Nov 26th 2012

Why Lame Duck Budget Battle is Really a Struggle Between the 1% and Ordinary Americans

by Robert Creamer

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on
To hear some pundits tell it, the Lame Duck budget battle is about the “unsustainable federal deficit,” or “entitlement reform,” or even “tax rates.”  These characterizations make it sound like a contest between two competing sets of policies and programs.

But underlying all of the policy-speak, the Lame Duck budget battle is really about one question.  Will the 1% of Americans who had the party that caused the deficit be asked to pay the bill?
The pain of “fixing” the deficit should not be distributed widely.  It should be distributed fairly – to the people who caused the problem and reaped the benefit – the wealthiest people in America.
The Lame Duck battle goes right to the most important question facing our political and economic decision-makers at this moment in American history: will we continue to allow the wealthiest 1% of Americans to siphon off all of our economic growth for themselves, or will the benefits of that growth be widely spread to ordinary Americans?   What portion of the goods and services produced by our society will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans – and how much goes to everyone else?
From what some right wing pundits and “wise men” from the business community say, you’d think that America is poorer today than it was fifty years ago, when Medicare and Medicaid became part of our social contract – or 70 years ago when we created Social Security.  Some of the “entitlement programs” we’ve had for decades are now “unsustainable” they say.  
We no longer can afford to guarantee seniors a decent retirement?  We can’t afford to guarantee every American the right to decent health care?  We can’t afford to provide guaranteed pensions – or to provide a living wage to our workers so they can look forward to providing a better standard of living for their kids? We just can’t do big things anymore like build the Interstate Highway system, or send someone to the moon, or create the Internet? They claim that “we” – meaning most of us but certainly not the 1% -- have to get used to the new “normal” of austerity and lowered expectations.
To put it bluntly, that is simply ridiculous.
To understand what is really going on all you have to know is three critical facts:
      1). First, for the last three decades our per-person gross domestic product – the amount that the average person in America produces in goods and services -- has consistently increased.  That increase has been slowed by several economic downturns and by the Great Recession, but over time, we have more to go around today than we did thirty years ago.
In fact, real (adjusted for inflation) per capita gross domestic product (GDP) increased more than 80% over the period between 1975 and 2005.  In the last ten years, before the Great Recession, it increased at an average rate of 1.8% per year.  That means that if the benefits of economic growth were equally spread throughout our society, everyone should have been almost 20% better off (with compounding) in 2008 than they were in 1998. 
     2). But ordinary people weren’t better off.  In fact, median family income actually dropped in the years before the recession.  It fell from $52,301 (in 2009 dollars) in 2000 to $50,112 in 2008. And, of course it continued to drop as the recession set in. In fact, as a group, ordinary Americans haven’t had a raise in about 30 years. 
How is that possible? 
Was it – as the Right likes to argue – because of the growth of the Federal Government?  Nope. In fact, the percentage of GDP going to federal spending actually dropped during the last four years of the Clinton Administration. When Bush took office it began to increase again as the Republicans increased spending on wars.  Over the last 28 years, federal spending has averaged about 20.9% of the GDP and varied within a range of only about 5%, with the high being in 1983 (in the middle of the Reagan years) and the low in 2000 before Bush took office.  It has never even come close to the 43.6% of GDP that it consumed during World War II in 1943 and 1944, or the 41.9% it consumed in 1945.   The percent of GDP that goes to Federal spending went up in 2009 and 2010 – but that was mainly because the economy shrunk on the one hand, and a major, temporary stimulus bill was need on the other to prevent another Great Depression.
Was it because taxes have skyrocketed?  No again.  In fact, Bureau of Economic Analysis data indicates that Americans now pay 23.6% of income for state, local and federal taxes compared to 27% from the 1970’s through the 1990’s.  In fact, the overall tax burden is the lower today than it has been since 1958.
Was it that labor became less productive?  No.  In fact, there has been a major gap between the increase in the productivity of our workforce and the increase in their wages.  Even when wages were improving at the end of the Clinton years, productivity went up 2.5% per year and median hourly wages went up only 1.5%. 
From 2000 to 2004, worker productivity exploded by an annual rate of 3.8% but hourly wages went up only 1% and median family income actually dropped .9%.
The bottom line is that people who work for a living (most of us) are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the nation’s economic pie. 
In fact, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government started keeping records in 1947.  And corporate profits have climbed to their highest levels since the 1960’s.
Which brings us to fact number three.
