**** off donald trump

[hodad]

Somewhere in here we were talking about the tax bill.  Here are some things that should be of concern: 

1.  It's slapdash.  In an effort to buy votes, changes were thrown  into the Senate bill that necessitated making adjustments to keep the deficit hit under $1.5T.  So in the Senate bill the corporate tax rate is 20%, and the Alternative Minimum Tax for corps is...20%. 

2.  It's slapdash.  There is a great deal in the bill that is rather ill-defined, and will likely have to be adjudicated in tax court.  This is good news for tax lawyers, but it could be solved by spending an appropriate amount of time debating and drafting the legislation. 

3.  It's a trick on the middle class.  In order to stay under that magical $1.5T number, a lot of the breaks for the middle class sunset after several years.  Corporate and fat-cat tax breaks are not.  So in the end, the middle class is stuck paying more of the tax burden so that the wealthy can pay less. 

4.  Trickle-down just doesn't work.  It never has.  If trickle-down worked, everybody would be in fat city right now because the rich are about as rich as they've ever been in this country.  We do have lots of jobs right now, but when wages are low that's not making life better for the middle class.  There is also no evidence that high taxes on the wealthy (within limits) impede growth in any way, shape, or form.  So the notions that tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to some magical economic boom is utterly absurd. 

5.  It hurts those who use the ACA to get insurance.  (yes, that's me.)  Everyone acknowledges that the ACA is flawed, but R's have no interest in fixing it, or even replacing it with anything equal to it or better.  They're only interested in destroying it, because apparently if you can't afford insurance, you simply don't deserve to live. 

6.  A lot of Republicans don't even like it.  Some are deficit hawks who look at that $1.5T number and are disgusted with their own party.  A handful realize that this bill is just bad law.  Some actually care about things like affordable healthcare.  And the differences between House and Senate bills won't all be that simple to bridge. 

7.  It hasn't been "vetted" as one would expect such a significant piece of legislation to be.  In fact, it would seem that the people pushing the bill so hard really have no interest in people considering the merits and demerits, ramifications and repercussions, of this bill.  Why do you suppose that is?  Well, maybe it's that a Republican Congress is desperate to pass just one significant piece of legislation in order to try to prove they're not as sad and dysfunctional as they appear to be.  Maybe some of the bill's backers are trying to put one over on the American people, and they don't want anyone looking too closely and spoiling their fun.  Maybe both. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The tax bill is not full reform.

While reducing the corporate rate is very important for our economic competitiveness, the individual tax tweaks are far from comprehensive.

I have already questioned the SALT (deductibility of state and local taxes), as partisan payback (not cool). 

Even the increased GDP growth I expect from corporate reforms will not meet the ever expanding entitlement spending that gets locked in and increases forever.  A major fraction of the federal budget is already untouchable.

The real fix is for congress to reduce spending, but I am not holding my breath. Both republicans and democrats are too comfortable spending OPM.

JR

 

[living sounds]

The only thing at work is big money, and it's getting more obvious every day. Even the whole Trump-Russia affair is only a distraction to this.

Why did politicians increasingly throw away long-standing rules, values and customs ? To serve the interests of wealthy individuals, banks and conglomerates. Breaking up unions, getting rid of stabilizing legislation like Glass-Steagal, rendering stabilizing legislation useless by systematically, practically eroding the scope and authority of regulating agencies and institutions, unilaterally discarding senate practice regarding the election of judges (Gorsich, upper bench), using these judges to get rid of even more rules protecting the many from the few in big ways (e.g. Citizens United) and a myriad small ones, etc.

The US (and to a lesser degree other western countries) have been subjected to a slow-creeping heist for decades. You can not call it anything else. It appears naked in this tax bill. Trump is just another willing and usefull idiot to fullfill this plan.

We either regain control or the world as we know it (in the west) will end. Slowly or with a bang. This ain't hyperbole, just an honest assessment of fundamental data.

 

[tands]

How much money that could be spent on public services is stolen by corporations each year through tax avoidance? 

https://twitter.com/markcurtis30/status/938332875002470400

 

[hodad]

Even the increased GDP growth I expect from corporate reforms

JR

What causes you to expect this growth?  Because the last big corporate tax windfall (the amnesty on overseas profits) caused some sort of economic growth?  Oh, wait.  The bulk of that money went to stock buybacks and corporate dividends.  The economic impact was negligible. 

Putting lots more money in the hands of people with lots of money already is not going to help anything.  It's a fairy tale, plain and simple.  And that's the key.  Your "expectations" (and those of Republican policy makers) are based in how  conservatives think the world should work and not in how the world actually works.  Evidence is not on your (or their) side.  Thus the persistent efforts to evade, attack, deny, dismiss evidence-based studies, and the rationalizations that rest on a bed of baseless beliefs. 

