iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Reich

Robert Reich

Posted: December 8, 2010 09:12 PM

Apart from its extraordinary cost and regressive tilt, the tax deal negotiated between the president and the Republicans has another fatal flaw.

It confirms the Republican worldview.

Americans want to know what happened to the economy and how to fix it. At least Republicans have a story -- the same one they've been flogging for thirty years. The bad economy is big government's fault and the solution is to shrink government.

Here's the real story. For three decades, an increasing share of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the top 1 percent. Thirty years ago, the top got 9 percent of total income. Now they take in almost a quarter. Meanwhile, the earnings of the typical worker have barely budged.

The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend a much lower portion of their incomes.) The crisis was averted before now only because middle-class families found ways to keep spending more than they took in -- by women going into paid work, by working longer hours, and finally by using their homes as collateral to borrow. But when the housing bubble burst, the game was up.

The solution is to reorganize the economy so the benefits of growth are more widely shared. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes, and apply payroll taxes to incomes over $250,000. Extend Medicare to all. Extend the Earned Income Tax Credit all the way up through families earning $50,000. Make higher education free to families that now can't afford it. Rehire teachers. Repair and rebuild our infrastructure. Create a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work.

Pay for this by raising marginal income taxes on millionaires (under Eisenhower, the highest marginal rate was 91 percent, and the economy flourished). A millionaire marginal tax of 70 percent would eliminate the nation's future budget deficit. In addition, impose a small tax on all financial transactions (even a tiny one -- one half of one percent -- would bring in $200 billion a year, enough to rehire every teacher who's been laid off as well as provide universal preschool for all toddlers). Promote unions for low-wage workers.

But here's the obstacle. As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has political power. Money is being used to bribe politicians and fill the airwaves with misleading ads that block all of this.

The midterm elections offered dramatic evidence. NBC news reported shortly after Election Day, for example, that Crossroads GPS, one of the biggest Republican secret-money organizations, got "a substantial portion" of its loot from a group of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers. Why would they sink so much money into the midterms? Because they've been so strongly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats to treat the earnings of hedge fund and private equity managers as ordinary income rather than capital gains (subject to only a 15 percent rate).

In other words, the problem isn't big government. It's power and privilege at the top.

So another part of the solution is to limit the impact of big money on politics. This requires, for example, publicly-financed campaigns, disclosure of all sources of political spending, and resurrection of the fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

It's the same power and privilege that got the Bush tax cuts in the first place, and claimed the lion's share of its benefits. The same power and privilege that got the estate tax phased out.

Get it? By agreeing to another round of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the president confirms the Republican story. Cutting taxes on the rich while freezing discretionary spending (which he's also agreed to do) affirms that the underlying problem is big government, and the solution is to shrink government and expect the extra wealth at the top to trickle down to everyone else.

Obama's new tax compromise is not only bad economics; it's also disastrous from the standpoint of educating the public about what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. It reinforces the Republican story and makes mincemeat out of the truthful one Democrats should be telling.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,467
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (39 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zell
09:21 PM on 12/12/2010
Thank you, Dr. Reich, for another article that speaks truth to power........We are being conned again, like they conned us when they went for the bailout........They told us if We, the People, did not go along with the bailout, then the economy would crash. Now they are saying if We, the People, do not go along with the tax cuts for the rich, then when the taxes increase in January, then the middle income will get a huge increase in their tax bill........What is true????? I tend to doubt anything that comes from the people that are in favor of this new tax deal for everyone........
02:45 PM on 12/12/2010
I'm voting for the candidate that supports this. I'm voting against the candidate who does not. If I can get a few million more folks to agree with me...We can have a party.
07:05 AM on 12/12/2010
We have been persuaded, once again, to subscribe into this conception that the rich is necessary to the healthy growth of this economy. Is that true? Historical evidence seems to cast doubt on validity of this notion. The US economy prospered during three decades after WWII, thanks to unmet demand unleashed after the war ended. Middle class enjoyed high purchasing power; its strong demand peopled the post-war growth of this economy. Historical evidence hence supports the positive association between equitable income distribution and economic prosperity, it is like a cell phone, the larger is the number of people who use a cell phone, the more you enjoy yours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
snesich
02:58 PM on 12/11/2010
This may be the best summary of why we're in the economic mess we're in and what we need to get out of it.

This is brilliant, and compelling, Mr. Reich. Thanks for stating it so clearly and so forcefully.