      3). Virtually all of the increase in our gross domestic product over the ten years before the Great Recession went to the wealthiest 2% of the population. 
These changes in income distribution are not the result of “natural laws.”  They were the result of systems set up by human beings that differentially benefit different groups in the society.
And that is what the Lame Duck budget battle is all about.  The wealthiest people in America want to continue to siphon off all of the growth in productivity and economic production – it’s that simple.
When George Bush took office from Bill Clinton we had a massive budget surplus.  The reason was that Clinton had passed a tax bill that mainly increased the tax rates paid by the wealthiest Americans.  Republicans made dire predictions that these new taxes on the wealthy would cause a recession.  Instead, the economy expanded like gangbusters.  Under Clinton the economy created 22 million new jobs.  The tech boom contributed mightily to increased productivity of the American work force.   And, notwithstanding the increase in taxes, the rich weren’t hurting.  Many fortunes were made during the 1990’s.
But the wealthiest Americans and their representatives in the Republican Party wanted more.  After the Supreme Court handed George Bush and the Republicans the election victory in 2000, they insisted that tax rates for the wealthy be slashed. And when the Republicans launched two wars they refused to increases taxes on the rich – or anyone else – to pay the bill.
Now they insist that cost of fixing the deficit they created, should fall upon the poor and the middle class and they should be asked to pay nothing.  Instead, they want Social Security recipients who make $15,000 per year to have their Medicare benefits cut.  Instead, they want to cut our spending on education and new roads and transit systems.  Instead they want to cut food stamps and unemployment benefits that help prevent ordinary people from falling into poverty when they are laid off by a company like Sensata, that is making money manufacturing its products in the U.S. but wants to make even more by shipping its jobs to China.
The increasing costs of the country’s health care programs are not driven by greedy seniors, or by “unsustainable entitlement programs.”  They are driven by rising health care costs – that result in large measure from the fact that our insurance company-driven health care system led us to pay twice as much per capita for health care than any other society on earth – even though we are 37th in health care outcomes.

You bet we have to control health care costs, but we don’t do that by transferring those costs to ordinary people whose share of the economic pie has been stagnating for years.  We need to do that by creating a more rational system for financing and delivering health care – a project that has finally begun with the passage of ObamaCare.
Changes to Medicare or Medicaid that actually control health care costs are a great idea.  We might start by allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to get lower rates on prescriptions – which was explicitly prohibited under the law that created Republican-crafted Medicare Part D drug benefit.
But Democrats should not agree to any change in Medicare or Medicaid that cuts benefits for ordinary Americans.  Ordinary Americans didn’t benefit from the party that caused the deficit, and they shouldn’t be asked to pay the bill.
Maybe the most outrageous proposal coming out of the “big thinkers” who flack for Wall Street and the CEO class, is the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age.
Remember that Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit.  In fact the Social Security Trust Fund has been in surplus since it was reformed in 1980.  Regardless, the one percent crowd insists that Social Security is  “unsustainable” in its current form and the way to fix it is to require that everyone retire later.
That may make sense to editorial writers or business executives who love their jobs, make big salaries and have no intention of retiring at 65.  It makes no sense at all to people who do manual labor or clean hotel rooms and are paid a minimum wage.
The people making these proposals will never be affected by increasing the retirement age.  The people who are being asked to sacrifice are generally the people who work the hardest for the lowest pay and have not benefited at all from the economy growth that their labor helped to fuel over the last 30 years.
This proposal is particularly outrageous when you realize that the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare don’t apply to income over $110,000 per year.  If everyone paid the same percentage of their income in payroll taxes as a the average American that earns $50,000 per year, the Social Security Trust Fund would be solvent for the next 75 years. 
When wealthy executives who make millions say that America can’t “afford” the current Social Security and Medicare programs, what they really mean is that they don’t want to pay their fair share to support these critical programs.   What they are really saying is that they have a right to take all of the increased economic growth that our society generates over the next three decades the same way they have for the last 30 years.
It is up to Democrats – to all everyday middle class Americans -- to just say no to the greed and arrogance that underlies their proposals that everyday Americans should have to sacrifice more, so that the 1% doesn’t have to pay its fair share. 
It’s time we refuse to give any credibility whatsoever to their absurd assertions that increasing taxes on the rich will slow the economy by punishing “job creators.”  In fact, economic history – and most recently the Clinton years – demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt -- that economies grow from the middle out, not the top down.  Economic history demonstrates that the best way to grow an economy is to make sure that ordinary American consumers have growing incomes that will allow them to buy the goods and services that their increased productivity can produce.   Middle class consumers with money in their pockets are the true “job creators.” 
