t belong there. Harold Frieman, Orinda’s district attorney, says the district has to be “preserving the resources of the district for all the students.”
Which is why it spends some of its scarce dollars on private detectives to root out children like Vivian.
The bigger story is this.
Education is no longer just a gateway into the American middle class.
Getting a better education than almost everyone else is the gateway into the American elite.
That elite is now receiving almost all the economy’s gains.
So the stakes continue to rise for upscale parents who want to give their kids that better education.
The competition starts before Kindergarten and is becoming more intense each year.
After all, the Ivy League has only a limited number of places.
Parents who can afford it are frantically seeking to get their children into highly regarded private schools.
Or they’re moving into towns like Orinda, with excellent public schools.
Such schools are “public” in name only.
Tuition payments are buried inside high home prices, extra taxes, parental donations, and small armies of parental volunteers.
These parents are intent on policing the boundaries, lest a child whose parents haven’t paid the “tuition” reap the same advantages as their own child.
Hell hath no fury like an upscale parent who thinks another kid is getting an unfair advantage by sneaking in under the fence.
The other part of this larger story is that a growing number of kids on the other side of the fence are Hispanic, Latino, and African American.
Most babies born in California are now minorities.
The rest of the nation isn’t far behind.
According to the 2010 census, Orinda is 82.4 percent white and 11.4 percent Asian.
Only 4.6 percent of its inhabitants are Hispanic or Latino, of any race.
All of its elementary schools get 10 points on the GreatSchools 10-point rating system.
Bay Point, where Vivian’s grandmother lives, is 41.4 percent white, 54.9 percent Hispanic or Latino of any race, and 11.6 percent African America.
Bay Point’s elementary schools are rated 2 to 4 on GreatShools’ 10-point scale.
Many of the people who live in places like Bay Point tend the gardens and care for the children of the people who live in places like Orinda.
But Orinda is intent on patrolling its border.
The nation’s attention is focused on the border separating the United States from Mexico, and on people who have crossed that border and taken up residence here illegally.
But the boundary separating white Anglo upscale school districts from the burgeoning non-white and non-Anglo populations in downscale communities is fast becoming a flashpoint inside America.
In both cases, the central question is who are “we.”
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." His homepage is www.robertreich.org.
Robert Reich: How a Wealthy California Town Makes Sure No Poor Kids Attend Its 'Public' School
A California school district hired a private detective to build a case against a 7-year-old Latina.
America is embroiled in an immigration debate that goes far beyond President Obama’s executive order on undocumented immigrants.
It goes to the heart of who “we” are.
And it’s roiling communities across the nation.
In early November, school officials in Orinda, California, hired a private detective to determine whether a seven-year-old Latina named Vivian — whose single mother works as a live-in nanny for a family in Orinda – “resides” in the district and should therefore be allowed to attend the elementary school she’s already been attending there.
On the basis of that investigation they determined that Vivian’s legal residence is her grandmother’s home in Bay Point, California.
They’ve given the seven-year-old until December 5th to leave the Orinda elementary school.
Never mind that Vivian and her mother live during the workweek at the Orinda home where Vivian’s mother is a nanny, that Vivian has her own bedroom in that home with her clothing and toys and even her own bathroom, that she and her mother stock their own shelves in the refrigerator and kitchen cupboard of that Orinda home, or that Vivian attends church with her mother in Orinda and takes gym and youth theater classes at the Orinda community center.
The point is Vivian is Latina and poor, and Orinda is white, Anglo, and wealthy.
And Orinda vigilantly protects itself from encroachments from the large and growing poor Latino and Hispanic populations living beyond its borders.
Orinda’s schools are among the best in California — public schools that glean extra revenues from a local parcel tax (that required a two-thirds vote to pass) and parental contributions to the Educational Foundation of Orinda which “suggests” donations of $600 per child.
Orinda doesn’t want to pay for any kids who don’t belong there. Harold Frieman, Orinda’s district attorney, says the district has to be “preserving the resources of the district for all the students.”
