Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Most so-called "Entitlements" are really "Wage Subsidies"

For the past 40 years our politicians in Congress have allowed the government (us) to subsidize the wages of workers at large corporations -- those companies who have refused to pay a fair living wage to their employees -- and it's mostly middle-class Americans who pay for this "wage subsidy" (food stamps, etc.) -- all that "free stuff" that is needed by poorer Americans. Read >>> The Makers and Takers: And Republican Bullshitters

Keep in mind, almost 50% of all Americans earn LESS than $27,000 a year (this is the 47% that Mitt Romney referred to). Those who rely ONLY on Social Security (etc) and don't pay FICA taxes, aren't included. See the data here at the Social Security website.

I'm guessing that it's almost closer to 60% of all Americans who have a "total personal income" of less than $27,000 a year (that's the poverty rate for a family of four). Compare that to the average monthly Social Security payment of $1,111 a month -- that's only $13,332 a year. The average military pension is much higher, and they receive Social Security too (as well they should). 

The Fiscal Cliff is a Man-Made Farce

House Republicans have made a $2.2 trillion counter-offer to the White House on the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that DOES NOT raise tax rates on the top 2% of households who earn over $250,000 a year.
The House Republican's Paul Ryan-Mitt Romney style plan DOES include:
  • their old plan of $800 billion in tax "reforms" (but won't give details, such as mortgage deductions);
  • their old plan cuts $600 billion in health care benefits to people (not providers);
  • their plan cuts another $600 billion in discretionary and mandatory spending;
  • and it doesn't include any cuts at all in defense spending.
In other words:
  • the House Republicans do not believe that Obama has won the election and has a mandate;
  • the House Republicans do not want to abide the will of the America people;
  • the House Republicans will do everything they can to protect the richest Americans and largest corporations:
  • the House Republicans will still throw the middle-class, working families, the unemployed, and the poor under the bus.
The House Republicans have made no sane, let alone credible, counter-proposal to Obama's plan.

The House Republicans are still saying that Obama's plan raises taxes on the "job creators", but the "job creators" have had the Bush tax cuts since 2001 and 2003 -- so where are the jobs? And Obama extended the Bush cuts for two more years in 2010. Obama didn't RAISE taxes on the rich, he allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts were created by the Republicans, and the Republicans designed the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue for TWO more years in exchange for the funding of 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits for ONE more year.

The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. This time around Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts only for those households who earn LESS than $250,000 a year (and for the top 2% up to their first $250,000) --- to help pay down the federal deficit that the Republicans say are so concerned about.

Let's look at a few basic facts as to the federal deficit: 

The History of Poor Working Americans: 1973 to 2012

Over the last 40 years, millions of good-paying jobs were out-sourced by large American corporations to places like China for cheaper labor. Their reason was, or so the CEOs claimed, was because they had to increase the value of the company stock for their shareholders. Most of the shareholders in the larger companies are big banks (and many are also on the board-of-directors of the company). And many people who sit on the board-of-directors of these large corporations also sit on the board-of-directors of the big banks. The top 1% has a very exclusive club.

The shareholders that the CEOs say they are so concerned about, aren't the average day-traders sitting at home on their computer; nor is it grandma, who holds 100 shares of APPLE in her IRA retirement account. The shareholders they are referring to are the big banks, hedge fund managers, and themselves!

Entitlements aka Wage Subsidies

The "entitlement" programs, such as TANF (welfare) and food stamps, have shot up because more and more
American workers find themselves working at lower-paying part-time jobs in the service industry, working at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds; and they don't earn near enough to pay for the essentials of living (remember, the good-paying jobs were out-sourced to China by large American corporations.) 

Special Tax Breaks for the Rich

Large American corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for special tax breaks (instead of giving their employees fair raises) and for less government regulations (such as worker's rights). The Republicans also advocate ruthlessly for "Right to Work States" (to bust labor unions) to keep wages very low and to keep the minimum wage as low as possible (Who can live on the current $7.25 an hour?)

For the past 40 years many large American corporations on the Fortune 500 List have paid an average EFFECTIVE tax rate of only 18-22% on average (not the 35% STATUTORY RATE), and paid their workers sub-standard wages. They have the best of both worlds: They pay low wages and pay less taxes to help fund such programs as food stamps that low-wage earners need (I call this Wage Subsidies).

The Republicans also want to privatize Social Security, even though it doesn't contribute at all to the federal deficit (it's funded by FICA taxes). But the Republicans REFUSE to eliminate the $112,000 CAP that the top 2% doesn't have to pay in Social Security taxes. The rest of use pay this tax on 100% on ALL of our earnings. 

Who's at Risk? Old People or Rich People?

The Republicans don't want to tax income derived from stocks and dividends at the same rate as regular wages (currently the top 2% only pays 15% on their "investment income", even though for most, it's their ONLY source of income). Their argument is that "seniors citizens" would be hurt by higher taxes on capital gains and dividends if they relied on this income. Do you realize how much principal    (actual money in the bank or invested) that one would need to "rely" on this income to pay their monthly bills?!?!?!?

If the Republicans were sooooooooooooooooo concerned about ordinary old people, why do they want to cut their Social Security and Medicare "BENEFITS", and ALSO raise the age for eligibility? How may people in the top 1% will have to work until they are 70 years old, or until the day they die, just to pay for a roof over their head, heat, and food? Zero! And the rich live longer too!

The Republicans continue to protect the wealthy at the expense of the masses...so I always wonder why so many regular working Republicans always vote for Republicans candidates...WHY DO THEY ALWAYS VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST?!?!?

No one earning less than $250,000 a year should NEVER, EVER, vote for any Republican candidate at the local, State, or federal level of government. Why would they?

The Fiscal Cliff
 
The Fiscal Cliff is a man-made farce to scare regular working people into thinking that they must compromise with the ultra-wealthy "job creators" who have been raking in record earnings.

The Very Simple Solution

Jump off the fiscal cliff!

Just let the Republican-created Bush tax cuts expire, then someone in Congress can introduce a brand new spanking tax bill that LOWERS taxes for EVERYONE....up to $250,000 a year.

Then Obama won't be RAISING taxes on anybody, he'll be CUTTING taxes for everyone (up to $250,000). 

P.S. I used to think that Senator John McCain was once an honorable war hero. Now I think he's mean and selfish asshole.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Ali Velshi Accommodates Economic Terrorists

Besides the reasons of a growing, larger, and aging population in America, as well as a massive economic downturn in 2008 that was caused by banking speculation, what else has been a big contributing factor for such a huge increase in social programs and government entitlements over the last 4 years? The Republicans have a one-word answer: "Obama."

I also have a one-word answer: "Greed."

It's one thing to be born and raised, and ultimately die, in poverty. Other than what they might see on "reality" TV shows, the abject poor have known nothing else. It's quite different than pulling yourself out of poverty to eventually become very wealthy. But what America has mostly seen over the past 35 years (and more so since the Great Recession of 2008) is millions of Americans being born and raised in middle-class households, only to become reduced to poverty over the span of their adult working years. I am just but one example.

It appalls and enrages me that Ali Velshi continues to allow economic extremists such as Stephen Moore and Alan
Greenspan to constantly spew their failed economic polices of Reaganomics, as well as their egregious and dangerous -- and even laughable -- farce of "trickle down" economics on CNN.

Since the Reagan era, it's been very well documented and proven that wealth for working Americans has dwindled and wages have remained stagnate or declined over the last 35 years because of the
"conservative's" failed financial, social, and economic
theories.
The middle-class shrunk and more Americans became poor while the already poor just got poorer (despite the fact 99% of all Americans have a refrigerator) -- all the while the top 1% has had their wealth skyrocket -- and they hoard their wealth for their own future generations (See my posts on wealthy heirs and gift and inheritance taxes).

What really stood out for me was when I heard Alan Greenspan on CNN yesterday complain of the enormous increase in what he called "the so-called social programs" (or, as Mitt Romney and Bill O'Reilly would called them,"free stuff".)

Most of this "free stuff" goes to our seniors, those who have worked hard all their lives to QUALIFY for all their "free stuff" (when they either retired or became disabled). They paid payroll taxes on 100% of their earnings for all their working lives in return for all their "free stuff". People like Mitt Romney may have paid 0.0001% of their total life-time earnings into Social Security and Medicare taxes; and the rich live longer, so they can retire earlier, collect more, and collect longer.

Much of all this bandied about "free stuff" also goes to our military Veterans who sacrificed for their country*, those who are poor, and millions of our children. The rest of this "free stuff" goes to corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

* Much of the time, American soldiers sacrificed their lives on the false pretense of defending working Americans at home (and this country) and defending democracy abroad, when what they were really defending were American corporate interests and their profits overseas. The corporations lobbied Congress against paying higher taxes, and Veteran's benefits suffered when our soldiers came home. Let China have Taiwan, and maybe all those cheap-labor manufacturing jobs might come back to the United States as good-paying union jobs for Americans.

