Those who fail to remember history … will see their life savings wiped out

Foreclosure sign in Las Vegas (R-J photo)

When your life savings disappear when the bubble bursts again, who ya gonna blame? But what difference does it make then?

Heritage Foundation fellow Stephen Moore has an interesting — and all too familiar — lede on one of his two columns posted online Friday.

Moore tells of his 13-year-old son talking at the dinner table about how Franklin Roosevelt ended the Great Depression. That’s what his history book says. “Of course, the New Deal exacerbated the pain and financial devastation of a stock market crash, and unemployment lingered in double digits for a decade after Roosevelt was elected until the start of World War II. We get this kind of rampant revisionism because the left writes the history books — which they are doing right now,” Moore morosely relates.

He goes on to note how the Great Recession is being blamed on greedy bankers and a lack of regulation, and now Ben Bernanke in the Wall Street Journal is claiming he saved the economy with $3 trillion in quantitative easing and zero interest rates, though this is what actually created the crash.

“As my fellow Heritage colleague Norbert Michel and other scholars have thoroughly documented, the crash of 2008 was caused by government policies and regulatory failure, including easy money policies that flooded the markets with debt,” Moore writes. “Within a decade, these policies led to preposterous mortgage loans being issued, and massive over-leverage of government, companies, and households.”

Easy credit caused housing prices to balloon until they burst in a foreclosure crisis.

In a separate column on the same theme in Investor’s Business Daily, Moore points out that Fannie and Freddie are again guaranteeing mortgages with down payments as low as 3 percent — “the same subprime mortgages that crashed eight years ago. The housing lobby demands it, and Congress complies. So taxpayers are back on the hook with the same Fannie and Freddie policies that required $150 billion in bailouts.”

The blame game is easy to play after the fact, but the problem is that no one is learning from the history just what caused the problem and acting to prevent a reoccurrence.

Here is a FactCheck.org run down from 2008 trying to explain what caused the Great Recession — a partial list at best:

  • The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

  • Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

  • Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

  • Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

  • The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

  • Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

  • Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

  • Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

  • The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

  • An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

  • Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

Sound familiar?

They left out federal government debt.

In 2008 the debt was $10 trillion. Now it is $18 trillion, but low interest rates are protecting Obama and foisting the problem onto the next administration, possibly a Republican one, to take the blame. Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling and have Congress let him write a blank check.

Even Donald Trump, whose crystal ball is often clouded, sees the problem ahead. He told The Hill recently a crash is coming. “You know who gets hurt the most? People who practice the American dream and did what should have been the right way — the people that went through 40 years of their life and saved a hundred dollars every week …” Trump said. “They worked all their lives to save and now what happens is they’re being forced into an inflated stock market and at some point they’ll get wiped out.”

Moore concludes:

“The point is that government and politicians have no learning curve. All of the conditions of financial wreckage are reappearing. The presidential candidates should start warning voters that Washington is rebuilding another financial house of cards.

“If they don’t, when the financial crash comes and Americans see their life savings disappear, the media and the history books will again blame conservatives for the destruction from the rampant financial negligence of government.”

 

Advertisements

71 comments on “Those who fail to remember history … will see their life savings wiped out

  1. Patrick says:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/#episode-one

    Apparently Steven Moore believes that the policeman who fails to stop a crime, is more guilty than the perpetrator of the crime.

    All of course feeding directly into the rights insistence that government be reduced so it it can be drowned in a bathtub. First make the government small, then blame it for what it has failed to do; there is a certain heinous symmetry to that I guess.

    The truth is, obviously, that the capitalist system, which absolutely demands greed, and the most destructive greed, be practiced and was encouraged by the right, until the inevitable consequences were visited on the world.

  2. Patrick says:

    And another…..misunderstanding Mr. Moore seems to have regarding school books and what students are being taught; it sure isn’t liberal.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/12/proposed-texas-textbooks-are-inaccurate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/

  3. The story contains not a single quote from any textbook. It is all innuendo and opinion from a group that describes itself as a monitor of far-right groups.

    Remember my theory of political relativity?

  4. Patrick says:

    “McGraw-Hill School Education – United States Government

    Text mentions Moses and claims that the “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.””

    I suspect you didn’t read far enough into the article Thomas. There are many quotes taken from cited texts.

    The above is just one.

  5. Patrick says:

    “McGraw-Hill School Education – United States Government

    Text mentions Moses and claims that the “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”

    The article indeed quoted specific passages from cited textbooks Thomas. The above is just one.

  6. Patrick says:

    There are lots of quotes Thomas. Maybe you didn’t read the full article.

    “McGraw-Hill School Education – United States Government

    Text mentions Moses and claims that the “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”

  7. Anyone who won’t at least acknowledge the political correctness and pervasive progressive leftist bent & revisionism that has invaded our public school system (including textbooks) from elementary school to the universities…is simply not paying attention, or has their head firmly planted between their butt cheeks. One need only examine the guiding principles of the NEA and the NSEA…to verify this.

  8. That is not a quote from the textbook, Patrick. It is the opinion of the critic.

  9. Barbara says:

    Capitalism does not demadn greed – it demands profit and private ownership. Socialism is the economic system built on greed. Socialists want what others have but without the hard work to achieve the same.

    The capitalist economic system has done more to lift the economic conditions of the worlds poor than any other system. Hard to spin history if one is being honest.

  10. Dan Mitchell’s two-cow explanation of governance:

    Cows and Government

    Socialism

    You have two cows. The government takes one and gives one to your neighbor.

    Communism

    You have two cows. The government takes them both and promises you milk but you starve.