Which is why it spends some of its scarce dollars on private detectives to root out children like Vivian.
The bigger story is this.
Education is no longer just a gateway into the American middle class.
Getting a better education than almost everyone else is the gateway into the American elite.
That elite is now receiving almost all the economy’s gains.
So the stakes continue to rise for upscale parents who want to give their kids that better education.
The competition starts before Kindergarten and is becoming more intense each year.
After all, the Ivy League has only a limited number of places.
Parents who can afford it are frantically seeking to get their children into highly regarded private schools.
Or they’re moving into towns like Orinda, with excellent public schools.
Such schools are “public” in name only.
Tuition payments are buried inside high home prices, extra taxes, parental donations, and small armies of parental volunteers.
These parents are intent on policing the boundaries, lest a child whose parents haven’t paid the “tuition” reap the same advantages as their own child.
Hell hath no fury like an upscale parent who thinks another kid is getting an unfair advantage by sneaking in under the fence.
The other part of this larger story is that a growing number of kids on the other side of the fence are Hispanic, Latino, and African American.
Most babies born in California are now minorities.
The rest of the nation isn’t far behind.
According to the 2010 census, Orinda is 82.4 percent white and 11.4 percent Asian.
Only 4.6 percent of its inhabitants are Hispanic or Latino, of any race.
All of its elementary schools get 10 points on the GreatSchools 10-point rating system.
Bay Point, where Vivian’s grandmother lives, is 41.4 percent white, 54.9 percent Hispanic or Latino of any race, and 11.6 percent African America.
Bay Point’s elementary schools are rated 2 to 4 on GreatShools’ 10-point scale.
Many of the people who live in places like Bay Point tend the gardens and care for the children of the people who live in places like Orinda.
But Orinda is intent on patrolling its border.
The nation’s attention is focused on the border separating the United States from Mexico, and on people who have crossed that border and taken up residence here illegally.
But the boundary separating white Anglo upscale school districts from the burgeoning non-white and non-Anglo populations in downscale communities is fast becoming a flashpoint inside America.
In both cases, the central question is who are “we.”
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." His homepage is www.robertreich.org.
Graphic Stories of America's Huge Wealth Gap
Extreme wealth continues to grow out of control, while inequality worsens for the rest of us.
Extreme wealth continues to grow out of control, while inequality worsens for the rest of us.
Just 70 individuals now own as much wealth as half the world. In the U.S., the richest 40 individuals own as much as half the country, and the 16,000 American households in the top .01% have accumulated an average net worth of over a third of a billion dollars.
As extreme wealth continues to grow out of control, inequality worsens for the rest of us, plaguing our country and our world, spreading like a terminal form of cancer.
It should be a major news item in the mainstream media.
But the well-positioned few are either oblivious to or uncaring about its effect on less fortunate people.
The data and charts (citations here) come from Forbes, Credit Suisse, and a recent study by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman:
Less than a year ago, Oxfam reported that the richest 85 individuals owned as much wealth as half the world.
But recently updated calculations reveal that the richest 70 individuals now own $1.842 trillion, more than the poorest half of the world.
We're drawing nearer to the fulfillment of Charles Koch's dream: "I want my fair share and that's all of it."
About a month ago it was 43, and a month before that it was 47.
Now the richest 40 Americans (The Forbes 40) own a little over $1.092 trillion, about the same, according to calculations based on Credit Suisse data, as the poorest half of the country.
The national wealth that was created by all of us over many decades is quickly being redistributed to fewer and fewer incomprehensibly rich people.
One of the causes for this pathological transfer of wealth is revealed in the final image.
3. Stock/Equity Wealth of the Richest 12,000 Households Has Surpassed the Housing Wealth of 108,000,000 Households
Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge.
Just 35 years ago, the percentage of national wealth in middle-class housing (net of mortgages) was about seven times more than the percentage of national wealth in equities owned by the .01% (12,000 families).
Now middle-class housing is only about half the value of those equities.
