Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-Crowd that Had the Party Should Pick Up the Tab
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:45:12 -0500 (EST)
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

The Crowd That Had the Party Should Pick Up the  Tab 
You hear a lot these  days about how there has to be “shared sacrifice” to 
revive the economy and get  the federal deficit under control.  
The fact is that  for the last two decades the middle class in America has  
already done plenty of sacrificing. Now it’s time for the gang who had the 
big  economic party – and who caused the economic calamity – to pay the 
bill.  
The middle class and  the poor should not be asked for “more sacrifice” to 
close the budget  deficit.  It can be closed without  making the middle 
class and poor pick up the tab.   
And it’s time the  wealthy Americans begin once again to pay their 
proportionate share of  taxes.  At least they ought to pay  the pre-Bush-tax-cut 
rates of the 1990s – which, we should remember, was the  most prosperous period 
in human history.  
Next time you hear  some Wall Street type – or someone from an elite right 
wing think tank – spout  off about the need to cut Social Security or 
Medicare, for instance, here are  some facts that will make your blood boil: 
* The average income of senior citizens on  Social Security – from all 
sources – is $18,000.  The average Social Security benefit is  about $14,000 per 
year; less for women. Not a princely sum – but critical to  give many older 
Americans a decent, dignified life in retirement. Doesn’t it  even occur to 
one of the crew from Wall Street who makes millions in bonuses,  that it 
might be a little unseemly for him to recommend that people who make  $18,000 
a year – who have paid into Social Security for decades  --  should be asked 
to tighten their belts in  order to reassure the “markets” that America 
has begun to get its “entitlement  problem” under control.  
When  we talk about “tough” decisions, let’s be sure to ask the question: “
tough for  whom?” 
* For a decade virtually all of the economic  growth in America has gone to 
the top two  percent of the population.  In  fact, according to a study 
from the respected Center on Budget  Priorities: 
Two-thirds of the  nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to 
the top 1 percent of  U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger 
share of income in 2007  than at any other time since 1928, according to an 
analysis of newly released  IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and 
Emmanuel Saez._[1]_ 
(http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908#_ftn1#_ftn1)  
During  those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the 
inflation-adjusted income of  the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster 
 than the income of the bottom 90 percent of  households. 
In fact, in 2006  dollars, the income of the top 1% increased from $337,100 
in 1979 to $1.2  million in 2006. That trend has continued since.   
In fact, according to  the Center on Budget, “During the last economic 
recovery, from 2001 to 2007,  poverty actually increased and the median income 
of working-age households declined, even as income at the top of  the income 
scale continued to rise.” 
Middle class real  incomes declined five percent during the Bush years.  
* There is general agreement that the  recklessness of the wealthiest of 
the wealthy – big Wall Street CEO’s and  traders – caused the economic 
collapse in the fall of 2008 and cost eight  million Americans their jobs. But did 
their recklessness leave them  destitute?  Certainly not.  By the spring of 
2009, many of precisely  the same people who caused the economic cataclysm 
were back at the bonus trough  on Wall Street taking home tens of millions 
from firms that had actually been  rescued by funds from the taxpayers. And 
remember that the rescue of the  financial sector was made possible by the 
Government that this same gang loves  to hate when it comes time to hold them 
accountable or pay taxes – but adores  when it’s time to come with a 
vault-sized tin cup to Washington.  
* This same crowd made a fortune on deals  that helped outsource American 
jobs to cheap labor markets around the world --  jobs that used to pay 
millions of middle class Americans their middle class  incomes.  
* The Wall Street gang also made a fortune by  pumping up the credit bubble 
– making loans and issuing credit cards to middle  class families whose 
incomes were shrinking but who were trying to stay afloat  by borrowing more 
and more.  Of  course since the real buying power of most middle class 
Americans was stagnant,  all of that credit was necessary if big corporations were 
going to increase  their domestic sales. That’s the problem with increasing 
income inequality. When  each rich person siphons off a bigger and bigger 
share of the total national  economic pie for himself, there is no growth left 
to increase the buying power  of those upon whom they depend to be 
customers.  They kill the goose that lays the golden  egg.   
Credit bubbles work to  ameliorate this problem for a while, but at some 
point the cards come tumbling  down. 
* After the onset of the Great Recession, the  assets and incomes of the 
rich certainly took a hit, but now – just two years  later – they’re back.  
The stock market has  rebounded.  And recall that 81.2% of  all stocks and 
bonds are owned by the top 10% of the population – and a whopping  38.3% by 
the top 1%.  That leaves  only 18.8% of stocks and bond ownership to the 
bottom 90% of the population, so  it should come as no surprise that the rise 
in the stock market has been welcome  news among the very rich. 