    Fascism

    You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

    Bureaucracy

    You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.

    Capitalism

    You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

    Bain Capitalism

    You have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce the milk of four cows and then act surprised when it drops dead.

    Redistributionism

    You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point that you must sell them both in order to support someone else who already got a free cow from the government.

  11. Rincon says:

    So far as I can calculate, there are about 3,300,000 in the 1%. They are worth about 26 trillion dollars. If they paid the entire debt, all of it, they would still each have a net worth of $24 million. This is if we ONLY tapped the 1%. There’s plenty of money to pay off the debt, but while the middle class is still earning the same income as they did in the ’70’s, the rich are rolling in dough. Conservatives though, wouldn’t THINK of asking them to pay even a penny more. Somehow, they expect the middle class to cough it up. Dream on, fools. Blood from a turnip.

    The mortgage disasters occur because while the middle class insists on such luxuries as air conditioning and computers, they don’t have the money to pay for them, so they borrow, handing banks even more of their hard earned cash, making the middle class even poorer. When it all crashes, the bankers keep their million dollar bonuses and get government rescues while the millions being foreclosed upon are fed to the sharks. The rich run America. To hell with the middle class.

  12. Patrick says:

    Thomas I believe you are incorrect. The authors do indeed quote the text when they state that the “Text mentions Moses and claims that the”. Then begins quoting from the text directly set off with quotation makes.

    “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”

    The analysis and critiscism follows, but this quote is from the text.

  13. Patrick says:

    Of course capitalism demands greed. In fact, without greed capitalism cannot exist.

    And, if only Dan Mitchell had done “capitalism” as it truly exists, it would something like this:

    Capitalism:

    A man realizes his neighbors love fish, and are willing to trade things he desires for fish he provides and so, he kills every fish in his local stream, using poison so that they confidently float to the surface, and then sells the poison fish to his neighbors.

    Thankfully there was no rule in place that prevented him from using poison in such fashion, and because there were no rules in place that forced him to tell his neighbors that the fish were now poisonous, he was protected by the capitalist system from any consequences.

    Luckily, although there were no more fish, and no more fresh water in the town, because he had plenty of money, from selling the poisonous fish to his now sick, dead, or dying neighbors, he was able to move to a better town, where the fish still lived, and the water was still clean.

    And then he realized, that his new neighbors liked fish too.

  14. Patrick says:

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2014-11-19/sboe-evades-an-initial-vote-on-social-studies-books/

    Here’s another article Thomas where the author quotes the text thusly:

    (Mentioning Moses, the text reads: The “biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind of agreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure.”)

    “The text reads” can hardly be interpreted any other way than as a quote of the text right?

  15. OK, that apparently is from the text and not the critique.

    Here is how they nitpicked the text:

    We, the undersigned, write in reference to proposed social studies textbooks and materials thatyou have submitted for approval in Texas this year. As scholars teaching this material at theuniversity level, we are committed to ensuring that public schools provide an accurate andunbiased education about American history and government. Such an education must include arobust discussion of the relationship between religion and our nation’s founding. Without anunderstanding of this relationship, students’ knowledge about our history would be incomplete.Unfortunately, your textbooks exaggerate and even invent claims about the influence of Moses andthe “Judeo-Christian tradition” on our nation’s founding and on Western political traditions.To cite a few representative examples:• “When the Framers set out to write the Constitution, they drew upon the wisdom ofphilosophers, historians and economists. Here are a few of the people whose words influencedthe content of that remarkable document.” Moses is listed first on this list, followed by Locke,Montesquieu, and Blackstone. The “concept” Moses is alleged to have contributed is that “Anation needs a written code of behavior.” (Perfection Learning)• “[The] biblical idea of a covenant, an ancient Jewish term meaning a special kind ofagreement between the people and God, influenced the formation of colonial governments andcontributed to our constitutional structure.” (emphasis added) (McGraw-Hill)• “The roots of democratic government in today’s world – including government in the UnitedStates…include elements related to Judeo-Christian philosophy, dating back thousands ofyears to Old Testament texts and Biblical figures such as Moses and Solomon.” (Pearson)These and similar passages mislead students about the nature of the religious influence on ourfounding and directly contradict scholarly consensus in our fields. They distort the legacy of ourFounders and major Biblical figures by misrepresenting their ideas and actions.The opportunity to educate our nation’s students comes with a responsibility to treat studentsand our nation’s past with respect. We take this responsibility seriously. By eliminating theexaggerations and inventions in your textbooks about the influence of religion on our founding,you can demonstrate that you take this responsibility seriously as well.We ask that you revise your proposed materials to make them historically accurate and faithful tomainstream scholarship in our fields.

    http://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769818951

  16. Patrick says:

    Thomas I think the article I originally cited did an admirable job quoting the actual texts, and the reason why the critique was offered. As you know, the School books chosen by Texas, are used across the US for lots of reasons mostly because of the size of the purchases made in Texas and the…difficulty (and most costs) of publishing other texts for other school districts.

    The conservative bent of these books has been subject to lots of controversy and is in sharp contrast to the public perception, mouthed here by HFB, that the books are somehow “liberal”.

    I mean, the following passage? Seriously? It’s akin to suggesting that Columbus was hero to the indigenous people because the fires he used to burn them with used only the best European wood.

    Discovery Education — Social Studies Techbook World Geography and Cultures

    The text states: “When Europeans arrived, they brought Christianity with them and spread it among the indigenous people. Over time, Christianity became the main religion in Latin America.”

    How does this passage “educate” children? It’s nothing but abusive, false, propaganda but it is what conservatives want so, it’s what they get.