Saez and Zucman report that the total of corporate equities, bonds, and savings deposits owned by the .01% amounted to 2.2 percent of total U.S. household wealth in the mid-1980s, rising to 9.9 percent in 2012.
Meanwhile, housing for the bottom 90% dropped from 15 percent of total household wealth to 5-6 percent.
Since the bottom 50%, according to the authors, own almost zero wealth, the housing figures pertain to the 50-90% families, which can be described as "middle class."
Possible solutions are becoming clearer:
(1) A Financial Speculation Tax to slow down the flow of money to the takers
(2) Occupy Wall Street, Phase II
Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, a writer for progressive publications, and the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org)
This is so disgusting.
The election is over.
Congress is back in Washington.
The first order of business after the election is to give big tax breaks to the corporations — $450 billion worth.
Tax Extenders
Every year Congress renews a package of “temporary” corporate tax breaks.
The renewal process is called “tax extenders” because they extend the term of these temporary breaks.
So now the Congress is working on this year’s extenders package, except this time it wants to just make many of them (the ones that mostly give handouts to giant corporations and campaign donors) permanent.
The Washington Post calls this process “a periodic bonanza for lobbyists.”
A few of the special tax breaks in the extenders package are really good and serve an important purpose.
For example, part of the package is tax credits that provide incentives to invest in renewable energy.
But most others are just giveaways and handouts to the already-wealthy, like depreciation tax breaks for people who own racehorses. (Yes, really.)
Even worse, some of these are loopholes that actually encourage corporations to shift U.S. profits offshore into tax havens. (Yes, really.)
The good breaks are used to grease the wheels to slip these special favors through — as in “if you want to get those wind tax credits you’re going to have to pass a tax break for Mitt Romney’s racehorses.”
The media is reporting that Congress is near a deal on these extenders.
The deal kills several “good” tax breaks that help working people and the middle class, like an expanded child tax credit for the working poor and expanded earned-income credit.
The deal phases out the wind power tax credit after 2017.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pointed out that companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship would even get special breaks from this deal:
“The package would provide a permanent boon to large corporations, even those that renounce their U.S. citizenship and invert,” he said. “And adding insult to injury, the proposed deal chooses to leave behind working families and would make things harder for millions of Americans. …The overall package is simply unacceptable and adds more than $400 billion to the debt. We need to grow the middle class, not punish those working hard to get by while always giving preferences and priority treatment to big corporations who can hire high-priced, well-funded lobbyists.”
Not Paid For
These tax breaks are not “paid for” — they just add to the deficit.
Remember how Congress rejected providing benefits for the long-term unemployed because they were not “paid for?”
Congress won’t fix the country’s infrastructure because doing so is not “paid for.”
Even disaster relief had to be “paid for!”
But none of these corporate tax breaks and loopholes being considered are “paid for” — but for some reason this isn’t a problem — this time.
Because racehorses.
Anyway, we’re only talking about $450 billion.
President Says He Will Veto
The President says he will veto this deal if it reaches his desk.
Roll Call has the story, in, “Obama Would Veto Corporate Tax Cut Bill“:
President Barack Obama would veto an emerging $450 billion tax cut deal coming together in the Senate because it doesn’t do enough for the middle class, according to the White House.
“The President would veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families,” said Jen Friedman, deputy White House press secretary.
With Election Over, First Order of Business Is $450 Billion Corporate Tax Break
The election is over.
Congress is back in Washington.
The first order of business after the election is to give big tax breaks to the corporations — $450 billion worth.
Tax Extenders
Every year Congress renews a package of “temporary” corporate tax breaks.
The renewal process is called “tax extenders” because they extend the term of these temporary breaks.
So now the Congress is working on this year’s extenders package, except this time it wants to just make many of them (the ones that mostly give handouts to giant corporations and campaign donors) permanent.
The Washington Post calls this process “a periodic bonanza for lobbyists.”
A few of the special tax breaks in the extenders package are really good and serve an important purpose.