Republican policies that allow the wealthy to continue siphoning off all of our growth in national income are the true enemy of long-term economic growth.  They are a formula for economic stagnation because they are a recipe for the destruction of America’s middle class.
It’s up to us to demand that Wall Street gamblers who don’t make anything of value should no longer be allowed to pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than teachers or firefighters or the millions of Americans who go to work every day and actually create the goods and services that people need to live more fulfilling lives.
And it’s up to the media to understand that in the final analysis, the Lame Duck budget battle is not about policies and programs at all – it’s about right and wrong.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Apr 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "Some presidents indulge in the “Mount Rushmore syndrome” making an obvious effort to achieve greatness. Normally soft-spoken and apparently modest Biden is making his own bid for immortality."
Apr 9th 2021
EXTRACT: "New ways of thinking about the role of government are as important as new priorities. Many commentators have framed Biden’s infrastructure plan as a return to big government. But the package is spread over eight years, will raise public spending by only one percentage point of GDP, and is projected to pay for itself eventually. A boost in public investment in infrastructure, the green transition, and job creation is long overdue."
Apr 7th 2021
EXTRACT: " One can, and perhaps should, take the optimistic view that moral panics in the US blow over; reason will once again prevail. It could be that the Biden era will take the sting out of Trumpism, and the tolerance for which American intellectual life has often been admired will be reinvigorated. This might even happen while the noxious effects of American influence still rage in other countries. For the sake of America and the world, one can only hope it happens soon.  "
Mar 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "By refusing (despite having some good reasons) to end electoral gerrymandering, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has directly enabled the paralyzing hyper-partisanship that reached its nadir during Donald Trump’s presidency. By striking down all limits on corporate spending on political campaigns in the infamous 2010 Citizens United decision, he has helped to entrench dark money in US politics. And by gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Roberts has facilitated the racist voter-suppression tactics now being pursued in many Republican-controlled states."
Mar 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "the UK’s tough choices accumulate, and the problems lurking around the corner look menacing. Britain will have to make the best of Brexit. But it will be a long, hard struggle, all the more so with an evasive fabulist in charge."
Mar 15th 2021
EXTRACT: "Over the years, the approach of most American policymakers toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been Israel-centric with near total disregard for the suffering endured by the Palestinian people. The architects of policy in successive US administrations have discussed the conflict as if the fate of only one party (Israel) really mattered. Israelis were treated as full human beings with hopes and fears, while Palestinians were reduced to a problem that needed to be solved so that Israelis could live in peace and security.  ..... It is not just that Israelis and Palestinians haven’t been viewed with an equal measure of concern. It’s worse than that. It appears that Palestinians were judged as less ​human than Israelis, and were, therefore, not entitled to make demands to have their rights recognized and protected."
Mar 8th 2021
EXTRACTS: "XThere’s a global shortage in semiconductors, and it’s becoming increasingly serious." ...... "The automotive sector has been worst affected by the drought, in an era where microchips now form the backbone of most cars. Ford is predicting a 20% slump in production and Tesla shut down its model 3 assembly line for two weeks. In the UK, Honda was forced to temporarily shut its plant as well." ..... " As much as 70% of the world’s semiconductors are manufactured by just two companies, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) and Samsung."
Mar 5th 2021
EXTRACT: "Back in 1992, Lawrence H. Summers, then the chief economist at the World Bank, and I warned that pushing the US Federal Reserve’s annual inflation target down from 4% to 2% risked causing big problems. Not only was the 4% target not producing any discontent, but a 2% target would increase the risk of the Fed’s interest-rate policy hitting the zero lower bound. Our objections went unheeded. Fed Chair Alan Greenspan reduced the inflation target to 2%, and we have been paying for it ever since. I have long thought that many of our economic problems would go away if we could rejigger asset markets in such a way as to make a 5% federal funds rate consistent with full employment in the late stage of a business cycle."
Mar 2nd 2021
EXTRACT: "Under these conditions, the Fed is probably worried that markets will instantly crash if it takes away the punch bowl. And with the increase in public and private debt preventing the eventual monetary normalization, the likelihood of stagflation in the medium term – and a hard landing for asset markets and economies – continues to increase."
