On Saturday during Farmer’s Market, a small group of mostly young people walked through the crowd – these were Occupy Davis protestors.
Among the spokespeople for this is Bernie Goldsmith. Earlier this week he was quoted saying, “There is a gigantic and increasing wealth disparity in this country that is only increasing because of the economic downturn, and (Wall Street) is making the economic downturn worse.”
He added: “An occupation should remain in Central Park indefinitely.” And then: “There aren’t really demands; the real reason is to teach people once again to participate actively in their community and in their democracy.”
I have no interest in disparaging the civic engagement of others, and banks and financial institutions are certainly inviting targets. But I think the protest and the movement itself misses the mark by a wide margin.
Why focus on the actions of some far-off financial institution, when we can find instances of plunder and misuse of public funds in our own backyard?r
Juxtaposed against images of financial empires are the workings of local government that should be every bit as concerning.
While the local organizers rightly bristled at the notion of interfering with local emergency services, the financial state of the city clearly weighs heavily.
On the one hand we have the images of the firefighters bravely walking into the Twin Towers, too many of them the final steps they would take in this world. We have the images of local firefighters, in full uniform, urging people to fill the boot for charity work in the community.
On the other hand, we have the Grand Jury report showing drunken firefighters creating a nuisance in our community, apparently unchecked by their public safety brethren. We get a picture of a union president, using his power to amass great personal wealth at the expense of the city and even his fellow union members.
And we see the abuse of power, as the union president uses that power to exact retribution on dissenters, and to undermine both our democratic system of free and open elections and our fiscal stability.
We have the image of the Yolo County judicial system, where the prosecutor uses his discretion not only to take dangerous cop killers off the street, but also to put people guilty of stealing cheese, bouncing checks, stealing Chinese food or stealing a candy bar in prison for years.
As realignment comes and the system is overtaxed with non-violent and non-dangerous offenders, our local prosecutor pushes back, charging cases more strongly.
Finally, there is the issue of water. Every time the issue is raised here, the defenders of the project come forward, arguing that we need the water, that our own supply is being pushed to the brink, that we face unduly harsh punishment in the future when we violate discharge standards, that delaying the project until after the economic downturn is over will cost us more.
Against that view is the pro-democracy view. Those who believe that the average person in Davis was relatively unaware of the pending rate hikes until they were upon us.
The 55% of the residents of this community who will be paying for their higher water costs, through higher rent and higher costs of doing business, were nevertheless given no say. While the property owners were given the right to protest, the majority was on the outside looking in.
This morning, Michael Bartolic argued that this is not about the science or economics of this issue, but rather it is about why he is volunteering his time to put the water referendum on the ballot.
He argues, “The City Council disregarded public opinion and the circumstances of its residents, letting a couple of members of the council effectively game the system to impose on us $300 million of debt over the next 30 years for a project of unproven need, on a scale of unprecedented size, fraught with huge and ambiguous impacts.”
While the Occupy movement talks about the disparity between the haves and have nots, we have the same factor coming into play in Davis.
The question argued here should be not whether we need to do the water project, but whether we can justify the costs of this water project.
I happened to be downtown at Farmer’s Market promoting our November 3 event, and one person told me they had a conversation with Councilmember Stephen Souza who had his own booth and was politely arguing his own case.
But Mr. Souza was defending the costs of the project as though the size, scope and cost of this project are entirely defensible and we should not be looking into every possible way to reduce the costs.
That is what the referendum is about – average citizens who believe that, regardless of the need to do this project, the water-rate hikes will seriously harm current residents.
In the meantime, as someone else argued to me, Davis has become, in many ways, two different communities. There are those longtime residents who built this city, made it what it is now, but are now living on fixed incomes and cannot afford the rate increases. On the other hand are young professional couples, who are two wage-earning families.
The people by and large signing the petition are seniors, vulnerable to any cost increase because their earnings are fixed.
But also vulnerable are young people, people who have not been in the workplace that long, and were the first victims of the economic downturn.