    Just enough of the absurd propaganda about the liberal bent of he public schools from the likes of. Mr. Moore.

  17. Christianity became the main religion of the Americas. That happens to be a fact, but that is not as important as indoctrination in libel victimhood.

  18. Barbara says:

    Income inequality has substantially increased under the Obama administration, and he is anything but conservative. Likewise, government regulation has exploded. Given these undisputable facts, how do conservatives, limited government, and capitalism get the blame for income inequality? Look at the Soviet Union prior to it’s collapse and you will see the same phenomenon.

  19. Patrick says:

    Yes Thomas, and Hitler “became” leader of Germany. So I suppose, given that this is a fact, explaining the way by which he became it’s leader, would be merely an effort to indoctrinate people in liberal victim hood.

  20. Patrick says:

    Jews, at one time in Poland, comprised a large percentage of its population, and then that changed.

    I suppose, since the above is a fact, explaining how that happened, would merely be an effort to indocrtrinate students in liberal victimhood?

  21. Steve says:

    He who invokes Hitler has lost the high ground and, indeed, the debate.

  22. Patrick says:

    Bumper sticker philosophy is a conservatives best friend; never knew one yet that understood something that didn’t fit on one.

  23. Steve says:

    Yet again, Patrick proves my statement, Rincon.

  24. Winston Smith says:

    http://greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/reverse.html

    Deuteronomy, Chapter 1, starting at verse 13. Moses is speaking to the children of Israel…

    13. Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
    14. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
    15. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
    16. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
    17. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

    Now, can it be stated empirically that this section of the Old Testament, which explains how the governing of the people of Israel would function under the covenant, did not influence “the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure”?

  25. Patrick says:

    The burden is not on anyone doubting, but affirmatively on the text that asserts it as a fact. That sort of proof might include comments from the drafters that they saw the Constitution as a “covenant” between a God and the citizens of the United States.

    Now, I’m guessing there isn’t any such “proof” and so, to write it, as if it were true, in a textbook given to students in this country, is a lie.

    So, there you go.

  26. iShrug says:

    Dan Mitchell’s “Two Cows” explanation should be part of the curriculum in schools. If students understood this, it would be to their advantage. Rincon’s notion that wealth ought to be confiscated in order to bail the nation’s debt is ridiculous. This has been done already — voluntarily — yet didn’t prevent government from overspending and running up our current debt.
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/06/j-p-morgan-and-the-reverse-bailout-that-saved-the-u-s/

  27. Rincon says:

    “Income inequality has substantially increased under the Obama administration, and he is anything but conservative.” It sounds like you’re saying that this is evidence that “rule by Liberals” perpetuates income inequality. I don’t care a whit whether you think Obama is a “good Liberal” or not. The fact is, one of the most important steps according to Liberal thinking, in addressing income inequality is to increase taxes on the rich or decrease them on the middle class. This has not been done, so obviously, Liberals were unable to accomplish their stated objective. You can hypothesize that Liberals today aren’t really trying to address the issue, but it’s absurd to proclaim that we’ve done what Liberals say needs to be done.

  28. Rincon says:

    “He who invokes Hitler has lost the high ground and, indeed, the debate.’ So Steve proclaims that saying anything about Hitler is off limits. What wisdom!

    Rincon’s notion that wealth ought to be confiscated in order to bail the nation’s debt is ridiculous.” The middle class hasn’t had a raise in 50 years while the rich have soared in their wealth, so the middle class should pay off the debt on their 1973 income. I suppose there’s some sort of twisted logic here, but it sounds like dogma to me. The rich grabbed all of that extra wealth by use of power. I merely propose that the middle class use their power to get it back. Turnabout is fair play. It happened in the Gilded Age and the result was the emergence of a vibrant middle class. It needs to happen again.

  29. Please explain to me how confiscating all the wealth at the top…and redistributing it to the bottom, helps the middle class? You want to help the middle class…enact the Fair Tax…they will begin to receive ALL of their pay check…not just a portion of it. Replace Obamacare…the middle class has been slapped with much higher premiums. And get the federal government…out of the way (balanced budget amendment, the Penny Plan, less taxes, less bureaucratic regulation, less environmental nonsense, etc) and let small business and the entrepreneurs of this once great republic turn this ship around…AGAIN! And send Bernie & the rest of the socialists posting here to their dream countries…Denmark & Greece!

  30. Barbara says:

    “The fact is, one of the most important steps according to Liberal thinking, in addressing income inequality is to increase taxes on the rich or decrease them on the middle class. This has not been done, so obviously, Liberals were unable to accomplish their stated objective.”

    From Curtis Dubay with the Heritage Foundation:

    Obama insisted and got the following tax increases in 2013:

    1. Payroll Tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”

    2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

    3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

    4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

    5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

    6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.

    7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.

    Obamacare tax increases that took effect:

    8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).

    9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).

    10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.

    11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.

    12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to the Medicare Part D subsidy.

    13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.

    “Each of these 13 tax increases will slow the economy, meaning that businesses will create fewer jobs. Fewer jobs will make it even more difficult to land a job than it already is for the more than 12 million Americans looking for work.”

    Learn from history. Economic freedom in the form of low taxes, less regulation, and strong property rights increases the standard of living of ALL classes. My great-grandparents came to America to escape the environment of “classes” prevalent in Europe where there was no opportunity to own land or start a business. Liberal dogma about redistribution of wealth only results in less economic growth which hurts the middle class more than those who are already wealthy.

