Finally, after 16 days of being shut down, the federal government has officially reopened on October 17. At the 11th hour, Congress finally passed a bipartisan deal to fund the government through January 15, 2014 and suspend the debt ceiling enough to get us through February 7. Thus, the risk of default is nil for the next few months, until the next inevitable battle on the horizon of course. The President stood his ground, and no significant changes were made to Obamacare as Bonehead and most Republicans finally backed down for now. Our economy, and indeed the world's economy, has been saved from the brink of catastrophe. So, cue the music, Maestro:
HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH, HALL.......err, wait a minute. Seriously? There is really nothing to be rejoicing about, since true progressives gained absolutely nothing from the deal, the sequester cuts are still in place, and the crazy fanatics who held our government hostage and nearly drove us over the debt cliff get to walk away unpunished, salivating like Pavlov's dog at the next chance to do it all over again. The antics of the past few weeks have already done significant damage to our economy, and made America look like a dysfunctional laughingstock around the world. We must not tolerate this kind of outrageous and unacceptable behavior from any of our elected representatives, ever. Period. So, one more time, we will say it again to them loud and clear:
"YOU'RE FIRED!!!"
Now pack your bags and get the hell out before we primary each and every one of you. We the People have spoken. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Dear Congress: You're Fired!
It's official. The much-feared government shutdown has begun. All because Congress couldn't get their act together and pass a continuing budget resolution by the October 1 deadline. They have gone way too far this time. And we are all paying a heavy price for it.
The most blame lies with the Republican Party, especially the Koch-funded Tea Party members. Wanting desperately to repeal, defund, or at least delay Obamacare, among other demands, they insisted on playing chicken with the economy because they didn't get their way. Led by John Boehner and Ted Cruz, they refused repeatedly to pass a "clean" bill to fund the government for even a few weeks beyond October 1. Well into September 30, they made one outrageous demand after another as a condition for passing a continuing resolution. But the Democrats are not entirely innocent either. They let it get to this point for quite some time now, and even took the weekend off knowing a shutdown was likely imminent. And when Boehner offered a surprisingly reasonable 11th-hour request to allow the shutdown to be avoided if 1) only the "individual mandate" part of Obamacare would be delayed by a year and 2) Members of Congress would not get any healthcare subsidies, the Democrats (led by Harry Reid) still refused, and Obama still threatened to veto it. Of course, the Republicans then punted again, and still refused to even allow a House vote on a "clean" bill. Despicable! Why both sides couldn't come to a compromise is beside the point. The real issue is that shutting down the government just because you don't get your way should NEVER be done, period. And the longer the shutdown lasts, the more damage is done to our economy and society at large.
But it appears that an even bigger fight is on the horizon. We are just weeks away from defaulting on our national debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion. Such a default would be unprecedented and would likely lead to another Great Depression. And if Congress's current unacceptable behavior is any indication, we are in for a VERY rough time ahead in the weeks to come. They are essentially putting our nation in distress, hence the inversion of the American flag on the TSAP blog.
Thus, the TSAP hereby gives virtually all 535 members of Congress (regardless of party) a vote of "no confidence", and we will take their government shutdown to imply the resignation of such members. We encourage every reader of this blog to sign the following petitions:
Dear Congress: We Accept Your Resignation
No Pay for Congress During Shutdown
Minimum Wage for Congress
Let them know that We the People have had ENOUGH of the gridlock, grandstanding, backstabbing, corruption, venality, follies, lies, recklessness, childishness, and otherwise outrageous behavior of Congress. And we will support a primary challenge to ALL of them, with the only exceptions being Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If we weren't clear, we'll say it again:
YOU'RE FIRED!!!
So what's the opposite of "progress" again? You guessed it.
The most blame lies with the Republican Party, especially the Koch-funded Tea Party members. Wanting desperately to repeal, defund, or at least delay Obamacare, among other demands, they insisted on playing chicken with the economy because they didn't get their way. Led by John Boehner and Ted Cruz, they refused repeatedly to pass a "clean" bill to fund the government for even a few weeks beyond October 1. Well into September 30, they made one outrageous demand after another as a condition for passing a continuing resolution. But the Democrats are not entirely innocent either. They let it get to this point for quite some time now, and even took the weekend off knowing a shutdown was likely imminent. And when Boehner offered a surprisingly reasonable 11th-hour request to allow the shutdown to be avoided if 1) only the "individual mandate" part of Obamacare would be delayed by a year and 2) Members of Congress would not get any healthcare subsidies, the Democrats (led by Harry Reid) still refused, and Obama still threatened to veto it. Of course, the Republicans then punted again, and still refused to even allow a House vote on a "clean" bill. Despicable! Why both sides couldn't come to a compromise is beside the point. The real issue is that shutting down the government just because you don't get your way should NEVER be done, period. And the longer the shutdown lasts, the more damage is done to our economy and society at large.
But it appears that an even bigger fight is on the horizon. We are just weeks away from defaulting on our national debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion. Such a default would be unprecedented and would likely lead to another Great Depression. And if Congress's current unacceptable behavior is any indication, we are in for a VERY rough time ahead in the weeks to come. They are essentially putting our nation in distress, hence the inversion of the American flag on the TSAP blog.
Thus, the TSAP hereby gives virtually all 535 members of Congress (regardless of party) a vote of "no confidence", and we will take their government shutdown to imply the resignation of such members. We encourage every reader of this blog to sign the following petitions:
Dear Congress: We Accept Your Resignation
No Pay for Congress During Shutdown
Minimum Wage for Congress
Let them know that We the People have had ENOUGH of the gridlock, grandstanding, backstabbing, corruption, venality, follies, lies, recklessness, childishness, and otherwise outrageous behavior of Congress. And we will support a primary challenge to ALL of them, with the only exceptions being Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. If we weren't clear, we'll say it again:
YOU'RE FIRED!!!
So what's the opposite of "progress" again? You guessed it.
Monday, September 16, 2013
WWIII Averted, For Now
It looks like the United States, Russia, and Syria have reached a diplomatic deal that would stave off war for now. Syria would have to declare, turn in, and destroy all of their chemical weapons in short order. Of course, doing so during an active civil war would be a lot easier said than done, but this is a good first step toward defusing a ticking time-bomb in a volatile region and preventing a wider war. Though long-term success is far from certain, such a deal definitely reduces the risk of World War III from happening in the near future. And it may increase the chances of a cease-fire in the not-too-distant future.
The True Spirit of America Party believes that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, and that violence will only beget more violence in the long run. While there is mounting evidence that the Assad regime and their lackeys are responsible for at least some of the chemical weapon attacks on civilians, it is also clear that both sides have a ton of innocent blood on their hands. Those who have committed such horrific atrocities need to be brought to justice, but bombing Syria will clearly do far more harm than good overall. What may start out as a "limited" air war can quickly turn into another Iraq or Vietnam, or worse as Syria and possibly other countries (i.e. Iran) or Hezbollah fight back, other countries get drawn in, and the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels attempt to take over the failed state of Syria. At best, we would be killing a couple hundred or thousand people (inevitably including civilians) just to make a point, and end up likely repeating it in the future as the bloody civil war continues unabated. At worst, we risk igniting WWIII, the road to universal slaughter. And on balance of probabilities, history suggests that once we start such a war, contrary to our president's wishful thinking, we would have little choice but to put countless boots on the ground for the long haul (years or even decades), and thus be stuck in a serious quagmire for the foreseeable future. (Where will we get all those extra troops from? Shhhh...don't say the D-word!) Unless of course America resorts to using nukes, which would become the worst (and most hypocritical) atrocity that our country has ever committed in its entire history, except perhaps the attempted genocide of Native Americans.
