McCain Mentioned Middle Class Zero Times During the Debate

Obama's new ad about McCain using the word middle class zero times during last night's debate...

Employment Can't Even Protect You from the Class War Raging Outside

One of my favorite journalists is Matt Taibbi. Taibbi is not afraid to call out the crude behavior of our politicians and show how ridiculous our politically arena has gotten.

Recently, Taibbi wrote an article called It's a Class War, Stupid, where he takes a look at which storyline for the general election the media is going to pick and then focuses in on the one they should: the growing economic disparity and shrinking middle class.

Taibbi talks with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who recently asked Americans to send him letters about economic problems people are facing.

The recurring theme is that employment, even dual employment, is no longer any kind of barrier against poverty. Not economic discomfort, mind you, but actual poverty. Meaning, having less than you need to eat and live in heated shelter — forgetting entirely about health care and dentistry, which has long ceased to be considered an automatic component of American middle-class life. The key factors in almost all of the Sanders letters are exploding gas and heating oil costs, reduced salaries and benefits, and sharply increased property taxes (a phenomenon I hear about all across the country at campaign trail stops, something that seems to me to be directly tied to the Bush tax cuts and the consequent reduced federal aid to states). And it all adds up to one thing.

"The middle class is disappearing," says Sanders. "In real ways we're becoming more like a third-world country."

Here's the thing: nobody needs me or Bernie Sanders to tell them that it sucks out there and that times are tougher economically in this country than perhaps they've been for quite a long time. We've all seen the stats — median income has declined by almost $2,500 over the past seven years, we have a zero personal savings rate in America for the first time since the Great Depression, and 5 million people have slipped below the poverty level since the beginning of the decade. And stats aside, most everyone out there knows what the deal is. If you're reading this and you had to drive to work today or pay a credit card bill in the last few weeks you know better than I do for sure how fucked up things have gotten. I hear talk from people out on the campaign trail about mortgages and bankruptcies and bill collectors that are enough to make your ass clench with 100 percent pure panic.

None of this is a secret. Here, however, is something that is a secret: that this is a class issue that is being intentionally downplayed by a political/media consensus bent on selling the public a version of reality where class resentments, or class distinctions even, do not exist. Our "national debate" is always a thing where we do not talk about things like haves and have-nots, rich and poor, employers versus employees. But we increasingly live in a society where all the political action is happening on one side of the line separating all those groups, to the detriment of the people on the other side.

We have a government that is spending two and a half billion dollars a day in Iraq, essentially subsidizing new swimming pools for the contracting class in northern Virginia, at a time when heating oil and personal transportation are about to join health insurance on the list of middle-class luxuries. Home heating and car ownership are slipping away from the middle class thanks to exploding energy prices — the hidden cost of the national borrowing policy we call dependency on foreign oil, "foreign" representing those nations, Arab and Chinese, that lend us the money to pay for our wars.

And while we've all heard stories about how much waste and inefficiency there is in our military spending, this is always portrayed as either "corruption" or simple inefficiency, and not what it really is — a profound expression of our national priorities, a means of taking money from ordinary, struggling people and redistributing it not downward but upward, to connected insiders, who turn your tax money into pure profit. [emphasis added]

No longer can employment insure that you won't be faced with poverty. During the 2004 campaign, Bush admitted that working 2 jobs was uniquely American. Americans take on that extra job in hopes of getting ahead. However, now they are finding that even 2 jobs isn't enough because all it takes is an illness in the family, a home repair, or the next electric bill that clears out their savings.

Nussle Nomination Up for Vote on Tuesday and Why to Vote Against Him

The nomination of Jim Nussle as the OMB Director will be up for a vote in the Senate on Tuesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has written a lengthy piece at the Huffington Post about why he is voting against Jim Nussle.

Here is what Sanders concludes...

In my view, it all comes down to the phrase "which side are we on." Are we on the side of those people who make huge campaign contributions to Congress and the White House, or are we on the side of tens of millions of working families, struggling hard to keep their heads above water? That is the choice we face.

And, that is why I am voting against Jim Nussle. Not because he is not smart, he is. Not because I don't like him, personally, I do. I am voting against Jim Nussle because I believe we should not give a break to the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune. Rather, we should be fighting to substantially increase financial aid for low- and middle-class families so that every American, regardless of income, can receive a college education.