Most people who get "free stuff" from the government (healthcare, food stamps, etc.) don't really WANT this stuff, they NEED it; most of these people would much rather a have a job paying a REAL living wage. But right-wing conservative extremists NEVER ask the question, "Why  has there been such a huge increase in social programs and government  entitlements?" I suspect I know EXACTLY why they never ask this question out loud, because they know, but they would just rather not say. Why didn't Ali Velshi ask this question of Stephen Moore or Alan Greenspan yesterday when they were on his show?

It's for the same old reason: the rich get richer as the poor get poorer. Prices go up and wages goes down (and/or jobs are shipped overseas for cheaper labor).  It's math. When 50% of the workforce (currently in this country today, data here) only earns less than $26,000 a year when it costs $26,000 a year for rent, heat, clothing, and transportation, they can not also buy healthcare and food (unless they give up some other living necessity). And how are they to also save for their kid's college education, their retirement, and any emergencies? How can they live without this "free stuff" when they are already struggling enormously just for their already meager existence?

If the much idolized "job creators" paid labor (wages and salaries) a REAL middle-class wage in a 2012 economy, the minimum wage would be $20 an hour, not $7.25. But instead, the job creators pay their employees at Wal-Mart, Staples, McDonalds, and Papa John's Pizza an average of $8.50 an hour, offer less than 40 hours a week, and give them no healthcare or pension plans. If labor unions dare to organize for fair wages and healthcare, multi-billion-dollar corporations move jobs to anti-union Southern states or to places like China (Just ask the auto industry or companies such as Boeing or Apple or Hostess).

Ask big-mouth Donald Trump. After repeatedly (and falsely) bashing President Obama's stance on trade with China, and while also praising Mitt Romney's intended policy with China (branding China a currency manipulator during his first day in office and possibly starting a trade war), Donald Trump went on the David Letterman Show to pimp his new line of clothing that's on sale at Macy's. When asked where his ties were made, Trump claimed he didn't know (micro-managing his businesses?)...and then Letterman read the label and it said, "Made in China".

The average weekly unemployment check: $309 --- The look on Donald Trump's face: PRICELESS!!! See the video at YouTube.

Why does Apple's CEO Tim Cook need a $400+ million salary when most of his employees work in China at Foxconn (a Taiwanese multinational electronics manufacturing company) for $1 an hour? Couldn't Mister Cook have earned $10 million and put Americans to work for $20 a hour? How much money is ever enough for the "job creators"? The CEOs at American corporations on the Fortune 500 list would rather squeeze their workers to increase their own salaries from $10 million a year to $15 million a year, because for them...$10 million a year just isn't enough to adequately live on. Now there are millions of workers in China (and elsewhere) paying taxes to THEIR country and contributing to THEIR economy.

Bill O'Reilly can pay CASH for a multi-million beachfront mansion in a wealthy neighborhood on Long Island, but he threatens to quit his job at Fox News if his federal income taxes go up just a measly 4% to contribute to the social programs that might help keep poor families from becoming hungry or homeless. Am I the only sane person left in this country that sees how ludicrous, evil, selfish and mean Bill O'Reilly really is?

People like O'Reilly think that just BECAUSE of their financial success, that that somehow makes them special and more entitled -- and makes people like O'Reilly think they are wise old sages, and they believe that also makes them pompously correct on all their public policy opinions. People like O'Reilly and the bankers on Wall Street (as opposed to those in Hollywood) rarely attribute their vast wealth to any luck at all, but attribute their good fortune to skill, hard work, and by pulling up their boot straps.

I pulled up my boot straps, and I'm still poor. I'm pulling them up right now, at this very moment, as I type. I've been tugging on my boot straps for 35 years before I finally became laid off from work in 2008 while in my 50's, denied re-employment just for BEING unemployed and in my 50's, and denied Social Security disability for arthritis in my back (from working hard over the last 35 years at labor intensive jobs). I'm no longer a "maker" but a "taker" because I rely of "free stuff" (food stamps).

Regarding "entitlements" and those who are the "government dole" --- last week I heard Steve Doocy on Fox News say people who earn $45,000 a year are saying to themselves, "Why I should I go work when I can stay home and watch TV and make just as much."

Doocy is a douche bag, plain and simple. Where I live in Las Vegas, welfare (TANF) pays a single male person without kids $400 a month ($4,800 a year). The average Social Security payment is $1,111 a
month ($13,332 a year) . I get $200 a month for food stamps ($2,400 a year).

So even if I COULD qualify for ALL this "free stuff" (which is impossible to get SSD and TANF at the same time), it would total only $20,532 a year, less than HALF of what Douche Bag Doocy claimed on Fox News to millions of his viewers. And that is STILL below the poverty level for a family of four. But Douche Bag Doocy thinks people like me would rather quit their job and live on half their previous salary just so they can sit on the couch and watch more TV. Is he serious? How could I afford cable TV living on only $20,532 a year? Basic cable would be a luxury!

A couple of months ago on Fox News big-mouth Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "millions of Americans are leaving their jobs to go on disability." O'Really O'Reilly? You're telling us that millions of people would prefer to live on much less, or nothing at all, rather than go to work?

Will someone please tell me where I can sign up for all this "free stuff", because I was laid off in 2008, my unemployment benefits ran out in 2010, I was denied disability in 2012, and I won't qualify for EARLY Social Security until 2017. I won't be able to pull up my boot straps much longer because my boots are worn out and frayed with holes, and the boot straps are in disrepair...and without any income, my boots can't be replaced.

I would only hope that Ali Velshi only continues to allow economic extremists such as Stephen Moore on his show to point out the stark contrasts to economic fairness and the ridiculous and selfish economic polices that people like Moore and others consistently promote.

Republicans keep saying "You can't raise taxes in a bad economy." Does that mean that in a good economy we should raise taxes? Like in 2001 and 2003 when George W. Bush lowered taxes while starting two wars? What defines a "good" economy for people like Stephen Moore? When the stocks on the DOW JONES doubled in value over the past 4 years, like they did under Obama? Or when every American worker fresh out of high school can find a job in a local factory earning a "living wage" of AT LEAST $20 a hour in 2012?

Why have more people been reduced to using food stamps? Because of the greedy rich. "Wealth is like sea-water; the more we drink, the thirstier we become; and the same is true of fame." - by Schopenhauer

The Waltons (Wal-Mart) are collectively worth over $100 billion. Couldn't they have just as easily doubled their employees' wages and provided them all with healthcare insurance, and still be collectively worth $50 billion? How much money does one person need to live on in their life-time? Isn't over $1 billion pushing the limit on obscene when so many other Americans are being pushed out of the workforce and forced to need "free stuff" like food stamps?

Every time I see Stephen Moore (a shallow, selfish, putz, and a shill and pimp for the very wealthy) open his mouth on my TV set, I have to change the channel for fear I might throw a heavy object at the TV and break it. He is NOT a REAL "economist", but a snake in the grass selling snake oil.

As far as Alan Greenspan is concerned, it's been widely noted that he is one of those who are directly responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008, so why does Ali Velshi even give him any relevance at all on a national TV forum? Greenspan should be unceremoniously hung from the nearest tree for all the lives he helped ruin just to make a handful of already very wealthy people a lot richer.

Shame on Ali Velshi for giving people like this so much time on his show. Let's see Ali moderate an hour-long debate between Stephen Moore and someone like Senator Bernie Sanders...over even myself. I can tell the American people the truth about how Stephen Moore consistently LIES about corporate tax rates, and how Ali NEVER challenges him on "EFFECTIVE" tax rates...what big corporations are actually obligated to pay.

And although this might be off topic, why are all those white people in Southern and Mountain states petitioning the White House for succeeding from the union after Obama was re-elected? I say, let them. Those states get a lot more federal money than then pay in. The rest of the country would be much better off economically without them. They've been an infected pimple on the ass of this country since 1863, so let them all go.

That way, the South can "rise again" and they can keep their Dixicratic "small government" ideology, keep their anti-worker and anti-union philosophy, impose their fanatical religious beliefs on others, have their Constitutionally  guaranteed State rights, believe in their ancient and backward scientific theories, raise their Confederate flag, continue with their bigotry and racism, keep the Aryan Nation and the KKK, propagate their war and hate on the poor and minorities, make moonshine, continue their disrespect for woman (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), build an electrified fence keep out Mexicans, and write their voter suppression laws so only rich white men can vote.

Maybe they can grow their economy by building cotton plantations again and they can all live in huge and obscene mansions, just like they did in the "good ole days" (when slave labor paid ZERO an hour). Let the South build their own infrastructure, railroads and Navy (they didn't before, and that's why they lost the LAST Civil War). That way, the rest of this country can just move on into the 21st century without the rest of those ignorant and idiotic morons.

And they can also take Alan Greenspan and Stephen Moore with them. We'll think about keeping Ali.


What did all the conservative bumper stickers used to say during Ronald Reagan's day? "America: Love it or Leave It." The South should leave -- the sooner, the better.