 

[tands]

I noticed JR was tossing the word sheeple around.

 

[JohnRoberts]

What causes you to expect this growth?  Because the last big corporate tax windfall (the amnesty on overseas profits) caused some sort of economic growth?  Oh, wait.  The bulk of that money went to stock buybacks and corporate dividends.  The economic impact was negligible. 

Who do you think owns stocks...?  if you have a retirement account you probably do. Public pension plans hold stocks.

Putting lots more money in the hands of people with lots of money already is not going to help anything.  It's a fairy tale, plain and simple.  And that's the key.  Your "expectations" (and those of Republican policy makers) are based in how  conservatives think the world should work and not in how the world actually works.  Evidence is not on your (or their) side.  Thus the persistent efforts to evade, attack, deny, dismiss evidence-based studies, and the rationalizations that rest on a bed of baseless beliefs.

This sounds like reflexive class warfare political screed...

Do you remember the (bipartisan) Bowles-Simpson  commission recommendations ignored  by the last administration?

Their list from 2011

1 Cap overall government spending at 21 percent of GDP.
2 Reduce mandatory spending.
3 Reduce federal healthcare spending.
4 Make Social Security sustainable.
5 Eliminate $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes, thus increasing government revenue to 21 percent of GDP while lowering tax rates.
6 Various process reforms.

People seem to forget that there are two terms in any budget... Tax revenue in, vs. spending going out...  If we could raise taxes to the sky (or deficit spend with unlimited borrowing) with no long term consequences this would be easy.

In the real world we need to balance all for least long term harm.

The average budget deficit for roughly the last half century is 3.1% and average GDP growth over the same period is around 3.2%...  I don't think this is a coincidence, but in the shorter term we have experienced substandard (<3%) growth and run up a $20T (or $15T) sovereign debt depending on how you count the fed's holdings, so tightening up spending in the near term seems prudent.  A $1.5T deficit over ten years seems more prudent than the recent $1T a year deficit.

It doesn't matter if we blame this pile of debt on republicans or democrats, (both spend too freely). It is where we are right now, so we have to deal with it..

JR

PS: Not everyone shares my optimism, but I feel like we are on a better track than before.

 

[dmp]

Who do you think owns stocks...?  if you have a retirement account you probably do. Public pension plans hold stocks.

It's pretty easy to research this. The actual stats are something like this:
40% of Americans have some investments in the stock market, over half do not at all.
The richest 20% own 92% of stocks
The richest 1% own 38% of stocks

Blaming the last administration for ignoring things is blatant political screed. After the first two years, Republicans blocked anything and everything.

I would be positive for tax reform if the bill weren't a shameless tax CUT for the wealthy, dropping revenue even further  below 21%.  If Republicans think lower taxes and revenue/spending at ~21% is the way to go, they should cut spending - but they don't have the guts to do this. Democrats think spending and revenue needs to be at the current level.
Cutting the AMT repeal & estate tax are blatant hand outs to the very rich.  And the corporate repatriation of overseas cash at ~15% tells corporations that they win if they hold out from paying taxes. Pretty rediculous.

The last deficit was $666 billion and the 1.5T tax cut will add to it.  more prudent?? It is deeply fiscally irresponsible.
And only has support from about ~30% of people.

 

[hodad]

Who do you think owns stocks...?  if you have a retirement account you probably do. Public pension plans hold stocks.This sounds like reflexive class warfare political screed...

Call it screed if you will, but I don't see that you've pointed me toward any evidence to support your expectations.  I cited a situation where there was a similar corporate windfall and it did next to nothing for the economy (I can probably dig up my sources if you need--it's been a while).  If you want me to give you cites about the amount of the nation's wealth held by the top 0.1%, 1%, & 10% I can do that as well.  And then you can explain to me how this wealth concentration has worked miracles for the US economy.  We should be at peak trickle-down already, and it just ain't happening.  Is there any reason to think putting more money in the hands of the already rich is going to tip the scales?  Of course not. 

 

[madswitcher]

Call it screed if you will, but I don't see that you've pointed me toward any evidence to support your expectations.  I cited a situation where there was a similar corporate windfall and it did next to nothing for the economy (I can probably dig up my sources if you need--it's been a while).  If you want me to give you cites about the amount of the nation's wealth held by the top 0.1%, 1%, & 10% I can do that as well.  And then you can explain to me how this wealth concentration has worked miracles for the US economy.  We should be at peak trickle-down already, and it just ain't happening.  Is there any reason to think putting more money in the hands of the already rich is going to tip the scales?  Of course not.