Now, it's up to all of us to post this, forward this link, talk about it, and help people understand it. It's rarely ever been spelled out so well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
botasyorgos
Best dog name: Al Poochino
10:06 AM on 12/11/2010
So what is going to prevent Republicans from taking hostage of the middle class again and force their policies time after time? Nothing, I am afraid.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GOODREASON
09:23 PM on 12/10/2010
Flat 15 percent tax for everybody is the fair way to go. Everybody as equal, no hard feelings between the classes or intelligencia.
cuchulain
Occupy the Tao
04:13 PM on 12/10/2010
I can understand billionaires being upset about redistributive taxes. But it's crazy for 99% of the country to be upset with a progressive tax system. We all get a better deal for our tax dollars than in any private sector transaction.

Most Americans will pay in the range of 300K total in taxes for their entire working life. That wouldn't pay the salaries of even 10 government workers for a single year. All of the money we put into taxes over the course of a lifetime wouldn't cover the cost of building one school, one library, or one museum, or even a wing on one hospital. All of the money we put into taxes over the course of a lifetime wouldn't cover the costs of maintaining a national park for more than a few days. We get access to that park for a lifetime.

The Internet itself was created by government. Our 300K wouldn't cover a day's expense in the R and D process that led to its invention.

On top of that, our taxes pay for roads, bridges, EMT, 911, Fire fighters, Coast Guard, Police, etc. etc.

I'm always amazed at the ignorance when people say it's taking their hard-earned money away from them to give to those who don't deserve it. What complete and utter nonsense.

While the government certainly could do better choosing how to spend money, we still get a tremendous deal. It's a bargain unlike anything we ever buy in the private sector.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
04:32 PM on 12/10/2010
While I would argue that your $300,000 figure is woefully inaccurate (I know my last 10 years I paid in federal and state income taxes, social security,Medicare, workers comp, unemployment insurance, and property taxes well in excess of $450,000 - not to mention sales taxes, gasoline and other excise taxes) The basic premise of your post is excellent.

Fanned and Faved
08:01 PM on 12/10/2010
thanks for putting it into perspective.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
12:37 PM on 12/10/2010
The Bush tax cuts have proved to be a dismal failure. But, do we make any changes? No, we plod along on the same path. While tax cuts to the middle class would be expedient; why should we give Corporate America anymore breaks than we already have?

Bush Tax Cuts a Disaster – Says the third ranking Republican in the House:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-epic-failures-of-the-bush-tax-cuts
12:23 PM on 12/10/2010
So another part of the solution is to limit the impact of big money on politics. This requires, for example, publicly-financed campaigns, disclosure of all sources of political spending, and resurrection of the fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

Doesn't sound like China...? Where the government controls what us stupid little can hear or watch on government run TV, or radio... If , I don't like what I am listens to... I am smart enough to turn it off, or to something else... I don't need the FCC doing that for me...

December, 21, 2010, the FCC is voting on controling the internet... I was born in a FREE Country, but it;s starting look more and more like China, or Russia
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truthmachine
11:55 PM on 12/10/2010
"sound like China...?"

Uh, no, it doesn't sound anything like China.
12:12 PM on 12/10/2010
Bill Gates doesn't invest his money in America.. All his manufacturing plants are in China.. All his money is in off shore accounts...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFpermatourist
02:05 PM on 12/12/2010
Bill Gates throws his money into programs that will damage democracy in the long run. He's sticking his nerd-nose into public education by bribing Arne Duncan to adapt HIS educational program, now known as "Race to The Top". If Gates' Operating System (Microsoft) is such a piece of sh*t, a trojan horse in and of itself, guess what his educational program will be like.
11:57 AM on 12/10/2010
We all need to go around our homes, and look at what we bought in the last 20 years... We all want to make more money, and buy more things that cost less... It's all OUR faults the reason we are in this... In the last 5 years, I pay more for thing in the U S of A... All you people bitching and complaining... Do You...?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baileywick
02:35 PM on 12/10/2010
Thanks for dropping by for a visit. Distract us with your rabbit in a hat. Read the article.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
11:47 AM on 12/10/2010
The real joke here is the tea baggers! For months they screamed, hollered and shouted about the deficit. Their plan was to come to Washington, cut the deficit, reduce spending and get the budget under control. So, those 30% that got elected have been asked about keeping the tax rates for the wealthy even though it will add $700 billion to the deficit and an additional $200 billion for the unemployment, social security and $150 billion in corporate tax breaks. Bottom line - we'll be adding slightly more than $1 trillion to the deficit.

So - what is the typical tea bagger response? " It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. We need to cut our spending - not be raising taxes."

