Robert Reich: 'Finally, A Progressive Budget'
Presidential budgets are aspirations. They're not real, in the sense that no one really has to adhere to them. Obama's budget now goes to Congress, where budget committees will draw up their own versions. Even these congressional budgets are mere guidelines for appropriations and tax-writing committees. Lobbyists will be swarming. So don't expect the final sausage to look exactly like the meat the President is putting into the grinder. On the other hand, the sausage is likely to bear more than a passing resemblance. Remember: This president's approval ratings are well over 60 percent -- substantially higher than Congress's overall approval rating, and far far higher than Republicans in Congress -- and the nation is still looking to Obama to lead the way out of our troubled times. And it's a Democratic congress, with a Democratic Senate that could be (if Franken is seated) one vote short of being able to cut off a filibuster.
It's about time a presidential budget uneqivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top 1 percent have soared for thirty years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, in the 1970s the top-earning 1 percent of Americans took home 8 percent of total income; as recently as 1980 they took home 9 percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top 1 percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top 1 percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.
Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole. This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans when fully employed can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things than middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.
Obamanomics has begun.
im putting all my money in war bonds its the smart play , and its the american way!i know obama would approve!
This doesn't jibe with what Karl Rove says. Ummmmmmmmmmm
this brings to mind of the tax havens for the very wealthy. recently UBS has been in the news/media for providing a tax haven(s) for approximately 52,000 u.s. citizens. tax havens cost the u.s. government
$100 billion dollars/yr. wealthy don't pay taxes that are apparently needed. so taxes are increased since they aren't being collected. several firms have subsidaries based on cayman island....all to avoid paying taxes. the endless battle.
[Deleted. Quit spamming, flamebaiting and posting off topic-Sitemonitor]
{ Deleted, Off Topic. SiteMonitor}
A budget that reflects reality. Putting the military back on budget is very realistic and much more transparent.
Agreed. We may not like the reality, but at least we can see it. Off-budget emergency fundings were an exercise in deception.
when money was approved for the war on Afghanistan and then used secretly to build up to the war on Iraq? $80 billion was it? Some ungodly number, anyway.
btw, thank you for the Samuel Johnson quote in a previous thread. It has always been one of my favorites.
You're very welcome. Samuel Johnson had some good ones.
.
.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I remember calling bullshit during the Reagan years. Trickle down, ha, the only thing the rich will let trickle down, you don't want.
Capitalism demands the money be in the hands of the many and yet it has been put in the hands of the few. Of course its the few with the most power, so it is not a complete surprise who got it. But if they want to turn it around Obama has to spread the money around and like Krugman, I don't think the stimulus package was big enough.
Taxing the mofos at the top is a good start no matter how much they scream. And when they scream to hard, question their patriotism. It always worked for those Repuke rat bastards.
I haven't been crazy about a lot so far in this presidency (keeping Guantanamo open for another year - at least, continuing Iraq for another two years - at least, horrendous stances on exposing and punishing war criminals, etc.). But this budget seems pretty good from what we know so far. We'll see how it goes.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The GOP (and some blue dogs) will counter this budget with an amendment banning gay marriage.
I can't stand this weasel. The last thing we need are more Clintonomics maniacs running things.
The Bay Area has, for the last 40-50 years, been the conscience of the nation and it has also been one of the intellectual cores of the world. Mr. Reich has found the right place to set up shop because, like him, they actually want things to make sense while concurrently acting in an altruistic manner. I want to thank Robert Reich for faithfully representing the spirit of the area I was proud to call home for nearly a quarter century. We've had enough of overly simplistic economic models that failed to account for greed. Trickle down is, and always has been, a failed construct. We must now enter the "build from the foundation up" era of economics. Thank you Mr. Reich.
You must not have visited the Bay Area lately. At least in San Francisco, things are pretty bad here. Not as bad as the rest of the nation, but the Bay Area in no way is a savior for anything. Rabid homelessness is just one example. Another biggie is outlandish rents for young people (starting at $1500 for a studio apartment) while the old- timer residents of the 80s live in 2 bedroom flats for $500. If you think that's fair, you must have enough money to not notice.
I've been out of the Bay Area since 2002. I've been back a number of times to visit but I guess I wasn't permitting myself to immerse myself in its reality. I think seeing the area in the 80s and 90s caused me to over-idealize it. I think I will stand by my historical observations though. I lived in San Jose so I guess I don't know what that says about my vantage point for witnessing the goings on of the region. I'm hoping that the Bay Area can get back to it's role of being the conscience of the nation. I hope that if "Green-Tech" is strongly established there and maybe the people of the area can re-evaluate their economic choices perhaps it will be better. Thank you for providing me an alternate POV. People like you help us all keep grounded in reality.
ps: I'm a dirt poor idealist (if that's not a contradiction in terms I don't know what is)
I think you mean "rampant." Though the image of homeless people with rabies is scary.