I would not call it 'screed' rather 'Greed' on a scale that I just cannot get my head around.

Regards

Mike

 

[Matador]

Do you remember the (bipartisan) Bowles-Simpson  commission recommendations ignored  by the last administration?

You do know that budgets come from Congressional committee, and not proclamations from the White House, yes?

The [Simpson-Bowles plan] released on December 1, 2010, fell short of a supermajority on December 3, with 11 of 18 votes in favor,[3] Voting for the report were Bowles, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Cote, Durbin, Fudge, Gregg, Rivlin, Simpson, and Spratt. Voting against were Baucus, Becerra, Camp, Hensarling, Ryan, Schakowsky and Stern.[37]

I don't see Barack Obama's name on that list voting against.

It doesn't matter if we blame this pile of debt on republicans or democrats, (both spend too freely). It is where we are right now, so we have to deal with it..

Agreed: unfortunately this bill doesn't address any of the problems you outlined.

Again, there's no causal link between cutting corporate tax rates and increasing GDP.

Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

Here is another one: Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth

Several empirical studies have attempted to quantify the various effects noted above in different ways and used different models, yet mostly come to the same conclusion: Long- persisting tax cuts financed by higher deficits are likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term. By contrast, cuts in income tax rates that are financed by spending cuts can have positive impacts on growth, according to the simulation models.  In modern United States history, however, major tax cuts (in 1964, 1981, and 2001/2003) have been accompanied by increases in federal outlays rather than cutbacks.

 

[Andy Peters]

What causes you to expect this growth?  Because the last big corporate tax windfall (the amnesty on overseas profits) caused some sort of economic growth?  Oh, wait.  The bulk of that money went to stock buybacks and corporate dividends.  The economic impact was negligible. 

I haven't quite figured out how a corporate tax cut will encourage investment and increase employment, especially when a lot of the big corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. They apparently don't need to invest that cash in their businesses, and they apparently don't need to increase employment.

Why? Because tax cuts don't drive corporate investment.  What does drive investment? Simple: demand for the products a company sells and the services one provides. No company is going to make investments when it doesn't see a way to recoup the investment and earn a profit on it.  Supply and demand, as they say.

So rather than invest their piles of cash into their businesses (or into their communities by giving employees raises and better benefits), the companies sit on it all. Hell, they even find it cheaper to issue debt for the expansions they might do, rather than dip into the pile of cash.

And because there has been mention of "but your retirement accounts are invested in the stock market," yes, returning that cash to shareholders as profit would benefit many of us in the middle class. After all, isn't that what a corporation is supposed to do, earn profits for the owners (shareholders)? (And yes, those gains should be taxed at the same rate as labor when withdrawn.)



Another wasteful tax policy is for municipal governments to give huge tax breaks to companies to move to their region, with the notion that the companies will hire locals at good wages, and those locals will spend money locally and that's what drives revenue. The reality is that the companies look at the tax giveaways as gravy, and not a primary consideration for opening a new location. What do they look for? Well, a highly-skilled workforce, and that workforce requires things like a good school system, good transit system.

There has been an ongoing experiment to see what effects local and state tax policies have on corporations, growth and all that. We can compare and contrast two states. One is the high-tax California, and the other is the no-tax Kansas. If conservative tax ideas were actually working according to their ideas, then companies would be abandoning California in droves and setting up shop in Kansas. But that's not happening, not even close. Kansas is Exhibit A for what happens when you don't do any sort of investment in your citizens and your infrastructure. That state is an utter failure, and anyone with any sense will look at the policies Brownback and company have pushed and say, "You know what, we shouldn't do that, it's a disaster."

But since the Republicans in the Congress have zero sense, or empathy, they are all full speed ahead with the intent to spread the Kansas failure to the country as a whole.

 

[tands]

Do you remember the (bipartisan) Bowles-Simpson commission recommendations ignored by the last administration?

Lmao Simpson-Bowles. Do you remember?

Obama started that commission, the whole thing was his baby to keep his chickensh*t hands off of social security cuts. Little putz.

Foul Mouthed Fem Blogger and True American Hero Jane Hamsher went toe to toe day to day with Obama on that one, and she shut his narrow ass down.

;D

As we reported at the time, the Obama White House has been interested in cutting Social Security right out of the gate. David Brooks reported that three administration officials called him to say Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending” in March of 2009. The neoliberal TNR/JournoList set who cheered on the Iraq war and the corporate-friendly health care bill are already lending their support: Privatizing Social Security, No, Cutting Social Security, Si! says Jon Chait.