Full Disclaimer: I'm white. My family is from the South. My great-grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Germany. Most of my ancestors were farmers. They were mostly Catholic. Not one owned a single slave, instead they raised large families to help with the chores. Many went to serve in the U.S. military. One became a poor and unemployed blogger.

My latest related posts:

GOP Really Does Want Grandma to Die...and Fast!

 

The Makers and Takers: And Republican Bullshitters

 

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

GOP Really Does Want Grandma to Die...and Fast!

And not just grandma, but ALL the sons and daughters of the Greatest Generation (the Baby Boomers).

Why is it that, one day after Obama took office in 2009, SUDDENLY, the national debt became a national security issue for the Republicans and Obama was given all the blame?

From a surplus under Clinton to $10 trillion in debt under Bush with tax cuts for the wealthy and two unpaid wars was never a problem for Republicans before.

Since Obama took office more debt was incurred in "stimulus" and bailouts to the banks and auto industry...to save an economy that the Republicans destroyed by the end of 2008.

Add to that, more debt that we incurred since 2008 with unemployment benefits, TANF and food stamps for millions of Americans who lost jobs or were forced into much lower-paying jobs because of previous Republican economic policies.

Add to that, the natural demographics of an aging population going on disability and Social Security, most who would have anyway despite the Republican-caused economic downturn.

Now the Republicans are blaming Obama for food stamps and "entitlements". The conservatives say we should all be more "self-sufficient", but how? -- if their "job creators" are out-sourcing good-paying jobs to China and paying our domestic workforce sub-standard wages?

For the GOP, immigrants (legal or otherwise) were OK so long as they could be induced to take jobs that no one else wanted -- and paid them sub-standard wages. They will hire them to nanny their kids and cut their grass if they were cheaper to hire than "legal" American citizens. But when it comes to paying for their education, healthcare, and other "free stuff", then the GOP wants to toss them all back over the fence.

Add to that, the ever increasing high cost of healthcare insurance and the higher costs of healthcare. The GOP wants to pay American workers LESS than the minimum wage, then expect them to also afford healthcare too! What about rent, food, and heat...all that other "free stuff"?

The reason U.S. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) refused to back down from remarks he made on the House floor in 2009 (in which he said the Republican health care plan calls for sick people to "die quickly") was because it's true.



Meet grandma. 86-year-old Gloria Pascale of Renton, Washington has worked as a Wal-Mart greeter for 15 years. She has to work to pay her mortgage and help support her children and grandchildren. She said she was recently told at work that her new duties would include heavy lifting and other activity beyond what she's physically able to do. She said she is under treatment for congenital heart failure. She had no choice but to comply...it was either that, or quit her job. (More on grandma below).

Libertarian Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once said that Social Security redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy. As we're all well aware, ALL taxes are a form of redistribution for the collective good of a nation....usually.

The Republicans argue "a war of religion" when taxes are used for contraception, while myself and others argue that taxes spent on wars like Iraq could also be an attack on our religion. But the GOP (especially the Tea Party) always uses the "separation of church and state" argument for their own convenience, while imposing their religious beliefs on others in the form of their political policies (e.g. abortion, etc).

And then there's the redistribution of wealth from Social Security taxes. The wealthiest Americans don't NEED Social Security, so therefore don't want to contribute; whereas, I don't need oil subsidies or excess defense spending either. I prefer feeding our poor and one less nuclear submarine.

American workers (people who actually "work", especially in labor intensive jobs) must pay 12.4 percent, including a 6.2 percent employer contribution, on their wages below the Social Security Wage Base ($110,100 in 2012), but no tax on income in excess of this amount. Therefore, high earners pay a lower percentage of their total income because of the income caps; and because of this, payroll taxes are often viewed as being "regressive".

Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life expectancies and thus may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer period than poorer taxpayers. A single individual who dies before age 62, is more likely to be poor and receive no retirement benefits, despite their years of hard work and paying Social Security taxes all their life.

On the other hand, an individual who lives to age 100, is more likely to be wealthy, and is guaranteed payments that are more than he/she has paid into the system. Even though they have no financial need for them, they still file and collect these benefits in exchange for the "premiums" they pay for these "entitlements".

An NBER volume edited by Martin Feldstein and Jeffrey Liebman called The Distributional Aspects of Social Security points out that members of racial minorities with lower-than-average life expectancies and lower-than-average rates of marriage (and lower-than-average rates of pay) may also suffer from the program on average.

People who derive a high percentage of income from non-wage sources (e.g. Mitt Romney with capital gains/carried interest, etc.) get high Social Security net benefits because they appear to be "poor" for the purpose of Social Security means testing, when they are far from living in poverty -- almost half of ALL American workers earn less than $26,000 a year and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on 100% of their wages.

The progressive benefit formula for Social Security is blind to the income a person receives from non-wage sources, such as spousal support, dividends and interest, stocks and stock-options, the sale of fine art, profits from real estate, rental income, selling off gold and other SWAG :investments", etc, etc, etc.

At present the Social Security limit (cap) is $110,100 in 2012. But if the cap is lifted and it includes ALL taxable income, it will be able to tackle the problem of increasing benefits from an increase of revenues for the Baby Boomers. A benefit of lifting the cap on ALL taxable income, but NOT necessarily increasing the benefits, will allow the revenue from high income earners to lead to the solvency of Social Security. This theory is called "math".

Because the life expectancy has increased (especially for higher income people with superior quality healthcare insurance) and because it will most likely increase further (even in the absence of other demographic factors), the retirement age must be increased to maintain a sustainable system...UNLESS of course, the unfair cap on high-income earners is no longer exempt from being paid into Social Security.

The owners of Wal-Mart have a collective net worth of over $100 billion, but pays their workers slave wages with no healthcare insurance. The REAL reason why Republicans hate ObamaCare™ is because it starts to fairly tax "investment" income in 2013 (the same way everybody else is taxed on their hard-earned wages and salaries.)

If we removed the cap on Social Security contributions for the very wealthy, maybe Grandma won't have to slave at her low-paying job at Wal-Mart until the day she finally drops dead in aisle #12, but instead she can retire with some dignity and comfort while cherishing her life's memories and spending more time with her grand-children.

But the wealthiest among us, corporate America, and the Republicans would prefer that grandma NOT have healthcare insurance or a decent minimum wage, but instead that she "put more skin in the game" (regarding federal income taxes) and remain a "maker" and not a "taker" in our society until the very moment she draws her last breath.

Since Mitt Romney and the GOP lost the past presidential election, the Republicans are saying "we have to reach out more to the Latino community and women". Why? Just for their votes?

And what about the elderly and the poor, another growing segment of America's population? Will the GOP also reach out to them as well, providing them with Social Security and Medicare when they get old, and/or healthcare and good-paying jobs while they can still work? I think not.

Why the Rich Live Longer (Forbes)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0607/113_print.html

Why the Rich Live Longer (2) (Forbes)
http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/longlives400.html

Do rich people live longer? (MSN Money) "Wealth and longevity are
linked."
http://money.msn.com/family-money/do-rich-people-live-longer-usnews.aspx

Get rich and live longer! (The Daily Mail)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2145229/Get-rich-live-longer-Alas-prospects-Utopia-.html

Rich Americans Live Longer (The Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/rich-americans-live-5-yea_n_1616462.html

How to live as long as the rich (CBS)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-57362295/how-to-live-as-long-as-the-rich/

Why Do the Rich Live Longer Than the Poor?
http://tsminteractive.com/rich-live-longer-poor/

Entitlements Favor the Rich —Because They Live Longer
http://www.newser.com/story/155183/entitlements-favor-the-rich-because-they-live-longer.html

Why Rich People Live Longer - Pay Dirt - SmartMoney
http://blogs.smartmoney.com/paydirt/2012/01/23/why-rich-people-live-longer/

Wealthy live longer than the poor: Study (News Medical)
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100926/Wealthy-live-longer-than-the-poor-Study.aspx

Do the Rich Live Longer? (Wall Street Journal - VIDEO)
http://live.wsj.com/video/do-the-rich-actually-live-longer/7C700963-21F7-4BA6-8E95-5E968BE1B00B.html

* And if Grandma was disabled, poor, alone, and couldn't drive, she would be SOL while being brutally put the loops trying to qualify for Social Security disability; and unless she had a fatal illness or was a paraplegic, she would have a 50-50 chance of receiving SSD from a uncaring judge making an annual $100,000 salary that's paid for by grandma and other hard-working taxpayers...because the Republicans are more concerned about tax breaks and Social Security caps for the very rich...like the owners of Wal-Mart.

Friday, November 9, 2012

The Makers and Takers: And Republican Bullshitters

Speaker of the House John Boehner said that the reelection of the House Republican majority means that there is “no mandate for raising tax rates” on the American people.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell also said, "We have a voter mandate not to raise taxes."

They just say "taxes", not taxes on the wealthiest top 2%, who earn more than $250,000 a year. And when they say raising taxes on "small businesses", they don't mean the owners of a small mom-and-pop store earning less than $250,000 a year, but people like hedge fund managers who earn over $1 million a year.

