When we hear about the deficits we hear a lot of scare stories, which most "serious" media just echo and amplify. The prevailing "serious" narrative we hear is that we must cut entitlements -- any "serious" budget proposal cuts Medicare and Social Security. Even though they just extended tax cuts for the rich the deficits are the worst problem in the world, ever, so we are supposed to be really scared and give in. Seriously.
Polls show that the public wants taxes raised on the rich, cuts in military spending and more & bettter-paying jobs. The public isn't stupid, because it turns out that these are exactly the things that economists say will get us out of the deficits. But raising taxes isn't considered a "serious" deficit-cutting option. Neither is cutting military. And to top it off, in DC the idea of creating more and better-paying jobs is so unserious that it isn't even discussed.
Serious Commissions and Gangs Of Negotiators
The public recoils every time politicians get close to reaching their "serious" goal of cutting Social Security or Medicare, instead of raising taxes and cutting military. So the DC elite come up with ways to mask what they are doing : commissions, "triggers," "caps," "across-the-board cuts" all of which avoid actually spelling out that these will cut Social Security and Medicare without touching taxes or military. All the "serious" people favor this approach.
There are so many "serious" reporters and editors and politicians and deficit commissions and negotiators and even "gangs" consist of very "serious" people who come up with these "serious" recommendations.
Who Is At The Table?
These "serious" people who engaged in these "serious" negotiations have something in common. They are almost all very, very well paid, usually white, always DC or Wall Street or big-corporate insiders, always college-educated and comfortable people who work in offices. They do not reflect the diverse makup of the American population. Doing that wouldn't be "serious," but it would be 'small-d' democratic.
The fact is, the American People just are not reflected "at the table" in these budget negotiations. When you hear about these deficit commissions, discussions, etc. ask yourself: How many make less than $250K? How many are unemployed? How many work taking care of someone else? Who speaks for We, the People in these negotiations?
And ask yourself: What would these deficits talks, commissions, gangs consist of if they were representative of the interests of regular Americans?
What If a Deficit Commission Looked Like America?
If a deficit commission with 100 members had the diversity of the American population "at the table" it would look like this:
Have you seen any deficit commissions like that lately? No, seriously, have you?
What does the PUBLIC want?
A "serious" deficit commission in a democracy would come up with deficit solutions that reflect what the public wants. Here are some of the polling results compiled at The American Majority Project Polling:
Social Security & Medicare:
Taxes:
etc...
Lots more polling on taxes at The American Majority Project Polling
Military Spending:
etc.
More polling on military spending at The American Majority Project Polling
Union Employees and Collective Bargaining Rights:
More polling on labor rights at The American Majority Project Polling
Job Creation and the Economy:
More polling on jobs and the economy at The American Majority Project Polling
This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.
Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
They keep raising production quotas in the plants and in the business offices.
Many in the government leadership get to draw retirement benefits at 50 years of age.
They need to leave the early and late retirement age alone. Many give up 25% of their benefits to retire at 62. That saves Social Security money. Others work until 67 so they can draw the maximum. A few work until they are 70 in order to get the bonus benefits.
Most love to work. They only retire when they are fired or become too sick or too old.
The thing is we should have the FREEDOM to choose when to retire. It shouldn't be up to the guys with their lily white hands sitting in DC and on Wall Street.
I wish more housewives and or single mothers could (and would) get into politics. Of course, very few of us would actually vote for them.
Fmr. Secretary of Labor
Why Maine's Governor LePage Can't Erase History, and Why We Need a Fighter in the White House
Posted: 03/24/11
Frances Perkins was the first woman cabinet member in American history.
She and her boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, came to office at a time when average working people needed help -- and Perkins and Roosevelt were determined to give it to them. Together, they created Social Security, unemployment insurance, the right of workers to unionize, the minimum wage, and the forty-hour workweek. (The New Deal)
Big business and Wall Street thought Perkins and Roosevelt were not in keeping with pro-business goals. So they and their Republican puppets in Congress and in the states retaliated with a political assault on the New Deal.
Roosevelt did not flinch. In a speech in October 1936 he condemned "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering."
Big business and Wall Street, he said, ...had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-maines-governor-lepag_b_840097.html
We will tell you what you need, and how you should be spending your money. We understand that you want good paying jobs and we know that you voted us in to deal with that problem. The issue with that is that now that we are elected, we do have jobs! They pay pretty darn good, and now we feel it is the time to squabble over various issues that have nothing to do with jobs.
Also, we would appriciate it if you would kindly turn your eye while we continue the tax breaks and cuts for those that so kindly donated to help our campaigns. We owe them for our new jobs, and have to take care of them. We all know they will spread some of their wealth around, they said they would.
In the end, we know better than you what is good for you. Listen to us and pay no attention to the unemployment stats and low wage job creation that is plauging our country. Keep your nose to the grind, and the financially endowed will provide your every need.
Thanks for your vote,
Washington Elite
So when you say rich, we have to know what you mean and compared to what? Truth = reality and stats sited are normally not the working man's or business' reality.
Most of the hype on this site deals with moral and immoral issues. Reality is we like moral people that are not greedy, racist or polarize the issues.
Living in a society of voyeurs and greedily making money as does this site and 99.9% of television in exploitation, it is difficult for many to know reality or truth.
People making $250,001 would pay an extra 4 cents.
But schools, roads, police, etc. would be funded.
You have a problem with that?
We the people are definately under represented. Here's the kick, It is our own darn fault. Many Democrats, and many independents don't vote in mid term elections. I have heard of some not voting because they didn't think our own Democrats didn't try hard enough to overcome the Republican filibuster machine. Yes, when We the people don't stand up to be counted, well we don't count.
As Joseph Stiglitz stated, those in the bottom 99% of the economy, aka serfs, have no voice...
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
"...Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin..."