Chait conflates and confuses two separate statements. Obama has dismantled liberal opposition to many of George Bush’s policies, and whatever he wants to do with Social Security will be accepted by many just because they like him. Matt Yglesias had this to say about Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court: “Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.” To which Glenn Greenwald rightly responds, “In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama’s choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it’s Obama choice. Isn’t that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? ”

https://shadowproof.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/

 

[tands]

The recap. It was a f**king thing of beauty. The text is interspersed with many links in the original article.

On February 18 of 2009, FDL broke the news:

    Hedge Fund Billionaire Pete Peterson Key Speaker At Obama “Fiscal Responsibility Summit,” Will Tell Us All Why Little Old Ladies Must Eat Cat Food

Pete Peterson, the hedge fund billionaire who made his money by not paying his fair share of taxes, has pursued a decades-long quest to destroy Social Security and has pledged $1 billion to achieve that goal. So when President Obama announced he would convene his first “fiscal responsibility” summit on February 23, it didn’t bode well that Peterson was to be the keynote speaker.

Peterson’s keynote spot was the worst kept secret in town; I knew about it because I had been on a conference call with about 40 representatives of various DC interest groups, many of whom had received written notice from the White House that Peterson was scheduled to headline the event. But nobody wanted to go on the record for fear of jeopardizing their relationship with the administration in its early days.

So, FDL was the only media outlet that reported on Peterson’s close connection to a President who said that overhauling Social Security would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending.

Three things happened as a result of the uproar that ensued over that headline:

    1) Peterson was “disinvited” from the summit. Both he and the White House denied everything, but Robert Kuttner subsequently confirmed in the Washington Post that Peterson had, in fact, been scheduled as the keynote speaker that day.

    2) The administration backed off its immediate plans for reforming Social Security. The New York Times reported that they were “running into opposition from his party’s left” who are “vehement in opposing any reductions in scheduled benefits for future retirees.” But the lull was only temporary. NYT columnist David Brooks reported that shortly after the summit, “four senior members of the administration” called him to say that Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security.”

    3) The White House began telling journalists off the record that they were interested in “establishing an independent commission (outside the congressional committee structure) to look at creating a specific reform plan.” As a way to underscore the absurdity of a Wall Street billionaire like Pete Peterson dictating that the federal government should tighten its belt by plunging old people into poverty, it henceforth became known as “the catfood commission.”

The fact that this whole thing transpired without notice by the establishment media only goes to show how poorly they have covered the war that is currently being waged against Social Security.

In January of 2010, a bill sponsored by committed Social Security slashers Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad which would have created an official Catfood Commission to make recommendations about the nation’s deficit was defeated by the Senate on a bipartisan vote — 22 Democrats and 24 Republicans voted no.

Undeterred, on February 18, President Obama issued an executive order creating a Catfood Commission anyway.

Unlike Bill Clinton’s Danforth Commission, which ended in deadlock, Obama set this commission up in such a way that it was stacked with deficit hawks who largely agreed on what needed to be done: 12 of the 18 members were to be appointed by Senate and House leaders in each party, and 6 would be appointed by the President. This virtually guaranteed that Social Security privatization fetishist Paul Ryan would be on the commission, as would Gregg and Conrad.

Among the President’s six appointments:

    Chairman Erskine Bowles, described by Business Week as “corporate America’s friend in the White House.” Bowles had negotiated the deal between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton to create “private social security accounts” where “taxpayers get some choice as to how to invest their contributions.” The deal fell through when the Monica Lewinsky episode jumped into the headlines.

    As Bowles’ Republican Co-Chair, the President appointed loose cannon Alan Simpson, the former rich kid GOP Senator from Wyoming once famously said that those who were complaining that Social Security needed protection were “people who live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount.”

    Alice Rivlin was appointed by Obama to be chief wonk of the Catfood Commission, a Brookings Institute fellow who had been funded by Pete Peterson and a strong supporter of raising the retirement age to 70 — resulting in a 20% benefit cut to Social Security recipients.

    David M. Cote, the Republican CEO of defense contractor Honeywell

The composition of the Commission was conveniently stacked with 14 of the 18 members committed deficit hawks looking to start balancing the federal budget on the backs of old people. It takes 14 votes to pass any recommendations.

And who is supplying staff to the commission? Why, Pete Peterson.

Moreover, it was extremely disconcerting when it was announced that with the exception of a few public dog and pony shows,  the Commission would conduct its deliberations in secret.

Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, who had served as Obama’s Social Security advisors on both the campaign and his transition team, sounded the alarm in a piece that appeared in Harvard’s Nieman Watchdog entitled Has Obama created a Social Security ‘death panel’?:

    President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

Still, nobody in the media was covering these closed-door deliberations. Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, the organization run by Altman and Kingson, had been blogging about the Catfood Commission on FDL under the name “dcfightsback.” So we decided that every time the Catfood commission met, FDL would run a live stream of Alex’s iPhone camera pointed at the committee room’s closed door.

I admit now that there was some complaining from the FDL ranks about the wisdom of devoting 45 or more minutes of primetime front page space to a video of a closed door. I guess it was the performance art aspect of it that appealed to me, sort of a political version of Andy Warhol’s “Sleep,” but in spite of the grumbling everyone worked hard to make the technology run smoothly. We carried the video on front page of FDL week after week, traffic-killer though it was, just to make a statement.

We never thought any moments of high drama would come from a camera pointed at a closed door. Boy were we wrong.

On June 16, our Managing Editor Gregg Levine pinged me: “Are you watching Alex’s stream right now? Alan Simpson is going off.”

It was amazing. In real time, live streaming on the front page of FDL, Alex got Alan Simpson to talk to him. The remarkable thing was not so much that Simpson was going off, but that he had just come from the closed door meeting and was clearly saying what everyone in the room was thinking but wouldn’t say publicly.

Alex was as polite and knowledgeable as Simpson was rude and ignorant. Simpson said that the commission was “really working on solvency… the key is solvency.” He went on:

    "We’re trying to take care of the lesser people in society and do that in a way without getting into all the flash words you love dig up, like cutting Social Security, which is bullsh*t. We’re not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent."

We thought this was one of the first real glimpses anybody had into what the Catfood commission was truly trying to do. We wanted to get this video out there as soon as possible, but because Alex’s camera was an iphone and its recording/streaming capabilities were remedial, it was over 24 hours before our tech experts could manually sync the entire clip and put it on Youtube.

During that 24 hours, there was not one media report of what had happened right outside the meeting room where very important deliberations about the US deficit were taking place. There was a good reason for that: the only person who was there was Alex Lawson.

When we finally released the video and a transcript of the Simpson encounter, a national uproar ensued. A blogger with an iPhone had taken the time to have a conversation with the Commission’s co-chair at a regular meeting that not one single journalist had bothered to cover. Many people who had been in denial about what the Commission truly intended to do suddenly woke up.

Simpson’s words were particularly alarming to economist James Galbraith, who testified before the commission shortly thereafter and said that Simpson was not qualified to be its co-chair:

    "Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission. This is very clear from the abusive response he made recently to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who was asking important questions about the substance of the commission’s work, as well as calling attention to the illegitimate secrecy under which you are operating."

Galbraith told them to their faces, in no uncertain terms, that having viewed the Simpson video, the Commission’s pursuit of “solvency” was not legitimate:

    "I note from Chairman Simpson’s conversation with Alex Lawson that the Commission has taken up the questions of the alleged “insolvency” of the Social Security system and of Medicare. If true, this is far outside any mandate of the Commission. Your mandate is strictly limited to matters relating to the deficit, debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal stability of the U.S. Government as a whole.
 
    You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO’s unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It’s a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace."

In spite of this, Simpson remained co-chair of the commission.

Concerns about the commission’s plans — and its legitimacy — have come from both sides of the aisle. Both Newt Gingrich and John Boehner have echoed the concerns of John Conyers that the commission plans to release its recommendations on December 1, and that it could be up to a lame duck Congress to vote on them. That means many members with no fear of electoral repercussions could be voting not only on cuts to Social Security benefits, but a new national VAT tax as well.

Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have promised that the Senate and House will vote on the Catfood Commission’s recommendations.

Until this week, possibly the biggest outrage coming out of the commission was the moment when defense contractor David M. Cote reportedly called for “freezing military pay, making military people pay for their health care” to avoid cuts in defense spending – an idea with which Alan Simpson apparently agreed.

There’s something exceptionally disturbing about the head of a company that profited from the raid on the Social Security trust fund in the wake of 9/11 being on a “deficit commission” in the first place.  But the optics of a defense contractor deciding the future of Social Security are horrific. The CEO of Honeywell gets to cast a vote that will plunge 1.5 million senior citizens into poverty if the retirement age is raised to 70?  Really?

This week, Alan Simpson topped even that. On Tuesday, FDL was the first to publish the entire letter written by Simpson to Ashley Carson, head of the Older Women’s League, to the effect that Social Security is “like a milk cow with 310 million tits!” He concludes his patronizing, sexist and ageist outburst by telling the committed activist to “Call when you get honest work!”

