There that word is again, prosperity, being brought up in connection with Obama’s second inaugural address, this time by The New York Times editorialists, who futilely try to make some contrast between the swearer, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the swearee, Obama.
The Times(wo)men, to be politically correct, claim that for the president “prosperity enables justice and vice versa.” They then quote from the speech: “Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”
Obama reads from Teleprompter. (AP photo)
Next they leap into the abyss and proffer that the Roberts court has ruled justice and prosperity might even be antithetical. For this they cited rulings that protect corporations from overreaching, my word not theirs, class-action lawsuits that amount to little more than full-employment for lawyers and pennies for plaintiffs. They also whine again about the Citizens United case that allows corporations and unions to spend money on political campaigns. Reminder to Times(wo)men: Romney lost.
The editorial declared:
“The connection between justice and prosperity is clear and strong. ‘Economic growth,’ the scholar Benjamin Friedman documented, ‘more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness and dedication to democracy.’”
Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. The Times(wo)men are correct.
The only problem is — under their icon of equality, the overarching theme of Obama’s speech — there has been no economic growth and an increase in inequality. How much longer can he and they blame Bush?
In the speech Obama said:
“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”
But, as John Merline points out in a front-page piece in Investor’s Business Daily today and I mentioned the blog posting yesterday, his economic policies have caused the majority of Americans to slip further behind, while the upper crust has risen.
Census data show, Merline reports, that the wealthiest one-fifth of families became wealthier in 2011, while every other segment suffered losses, with the poorest households dropping almost 8 percent. Median household income has fallen 7 percent since Obama first took office. The number of food stamp recipients is up 46 percent and the number of people below the poverty line is up 2.7 million.
Contrast this to the Reagan recovery, when average incomes among the bottom 20 percent climbed 14 percent and those in the middle climbed 13 percent, the article notes.
But Obama’s speech hardly mentioned the economy.
Then there is the latest rendition of my father’s oft repeated aphorism — “Great minds travel in the same plane, but fools just think alike.” — with the Heritage Foundation’s translation of the speech, in which they observed, as I did two days ago, that the comment about “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores …” was little more than a regurgitation of “You didn’t build that.”
As for his green energy push, Heritage’s translation is: “I will continue to increase regulations on the energy sources we use and throw taxpayer money into ‘green’ energy companies.”
Obama and his henchmen at the Times can talk in circles and make grand promises while pushing the same liberal agenda, but the outcome will not changes unless Congress can somehow curb spending and let the private sector thrive again, as it did under Reagan. That’s when economic inequality will shrink instead of grow.
Touching to see that Mr. Mitchell now believes in the importance of reducing significant income inequalities.
However, income disparities grew under Reagan.
And separate studies by the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center found that Obama’s actual enacted policies (as opposed to the knock-on effects of the Great Recession that Mr. Mitchell takes advantage of) had significant redistributional effects.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/health-care-reform-how-much-does-it-redistribute-income
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3355&DocTypeID=2
I care less about the disparities than the fact that any segment is declining. A growing economy should lift all.
________________________________
Caring little about the growing disparity implies that you see no need for a middle class. True or false, Thomas?
Hey – I just noticed in Mr. Mitchell’s post that little bit of classic Tea Party snark about Obama and teleprompters.
Brings me back to those halcyon days of 2009-10.
As I said, Rincon, and now you are acting like Petey, I care less about the disparity between segments than the fact any sector is losing income and wealth. The housing bust especially hurt the middle income and minorities, by the way.
________________________________
I followed the speech transcript on my computer while he spoke. He varied hardly a syllable.
________________________________
That is why I actually like Biden, he goes off script and we get a window into his real thoughts.
Stunning that a President of the United States wouldn’t ad lib during an inaugural address.
Perhaps Bill Ayres wrote the speech, eh?
Because when Barack Obama ad libs he really hurts Las Vegas. So Nyp I have to say I totally agree, this President should NEVER go off script.
Maybe Ayers did. Sounded like him.
Steve, did it really hurt Las Vegas when Obama advised people to not blow their money on trips to Vegas? Not freaking much, he carried this area easily and the media rejoiced in his ten minute campaign stops enroute to other cities where there were bigger fish to fry.
Yeah, the County of Clark, actually North East L.A. wouldn’t be swayed from their gimme free stuff southern CA roots. They really think he and his kind are their only friends, only in it to help and do anything for them.
I really hate to repeat myself, but, nothings free.
Legitimizing greed and subsidizing wealthy people is poor policy, Thomas. The growing disparity of income that we’ve been experiencing for 30 years is an indicator of this process and signals the decline of our middle class.
