Salient analysis which pretty much sums it up on a number of fronts, and lays bare the case on the destructive anti-democratic nature of ‘market societies’ and the ideology that underlines them.

If we take seriously the ideology, arguments and values now emanating from the right-wing of the Republican Party, there is no room in the United States for a democracy in which the obligations of citizenship, compassion and collective security outweigh the demands of what might be called totalizing market-driven society; that is, a society that is utterly deregulated, privatized, commodified and largely controlled by the ultra-rich and a handful of mega corporations. In such a society, there is a shift in power from government to markets and the emergence of a more intensified political economy organized around three principal concerns: deregulated markets, commodification and disposability. In spite of the current failure of this system, right-wing Republicans and their allies are more than willing to embrace a system that erases all vestiges of the public good, turning citizens into consumers, while privatizing and commodifying every aspect of the social order - all the while threatening the lives, health, and livelihoods of millions of working class and middle class people.

———-

But more so, it produces a kind of dysfunctional silence in the culture in the face of massive hardship and suffering. There is more than moral indifference and political cynicism at work here; there is also a culture for which there is not much room for ideals, a culture that now considers public welfare a pathology, and responsibility solely a privatized and individual matter. This is a politics of disinvestment in public life, democracy and the common good.

Shouting against the evils of big government does little to register or make visible the power of big corporations or a government that serves corporate rather than democratic needs.

———-

As democracy is increasingly reduced to an empty shell and the rise of a corporate and punishing state looms heavily on the 21st-century horizon, the market-driven principles of deregulation, radical individualism and privatization penetrate all aspects of daily life. Such market-driven values and their accompanying power-shaping institutions now profoundly influence the very nature of how the American public think, act and desire. All of which are increasingly wedded to the epicenter of a grotesque consumer culture, whose underside is a heartless indifference to the suffering and hardship of the millions of people without jobs, homes, health care and, increasingly, hope.

———-

In this scenario, each individual is on their own in confronting the many systemic problems facing American society, each of us responsible for our own fate, even when facing systemic problems that cannot be solved by isolated individuals. This politics of hysteria and ruthlessness that is now on full display in America is not just an attack on the social state, big government, the public sphere and the common good, but the very essence of politics and democracy. This is truly a politics that celebrates death over life.

Read The Complete Essay

Excellent piece by John Cassidy on the real implications of what the health care legislation package means.

But what about the economics of it all? In general terms, as I’ve said before, the case for reform is unassailable. Health care provides a textbook case of an industry plagued by numerous forms of market failure, including moral hazard, adverse selection, and free riding, as well as ad-hoc government interventions. The result is a horrendously costly mishmash, which manages to combine excessive expenditure in some areas (diagnostic testing) with too little expenditure in others (preventative care), and overall health outcomes that are middling, at best. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. ranks 38th in the global life-expectancy league table, just below Cuba (!) and just above Portugal.

Unfortunately, the reform bills that Congress has passed don’t tackle some of the system’s underlying problems, such as the lack of incentives to limit health-care expenditures. Yes, there is financing for pilot schemes that might eventually generate some savings, and, yes, a new independent board of experts will be tasked with identifying possible cuts, but to conflate these initiatives with a guaranteed cure for cost inflation is to fall victim to wishful thinking. Unless I am mistaken—and I hope I am—the reform will end up costing taxpayers considerably more than the Congressional Budget Office is predicting, and it won’t cover nearly as many people as hoped for. In another decade or so, Congress will be back at work, trying to provide genuine universal coverage at a more affordable cost.

The problem is fundamental. Setting aside the expansion of Medicaid and some long-overdue restrictions on the egregious behavior of health insurers, this isn’t really health-care “reform”: it is a significant expansion of the current system of private insurance, with the taxpayer footing the bill…a peculiar amalgam of egalitarian intent and corporate welfare: egalitarianism in the form of providing health care to those who can’t afford it; corporate welfare in the form of paying corporations such as Aetna and Wellpoint generously to take on millions of new enrollees. If the average American doesn’t realize this, people on Wall Street do. Since Obama’s election, in November, 2008, Aetna’s stock has gone from $20 to $35; Wellpoint’s has gone from $30 to $63.