So does that mean America should turn a blind eye to the horrific mass murder of innocent civilians? Of course not. That is a false choice that the hawks like to throw out there, and other options still remain. By all means, we should continue to work on stopping the violence via diplomatic means in conjunction with other nations. We should increase humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. We should also do our part to take in the large number of refugees that the Syrian civil war is creating. All of these things would at the very least take the edge off the crisis, and may even bring lasting change. And as soon as it is feasible, atrocity perpetrators on both sides of the conflict should ultimately be brought before the International Criminal Court so that justice is served. But war is not the solution--it is part of the problem. Just ask any survivor of the numerous Middle Eastern wars of the past half-century. Killing to stop the killing will only lead to more killing, and too much blood has already been spilled in the 21st century alone.
The True Spirit of America Party believes that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, and that violence will only beget more violence in the long run. While there is mounting evidence that the Assad regime and their lackeys are responsible for at least some of the chemical weapon attacks on civilians, it is also clear that both sides have a ton of innocent blood on their hands. Those who have committed such horrific atrocities need to be brought to justice, but bombing Syria will clearly do far more harm than good overall. What may start out as a "limited" air war can quickly turn into another Iraq or Vietnam, or worse as Syria and possibly other countries (i.e. Iran) or Hezbollah fight back, other countries get drawn in, and the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels attempt to take over the failed state of Syria. At best, we would be killing a couple hundred or thousand people (inevitably including civilians) just to make a point, and end up likely repeating it in the future as the bloody civil war continues unabated. At worst, we risk igniting WWIII, the road to universal slaughter. And on balance of probabilities, history suggests that once we start such a war, contrary to our president's wishful thinking, we would have little choice but to put countless boots on the ground for the long haul (years or even decades), and thus be stuck in a serious quagmire for the foreseeable future. (Where will we get all those extra troops from? Shhhh...don't say the D-word!) Unless of course America resorts to using nukes, which would become the worst (and most hypocritical) atrocity that our country has ever committed in its entire history, except perhaps the attempted genocide of Native Americans.
So does that mean America should turn a blind eye to the horrific mass murder of innocent civilians? Of course not. That is a false choice that the hawks like to throw out there, and other options still remain. By all means, we should continue to work on stopping the violence via diplomatic means in conjunction with other nations. We should increase humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. We should also do our part to take in the large number of refugees that the Syrian civil war is creating. All of these things would at the very least take the edge off the crisis, and may even bring lasting change. And as soon as it is feasible, atrocity perpetrators on both sides of the conflict should ultimately be brought before the International Criminal Court so that justice is served. But war is not the solution--it is part of the problem. Just ask any survivor of the numerous Middle Eastern wars of the past half-century. Killing to stop the killing will only lead to more killing, and too much blood has already been spilled in the 21st century alone.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
To President Obama (and Congress): Do NOT Attack Syria!
The True Spirit of America Party would like to let President Obama and Congress know that attacking Syria is a foolish, reckless, and morally bankrupt "solution" to Syria's growing civil war. While we wholeheartedly condemn the atrocities committed by the Assad regime, we still do not believe that the United States should go to war with Syria. And here are the top ten reasons we oppose it:
10) Most of our own allies, including our staunchest ally of them all (the UK), oppose such action.
9) Going it alone unilaterally worked so well in Iraq, didn't it? Oh wait....
8) We risk another quagmire like Iraq, or worse. Air strikes alone would not solve anything, and would be like fighting fire with gasoline. A full-blown ground invasion would indeed effect regime change, but it would create a dangerous power vacuum like in Iraq. We may have won in Iraq, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, and one more such "victory" will likely be America's undoing.
7) We risk a far wider war than we are prepared for, possibly drawing in other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Jordan. Perhaps even Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia. WWIII is a definite possibility!
6) Many of the rebels are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and perhaps other terrorist groups as well. Do we really want to inadvertently help them get into power over there?
5) We are still not 100% positive that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks, since some rebels have supposedly admitted to "accidentally" doing it themselves. (That being said, we do know that the regime has deliberately killed countless innocent civilians over the past two years by conventional means)
4) Intervening in civil wars, at best, creates a temporary pause in the killing. At worst, it adds to the killing. There is really no military solution to the Syrian crisis, and killing a few hundred (or thousand) people just to make a point is probably the most morally bankrupt option of all.
3) America is not in a position for yet another war of choice. Now is definitely NOT the time to risk so much blood and treasure. Focus on rebuilding OUR nation instead. America needs to stop policing the world, mind our own business, and retire from that position now.
2) Syria is really not a credible threat to the security of the United States or its interests. They are NOT a clear and present danger to us.
1) Above all, a preemptive war of choice, absent an imminent threat to us or our allies, is always immoral, and two wrongs don't make a right.
We hope our leaders heed such advice before they decide to cross the Rubicon. Otherwise, this may be America's last war, and not in a good way. History speaks for itself.
10) Most of our own allies, including our staunchest ally of them all (the UK), oppose such action.
9) Going it alone unilaterally worked so well in Iraq, didn't it? Oh wait....
8) We risk another quagmire like Iraq, or worse. Air strikes alone would not solve anything, and would be like fighting fire with gasoline. A full-blown ground invasion would indeed effect regime change, but it would create a dangerous power vacuum like in Iraq. We may have won in Iraq, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, and one more such "victory" will likely be America's undoing.
7) We risk a far wider war than we are prepared for, possibly drawing in other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Jordan. Perhaps even Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia. WWIII is a definite possibility!
6) Many of the rebels are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and perhaps other terrorist groups as well. Do we really want to inadvertently help them get into power over there?
5) We are still not 100% positive that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks, since some rebels have supposedly admitted to "accidentally" doing it themselves. (That being said, we do know that the regime has deliberately killed countless innocent civilians over the past two years by conventional means)
4) Intervening in civil wars, at best, creates a temporary pause in the killing. At worst, it adds to the killing. There is really no military solution to the Syrian crisis, and killing a few hundred (or thousand) people just to make a point is probably the most morally bankrupt option of all.
3) America is not in a position for yet another war of choice. Now is definitely NOT the time to risk so much blood and treasure. Focus on rebuilding OUR nation instead. America needs to stop policing the world, mind our own business, and retire from that position now.
2) Syria is really not a credible threat to the security of the United States or its interests. They are NOT a clear and present danger to us.
1) Above all, a preemptive war of choice, absent an imminent threat to us or our allies, is always immoral, and two wrongs don't make a right.
We hope our leaders heed such advice before they decide to cross the Rubicon. Otherwise, this may be America's last war, and not in a good way. History speaks for itself.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Detroit: The Canary in the Coal Mine
"Hey, at least we're not Detroit!"
That is probably what every city and town in America is saying to themselves now that Detroit has declared bankruptcy after decades of decline. Yes, Detroit's decline is by far the worst of any city in the nation without a doubt, and their historic bankruptcy is unprecedented. However, the rest of the country probably wouldn't be so smug if they knew the facts about the crises facing the nation as a whole. They would realize that Detroit is simply the canary in the coal mine, and now that canary is essentially dead. And both parties (two sides of the same ugly coin) are to blame for such crises facing our declining American Empire.