I believe that the rich should pay at the very least the same percentage of their income in taxes as the middle class, yet they routinely pay less. They get a discount even though they can afford it more than anyone else. The 18% income tax paid by the 400 wealthiest people in this country is a good example of this. I too wouild like to pay 18% for my income tax, but I guess I’m not quit rich enough yet.
Smart businesspeople regularly suck a maximum amount of money from their business knowing that if business flags, they have a choice of reinvesting or if that’s not likely to pay off, declaring bankruptcy and leaving creditors and investors holding the bag while they enjoy spending their millions. Moving money offshore is apparently a common pastime among the rich as well. Subsidies for wealthy farmers and corporations also come to mind.
Hell, before he messed up in Las Vegas, O.J. Simpson lived a rich lifestyle while owing millions to the Brown family just because his lawyers were smart enough to have him purchase a mansion in Florida.
One hazard of this process is the likely emergence of class envy if this continues to get worse. The middle and lower classes have a lot more voting power than the rich. I wouldn’t be surprised if they decide to balance things out again by using the power of the vote.
“Legitimizing greed and subsidizing wealthy people is poor policy, Thomas”?
I don’t recall endorsing either, but greed needs no legitimizing. As for subsidizing the wealthy, both parties have been guilty.
I too have no idea what “legitimizing greed” means. Making a lot of money and living in a McMansion is a personal choice in which I don’t think government ought to have much of an interest, if any.
That’s not to say that large-scale social inequality isn’t a matter of concern. It is, as anyone who has spent time in Latin America can attest to. And there might be other reasons for society to discourage McMansion-building.
But “greed” itself isn’t a relevant subject of public policy.
Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one’s self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
Seems to me that giving tax breaks to the rich so that they are in a lower tax bracket than the rest of us legitimizes or at the very least enables their “markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth and power.”
If we get past the emotional connotation, the phrase fits.
“Yeah, the County of Clark, actually North East L.A. wouldn’t be swayed from their gimme free stuff southern CA roots.”
Thanks for enlightening me on this, Steve. We have the problem with Californians coming to northern Nevada to get away from California, then they try to transform this area into California after they get here. Clark County’s a whole lot bigger, so I didn’t think you guys would have the same problem.
I see bumper stickers around Reno that say “I don’t care how you did things in California.” Do they have those in Las Vegas too?
Since Rincon’s on a big crusade against greed, does he support Rosanne Barr’s proposal to behead people who won’t “voluntarily” turn over their personal fortunes in excess of $100 million?
I gotta admit, the thought of seeing the return of the guillotine had me seriously thinking of supporting her presidential bid.
I like the cars in Las Vegas with California plates and NY Giants stickers on the rear window. I just bet these people have a bunch of left and lefty (right) coast in their blood.But we are a tourist town, Milty, I want people to keep coming here and spending their money.
Remember the good old days when Roseanne Barr was funny? Will she be first in line for the beheading?
Milty, do I sound that extreme? It does make me wonder how much Roseanne is worth? Probably 99 million:)
Although I question the priorities of the megarich, I’m not big on regulating against them. I am adamant that they should pay at least the same percentage of their income for taxes as we do. Someday maybe they will.
I don’t share your optimism, Rincon.
The only method I’m aware of to have everyone pay the same percentage of their income for taxes is to go to a pure flat tax. No mortgage deduction, no charitable contribution deduction, no deductions period. And absolutely no progressivity in rates, everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
Ain’t never gonna happen.
You’ve got a good head on your shoulders, Milty. I do suspect that mild progressivity may be worthwhile, but I’d be willing to try the flat tax with deductions eliminated and see if our middle class recovers.
A flat tax would do very well, but for human nature. People simply will not accept the wealthy paying the same as they are. Even as it would be a huge dollar amount more than they do, like today. The wealthy do pay a larger dollar amount, so large that most would love to simply have the tax dollars these people pay. Even at the lower percentage they pay.
Jealousy is human nature. In fact an even better tax would be a poll tax. No percentage, every person pays exactly the same dollar amount to cover government costs. Every penny above this amount remains with its owner.
We do this with gas prices but we are fooled by the tenths of a penny pricing into thinking we got a better price than the other guy. But gas prices are a great example of a poll tax.
Wealthy people pay the same dollars to fill the tank as the middle class and the poor. Anything over that is kept by the owners, for other uses.
A poll tax is the fairest of them all and every single time its been attempted violent riots and protests have been the result.
Human nature and jealousy, no way to overcome those. Progressive (regressive) taxes are the only thing those with less than others will accept even as those taxes actually cost those with less than others more in actual dollars as a whole.