Moreover, families are vulnerable to this, as ratepayers will now be forced to choose between buying water and funding our schools.
To me, the schools issue is crucial to understand because it ties everything back together. The economic downturn caused California to have huge budget deficits. Our leaders chose to balance that budget with huge cuts to K-12 education and huge cuts to higher education.
If the young people want to occupy something, how about occupying Mrak Hall or the Capitol in Sacramento and demand that educational funding be restored? This is the huge threat to the middle class in this state.
But the trickle-down effect is that Davis has retained its commitment to education in the face of huge budget cuts from the state. The voters stepped up in both 2008 and in May of this year, to pass supplemental parcel taxes and help avoid layoffs and program cuts that have gone on around the state.
The water rate hikes threaten to undo those efforts to retain educational greatness in Davis. In March, voters will be asked to renew Measure Q and Measure W, which fund $6.5 million in educational programs.
In May of last year, voters by the skin of their teeth approved Measure A to add $200 per parcel for two years. With the water rate hikes, the new parcel tax is perhaps in trouble.
The thing that people need to understand is that what Davis is facing is not unique. Local communities are being pushed to the brink with threats to local services and education, and an overtaxed prison and correctional system.
Unfortunately, it is a lot more sexy to camp out in parks and in front of banks than to sit and fight local government and local practices, but the impact on people’s lives is far greater.
In many ways, in the next year, the future of this country is at stake yet again. Today, I just argue that we start the fight closer to home.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This whole ‘Occupy’ thing is going to turn ugly just like it did yesterday in Rome. The whole movement is being embraced by the Democrats and you can lay it directly in Obama’s lap with all of his incessant class warfare speeches. Not if but ‘when’ the violence starts it’s going to come back to slap the Democrats right in the face.
It continues to fascinate me that there is so much anger, underlying so much of the ‘political’ and personal dialogue these days, in every corner of the world. Anger is so toxic and so communicable. Nor am I any different; anger continues to be a poison in my own life.
An angry communication drowns out the listener’s ability to hear any content other than the anger. And it lets the listener off the hook, because instead of intellectually processing the content, the listener is invited to simply reciprocate the anger.
Davis is filled with so many intelligent, decent people. I wish it were possible for Davis to model a better pattern of conflict resolution for other California communities that are worse off.
I apologize if this comes off as being preachy; that is not my intention. I constantly need to remind myself of how my own anger destroys me and the people around me. So, ultimately, I’m posting this as a further reminder to myself. Because the first step to curing my own anger issues is to acknowledge it publicly.
David,
I think your criticism of the “Occupy Movement” is unnecessarily limiting. Is it not possible to work on local issues while also turning out to , in a visible means.
call attention to more global problems ?
And, on Friday when I was in Sacramento, there were a large number of protestors at the capitol. So it would appear that people are using many different venues, including this blog to express their opinions.
rusty49
I see “class warfare” from both sides. I consider it a form of violence for children in our society to not have enough to eat, and roofs over their heads while others amass billions in personal fortunes. For me, this is a far more insidious and pervasive form of violence than anything these protestors are doing.
Bob
I don’t consider your post preachy, but rather a timely reminder of the destructive nature of anger. I would also encourage posters to focus on the merits of the ideas being put forward, not on the presumed ulterior motives or degree of intelligence or integrity of those with opposing views.
Here’s to our police dept. “DOING ITS JOB” and kicking the squatters out of Central Park before it gets out of hand.
“I would also encourage posters to focus on the merits of the ideas being put forward, not on the presumed ulterior motives or degree of intelligence or integrity of those with opposing views.”
And exactly what ideas are being put forward by these squatters? They don’t have any ideas, just anger and they really don’t know how to pinpoint it. I see the unions and MSNBC are now involved trying to frame it for them and turning it into their own agendas.
Medwoman: Yes, guilty. But sometimes I pull together distant strands in order to make multiple points at the same time.
rusty49
I apparently was not clear in my intent by separating out my comments in reply to different individuals.