Much like Detroit, our nation's once-great manufacturing base has been hollowed out over the past few decades as a result of "free trade" and other failed policies. As a result, we are essentially becoming a plunder economy that is increasingly based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new, while the rest of the economy is based primarily on manipulating finance. Ever notice that the states with the lowest unemployment rates tend to be the oil-rich ones? Not only is such an economy inherently unsustainable in the long run for obvious reasons, it also eviscerates the middle class and widens the gap between the haves and have-nots, which makes things even less sustainable. Just ask the ancient Romans how well that worked out for them.
The other big long-run problem is the pensions crisis, which is true for all levels of government as well as much of the private sector as well. The wolf is now at the door for Detroit, and will soon be arriving elsewhere as well. Both unions and management are to blame for this crisis: the former demanded too much and bit off far more than they could chew, while the latter deliberately underfunded the pension system, essentially stealing the money from the workers (albeit legally). Simple demographics also compound the crisis; as the population ages, there will be more retirees with fewer current workers to support them, and the whole Ponzi scheme eventually unravels. Though not as acute and much easier to solve, a similar problem exists for Social Security as well. The trust fund is continually being raided while the population ages and the wealthiest Americans refuse to pay their fair share of contributions. And neither party has the intestinal fortitude to solve it at this time, while the basic social contract that once held this country together is essentially broken.
Finally, as a result of three decades of reckless and wasteful spending, warmongering, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the aforementioned problems, the nation is now mired in a debt crisis, with our national debt topping $16 trillion. While it is true that the deficit is down, we are still adding to the debt every minute of every day with no end in sight. America is already technically bankrupt, and it is highly unlikely anyone will bail us out but ourselves. Fortunately, there is still time to prevent the entire nation from turning into Detroit, but we need to act fast. But as long as we keep on electing Republicans and Democrats, the chances for salvation grow increasingly slim each year.
The TSAP is well aware of what needs to be done to save this country from the fate of the Romans (or worse). Our party platform contains several crucial planks that must be implemented sometime within the next few years in order for there to be any hope left at all. Anything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Take Back the Flag
Just pointing out that today is Flag Day. But this blog looks no
different today because we display the Stars and Stripes every day.
To all the ignorant fools who burn it, remember what it is that you're really burning, and all those that fought and died for it. Those who consider themselves to be on the political left would be better served by "taking back the Flag" and waving it proudly, so it is not perverted into an ultra-right-wing symbol by the fascists. Make it clear that the government policies you oppose are not in the national interest. And let everyone know that you can just as strongly love this country as you fear its government. In fact, plenty of true patriots often do feel that way, and as Jefferson once said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
The Flag is not Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or belonging to any other faction. It is the American Flag, and it belongs to all of us. Live free or die!
To all the ignorant fools who burn it, remember what it is that you're really burning, and all those that fought and died for it. Those who consider themselves to be on the political left would be better served by "taking back the Flag" and waving it proudly, so it is not perverted into an ultra-right-wing symbol by the fascists. Make it clear that the government policies you oppose are not in the national interest. And let everyone know that you can just as strongly love this country as you fear its government. In fact, plenty of true patriots often do feel that way, and as Jefferson once said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
The Flag is not Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or belonging to any other faction. It is the American Flag, and it belongs to all of us. Live free or die!
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Eric Holder Must Be Fired
Our nation's Attorney General Eric Holder needs to step down or be fired, now. The TSAP gives him a vote of "no confidence", and here are the reasons:
Granted, Mr. Holder is not quite the monster that several conservatives make him out to be. He is certainly no Ashcroft or Gonzalez, or even a Reno. But he has still proven to be unable to live up to the high standards of justice and integrity required for someone in his position. Therefore, he should be sent packing immediately, and replaced with someone who can live up to such standards.
- Holder has allegedly been involved in illegally spying on Americans, including journalists.
- Holder has allegedly lied about it as well.
- Though Holder condemns it, the recent IRS scandal still happened on his watch.
- Holder has continued several questionable policies of the Bush Administration in the name of "homeland security" and "counterterrorism," that threaten our Constitutional rights.
- Holder's Justice Department had called a truce with medical cannabis dispensaries in states where they are legal, only to break that truce within a year or two and resume the raids.
- Before he became Attorney General, Holder helped set the stage for the "too big to jail" phenomenon that continues to haunt us to this day.
- And Holder's Department of Justice declined to prosecute HSBC for years of money laundering (including drug money).
Granted, Mr. Holder is not quite the monster that several conservatives make him out to be. He is certainly no Ashcroft or Gonzalez, or even a Reno. But he has still proven to be unable to live up to the high standards of justice and integrity required for someone in his position. Therefore, he should be sent packing immediately, and replaced with someone who can live up to such standards.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
400 ppm and Growing--DANGER!!!
It's official. On May 9, 2013, the level of the infamous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has reached 400 ppm, the highest level in all of human history. This record-high level has not been reached since at least 2 million years ago, and possibly even 10 million years ago. Scientists consider this a scary trend since the increase in CO2 levels is still accelerating and if unchecked can bring catastrophic climate change in the not-too-distant future after crossing the "climate tipping point." And there is no longer any reasonable doubt that this increase is essentially 100% due to human activity. We are literally cooking the planet, and we will all pay a heavy price for it if we continue to do so.
The climate change deniers are flat-out wrong since it has been a matter of scientific consensus since at least the 1990s. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We absolutely need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. If we don't do it soon, the result can easily become catastrophic and irreversible.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. The tax rate would be low at first (e.g. $10/ton) but will gradually rise every year. Yes, prices for many things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase and possibly even come out ahead. The average American would in fact completely break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) consume less energy than average will effectively pay less, while the energy hogs will effectively pay more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty. Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources such as solar and wind.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute for renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we still need some sort of continuous power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite the fact that growth is now uneconomic) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had, and it is the ideology of the cancer cell. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
The climate change deniers are flat-out wrong since it has been a matter of scientific consensus since at least the 1990s. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We absolutely need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. If we don't do it soon, the result can easily become catastrophic and irreversible.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. The tax rate would be low at first (e.g. $10/ton) but will gradually rise every year. Yes, prices for many things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase and possibly even come out ahead. The average American would in fact completely break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) consume less energy than average will effectively pay less, while the energy hogs will effectively pay more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty. Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources such as solar and wind.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute for renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we still need some sort of continuous power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite the fact that growth is now uneconomic) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had, and it is the ideology of the cancer cell. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Friday, May 10, 2013
What is the Best Tobacco Policy?
Cigarettes have been in the news a lot these days, mostly as a result of the recent push to raise the smoking age from 18 to 21 in NYC as well as New York State. We have already noted (on Twenty-One Debunked) that we oppose such a plan, for many of the same reasons that we oppose the 21 drinking age. However, the more basic question of what to do about tobacco in general is seldom discussed, and the debate over whether the minimum age should be 18 or 21 is really just window-dressing and a convenient distraction from the real issue.
It is a well-known fact that tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in the world, and that cigarettes are the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it. The death toll is roughly six million people per year worldwide, with nearly half a million of them in the USA alone. As historian Robert N. Proctor repeatedly notes in his book Golden Holocaust, the merchants of death known as tobacco companies have not only designed the world's deadliest product (and most addictive drug) but willfully lied about its dangers while making it far more dangerous (and addictive) than it has to be. He actually makes an excellent case for banning cigarettes completely, and one cannot simply dismiss him as just another puritanical prohibitionist. For example, he points out that not only are cigarettes the deadliest artifact of human civilization, they are defective by design (killing more people than they need to), they are not particularly useful, and they are not environmentally sustainable. And unlike alcohol or cannabis, cigarettes are not a recreational drug since the vast majority of smokers want to quit. Clearly, we can agree that if alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all currently legal and we had to pick one of them to ban, tobacco would have to be it since it is the least useful and most harmful of the three.