For example, part of the package is tax credits that provide incentives to invest in renewable energy.
But most others are just giveaways and handouts to the already-wealthy, like depreciation tax breaks for people who own racehorses. (Yes, really.)
Even worse, some of these are loopholes that actually encourage corporations to shift U.S. profits offshore into tax havens. (Yes, really.)
The good breaks are used to grease the wheels to slip these special favors through — as in “if you want to get those wind tax credits you’re going to have to pass a tax break for Mitt Romney’s racehorses.”
The media is reporting that Congress is near a deal on these extenders.
The deal kills several “good” tax breaks that help working people and the middle class, like an expanded child tax credit for the working poor and expanded earned-income credit.
The deal phases out the wind power tax credit after 2017.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pointed out that companies that renounce their U.S. citizenship would even get special breaks from this deal:
“The package would provide a permanent boon to large corporations, even those that renounce their U.S. citizenship and invert,” he said. “And adding insult to injury, the proposed deal chooses to leave behind working families and would make things harder for millions of Americans. …The overall package is simply unacceptable and adds more than $400 billion to the debt. We need to grow the middle class, not punish those working hard to get by while always giving preferences and priority treatment to big corporations who can hire high-priced, well-funded lobbyists.”
These tax breaks are not “paid for” — they just add to the deficit.
Remember how Congress rejected providing benefits for the long-term unemployed because they were not “paid for?”
Congress won’t fix the country’s infrastructure because doing so is not “paid for.”
Even disaster relief had to be “paid for!”
But none of these corporate tax breaks and loopholes being considered are “paid for” — but for some reason this isn’t a problem — this time.
Because racehorses.
Anyway, we’re only talking about $450 billion.
President Says He Will Veto
The President says he will veto this deal if it reaches his desk.
Roll Call has the story, in, “Obama Would Veto Corporate Tax Cut Bill“:
President Barack Obama would veto an emerging $450 billion tax cut deal coming together in the Senate because it doesn’t do enough for the middle class, according to the White House.
“The President would veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families,” said Jen Friedman, deputy White House press secretary.
My facebook post from today....
I just hung up the phone with a Mom who's son has been denied healthcare by a Texas managed care insurance organization. She was at TX Children's Hospital and even when their cardiac specialist did peer to peer advocacy with the Director of United Healthcare -he denied services. So the youth is being sent home to die. We social workers here in East TX are very concerned at what we're seeing. The state is moving to private contractors for everything...and you know when corporate control gets involved.... we will not get services.
It's getting harder and harder for me to do my job. There is a surge in needs and even the number of crisises is increasing with less and less resources. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal... but my clients are working class people and these families with special needs children are hit hard. I partner with them to help them as best I can....which is to say very little these days....and it's damn hard to watch. They work. They pay taxes. They get very little to no help at all. On the other hand....the non working class gets some assistance....but some. At least their children are covered - yes? Not the adults.
Anyway - I wanted people to know this is happening in Texas.
[h=1]An Economic Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward[/h]http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/02/economic-agenda-america-12-steps-forward
and another facebook friend on the other side of TX posted this:
[h=1]Exploding the myths about American health care[/h]http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014...100061373&mc_cid=ee2804a9ed&mc_eid=1a5b5aa6a9
I just hung up the phone with a Mom who's son has been denied healthcare by a Texas managed care insurance organization. She was at TX Children's Hospital and even when their cardiac specialist did peer to peer advocacy with the Director of United Healthcare -he denied services. So the youth is being sent home to die. We social workers here in East TX are very concerned at what we're seeing. The state is moving to private contractors for everything...and you know when corporate control gets involved.... we will not get services.
It's getting harder and harder for me to do my job. There is a surge in needs and even the number of crisises is increasing with less and less resources. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal... but my clients are working class people and these families with special needs children are hit hard. I partner with them to help them as best I can....which is to say very little these days....and it's damn hard to watch. They work. They pay taxes. They get very little to no help at all. On the other hand....the non working class gets some assistance....but some. At least their children are covered - yes? Not the adults.