  31. Barbara says:

    Ronald Reagan said when he was an actor, he only made 2 movies a year because making a 3rd would have meant paying a 90% tax rate on what he was paid for the 3rd movie. His standard of living was not affected, but all the other actors, production crew, administrative personnel, etc lost this income opportunity.

    If you got the tax policy and regulatory policy you wanted, you would see even more erosion of the middle class.,

  32. Steve says:

    In my search for employment, I have been approached by several recruiters. In the process of discussing compensation packages it rapidly comes to light they are all looking to offer as little as possible (typical and normal).

    But there has been an addition on this front.

    Since the ACA they are not offering insurance coverage for spouses and dependents. The coverage offered for employees is “ACA compliant”. Bottom line, a bronze type plan with huge deductibles that must be paid out of pocket before insurance takes over. (similar to the coverage Rincon purchased).

    They all suggest, at the pay ranges they are willing to pay, the family members get covered under the ACA. The subsidies would make up the difference. ACA requires the employee to take the employer plan but it does not require employers to offer it to dependents, nor does it require dependents to take it from the employer if offered at all…even at full price which this last one does.
    This pushes the employee in the direction of finding better prices and that leads to the ACA subsidy.

    Now, ACA was designed to subsidize much of the middle class, this is true. But it was claimed employers would pay more to cover the difference. This is not the case, they have moved in the opposite direction, paying less because they can take advantage of ACA to subsidize their own operation by getting family members off their insurance plans.

    Liberals constantly complain about something they call “corporate welfare” and liberals created the ACA…a brand new form of that very thing…good job guys.

  33. nyp says:

    I wonder why that so-called 90% tax rate (it wasn’t, really) was in place during the period of modern America’s greatest growth?

  34. Glenn Cook:

    “As I’ve written before, if Congress declared a national household income limit of just $200,000 and taxed every dime beyond that at 100 percent, it would raise a little more than $1.2 trillion in new revenue, enough to balance the budget and expand domestic spending by $700 billion or so. Then the economy would tank as private investment came to a screeching halt.

    “The Wall Street Journal determined that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ agenda would cost about $1.8 trillion per year in new spending. He’d need more money.”

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/glenn-cook/democratic-debate-shows-myth-making-machine-running-full-power

  35. Nyp says:

    So sad to see Barbara and Thomas Mitchell trashing the way the US of A was back in the ’50s.

  36. Steve says:

    I say we take the income tax rate back to what it was (and envisioned) when it was made constitutional.

    Here is a Wiki article.

    Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of 15,300,000 in 2012 dollars[20]) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was only 15%.[21] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000, equivalent of 2,500,000 in 2012 dollars[22])in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.[23]

    Better yet, repeal the 16th and go back to Tariff taxes since we exported all the manufacturing and now import everything!

  37. Rincon says:

    Thank you for going to the trouble of finding all of those tax increases Barbara. I was unaware of several of them.

    The changes made are sort of a hodgepodge of progressive, regressive and neutral taxes.
    1) The payroll tax, of course, hits the middle class harder than the rich.
    2) A 39% max tax rate is a good start, but compared to Reagan’s 90%, it’s still quite small in comparison. Like a dinghy trying to turn a battleship around. It’s practical value is limited though, since the truly rich generally avoid that rate anyway. Mitt Romney famously paid only 16% despite his huge income for example.
    3) This is a $3900 hike, but for a billionaire, it’s a pittance.
    4) CBS gave an example of a couple making $500,000/year with 70,000 worth of itemized deductions. The cost to them: $2100, or less than 1/2%
    5) True progress. Maybe someday, we’ll tax capital gains for the rich at 39% – much higher, but still far less than Reagan’s 90%
    6) 5% more on the estate tax is worthwhile, but my understanding is that the megarich usually get around it through the use of trusts, etc. Anyone know how pervasive that is?
    7) I confess to ignorance on this one.
    8-13) Obamacare taxes. The cost of medical care in this country has been growing less rapidly since Obamacare came along. Does that calculation include these taxes? If so, the taxes merely shift some of the cost of medical care from the other patients, as in the past, to the taxpayer. You didn’t mention that the tax on hospital patients dropped dramatically as the Obamacare taxes came along.

    “Each of these 13 tax increases will slow the economy, meaning that businesses will create fewer jobs.” I consider this to be an unproven article of faith among Conservatives.

    I can’t tell for sure about REdistribution, but I know that in the distribution, the rich got all of the extra bucks. Extra productivity did exactly zero for those in the middle class, so as far as they are concerned, lower taxes have given us a 50 year recession.

  38. nyp says:

    So, Barbara, why is it that following Bush’s tax cuts private sector job creation actually fell, while under the tyranical, oppressive Obama administration the private sector has added more than eight million jobs?

  39. Barbara says:

    The Bush tax cuts were initially phased in too slowly to have much impact. When the cuts were accelerated in 2003, job growth accelerated. Obama acknowledge in 2010 that the tax cuts were working as he extended them and added the 2 percent cut to social security taxes.

    Even so, Bush actually expanded the federal government. If you want a true picture of conservative policies and their effect, you need to go back to Reagan’s presidency. Reagan created 15.8 million jobs and all income levels rose, not just the top 1 percent.

  40. nyp says:

    Of course, Reagan was a slacker compared to Bill Clinton. More than 22 million jobs were created during his tenure — despite tax increases that Republicans predicted would destroy America. (But, they always say that.) And, of course, more jobs were created during the 8 years of JFK/LBJ, despite those so-called 90% top marginal rates.

    I’m sure someone from the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation/Club for Growth can expain that all away.

