Dear Maria Bartiromo,
I am writing to ask you to reconsider some of your statements about Barack Obama, taxes, and the economy.
Firstly, your warning that Obama would likely raise taxes is correct. Your warning that this would have a negative impact however, is simply ridiculous. You are a decent economist, so you should know better.
Blanket statements like this have nothing to do with serious debate. Obama does not want to tax people who cannot afford it, and is aiming his cuts at those who can. The neo-liberal orthodoxy that you repeat about taxation has been proven wrong quite spectacularly. The unprecedented tax cuts by the Bush Administration have led to poor economic growth, massive deficits and now recession. Tax cuts do not necessarily mean economic growth, an economic fundamental you seem to be unaware of.
Secondly, your statement that Americans who earn over $200,000 are not rich is simply offensive. 35 million people deemed 'food insecure' in the United States, and there are poverty levels that exceed every modern industrialized nation on earth. The U.S Department of Health and Human Services states that the Federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $21,200 per annum. $200,000 would therefore feed and house almost 10 families. Last year, 36.5 million people lived under that poverty threshold, so the $200,000 you claim does not make someone rich could ostensibly provide for even more.
In an interview with Barack Obama back in March, you made a number of assertions that again, were disingenuous and highly biased. You asked:
"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"
Again, let's go back to some basic economics. As corporations and the mega wealthy avoid paying their fair share of taxes, the government has less money to spend on vital services like health care, education, public transport and infrastructure, despite the business communities (ie. you) profession that it does. As wages stagnate and costs go up these services are absolutely crucial for the majority of the population. Cutting taxes for the rich does not provide more tax revenue, just more debt and less services for the poor who work for them. So, contrary to your assertion, increasing taxes for those who can afford it will significantly ease the strain on working people rather than add to it.
Most disturbingly in your question and answer session, you asked him:
"You want to index the minimum wage to inflation, we'll see the minimum wage go up every year. You are looking to strengthen the unions. Basically, making costs go up for small business. Why put a further strain of expenses, higher expenses, on the one place in the economy that's actually creating jobs?"
As someone earning a six-figure salary, you don't really have a right to be talking about the minimum wage. No one can survive living on the federal minimum wage, and the argument that it would hurt business by raising it is just not true. The people whose lives you speak about so blithely are deeply affected by even the smallest increment of change, and an extra dollar an hour can mean the difference between eating or not.
You also stated in regards to Obama's proposed increase of the capital gains tax that: "It's not just the Buffets of the world who own stocks ... You are impacting a lot of people ... A hundred million people own stocks today."
This may be correct, but it is highly misleading. As of 2001, 90% of the population owned 15.5% of stocks and mutual funds. 84.5% was owned by the remaining 10%. Stocks and bonds are not a major concern for the majority of Americans, as they derive most of their income from labor.
The capital gains tax mostly affects people like yourself -- those with disposable income and inherited wealth. Most Americans are not afforded those luxuries, so the debate is irrelevant if you are talking about regular people. But then again, you are not.
I look forward to hearing your response,
Ben Cohen
Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing Mixed Martial Arts writer to www.espn.com. He can be reached at thedailybanter@gmail.com
Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thedailybanter
ADD TO THE $9.4 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT THE CUTS TO INFUSTRUCTRE LIKE THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINNEERS AND THE STATES FOR BRIDGE REPAIRS.
SINCE REGEAN THOSE AND OTHER IMPORTANT PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN STRARVED OF FUNDS. EXCEPT FOR CLINTON WHO RESTOPRED THE FUNDS. BUSH HAS SINCE CUT THEM AND MORE!!!!!!!
If you made a 7-figure annual salary, and got a half-million-dollar advance to write a book, $200 K a year wouldn't look like much to you either. . .
Now we have the biggest deficit in our countries history.
McCain said that getting rid of these tax credits to the rich corporations will be a tax on all Americans. How? I say its nothing more than lies thats coming from the republican party.
Getting rid of tax breaks for the rich won't hurt us with more taxes. How could that be when they never had those tax breaks back then? Did it hurt us?
Listen to Rick Santelli/Joe Battapaglia/ the balding guy and few others to get some modicum of truth. Better yet tune into Bloomberg for straight information without the drama.
Or if she believes at all in any Kenyesian style economics, as has been branded on FDR, with the New Deal.
The New Deal was what Friedman considered a true nightmare... Government involved in re-establishing the economy; and was dead set against it, in any form or fashion. These right wingers call for everything to be established to and allowed for growth solely by the private sector.
The big reason why this style of economics is such an absolute failure is because these Friedmanists always seem to ignore, probably for intentional purposes, one colossal ingredient that damages the idea every time, without fail: Greed.
It is why our economy is in absolute shambles, although you would never hear any corporate schill attest to it. It is what has put in place , at this moment, the largest transfer of wealth happening right now, in our lifetime, in history.
So why in the hell should we worry what this woman has to say? Just ask her where her indocrination lies, and let's get on with it, and move on.
And the question is not whether someone making 200,000 is rich or not. The question is what did they do or are doing to get the 200,000. If someone studied hard, worked hard, made many compromises, and gave up many pleasures in their early life to get to a point of maing 200K or more while a person making 50K goofed off and enjoyed life, took on debt, lived beyond their means instead of focusing on the future, taking money from the first to give to the second is blatantly unfair and morally wrong nogt to mention handing money to those who have not earned it.
The fairest way is to maintain and perhaps increase the inheritance tax so no one can get an unfair start. I am all for taxing inheritance but not taxing work whether the income is 20,000 or 20 million as long as they are largely made without relying on inheritance. Redistribution of wealth does not work!!
sorry, we're in it together- he's got more- he pays more.
Maria shouldn't apologize . . . she should get an award for speaking the truth!
You all must be suffering from some of that good-ole Global Warming CO2!
Besides . . . Maria is nice!
Yours,
Rock Solid
As to economics . . . have had more than a few of those courses . . . guess they didn't provide a "liberal" version of math, physics, science, human behavior and finance.
Shame on me!