We should not give another tax break to the former CEO of ExxonMobil and his family. Instead, we should be working to support working families all over this country who are desperately seeking quality and affordable childcare.

I don't think that the heirs to the Mars Candy Bar fortune should get a tax break. In my view, it is far more important that we keep our promises to the veterans of this country who now find themselves on waiting lists to get the health care they need.

If, as a nation, we are serious about addressing the long neglected needs of the middle-class and working people and creating a fairer and more egalitarian society, we have to invest in education, health care, housing, and our infrastructure. We have to deal with the crisis of global warming and sustainable energy, as well as many other areas. We also have to reduce our national debt. Given that reality, Congress must develop the courage to stand up to the big money interests, to the wealthiest families. We must roll back the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1 percent, and we must demand that fortunate people rejoin American society and understand that like everybody else in this country, they are part of America and not a special breed. If we are to keep faith with our children, our seniors, our veterans, and with those people who have no health insurance, we can do no less.

It seems very clear to me that we, as a nation, need to change our national priorities, and that the U.S. government should start paying attention to the struggling working families of our country rather than the powerful special interests who have so much power in Washington. We need a budget director who will remind the president that he is supposed to represent the interests of all Americans, and not just wealthy Republican campaign contributors.

That is why I am voting against Jim Nussle.

Democrats Want Tax Cuts for Middle Class

My post last week saying not extending temporary tax cuts is not increasing taxes caused a little uproar at righty blogs like State 29 and the Cornbeltway Babies. Both were crying about so-called tax increases, while completely ignoring the neeed to invest in our future.

Here is a story that goes into more detail about the Democrats plan when it comes to taxes. It says they plan to decrease taxes on the middle class and consider not extending the tax cuts for the most wealthy.

She (Speaker Pelosi) spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.

"As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.

A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.

"What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year," Pelosi said.

All of these should start us on the track of balancing the budget and should help jumpstart the economy. When consumers have more money in their pockets they spend it, which creates jobs.

The Reason Behind Immigration

I think this comment from the Des Moines Register website really shows the conditions at meat packing plants in this country now and why immigrants are filling those jobs.

25 years ago I worked at Swift. It was the companies wish to bust the Unions and pay lower wages with immigrants that has turned a good paying middle class job into a low paying job. Bush and company continually say that illegals do the jobs regular Americans don't want. It is the Republicans that have decimated the middle class by lowering the standard of living for "regular Americans". Democrats aren't completely clean on this issue either, but it is the greed of the corporate Republicans that have drove this country down toward the lower economic societies of Mexico and India.

What Swift pays their workers now, I was getting paid 25 years ago. And the benefits are practically non-existant compared to 25 years ago. It's not that Americans don't want to do this type of work, it's that Americans don't want to work for what could be considered "slave wages" compared to 20-25 years ago. How hard is this to comprehend?

It isn't that Americans won't do certain jobs. They just won't do them for low wages and poor benefits. It is basic economics. Americans don't want to work in a meat packing plant for $12 an hour, so the company needs to provide a wage that would make the job more attractive. Instead, the company has found a way around the system and found a source of cheap labor.

When I was younger, a person work at Swifts and be part of the middle class. Today, that is no longer the case. Is that the fault of the immigrants that are coming here, the companies paying the low wages, or the government for allowing it to happen?

Back to School Homework

It has been a busy couple weeks, hence the fewer posts I have been making. Last week, my Grandma had emergency surgery and is still in the hospital. I have started my job as a 2nd grade teacher this week (well, I started 2 weeks ago, but finally started getting paid for it this week). The kids come on Tuesday for the 1st day of school, so I have been busy getting my room ready, attending workshops, and planning curriculum. It is fun though. To top it off, my sister-in-law, who is pregnant, went to the hospital today and will probably deliver tonight or tomorrow.

Here are some articles that I was going to blog about, if I wasn't so busy. Since it is back to school time, here is some homework for this weekend.

• Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio interviewed Sen. Byron Dorgan about his new book, Take This Job and Ship It, about the so-called Free Trade agreements. Very interesting interview. (Most interesting statement: Dorgan said the US has a $2 billion a DAY trade decifit.) I am adding this book to my reading list. Listen to the interview here.
  