I was in no way implying that the protestors are putting forth a clear message. They are not unified and focused in their concerns. At least not yet. As was put forward by the individual quoted by David, their current intent is merely to draw attention to some existing problems in our society that they do not feel are being adequately addressed.
Also, I disagree with you that this is all being done in anger. Those photos that you see certainly depict the most angry and violent aspects, but had you been with me on Friday eat the Sacramento protest, you would also have seen many people in great spirits legally and cheerfully attempting to call attention to their individual issues as is their legal right. Many movements that brought about positive change in this country for example, women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement for example started out with relatively non focused protests and gradually gained enough public attention to garner support for much needed change in laws. I am in no way supporting violence in any form, whether it be the overt visible violence of the protestors, nor the insidious and as I stated previously much more prevalent form of violence imposed by the discrepancy of wealth which leaves children hungry while allowing others to amass billions.
I was making a plea for users of this blog to focus on the issues, not on the presumed ( perhaps not factual) motivations and or limited intelligence or integrity of fellow bloggers. Two completely separate issues in my opinion.
[quote]As realignment comes and the system is overtaxed with non-violent and non-dangerous offenders, our local prosecutor pushes back, charging cases more strongly.[/quote]
Proof that this is happening/will happen?
[quote]The question argued here should be not whether we need to do the water project, but whether we can justify the costs of this water project.[/quote]
The question is very much whether we NEED the surface water project. Else why would we even bother to do it in the first place if we didn’t need the surface water project? Yet some opposing the surface water project paradoxically seem to agree we NEED this project, which weakens the opponents’ arguments considerably.
[quote]But Mr. Souza was defending the costs of the project as though the size, scope and cost of this project are entirely defensible and we should not be looking into every possible way to reduce the costs.[/quote]
This statement is ridiculous. The current City Council members, including Mr. Souza, have supported keeping costs as low as possible, even going so far as to suggest a citizen advisory committee to keep an eye on things. A citizen advisory committee is what resulted in the water rate increases being reduced from 3.3 times the current rate to only 2 times the current rate, and with a protective measure of another Prop 218 process put in place that has to occur before water rates can increase above that after year 5. City staff is always looking at the variance issue as an ongoing methodology, despite claims to the contrary, in so far as I am aware.
The real issue is whether it would be more expensive in more ways than one to build the surface water project now, or more expensive later. The proponents of the project are saying that it will cost much, much more in financial/constructions costs, subsidence, contaminants, possible loss of water rights, fines, etc. if we delay the surface water project, kicking the can down the road yet again (ironically/paradoxically a criticism of opponents to this project). If Woodland moves forward with the project on their own, it will be virtually impossible for Davis to argue it is somehow “economically infeasible” for Davis to do its part in implementing the surface water project until 25 to 30 years from now. Then the state will start to impose MANDATORY FEDERAL FINES that will make sure Davis does not benefit from refusing to join in the effort to complete the surface water project, and Davis will have nothing to show for its lack of due diligence other than being saddled with massive fines.
[quote]That is what the referendum is about – average citizens who believe that, regardless of the need to do this project, the water-rate hikes will seriously harm current residents.[/quote]
Delaying the project is much more likely to harm current residents, IMO.
[quote]The people by and large signing the petition are seniors, vulnerable to any cost increase because their earnings are fixed.[/quote]
These people will be just as vulnerable to paying fines imposed by the SWRCB. Woodland is already paying fines for noncompliance. The fines are not punitive at the moment, bc Woodland has agreed to cooperate in the surface water project. But if Woodland were to refuse to move towards compliance, I suspect it would be a whole different story…
[quote]Moreover, families are vulnerable to this, as ratepayers will now be forced to choose between buying water and funding our schools.[/quote]
This is a red herring. If the delayed surface water project is more expensive than had we built it sooner rather than later; and/or if the city ends up paying fines imposed by the SWRCB so the city takes no economic advantage from delaying, there will be EVEN LESS money for school and city taxes.