Anyway - I wanted people to know this is happening in Texas.
[h=1]An Economic Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward[/h]http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/02/economic-agenda-america-12-steps-forward
and another facebook friend on the other side of TX posted this:
[h=1]Exploding the myths about American health care[/h]http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014...100061373&mc_cid=ee2804a9ed&mc_eid=1a5b5aa6a9
Chomsky: Elites Have Forced America into a National Psychosis to Keep Us Embroiled in Imperial Wars
And most of our intellectuals are only too happy to participate in the propaganda.
http://www.alternet.org/world/choms...erial-wars?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
And most of our intellectuals are only too happy to participate in the propaganda.
http://www.alternet.org/world/choms...erial-wars?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
"War is the health of the State," wrote social critic Randolph Bourne in a classic essay as America entered World War I:
"It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. ...
Other values such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them."
They are "lined up in service of the war-technique. There seems to have been a peculiar congeniality between the war and these men. It is as if the war and they had been waiting for each other."
The role of the technical intelligentsia in decision-making is predominant in those parts of the economy that are "in the service of the war technique" and closely linked to the government, which underwrites their security and growth.
It is little wonder, then, that the technical intelligentsia is, typically, committed to what sociologist Barrington Moore in 1968 called "the predatory solution of token reform at home and counterrevolutionary imperialism abroad."
Moore offers the following summary of the "predominant voice of America at home and abroad" - an ideology that expresses the needs of the American socioeconomic elite, that is propounded with various gradations of subtlety by many American intellectuals, and that gains substantial adherence on the part of the majority that has obtained "some share in the affluent society":
"You may protest in words as much as you like. There is but one condition attached to the freedom we would very much like to encourage: Your protests may be as loud as possible as long as they remain ineffective. ... Any attempt by you to remove your oppressors by force is a threat to civilized society and the democratic process. ... As you resort to force, we will, if need be, wipe you from the face of the earth by the measured response that rains down flame from the skies."
Given the realities of international politics, this commitment can be maintained in the United States only by a form of national psychosis - a war against an enemy who appears in many guises: Kremlin bureaucrat, Asian peasant, Latin American student, and, no doubt, "urban guerrilla" at home.
The intellectual has, traditionally, been caught between the conflicting demands of truth and power. He would like to see himself as the man who seeks to discern the truth, to tell the truth as he sees it, to act - collectively where he can, alone where he must - to oppose injustice and oppression, to help bring a better social order into being.
If he chooses this path, he can expect to be a lonely creature, disregarded or reviled. If, on the other hand, he brings his talents to the service of power, he can achieve prestige and affluence.
He may also succeed in persuading himself - perhaps, on occasion, with justice - that he can humanize the exercise of power by the "significant classes."
He may hope to join with them or even replace them in the role of social management, in the ultimate interest of efficiency and freedom.
The intellectual who aspires to this role may use the rhetoric of revolutionary socialism or of welfare-state social engineering in pursuit of his vision of a "meritocracy" in which knowledge and technical ability confer power.
He may represent himself as part of a "revolutionary vanguard" leading the way to a new society or as a technical expert applying "piecemeal technology" to the management of a society that can meet its problems without fundamental changes.
For some, the choice may depend on little more than an assessment of the relative strength of competing social forces.
It comes as no surprise, then, that quite commonly the roles shift; the student radical becomes the counterinsurgency expert.
His claims must, in either case, be viewed with suspicion:
He is propounding the self-serving ideology of a "meritocratic elite" that, in Karl Marx's phrase (applied, in this case, to the bourgeoisie), defines "the special conditions of its emancipation [as] the general conditions through which alone modern society can be saved."
The role of intellectuals and radical activists, then, must be to assess and evaluate, to attempt to persuade, to organize, but not to seize power and rule.
In 1904, Rosa Luxemburg wrote, "Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
These remarks are a useful guide for the radical intellectual.