• Politics 101: Don't Reinforce Your Opponents' Lies by David Sirota

Take, for instance, the term "moderate." This is a word the American Heritage Dictionary defines as "Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme." Yet, it is applied specifically to politicians pundits who, measured against public opinion, are the opposite, like Joe Lieberman (De Facto GOP Nominee-CT), John McCain (R-AZ) and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Think about their major positions: Lieberman likens his opponents terrorist sympathizers, calls them "extremists" on national television, and shills for a war that 60 percent of Americans oppose. McCain actually wants to send more troops to Iraq - again a position only a small minority of Americans supports. Brooks calls for an end to American democracy, saying "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Yet, these folks are routinely referred to by the media and political Establishment as leading "moderates," that is, leading voices for positions that are supposedly "within reasonable limits" and are "not excessive or extreme" in relation to the rest of the country's positions.

• Politics 101: You Can't Take the Democratic Party Out of the Democratic Party by David Sirota
  

“If you pretend like you aren’t a Democrat or that your opponent is just a bad politician instead of a bad Republican politician, voters will think you are ashamed of who you are,” writes Stoller. “It’s not about being a proud Democrat, it’s about not being a tool, and voters don’t like tools.” Put another way, when you try to take the Democratic Party out of the Democratic Party, you insult voters’ intelligence, hurt the party’s long-term prospects, and generally look like an idiot.

• Off With Their Heads by Matt Taibi

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public. So instead of telling big, bold whoppers right out in the open, they're forever coming out with backhanded little asides like this one, apparently in the hope that only your subconscious will notice. I won't be surprised if they respond to the next electoral loss by a DLC candidate by having Bruce Reed argue in the Wall Street Journal that "bloggers, Queer Eye, and Arabs with syphilis are not the future of the Democratic Party."

• Politicians Middle-Class Delusions by Jonahton Schwarz

Then there are the campaign contributions courted by politicians: the Center for Responsive Politics found that 86 percent of itemized money raised in 2004 came from less than 0.2 percent of Americans. Politicians spend shocking amounts of their time on the phone hitting these people up for cash, and it's safe to assume few among them worry much about hikes in their health care premiums. And when they're not raising money, politicians are rushing off to the TV studio. Lieberman, for instance, is constantly buddying it up on TV with Tim Russert (annual salary: $5 million), Sean Hannity ($5 million plus), and Chris Matthews ($4.3 million second home on Nantucket).

Workers' Pensions Get Cut While Executives' Pensions Grow

Here is a very in depth article explaining how workers' pensions are getting cut, while pensions for executives grow. Here is the main idea (read the entire article for many details and numbers)...

Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers -- complaining of the costs -- their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies' financial obligations for them to balloon.

Companies disclose little about any of this. But a Wall Street Journal analysis of corporate filings reveals that executive benefits are playing a large and hidden role in the declining health of America's pensions.

Leach Votes to Give Rich Another Tax Break and Hurts Working Iowans

Dave Loebsack comments on Jim Leach voting to repeal the estate tax.

“Jim Leach’s vote on the estate tax defies fiscal responsibility and his own rhetoric, at the expense of working families in Iowa,” Loebsack said.

“After thirty years in Congress, Leach has apparently decided it is more important to give millionaires a big tax break than it is to balance the budget, more important to heap more debt on the backs of middle-income families than it is to assure that our critical needs are met,” Loebsack continued.

The bill exempts almost all estates from tax, slashes the tax rates on the rest and will cost at least $760 billion during its first full decade. Another $600 billion would be added to the deficit along with an additional $160 billion in the interest on that borrowing, to be paid back by future generations so today’s wealthiest families can get another Republican tax break.

Leach also voted against a livable wage. Loebsack responded by saying...

“I am appalled that our incumbent Representative does not support requiring companies that get federal help to employ American workers at decent wages," said Loebsack. “This is another example of how Jim Leach is out of touch with the priorities of hard working Iowans. When elected to Congress, I will immediately sponsor legislation to increase the minimum wage by at least two dollars,” he continued. “Once again, when we needed leadership from Jim Leach, working Iowan’s didn’t get it.”

