Is there Koch in that headline?
“Surprise! The 1% Are Paying Their Fair Share”
~ from Barrons – April 7, 2012
Okay, so a person reads the headline above and thinks “wow, somebody figured out that the 1% really aren’t under taxed!”. But what lies behind that headline? You can read about it here. It gives you plenty of data and different definitions of what a millionaire truly is based on their adjusted net incomes over a period of years. Okay…all of that is fine and good. So the next question that one should ask is where does the data come from?
First we have the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is another ‘think tank’. They are critical of raising taxes and, in particular, business taxes. They are also against reducing tax credits for the oil industry. So where might the funding for the Tax Foundation come from? How about ExxonMobil as one and the Koch family as another. Okay on to another source of data. Let’s try the Cato Institute. Who are they? From their website:
The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank that was founded by…guess who? Charles Koch. Okay, so we know the Koch family is ultra conservative politically. They fund ‘think tanks’ who help provide data for articles like the one headlined above. I am not saying that all of these think tanks are bad and I am not saying the Tax Foundation or Cato Institute is bad. I am sure they do a lot of research that falls outside of partisanship. However, everybody knows where the money comes from. Do you think they are going to stray far from what Mr. Koch wants? I think not. As with a lot of media, you have to scrutinize carefully.
Okay, so what is my beef with the Koch family. Well, I guess that I am ideologically opposed to their own beliefs. A couple of examples – first let’s look at Wisconsin. Wisconsin is having a recall election on June 5 of this year. More than 800,000 voters signed the petition in hope of recalling Scott Walker. Walker is very anti-union and essentially stripped collective bargaining rights from the state workers. This has been a very heated issue in Wisconsin and yes, the Koch brothers are right in the middle of it all. For further information about it, read this article from the New York Times. It talks about the role of Americans for Prosperity in their counter-protest against the unions. AFP is also heavily funded by the Koch family. Hopefully, the citizens of Wisconsin will kick Walker out of office in June.
The Koch family is very willing to spread their money out internationally as well. In this article from the Vancouver Observer, it is noted that they fund the Fraser Institute (yes, another think tank!). The Fraser Institute has been funded heavily by the Koch brothers and, again, ExxonMobil. So, why are the Koch brother interested in a Canadian think tank? How about the oil sands in Alberta and the very controversial Keystone Pipeline?
The Koch family is the main economic engine behind the Tea Party Movement and they strongly endorse big business, and with that, the 1%. In fact, you could probably look up “1%” in the dictionary and you would see their faces. Going back to the headline at the top…flashy headlines don’t always tell the whole story. Make sure you know where the data comes from.
Income inequality and moral obligation
Income inequality is in the news every day now. It is one of the main reasons why there is the Occupy Movement. This is a problem (and yes, it is a major problem) that is not going to go away easily and it is not just a U.S. problem. Internationally, income inequality is growing and with it, more and more resistance. Occupy movements have occurred in well over 80 countries. The U.S. and Western European countries have the largest numbers protesting this inequality.
So why is income inequality so bad? Chuck Collins summarizes it well in his article about bridging the wealth gap. He uses five points:
1. The 1 Percent Can’t Build A Wall Around Global Problems.
2. Inequality is Bad For Everyone’s Health.
3. Entrenched Inequality Undermines Excellence.
4. Inequality Hurts the Economy for Everyone.
5. Extreme Inequality Breeds Fear and Destroys Communities.
I would like to, for now, focus on #4. The 2008 economic meltdown is a perfect example of how income inequality is so dangerous. Speculative markets like the derivatives markets make it even worse. Subprime loans and mortgages became very easy for Americans to attain. Speculators would then basically bet on the high probability of foreclosure on those loans and make a lot of money doing it. Well, who pays for this?? In theory, an insurance company (can you say AIG?) pays….but what if they can’t pay? That is when we, the taxpayers, pay. Big business goes to congress and asks for $750,000,000,000. How can this happen? Money, that’s how. When you concentrate so much of the money into very few pockets, you get corruption. The derivatives market was proven time and time again to be very dangerous, but those overlooking the department (Brooksley Born), including the SEC, were told to overlook it. It isn’t just the risky speculation that makes income inequality so bad, but rather, the movement of money away from goods and services (so that others can get a little piece of the pie) to a market that is intangible.
The government needs to invest more money into the true infrastructure of the country. We need more money for innovation in particular. The U.S. doesn’t build anything anymore. We import everything and export very little. How can a country ever sustain that???? We know that trickle-down economics does not work, so why should we keep sheltering the rich? I am not saying that they should return to a 90% tax, but how about a little more than the common person.
Did anybody ever get rich solely on their own? Did they need an entire society to get there? I think so. In his TED talk, Collins talks about the moral obligation of the rich to pay their share and a little bit more. If you have the time (it is just over 19m) watch this video. It is very interesting, enlightening, and entertaining.
So, that is my rant for today. Have a great weekend!
Developed, Developing, or Deteriorating???
A video on Occupy.com that I found especially haunting…it makes me wonder if we are developed, developing, or deteriorating….what do you think?
Somehow, the Patriot Act keeps popping into my mind. Are we that far removed from Egypt? Syria? Libya??? I am interested in your thoughts on this video.
Same old story…same old song and dance?