They also provide a refreshing antidote to the dogmatism so typical of discourse on the left, with its arid certainties and religious fervor regarding matters that are barely understood - the self-destructive left-wing counterpart to the smug superficiality of the defenders of the status quo who can perceive their own ideological commitments no more than a fish can perceive that it swims in the sea.
It has always been taken for granted by radical thinkers, and quite rightly so, that effective political action that threatens entrenched social interests will lead to "confrontation" and repression. It is, correspondingly, a sign of intellectual bankruptcy for the left to seek to construct "confrontations"; it is a clear indication that the efforts to organize significant social action have failed.
Particularly objectionable is the idea of designing confrontations so as to manipulate the unwitting participants into accepting a point of view that does not grow out of meaningful experience, out of real understanding.
This is not only a testimony to political irrelevance, but also, precisely because it is manipulative and coercive, a proper tactic only for a movement that aims to maintain an elitist, authoritarian form of organization.
The opportunities for intellectuals to take part in a genuine movement for social change are many and varied, and I think that certain general principles are clear. Intellectuals must be willing to face facts and refrain from erecting convenient fantasies.
They must be willing to undertake the hard and serious intellectual work that is required for a real contribution to understanding.
They must avoid the temptation to join a repressive elite and must help create the mass politics that will counteract - and ultimately control and replace - the strong tendencies toward centralization and authoritarianism that are deeply rooted but not inescapable.
They must be prepared to face repression and to act in defense of the values they profess.
In an advanced industrial society, many possibilities exist for active popular participation in the control of major institutions and the reconstruction of social life.
To some extent, we can create the future rather than merely observing the flow of events.
Given the stakes, it would be criminal to let real opportunities pass unexplored.
This article is adapted from the essay, "Knowledge and Power: Intellectuals and the Welfare-Warfare State," which appeared in the 1970 book The New Left, edited by Priscilla Long.
The essay is reprinted in Masters of Mankind: Essays and Lectures, 1969-2013 by Noam Chomsky.
© 2014 Noam Chomsky
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics and philosophy at MIT.
My facebook post from today....
I just hung up the phone with a Mom who's son has been denied healthcare by a Texas managed care insurance organization. She was at TX Children's Hospital and even when their cardiac specialist did peer to peer advocacy with the Director of United Healthcare -he denied services. So the youth is being sent home to die. We social workers here in East TX are very concerned at what we're seeing. The state is moving to private contractors for everything...and you know when corporate control gets involved.... we will not get services.
It's getting harder and harder for me to do my job. There is a surge in needs and even the number of crisises is increasing with less and less resources. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal... but my clients are working class people and these families with special needs children are hit hard. I partner with them to help them as best I can....which is to say very little these days....and it's damn hard to watch. They work. They pay taxes. They get very little to no help at all. On the other hand....the non working class gets some assistance....but some. At least their children are covered - yes? Not the adults.
Anyway - I wanted people to know this is happening in Texas.
An Economic Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/02/economic-agenda-america-12-steps-forward
and another facebook friend on the other side of TX posted this:
Exploding the myths about American health care
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014...100061373&mc_cid=ee2804a9ed&mc_eid=1a5b5aa6a9
It’s amazing how the people fell for the “death panel” bullshit that they tried to feed America on what would happen if the ACA passed.
I guess the reasoning was - If we make up fake death panels they won’t pay attention to the real ones we have had for years.
That story makes me physically ill.
It’s emotionally disappointing.
How did we get to be so greedy? How have we let one person, much less, millions slip through?
There are very few things that can darken my soul. Very few things that can bring me to rage faster than people making money off of the suffering of others.
There will always be those who get to the top stepping on the fingers and backs of others…but it’s a whole other animal when people’s lives are on the line.
If I had any say, all the insurance companies would be dissolved, and their administrators would face manslaughter charges for the thousands if not millions of people who needlessly died in the name of greater profits.
I’m telling you…the injustice will not stand much longer.
The people are tired of being used and discarded.
5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives
When is the U.S. banking system going to crash?