Jim Leach has failed eastern Iowa over and over again. Leach is not the moderate than many people believe. The Republicans can count on his vote when they need it the most. It is time for real leadership. It is time for a real Progressive in Iowa's most Democratic district. The answer is Dave Loebsack. Please support Loebsack against the fake-moderate Jim Leach.

Senate defeats Democrats minimum wage increase

Today the Senate voted against raising the minimum wage to $7.15.

Congress gets an automatic pay increase unless there is a direct vote. Last week the House agreed to increase their pay for the seventh straight year by refusing to vote on the issue. The Senate will be taking up the issue of their own pay raise in the coming week. Sen. Russ Feingold plans on attempting to block the Senators pay hike.

Check out Blog for Iowa for a good story on history of the minimum wage in terms of current dollars.

Tax Cuts for the top 3.5% of Americans!

On Friday, The Woodbury Democrat posted about how much you will actually get from the tax cuts the Republicans pushed through congress.

Under the just passed Republican tax deal ...

If you make less than $10,000/year, you will save $0 in taxes annually.
If you make $10,000-20,000/year, you will save $3 in taxes annually.
If you make $20,000-30,000/year, you will save $10 in taxes annually.
If you make $30,000-$40,000/year, you will save $17 in taxes annually.
If you make $40,000-50,000/year, you will save $47 in taxes annually.
If you make $50,000-75,000/year, you will save $112 in taxes annually.
If you make $75,000-100,000/year, you will save $406 in taxes annually.
If you make $100,000-200,000/year, you will save $1,395 in taxes annually.
If you make $200,000-500,000/year, you will save $4,527 in taxes annually.
If you make $500,000-1 million/year, you will save $5,656 in taxes annually.
If you make more than $1million/year, you will save $42,766 in taxes annually.

Less than 3.5 percent of U.S. taxpayers fall into the category of making $200,000 a year or more.

So, this is a targeted tax cut -- at a $70 billion cost to the Treasury -- for less than THREE AND A HALF PERCENT of the population.

The small tax cuts the common American will be getting won't be enough to offset the rise in health care, gas prices, college tuition, etc. The Republicans make their base happy while making it harder for the common American to get by.

Bush is Crippling Unborn Children with Debt and Giving the Rich Tax Cuts

Yesterday the Senate voted to pass Bush's tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans. The bill passed 54-44, so at least it was good to see most all of the Democrats sticking together on this one. Sen. Boxer discussed how these tax cuts affect Americans...

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) noted that someone earning more than $1 million a year would get a tax break worth $41,977.

"Well, you might say, `What does someone who earns $41,000 get back?' $46. Not even enough to fill up your gas tank in some cases," she said.

The tax cuts worth $70 nillion over the next 2 years just adds to the gigantic deficit that Bush (and Jim Nussle) has piled up. No other President in US history has cut taxes in a time of war and now Bush has done it at least 3 times. While our children are over fighting the war, these tax cuts just mean that they are the same ones that will be paying for it.

Win Ben Stein's Money?

I liked the show Win Ben Stein's Money, then in 2004 I saw Ben Stein cheering on Bu$h's reelection on some cable news show and got turned off on Stein. This morning, I was shocked when I read that Stein is now calling for the rich to pay their fair share in a NY Times article entitled "You're Rich. Terrific. Now Pay Up."

But if they are superrich, they derive special benefits from life in the United States that the nonrich don't. For one thing, they can make the money in a safe environment, which is not true for the rich in many countries. It is just common decency that they should pay much higher income taxes than they do. Taxes for the rich are lower than they have been since at least World War II — that is to say, in 60 years.

This makes no sense in a world at war, in a nation with so many unmet social needs, in a nation with so many people without health care, in a nation running immense and endless deficits.

America is becoming a nation of many rich people. I recently read that there were close to 10 million millionaire households. I read that there were hundreds of thousands who made more than $1 million a year. Good for them.

But it's unlovely for them to pay as little tax as they now pay. The real problem in this country is only temporarily about oil. That will right itself, or we'll get used to it and adjust.

The real problem is saving a nation that is beset by terrorism, and we cannot do that unless we feel that we are all in the same boat, pulling at the oars together. That includes the rich.

Whatever rationale there may have been in 2001 for lowering their taxes is long gone. It's time for them — us, because it includes me — to pay their (our) share.

It's not about oil. It's about fairness.

