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 amazon.com.
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

Nov 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "Momentous changes are casting a long shadow on China. The country’s political system will soon undergo a profound reform, pending final approval (a quasi-formality) at next year’s congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC). President Xi Jinping, the Party chairman and the “navigator” of the country, has decided on a new course, abandoning the principle of collective leadership. Xi is leading China away from the path taken by Deng Xiaoping after the terror of the Cultural Revolution, and back toward a system of absolute rule by one person without term limits, as under Mao Zedong."
Nov 25th 2021
EXTRACTS: "”The biggest disappointment in Glasgow was the last-minute watering down of the proposed (and widely supported) agreement to “phase out” the use of coal in energy production. With India providing political cover for China in vetoing this language, the final conference proposal was to “phase down” coal”. ---- “China accounts for more than half of the world’s coal consumption, and has the largest amount of coal-fired generating capacity under construction. Pressed about why his country would not do more in Glasgow to help save the planet, China’s chief negotiator pointed to the commitments in the Communist Party of China’s current Five-Year Plan. So, our future now depends on the CPC’s program. The tragedy for the world is that the Party cannot be phased down, much less phased out, despite the fact that it is a huge threat to the future of all of us.” ------ “To save the planet, robust democratic leadership must be phased up – not phased down, let alone phased out. Rather than merely keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best, we should start by calling out the appalling behavior of dictatorships such as China and Russia.”
Nov 22nd 2021
EXTRACT: "The transitory inflation debate in the United States is over. The upsurge in US inflation has turned into something far worse than the Federal Reserve expected. Perpetually optimistic financial markets are taking this largely in stride. The Fed is widely presumed to have both the wisdom and the firepower to keep underlying inflation in check. That remains to be seen."
Nov 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "S&P projects that companies are planning to install 44 gigawatts of new solar in 2022. The year 2020, despite the onset of the pandemic, saw a record-breaking 19 gigawatts of new solar capacity installed in the U.S. So given the bids out there already, it appears that in 2022 solar installers will more than double their best year ever so far. The U.S. currently has 100 gigawatts of solar electricity-generating capacity, so in just one year we are poised to add nearly 50% of our current total. A gigawatt of power can provide electricity to about 750,000 homes. So the 44 new gigawatts we’ll put in next year have a nameplate capacity that would under ideal conditions allow them to power 33 million homes." ----- "Not only is there a lot of good news on the green energy front but there is good news in the bad news for fossil fuels. S&P finds that coal plants are being retired way before the utilities had expected. Some 29 gigawatts of coal retirements are expected from 2020 through 2025. "
Nov 3rd 2021
EXTRACT: "Zemmour’s way of thinking stems from a tradition going back to the French Revolution of 1789. Catholic conservatives and right-wing intellectuals, who hated the secular republic that emerged from the revolution, have long fulminated against liberals, cosmopolitans, immigrants, and other enemies of their idea of a society based on ethnic purity, obedience to the church, and family values. They were almost invariably anti-Semitic. When Jewish army Captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of betraying his country in the notorious scandal of the 1890s, they were on the side of Dreyfus’s accusers. ---- Germany’s invasion of France in 1940 gave reactionaries of this kind the chance to form a French puppet-government in Vichy. Zemmour has had kind things to say about the Vichy regime. He also has expressed some doubt about the innocence of Dreyfus. ---- None of these views would be surprising if they came from a far-right agitator like Jean-Marie Le Pen. But Zemmour is the son of Sephardic Jewish immigrants from Algeria who lived among the Muslim Berbers."
Oct 27th 2021
EXTRACT: "performed strongly in last month’s parliamentary and regional elections. Officially, Communist Party candidates took 18.9% of the popular vote for the State Duma (parliament), compared to nearly 49.8% for the Kremlin’s United Russia party. But the Communists refused to recognize the results, insisting that the vote was rigged. And, indeed, some experts estimate that they should have gotten around 30% of the vote, with United Russia taking about 35%."
Oct 22nd 2021
EXTRACT: "Powell was charismatic in the true sense of the term. Nowadays, this description is too often used to indicate an ability to attract supporters or generate celebrity interest. Internet lists of those who are regarded as charismatic include characters as varied as Adolf Hitler, Bono, Donald Trump, George Clooney, and Rihanna. But the ancient Greeks and Saint Paul used “charisma” to describe values-based leadership infused with a charm capable of inspiring devotion. The Greeks believed that this quality was a gift of grace, while Christian theology regarded it as a power given by the Holy Spirit."
Oct 17th 2021
EXTRACTS: "But property-sector woes are not the only economic danger China faces in 2021-22. The Chinese government’s mounting crackdown on the country’s burgeoning tech sector may pose an even greater threat." ---- "According to a recent study by McKinsey & Company, the share of Chinese urban employment supported by private enterprises more than quadrupled between 1995 and 2018, from just 18% to 87%. The share of exports generated by the private sector more than doubled over the same period, from 34% to 88%. And private-sector fixed-asset investment jumped from 42% to 65% of the total. The message in the data is clear: clamping down on the private sector and threatening innovators is not the way to ensure sustained rapid growth. Chinese entrepreneurs can read the writing on the wall. They understand that their political and regulatory room to maneuver is shrinking, and that the balance has shifted in favor of state-owned firms and public officials. And they understand that this uneasy atmosphere is likely to persist."
Oct 16th 2021
EXTRACT: "We designed a programme that incorporated data from over 300 million buildings and analysed 130 million km² of land – almost the entire land surface area of the planet. This estimated how much energy could be produced from the 0.2 million km² of rooftops present on that land, an area roughly the same size as the UK."