When John Boehner and Mitch McConnell say "the American people", they don't mean Americans earning less than $250,000, but wealthy Americans earning millions of dollars a year (e.g. Mitt Romney).

And the major reason House Republicans were saved from eviction during the last election cycle was mostly due to the gerrymandering of district seats. That's what saved the House Republican Majority -- the careful manipulation by Republican State legislators to rig the political demographics, not the "will" of the majority of the American public. There was no "mandate" for Republicans to NOT raise taxes on the richest Americans.

Speaking of mandates, why was there such a Herculaneum attempt by Republican State legislators to suppress the vote for Democratic voters (e.g. minorities, seniors, and college kids), those who usually vote early? If the GOP had a "mandate", why would suppressing the vote be necessary?

And when Republicans do lose their bid for re-election, they claim the other side is guilty of what they themselves have been guilty of. In Florida, Tea Party darling Allen West lost his bid for re-electron and is now claiming voter fraud and asking for a recount. Instead of inner circumspection, the GOP losers are whining like immature and sore losers.

Karl Rove, who spent over $100 million in dirty tricks against Obama, got a 1% return on his investment, so now says that Obama won because of voter suppression -- and I'm sure that most Fox News viewers will believe him.

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (and all the other GOP officials and Fox News pundits) are behaving as though it was Mitt Romney who won the presidential election, and are claiming they have a mandate to NOT raise taxes on the richest 2%.

Just like Mitt Romney, they all are pathological liars: lying when they don't have to and maybe not even realizing they are lying. Were they born as bullshitters, or does it take a lifetime of practice?

When President Obama recently sat down for an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, while referring to Romney as a "bullshiter", he said, "Kids look at the other guy and say that's a bull bleeper, I can tell.” That’s when the president offered his analysis of kids’ ability to detect others’ dishonesty.

But for grown adults to not see through the GOP's lies, one would have to be either very ignorant, mentally challenged, on drugs, or living in pathetic denial.

98% of all "small business" owners earn less than $250,000 a year (just like 98% of ALL working Americans earn less than that). According the Social Security Administration, 47% of ALL working Americans actually earn less than $26,000 a year.

The vast majority of Americans, in poll after poll after poll, have said that they favor allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2%. What "mandate" are the GOP bullshitters referring to?

The GOP bullshitters have claimed that if the top 2% (the "job creators") have to pay more in federal income taxes, then there will be massive job losses. But the top 2% has already had the lowest tax rates in U.S. history -- ever since 2001 and 2003 -- so where are the jobs now?

Most of the top 2% earns the majority of their income through "capital gains" and pays a lower tax rate (as a percentage of their income) than the other 98% of working Americans -- those who earn their living through regular hourly wages and weekly salaries.

VP candidate Paul Ryan (as a government worker in "big government"), in addition to his very generous $174,000 congressional salary for his part-time job, earned another $60,000 last year in "capital gains" -- and he proposed that NO federal income taxes at all be paid on any capital gains.

The GOP bullshitters want to tax you to pay for their "stuff", but very rich Republicans don't want to be taxed at all to pay for our "stuff". Instead, they just want us to work harder and longer, waiting until we're 70 years old to retire, while paying us the minimum wage and denying us healthcare...just to make them richer.

The owners of Wal-Mart have a collective net worth of over $100 billion, but wants Mitt Romney's 47% (those who earn less than $26,000 a year) to put more skin in the game to enrich the CEOs in the defense industry, but wants to pay their workers slave wages and work until the day they drop dead -- and with no healthcare insurance (free stuff).

Apple would rather hire workers in China for $1 an hour rather than pay an American worker enough to live on so that Apple CEO Tim Cook can cash in $600 million in Apple stock and only pay a 15% capital gains tax...and maybe, just like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, renounce his American citizenship -- instead of reinvesting in the American people -- the 47% who just wants "free stuff".

I heard Fox News Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News bullshitters tell you that millions of Americans are leaving the workforce to go on Social Security disability, earning a third less than they would have at their job.

This week I just heard Steve Doocy on Fox News say people who earn $45,000 a year are saying to themselves, "Why should I go work when I can stay home and watch TV and make just as much." Doocy is a bullshitter because welfare pays about $400 a month -- and if you worked 35 years, Social Security disability pays an average of $1,100 a month (or $13,000 a year).

Will someone please tell me where I can sign up for all this "free stuff" (food, shelter, and healthcare), because after I was laid off in 2008 my unemployment benefits ran out in July 2010. I have since been diagnosed with degenerative arthritis in my neck and back, but 2 years later in 2012 after filing a claim, I was denied Social Security disability; and I won't qualify for Social Security retirement benefits for several more years.

Where can I get my hands on all this free stuff that the GOP bullshitters keep blabbing about? I only get food stamps, but that's because I'm poor with no income and would starve to death otherwise. According to the GOP, even though I was a "maker" for 35 years, because of the economy and my health, I'm now labeled by the GOP bullshitters as a "taker".

The top 2%, who evade taxes and bribes politicians to keep their taxes low, who over-charges me for their services and products, and who nickels-and-dimes me for everything else, and who paid me just barely enough for rent and food, and who was too cheap to provide healthcare...those are the "makers", who make jobs in China while leaving me (the "taker") dependent on food stamps while watching TV 24/7.

The top 2% doesn't want their taxes raised so they won't have to pay for my food stamps. The "takers" like me should go without food so that the "makers" (bullshitters) can hire more people in China.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Global Lessons: Putting America to Work - CNN Fareed Zakaria GPS

Quote of the week: "Globalization: The redistributing of wealth from one
country's domestic workers to another country's financial elites."

First aired September 23, 2012. Consult your
local TV listing for a re-broadcast. Rating: 5 Stars. We could take some
valuable lessons from Europe. Why don't American corporations do this?
TRANSCRIPT:

 FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: Welcome to a GPS special, Global Lessons, Putting America to Work. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

This year's election will hinge on one question. Whom do you trust to be your job creator-in-chief?

Unemployment stubbornly remains above 8 percent. If you add those who stopped looking for a job or can only find part-time work, we are near 15 percent. Bad news for President Obama. But here's a hard truth. Over the past two decades, U.S. recoveries have been increasingly jobless, no matter who's been in charge.

The consultants at McKinsey point out that after every recession from World War II through the 1980s it took us around six months to recover lost jobs, but after the 1990 recession, it took us 15 months to recover those jobs. After the 2001 recession, it took 39 months. And after the 2008 downturn, McKinsey says, it will take 60 months, five whole years, to get back to where we were.

Why has this problem grown over the last 20 years? The most plausible explanation is that the revolutions of information technology and globalization make it much easier for work to be done by machines or cheap labor overseas. That may be great for companies and for capital, but it places tough pressures on the American worker.

So what can be done? In this hour, we are going to offer you a global perspective on jobs, taking you around the world to look for solutions to our unemployment crisis. We will visit Europe, Asia and the Middle East. We will also visit Chicago, where I spoke to President Obama's former chief of staff, now mayor, Rahm Emanuel. He is trying a bold, local experiment that Washington refuses to try.

But first, let's look at how to solve one of the most crucial aspects of the jobs crisis, what to do about youth unemployment, which often turns into enduring adult unemployment. Over 16 percent of Americans under 25 are jobless. One country in Europe may have a solution. Let's get started.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Meet Florian Vols (ph). He's 23, just a few years out of high school. In the U.S., he'd have a one in six chance of being unemployed as a young adult. But Vols lives in Germany, where the youth unemployment rate is less than half of ours. One of the reasons for that Germany's apprentice system. Vols has an apprenticeship Siemens, the high-tech manufacturing giant. The company gives him over three years of paid training, a guaranteed job offer, plus he attends a vocational school.

FLORIAN VOLS, YOUNG WORKER: We know that we can work afterwards here and have a job and a fixed job.

ZAKARIA: Siemens isn't the only German company offering this sweet deal. Businesses in almost every industry offer paid training, and in most cases, a full-time job, while the government provides a free vocational education. Almost two-thirds of Germany's young people take part in apprenticeships.

PETER SOLMON, SIEMENS: It ranges from hair dresser training to, you know, running a nuclear power plant.

ZAKARIA: Siemens' Peter Solmon says his company is training around 10,000 apprentices in Germany. There is a hefty price tag for each training, over $120,000.

(on camera): That's major investment.

SOLMON: It is.

ZAKARIA: And you think you get a return on it?

SOLMON: We know we do.

ZAKARIA: And other companies in Germany do similar things?

SOLMON: This is not forced upon us. We believe it's a good business model. And I think that Germany's success as an exporting company is based on this skill.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Germany's success has been nothing short of remarkable. Once known as the sick man of Europe, the country enacted reforms, cut costs and went through a painful period of restructuring. In 2005, unemployment peaked at over 11 percent, much higher than the Eurozone and the United States. But the changes had made Germany much more competitive.

Manufacturing exports started soaring and during the global recession, unemployment actually went down in Germany while everyone else's went up.