It is good to see some Republicans coming to their senses. There are some things in this world that are more evil than taxes. It is time to start investing in our future once again.

How long does it take a CEO to earn your pay?

How long does it take a CEO of a Fortune 500 company to earn your pay?

Follow the link to find out...
Make Work Pay

Fair Tax? Only for the most wealthy

Yesterday, Krusty Konservative posted about the Fair Tax system that strips all taxes on income, institutes a national sales tax, and ends all taxes on corporations.

The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

There is nothing Fair at all about this tax. Let's say a husband and wife are a teacher and a nurse and make $60,000 a year combined. Then look at a CEO who makes $600,000 a year and his wife does not work. Just because the CEO makes 10 times as much money, does that mean his family buys 10 times as many clothes, eats 10 times as much food, goes to the doctor 10 times as many times, buys 10 times as many prescription drugs, buys 10 times as much gas for their cars, and goes on 10 times as many vacations? The answer is no. Does the CEO work 10 times as hard as the teacher and the nurse? Again the answer is no. There is nothing fair at all about this tax.

The response from one of Krusty's readers to my commments...

The CEO probably gets a tailored suit, not one from JC Penney. The CEO probably drives a BMW, not a '98 Taurus. The CEO probably eats at Splash, not at Applebee's. The CEO probably goes to Tahiti for vacation, not to Adventureland. There's nothing wrong with being poor, you're just really dumb if you are.

I agree that the CEO probably buys nicer things, but is it fair that they do? Do they really need 8 cars in their driveway, a closet full of designer shoes that is bigger than my house when so many Americans are without health insurance and children are growing up in poverty?

Any tax based on consumption is regressive. There should be a tax system that provides the help to end poverty, provide the basic needs a person has, and to invest in our future. The government should not be giving hand outs, rather hand ups. A Fair Tax does not do that, it just allows a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

Guess What? Food costs more!

I saw this article in the Des Moines Register today about food is costing more. However, don't blame farmers, blame energy costs.

Report: Food is Costing More
by Anne Fitzgerald
April 4

It's costing more to put food on the table.

During the first quarter, U.S. retail prices for pork chops rose 15 cents per pound, while ground beef increased 30 cents and cheddar cheese jumped 50 cents, the American Farm Bureau Federation reported Monday.

But don't blame farmers, said Terry Francl, senior economist with the Washington, D.C.-based trade group. Expensive energy, not prices paid to producers, is the main culprit, he said.

In its first market-basket survey of the new year, the Farm Bureau found that the cost of 16 basic food items was $40.73, up $1.90, or nearly 5 percent, in the first quarter of 2006, compared with the fourth quarter last year.

Prices for 11 items increased, while those for five others fell.

At the farm level, prices fell for livestock, poultry and dairy products during the first quarter, according to the Farm Bureau, which has conducted the quarterly food-price survey since 1989.

Stagnant Wages? Made in USA

Thanks to Iowa Underground for digging up this article written by Robert Kuttner. It is a must read for all Common Iowans. Here are some excerpts...

As Congress grapples with immigration policy, most experts agree that wide-open immigration slightly depresses wages, especially among unskilled workers. But the main reason for static wages has more do with policies made in the United States.

Such as tax cuts for the wealthy, rising tuition costs for higher education, and health care costs that burdens businesses.

Census data show median household income fell 3.8 percent or $1,700, from 1999 to 2004, according to economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute (on whose board I serve.) And this drop occurred during a period when average productivity rose three percent per year.

Moreover, as economist Jeff Madrick has observed in his book ''Why Economies Grow," , the reality is worse because prices of commodities that make us middle class are rising much faster than inflation generally: housing, college education, health care, and also child care. These very rapid price increases are offset by falling costs of consumer electronics, basic food, and clothing, creating misleadingly low inflation measures.

It's great that shirts are cheaper than a decade ago, and that we all have cell phones. But that doesn't exactly substitute for a house, an affordable college education, or health care.

That is exactly the reason I don't shop at Wal Mart.

Don't blame it on immigrants. Blame it on the people running the government, who have made sure that the lion's share of the productivity gains go to the richest 1 percent of Americans. With different tax, labor, health, and housing policies, native-born workers and immigrants alike could get a fairer share of our productive economy -- and still have the nifty iPods.