Oct 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "Britain in the 1950s was wedded to the US, acting as a partner rather than leading the charge. Now, while the UK continues to support the US, the influence it has seems negligible. While it may bring comfort to the UK to feel it is a partner to a superpower, being its stooge or subordinate is an unpleasant place to be, no matter how much you tell yourself it values your opinion."
Oct 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "That was then. Now, the Chinese government has doubled down, with President Xi Jinping throwing the full force of his power into a “common prosperity” campaign aimed at addressing inequalities of income and wealth. Moreover, the regulatory net has been broadened, not just to ban cryptocurrencies, but also to become an instrument of social engineering, with the government adding e-cigarettes, business drinking, and celebrity fan culture to its ever-lengthening list of bad social habits. All this only compounds the concerns I raised two months ago. The new dual thrust of Chinese policy – redistribution plus re-regulation – strikes at the heart of the market-based “reform and opening up” that have underpinned China’s growth miracle since the days of Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. It will subdue the entrepreneurial activity that has been so important in powering China’s dynamic private sector, with lasting consequences for the next, innovations-driven, phase of Chinese economic development. Without animal spirits, the case for indigenous innovation is in tatters."
Oct 5th 2021
EXTRACT: "Wartime nostalgia plays an important part in Britain’s instinctive fondness for the special relationship. Like former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, some British politicians might believe that the United Kingdom is the only European country with serious armed forces and the political will to use them. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, like Blair before him, seems to fancy himself a modern-day Churchill. Unfortunately (or not), Britain’s military power is insignificant compared to what Churchill could command in 1944. Wartime nostalgia has drawn Britain into several foolish American wars, which other European countries were wise to avoid."
Sep 24th 2021
EXTRACTS: "We have found that 47 million American adults – nearly 1 in 5 – agree with the statement that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.” Of those, 21 million also agree that “use of force is justified to restore Donald J. Trump to the presidency.” Our survey found that many of these 21 million people with insurrectionist sentiments have the capacity for violent mobilization. At least 7 million of them already own a gun, and at least 3 million have served in the U.S. military and so have lethal skills. Of those 21 million, 6 million said they supported right-wing militias and extremist groups, and 1 million said they are themselves or personally know a member of such a group, including the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys." ----- "..... the Jan. 6 insurrection represents a far more mainstream movement than earlier instances of right-wing extremism across the country. Those events, mostly limited to white supremacist and militia groups, saw more than 100 individuals arrested from 2015 to 2020. But just 14% of those arrested for their actions on Jan. 6 are members of those groups. More than half are business owners or middle-aged white-collar professionals, and only 7% are unemployed."
Sep 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "That long path, though, has from the start had within it one fundamental flaw. If we are to make sense of wider global trends in insecurity, we have to recognise that in all the analysis around the 9/11 anniversary there lies the belief that the main security concern must be with an extreme version of Islam. It may seem a reasonable mistake, given the impact of the wars, but it still misses the point. The war on terror is better seen as one part of a global trend which goes well beyond a single religious tradition – a slow but steady move towards revolts from the margins."
Sep 11th 2021
EXTRACTS: "Is it not extraordinary that in a country that claims to be as enlightened and advanced as ours, the combined wealth of three individuals – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett – exceeds the total wealth of the bottom half of Americans? One has to return to the days of the pharaohs of Egypt to find a parallel to the extreme wealth inequality that we see in in America today." ...... "The top tax rate remained above 90 percent through the 1950s and did not dip below 70 percent until 1981. At no point during the decades that saw America’s greatest economic growth did the tax on the wealthy drop below 70 percent. Today it is somewhere around 37 percent. President Biden’s American Families Plan would increase the top tax rate to 39.6 percent – a fairly modest alteration, albeit in the right direction. It is true that there was a time when the top marginal tax was even lower than it is today: in the years leading up to the Great Depression it hovered around 25 percent."
Sep 7th 2021
EXTRACT: "But Biden can’t be blamed for the rise of the Taliban, or the fragile state of a country that has seen far too many wars and invasions. The US should not have been there in the first place, but that is a lesson that great powers never seem to learn."
Sep 4th 2021
EXTRACT: "The world is only starting to grapple with how profound the artificial-intelligence revolution will be. AI technologies will create waves of progress in critical infrastructure, commerce, transportation, health, education, financial markets, food production, and environmental sustainability. Successful adoption of AI will drive economies, reshape societies, and determine which countries set the rules for the coming century." ----- "AI will reorganize the world and change the course of human history. The democratic world must lead that process."
Sep 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Although the Fed is considering tapering its quantitative easing (QE), it will likely remain dovish and behind the curve overall. Like most central banks, it has been lured into a “debt trap” by the surge in private and public liabilities (as a share of GDP) in recent years. Even if inflation stays higher than targeted, exiting QE too soon could cause bond, credit, and stock markets to crash. That would subject the economy to a hard landing, potentially forcing the Fed to reverse itself and resume QE." ---- "After all, that is what happened between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, following the Fed’s previous attempt to raise rates and roll back QE."
Sep 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Today’s economic challenges are certainly solvable, and there is no reason why inflation should have to spike."
Aug 27th 2021
EXTRACT: "To be sure, they have focused on their agenda, which is totally misguided—not by our own account but by the account of the majority of the American population, who view the Republican party as one that has lost its moral footing to the detriment of America’s future generations, who must now inherit the ugly consequences of a party that ran asunder."