The New York Times reported last spring  that: “Despite calls for restraint 
from  Washington and a chafed public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay 
out bonuses  that rival those of the boom years,” it continued. “The haul, 
in cash and stock,  will run into many billions of dollars.” 
“Industry  executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around – 
six-, seven-  and even eight-figure sums for some  chief executives and top 
producers – will stun the many Americans still hurting  from the financial 
collapse and ensuing Great Recession.”   
“During the first nine months of 2009,” the  Times reported, “five of the 
largest banks that received federal aid –  Citigroup, Bank of America, 
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley –  together set aside about $90 
billion for compensation.”  
Wall Street bonuses for this year are  expected to go up. 
* Now the CEO of the average  company in the Standard and Poor’s Index 
makes $10.9 million.  That means that before lunch, on  the first workday of the 
year, he (sometimes she) has made more than the minimum  wage workers in 
his company will make all year. That translates to $5,240  per hour – or about 
344 times the pay of the typical American worker.   
* Most people would consider a salary of  $100,000 per year reasonably good 
pay.  But the average CEO makes that much in the first 20 hours of the  
work year. 
* And that’s nothing compared to some of the  Kings of Wall Street. At the 
time the market crashed, many market experts  questioned whether the 
industry could continue to charge such hefty fees.  But according to the New York 
Times:  “…top hedge fund managers rode the 2009 stock market rally to record 
gains, with  the highest-paid 25 earning a collective $25.3 billion…. 
Beating the old 2007  high by a wide margin…. The minimum individual payout on 
the list was $350  million in 2009, a sign of how richly compensated hedge 
fund managers have  remained despite public outrage over the pay packages at 
big banks and brokerage  firms.” 
And by the way, the  hedge fund managers paid a tax rate on their incomes 
of only 15% -- far lower than the tax rate paid  by their secretaries. 
About 70% of all  capital gains go to 3.5% of the population.   
When you think about  it, it’s indefensible that “ordinary income” – the 
income generated when you  work for a living – is taxed at up to 35%, and “
capital gains” – income  generated when your stocks, bonds, or derivatives 
appreciate – is taxed at  15%.    
It makes no sense at  all that the marginal income of a middle manager who 
makes $50,000 a year is  taxed at 25%, while the income of a wealthy person 
who spends his time on the  French Riviera “day trading” on the stock 
market is taxed at 15%.  
* According to last  Wednesday’s New York Post: “Shares of Tiffany hit an 
all-time high yesterday  after the upscale jeweler reported a 
better-than-expected quarterly  profit and gave an upbeat holiday outlook. ... Demand has 
been strongest  among Tiffany's wealthiest customers, who drove 
"double-digit" percentage gains in sales of items priced above $500,  the company said.” 
 
So next time someone tells you  about how the middle class needs to tighten 
its belt to close the budget  deficit, remind them of the CEO who just 
spent $4,000 for a blouse on Rodeo  Drive in Beverly Hills.   
Or you might mention Steve Schwarzman, the tycoon who spent $5 million on  
his 60th birthday party.  
Ask him to empathize  with the difficulties of the Wall Street trader who 
takes his family on a  weekend ski vacation in his Gulfstream V jet that runs 
him $5,200 per hour to  operate – or just $20,400 for a quick round trip to 
Aspen.  Hope he doesn’t forget to pick up a  $1,830 pair of Berluti shoes 
when he takes a shopping  break. 
And of course there are John  and Cindy McCain, whose eight homes became an 
issue in his ill-fated  Presidential race.  
What do you think? Is  it fairer to provide another $700 billion in tax 
cuts for the rich -- or should  we eliminate unemployment compensation, as the 
Republicans propose?   
From the economic  point of view the case is clear.  According to the 
Department of Labor, extending unemployment insurance  creates spending of about 
$5 billion per month and boosts the GDP almost twice  that, by almost $10 
billion a month.  And if unemployment insurance disappears, we will lose 
900,000 more  jobs.  According to Marc Zandi, John  McCain’s economic adviser 
during the last Presidential campaign, the money spent  on the tax cuts will 
return to the economy only about twenty nine cents on every  dollar spent.  
But economics isn’t  the only reason why we should extend unemployment and 
drop more tax breaks for  the rich.  The main reason is  simple: more tax 
cuts for the rich while  ending unemployment insurance is just plain wrong.   
Robert Creamer is  a long-time political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the book: Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on 
_Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.