Germany's apprentice system, providing a wealth of high-skilled workers, had a lot to do with that success. Apprentices at Siemens get a crash course in cutting-edge manufacturing. And also work on their own projects. They can even get a bachelor's degree.

SOLMON: I think there's a sense in the United States that this apprenticeship training is somehow a lid on a kid's career and it's quite the opposite.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I already got my prototype working.

ZAKARIA: When apprentices complete their training, they get a certificate that's accepted throughout their industry so they can even work for another company if they want. But at Siemens, over 85 percent end up staying after all of that free training.

SOLMON: That kind of investment, that kind of participation with the employee, ends up in creating loyalty.

ZAKARIA: The linchpin of Germany's apprentice system is collaboration. The companies, the vocational schools, the government and the trade unions all work together to make sure that industry and its future workforce are compatible.

(on camera): So it is almost like a triangle between government, private business and educational institutions?

SOLMON: Exactly. And that's what makes it difficult to export to other countries.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): In the U.S., our patchwork system of job training programs is one of the reasons why we have 3.5 million job openings left unfilled. But near Siemens' plant in Charlotte, North Carolina, the company has found a worthy partner.

Central Piedmont Community College has been running a program where students earn a degree and get trained by local manufacturers, just like in Germany.

PAM HOUSE, SIEMENS U.S.: It's not rocket science. The Germans have been doing this forever.

ZAKARIA: Siemens' Pam House says their first apprentices will fill vacant positions at the plant as veteran workers retire.

HOUSE: I can live with the 93rd.

ZAKARIA: But House faces a big challenge, convincing students that a four-year college degree isn't the only route to success.

HOPE JOHNSON, SIEMENS EMPLOYEE: It was never a plan for me to be working in any type of industrial factory.

So we need to loosen these.

ZAKARIA: Hope Johnson was an honor student in high school.

JOHNSON: That's good.

ZAKARIA: And says her parents really wanted her to attend a university. But as a math and science enthusiast, Hope loved Siemens' high-tech facility and her parents loved the free tuition.

JOHNSON: You just focused on your grades and you focus on what you're learning in the factory because they are paying for everything.

ZAKARIA: Now, Johnson is learning how to operate the machines that build Siemens' massive generators. JOHNSON: I talked to my friends, they're working at fast food restaurants. They're working at grocery stores, and then I work in a giant factory making stuff for power plant, and so you can't beat that.

ZAKARIA: But the big question is whether or not apprenticeship programs like Siemens' can be scaled up and offered all over the country. More companies will need to invest in training and attitudes toward blue-collar work will need to change.

SOLMON: In Germany, they're called the bluemener, the blue men, because they wear blue overalls. And they're very proud of being bluemenner. They're very proud.

ZAKARIA (on camera): But how do we achieve that cultural shift? Because in America, that wouldn't quite be true.

SOLMON: I think it was true. I think it was true. And I think, you know, these words apprentice, and journeyman and master were in the English language for a long time. Benjamin Franklin worked from Boston to Philadelphia to be an apprentice. This is something that we have in our history. We just have to bring it back.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: If Germany reminds us to return to our roots to help the next generation find jobs, another country has a way to help the current workforce. Its unemployment rate is only 5 percent. How do they do it? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: So, Germany shows us how to get young people into an employment pipeline. But what about people who are already employed? How do we make sure they stay employed through the peaks and troughs of the national economy, through the highs and lows of their industry?

For that we traveled to the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. What's their secret? It's something called Flexicurity. Come with me and I will explain.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I started as a mechanic. Then became testers and then trouble shooter.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Patricia Vander Vain works at Royal Philips Electronics. You probably it simply as Philips. They make everything from simple light bulbs to high-tech medical equipment. She never went to college but Philips has trained her to do three different jobs. Her stint as a mechanic was on the assembly line. She was a coil tester. And now she is a troubleshooter for the MRI machines that help scan patients' bodies in hospitals around the world.

Why? In the Netherlands, it is all about making sure people can stay employed despite of any economic curve balls. TON WILTHAGEN, TILBURG UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: It's not about the same job the lifetime employment but it's about keeping people employable.

ZAKARIA: Tilburg University professor Ton Wilthagen advised the European commission to help EU countries create more and better jobs. That earned him a unique nickname.

WILTHAGEN: People started to call me Mr. Flexicurity. Whether this is a good name or a bad name depends because it's still a real debate, you know?

ZAKARIA: Flexicurity is a fiercely debated concept that was first coined in Denmark. It combines ideas from both sides of the Atlantic. On the one hand, American American-style flexibility, the ability for employers to hire and fire with relative ease. On the other, a traditional Europe-style security net, making sure the employee is taken care of if they are fired or laid off.

But in the wake of austerity with unemployment soaring, some argue that the Danish fairy tale lost its plot. So the Netherlands does flexibility a little differently. A centerpiece of the Dutch system is something call a mobility center, a partnership among companies that helps people find their next job instead of being let go.

Frans van Houten is the CEO of Philips, one of the largest employers in the Netherlands.

FRANS VAN HOUTEN, PHILIPS CEO: We also invest in their re- employability, so that the skills that maybe Philips may no longer need but could be very useful in other companies will be made available.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: In America an employer facing a downturn would simply lay off employees. In the Netherlands, they are sent to the mobility center where a great effort is made to find them work with one of the other partner companies. It helps companies share risks in bad times while still actively maintaining a trained workforce that they can tap into in good times.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILTHAGEN: Everybody needs workers because it's an aging society so they need to -- the support of other companies. So it's like a joint interest.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): It also helps the bottom line, adds Professor Ton Wilthagen. Companies have a huge incentive to place the worker elsewhere. If they don't, they have to pay the employee's unemployment benefits for up to 38 months.

VON HOUTEN: By working together with other companies in the mobility center, it is something that we do not have to carry on our own, but rather, it becomes a job market and the attractiveness of a job market is that it facilitates people, make a demand and supply meet and that's what we all want.

ZAKARIA: Philips CEO Frans van Houten is leading an industry that is undergoing a major revolution.

VON HOUTEN: At this moment in lighting, we see a major shift from traditional lamps to LED lighting, but it has, as an unintended consequence, that some of the older technologies become obsolete.

ZAKARIA: As technologies evolve, oftentimes jobs become redundant, too. And instead of laying off the incandescent worker, Philips might try to move them to other jobs within the company.

Remember Patricia whom you met earlier who's trained at three different jobs? If one goes away, she has skills for another.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think I'm in a better position in the job market now than a couple of years ago.

ZAKARIA: And if that doesn't work, there's the mobility center.

VON HOUTEN: If she want to lay off somebody it will actually cost money and that money usually goes to the employee. In the mobility center, we invest some of the money that may actually go for compensating the layoff in actually helping the employee find another position.

ZAKARIA: It's a win-win for the company and for its employees. In some cases, companies like Philips even temporarily pay the difference in people's salaries if they have to take lower-paying jobs. It is work, transition and training programs like these that have helped the Netherlands' unemployment rate drop 60 percent since the 1980s.

But the Dutch have also taken the flexibility part of Flexicurity to the next dimension. Half of the population, 77 percent of women and 25 percent of men, work part time. So there are simply more jobs to go around. And people largely like the balance, says Professor Wilthagen.

WILTHAGEN: Those people, most of them do not want a full-time job, that is part of the Dutch model.

ZAKARIA: Of course, these protections are so expensive that companies are also starting to rely more and more on temporary agency workers who enjoy most of the same rights as regular workers but can be dismissed more easily. And that, says Wilthagen, could lead to greater inequality. But overall, he adds, there's a reason the Netherlands has one of the best trained and most productive labor forces in the world.

WILTHAGEN: It's not only corporate social responsibility but it's also self-interest. It is a small country. We want to be competitive, so let's not waste the human capital, the talent that's here. Let's try to keep it in our region.

(END VIDEOTAPE) ZAKARIA: The key lesson America can take from Holland and Germany is that companies are giving incentives to invest in their workers so that even when they do let them go, those workers retain skills and can be reemployed.

Up next, should government be in the business of backing whole industries in order to create jobs?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: We've seen how Germany gets young people into the workforce and how the Netherlands keeps people there. But what about government supporting specific industries in order to help create jobs?

Yes, I'm talking about industrial policy, a taboo subject in America. But government support for industry is worth examining, because it has created a lot of jobs for some of the world's fastest-growing economies.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): It's a busy day Hyundai Heavy Industries ship building plant in Ulsan, South Korea. Over 10,000 workers at Hyundai Heavy churn out a massive new ship every three days. Forty years ago, this shipyard didn't even exist and South Korea's ship building industry was tiny. But today, this midsized nation of 50 million people is the number one ship builder in the world. With an industry that supports a huge number of jobs.

MICHAEL LIND, CO-FOUNDER, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Today almost half the world's commercial ships are made in South Korea.

ZAKARIA: Michael Lind, co-founder of the New America Foundation, runs the think-tanks program on economic growth. He points out that South Korea's dictator in the 1960s and '70s, Pack Chung He, gave subsidies to develop heavy industries like steel, ship building and cars.