Mar 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus programs in the United States and other advanced economies are fueling a raging debate about whether higher inflation could be just around the corner. Ten-year US Treasury yields and mortgage rates are already climbing in anticipation that the US Federal Reserve – the de facto global central bank – will be forced to hike rates, potentially bursting asset-price bubbles around the world. But while markets are probably overstating short-term inflation risks for 2021, they do not yet fully appreciate the longer-term dangers."
Feb 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "To be sure, calls to “build back better” from the pandemic imply some awareness of the need for systemic change. But the transformation we need extends beyond constructing modern infrastructure or unlocking private investment in any one country. We need to re-orient – indeed, re-invent – global politics, so that countries can cooperate far more effectively in creating a better world."
Feb 23rd 2021
EXTRACT: "So, notwithstanding the predictable release of pent-up demand for consumer durables, face-to-face services show clear evidence – in terms of both consumer demand and employment – of permanent scarring. Consequently, with the snapback of pent-up demand for durables nearing its point of exhaustion, the recovery of the post-pandemic US economy is likely to fall well short of vaccine development’s “warp speed.” "
Feb 20th 2021
EXTRACT: "Human rights abuses under Erdogan are beyond the pale of inhumanity and moral decadence. The list of Erdogan’s violations and cruelty is too long to numerate. The detention and horrifying torture of thousands of innocent people for months and at times for years, without being charged, is hard to fathom. Many prisoners are left languishing in dark cells, often in solitary confinement. The detention of tens of thousands of men and hundreds of women, many with their children, especially following the 2016 failed coup, has become common. It is calculated to inflict horrendous pain and suffering to bring the prisoners to the breaking point, so that they confess to crimes they have never committed."
Feb 20th 2021
Courtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, circa 1670, (Job Adriaenszoon Berckheyde).
Feb 12th 2021
EXTRACT: "Global regulators will no doubt be concerned about a potential volatility spillover from digital asset prices into traditional capital markets. They may not permit what could quickly amount to effective proxy approval by the back door for companies holding large proportions of a volatile asset on their balance sheets."
Feb 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "Since Russians began protesting opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s imprisonment, the security forces have apparently had carte blanche to arrest demonstrators – and they have done so by the thousands. If Russians so much as honk their car horns in solidarity with the protesters, they risk personal repercussions. The official response to the protests goes beyond the Kremlin’s past repression. It is war."
Feb 6th 2021
EXTRACT: " Biden, Roosevelt was certainly no revolutionary. His task was to save American capitalism. He was a repairer, a fixer. The New Deal was achieved not because of Roosevelt’s genius or heroism, but because enough people trusted him to act in good faith. That is precisely what people are expecting from Biden, too. He must save US democracy from the ravages of a political crisis. To do so, he must reestablish trust in the system. He has promised to make his country less polarized, and to restore civility and truth to political discourse. In this endeavor, his lack of charisma may turn out to be his greatest strength. For all that he lacks in grandeur, he makes up for by exuding an air of decency."
Feb 2nd 2021
EXTRACT: "Europe must not lose sight of the long game, which inevitably will center on China, not Russia or relations with post-Brexit Britain. China is already establishing a presence in Iran, and demonstrating that it has the capital, know-how, and technology to project power and influence beyond its borders. Should it succeed in turning the Belt and Road Initiative into a line of geopolitical stepping-stones, it might soon emerge at Europe’s southeastern border in a form that no one in the EU foresaw."
Jan 29th 2021
EXTRACT: "One sign of this change is that, unlike all recent Democratic administrations, Biden’s hasn’t paid obeisance to Wall Street by giving bankers top jobs. The new Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, is a former Federal Reserve chair and academic who has made it clear that she understands the country’s pressing social needs. Moreover, Biden consulted Warren on her economic views, and has named a former Warren adviser as Yellen’s deputy. Yellen’s appointment demonstrates that Biden shares the insight that enabled Trump’s rise: that too many Americans feel that they cannot get a fair share. "
Jan 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "Barack Obama cautioned in his final speech as president that, “Our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted.” Yet isn’t that exactly what America has been doing? In a decade punctuated by the global financial crisis, the COVID-19 crisis, a racial-justice crisis, an inequality crisis, and now a political crisis, we have only paid lip service to lofty democratic ideals. ... Sadly, this complacency has come at a time of growing fragility for the American experiment. Internet-enabled connectivity is dangerously amplifying an increasingly polarized national discourse in an era of mounting social and political instability. The resulting vulnerability was brought into painfully sharp focus on January 6. The stewardship of democracy is at grave risk. "