U.S. history tells us that those who hold power do not relinquish it unless the “system” that gives them wealth and power is actually under real threat by THE PEOPLE. Let’s not forget the massive marches on Washington and the permanent Hooverville camps around the country and in DC across from the White House. Fear that the system that gave them wealth and power could collapse before the worldwide rising tide of Communism/Socialism was also a major factor. This, and not any sudden turn towards altruism by politicians was the force behind the New Deal. This current and remarkably similar protest movement does not need to offer a program, just the message to those who do have the power to alter the system, that the current system which creates such economic and power disparity will not be allowed to function anymore and must be changed. The issues are clear. It’s up to the politicians to come up with the plan.
[quote]The economic downturn caused California to have huge budget deficits.[/quote]
Silly Californians…and all this time some of us believed that spending more $ than comes into the public coffers was the at issue….????
“A citizen advisory committee is what resulted in the water rate increases being reduced from 3.3 times the current rate to only 2 times the current rate, and with a protective measure of another Prop 218 process put in place that has to occur before water rates can increase above that after year 5.”
ERM, what did the committee do to actually reduce the costs of the financing and construction the project? I know our bills will be lowered based on the best case scenario, but what actual costs were reduced?
Secondly, you refer that we have the safeguard of another Prop 218 process in 5 years. Some safeguard? We all know how rigged that vote is. Our only safeguard is pursuing the referendum process right now and the people know it.
[quote]Unfortunately, it is a lot more sexy to camp out in parks and in front of banks than to sit and fight local government and local practices, but the impact on people’s lives is far greater.[/quote]
When microphones were placed in front of many of these demonstrators, they could not articulate any semblance of a solution. It is easy to complain, a lot harder to work within the system to propose solutions. I would suggest that the protestors could better spend their time and energy in a more focused endeavor to problem solve. Unfortunately I suspect this is nothing more than a cynical attempt at paying demonstrators to foment unrest against “the wealthy”. Yet is does nothing to effect real reform, which has eluded both sides of the Congressional aisle. Banks are still robo-signing foreclosure papers; still engaging in unsavory lending tactics (option pay adjustable rate mortgages); CEOs of failing banks/companies are being paid huge bonuses while the rest of the country is on the brink of bankruptcy; companies are still outsourcing jobs to foreign countries etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.
“Proof that this is happening/will happen? “
What would you consider proof. I have multiple sources that have told me it and I have ordered transcripts that at some point will demonstrate it.
“The question is very much whether we NEED the surface water project. “
That is one question that I don’t think many question.
“The current City Council members, including Mr. Souza, have supported keeping costs as low as possible”
No they haven’t. What they’ve done issue forth rhetoric that you buy into. What have they done to keep costs as low as possible? I don’t actually know that answer – do you? I don’t think you do.
This week, I have my own experts who are going to meet along with me with key staff and others to see how much of the proposed costs are necessary.
“The real issue is whether it would be more expensive in more ways than one to build the surface water project now, or more expensive later. “
That’s how the debate has been framed, but there is another issue and that is whether what we are buying is what we need to do what we say needs to be done. That’s where I am looking now.
“Delaying the project is much more likely to harm current residents, IMO. “
That’s what we’ve been told.
“Silly Californians…and all this time some of us believed that spending more $ than comes into the public coffers was the at issue….???? “
And what reduced the amount of money going into public coffers? Oh the economy. Are we spending more or less now than we did five years ago? A lot less. So why do we still have a deficit? That pesky economy. You’re really going to argue this point?
Rusty: Not only that, but I love how Souza talked about the Dixon citizen advisory committee and then I come to find out it had never even held a single meeting before Souza’s statement, so it is completely unproven.
For the record, the Dixon citizen’s commission could do practically nothing since Dixon really has no options. But if you ever really want to do a public service, start a Vanguard satellite in Dixon. There is basically no media there.