  41. Patrick says:

    nyp:

    But Reagan (and bush) were no slackers when it comes to increasing the number of public employees.

    Term Public Sector
    Jobs Added (000s)
    Carter 1,304
    Reagan 1 -24
    Reagan 2 1,438
    GHW Bush 1,127
    Clinton 1 692
    Clinton 2 1,242
    GW Bush 1 900
    GW Bush 2 844
    Obama 1 -713
    Obama 2 451
    120 months into 2nd term, 108 pace

    Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html#j3Bdp1eol1DkSqbe.99

    But naturally, during the terms of “the socialist” President Obama, these numbers decreased.

  42. Winston Smith says:

    “The rich grabbed all of that extra wealth by use of power.” – Come now, Rincon, this unsupported premise is used all too often to legitimize redistribution. This broad statement, basically indicting all of the “rich”, whoever those are, as using some unidentified “power” in order to “grab all of the extra wealth”, is both far too general, and patently unprovable.

    “That sort of proof might include comments from the drafters that they saw the Constitution as a ‘covenant’ between a God and the citizens of the United States.” – Sorry, patrick, but this concept is NOT what you quoted from the textbook…

    Influencing “the formation of colonial governments and contributed to our constitutional structure”, is not the same as seeing the Constitution as a covenant between “a God and the citizens”.

    The Biblical or Judeo/Christian influences on the formation of colonial government started with the Mayflower Compact in 1620:

    “Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

    Eighteen years later, the Reverend Thomas Hooker from Connecticut outlined the aforementioned section of Deuteronomy 1 as being a source of colonial democracy:

    http://connecticuthistory.org/the-free-consent-of-the-people-thomas-hooker-and-the-fundamental-orders/

    From that time on, through the 1700’s, there continued to be Biblical influence in colonial governments, and even after separation from England, many of the new states reaffirmed religious influence by requiring office holders to have Christian sensibilities, such as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Maryland.
    Of course, the Declaration of Independence, states emphatically that our natural, inalienable rights come from our Creator, a concept which is supported specifically by several Founders:

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” – John Adams

    “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

    “The rights and freedom being given of the Almighty…The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” – Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” 1772.

    Besides that, others stated the importance of religion in politics…

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

    “Do not let anyone claim to be a true American, don’t let them claim the tribute of American Patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.” – George Washington

    “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” – Noah Webster

    On March 27, 1854, the U.S. Congress released a report stating, “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. . . . In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity. . . . That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expect it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

    To conclude (for now), in a 1988 study by University of Houston political scientist Donald Lutz, 34% of the political writings from the 1780’s that he analyzed had Biblical references.

    Donald Lutz. (1984). The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought. The American Political Science Review, 78, 189-197.

    Now patrick, if you still want to argue that there were no Biblical or Judeo/Christian influences in our colonial political arenas, feel free, but I have plainly demonstrated otherwise.

  43. nyp says:

    George Washintton never said that. He simply never said it.

    What is it with you wingnuts and bogus quotes from the Founding Fathers?

  44. nyp says:

    Nor did Patrick Henry say that. He simply never said it.

    A wingnut daily double of bogus Founding Father quotes.

  45. Rincon says:

    “Come now, Rincon, this unsupported premise is used all too often to legitimize redistribution. This broad statement, basically indicting all of the “rich”, whoever those are, as using some unidentified “power” in order to “grab all of the extra wealth”, is both far too general, and patently unprovable.” I don’t think I was clear enough. Although the rich do run our country, the power to make scads of money is more prosaic.

    First, we should agree that just about everyone wants money. Since it’s rarely given away just for grins, the people who make money are those with the power to do so. A medical degree for example, gives a doctor more power to make money than a high school degree. When it comes to extra productivity of our nation, the “power” is a natural product of the process. Intel employed people that developed faster and faster computer chips. Although I’m sure those researchers and engineers were well paid, the greatest share of the profits likely went to the company owners, who had the power to keep it and call it theirs.

    Most innovation today requires teams of people and lots of capital. In these circumstances, it is unusual for innovators to be self employed. Far more often, they must work for a company. That company has the power to insure that the innovators will only keep a small portion of the fruits of their ingenuity. The fact, not opinion, is that the rich have kept all of the extra profits with none for the middle class. I’ll let the proletariat decide if that’s fair or not. Then we may see a different sort of power being used for the same purpose: To grab as much money as possible.

  46. Barbara says:

    So under your premise, we should have seen the same inequality of income under Reagan as we see today. Why is this not true?

  47. nyp says:

    effective tax rates on top percentile households were higher under Reagan.
    Unions were generally stronger.
    College was somewhat more affordable to those striving to make it up from the working class.
    household debt was lower.
    globalization had a less pronounced reach into the American heartland.

  48. Steve says:

    2 out of 8….not bad Winston. In a world where misquoting the founders seems to have become a cottage industry, nyp was able to find only two of them in your list.

    But, never to be swayed, in the modern liberal mindset two out of eight negates the entire message.

  49. Winston Smith says:

    DARPA:

    Patrick Henry quote from The Virginia magazine in 1956. Secondary sources only.

    http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/06/18/did-david-barton-fabricate-quotes-and-attribute-them-to-the-founding-fathers/

  50. nyp says:

    A Patrick Henry quote from 1956.

  51. Rincon says:

    “So under your premise, we should have seen the same inequality of income under Reagan as we see today. Why is this not true?” Because it takes time for wealth to grow. A billionaire can make a lot more money from his investments than a millionaire. As with compound interest, investment income grows geometrically. The rich can’t help it. Their money keeps growing all by itself. It may have arrived at the point that it is essentially unstoppable, except by radical means. If not yet, it probably will soon.

