The rich, those born sucking silver spoons like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, really are different from the middle class. The wealthy grow up and live their lives wrapped in security. That's what gives them the arrogance to organize a posse to hold down a fellow prep school student and chop off his hair, mock NASCAR fans' clothes and ridicule cookies offered by supporters. No matter what, Romney and Ryan will remain rich and secure.
By contrast, those born into poverty or the middle class live lives nagged by insecurity. They know their jobs could be off-shored at any moment. They know their employers may raid their pensions in bankruptcy. Their major asset in life, their home, may have lost a third of its value when the Wall Street-inflated housing bubble burst. Rich would be great, but those born without trust funds work hardest just to attain a little security.
Last week, the Pew Research Center issued a report detailing how insecurity has increased for the middle class since 2000. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report predicting increased insecurity for the middle class if Congress takes no action on taxes and budget cuts within the next four months. A third report released last week, called Prosperity Economics, describes how to revive the economy and broaden security.
A true democratic republic, where the majority rules, would reverse the past decade's trend against the middle class, forestall the CBO prediction, and increase security for the masses. The silver spooners seeking the Oval Office have given no indication, however, that they intend to ease the uncertainty of the plastic spooners.
The Pew Research Center looked at how the middle class fared since 2000. In a word, it's badly. This is what Pew called its findings: "The Lost Decade of the Middle Class: Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier." Here's how the center sums it up:
Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some -- but by no means all -- of its characteristic faith in the future.
Similarly, the middle class suffered a 28 percent drop in wealth over the past decade, much of that in housing value.
The losses intensified middle-class insecurity. Those interviewed by the Pew researchers expressed pessimism. For America, which sees itself as the land of opportunity, this survey result is dispiriting: 29 percent of the middle class said hard work and determination no longer guarantee success for most people. The American Dream is dying.
Middle-class insecurity and gloom will worsen if Congress allows the country to fall off the fiscal cliff -- if it fails to renew at least some tax cuts set to expire at year's end or temper scheduled budget cuts. The CBO, in its Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022, said if Congress does not change its current tax and spending plan, the United States will descend into recession again next year and unemployment will rise to 9 percent.
The budget cuts were demanded last year by House Republicans, led by Ryan, who refused to raise the nation's debt ceiling until they got a deal guaranteeing the budget slashing. President Obama has repeatedly sought money for infrastructure improvement and other job-creating projects to relieve unemployment and prevent a double dip recession, but Republicans have rebuffed him. They also have rejected his plan to renew middle class tax breaks while terminating the massively larger breaks for the rich.
Republicans like Ryan have decided relieving the deficit is more important than relieving uncertainty for the middle class. The perfect symbol of that is Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are beloved by the middle class because of the security they provide in retirement. Ryan's vouchers would end that security because they would dramatically increase costs for senior citizens. Ryan and his followers demand austerity for the middle class and tax cuts for the rich.
Austerity is not necessary, according to two Yale researchers. They offer an alternative, Prosperity Economics.
Jacob Hacker, a Yale professor and director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, and Nate Loewentheil, a Yale law student, describe how to create a dynamic economy and foster a society "marked by greater health, broader security, increased equality of opportunity, and more broadly distributed growth."
They believe in resurrecting the American Dream. While the middle class is losing faith, Hacker and Loewentheil say it doesn't have to be that way.
In their plan, everyone benefits, not just the silver spooners. It's not, however, a strategy likely to be adopted by austerity advocates Romney and Ryan, who have never experienced the pain of economic insecurity suffered by the plastic spoon class.
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
In short, Romney/Ryan are Bush 3. Wasn't Bush 2 enough?
Bush/Romeny/Ryan/Akin/Smith/ = the destruction of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
Do you really want this?
I don't.
There is only one solution left...all republicans must go...now!
Increasing taxes does not nearly solve the problem. Raising taxes on the rich, a la Buffet plan, is forecast to raise less than $47 billion over the next ten years versus forecast cumulative deficits of over $8 Trillion over the same time period. That's less than 1% of the projected Federal deficits. If you include the ever growing unfunded liabilities that will accrue every year then the tax increases discussed so far become a rounding error.
http://bluecravat.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-two-big-lies.html
An annual 2.5% tax on the $12 trillion in wealth held by the top 1/10th of one percent ( a mind-boggling 20% of total U.S. personal wealth - up from 4%, thirty years ago) would bring in $300 billion per year, which could be spent directly on millions of infrastructure, green jobs, etc. As these new wages were spent it would help many other businesses which would then have to hire more, etc. - a virtuous cycle. Of course we would have to impose some meaningful tariffs so that the new spending would go to businesses that employ American workers.
I don't think they would miss it that much. These 120,000 households are worth, on average, about $100 million each (not counting the $6 to $7 trillion held offshore). The 2.5% tax would cost them, on average, about $2.5 million each, but since their average incomes are about $6.6 million each, they would continue to get even wealthier.