While the TSAP believes that a (relatively) tobacco-free world would most likely be better overall than the one we live in now, we do not believe that a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products is the best way to achieve such a goal, particularly in a country like the USA. Given our nation's bitter experience with alcohol Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs, there would be many foreseeable unintended consequences (black markets, crime, etc.) with such an approach, albeit not quite as severe. Virtually all serious endgame proposals for tobacco involve a gradual phase-out of some sort, though there is some disagreement on the best way to do it and how to define "victory."
As of 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP currently supports is to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and roll-your-own tobacco. That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future.
The TSAP also recommends the following measures be taken as well:
So that is basically the TSAP tobacco policy as of 2013. Except for our new endgame strategy, our views on tobacco-related issues have really not changed significantly since our founding in 2009.
The tobacco industry has dug its own grave. Time to push them in there.
It is a well-known fact that tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in the world, and that cigarettes are the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it. The death toll is roughly six million people per year worldwide, with nearly half a million of them in the USA alone. As historian Robert N. Proctor repeatedly notes in his book Golden Holocaust, the merchants of death known as tobacco companies have not only designed the world's deadliest product (and most addictive drug) but willfully lied about its dangers while making it far more dangerous (and addictive) than it has to be. He actually makes an excellent case for banning cigarettes completely, and one cannot simply dismiss him as just another puritanical prohibitionist. For example, he points out that not only are cigarettes the deadliest artifact of human civilization, they are defective by design (killing more people than they need to), they are not particularly useful, and they are not environmentally sustainable. And unlike alcohol or cannabis, cigarettes are not a recreational drug since the vast majority of smokers want to quit. Clearly, we can agree that if alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all currently legal and we had to pick one of them to ban, tobacco would have to be it since it is the least useful and most harmful of the three.
While the TSAP believes that a (relatively) tobacco-free world would most likely be better overall than the one we live in now, we do not believe that a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products is the best way to achieve such a goal, particularly in a country like the USA. Given our nation's bitter experience with alcohol Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs, there would be many foreseeable unintended consequences (black markets, crime, etc.) with such an approach, albeit not quite as severe. Virtually all serious endgame proposals for tobacco involve a gradual phase-out of some sort, though there is some disagreement on the best way to do it and how to define "victory."
As of 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP currently supports is to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and roll-your-own tobacco. That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future.
The TSAP also recommends the following measures be taken as well:
- Ban the use of additives in cigarettes, especially those that are harmful or increase the addictiveness of tobacco.
- Ban the use of any radioactive fertilizers or harmful pesticides for growing tobacco.
- Improve the quality control standards for tobacco products to be at least as high as for food.
- End all government subsidies for tobacco farming and production.
- Divest completely from Big Tobacco at all levels of government.
- Vigorously enforce the current age limit of 18 for tobacco sales to achieve 100% retailer compliance.
- Continue to allow widespread availability of reduced-harm tobacco and nicotine products (i.e. snus, electronic cigarettes, etc.) so that smokers can easily switch to less dangerous alternatives.
- Improve education and smoking cessation programs, funded by tobacco tax revenues.
- Give out free nicotine patches, gum, etc. to any smokers who want to quit. NYC already does this.
So that is basically the TSAP tobacco policy as of 2013. Except for our new endgame strategy, our views on tobacco-related issues have really not changed significantly since our founding in 2009.
The tobacco industry has dug its own grave. Time to push them in there.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Simpson and Bowles Have Been Debunked
It's official. The questionable study that was used to justify draconian austerity measures in several nations (including our own) and repeatedly cited as gospel by fiscal hawks like Simpson and Bowles has been debunked. The shoddy Reinhart and Rogoff study was exposed by 28 year old grad student Thomas Herndon, who found that the authors had made a coding error in their Excel spreadsheet that they didn't bother to correct. Correcting this error changed the results entirely, in a way that does NOT support the original specious claim that austerity is good for the economy.
But that did not stop Simpson and Bowles from continuing to promote ruthless austerity policies. How ruthless you ask? Well, there's a reason their commission was nicknamed the Catfood Commission, since that is what the most vulnerable Americans would end up having to eat if such policies come to fruition. This time around, they are focusing even less on new revenues and more still on spending cuts, including raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Note also how even in their first two plans they conspicuously took off the table the option of raising the top marginal tax rate even by a little. Basically, everyone's ox gets gored except the ultra-rich of course. Because apparently growth for the sake of growth is good no matter what the cost (not), and the Simpson-Bowles plan promotes growth (not).
The TSAP plan does indeed call for spending cuts along with new revenues, but we are careful to distinguish between wasteful and useful spending, and we are well aware that cutting too much too soon will seriously hurt the still-too-weak economy (as we have noted about the sequester). We are also aware that raising taxes on the rich (even by a lot) will not significantly hurt the economy, while raising taxes on the bottom 90% (even by a little) can and will hurt the economy if it is done while the economy is still weak. And we recognize that the jobs deficit is a much more urgent problem than the budget deficit, though both problems eventually need to be solved.
We must remember that the draconian, sequester-on-steroids cuts that Simpson and Bowles are calling for will inevitably lead to a massive number of workers losing their jobs, period. So before we even think about going down that road, let's start by firing the now-discredited Simpson and Bowles before their policies send the rest of us packing.
UPDATE: Looks like Europe is finally starting to abandon austerity, now that the damage it has done is crystal clear. Also, in the USA the February jobs number was higher than originally thought, implying that it is actually the sequester, not the tax hikes that began in January, that is hurting us right now. Congress really needs to answer the "clue phone," as it is ringing louder than ever.
But that did not stop Simpson and Bowles from continuing to promote ruthless austerity policies. How ruthless you ask? Well, there's a reason their commission was nicknamed the Catfood Commission, since that is what the most vulnerable Americans would end up having to eat if such policies come to fruition. This time around, they are focusing even less on new revenues and more still on spending cuts, including raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Note also how even in their first two plans they conspicuously took off the table the option of raising the top marginal tax rate even by a little. Basically, everyone's ox gets gored except the ultra-rich of course. Because apparently growth for the sake of growth is good no matter what the cost (not), and the Simpson-Bowles plan promotes growth (not).
The TSAP plan does indeed call for spending cuts along with new revenues, but we are careful to distinguish between wasteful and useful spending, and we are well aware that cutting too much too soon will seriously hurt the still-too-weak economy (as we have noted about the sequester). We are also aware that raising taxes on the rich (even by a lot) will not significantly hurt the economy, while raising taxes on the bottom 90% (even by a little) can and will hurt the economy if it is done while the economy is still weak. And we recognize that the jobs deficit is a much more urgent problem than the budget deficit, though both problems eventually need to be solved.
We must remember that the draconian, sequester-on-steroids cuts that Simpson and Bowles are calling for will inevitably lead to a massive number of workers losing their jobs, period. So before we even think about going down that road, let's start by firing the now-discredited Simpson and Bowles before their policies send the rest of us packing.
UPDATE: Looks like Europe is finally starting to abandon austerity, now that the damage it has done is crystal clear. Also, in the USA the February jobs number was higher than originally thought, implying that it is actually the sequester, not the tax hikes that began in January, that is hurting us right now. Congress really needs to answer the "clue phone," as it is ringing louder than ever.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Reflections on the Boston Marathon Bombings
On April 15, 2013, a horrific terrorist attack occurred at the Boston Marathon, killing 3 innocent people and injuring at least 180 others. Let us begin by first extending our deepest condolences to the victims of this tragedy, as well as their loved ones. And let us hope that the perpetrator(s), whoever they are, will be brought to swift justice in the very near future.
