personal finance programs

At a time when bailouts for America’s rich proceed unimpeded and Americans are left to fend for themselves, support for further subsidies for the rich is limited among the public. Gallup polling finds that a majority of Americans (56 percent) oppose extending the Bush-era tax cuts, which went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest of Americans. Just one in three support extending the cuts, despite the current rhetoric of the Republican Party.

Opposition to the Bush-era tax cuts is entirely rational among the public in light of the cuts’ failure to promote economic growth. The Bush tax cuts concentrated the greatest benefits toward the rich, and benefits for the affluent became even greater in their later years (during the 2008 to 2010 period specifically). They are set to expire this year, unless Democrats and Republicans in Congress renew them. Although massive amounts of cash from the cuts fell into the hands of America’s wealthiest one percent, these elites have looked at the increased volatility of today’s market and decided to hoard the cash instead of investing it. To make matters worse, extending the cuts will result in an additional transfer of $31 billion into the hands of America’s billionaires.

Labor economist Robert Reich argues that tax cuts directed at the rich do little to restore a vibrant economy. Providing an inconvenient historical analysis to the narrative forwarded by Republicans, Reich explains that from the 1951 to 1980 period, when marginal taxes were between 72 and 90 percent, average economic growth per year was at 3.7 percent. From 1983 through the recent recession – when tax cuts under Reagan and Bush were a mainstay of macro-economic policy, national yearly economic growth averaged 3 percent. Reich is not alone in his conclusion. My previous piece on the Bush tax cuts, drawing on data from the Economic Policy Institute points out that, during the period when Bush’s tax cuts were passed and when the economy began a recovery (following the dot.com crash of 2000), economic growth was generally significantly weaker than during previous economic cycles that weren’t characterized by mass tax cuts for the rich (http://www.media-ocracy.com/?p=1436). In short, there appears to be little evidence that massive subsidies to the rich are the magic formula for restoring an ailing economy. They do a lot to redistribute wealth, but little to promote short-term rapid growth, since they keep money out of the hands of those most likely to spend it right away – the working and middle class.

Tax cuts for the rich (and the cuts for business Obama is proposing) – as with cuts to the wealthy in the past – will do little-to-nothing to restore growth. The reason why is obvious enough: at a time when the masses are tapped out due to continued high levels of unemployment, massive layoffs, and high levels of personal debt, Americans have little incentive to spend without caution. Putting more money into the hands of the public (through a mass public employment program, for example, or other social welfare programs), would help in terms of stimulating spending and economic growth. What will not help are tax cuts aimed at businesses that have no incentive to increase production of goods and services because of the decreased ability of the mass public to afford such goods at a time when everyone is tightening their belts. All that tax cuts for the rich will do is further increase the already appalling depression-level inequality that exists in this country. Besides, business elites have been sitting on a mountain of cash for some time now. If they haven’t invested that money by hiring new workers, there’s little reason to expect that they will do so following another infusion of tax cuts. Corporations like the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer are sitting on more than $26 billion in cash, refusing to reinvest it in job growth. Pfizer isn’t alone either. Fortune reports that non-finance companies in the S&P 500 are holding $837 billion in cash, a growth of 26% since 2009, at a time when the economy limps along and the state mass layoffs for public workers are becoming more common. This level of cash reserves is far outside normal levels from years past, and is unconscionable at a time when these companies should be hiring new workers and focusing on expansion.

As political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson show in their book Off Center: the Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy, the public has opposed tax cuts for the rich for at least the last ten years. Most would rather see government expand its responsibilities to assist the masses and less fortunate through the expansion of broad based social welfare programs. This lesson may stand at odds with Republican-conservative propaganda framing the public as moving to the right in the midst of a Tea Party revolution, but there is little reason to take these pronouncements seriously in light of decades of public opinion data showing longstanding public support for many individual social welfare programs (for more on this data, see the recent books by Martin Gilens, Benjamin Page, and Robert Shapiro, titled Why Americans Hate Welfare and Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality).

Corporate America’s gravy train of bailouts and business tax cuts have enabled a culture of entitlement among America’s rich and a callousness that justifies massive layoffs, pursued alongside record executive and CEO bonuses. The pillaging of public funds for private gain is unlikely to stop in the near future in light of what appear to be imminent mass gains in Republican Congressional seats this fall.

Anthony DiMaggio is the editor of media-ocracy (www.media-ocracy.com), a daily online magazine devoted to the study of media, public opinion, and current events. He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University and North Central College, and is the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008). He can be reached at: mediaocracy@gmail.com

Taxes on business (particularly manufacturing and energy) have to be dramatically reduced or eliminated. All areas of the United States, except those most highly sensitive, must be opened to oil and gas development, as well as other raw material exploration and development. Research and development has to be given the highest priority, and the products that are the result of this research must be manufactured in the United States. These changes will also have the beneficial side-effect of attracting foreign companies to invest and build manufacturing facilities in the country.
dr. eric seiger how to lose weight fast penis extender

Would You Pay for Online <b>News</b> Content? « Internet Nut

It cannot be denied that newspaper circulation and the rate of real media advertising is on the decline. As more and more people turn to modern technology and.

The good <b>news</b> | dooce®

And every day when we pick her up from school she says, "Do you want the good news or the bad news first?" I always ask for the good news so that I can prepare and physically brace myself for what is surely news that will grind the ...

Small Business <b>News</b>: Small Biz Bill Passed

So what do you think of the new small business bill passed recently in the US Senate? Supporters are no doubt high-fiving each other and congratulating.