[quote]This current and remarkably similar protest movement does not need to offer a program, just the message to those who do have the power to alter the system, that the current system which creates such economic and power disparity will not be allowed to function anymore and must be changed. The issues are clear. It’s up to the politicians to come up with the plan.[/quote]
This is precisely what Obama did – complained, and then left Congress to come up with the solution. Gitmo comes to mind; Obamacare (just had to scrap long term care part of plan recently as unworkable); bank reform. And look how well that turned out! It is easy to complain/carp/point fingers – much more difficult to work within the system to come up with viable solutions.
[quote]ERM, what did the committee do to actually reduce the costs of the financing and construction the project? I know our bills will be lowered based on the best case scenario, but what actual costs were reduced?
Secondly, you refer that we have the safeguard of another Prop 218 process in 5 years. Some safeguard? We all know how rigged that vote is. Our only safeguard is pursuing the referendum process right now and the people know it.[/quote]
The citizen advisory committee worked on three major changes:
1) delay part of surface water project;
2) use part of funding already collected for wastewater treatment plant upgrade to fund surface water project;
3) assume interest rate of 5.5% rather than 6.5%, which in light of the current lending rate, seems reasonable, but will not be the longer we put this project off.
Then in year 5, any rate increases must go through another Prop 218 process, AND/OR A CITIZEN REFERENDUM – just as is being done now. This puts any more rate increases directly in the hands of ratepayers/voters. Why would you fear this process later in year 5, when you seem to have no problem with it currently? You cannot have it both ways…
[i]And what reduced the amount of money going into public coffers? Oh the economy. Are we spending more or less now than we did five years ago? A lot less. So why do we still have a deficit? That pesky economy. You’re really going to argue this point? [/i]
David, CA’s tax base and spending has been structurally unsound for many years. It has been bailed out by the tech boom in the late 90s, the real estate market thru 2007 and Google going public ([url]rticles.sfgate.com/2006-05-09/news/17294735_1_google-insiders-google-employees-capital-gains-tax[/url]). The states improperly relies on these booms to support a spending program that is unsustainable during “normal” or down years”.
Every Occupy Movement is every city is finding it own voice and working on how to focus link thelocal issues to national and global issues. This is an evolving process. There is also an awareness that no-one wants this movement/process co-opted by any political party or large, inside the Beltway NGOs. Many of the Occupy movements are focusing now on Teach-ins and education. Go to October2011.org the DC Occupy Movement and read the Fifteen Core Issues the Country Must Face at http://october2011.org/issues
Most readers of this blog would agree, I hope, that we must be vigilant that provocateurs on either side of the spectrum do not “provoke” violent repression. We must give the movement in the U.S. time to grow and mature.
The Arab Spring in Egypt was the result of years of sacrifice, agitation, jail-time and even death, and suffering, protest and organizing before the outpouring in Tahir Square. Look at the protests in Madison, WI – completely peaceful and no property damage.
And, most readers of this blog would agree, I hope, that when Pres. Obama and Secretary Clinton defend in their speeches the right to assembly, dissent, and free speech for those in Cairo, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, that they would defend this right here at home where the corporate, financial, and military elite have replaced democracy with a corporatocracy and our Congress is for the most part bought and sold to the higest bidder.
Readers of this blog can go to the Coordinating Committee meetings and the General Assembly of Occupy Davis and participate in discussions and planning. You can join to blog and offer your insights. But I urge you to not just sit at your computers and criticize.
As far as I can tell, the various locales for the Occupy! movement have nothing of interest to say. They seem to be having a good time participating in a movement and exercising their right to free association. That deserves no news coverage. Their claims about the haves and have-nots is mindless pablum.
Is it really news that the men and women who graduate from Harvard and Yale and Cambridge and Oxford and Stanford and Cal Tech go on to run global institutions designed to make money are making a lot of money? Is it really news that high school drop outs–25% of Americans–make little money?