  52. Steve says:

    Then why do all those lottery winners go broke within a year, Rincon?

  53. Rincon says:

    Income is far more likely to grow exponentially if you have a brain. People who play the lottery on a regular basis are often financially inept, as demonstrated by the fact that they choose to gamble with a 50% or smaller payback while the Casinos are offering paybacks of greater than 90% and the stock and bond markets offer well over 100%. My money has grown exponentially and I suspect yours has too. If we could just live long enough, we would be ultrarich too.

  54. Barbara says:

    So the Fed holding interest rates at 0 since 2009 and QE, coupled with Obama’s tax and regulatory policy had no effect on economic expansion? I don’t think so. Here is a different take:

    http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/guest/Lance-Roberts-140908-Employment-Recovery-Reagan-vs-Obama.php

  55. Steve says:

    Well…we will see what happens with my new money but my old money grew OK…not exponentially, 401K’s need constant input to grow at a good clip.
    If my new money does well under my management then my 401k money’s will do well once I get them into a self directed IRA. Managing even the bit of money I have can be a full time job.

    Thanks, for the complement.

    QE pushed the market to heights not before seen, people who are blinded by all the “hope and change” attribute it to Obama’s godlike control of the markets.
    Tapering trembled the market and I think the first interest rate is now factored in, but the market sure reacted like a schizophrenic child a few weeks ago. Now the story is all about China and their shrinking growth rate. The US and China now feed on each other and the rest of the world follows. The FED will need to be very careful about raising interest rates, things still feel very fragile.
    Economic conditions are not about which party occupies the Whitehouse at any given time, what Hillary keeps crowing about is mere coincidence, but it does make good fodder for those lottery players.

  56. Patrick says:

    It’s all about the taxes folks, and rich like them low for a reason; they keep the rich rich, and the rest of us hungry and the ONLY way it can ever change is to make the rich pay more for having the best seats in the house.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/07/thomas-piketty-wealth-money-redistribution

  57. Steve says:

    Disagree, Patrick. (you expect anything other from me?)
    A much better way to make things change would be for more people to become wealthy as a result of their own efforts, like Rincon has done for himself with his private veterinary practice.
    Hard work and dedication to a skill or trade should pay. I say (and have said) private sector unions are very much to blame because unions left the private sector for the much more lucrative public sector. Union leadership are the new fat cats.

  58. Rincon says:

    Glad to hear you’re doing well Steve. When I said yours and my “wealth” has grown exponentially, I wasn’t saying that the growth has been extreme in any way, merely that as money accumulates, it grows faster and faster. Even money with a growth rate of 1% grows exponentially.

    If, as you say, “A much better way to make things change would be for more people to become wealthy as a result of their own efforts”, and the middle class has been woefully unable to do so for 50 years, do you blame a lack of effort on the part of the middle class for their inability to raise their income or are there other factors holding them back?

  59. Rincon says:

    News flash: The New York Times reports: “The richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent”. If the richest 1% can earn 7% on their money and the U.S. economy grows at “only” 4% (which would be quite gratifying), then the extra 3% can only come from the middle, lower, and remainder of the upper classes (those in the 90-99th percentile). This is unsustainable. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-inequality-piketty-capital.html?_r=0

  60. Rincon says:

    From the same article: “For example, financiers are wealthy partly because they’re highly educated and hardworking — and also because they’ve successfully lobbied for the carried interest tax loophole that lets their pay be taxed at much lower rates than other people’s.

    Likewise, if you’re a pharmaceutical executive, one way to create profits is to generate new products. Another is to lobby Congress to bar the government’s Medicare program from bargaining for drug prices. That amounts to a $50 billion annual gift to pharmaceutical companies.”

    Conservatives rail about the Medicare “entitlement”, but neglect to point out that $50 billion of these entitlements go to the pharmaceutical companies in the form of excess profits, not to the patients I believe this comes to about $135.00 for every citizen in the country. This makes Medicare an entitlement program for the rich as well, and since the rich are also covered by Medicare, they get more per person from this program than the poor and middle class do. So stop railing about entitlements for the poor when the rich are soaking up much of this money.

  61. Steve says:

    You might have quit reading my statement after that part you selected to ask me about, Rincon.

    Here is the part you decided to skip;

    “I say (and have said) private sector unions are very much to blame because unions left the private sector for the much more lucrative public sector. Union leadership are the new fat cats.”

    That answers your question.

  62. Rincon says:

    Tell me how, many of your union “fat cats” are in the Forbes 400? Might want to have your vision checked Steve. You’re not seeing the biggest of them. Unions didn’t leave for the public sector. Why would they voluntarily leave any sector? They have been broken in the private sector.

    Are you saying that the primary reason for lack of income growth in the middle class is that there are fewer union members today? If so, do you consider that to be a good thing?