We still do not know who is responsible for the bombings, why they were done, or even whether the terrorist(s) were foreign or domestic. However, we do know that several partisan hacks on both sides are already trying to exploit this terrible tragedy for political gain. The TSAP fully condemns any such opportunism, and we would have hoped that our nation, and especially its leaders and their media mouthpieces, would be mature enough not to do so. But much to our chagrin, that has turned out not to be the case.
Finally, we must not let fear run our lives, for when we do so, the terrorists win. And that is especially true when such fear induces us to give up our most basic civil liberties in the name of security, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently noted.
UPDATE: As of April 19, the two suspects have been identified and neutralized. The two brothers were from Russia and had been living in the USA for several years, and it is still not known why they did what they did. One was killed by police in a firefight, while the other is now in police custody.
We still do not know who is responsible for the bombings, why they were done, or even whether the terrorist(s) were foreign or domestic. However, we do know that several partisan hacks on both sides are already trying to exploit this terrible tragedy for political gain. The TSAP fully condemns any such opportunism, and we would have hoped that our nation, and especially its leaders and their media mouthpieces, would be mature enough not to do so. But much to our chagrin, that has turned out not to be the case.
Finally, we must not let fear run our lives, for when we do so, the terrorists win. And that is especially true when such fear induces us to give up our most basic civil liberties in the name of security, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently noted.
UPDATE: As of April 19, the two suspects have been identified and neutralized. The two brothers were from Russia and had been living in the USA for several years, and it is still not known why they did what they did. One was killed by police in a firefight, while the other is now in police custody.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Sequester, Part Deux
The sequester has now been in place for over a month, and it is already beginning to do damage to our still fragile economy. As we have noted in a previous post, the sequester is a bad idea overall and must be repealed or replaced ASAP. Both its direct effects as well as the fear it has created is hampering what little recovery our economy has experienced, and the worst is yet to come.
President Obama has now unveiled his new budget for 2014, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that, if approved, the budget would stop the sequester, implement alternative spending cuts, raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes, increase much-needed infrastructure spending, and still shrink the deficit. The bad news is that, as a concession to Republicans, it would change the inflation indexing formula for Social Security and other programs in a way that would understate inflation, which would hurt the most vulnerable Americans unless other measures are taken specifically to protect them from such benefit cuts. Although Obama says that he will find ways to protect the vulnerable, this change in indexing (the so-called "chained-CPI") would make him the first Democratic president to even consider making any significant cuts to Social Security in the entire program's 78-year history. Unsurprisingly, the budget has angered many Democrats in Congress along with Republicans.
While it is good that Obama is serious about entitlement reform, there are far better ways to do it, which include raising or eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes, indexing initial benefits to prices rather than wages, limiting benefits for the wealthiest retirees, and very gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 for future retirees born after 1960. Even better still would be replacing FICA entirely with an alternative funding source, such as the Universal Exchange Tax, along with the other tweaks listed above. As for Medicare and Medicaid, which are in far worse shape than Social Security, the best way (if not the only way) to effectively reform them would be to create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the civilized world. But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and greedy Republicans, it is unlikely that any of these better alternatives will come to pass in the foreseeable future, and we will be left with a false choice between screwing "merely" one or two generations versus screwing several future generations.
Although Obama's budget clearly leaves much to be desired, it is still far better than the sequester, and it may be the only way for our incompetent Congress to be willing and able to stop it before it's too late. The budget's flaws can be (hopefully) solved at some point in the not-too-distant future, while the sequester is already doing real damage right now and must be jettisoned at once.
President Obama has now unveiled his new budget for 2014, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that, if approved, the budget would stop the sequester, implement alternative spending cuts, raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes, increase much-needed infrastructure spending, and still shrink the deficit. The bad news is that, as a concession to Republicans, it would change the inflation indexing formula for Social Security and other programs in a way that would understate inflation, which would hurt the most vulnerable Americans unless other measures are taken specifically to protect them from such benefit cuts. Although Obama says that he will find ways to protect the vulnerable, this change in indexing (the so-called "chained-CPI") would make him the first Democratic president to even consider making any significant cuts to Social Security in the entire program's 78-year history. Unsurprisingly, the budget has angered many Democrats in Congress along with Republicans.
While it is good that Obama is serious about entitlement reform, there are far better ways to do it, which include raising or eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes, indexing initial benefits to prices rather than wages, limiting benefits for the wealthiest retirees, and very gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 for future retirees born after 1960. Even better still would be replacing FICA entirely with an alternative funding source, such as the Universal Exchange Tax, along with the other tweaks listed above. As for Medicare and Medicaid, which are in far worse shape than Social Security, the best way (if not the only way) to effectively reform them would be to create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the civilized world. But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and greedy Republicans, it is unlikely that any of these better alternatives will come to pass in the foreseeable future, and we will be left with a false choice between screwing "merely" one or two generations versus screwing several future generations.
Although Obama's budget clearly leaves much to be desired, it is still far better than the sequester, and it may be the only way for our incompetent Congress to be willing and able to stop it before it's too late. The budget's flaws can be (hopefully) solved at some point in the not-too-distant future, while the sequester is already doing real damage right now and must be jettisoned at once.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
An Idea Whose Time Has Come
There has been much in the news lately about raising the minimum wage. For those who are unaware, the TSAP believes that the federal minimum wage should be raised to at least $10/hour, and then indexed to inflation (or average wages) from then on. Less talked about, however, is the idea of a maximum wage, and we feel it is an idea whose time has come.
We at the TSAP feel that it would be a good idea to do what this petition calls for: to cap CEO pay at 50 times the salary of the average worker at his or her company. Thus, if the average worker earns $50,000 per year, then the maximum the CEO can earn is $2.5 million per year. Currently, the average Fortune 500 CEO makes about 380 times what their average employees make, and that is clearly outrageous. And it was not always this way. In 1980, when the top 1% owned "only" about 20% of the nation's wealth (instead of about 40% today), the average CEO made "only" 42 times as much as the average worker. Back then, of course, America had much higher top marginal tax rates (which were generally north of 70% from 1933-1981) and more sensible regulation of business practices, so a maximum wage was unnecessary. However, times have changed, and such a policy couldn't come at a better time.
The naysayers may claim that doing so decreases incentives to work harder and that CEOs somehow deserve their outrageously high compensation packages due to their supposedly higher intelligence and work ethic. To that, we note that while many CEOs are indeed smarter and/or harder-working (not to mention luckier) than the average American, it is highly doubtful that a CEO is 380 times smarter or works 380 times as hard as the average worker. Making 50 times what the average worker earns is still extremely generous to CEOs, especially compared with the pay ratio in more equal societies such as Japan. And as for supposedly decreasing incentives to work harder, remember that, as Robert Reich notes, the economy exists to make our lives better, we do not exist to make the economy better.
So consider it part of our party platform from now on, in combination with our call to raise the minimum wage and also raise the marginal tax rate to at least 50% on incomes above $1 million.