Unless they commit actual crimes, I don’t think the Occupiers! have any reason to garner attention. Even if they are camping out illegally, it’s just not that big of a deal.
[img]http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2011/10/06/17/27/1ljm6C.Em.4.jpg[/img]
And by the way … Is there any question dumber than questioning corporate greed? Corporations are set up to make money. They do so by bringing value to their customers.* If the Occupiers! think Apple, now the second largest cap company in the United States after only Exxon, is too successful, then perhaps the Occupiers should boycott Apple and buy Samsung products to even out the mal-distribution of wealth.
*The great exception in the United States (and in some other countries) are the companies whose profits depend on their political power. That is, a company like Boeing or Northrup or PG&E makes profits not by satisfying the free decisions of the marketplace. They profit by paying off politicians who decide what the government buys or what prices the government accepts.
[quote]What would you consider proof. I have multiple sources that have told me it and I have ordered transcripts that at some point will demonstrate it. [/quote]
“Told you” is hearsay, and inherently unreliable when done in private and off the record, amounting to no more than courthouse gossip IMO…
[quote]ERM:”The question is very much whether we NEED the surface water project. ”
DMG: That is one question that I don’t think many question. [/quote]
First of all, some of the opponents clearly want to kill this project and have said so. Delaying the project for 25 to 30 years is a euphemism for killing the project IMO. If we need the project, then we obviously need the project NOW. IF the cost will be greater down the road, all the more reason to move forward with the project NOW. It is simple logic…
[quote]ERM: “The current City Council members, including Mr. Souza, have supported keeping costs as low as possible”
DMG: No they haven’t. What they’ve done issue forth rhetoric that you buy into. What have they done to keep costs as low as possible? I don’t actually know that answer – do you? I don’t think you do. [/quote]
“Issue forth rhetoric that [I] buy into”? In other words I am a dupe? I was on the citizen advisory committee to keep the costs down. We were able to decrease the water rate increases from 3.3 times the current costs to only 2 times the current costs (see above comment to Rusty49). You don’t know the answer as to how costs have been kept down, but you don’t think I know? And how do you come up with the conclusion I don’t know how the rate increases were lowered, when I was on the committee that was responsible for the new more reasonable figures? Your logic escapes me… and the not so subtle insinuations of being a dupe are not nice…
[quote]This week, I have my own experts who are going to meet along with me with key staff and others to see how much of the proposed costs are necessary. [/quote]
I have already done what you are going to do. Why was my endeavor any less worthy than yours is going to be? I really fail to understand the deep antagonism that seems to be generated towards the citizen advisory group who did exactly what citizens were demanding – a lowering of the increase in water rates and a mechanism for citizens to weigh in every step of the way, with a check in in year 5 that requires another Prop 218 notice/possible referendum process before any further rate increases are instituted. Would you have preferred that the citizens on the citizen advisory committee had not gotten involved at all, and left the water rate increases where they were, so opponents had free rein and could more easily defeat the project permanently? Is that what is really behind the antagonism toward the citizen advisory group?
I have said many times that I invite all citizens to become as highly involved in this process as possible. I welcome your input, and would not in any way cast aspersions on your motivations to meet and discuss this issue with City Staff. So I really don’t understand why you are not extending the same courtesy to me and anyone else who was on the citizen advisory committee.
[quote]ERM: “The real issue is whether it would be more expensive in more ways than one to build the surface water project now, or more expensive later. ”
DMG: That’s how the debate has been framed, but there is another issue and that is whether what we are buying is what we need to do what we say needs to be done. That’s where I am looking now. [/quote]
Actually you are somewhat incorrect here. The citizen advisory committee already convinced the powers that be that some of the elements of the surface water project could be delayed, to keep water rate increases down. Also, much of what needs to be done is driven by federal fines that are mandatory, not discretionary. However, as I said before, if you or Brett Lee (who has also met with the Dept of Public Works to make some positive suggestions w/o casting aspersions on anyone) or anyone else can come up with practical ways to save money on this project, have at it. I, for one, always try and keep an open mind on everything. But neither do I approach things with a pre-conceived agenda either, or at least I try very hard not to.