  63. Steve says:

    G. William Hunter $3,159,553 NATIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR New York NY
    DeMaurice Smith $2,550,046 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / C Washington DC
    Ira Fishman $1,156,652 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION MANAGING DIRECTOR/COO Washington DC
    Gerald McEntee $1,121,988 STATE COUNTY & MUNI EMPLS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTL PRESIDENT / P Washington DC
    Michael Weiner $1,024,980 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / C New York NY
    Drew Brees $962,678 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Jay Roth $788,639 DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA INC NHQ NATL EXEC DIRECTOR Los Angeles CA
    Newton Jones $729,630 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    Joseph Senese $698,406 NATIONAL PRODUCTION WKRS UNION IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Oak Brook IL
    Richard Shapiro $682,468 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS SENIOR ADVISOR New York NY
    Richard Berthelsen $637,311 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION GENERAL COUNSEL Washington DC
    Robert Scardelletti $630,053 TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM, AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL PRESIDENT / C Rockville MD
    Terence O’Sullivan $621,388 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    David Prouty $584,780 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS CHIEF LABOR COUNSEL New York NY
    Donald Moak $576,968 AIR LINE PILOTS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Herndon VA
    Anthony Clark $574,691 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS DIR, PLAYER RELATIONS New York NY
    Rhonda Weingarten $556,981 TEACHERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Timothy Brown $550,782 MASTERS MATES & PILOTS ILA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Linthicum MD
    John Niccollai $549,497 FOOD & COMMERCIAL WKRS LOCAL UNION 464 PRESIDENT / C Little Falls NJ
    Harold Daggett $541,103 LONGSHOREMENS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C North Bergen NJ
    Armand Sabitoni $531,604 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GEN SECRETARY TREASURER / C Washington DC
    Warren Fairley $530,053 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    Ian Penny $522,137 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS SENIOR LABOR COUNSEL New York NY
    Timothy Slavin $520,678 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS DIR, BUS AFFAIRS & LIC New York NY
    Thomas Depaso $519,481 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Washington DC
    Joseph Maloney $506,677 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    William Hite $501,203 PLUMBERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Annapolis MD
    Michael Bearse $500,902 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL COUNSEL Washington DC
    Robert Travis $493,523 INDEPENDENT PILOT ASSOCIATION VP/PRES *SEE PAGE 101 / C Louisville KY
    Ramon Rando $486,035 FOOD & COMMERCIAL WKRS LOCAL UNION 464 SECRETARY/TREASURER / C Little Falls NJ
    Russell Oathout $476,869 TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM, AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL SECRETARY-TREASU / C Rockville MD
    Stephen Burrow $476,473 TV & RADIO ARTISTS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Los Angeles CA
    Phil Barbarello $470,401 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS REGIONAL V.P. / C Washington DC
    Richard White $469,744 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS GEN MANAGER New York NY
    Ed Power $469,438 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    Edward Byrne Sr. $462,923 UNITED SERVICE WORKERS UNION, IUJAT NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS SECRETARY TREASURER / C Briarwood NY
    David Young $462,798 WRITERS GUILD WEST IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Los Angeles CA
    David Paul White $462,661 SCREEN ACTORS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECT Los Angeles CA
    Joseph Nigro $459,643 SHEET METAL WORKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Tom Baca $456,439 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    Lawrence McManamon $454,540 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    Jason Belser $451,480 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION SR DIR PLAYER SVS & DEV Washington DC
    Stephen Knott $449,362 LONGSHOREMENS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT / C North Bergen NJ
    Douglas McCarron $444,973 CARPENTERS IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Jonathan Cohen $441,381 AIR LINE PILOTS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS CHIEF COUNSEL/DIR LEGAL Herndon VA
    Robert Lenaghan $440,762 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASST GEN COUNSEL New York NY
    Benny Holland Jr. $440,628 LONGSHOREMENS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT / C North Bergen NJ
    Bruce York $437,705 AIR LINE PILOTS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DIRECTOR REPRESENTATION Herndon VA
    Stephen Regenstreif $432,705 STATE COUNTY & MUNI EMPLS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DIRECTOR, RETIREES Washington DC
    Joseph Mancinelli $431,862 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    James Callahan $427,963 ENGINEERS, OPERATING, AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Matthew Loeb $427,174 STAGE & PICTURE OPERATORS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT / C New York NY
    John Lazzaretto $427,033 LABORERS LOCAL UNION 152 BUSINESS MANAGER / P Highland Park IL
    Jalmer Johnson $426,432 AIR LINE PILOTS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL MANAGER Herndon VA
    James Pressley $425,528 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / C Kansas City KS
    William Creeden $420,769 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L SECRETARY-TREASURER / C Kansas City KS
    Clark Gaines $417,103 PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, FED, AFL-CIO FEDERATION ASST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Washington DC
    Joseph Sellers $413,415 SHEET METAL WORKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL SECRETARY-TREASUR / C Washington DC
    Paul Rinaldi $411,740 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    James Williams $401,895 PAINTERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Hanover MD
    Randall G. Himes $400,204 TV & RADIO ARTISTS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ASST NAT DIR EXEC Los Angeles CA
    Steve Culter $400,052 FOOD & COMMERCIAL WKRS LOCAL UNION 75 SECRETARY-TREASURER / C Dayton OH
    John Telford $399,169 PLUMBERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DIR OF CANADIAN AFFAIRS / C Annapolis MD
    Walter Wise $397,684 IRON WORKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Jon Davis $395,879 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Ralph Vogel $395,761 PROFESSIONAL PHARMACISTS GUILD PRESIDENT / C Woodland Hills CA
    Dennis Van Roekel $389,620 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASN IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NEA PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Lillian Roberts $388,941 STATE COUNTY & MUNI EMPLS AFL-CIO DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / C New York NY
    Mathis Dunn $387,016 TV & RADIO ARTISTS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ASST NAT EXEC DIRECTOR Los Angeles CA
    John Wilhelm $385,856 UNITE HERE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / P New York NY
    Terrence Healy $384,910 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    James Grogan $383,073 INSULATORS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Lanham MD
    Patrick Finley $383,037 PLASTERERS & CEMENT MASONS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL PRESIDENT / C Beltsville MD
    Lorretta Johnson $381,614 TEACHERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS SEC-TREASURER / C Washington DC
    Edwin Hill $380,688 ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT / C Washington, Dc DC
    John Stocks $379,260 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASN IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Washington DC
    John Baker $377,654 LONGSHOREMENS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ASS’T GENERAL ORGANIZER / C North Bergen NJ
    Richard Larkin $376,513 TV & RADIO ARTISTS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ASSOC. EXEC DIRECTOR Los Angeles CA
    Thomas Bethel $376,402 AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS, SIUNA NATL PRESIDENT / C Dania Beach FL
    Phillip Browning $376,338 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFGE AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 404 / C Beaver WV
    Peter Hasho $374,200 INT’L BROTHERHOOD OF TRADE UNIONS PRESIDENT / C Garden City NY
    John Lesniewski $372,927 TRANSPORTATION UNION IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESID / C North Olmsted OH
    Andris Silins $372,923 CARPENTERS IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL SEC. TREASURER / C Washington DC
    Lori Ames $370,788 UNITED SERVICE WORKERS UNION, IUJAT NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PRESIDENT / C Briarwood NY
    Richard Johnson $370,279 TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM, AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT/G / C Rockville MD
    Frank Hanley $368,571 FOOD & COMMERCIAL WKRS LOCAL UNION 464 RECORDER / C Little Falls NJ
    William Roberts $368,453 AIR LINE PILOTS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ASST DIR REPRESENTATION Herndon VA
    James Hoffa $367,864 TEAMSTERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GEN PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Ron Kutak $367,593 STAGE & PICTURE OPERATORS AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 700 NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECT Los Angeles CA
    Malcolm Futhey Jr. $363,295 TRANSPORTATION UNION IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT B / C North Olmsted OH
    Gerald Owens $359,993 LONGSHOREMENS ASN AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL ORGANIZER / C North Bergen NJ
    Greg Markley $359,933 FIRE FIGHTERS AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 45 SECRETARY-TREASURER / C Olympia WA
    Kim Roberts $358,321 TV & RADIO ARTISTS AAAA AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL EXEC. DIR. Los Angeles CA
    D. David Haggerty $357,479 BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INT’L VICE PRESIDENT / N Kansas City KS
    Joel Parker $357,289 TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION/IAM, AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS SPECIAL ASST TO NP/NATION / C Rockville MD
    Douglas Banes $356,275 CARPENTERS IND NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    John Penn $354,395 LABORERS NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS VICE PRESIDENT / C Washington DC
    Robert Kucheran $354,219 PAINTERS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT / C Hanover MD
    Earl Hurd $353,659 PLASTERERS & CEMENT MASONS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GENERAL SECRETARY TREASUR / C Beltsville MD
    Lee Saunders $353,580 STATE COUNTY & MUNI EMPLS AFL-CIO NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS INTL PRESIDENT / N Washington DC