We at the TSAP feel that it would be a good idea to do what this petition calls for: to cap CEO pay at 50 times the salary of the average worker at his or her company. Thus, if the average worker earns $50,000 per year, then the maximum the CEO can earn is $2.5 million per year. Currently, the average Fortune 500 CEO makes about 380 times what their average employees make, and that is clearly outrageous. And it was not always this way. In 1980, when the top 1% owned "only" about 20% of the nation's wealth (instead of about 40% today), the average CEO made "only" 42 times as much as the average worker. Back then, of course, America had much higher top marginal tax rates (which were generally north of 70% from 1933-1981) and more sensible regulation of business practices, so a maximum wage was unnecessary. However, times have changed, and such a policy couldn't come at a better time.
The naysayers may claim that doing so decreases incentives to work harder and that CEOs somehow deserve their outrageously high compensation packages due to their supposedly higher intelligence and work ethic. To that, we note that while many CEOs are indeed smarter and/or harder-working (not to mention luckier) than the average American, it is highly doubtful that a CEO is 380 times smarter or works 380 times as hard as the average worker. Making 50 times what the average worker earns is still extremely generous to CEOs, especially compared with the pay ratio in more equal societies such as Japan. And as for supposedly decreasing incentives to work harder, remember that, as Robert Reich notes, the economy exists to make our lives better, we do not exist to make the economy better.
So consider it part of our party platform from now on, in combination with our call to raise the minimum wage and also raise the marginal tax rate to at least 50% on incomes above $1 million.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The Sequester: A Small, Dull Meat Cleaver
It looks like the sequester will go through, at least for a while, before Congress gets their act together (if they ever do). Republicans refuse to budge on the issue of tax giveaways for the rich (which makes them responsible for any fallout the sequester may bring to the economy), and Democrats are simply not bold enough to do what really needs to be done. But what exactly is the sequester, and why is it so bad for the economy?
First of all, the sequester consists of across-the-board, inflexible, automatic budget cuts as far as discretionary spending is concerned. Half of the cuts will come from defense spending, and the other half from non-defense spending. The size of the cuts (5% overall across the board each year for the next 10 years, 8.2% for defense) may not seem large, but the indiscriminate nature of these cuts won't just cut out the fat, but also bone and muscle as well. If the doctor tells you that you need to lose weight, you wouldn't chop off one of your hands. But that's exactly the kind of effect the sequester would have, and it won't be pretty.
Secondly, our economy is still very weak, and cutting too much too soon would likely push our economy back into recession. The direct effect of these cuts would mean at least 750,000 public sector jobs would be lost this year alone, and the multiplier effect would mean that many private sector jobs would be eliminated as a result, making the total of jobs lost well over 1 million in 2013. And we need that like we need a hole in the head.
Thirdly, many of the so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the growth of spending over time. Thus, even if the sequester remains in effect for a whole decade, the net effect is that federal spending (and the national debt) will continue to grow significantly over the next decade. But it would still do significant damage to the economy since these "cuts" are indiscriminate and inflexible.
Finally, although Congress clearly has a problem with spending like drunken sailors (regardless of who is in power), there are better alternatives to the sequester that would not only reduce but eliminate the deficit rather quickly. The TSAP has repeatedly proposed better ways of balancing the budget and dealing with our massive national debt. Right now, the deficit is really not our biggest problem, but it still must be dealt with. And while our ideas will probably not come to fruition in today's Congress, the sequester is still one of the worst possible ways to deal with the deficit and any alternative must be put in place very soon. For example, simply modifying the sequester to allow the heads of various agencies the flexibility to decide how to make their cuts (as long as the overall amount cut remains the same) would achieve the exact same effect on the deficit, but with far less collateral damage. And Obama's plan to combine spending cuts with increased revenues (from removing various tax loopholes for the rich and corporations) is better still, though not quite as good as the TSAP's plan.
But it looks like the sequester will go through nonetheless, much to our chagrin. The Republicans have rejected Obama's last offer for an alternative deficit-reduction plan, and in doing so they have revealed (yet again) that they really only care about the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. Hopefully Congress will wise up before too much damage is done.
UPDATE: The sequester has already begun as of noon on March 1. While most of the impact will not be immediate (it will take at least several weeks to feel it), the pain will be real for those affected. And millions of Americans will be affected in one way or another eventually. But the silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats now have the upper hand should a belated deal be made in the days to come. And the Republicans would get blamed for any fallout should a deal not be made in the near future.
If no deal is possible in the near future, the least-worst choice of all would be for Congress to simply repeal the sequester entirely with no strings attached. Yes, they can do it if they want to, and at this point it is clearly in America's best interest to do so. But they probably won't unless a critical mass of Americans credibly threatens to vote every single one of them out of office in 2014.
UPDATE II: Looks like the sequester is already starting to kill jobs as of the first week of April, one month after the sequester began. And the much-anticipated furloughs have officially begun. But remember, the worst is yet to come if the sequester remains in effect.
First of all, the sequester consists of across-the-board, inflexible, automatic budget cuts as far as discretionary spending is concerned. Half of the cuts will come from defense spending, and the other half from non-defense spending. The size of the cuts (5% overall across the board each year for the next 10 years, 8.2% for defense) may not seem large, but the indiscriminate nature of these cuts won't just cut out the fat, but also bone and muscle as well. If the doctor tells you that you need to lose weight, you wouldn't chop off one of your hands. But that's exactly the kind of effect the sequester would have, and it won't be pretty.
Secondly, our economy is still very weak, and cutting too much too soon would likely push our economy back into recession. The direct effect of these cuts would mean at least 750,000 public sector jobs would be lost this year alone, and the multiplier effect would mean that many private sector jobs would be eliminated as a result, making the total of jobs lost well over 1 million in 2013. And we need that like we need a hole in the head.
Thirdly, many of the so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the growth of spending over time. Thus, even if the sequester remains in effect for a whole decade, the net effect is that federal spending (and the national debt) will continue to grow significantly over the next decade. But it would still do significant damage to the economy since these "cuts" are indiscriminate and inflexible.
Finally, although Congress clearly has a problem with spending like drunken sailors (regardless of who is in power), there are better alternatives to the sequester that would not only reduce but eliminate the deficit rather quickly. The TSAP has repeatedly proposed better ways of balancing the budget and dealing with our massive national debt. Right now, the deficit is really not our biggest problem, but it still must be dealt with. And while our ideas will probably not come to fruition in today's Congress, the sequester is still one of the worst possible ways to deal with the deficit and any alternative must be put in place very soon. For example, simply modifying the sequester to allow the heads of various agencies the flexibility to decide how to make their cuts (as long as the overall amount cut remains the same) would achieve the exact same effect on the deficit, but with far less collateral damage. And Obama's plan to combine spending cuts with increased revenues (from removing various tax loopholes for the rich and corporations) is better still, though not quite as good as the TSAP's plan.
But it looks like the sequester will go through nonetheless, much to our chagrin. The Republicans have rejected Obama's last offer for an alternative deficit-reduction plan, and in doing so they have revealed (yet again) that they really only care about the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. Hopefully Congress will wise up before too much damage is done.
UPDATE: The sequester has already begun as of noon on March 1. While most of the impact will not be immediate (it will take at least several weeks to feel it), the pain will be real for those affected. And millions of Americans will be affected in one way or another eventually. But the silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats now have the upper hand should a belated deal be made in the days to come. And the Republicans would get blamed for any fallout should a deal not be made in the near future.
If no deal is possible in the near future, the least-worst choice of all would be for Congress to simply repeal the sequester entirely with no strings attached. Yes, they can do it if they want to, and at this point it is clearly in America's best interest to do so. But they probably won't unless a critical mass of Americans credibly threatens to vote every single one of them out of office in 2014.