The companies that were backed, Hyundai, LG and Samsung, are now household names. Other Asian countries, like China and Japan, funded industry too often within impressive results.

LIND: Together, they had 8 percent of global ship building in 1975. This year, they have more than 90 percent. It is entirely a product of industrial policy and in particular subsidies by governments.

ZAKARIA: U.S. ship building once thrived, says Lind, thanks in part to subsidies but in the 1980s, President Reagan eliminated many of those subsidies. How is the industry doing today?

LIND: The United States has 0.5 percent of commercial sea going, ship building right now.

ZAKARIA: Of course, industrial policy can be a losing strategy, too.

(on camera): The government is spending all this money favoring one industry over the other. And it's going to make lots of mistakes. LIND: That's right in the sense that you get a -- sometimes a massive misallocation of resources.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Just look at the solar company Solyndra. It got a big loan from President Obama's Department of Energy and promptly went bankrupt, costing taxpayers half a billion dollars.

The federal government might be wary after the Solyndra disaster but one state is getting into the game in a different way. An initiative in Albany has made New York a leader in a cutting-edge industry, nanotechnology.

DR. ALAIN KALOYEROS, UNIVERSITY OF ALBANY-SUNY: It's innovation that's going to have significant implications for society.

ZAKARIA: Dr. Alain Kaloyeros, physicist, inventor and fully licensed nano-geek, heads the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, which is part of the State University of New York.

(on camera): What is nanotechnology anyway?

KALOYEROS: The core of it is the know-how of how to manage individual atoms and molecules.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Nanotechnology shows up everywhere in our lives from medicine to computer chips. Kaloyeros and state officials convinced over 300 nanotech companies to come to Albany, creating 15,000 jobs across New York.

KALOYEROS: The average wage for one of those jobs is $92,000. We are talking about $1.3, $1.4 billion in wages alone going into the state's economy.

ZAKARIA: How did they do it? Using an industrial policy of sorts. But with a caveat.

KALOYEROS: Not a single dollar goes to the companies.

ZAKARIA: In the mid-1990s then Governor Mario Cuomo approved a $1 million grant to the State University of New York to create a nanotech research hub that companies could use. Companies started giving money, too, because the cost of having their own research facilities was a huge expense.

KALOYEROS: They can't afford doing it on their own. So they love to partner with us.

ZAKARIA: Big names like IBM, Intel and Samsung all got into the mix, creating a massive center of innovation. New York State has given $1 billion to the college. But companies have given over $13 billion.

KALOYEROS: We are not picking winners and losers.

ZAKARIA (on camera): So you're not picking specific companies or specific adaptations of technology. You are creating a kind of open infrastructure which anybody can use? KALOYEROS: Absolutely.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): The college has lifted Albany's economy, giving many workers a second chance.

John Keefe was laid off from a paper manufacturer after working there for almost 23 years. He and some of his former co-workers were retrained by the college to work in the ultrasterile clean room where computer chips are made. Putting on the required bunny suit felt odd at first but Keefe has gotten used to t.

JOHN KEEFE, WORKER: I'm very happy here, they take very good care of me, I'm hoping to retire from here.

ZAKARIA: The next step is to apply the nanotech research hub model to other industries. The college received over $57 million from the Department of Energy to form a hub for America's solar companies.

(on camera): You think this is a much better model than the Solyndra model of giving money to an individual company?

KALOYEROS: Absolutely. The White House, the federal government, have to look at how New York does things. You don't pick winners and losers, you focus on what the scientists are telling you is the science of the 21st century.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: When we come back, we will show you another lesson on job creation in a very unlikely place, a desert oasis in the Middle East. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: Government funding for specific industries to help create jobs can be a hit-or- miss proposition. But there's one industry in America with tremendous potential for job growth and it needs fewer regulations, not government money. The tourism industry. And few places do tourism better than Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates on the Persian Gulf.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): The world's tallest building, over half a mile high, man-made islands shaped like a palm tree, sprouting with luxury hotels. There's even an indoor ski slope in this desert oasis, conveniently located in a shopping mall. Dubai stops at nothing to woo tourists and when tourists come and spend their money, they are like walking job stimulus program.

FRITZ VAN PAASSCHEN, CEO OF STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS: They will create about a million jobs by the end of this decade just from travel and tourism.

ZAKARIA: Fritz van Paasschen is passion is the CEO of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, the company that owns the Sheraton, Westin and W Hotel brands. Starwood has 15 hotels in Dubai. More than any other city in the world except New York.

That's remarkable, considering Dubai's small size, a little over two million people.

VAN PAASSCHEN: Twenty or 30 years ago, people didn't think of going there. Now if you're in Europe, or especially if you're in Russia, it's a place where people go.

ZAKARIA: By 2020, hotel guests are predicted to triple and Dubai aims to create 950,000 jobs, fuelled by tourism and related sectors.

VAN PAASSCHEN: This idea that a small city-state could create a million jobs in a decade that's an enormous amount of growth.

ZAKARIA: Dubai's success in tourism comes at the perfect time because the industry is booming across the world. Companies like China, Brazil and India have rapidly growing middle classes that are keen to see the world. Almost 18 million Chinese are expected to travel outside their country this year, according to the Chinese government. That number is expected to be over 100 million in 2015.

VAN PAASSCHEN: The opportunity in travel and tourism today is bigger than it ever was.

ZAKARIA: But the U.S. has been missing out on that opportunity in a big way. After 9/11, America tightened its visa policies to improve security. Partly as a result, the travel industry says we have lost around one-third of our share of the international travel market. The good news is we can turn things around.

(on camera): How big could America's tourism industry be if we got all these things right? Because this is the country everyone wants to come to.

VAN PAASSCHEN: If the U.S. could just get back to its own share of international travel that it's lost in the last decade, that would amount to about 1.3 million jobs, which is roughly 20 percent of the total number of jobs that were lost in the entire crisis. That's big number.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): So what can learn from Dubai to boost tourism at home? Lesson number one, make those visas easier to come by. Dubai hands out visas to many foreign nationals right at the airport. We can't do that for every tourist but we could at least make it easier for people to apply for visas.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): We have five places you can get a visa in China and that's in a country with 170 cities of over a million people. So, in fact, so many people have to take a trip before they even make the trip.

ZAKARIA: The cost of more visa processing, says Van Paasschen, would easily be paid for by the increase in tourism business.

Lesson number two, promote your tourist destination. Promote it like there's no tomorrow. Dubai has its own Department of Tourism and the United Arab Emirates' marketing efforts have been ranked first by the World Economic Forum.

Washington has historically had little involvement in wooing tourists. Things are changing, slightly. The President and Congress created Brand USA, a public-private entity that will promote America abroad and the State Department has improved visa processing and says that wait times are dropping. But with greater ambition and the courage to do away with bureaucratic obstacles, this industry could grow mightily.

VAN PAASSCHEN: The way I would describe it as a business person is it's a good start, it's not mission accomplished.

ZAKARIA: And there's one area where we are still way behind.

Lesson number three from Dubai. Infrastructure. Right now the airport for this tiny city-state is one of the world's busiest. But apparently that wasn't enough, because they are building a new airport that would be the busiest, by far, in the world, handling 120 million passengers a year. Not bad for a place that was only a small fishing village a few decades ago.

VAN PAASSCHEN: This is a lesson that the U.S. has taught the rest of the world. There probably wasn't a very good reason to go to Los Vegas a couple of decades ago. You could make the same argument about Orlando. But U.S. business created those areas as a destination. Created jobs, created an industry that the rest of the world took notice of and has done a wonderful job of copying in some areas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: When we come back, we'll return to the United States and show you an experiment in infrastructure that's turning heads and will create jobs in the Windy City of Chicago.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Don Lemon. Here are your headlines to hour.

A wall of snow has killed at least 11 people on one of the world's highest mountains. More than a dozen climbers are still missing on Nepal's Mount Manaslu after an avalanche swept through their camp sites. These pictures show rescuers evacuating the injured. More than 200 people were attempting to climb the mountain, which is considered one of the world's most dangerous to navigate.

A schizophrenic double-amputee in a wheelchair shot to death by a Houston police officer. Brian Claunch allegedly had threatened people at a home for the mentally ill and then tried to stab the police officer's partner with what turned out to be a pen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI SILVA, SPOKESWOMAN, HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: The other officer, Officer Marin, in fear of the safety of his partner and the safety of himself, discharged his duty weapon, striking the suspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The man initially got upset when he was denied a cigarette and a soda. The officer is on administrative leave.

Tiger who? Rory who? Most of the attention was on the names like Woods, McIlroy heading into golf's PGA Tour championship in Atlanta but today, the spotlight is on the tournament and FedEx Cup champion, Brant Snedeker, who takes home more than $11 million. Not a bad day's pay for a round of golf.

Those are your headlines this hour. I'm Don Lemon, keeping you informed. CNN, the most trusted name in news.