My main concern about going to a pure flat tax is the charitable deductions.
About four years ago, I began to diligently tithe 10% of my income to my church. It’s tax deductible and don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being able to take this deduction on my income tax returns every year.
When President Obama first took office, there was some talk about doing away with the tax deduction for charitable contributions. My first reaction was indignation that they would do this. I must confess (ashamedly so) that I took the attitude that I would quit tithing if this deduction went away. But the more time I’ve had to think about it, and the longer I’ve had to get into the habit of tithing, the more I realize that the money I tithe goes to a good purpose. I’m now pretty much resolved to continue with what I’m doing whether I can deduct it from my taxes or not. My concern is that there are a lot of other people who won’t give to charity anymore if the tax deduction goes away.
I also own my own home, but I’ve never considered the mortgage deduction to be a big deal.
You’re showing your human nature too, Steve by refusing to accept what you believe a majority of voters will want. You don’t think the will of the majority should prevail (in general)? By insisting that all pay the same percentage, you’re implicitly forcing the people working for less than minimum wage to pay the same share of their paltry existance as the megarich. Perhaps a compromise is in order. We could tax a consistent percentage of DISPOSABLE income or perhaps allow a small gradation of tax brackets to keep the masses happy. I doubt if any in the higher brackets will suffer too greatly.
Donating to a church is generally a good and honorable use of one’s money, but granting tax deductibility only to federally registered organizations exacerbates the federal control that you hate so much. What if you choose to donate to a friend that needs medical treatment? No deduction. And we all know about “churches” whose pastor skims millions or charities that exist only to pay exorbitant salaries to their executives. Or in my case, I have animal shelters nearby taking food out of my mouth with their tax deductible contributions by spaying and neutering pets for rich and poor alike. Why should they enjoy tax free status? Let all compete on an even playing field.
The church utilizes government services just like the rest of us. They should help pay for them just like the rest of us.
Or the mega rich paying the same as the little guy, Either way it restricts the government to a budget. And its in no way my idea or in any way a new idea. Perhaps I should say tax per head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_per_head
Like I also made a point of, its never worked. Always results in riots and protest. It is the fairest because once anyone achieves that amount they are done paying for government that year, then they can go on to make whatever they want.
But you seemed to get my base points 1) Taxes taxes have to be enacted in a way that keeps the masses happy. And 2) there are many ways of taxing that are much fairer than those that “keep the masses happy”.
http://www.google.com/search?q=poll+tax&aq=f&oq=poll+tax&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Agreed Steve. The goal is to make the fairest tax that the voters will allow. I think my compromises are a reasonable way to accomplish that.
Not really, the best goal would be to educate the populace in what would be the most fair of any tax structure options.
Then get us to enact those.
After that encourage everyone to grow as much as they really want.
So how many decades do you think it will take? With our middle class becoming relatively poorer each year, I’m not sure how anyone is going to convince the majority to vote against their own self interest just so they can be sure that the rich aren’t treated “unfairly”.
‘.
Decades? No way. Unless you would put resources equal to those the IPCC have into the education effort. And I say many in power really don’t want that, they get to play around with all out money far to easily as things stand now, they won’t let go of that power easily.
Keep in mind its not so one group would be treated different from another, all would pay exactly the same amount. What could be more fair? After all, we already do this with the price of gasoline. Or would you prefer the price of gasoline be determined based on ones income?
If you have another way of halting the decline of the middle class that we are experiencing now, I agree. Otherwise, an indexed income tax and a death tax for that matter, would help offset the natural tendency for the rich to get richer at the expsense of the commoners.
I do have a rhetorical question: Is there a point when a small number of individuals have too much money for society to be healthy? I suspect so. If we took it to it’s logical extreme, I suspect that having 98% of the wealth in the hands of say, 100 individuals would be undesirable. If you agree, then where do you think the cutoff would be?
It would be better for everyone to have an equal chance to create wealth on their own. Getting government out of the way would be best and a true flat tax is one that costs everyone exactly the same.
But you are showing the very trouble with even trying to make most people understand it.
The rich do not get richer at the expsense of the commoners.
We do not all have anywhere near the same chance of creating wealth and would not with a flat tax either. People with substantial assets often make more money from their investments than they do from their labor. Those born with a silver spoon in their mouth have the means to create much more wealth than those from more common backgrounds for the same reason. There’s also everything in between. That’s not wrong by itself, but means that your statement could use a little modification. Am I correct to assume that with a flat tax, you would treat capital gains income the same way as income from labor?
One fee for everyone.