    And it is abundantly clear what I am saying. Private sector unions couldn’t make enough protecting little people so they went after the public sector.

  64. Rincon says:

    Steve, I’m amazed! I thought you supported big salaries for executives. That doesn’t apply to Unions? Why not? But let me give you my list just in case you’re actually agreeing with me that it’s possible for someone to be paid too much:

    Bill Gates 81 $billion
    Warren Buffet 67 billion
    Larry Ellison 50 billion
    Charles Koch 42 billion
    David Koch 42 billion
    Christy Walton 38 billion
    Jim Walton 36 billion
    Michael Bloomberg 35 billion
    Alice Walton 34.9 billion
    S. Robson Walton 34.8 billion

    I just did the top ten, but you get the point. Your union leaders are a bunch of pikers compared to our financial elite.

  65. Rincon says:

    “Private sector unions couldn’t make enough protecting little people so they went after the public sector.” So perhaps you can explain to me why most of the names on your list are Directors of private enterprise sector unions? Oh, I get it. These must be the ones with the little salaries! I’ll bet most of the public sector unions make a lot more money, right? Can you list those guys for me?

  66. Steve says:

    I would happily accept one percent of the total of the top ten on my list.

    The trouble with listing their pay is they are paid to not do their public jobs, they are paid to do their unions work. This is a battle in Clark County right now. Public sector union leadership gets paid their wage and all the overtime they can swallow while NOT doing their public job.

    There is a lawsuit over it, brought by those very leaders…..you really can’t get a “list” of public sector union leaders because they are so well hidden from sight it almost begs conspiracy.

    But the facts are SEIU should not exist. There should be no public sector unions at all.

    Private sector unions left the average workers and went for the big boys, entertainers, athletes and when possible jumped ship over to the public sector.

    Se if you can find a similar list.

    Haven’t you heard? Bill Gates wants to give a bunch of money away….philanthropy and all that sort.
    Warren Buffet wants to pay the same tax rate as his secretary,,,but you don’t see him volunteering!

    At least the Kochs punch where we can see them.

  67. Rincon says:

    We’re talking millions and billions and you’re all fired up that some union boss is also pulling a grunt wage for a public sector job. If it’s any help, I’m with you that leaders should not be paid for a job they don’t do, but that’s only nibbling at the edges.

    You say the unions have left the average workers. Can you explain to me why the unions wouldn’t want BOTH average and not so average workers? There’s no limit on the number of members they are allowed to sign up. I repeat: The unions have been broken. That’s one reason why there are so many auto plants in the south these days. The companies escaped the unions in Detroit.

    Ah, the Koch brothers. Some billionaires own sports teams; the Koch’s would rather own politicians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s