Wisconsin is in a showdown. Washington is headed for a government shutdown.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won't budge. He insists on delivering a knockout blow to public unions in his state (except for those, like the police, who supported his election).
In DC, House Republicans won't budge on the $61 billion cut they pushed through last week, saying they'll okay a temporary resolution to keep things running in Washington beyond March 4 only if it includes many of their steep cuts -- among which are several that the middle class and poor depend on.
Republicans say "we've" been spending too much, and they're determined to end the spending with a scorched-earth policies in the states (Republican governors in Ohio, Indiana, and New Jersey are reading similar plans to decimate public unions) and shutdowns in Washington.
There's no doubt that government budgets are in trouble. The big lie is that the reason is excessive spending.
Public budgets are in trouble because revenues plummeted over the last two years of the Great Recession.
They're also in trouble because of tax giveaways to the rich.
Before Wisconsin's budget went bust, Governor Walker signed $117 million in corporate tax breaks. Wisconsin's immediate budge shortfall is $137 million. That's his pretext for socking it to Wisconsin's public unions.
Nationally, you remember, Republicans demanded and received an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. They've made it clear they're intent on extending them for the next ten years, at a cost of $900 billion. They've also led the way on cutting the estate tax, and on protecting Wall Street private equity and hedge-fund managers whose earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. And the last thing they'd tolerate is an increase in the top marginal tax rate on the super-rich.
Meanwhile, of course, more and more of the nation's income and wealth has been concentrating at the top. In the late 1970s, the top 1 percent got 9 percent of total income. Now it gets more than 20 percent.
So the problem isn't that "we've" been spending too much. It's that most Americans have been getting a steadily smaller share of the nation's total income.
At the same time, the super-rich have been contributing a steadily-declining share of their own incomes in taxes to support what the nation needs -- both at the federal and at the state levels.
The coming showdowns and shutdowns must not mask what's going on. Democrats should make sure the public understands what's really at stake.
Yes, of course, wasteful and unnecessary spending should be cut. That means much of the defense budget, along with agricultural subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.
But America is the richest nation in the world, and "we've" never been richer. There's no reason for us to turn on our teachers, our unionized workers, our poor and needy, and our elderly. The notion that "we" can no longer afford it is claptrap.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
I want someone to tell me exactly what sacrifices the affluent and the wealthy are making in the name of fiscal responsibility. Exactly what is corporate America sacrificing to help budget shortfalls.
The American people through the enactments of their elected representatives have given much in the way of benefits to these groups and what return have we gotten?
What are the so called job creators doing to increase the number of taxpayers that would create more revenues? Cutting spending alone will not balance budgets, if the whole truth is told it wont even get us close to balancing the budget. we must create additional revenues and that can happen two ways,we can raise taxes or we can create more tax payers. Creating more taxpayers is what must be done now by those that the American people have given so much.
I know these are big numbers.
But if my calculations are right that is less that a 2% cut.
These cuts "among which are several that the middle class and poor depend on" will be affected. I hope none of the existing govt spending for social programs benefit the rich.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/pers-f18.shtml
The other is the rest of us. We are getting poorer.
Once we were one nation. We worked and our work made the rich rich. Many workers joined in unions. The unions bargained to get their members pensions. The pensions were to be paid from pension-funds. banks were set up to invest paid-in pension-funds, so there would be more to pay out when the workers would need pensions.
The government set up a pension system, called Social Security, for the rest of us.
Congress was the first to rob a pension-fund bank. It robbed the Social Security pension-fund. The funds were there, Congress wanted, and figured they could always pay them back by borrowing or raising taxes.
The rich on Wall Street decided to imitate Congress and rob the private pension-fund banks. They used swindles, while telling pension-fund managers they could trust them as experts. They figured the pension-losers could go on Social Security, so Congress would make up the losses.
So now the pension-fund banks of the second America have empty vaults and pending pension obligations.
While, the rich of the first America have the funds.
And don't see why they should give any back when they did all the work to steal them.
I hereby invite him to read 'The State and Revolution' (pub. 1917) by VI Lenin. Here is just a Wikipedia thumbnail of the teatise:
'The State and Revolution describes the inherent nature of the State as a tool for class oppression, a creation born of a social class’s desire to control the other social classes of its society when politico-economic disputes cannot otherwise be amicably resolved; if a dictatorship or a democracy, the State remains the social-control means of the ruling class. Even in a democratic capitalist republic, the ruling class never relinquish political power, maintaining it via the “behind-the-scenes” control of universal suffrage — an excellent deception that maintains the idealistic concepts of “freedom and democracy"...,'
Any of this sound familiar?
The combination of dramatically lower spending by all Federal, State and Local governments, and surging gas prices is a shock the economy will not bear well. Will the GOP take the blame for the shutting of the spigot of spending and it's economic impact, or will they blame it the unrest in the Middle east and its effect on the price of oil? We shall see.
If we stopped giving money to the military industrial complex that sponsors Obama and so much of the Republican party misery would be reduced.
If we stopped giving money to GM, GE and Wall Street so that they can offshore jobs - misery would be reduced.
When you have a POTUS and Congress that are owned, cheaply, by these corporate executives, the only way to change is at the ballot box or the streets. Perhaps the American people will wise up to what they've voted for?
Careful though, when Governors like Walker seek to put violent trouble makers into crowds, and call out the National Guard - then Kent State -like killings are coming.
The core of Congressional proceedings, sponsored by PAC's, and corporate donors!