Yeah, things are a bit out of whack in San Francisco proper. Overall, though I agree with Aphotor. San Francisco & the Greater Bay Area from Big Sur on up to Humboldt County inherited the conscience role from Boston in the '60s. It still has it.
It's been the center of a unique blend of spiritual and technological experimentation. Witness Steve Jobs.
SF city is reflective of just how out of kilter our society is. But, ever the optimist, I think the dark is just before dawn, and we're going to adapt and evolve.
The SF Bay Area and Cascadia will lead the way.
It's about time the era of Reaganomics is ended , the wing nuts are crapping their pants right about now . Hope the Dems will get behind Obama on this but am not holding my breath .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
During the Bush administration, corporate income rose to the highest percentage of GDP, ever.
Now, yes, Obama wants to increase taxes on the only people in our society that can handle a tax increase. But, he looks like a corporate Democrat elsewhere.
Take health care. Obama wants to spend more, insuring those folks that are uninsured. But President Clinton pointed out on the Letterman show last August that our competitors in Europe and Japan spend 11% of GDP and cover everyone, while we spend 16% and leave 16% uncovered. The difference is the corporate welfare premium imposed upon us by our corporate oligarchy of which Obama, the corporate Democrat is a part of.
On Citibank, I don't understand the government relinquishing their preferred stock, which would be superior to common, for an interest in diluted common stock. Looks to me like more corporate welfare to stock holders. Meanwhile, the merits of free trade (the scheme where the country with the most exploitable work force is rewarded) is advocated. The false choice is presented. We need to avoid the protectionism of the 1930s as opposed to free trade. Well maybe so, but we may need to roll back to the 1980s, before WTO and a new world order, where the US was a creditor nation, instead of being the worlds largest debtor nation.
One thing is becoming increasingly clear. We're being hoodwinked by a "false dichotomy" by the corporate media. There are a lot of issues where the opposing viewpoint is simply suppressed. We could have been much more informed by first listening to Obama, the corporate Democrat, followed by a rebuttal by an non-corporate owned democrat, such as Kuchinch, as opposed to the rebuttal by Bobby Jindal. I think a false dichotomy on the issues needs to be paid attention to, since the internet is now bringing a formidable ability to respond to the corporate media's endeavor to keep the public focused on runaway bride issues, Olympic swimmer taking bong hits, and so forth. Needless to say, the false dichotomy is most present in issues involving corporate welfare.
I believe a budget bill cannot be filibustered, so either 58 or 59 Dems should be enough. We only have to worry about the blue dogs, not the Reeps.
"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex." - Frank Vincent Zappa
I would like to believe you but remember, these are the remnants of the people who threatened to unleash the "Nuclear Option" for judicial appointments. Neo-cons are a fanatical bunch and it would be a fool who would trust that they wouldn't attempt a filibuster. You also must remember that the patrons of these Republicans, the corporate giga-elite, have an obscene amount to loose if the construct of Reaganomics is ever permanently debunked. I will, however, say that I hope you are correct in your prediction.
If filter down economics didn't work, why would filter up economics work?
It's about time we get a President to stand up to the far right and slap the shit out of these bastards.
They plan to give Obama a very hard time,but as long as we have his back, they will get no where.
They have played this lower my tax game for far too long, knowing it was only going to benefit the rich, which speaks for the gang that are currently the only people in this country who are still able to survive
I have an idea, lets give everyone in the country one million dollars. That way everyone will be a millionaire and there will be no problems. Just print more money!!!! Adam Smith and Hayek are foolish and old; not to mention { Deleted, Offensive, There will be no more warnings. SiteMonitor} Milton Friedman. Everyone say it together "we make money the new fashioned way, we print it."
Let's all watch card tricks and funny, cute, old fashioned television. This blog has been an education, only rivaled by the
"higher learning" of academia. I enjoy knowing that I can insult your intelligence with impunity. Remember: credit card debt is good, breeding increases wealth, safety is always assured, personal accountability is antiquated, and your have the right never to be offended.
This being said, I've started a new club--we are the American National Socialists. For short, just call us American NAZIs. We take our teachings from Mussolini when he was a socialist in good standing.
I really hate those Republican fascists who practice revisionist history.
Healthcare, the financing of it, not the practice of it, should be 'not for profit'. If private industry doesn't want it, the government will do it, just like Medicare. essential healthcare and preventive should be mandatory at a premium set by government. Insurance companies may offer optional additional benefits at premiums they set.
There should be some mandated check on salaries, like executives are limited to a multiple of the predominant employee-worker. For instance a banking executive will not be able to receive more than x (this may vary by industry) times what the accountants get.
If executives get a pay raise, all employees will also. If employess get a pay raise, to may the executives up to the limit.
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
Comments are closed on this entry