I can sum it up in three words.
Watch the derivatives.
It used to be only four, but now there are five “too big to fail” banks in the United States that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives.
Today, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of about 17.7 trillion dollars, so when we are talking about 40 trillion dollars we are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable.
And unlike stocks and bonds, these derivatives do not represent “investments” in anything.
They can be incredibly complex, but essentially they are just paper wagers about what will happen in the future.
The truth is that derivatives trading is not too different from betting on baseball or football games.
Trading in derivatives is basically just a form of legalized gambling, and the “too big to fail” banks have transformed Wall Street into the largest casino in the history of the planet. When this derivatives bubble bursts (and as surely as I am writing this it will), the pain that it will cause the global economy will be greater than words can describe.
If derivatives trading is so risky, then why do our big banks do it?
The answer to that question comes down to just one thing.
Greed.
The “too big to fail” banks run up enormous profits from their derivatives trading.
According to the New York Times, U.S. banks “have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books” even though the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated how dangerous they could be…
American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. But the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous buildups of risk at large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on the banking system.
But all computer models are based on assumptions.
And all of those assumptions were originally made by flesh and blood people.
When a “black swan event” comes along such as a war, a major pandemic, an apocalyptic natural disaster or a collapse of a very large financial institution, these models can often break down very rapidly.
For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a Forbes article that describes what happened to the derivatives market when Lehman Brothers collapsed back in 2008…
Fast forward to the financial meltdown of 2008 and what do we see?
America again was celebrating.
The economy was booming.
Everyone seemed to be getting wealthier, even though the warning signs were everywhere: too much borrowing, foolish investments, greedy banks, regulators asleep at the wheel, politicians eager to promote home-ownership for those who couldn’t afford it, and distinguished analysts openly predicting this could only end badly.
And then, when Lehman Bros fell, the financial system froze and world economy almost collapsed.
Why?
The root cause wasn’t just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking.
The problem at the core was a lack of transparency.
After Lehman’s collapse, no one could understand any particular bank’s risks from derivative trading and so no bank wanted to lend to or trade with any other bank.
Because all the big banks’ had been involved to an unknown degree in risky derivative trading, no one could tell whether any particular financial institution might suddenly implode.
But instead the problem has become much larger.
When the housing bubble burst back in 2007, the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world had risen to about 500 trillion dollars.
According to the Bank for International Settlements, today the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world has ballooned to a staggering 710 trillion dollars ($710,000,000,000,000).
And of course the heart of this derivatives bubble can be found on Wall Street.
What I am about to share with you is very troubling information.
I have shared similar numbers in the past, but for this article I went and got the very latest numbers from the OCC’s most recent quarterly report.
As I mentioned above, there are now five “too big to fail” banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives…
JPMorgan Chase
Total Assets: $2,476,986,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $67,951,190,000,000 (more than 67 trillion dollars)
Citibank
Total Assets: $1,894,736,000,000 (almost 1.9 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $59,944,502,000,000 (nearly 60 trillion dollars)
Goldman Sachs
Total Assets: $915,705,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,564,516,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)
Bank Of America
Total Assets: $2,152,533,000,000 (a bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,457,605,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)
Morgan Stanley
Total Assets: $831,381,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)
Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,946,153,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)
And it isn’t just U.S. banks that are engaged in this type of behavior.
As Zero Hedge recently detailed, German banking giant Deutsche Bank has more exposure to derivatives than any of the American banks listed above…
Deutsche has a total derivative exposure that amounts to €55 trillion or just about $75 trillion.
That’s a trillion with a T, and is about 100 times greater than the €522 billion in deposits the bank has.
It is also 5x greater than the GDP of Europe and more or less the same as the GDP of… the world.
At this point our economic system is so completely dependent on these banks that there is no way that it can function without them.
It is like a patient with an extremely advanced case of cancer.
Doctors can try to kill the cancer, but it is almost inevitable that the patient will die in the process.