The Older Women’s League, NOW, the National Council of Women’s Organizations and Social Security Works subsequently called for Simpson to be fired from the commission. Bernie Sanders and Peter DeFazio also called for Simpson’s replacement. Simpson subsequently apologized, but Carson, NOW and other groups say it is not enough.

The White House, however, apparently took the liberty of accepting Simpson’s apology on their behalf, and says he will continue to serve.

As Richard Eskow notes, here’s what the President said when he appointed Simpson and his co-chair: “I know they’ll take up their work with the sense of integrity and strength of commitment that America’s people deserve and America’s future demands.”

But that hasn’t happened.  As Paul Krugman notes, “a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness” among Washington insiders,  and Obama has accepted that premise.  Simpson’s childish outbursts, his clear contempt for those he patronizes as “the lesser people” he says he is trying to protect, and his ignorance about the program he is tasked with “fixing” are clear indications the commission is neither fiscally serious nor responsible.

The Catfood commission is not legitimate. It was stacked with people who knew their job was to fulfill Pete Peterson’s dream of rolling back the New Deal and waging war on the social safety net. It is a committee of oligarchs designed to circumvent electoral repercussions for those who oppose the will of the vast majority of the American people, both Republicans and Democrats, who don’t want to see the federal budget balanced on the backs of the nation’s senior citizens.

President Obama, it is not just Alan Simpson who needs to go. It’s time to shut down the entire commission.

https://shadowproof.com/2010/08/26/dear-president-obama-time-to-can-the-catfood-commission/

 

[hodad]

Another wasteful tax policy is for municipal governments to give huge tax breaks to companies to move to their region, with the notion that the companies will hire locals at good wages, and those locals will spend money locally and that's what drives revenue.

First off, excellent post.  And while I generally agree with the statement quoted above,  I think there may be exceptions.  The one that comes to mind is Georgia's tax break for film productions.  It's been a boon for restaurants, catering companies, folks with parking lots to rent--even the guys at the place where I buy shipping boxes tell me how great the movie biz has been for them.  And it's helped build a local labor force and infrastructure that brings more and more business into the state.  It even kept our Republican governor from signing into law a "bathroom bill" like the one in NC that cost them the NBA All-Star Game among other things. 

But that's also not  a typical business tax break either.

 

[tands]

CJR’s Trudy Lieberman recently ran down Simpson’s history of delicate statements on the subject of Social Security.  He is equally decorous on camera with Alex, who clearly knows a great deal more about the subject than he does.  Simpson starts from the premise that the Treasury will default on the bonds issued to the Social Security trust fund, because all the best people apparently know that it’s better to default on America’s senior citizens and plunge them into poverty than it is to default on, say, the Chinese.

Despite Simpson’s assertions, raising the retirement age to 70 IS a benefit cut.  It would put an estimated 1.5 million  senior citizens into poverty. After two years of watching billions of dollars in taxpayer money being paid out to Wall Street CEOs in lavish bonuses while the White House breaks every promise they’ve made to rein them in, that takes a fat load of nerve.

The commission is also looking into cutting Medicare benefits, because the deal guaranteeing no-bid Medicare contracts to the pharmaceutical industry by both Republicans and Democrats can’t possibly be abrogated.  The committee claims it’s independent, but it’s not THAT independent.  So, old people, too bad for you.

Erskine Bowles has returned to run the same play he ran during the Clinton administration, when he negotiated the secret deal between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich to cut Social Security benefits.  Despite warnings from both John Boehner and John Conyers that the commission will report its recommendations to a lame duck Congress who could pass it before the end of the term.  Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have promised to bring the commission’s proposals up for votes.

In the absence of any transparency coming from the committee about what transpires in its secret meetings, Simpson’s comments to Alex are the best insight we have into what is being discussed there.

Bottom line:  bon apetite, Grandma!

ALAN SIMPSON:  We’re really working on solvency… the key is solvency

ALEX LAWSON: What about adequacy? Are you focusing on adequacy as well?

SIMPSON: Where do you come up with all the crap you come up with?

SIMPSON:  We’re trying to take care of the lesser people in society and do that in a way without getting into all the flash words you love dig up, like cutting Social Security, which is bullsh*t. We’re not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent.

SIMPSON:  It’ll go broke in the year 2037.

LAWSON:  What do you mean by ‘broke’? Do you mean the surplus will go out and then it will only be able to pay 75% of its benefits?

SIMPSON:  Just listen, will you listen to me instead of babbling?  In the year 2037, instead of getting 100% of your check, you are going to get about 75% of your check. That’s if you touch nothing. If you like that, fine. You’ll be picking with the chickens yourself when you’re 65.