UPDATE II: Looks like the sequester is already starting to kill jobs as of the first week of April, one month after the sequester began. And the much-anticipated furloughs have officially begun. But remember, the worst is yet to come if the sequester remains in effect.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Ideal Tax
What exactly is the ideal type of tax? It depends, of course, on your definition of "ideal", but most folks would probably agree that the ideal tax is one that would would meet all of the following criteria:
Enter the Universal Exchange Tax (UET). This idea, taken from an anonymous website by a mysterious stranger, is very similar to Dr. Edgar Feige's idea for the Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APT), which we have discussed in a previous post. It would be a very tiny tax, likely somewhere between 0.05% and 0.1%, on all automated (electronic) transactions between entities, period. With a tax base of over $4 quadrillion dollars, such tiny rates can raise impressive sums of revenue:
0.01% = $400 billion per year
0.025% = $1 trillion per year (nearly the entire federal deficit)
0.05% = $2 trillion per year (half the federal budget)
0.1% = $4 trillion per year (the entire federal budget)
This idea is the logical conclusion of the ideas of economists such as Tobin and Keynes, since it is the lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base. And while it may not appear to be progressive at first glance, it is actually highly progressive in practice since the rich have a much higher volume of transactions than the rest of us, while the poor have a relatively low volume of transactions. Or, as the mysterious stranger would put it, "the more you play, the more you pay". And the tiny rate would be painless and barely even noticeable, unless of course you're a rabid speculator. Then it hurts a bit, as it should since excessive speculation imposes negative externalities on the rest of us. Finally, something both progressives AND libertarians can embrace as far as fiscal policy is concerned.
The TSAP supports the introduction of the UET at the federal level (and possibly even at the state and local levels) as revenue-positive replacement for many of our current taxes. Specifically, we would like to see a massive overhaul of our tax code in which the following changes are made along with the UET:
It's time to adopt a 21st century tax code, and to '86 the obsolete Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
- Lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base
- Painless for virtually everyone, yet everyone has some "skin in the game"
- Progressive (the rich pay a higher proportion of their income than the poor)
- No loopholes
- As simple as possible (but not simpler)
- Efficient (raises lots of revenue without hurting the economy)
Enter the Universal Exchange Tax (UET). This idea, taken from an anonymous website by a mysterious stranger, is very similar to Dr. Edgar Feige's idea for the Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APT), which we have discussed in a previous post. It would be a very tiny tax, likely somewhere between 0.05% and 0.1%, on all automated (electronic) transactions between entities, period. With a tax base of over $4 quadrillion dollars, such tiny rates can raise impressive sums of revenue:
0.01% = $400 billion per year
0.025% = $1 trillion per year (nearly the entire federal deficit)
0.05% = $2 trillion per year (half the federal budget)
0.1% = $4 trillion per year (the entire federal budget)
This idea is the logical conclusion of the ideas of economists such as Tobin and Keynes, since it is the lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base. And while it may not appear to be progressive at first glance, it is actually highly progressive in practice since the rich have a much higher volume of transactions than the rest of us, while the poor have a relatively low volume of transactions. Or, as the mysterious stranger would put it, "the more you play, the more you pay". And the tiny rate would be painless and barely even noticeable, unless of course you're a rabid speculator. Then it hurts a bit, as it should since excessive speculation imposes negative externalities on the rest of us. Finally, something both progressives AND libertarians can embrace as far as fiscal policy is concerned.
The TSAP supports the introduction of the UET at the federal level (and possibly even at the state and local levels) as revenue-positive replacement for many of our current taxes. Specifically, we would like to see a massive overhaul of our tax code in which the following changes are made along with the UET:
- The income tax for individuals is drastically simplified and truncated to apply equally to all forms of income with no loopholes, but no tax on the first $100,000 per year. Suggested marginal rates are 10% for each dollar over $100,000 and 50% for each dollar over $1 million.
- The income tax for corporations is drastically simplified and truncated to apply equally to all forms of income by all entities with no loopholes, but no tax on the first $1 million per year. A good rate would be 20-25%, and only undistributed profits would be taxed.
- The FICA (Social Security and Medicare) payroll taxes are eliminated entirely for both employers and employees, since the UET would replace these taxes as well.
- All giveaways (tax expenditures) in the old tax code would either be jettisoned entirely or replaced by direct (and transparent) subsidies from the spending side of the ledger.
- State and local governments should give serious consideration to adopting the UET as a full or partial replacement for their own sales, income, and property taxes. It would not be difficult to "piggyback" on the federal UET once it is in place, and the feds should make it as easy as possible to do so.
It's time to adopt a 21st century tax code, and to '86 the obsolete Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The American Dream is Dead
It's time to face the brutal truth. The so-called American Dream is dead. Finished. Defunct. Kaput. C'est fini. Except for the top 1% of course. And it has now turned into a nightmare for the rest of us.
Why do we say this? Just look at the facts:
Why do we say this? Just look at the facts:
- Unemployment remains persistently high despite over three years of "recovery", nearly double what it was in 2007.
- Even as unemployment has begun to slowly ebb and people are returning to work, they are taking lower-wage and less secure jobs than before.
- As a result, poverty has increased in recent years, especially among the working poor.
- The middle class continues to shrink nearly every year.
- Meanwhile, the rich continue to get richer. Corporate profits and the Dow Jones are at or close to record highs. And the top 1% now owns over 40% of the nation's financial wealth.
- In fact, a mere 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans combined.
- Statistically, an individual is more likely to go from riches to rags than rags to riches. Social mobility has mostly one direction now--DOWN.
- The problems of unemployment, poverty, inequality, and downward mobility are especially true for today's under-30 generation, as America continues to ruthlessly eat its young.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
State of the Planet Address 2013
On February 12, 2013 (Lincoln's Birthday), the President will give his annual State of the Union
Address. Every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our
annual State of the Planet Address around January 20. Yes, we know it is a bit of a
downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored
glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. We need look no further than Superstorm Sandy (which was partly caused or at least enhanced by global warming) to see how crazy our weather has become lately.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. NOW.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and possibly including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress". Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to 1.9 (though that is probably just due to the bad economy rather than a secular trend). But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. We need look no further than Superstorm Sandy (which was partly caused or at least enhanced by global warming) to see how crazy our weather has become lately.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. NOW.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and possibly including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress". Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to 1.9 (though that is probably just due to the bad economy rather than a secular trend). But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
What About Guns?
Let us first begin this fairly controversial post by extending our deepest condolences to the victims (and their loved ones) of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, CT. This tragedy was the single worst school shooting in American history, and words cannot describe just how horrible it was. Clearly, it's right up there with Columbine, Virginia Tech, and even 9/11 as far as being a horrific wake-up call that something must be done to prevent it from ever happening again.
Where the TSAP begs to differ is the question of what that "something" actually is. Our party is generally not a big fan of gun control, and we strongly support the right to
bear arms. We believe that guns don't kill, people do. The finger pulls
the trigger, not the other way around. As noted in our party platform, we also believe that all
law-abiding citizens over 18 should have the right to carry concealed
weapons, with the burden of proof on the state to show why a particular
individual should not be allowed to have a gun. And rounding out the
standard libertarian position on the issue, we believe that we should
throw the book at anyone who commits crimes with guns.
That being said, I think we can all agree that fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, and poison gas have no useful self-defense or sporting purpose and do not belong in the hands of civilians. (These weapons are already generally illegal for civilians to own.) And I think we can also agree that no one should be allowed to sell or give away guns to convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, or those known to be psychotic. Thus, background checks are justified by that rationale.