Talk about disjointed from reality. Where on earth do you think you can cut, from a $3.5 trillion budget, $1.2 trillion in current deficits as well as $1 trillion in deficits represented by this "tax deal" while simultaneously reducing revenues.

It's the old adage of "when you've dug yourself into a hole - the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING." The baggers have already sold out and joined the republicans in further excavation of our economic hole - giving up their tiny shovels - they have brought in the back hoes to insure the hole is good and deep - and, of course, will be blamed on the spending of the democrats.
03:01 PM on 12/10/2010
I don't believe the tea baggers start for anothr 3 weeks....?
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
04:38 PM on 12/10/2010
If you are speaking of the newly elected (not the existing like Michele Bachman) you are correct - but, they (newly elected like Rand Paul) have been interviewed on TV - and each one has spouted "It's a spending problem - we should not be raising taxes".
11:44 AM on 12/10/2010
When long time progressives like Reich voice their concerns about Obama's policies, It justifies the actions of a large group of Democrat members of Congress who are tired of holding their nose while voting for the president's Right Wing Agenda. The Obama appoligists that continue to resist attacks on his highly questionable agenda are rapidly vanishing after the first two years of an administration that has repeatedly rewarded the Republican's political gamesmanship !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hemihead
11:28 AM on 12/10/2010
Taxes TAKE from those that earn and pay them, they do not give anything to anyone except to those non producers that don't pay them yet receive free checks from the government

Taxation, as perceived by our founders, was supposed to be a means of providing funding for the essential functions of the Federal Government.

It has been changed, by well intentioned progressives, into a system of wealth redistribution, and therein lies the problem

When 'wealth' is redistributed by a government, the government always distributes more than it creates. Why? Because the government does not create wealth, the private sector does. This redistribution always results in higher taxation which is destructive to wealth creation.

So the government ends up borrowing the difference. This creates debt, with corresponding interest payments on that debt. As the debt grows, so does the interest payment, in an ever expanding, vicious spiral.

If redistributive ideologies (such as so called "Social Justice), were economically beneficial, the USSR would not have collapsed, and Cubans wouldn't be living in glorious Utopian poverty, and the Socialistic Democracies of Europe would not be collapsing.

It's time to get back to our founder's intent, and change taxation back from a system of wealth redistribution, to a system that is used ONLY to support essential government functions.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
12:18 PM on 12/10/2010
Utter nonsense!

"Taxes TAKE from those that earn and pay them, they do not give anything to anyone except to those non producers that don't pay them yet receive free checks from the government"

I take it this is in reference to "welfare". Welfare represents less than $200 billion of a $3.5 trillion budget (and, by the way, includes such welfare items as Veterans Health Care - which I'm sure you'd like to cut). Okay - get rid of it all - you still have a deficit of over $1 trillion. Truth is we pay almost 5 times as much welfare to corporations and farmers (subsidies) in the form of wealthfare.

But, the true redistribution of wealth is not from the government. From 1979 - 2006, the average income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose a staggering 364%, nearly 25 times more than the growth of the median household income. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.

Meanwhile: Between 2001 and 2007, the real income of the median working-age household decreased by 1.9%, a loss of $1,107, despite productivity increasing by 18.5% over that time. Republicans are the party of "redistribution of wealth" (from the middle class to the wealthy).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baileywick
02:38 PM on 12/10/2010
He is selling ice cubes in Alaska, sand in the desert. Don't even reply.
12:20 PM on 12/10/2010
You do not understand how our fiat currency system works, as indicated by your comments above which rest on the common erroneous misconception that the federal government works like a household checkbook. It does not. Not even close. Our "money" is created out of thin air when the Federal Reserve is directed to create or increase a debt account, and this number is reduced when taxes come back. We are not on the gold standard, taxes and money no longer work anything like what our founding fathers perceived.

Do your homework, learn how things actually work, stop promulgating these misconceptions that lead to erroneous conclusions. That is the road to ruin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Elvin Frantz
10:13 AM on 12/10/2010
Barak Obama has not yet joined that part of his base which knows why real Democrats are in a completely different world from the Republicans.

Real Democrats know that prosperity takes place when the vast majority of us have more purchasing power.

The Republican world is to make it possible for a few at the top to earn and keep as much money as possible and let it trickle down. It doesn't.

Obama talks about the Democratic world but is help captive by the Republican world. He lost in the mid-term elections because the people did not understand the real difference between the two worlds. He can never win unless he begins now to stand up for these major differences.