The same thing could be said about our relationship with the “too big to fail” banks. If they fail, so do the rest of us.
We were told that something would be done about the “too big to fail” problem after the last crisis, but it never happened.
In fact, as I have written about previously, the “too big to fail” banks have collectively gotten 37 percent larger since the last recession.
At this point, the five largest banks in the country account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks control 67 percent of all banking assets.
If those banks were to disappear tomorrow, we would not have much of an economy left.
But as you have just read about in this article, they are being more reckless than ever before.
We are steamrolling toward the greatest financial disaster in world history, and nobody is doing much of anything to stop it.
Things could have turned out very differently, but now we will reap the consequences for the very foolish decisions that we have made.
Economist: I’ve Crunched the Numbers, and the American Dream Is Dead
“America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England or pre-industrial Sweden,” he said.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/economist-ive-crunched-numbers-and-american-dream-dead
“America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England or pre-industrial Sweden,” he said.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/economist-ive-crunched-numbers-and-american-dream-dead
A California economics professor says he’s crunched the numbers, and he has concluded that the American Dream is dead.
Gregory Clark, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, found that social mobility had diminished significantly in the past 100 years, reported KOVR-TV.
“America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England or pre-industrial Sweden,” Clark said. “That’s the most difficult part of talking about social mobility, is because it is shattering people’s dreams.”
He said social mobility is little different in the United States than in other countries, where ancestry strongly predicts adult social status.
“The status of your children, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, (and) your great-great grandchildren will be quite closely related to your average status now,” Clark said.
That’s upsetting to many of his students, Clark said.
“My students always argue with me, but I think the thing they find very hard to accept is the idea that much of their lives can be predicted from their lineage and their ancestry,” he said.
Clark’s findings, which were published by the Council on Foreign Relations, showed that Americans with French ancestry, for example, became doctors at a much lower rate than other immigrant groups.
How the US Created the Islamic State: Talking Heads
[video=youtube_share;GU2avVIHde8]http://youtu.be/GU2avVIHde8[/video]
VICE News and The New York Review of Books have teamed up to create Talking Heads, a series about the big issues of the day as seen by The Review's most renowned contributors.
In this episode of Talking Heads, Mark Danner discusses his New York Review of Books essay, "Iraq: The New War." Danner wrote this essay in mid-2003, outlining how American policy during the Iraq War in many ways effectively helped incite what was then an emerging insurgency.
For starters, the occupation of Iraq post-9/11 created a broad front to which militant jihadists began to flock. The mishandling of the Iraqi army sent thousands of highly-trained, angry men into the streets with no jobs. And photos of Iraqis being tortured by American personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison provided telegenic images that helped these groups recruit from an increasingly indignant public.
Danner's analysis of the insurgency forecasted how it evolved into what we know today as the Islamic State, over a decade before it happened.
VICE News sat down with Danner to discuss how the United States invasion of Iraq and the ensuing war provided what he described as a warm petri dish in which insurgent elements would grow.
[video=youtube_share;GU2avVIHde8]http://youtu.be/GU2avVIHde8[/video]
VICE News and The New York Review of Books have teamed up to create Talking Heads, a series about the big issues of the day as seen by The Review's most renowned contributors.
In this episode of Talking Heads, Mark Danner discusses his New York Review of Books essay, "Iraq: The New War." Danner wrote this essay in mid-2003, outlining how American policy during the Iraq War in many ways effectively helped incite what was then an emerging insurgency.
For starters, the occupation of Iraq post-9/11 created a broad front to which militant jihadists began to flock. The mishandling of the Iraqi army sent thousands of highly-trained, angry men into the streets with no jobs. And photos of Iraqis being tortured by American personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison provided telegenic images that helped these groups recruit from an increasingly indignant public.
Danner's analysis of the insurgency forecasted how it evolved into what we know today as the Islamic State, over a decade before it happened.
VICE News sat down with Danner to discuss how the United States invasion of Iraq and the ensuing war provided what he described as a warm petri dish in which insurgent elements would grow.