9-9-9? Nein! Nein! Nein!

Paul Krugman posted a chart the other day from the Tax Policy Center summarizing the effect of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax proposal on  Americans based on their income:

The column to focus on is the last column, which reflects the percentage change in after-tax income for each quintile (20 percent) of the population based on income. The poorest 20 percent of Americans would see their after-tax income reduced by more than 18 percent; the next 20 percent, by more than 15 percent. And by contrast the highest 20 percent income Americans would get an increase of 7.1 percent in their after-tax income.

But Herman Cain says that his plan would not raise taxes on lower- and middle-income Americans. He is either clueless or lying.

GE: We Bring Good Things To Jeff Immelt

Jeff Immelt, the Chairman and CEO of GE, is President Obama's designated "Jobs Czar." I find this a rather offensive choice, as GE has done little if anything positive for American workers, and everything for GE's investors and top executives.

Immelt shared this little bit of wisdom recently:

I want you to root for me. Look, every one in Germany roots for Siemens, everyone in Japan roots for Toshiba, everyone in China roots for China South Rail, I want you to say, win GE. I think this notion that it’s the population of the US against big companies is just wrong.

 Gee, I wonder where anyone could have gotten the idea that GE is an enemy of the population of the US? It wouldn't be from the fact that over half of GE's workforce is now outside of the United States, or it has cut over one-fifth of its US workforce since Immelt took over as chief executive, or that it made over 145 billion dollars in profits last year and paid no taxes?

Here, courtesy of Paul Krugman, is a chart comparing corporate profits to employee compensation since 2001:

In Japan, currently the ratio of pay for a corporate CEO to that of an average worker is 11 to 1. In Germany, 12 to 1. And in the US, that ratio is 475 to 1.

Yeah, what's good for GE and other big corporations is good for America. If you happen to be a corporate executive. Otherwise, you're pretty much screwed.

Class Warfare

It was amusing to hear the Republicans start screaming about "class warfare" when President Obama released the details of his jobs plan recently. The plan, of course, includes the so-called "Buffett Rule" which would require the obscenely extremely wealthy to pay a minimum tax rate on all of their income, to ensure that they pay at least the same rate as those of more modest means.

This morning Buffett gave an interview that many on the right have misinterpreted as indicated that he disagrees with the Obama jobs plan. What he actually did was decline to make a comment on the jobs package as a whole, which he hasn't studied in depth. But he clearly stood by the idea, which he has endorsed before, that huge amounts of investment income should be taxed at a higher rate, to ensure that wealthy investors pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.

In that same interview this morning, Buffett made a statement that has been conveniently ignored by conservatives: "Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically." He goes on to point out that since 1992, the average income of the 400 wealthiest Americans has more than quintupled, while the percentage of income that those same 400 pay in taxes has dropped from 29  to 21 percent.

Buffett has, of course, been ostracized as a traitor by many of his peers among the super-rich. Yesterday Rick Perry criticized him for being out of touch, saying that Buffett doesn't "have an understanding about what's going on out there in the real world."  I prefer to see Mr. Buffett as a courageous, patriotic American who has placed the interests of his country as a whole before his own purely financial interests.

Class warfare is real. It has been going on for years now as a campaign waged by the super-rich and their lackeys in government, against the workers, the unemployed, the elderly, the immigrants, the disadvantaged of America. So far, the super-rich have won. Hopefully, the war is not over.

The Kind of Inequality that Boggles the Mind

I ran across this article from the non-partisan PolitiFact website today through a tweet by Michael Moore.

There is more wealth in the hands of just 400 Americans than in is possessed by half of the people in the United States.

That is over 150 million Americans who combined are not as wealthy as the combined richest 400.

Take a minute and think about the difference between 400 and 150,000,000.

Here are the figures from the Politifact article, which fact-checked Moore's claim:
In 2010, the combined net worth of the 400 richest Americans was $1.37 trillion. The combined net worth of the bottom sixty percent (note: that's actually substantially more than the half of Americans that Moore cited) was approximately $1.26 trillion.

Yes, this is a capitalist economy, for better or worse. But this degree of concentration of most of the wealth in the hands of so few is something that I find obscene. What possible benefit can result from such a staggering accumulation of wealth by those few people? How many luxury homes and yachts and other material goods does any one person or family need to be satisfied, while they ignore the millions of families who are desperately scraping just to get food on the table and to keep a roof over their heads?

This is why I always get a sick feeling when I hear the right vowing that they will never accept a tax increase on the wealthy. This is why I am disgusted that so many Americans who are not wealthy, who not only do not benefit but who are tragically harmed by the policies of the Republican party, have been brainwashed into thinking that the Tea Party and the extreme right represent their interests.

Those of us on the left who believe that something needs to be done to change this drastic inequality are branded as unpatriotic and socialist by the radical right.

I believe that advocating and speaking up for changing what is wrong in this country is the most patriotic action that you can take. Michael Moore, for one, is a patriot, for speaking up against this kind of injustice.

And if wanting to see some of that wealth redistributed so that the poorest, most disadvantaged Americans can have the security that they need to work to improve their lives, instead of being forced to choose between just plain survival or, worse, giving up... if that makes me a socialist, then I will be a proud socialist.

It's the Jobs, Stupid!

Three articles that make the argument that the real crisis in America is unemployment, and that drastic action needs to be taken to address this crisis (a point which seems so obvious that I almost feel stupid typing it).

Paul Krugman in the NY Times and Stephen Foley (whose article is aptly titled "America Has Just Abandoned the Unemployed") in the London paper The Independent both argue for intervention by the Federal Reserve, as well as direct job creation programs by Washington.

And a more personal piece from NPR addresses the diminishing prospects that face the increasingly discouraged long-term unemployed workers. Many are giving up hope and dropping out of the labor force altogether, which no doubt is partially responsible for the slight drop in the unemployment rate last month, while other jobless workers are forced to lower their expectations for adequate pay, benefits, and working conditions.