ZAKARIA: In 2002, the World Economic Forum ranked U.S. infrastructure fifth in the world. In its latest report, we're 25th. Why? Well, these days, the rest of the developed world spends substantially more on infrastructure than we do. Many emerging markets do even more. China spends 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure to our 2.4 percent.

Our bridges are falling down, our power grid is antique, our water mains are bursting and where are the great projects of the future? With borrowing costs lower than ever before in history, why can't we invest more and start putting people to work doing it?

One man is on a mission to do just that. At least in his Windy City.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL, CHICAGO: You can't have a 21st century economy sitting at 20th century foundation.

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the notoriously sharp-witted.

EMANUEL: How dare you?

ZAKARIA: And sharp-tongued former chief of staff for President Obama, has a bold plan to rebuild his city.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: When I secured these agreements to come to work for my presidential campaign, neither one of us had gray hair.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAKARIA: And he's getting help from an old friend.

CLINTON: What you are doing here is the first, in effect, infrastructure bank using private capital that any city in the United States has established. This is a huge deal.

ZAKARIA: The Chicago Infrastructure Trust is Mayor Emanuel's plan to tap private investors to pay for big infrastructure projects that the government can no longer afford. The private investors would expect returns from project revenues, savings or fees. It's a model that's been successful all over the world, from the expansion of Europe's largest port in Rotterdam to the creation of the world's largest eco- city in Tianjin, China.

CLINTON: This is a classic example of what works in the modern world.

ZAKARIA (on camera): Everywhere that is, except in America. Until now.

(voice-over): The Chicago Nonprofit Trust intends to pour $7.2 billion into adding runway to O'Hare, rebuilding crumbling roads, fixing aging schools, repairing dilapidated rail lines, and much more.

EMANUEL: In the next three years, we're going to create 30,000 jobs in the building trades area. Engineers, electrical workers, carpenters, all going to work.

ZAKARIA: Five investment firms have expressed interests in being part of Chicago's public-private trust. Citigroup, a sponsor of this program, is among those who have expressed such interest. But no proposals have yet been put forth and no money has yet been invested. By any of the potential private partners.

America used to have the world's best infrastructure. In the 1950s, American highways, parks, state universities and airports were the envy of the world.

EMANUEL: When this country invested 4 percent of its economic GDP in infrastructure, our economy grew at 4 percent. Not exactly 88 (ph) but close. And when we scaled back our investments as a country to 2 percent, our economy grew at that level.

ZAKARIA: And with the government investing less, Emanuel is taking matters into his own hands. His first project, an energy retrofit of several public buildings, including the Chicago Cultural Center, one of the city's largest energy consumers.

EMANUEL: This is the one we call in the boiler world, AARP, it's the senior citizen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, exactly. Right. Right.

EMANUEL: All right.

ZAKARIA: The retrofit would shave the city's energy bill by 25 percent over the next three years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These were put in 1974.

ZAKARIA: The city plans to take those utility bills' savings -- an estimated $20 million a year -- and use that to pay back potential investors for the $225 million retrofit.

In addition to increasing efficiency, Emanuel says, he has to make up for a century of neglect. EMANUEL: So this 1885?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

ZAKARIA: Just look at the water system. More than 3,800 water pipes broke in Chicago in the last year alone, costing the city tens of millions of dollars. So he is repairing or replacing 900 miles of water pipe over the next decade.

The city council voted overwhelmingly to pass the trust and will get approval on all projects. But critics question whether it's a smart move. They point to the bungled 75-year lease of the city's parking meters by the previous mayor in return for quick cash to cover the city's budget shortfall in 2008.

EMANUEL: There's a role for public/private partnerships, selling an asset is the private taking over a public entity. That's the wrong way to go, in my view.

ZAKARIA: Whatever happens with Emanuel's experiment, this is not just a Chicago story, according to Brooking senior fellow, Robert Fuentes.

ROBERT FUENTES, BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONS: There's a lot of questions. I think the folks are very eager to understand how this is going to work. Whatever happens, positive or negative, the Chicago lessons will absolutely have a ripple effect across the country.

ZAKARIA: The Chicago Infrastructure Trust is perhaps a local version of the National Infrastructure Bank, an idea not even Rahm Emanuel could push through during his time at the White House.

(on camera): Why did the National Infrastructure Bank idea not take off?

EMANUEL: Because it's got caught up in the -- both the politics of not making sure that the President doesn't have a win and also in the politics of ideology.

ZAKARIA: For his part, Emanuel says we need jobs now and need modern infrastructure for the long term and he is done waiting for the gridlock to clear in Washington or at the state capital.

EMANUEL: The Infrastructure Trust allows us to actually start to unlock our future, take control of our destiny and not leave it beholden to either the problem, the challenges or the dysfunction of either Washington or Springfield.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Infrastructure spending is the fastest way to create jobs, especially in the construction sector. The hardest hit by the recession. An investment here lays the foundation for our economy to remain competitive for decades to come.

Up next, my thoughts on putting America to work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: We've watched how countries around the world have created jobs, with lessons for how we might do some of the same, but before we talk about the technicalities of training programs, boosting tourism and funding technology, there is a larger question that many Americans wonder about. Should the government do anything at all? Should it just get out of the way?

This debate is on display in the American presidential campaign. On the one hand, President Obama has been making the case that the economy needs investments in infrastructure, education, training, science and technology. Those investments and the President's telling, are the key drivers of American growth, jobs and industries.

As we saw that is certainly how the German and South Korean governments have approached growth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It's wonderful to be with you. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Governor Romney, on the other hand, argues that America needs tax and regulatory relief. The country is overburdened by mandates, taxes and rules that make it difficult for businesses to function, grow and prosper, he says. He wants to cut taxes, reduce regulations and streamline government.

And looking at places from Switzerland to Singapore to Dubai, you can see that being friendly to business and to tourists can produce an economic bonanza. In some areas, like infrastructure, most agree that the government must act and the need is urgent.

If you defer maintenance on your house, the house deteriorates and eventually, you actually have to pay more. That is what we are doing with our infrastructure. Rather than fix it now when borrowing costs are at historic lows, we are passing a much bigger bill to our children.

As I mentioned earlier, the World Economic Forum ranks us 25th in the world in infrastructure, down from fifth only a decade ago.

Education may be more complex. Just spending money isn't the answer, but the problem is clear. In the 1970s, America led the world in the number of college graduates. As of 2009, we are 14th among rich countries. And the jobs of the future will all require more education than in the past.

Or take federal funding for research and development, which is at half the share of GDP than it was in 1960, according to the National Science Foundation. Industrial policy is more controversial, though historically there is simply no question that the U.S. government has provided massive support for industries like aircraft, semiconductors and the Internet. Fracking, by the way, was a technique pioneered with funding and help from the Department of Energy.

Let's be clear, though, Governor Romney has a strong case to make as well. That same World Economic Forum study that gave us four marks for infrastructure gives us terrible marks on taxes and regulation.

On the burden of government regulation category the United States ranks 76th, with a score of 3.3 on a total scale of from zero to seven. On the extent and effect of taxation the United States ranks 69th out of 144 countries. On total tax rate, percentage of profits, the United States came in 103rd out of 144.

Now the truth is that overall the U.S. economy remains highly competitive. The World Economic Forums' report ranks the U.S. overall as the seventh most competitive in the world. That's why a few months ago, "The Economist" magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

Where we have slipped badly of late is in our investments, in people, science and infrastructure. So President Obama's message is urgent and relevant.

But why do we have to choose between these two views? We need tax and regulatory reform to make ourselves competitive. America has to make itself attractive for investors, consumers and tourists alike, but we should also make the crucial investments we need for a 21st century economy.

These two views look at the same challenge from different perspectives. Governor Romney is right to look at the world that companies operate in with its challenges and opportunities. Over the last 20 years shall, as communism collapsed and socialism has been discredited, countries around the world have become more business friendly, lowering taxes and streamlining regulations. The U.S. has to stay competitive or over the long run, investment, industry and jobs will move to other lands.

President Obama's view looks at the world from the perspective of an American worker. As more countries have joined the open global economy, these workers face intense competition from much cheaper labor.

McKinsey estimates that between 1980 and 2010, the pool of workers in the world expanded by 1.2 billion as Chinese, Indian, Indonesian and Africans moved from rural villages to cities and started to work in factories and offices. Add to that the powerful effects of technology, which make it easier to get work done with fewer workers.

We live in exciting times of globalization and amazing technological revolutions. Some, those at the top, large companies, will be able to ride through an exciting and expanding new landscape. But many Americans will need help to better prepare themselves to compete in this brave new world.

Don't forget, you can catch my regular show, GPS on Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern and Pacific in North America. Thanks to all of you for tuning in.

(END)

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Romney and the Moochers

Before President Obama recently lowered the Social Security tax rate to 4.2% for most working Americans (those who are paid a salary or earn an hourly wage) it used to be 6.2%. The Medicare tax rate is still 1.45%.