So we want to take care, we’re not cutting, we’re not balancing the budget on the backs of senior citizens. That’s bullsh*t. So you’ve got that one down. So as long as you’ve got those two things down, you can’t play with anymore, that we’re not balancing the budget of the United States on the backs of poor old seniors and we’re not cutting anything, we’re stabilizing the system.

LAWSON:  Thanks for being so frank. My question is: raising the retirement age, is actually an across-the-board benefit cut?

SIMPSON:  There are 15 different options being discussed in here today, and why nail one of them…[inaudible]…if you would like to get one of them that pisses your people off.

LAWSON:  Alice Rivlin was just on CNBC saying that that was one of the favorite methods.

SIMPSON:  There are 15 of them in there. All of them have to do with stabilizing the system, which we are told is insolvent, it’s paying out more then it’s taking in.

LAWSON:  Right now?

SIMPSON:  Yes.

LAWSON:  But what about the $180 billion in surplus that it brings in every year?

SIMPSON:  There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs.

LAWSON:  That’s what I wanted to actually get at.

SIMPSON:  Listen. Listen.  It’s 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.

LAWSON:  Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.

SIMPSON:  Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I’ll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month. You’re paying in every month for me. I appreciate that, I really do.

LAWSON:  Which is how the system was setup, that the current generation funds the retirees.

SIMPSON:  When I was your age there were 16 people paying into the system and 1 taking out and today there are 3 people paying into the system and 1 taking out.

LAWSON:  But isn’t that the good news.

SIMPSON:  And in 15 years there will be 2 people paying in, what’s good news about that?

LAWSON:  Didn’t they plan for that, which is why they’ve been…

SIMPSON:  Of course not because they thought … the retirement … they that you would die at 57 and that’s why they set the date at 65. If you can’t get through this stuff, then why do you spread this crap. The thing was setup when the life expectancy was 57 years and that’s why they set 65 as the retirement date. Now the life expectancy is 78, whatever it is, and so we have to adjust that and make it work for the future people like you in the United States.

LAWSON:  But here’s one question on that, and thanks again for being so frank, life expectancy is not equally distributed across the income spectrum.

SIMPSON:  That’s true. We know that.

LAWSON:  The life expectancy gains is actually this 5.5 years difference between the wealthiest…[inaudible]…and the…

SIMPSON:  We know that, we talk about that. We talk about everything you know. But if you just want to use flash words…

LAWSON:  No flash words. I just wanted to zero in on a few things and you’ve hit most of them. The worthless IOUs.

SIMPSON:  Use honesty.

LAWSON:  I am. I’m being honest.

SIMPSON:  No, no you’re not.

LAWSON:  The worthless IOUs that actually goes back to 1936.

SIMPSON:  They’re not worthless, there are IOUs in there.

LAWSON:  Backed by the full faith and government, full faith and …..

SIMPSON:  You’ve got it, full faith and credit.

LAWSON:  Full faith and credit.

SIMPSON:  That’s absolutely true.

LAWSON:  There we go. They’re bonds just like any other bonds. That the government has to pay back.

SIMPSON:  That’s right. But there are not people involved. It is the government and the government.

LAWSON:  Well, it’s actually the government and the citizens, right? The government doesn’t actually own the bonds, it’s the government owing…

SIMPSON:  Let me say things in a way so your fans will understand this, so you can go and be a hero. There is not enough in the system by the month to pay in, to pay out what comes in. In other words, there is more going out, than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.

So, what do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, ‘We need the IOUs out of it.’ And they say, ‘You can have them, but you have to pay for them.’ So you’re taking a double hit on your own government. Makes no sense. The government goes and says, ‘Hey, here’s that 2.5 trillion IOUs, now we need some money out of that system because we haven’t got enough to pay this month.’ And they say, ‘Great.’ So the government gets a double hit.

LAWSON:  Thanks so much Senator. We obviously have a very different understanding of the system.

SIMPSON:  Yes we do. But we are all involved in one thing, not secrecy.

LAWSON:  No, I understand that. But in my understanding from actually looking at the 1983 commission, they actually started prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus.

SIMPSON:  They never knew there was a baby boom in ’83.

LAWSON:  But actually they knew there was going to be demographic issues when the set up Social Security, so they actually predicted…

SIMPSON:  They never dreamed that the life expectancy from 57 years of age to 78 or 75 or whatever. Who would dream that? No one. They just died. People worked. Social Security was never a retirement. It was setup to take care of poor guys in the Depression who lost their butts, who were digging ditches, and it was to give them 43% of their wages…when they got out…and that’s what it was. It was never a retirement. It was an income supplement.