Read The Full Article in The New Yorker

Another commie liberal attacking America’s true economic achievers…

Warren Buffett’s Statement to Congress on Estate Taxes

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I appreciate the opportunity to express a few views on the estate tax.

I will limit my remarks to three points.

The first relates to the intellectual dishonesty employed by those who use the phrase ‘death tax.’ This term is clever, it is Orwellian, and it is, if you’ll pardon the expression, dead wrong.

More than 2.4 million Americans will die this year. About 12,000 of them will leave an estate that will be taxed when the exemption goes to $3 million, as Senator Grassley mentioned. It will be 9600 estimated and it’s been 19,000 when the exemption was (lower.)

That means that 99-and-a-half percent of estates will be tax-free. You would have to attend 200 funerals to be at one at which the decedent’s estate owed a tax. Indeed, far more people who die receive a large tax benefit. I don’t think that’s generally understood. Namely, a stepped up basis on appreciated assets.

If people insist on renaming the estate tax, it would be more appropriately labeled the ‘death present.’

The second point I would like to make is that in a country that prides itself on equality of opportunity, it is becoming anything but that, as the gap between the super rich and the middle class widens in dramatic fashion…

Twenty years ago, 1987, it took $220 million dollars to make the list. Now it takes $1.3 billion, about a six-for-one increase. The total wealth of the list in 1987 was then $220 billion. Now it’s $1.54 trillion, exactly a seven-for-one increase.

Tax law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way. During that same period, the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic front. His income went from a median $26,061 to $48,201, almost exactly the increase of the CPI during the 20 years.

He’s been on a treadmill while the super rich have been on a spaceship.

Watch The Video/Read The Complete Transcript

Nobody prefers paying taxes…with the possible exception of IRS employees who realize that their tax returns along with those of others keep them employed.

Hardly anyone enjoys coughing up hard-earned money to “the government.”

Everyone likes to rail about taxes especially today, “Tax Day,” April 15.

But taxes are the necessary price for a civil society.

Fire and police protection. Food inspectors. Air traffic controllers. Libraries. Unemployment insurance. Water and sewer systems. Border protection. Medical care for senior citizens. Courts. Public parks and open spaces. Educational, nutritional, and medical programs for pre-school age children. Boards of elections. Enforcement of clean air and water laws.

These and hundreds of other social, economic and political functions are the glue that bond people and their/our institutions together to forge community. Humans are social beings. We need social networks — both informal and formal.

Governments are one type of formal network that at their best reflect the will of their inhabitants through their constitutions, rules, laws, policies and programs. Taxes provide the funds that allow governments to create and maintain these functions.

Are all taxes fair? No. Are tax dollars wasted? Absolutely. Can other formal networks besides governments sometimes perform the same social function without tax dollars. Sure.

This doesn’t mean we don’t need taxes.

At their best, governments are us. We need public structures and institutions that create, maintain, protect, and defend the commons and collective goals. We also need governments to control and define the other major organized structure and institution in our societies that threaten self-governance — the major one being business corporations.

As problematic as governments may be in representing its citizens, they are bastions of self-governance compared to business corporations. Business corporations are in not democratic. Employees have no Bill of Rights protections. Business corporations are not loyal to any people or place. Business corporations, in fact, seek to supplant the role of government not just economically but politically. That’s what drives privatization of public assets and institutions.