So now that Mr. Romney has the Republican nomination wrapped up, it is time to move on to the big dance and square off between the repubs and demos. I was reading an article written last month about Romney and his advisers and I couldn’t help but wonder if this is the same old song and dance that we had with the Bush administration. It is actually kind of frightening how many people Romney has “advising” him that Bush had “advising” him. Oh, don’t get me wrong, Romney is claiming he is distancing himself from Bush, but the people he is working with don’t back that up.
First, something near and dear to my heart (okay, maybe that is dripping with sarcasm): No Child Left Behind. Just ask any teacher what they think about this law. Basically, teachers teach to a standardized test that directly impacts the funding for schools. So, if a school is not passing this test, they will, ultimately, get money taken away from them. I will save my arguments against that law for another day, but it truly has hurt the education system in America. Romney, while claiming he is opposed to this law has Margaret Spellings as an education adviser. From the Reuters article:
Romney’s education advisers include Margaret Spellings, who was secretary of education under Bush and a chief advocate for No Child Left Behind.
That is only the beginning. His campaign has Bush written all over it. Possibly the most frightening “adviser” is Glenn Hubbard, Bush’s economic adviser. He is the architect of the Bush Era Tax Cuts. Hubbard is Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business and was Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1991 to 1993, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors from 2001 to 2003. Charles Ferguson interviews Hubbard in his Oscar-winning documentary “Inside Job” and you can see how uncomfortable he gets when asked about being in a conflict of interest…
If you haven’t watched Inside Job, I highly recommend it (it is on Netflix). Ferguson exposes the economic meltdown and breaks down how the derivatives market works and how dangerous it is.
Back to Romney, 16 of his 24 special advisers in national security and foreign policy are former Bush advisers. That is 2/3 of them. It just seems that Mr. Romney is another puppet of the Movement Conservatives. I guess if you are comfortable with the Bush people, then this is a great thing. If you are not, which seems to fit most people, then this should be frightening. When Bush left office his approval rating was 22%. Sorry folks, this is the same old story, same old song and dance (sorry for ruining your song Aerosmith)!
I agree completely!
I am so tired of the crap that politicians spout over and over during election years! I know that they want their info out there but they are more into trashing people more than saying what their platform is! I already know that they are against each other so why does each party think they have to trash the other? Oh yeah I forgot that Gingrich, when speaker of the house, put out the “list” and unfortunately it has only gotten worse since 1994! How can you make a list of words that you should use for Republicans which are everything is nice and sweet and honest and one for Democrats that are evil, untrustworthy,etc. and anyone else not worth talking about? This is like being back in Jr High and that is even better than they actually act because Congress acts like they are 5yr olds fighting over a…
View original post 568 more words
Canadian premiums for health insurance
I just wanted to share this with all of my American friends so that they have an idea how much premiums are here in Canada.
Monthly Premium Rates
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2012
|
Adjusted Net Income |
Subsidy Level |
One Person |
Family of Two |
Family of Three or More |
|
$0 – $22,000 |
100% premium assistance |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
$22,001 – $24,000 |
80% premium assistance |
$12.80 |
$23.20 |
$25.60 |
|
$24,001 – $26,000 |
60% premium assistance |
$25.60 |
$46.40 |
$51.20 |
|
$26,001 – $28,000 |
40% premium assistance |
$38.40 |
$69.60 |
$76.80 |
|
$28,001 – $30,000 |
20% premium assistance |
$51.20 |
$92.80 |
$102.40 |
|
Over $30,000 |
Full Rate |
$64.00 |
$116.00 |
$128.00 |
Left and…………………..Right?
Does it seem to you that the political “left” and “right” has changed considerably in the last couple of decades? It seems as though the left has shifted slightly right on the spectrum, while the right has shifted significantly more to the right. Sadly enough, I don’t think that a lot of people have noticed how far the “right” has moved to the right. Today’s seniors, who grew up with The New Deal and a prosperous, large middle class were represented by a much different “right-wing” than they are today.
Think about this: In Nixon’s message to the congress in 1974, proposing a comprehensive healthcare insurance program he stated:
Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.
The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;
And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work–consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.
Note the first principle: offering EVERY American an opportunity to obtain a balanced and comprehensive range of health insurance benefits. Is this or any of the other six principles different than what Obama has proposed? I think not. You can read Nixon’s entire address to congress regarding his health care plan here.
So, do you think Richard Nixon would even come close to surviving a Republican primary today? Keep in mind, this REPUBLICAN was the U.S. President from 1969 to 1974. I think Nixon would be crucified by today’s “me-first” party. I’ve been reluctant to say that it is right wing radicalism, but I think it is. There is no longer any compromise…they want to cut social spending and cut corporate taxes, and if you don’t like that, well too bad, welcome to the 99%. It is really sad and can’t go unchecked for any longer. President Obama recently said “By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development, our infrastructure — it is a prescription for decline.” The U.S. used to be a country that actually built things. We don’t do that any more. We let our corporations send all of the work overseas (very cheaply, just ask Apple!) and then we make sure that our richest 1% get richer by offering tax cuts.
It’s time (actually long overdue) that people took a close look at the people who are representing them. They are not who they used to be. Conservatives, just understand that the Republican Party you grew up with is not what it is today. Ultimately, the people do have the final say…and I hope that they speak soon.
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.”
– Martin Luther King Jr.
thejumbledmind 