These payroll taxes (FICA) are not collected on "unearned income", which includes interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains -- such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate.
CEOs of corporations like to pay themselves a greater part of their compensation with stock options rather than a regular wage to avoid the higher personal tax rate.

The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA taxes as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets -- such as Mitt Romney and everyone on the Forbes Fortune 400 List -- and all those earning over $110,000 a year (because of the "cap" on Social Security taxes).

The bottom 47% that Mitt Romney referred to (those who pay no federal income tax) earn less than $26,363 a year, but they pay FICA taxes on 100% of their wages if they work -- and in many cases, they also pay state, city, excise and property taxes.

And they all pay a greater proportion of their earnings on sales taxes too -- and that's why a flat tax, or a value-added tax, would tax the poor more disproportionately than the very wealthy.

So most of that 47% pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And as a percentage of their income, they also pay a greater proportion of their income in other taxes as well.

The rich are different. Mitt and Ann Romney paid virtually no payroll taxes in 2011, because nearly all their income came from investments on which payroll tax was not owed. And most of their federal income tax was paid at the lower rate of 15% for capital gains, not the top marginal rate of 35% if their income had been earned through regular wages.

Because of the current tax code, about $1 trillion a year in unearned personal income from the wealthy is exempt from payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) and about $500 billion a year is taxed at the low rate for capital gains instead of the higher rate for regular wages.

But starting next year, high-income taxpayers will pay a little more in taxes. A tax was passed as part of the health care bill enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2010 – the law known as “ObamaCare.”

Married taxpayers with income over $250,000 will pay a 3.8 percent Medicare tax rate on income over that amount, and all income will be covered, including capital gains that make up most of the Romneys’ income. That's why Romney and wealthy Republicans want to repeal "ObamaCare" and extend the Bush tax cuts -- so that they can continue to keep THEIR tax rates LOWER than ours.

This Medicare tax on the rich will in no way alter the top one percent's standard of living, and it will help provide healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay for the ultra-expensive healthcare policies that are sold by insurance companies to the poor (the bottom 47%).

Mitt Romney thinks these people are "moochers" who just want "free stuff". His distain for half the country could not have been made any clearer at that fundraiser last May. And his ultra-rich donors all seemed to be in total agreement with him (They paid $50,000 per person to hear Romney bash the poor).

In other words, Mitt and wealthy Republicans don't want to contribute anything at all to the "moochers" who worked all their lives making profits for the top one percent before they got too old or sick, and could no longer work any more.

Mitt and wealthy Republicans don't want to contribute anything at all to the "moochers" who became disabled in military conflicts after defending the top one percent's interests abroad.

Mitt and wealthy Republicans don't want to contribute anything at all to the "moochers" who had their fair-paying jobs outsourced to China for ever more profits, only to be replaced with minimum wage part-time jobs without healthcare insurance at Staples, Godfather Pizza, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart -- while trying to keep pace with an ever rising cost-of-living.

Mitt and wealthy Republicans don't want to contribute anything at all to the "moochers" (half the country who earn near-poverty or poverty level wages), but instead claim that the bottom 47% prefer to be "dependent on government" and refuses to take responsibility for their lives.

The money that Romney gives to his church charity (of which he is a very high ranking member) does little to help poor non-Mormons, and his generous contributions to the Mormon church does absolutely nothing at all for the funding of roads and bridges, schools, the FDA or the FAA. But because Romney gave to his church, he feels he's done everything to fulfill his moral responsibilities to this nation.

When Mitt and wealthy Republicans complain about government spending, they don't mean the fraud and abuse in the very profitable corporate defense industry that's funded by taxpayers. They really mean healthcare, veterans benefits, and Social Security for everybody in the bottom 47% -- those "moochers" who USED to pay federal income taxes, but no longer do, because now they are too old, sick, and/or poor.

Mitt and wealthy Republicans feel about the bottom 47% the same way aristocrats once thought of the peons, and that's what Romney and his rich friends really think of regular working Americans today. Now Mitt wants to be our king.

Money hoarders like Mitt Romney earned $13 million last year. It would take someone in the bottom 47 percent 4,931 years to earn that much money; but Mitt wants to pay them less in wages and Mitt wants to tax them more -- and all while he himself pays less in taxes.

Revolutions, uprisings, and civil wars have plagued humanity all throughout history because of greedy economic policies such as Mitt Romney's that overwhelmingly favor the very rich.

Who's the REAL moocher?



Leona Helmsley, the very wealthy hotelier who was once known as the "Queen of Mean," was quoted as telling one of her housekeepers, "We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes."

The billionaire was later convicted of 33 felony counts of trying to defraud the government, including mail fraud, tax evasion and filing false tax returns. She served 18 months in prison.

Five years ago after she died at the ripe old age of 87, she left $12 million to a dog named Trouble, her beloved poodle.

Mitt Romney doesn't want to tax these people for capital gains or inheritances, but instead wants to tax low-income Americans to help fund a $700 billion military budget, two wars, and tax cuts for the rich.


Huffington Post: The Romney-Ryan Budget: Who Are the Real Moochers in Their Medicaid Scheme?

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Mitt Romney: The Patriotic Chickenhawk

Dramatic and graphic Hollywood war footage depicting all America's major wars with commentary on the Romney family's contributions to America's independence, liberty and "free markets".



YouTube Link:
http://youtu.be/MWCnH7WjQ_E

Public Funding for Private Schools and Profits

Corporate execs and billionaire ideologues are creating — at taxpayer expense — a network of schools where learning takes a back seat.

The sounds of September: school bells ringing, looseleaf binders snapping open, sneakers squeaking on gymnasium floors. Next to apple pie, what could be more American than sounds like these — and the public schools where we hear them?

But times change. Blackboards and chalk no longer grace every classroom. We have whiteboards and classroom computers. We have the Internet, the capacity to share lessons across borders.

In this new Information Age, are local public schools now somewhat obsolete? Do we need a new model for educating our young? Some sort of educational revolution in teaching and learning?

Questions like these demand thoughtful and patient democratic deliberation. But we’re not getting that deliberation. In today's deeply unequal America, we’re rushing instead toward a national educational future that profits the awesomely affluent few at the expense of America's many.

The most striking manifestation of this rush: the near quarter-million students enrolled full-time in the “virtual schools” that now operate — at taxpayer expense — in 27 states. These schools have no physical classrooms, no playgrounds, and no in-person teachers.

In these online “academies,” young students sit in front of home computers. Their parents serve as “learning coaches,” following instructions they read on screen. Remotely located teachers monitor and grade the students. One of these remote teachers at the elementary level can have as many as 60 students.

The results from this “learning” process can be ugly. A New York Times investigation last December concluded that K12 Inc., one of the nation’s top two online school providers, “tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload, and lowering standards.”

In Tennessee, where a 2011 law let local school systems contract with for-profit online schools, about 1,800 K-8 students “attended” K12’s Tennessee Virtual Academy last year. Virtual Academy students, data from the state education department show, “performed in the bottom 11 percent of schools statewide.”

Other studies — out of Stanford and Western Michigan University — have shown similarly dismal academic results.

All these online schools owe their existence to our public tax dollars. How could local and state education officials allow public tax dollars to underwrite these virtual schools? Don’t we have rules and regulations designed to protect students from commercial exploitation?

We do. But in more and more states these rules don’t apply. What one analyst has described as a tight-knot network of “right-wing millionaires and billionaires, bankers, industrialists, lobby shops, and hardcore ideologues” is carving out an ever-growing space where “virtually” anything goes.

In Maine, for instance, the state’s right-wing governor has “formally embraced” a ten-point plan that sweeps away hard-won protections for students — and taxpayers.

The plan the governor backs axes “restrictions on online student-to-teacher ratios” and requires taxpayers to pay online providers by the same per-pupil funding formula that covers students in regular brick-and-mortar public schools.

The text for the Maine governor’s executive order earlier this year on behalf of online providers, the Portland Press Herald last week revealed, came directly from a Florida think tank funded by the online virtual school companies “that stand to make millions of dollars” as the governor’s new initiative goes forward.

These same corporations are spending a bundle more on lobbying and political contributions. And behind them lurk a host of super-rich conservative ideologues with a deep animus toward traditional public schools, facilities that they consider “islands of socialism in a free-market sea.”

Among these super rich: Dick and Betsey DeVos, heirs to the Amway fortune. They’re bankrolling the American Federation for Children and an assortment of other innocent-sounding groups that push public funding for private schools.

Meanwhile, regular public schools are facing massive budget shortfalls. In 35 states, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, state education funding for the current school year has dropped below 2008 finding levels.

School districts have had to eliminate over 328,000 jobs — at the same time the nation’s K-12 student population has increased by 535,000 students.

Schools today don’t just have more students to educate. In today’s depressed economy, they have more poor students. But corporate-friendly education “reformers” don’t like to talk about poverty.

For good reason. If you don’t talk about poverty, the absence of wealth, you don’t have to talk about wealth’s concentration — and the private power over public policy that this concentration inevitably forges.