Several dozen “Tax Day Tea Parties” are taking place today across Ohio — as part of a nationwide revolt against taxes. They’re billed as nonpartisan. Many I’ve read about are focused on opposing President Obama’s stimulus programs. Whether deliberate or not, the tenor of these brewing tax revolt actions, however, seems to be much more — to reduce the power, authority, and wherewithal of government to:

1. Define and control corporate actions
2. Ensure that governments can’t assume new authorities that may be better in the public rather than the corporate domain — i.e. controlling the issuance of national currency, and/or
3. Decrease the ability of government to meet basic public functions, thereby, opening the door to selling or leasing them to for-profit business corporations.

There’s no question we need a tax revolt. The proposed fiscal year federal budget calls for over $700 billion for military spending (to maintain a military empire with bases and troops in more than 100 nations, including current wars and occupations in several) and $750 billion more to bailout banks that lost trillions in risky and bizarre financial gambles. An increasing amount of our tax dollars are in the form of corporate welfare. None of this increases housing security, health care security, environmental security, job security (expect for bankers and military contractors), or education security. It’s not taxes that are revolting but how and where they’re spent.

Reducing taxes for any of the three reasons above simply taxes democracy by decreasing the ability of governments to set and enforce laws, rules, priorities and programs that reflect the wishes and interests of the vast majority of the public — and against those running national and transnational business corporations.

In a time when the “free market” and Wall Street has demonstrated beyond doubt its lack of service to the public interest and lack of public accountability, government provides the best institutional path to authentic public accountability and responsibility.

Tax Day Tea Parties only brews blanket hostility at the government and represents an effort to divert popular anger away from where it most needs to be — against the growing power and rights of business corporations and toward creating a government ruled by people.

- Posted by Greg Coleridge, The American Friends Service Committee and the Program On Corporations, Law & Democracy

Class war anyone?

Whenever you bring up statistics like this, the oblivious opulent tend to screech out about how one is engaging in ‘class warfare.’

Seems to me that its a war that has long been underway, and its pretty obvious who is winning it.

Here from author David Cay Johnston, reporting for The New York Times…

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.

—————

Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington who characterizes the Bush administration’s policies as YOYO economics, based on You (Are) On Your Own, said the differences in income growth explained why so many Americans have told pollsters that they are feeling squeezed.

“A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”

The rich with the greatest share of income since 1929? We know what went down the last time THAT happened.

Read The Complete Article

George Lakoff and Bruce Budner of The Rockridge Institute elaborate here on some of the hidden truths and necessary social positives of a progressive taxation system…

Progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor - is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values and understandings of values.

———

America’s government has at least two fundamental functions: protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

———

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn’t have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors - those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest - make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody’s tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good - they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth - and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out - by far.

Read The Complete Article

Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist who serves as one of the most lucid voices in the media today, thanks to his column in the NY Times, delivers with this expose’ on how in America under the Bush crony system of government, it’s Katrina all the time for the public infrastructure of American society.

…Federal officials were oblivious. “We are extremely pleased with the response that every element of the federal government, all of our federal partners, have made to this terrible tragedy,” declared Michael Chertoff, the secretary for Homeland Security, on Wednesday. When asked the next day about the situation at the convention center, he dismissed the reports as “a rumor” or “someone’s anecdotal version.”

Today, much of the Gulf Coast remains in ruins. Less than half the federal money set aside for rebuilding, as opposed to emergency relief, has actually been spent, in part because the Bush administration refused to waive the requirement that local governments put up matching funds for recovery projects - an impossible burden for communities whose tax bases have literally been washed away.

On the other hand, generous investment tax breaks, supposedly designed to spur recovery in the disaster area, have been used to build luxury condominiums near the University of Alabama’s football stadium in Tuscaloosa, 200 miles inland.

But why should we be surprised by any of this? The Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina - the mixture of neglect of those in need, obliviousness to their plight, and self-congratulation in the face of abject failure - has become standard operating procedure. These days, it’s Katrina all the time.

————

Most disturbing of all, the number of Americans without health insurance jumped. At this point, there are 47 million uninsured people in this country, 8.5 million more than there were in 2000. Mr. Bush may think that being uninsured is no big deal - “you just go to an emergency room” - but the reality is that if you’re uninsured every illness is a catastrophe, your own private Katrina.