LAWSON:  Well it’s actually an income insurance, right? It’s a wage insurance program to replace lost wages due to death, disability and old-age. But, it’s definitely an insurance program meaning that the people own the insurance, right, their giving money in, in expectation that it’s their money to come out.

SIMPSON:  That’s right. And they’re going to get their money.  But right now, to get their money, which has all been used and consists of Treasury Bills, the government has to go and get it out of there and pay it and say, ‘Here’s some money for you.’ So you don’t diminish the 2.5 trillion bucks. So it’s got your government putting up money, which increases the deficit to get this money out to go to the beneficiary.

LAWSON:  But that’s not Social Security that’s increasing the deficit, because it’s still bringing in more money than goes out.

SIMPSON:  The government of the United States has to take separate money out of some stack to get the IOUs out of Social Security, that’s a double hit and that increases the deficit.

LAWSON: But what I’m telling you is Social Security is separate though, from the general budget, right? It’s totally in the green.

SIMPSON:  But it wasn’t. Just four weeks ago, there wasn’t as much coming in as going out.

LAWSON:  Except you’re not calculating the interest paid on the bonds, because, if you do include that, it’s still in the green this year.

SIMPSON:  Well you can go through all the sophistry of babbling that you want to.

LAWSON:  It’s not sophistry. It’s just what the SSA says. So I’m just going on the numbers.

SIMPSON:  You need to read the report of the Social Security Administration, the one that was given to us. Have you got a copy?

LAWSON:  I’d love a copy.

SIMPSON:  I’ll get you that. In fact, I’ll have a guy give that to you. You need to have that. And it’s good for you.

LAWSON:  That would be fantastic. Thanks so much Senator.

https://shadowproof.com/2010/06/17/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-to-take-care-of-the-lesser-people-in-society/

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am reluctant to bump this thread but I think I see a new political strategy emerging. The democrats have withdrawn their initial support for a couple of high profile members with sexual misbehavior baggage, and called for their immediate resignation, to clear the slate so they can take the moral high ground in their attacks against Moore.  The seats in question are unlikely to change party and affect votes, like the Moore situation, so smart hardball political strategy.

Both parties have more than a few skeletons in their closets, so any moral messaging by either is hard to take seriously by anyone paying attention to history but the public's attention span is short, and sexual behavior is on the cover of time magazine, so now is the time to push those buttons. (While I still expect a lot more shoes to drop. Bad actors are floating up from random places as unexpected as even the metropolitan opera...  :    Anywhere that there is disproportionate relative power, bad actors will abuse that power.)

Of course maybe I'm wrong.

JR

PS: So many woman have come forward in the Harvey Weinstein case that a class action lawsuit is forming.  :

 

[volker]

I am reluctant to bump this thread but I think I see a new political strategy emerging. The democrats have withdrawn their initial support for a couple of high profile members with sexual misbehavior baggage, and called for their immediate resignation, to clear the slate so they can take the moral high ground in their attacks against Moore.  The seats in question are unlikely to change party and affect votes, like the Moore situation, so smart hardball political strategy.

Or maybe, just maybe, they actually aren't as morally bankrupt as the GOP.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Or maybe, just maybe, they actually aren't as morally bankrupt as the GOP.

That is the political message they are pushing...  and it could work (apparently).

After the election, the GOP could replace Moore with another republican but if he drops out now the old Jeff Sessions seat could be flipped democrat. That election is dec 12 and 5 days could be a lifetime in hot political news cycles. 

Votes in the senate are pretty tight but flushing Franken is unlike to change parties for that seat as the democratic lt. governor would likely appoint a democratic representative from MN. .

Lots of political plates in the air right now and the democrats have some relative strength to negotiate something. We will see soon enough what they really want as budget and debt ceiling deadlines approach.

Interesting times, but I miss the good old days when we could ignore DC between elections. 

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

First off, excellent post.  And while I generally agree with the statement quoted above,  I think there may be exceptions.  The one that comes to mind is Georgia's tax break for film productions.  It's been a boon for restaurants, catering companies, folks with parking lots to rent--even the guys at the place where I buy shipping boxes tell me how great the movie biz has been for them.  And it's helped build a local labor force and infrastructure that brings more and more business into the state.  It even kept our Republican governor from signing into law a "bathroom bill" like the one in NC that cost them the NBA All-Star Game among other things. 

But that's also not  a typical business tax break either.

It definitely atypical, because film and TV production is a labor-intensive business. When they shoot a TV series in a town or city, an army of workers basically lives there for the duration of the work, and all of the ancillary business -- hotels/catering/restaurant etc etc -- really does pick up.  And if the workers end up moving to the city because it supports that industry, then they buy houses and rent apartments too.

But again, it's a labor-intensive business.