That being said, I think we can all agree that fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, and poison gas have no useful self-defense or sporting purpose and do not belong in the hands of civilians. (These weapons are already generally illegal for civilians to own.) And I think we can also agree that no one should be allowed to sell or give away guns to convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, or those known to be psychotic. Thus, background checks are justified by that rationale.
As for what should be done to prevent future tragedies like this and other mass shootings, we do NOT believe that more gun control is the answer. Instead, for the short-term we recommend having armed guards in schools that do not already have them. (Our nation guards our gold with guns, but not our children?) In the medium term, we recommend repealing or amending the Gun-Free School Zones Act to allow properly-trained teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons on the job, since there really is no such thing as a "gun-free zone". In fact, nearly all mass shootings in recent years have occurred in so-called "gun-free zones". At the same time, we need to improve the way background checks are carried out (e.g. requiring them at gun shows) to reduce the chances of firearms falling into the wrong hands.
Of course, in the long run we need to properly address the root causes of tragedies like these. We know that the killers are typically mentally disturbed individuals, and that (as we have noted before) our mental healthcare system is seriously broken and must be fixed. There are also other serious social pathologies that need addressing as well, such as inequality and bullying, but mental illness seems to be the factor most closely linked to these types of tragedies.
So, are there any gun control laws that the TSAP does support? Yes, but a very limited few. Among existing laws, we support the original National Firearms Act of 1934 as well as some (but not all) parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and encourage increased enforcement of these laws. The same goes for background checks. As for new laws, we would support the following ones only: 1) requiring background checks at gun shows, 2) a ban on high-capacity magazines (i.e. more than 10 rounds), 3) a one-gun-a-month rule, and 4) an excise tax on bullets. We do not support bringing back the incorrectly-named "assault weapons" ban because it is largely based on cosmetic features and really has nothing to do with the kinds of true military weapons that are already banned (or severely restricted) by the National Firearms Act. Granted, banning some of the previously banned semi-automatic weapons may be justified, but the 1994 ban was too broad and in any case did not seem to have any discernible effects on actual rates of gun violence.
Above all, we must not let fear rule our nation. For when we do so, the terrorists win.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Fiscal Cliff Averted--For Now
It's now official. The so-called fiscal cliff that had nearly everyone (especially Republicans) nervous has been averted due to a bipartisan deal in Congress. The deal contains the following provisions in a nutshell: no income tax rate hikes for those making less than $400,000 per year (but the top marginal rate is hiked back to Clinton levels on those making above that threshold), various tax deductions are capped at $250,000, the so-called "Obamacare taxes" are left untouched (and thus go into effect), unemployment benefits are extended, spending cuts are postponed by two months, and the payroll tax (i.e. FICA) rates are raised back to pre-stimulus 2009 levels. So although most Americans will see slightly smaller paychecks in 2013 (due to the 2% payroll tax hike), thanks to the deal there will not be a massive amount of aggregate demand sucked out of the economy, and there will most likely not be another recession as a result--at least for now.
However, the deal only addresses one side of the ledger--revenue and taxes. The other, bigger side--government spending--will not even be touched until February at the earliest. Just in time for when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, most likely in March. So we can expect another "cliffhanger" around that time, albeit a somewhat smaller one. But I guess that's the price we pay for kicking the can even further down the road.
To the President and everyone in Congress: Please listen to what the True Spirit of America Party has to say, at least about economic policy and the national debt. Our nation's future depends on it.
However, the deal only addresses one side of the ledger--revenue and taxes. The other, bigger side--government spending--will not even be touched until February at the earliest. Just in time for when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, most likely in March. So we can expect another "cliffhanger" around that time, albeit a somewhat smaller one. But I guess that's the price we pay for kicking the can even further down the road.
To the President and everyone in Congress: Please listen to what the True Spirit of America Party has to say, at least about economic policy and the national debt. Our nation's future depends on it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Now, Back to that "Fiscal Cliff"
Deal or no deal? That is the question that still hasn't been answered.
But remember, no deal is better than a bad deal. Obama is still holding firm thus far in the face of the Repugnicans who want to slash our social safety net to give millionaires and billionaires more undeserved and unnecessary tax breaks. And Boehner seems to be sweating bullets. If no deal is reached, it will not lead to financial Armageddon like the right-wing plutocrats claim. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is really not a cliff at all--it's more like a staircase. The full effect of the tax hikes (which occur on next year's income) and automatic spending cuts (which are phased in over a period of a few months) will not be felt right away, which clearly gives Obama the upper hand especially after January 1, 2013. No wonder Boehner and his ilk are so nervous.
Even more importantly, the budget deficit is actually NOT the biggest economic problem our nation is facing. The more pressing issue, of course, is the jobs deficit--the whopping 9 million Americans that are still out of work at the end of 2012, five years after the recession officially began (December 2007) and over three years after the recession officially ended (June 2009). We are clearly stuck in a vicious cycle of persistently high unemployment and inadequate consumer and aggregate demand (remember that one person's spending is another person's income and vice-versa). Remember that 70% of our entire GDP is consumer spending, and 20% is government spending. And cutting the budget deficit too much too soon (at least by traditional means) would only make the jobs deficit worse, and the relative lack of revenue from the still-struggling economy is one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit. Basically, any significant tax hikes on the bottom 90% of Americans and/or any significant cuts in non-defense spending would only hurt our economy and make our future deficits (and national debt) that much worse in the long run. If it turns out that these hikes and cuts must be done, and that is a very big "if", then they must be postponed until our economy is back to normal (i.e. two consecutive quarters of 3% GDP growth or higher and less than 6% unemployment). Congress, you have been warned, so don't drink the Repugnican Austerity Kool-Aid.
But remember, no deal is better than a bad deal. Obama is still holding firm thus far in the face of the Repugnicans who want to slash our social safety net to give millionaires and billionaires more undeserved and unnecessary tax breaks. And Boehner seems to be sweating bullets. If no deal is reached, it will not lead to financial Armageddon like the right-wing plutocrats claim. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is really not a cliff at all--it's more like a staircase. The full effect of the tax hikes (which occur on next year's income) and automatic spending cuts (which are phased in over a period of a few months) will not be felt right away, which clearly gives Obama the upper hand especially after January 1, 2013. No wonder Boehner and his ilk are so nervous.
Even more importantly, the budget deficit is actually NOT the biggest economic problem our nation is facing. The more pressing issue, of course, is the jobs deficit--the whopping 9 million Americans that are still out of work at the end of 2012, five years after the recession officially began (December 2007) and over three years after the recession officially ended (June 2009). We are clearly stuck in a vicious cycle of persistently high unemployment and inadequate consumer and aggregate demand (remember that one person's spending is another person's income and vice-versa). Remember that 70% of our entire GDP is consumer spending, and 20% is government spending. And cutting the budget deficit too much too soon (at least by traditional means) would only make the jobs deficit worse, and the relative lack of revenue from the still-struggling economy is one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit. Basically, any significant tax hikes on the bottom 90% of Americans and/or any significant cuts in non-defense spending would only hurt our economy and make our future deficits (and national debt) that much worse in the long run. If it turns out that these hikes and cuts must be done, and that is a very big "if", then they must be postponed until our economy is back to normal (i.e. two consecutive quarters of 3% GDP growth or higher and less than 6% unemployment). Congress, you have been warned, so don't drink the Repugnican Austerity Kool-Aid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