Yet the White House press release on the report declared that President Bush was “pleased” with the new numbers. Heckuva job, economy!

————

Future historians will, without doubt, see Katrina as a turning point. The question is whether it will be seen as the moment when America remembered the importance of good government, or the moment when neglect and obliviousness to the needs of others became the new American way.

Read The Complete Essay

It is simply amazing to me that this fraud of a program was able to ever be enacted in the first place. But then, the power of the Corporate State cannot be underestimated. This from Smartmoney.com…

You can tell a lot about a product by the way it’s sold, and the Bush administration has hawked Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit - “Part D” - almost as honestly as it rolled out the Iraq war. The results are going to start slamming millions of seniors right here, right now, in the fall of 2007.

To see why Part-D Day is at hand, you first have to understand the nasty process by which Medicare added a drug benefit.

———-

The administration and its allies went to unusual and controversial lengths to pass the drug benefit. In 2004 it sent a series of “video news releases” hyping the program to media outlets around the country. These prepackaged broadcasts seemed like news reports, and some TV stations aired them as such, but they were actually political ads. In May 2004 the Government Accountability Office found that these news stories constituted “covert propaganda” and violated publicity or propaganda prohibitions, but the GAO lacked the authority to punish anyone.

———-

Throughout the debate over the drug benefit, President Bush told Congress it would not cost more than $400 billion over 10 years, but soon after the legislation passed, it emerged that administration officials knew that information was false. From June through November 2003, Medicare’s accountants estimated the real cost of the program would run between $500 billion and $600 billion, according to congressional testimony in 2004 by Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. But Thomas Scully, then Medicare’s administrator, told Foster he would face “extremely severe” consequences if he revealed the truth to Congress. And Foster says a top lawyer at Medicare told him that Scully had the authority to gag him. That lawyer was Leslie Norwalk - a name to keep in mind.

———-

In this description, disseminated by the administration and picked up by countless journalists (including, unfortunately, me in a prior column), the gap in coverage seems to be a manageable $1,450. The very name “doughnut hole” suggests a small problem. Maybe the difference between “prescription costs” and “out-of-pocket expenses” will be confusing enough to make you stop thinking about the whole issue.

Try this on for size instead. Under Medicare’s drug benefit, you pay $4,270 of the first $5,871 in prescription costs you incur.

Packs a much stiffer wallop - both rhetorically and financially - than the first definition, doesn’t it? But it’s the same numbers, just expressed more clearly (and honestly). To get Part D’s “catastrophic” coverage, which pays for 95% of prescription costs, you’ve got to pay the premium for your policy, then a deductible, then 25% of your initial drug costs, and then, on average, another $3,000 or so to get you through the “doughnut hole.” That’s the real cost of structuring Part D as a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. Maybe it would get some more attention if we started calling it the “Mom’s missing her meds” tax.

And this is just touching on part of this disconcerting report. Read the complete article Here

This is interesting, from the Computer and Communications Industry Association…

Fair Use Economy Represents One-Sixth of U.S. GDP

Fair Use exceptions to U.S. copyright laws are responsible for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States, according to the findings of an unprecedented economic study released today. According to the study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and conducted in accordance with a World Intellectual Property Organization methodology, companies benefiting from limitations on copyright-holders’ exclusive rights, such as “fair use” – generate substantial revenue, employ millions of workers, and, in 2006, represented one-sixth of total U.S. GDP.

The exhaustive report, released today at a briefing on Capitol Hill, quantifies for the first time ever the critical contributions of fair use to the U.S. economy.  The timing proves particularly important as the debates over copyright law in the digital age move increasingly to center stage on Capitol Hill. 

Read The Full Study

Good posting on Wrynet dissecting some of the deceptive arguments and illusionary enticements of so-called ‘public/private partnerships’ and who is really benefitting from them.