[quote]ERM:”Delaying the project is much more likely to harm current residents, IMO. ”
DMG:That’s what we’ve been told.[/quote]
I carefully stated that was my opinion, having based that opinion on years of studying the issue from various sources, including Council member Sue Greenwald and the two UCD experts she insisted on being consulted. Yet somehow you frame my clearly identified opinion as if it is nothing more than a parroting of the official gov’t line, with the implication I have been nothing more than a dupe of the gov’t.
So explain to me upon what basis is your belief that the project will be LESS expensive if it is delayed? Upon what basis do you believe we are building more than we need to? Upon what basis do you believe we will be able to obtain a variance so we will not incur fines? Upon what basis do you believe there will not be irreparable damage from subsidence? What experts have been willing to come forth publicly and support even a single one of these contrary positions?
I have no problem if citizens feel queasy about this project, and ask tons and tons of well thought out questions. But I do object to citizens attacking the integrity of the proponents of this project or anyone who has tried to improve this project – as somehow being dupes, disingenuous, waspish, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. Nasty emails, public denunciations, etc are not going to deter me from continuing to press on for the best surface water project that meets the needs of our citizens the best possible way, even if that means no project would be best. At the moment, my inclination is to believe the most cost effective way to make sure the citizens of Davis have a reliable source of water supply is by doing the surface water project NOW. Kicking the can down the road by delaying I believe will incur more damage in costs and subsidence and crumbling infrastructure than if we do the project now.
Please ignore the italicizing of my posts. Some glitch in the computer made my comments come out in italics. Arggggghhhhhhh….
[i]”Some glitch in the computer made my comments come out in italics.”[/i]
It was the tomato paste flavored with basil, oregano and garlic on your keyboard which caused that problem. [i]Succede tutto il tempo per me.[/i]
Rich
“Their claims about the haves and have-nots are mindless pablum”
Unless of course you happen to one of the 16 % of children, or 20% of children under the age of six, living in poverty defined as living in a 4 person family with income under $ 21,209 in 2008 according to the National Center for Children in Poverty.Growing up in this kind of setting is clearly not the child’s fault, but has potential lifelong consequences, including a lesser chance of getting into Harvard than does a legacy child.
I don’t believe that anyone is questioning “corporate greed” or fails to realize that the purpose of corporations is to make money. I believe that what people are questioning and protesting is our public institutions which through our laws and regulations or lack thereof have allowed for the current degree of disparity between the richest and the poorest of our nation and the ongoing stacking of the economic, educational, and opportunity ” decks” against the most vulnerable. Your statement about Apple and whether the protesters think it is ” too successful” is, in my opinion, a classic straw man argument. If you disagree, please, even one quote from an “occupier” supporting your claim.
Elaine
” …. They could not articulate any semblance of a solution”
I suspect that a fair number of the protestors are not as well educated or as articulate as you and are using the only venue that they perceive as open to them to call attention to their problems. While I do not find this as attractive a solution as working “within the system” in the way that you advocate, I would argue that as long as they are not breaking any laws and are merely exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, then they are “working within the system” to the best of their ability. I see this as a completely legitimate approach.
I would assert that it is natural for you and I to read, analyze and propose solutions. This may not come as readily to someone who for example had to drop out of school to help support her family as was my mother’s situation as her labor was needed to help support her eight sibs. Not exactly her fault, but certainly limited her reading comprehension to say nothing of her ability to understand complex issues and formulate solutions.
[i]”Unless of course you happen to one of the 16 % of children, or 20% of children under the age of six, living in poverty defined as living in a 4 person family with income under $ 21,209 …”[/i]
That has WHAT to do with corporations organized for the purpose of making money actually making money?
If poor kids are the concern of the Occupiers!, then they should be marching through low-income neigborhoods preaching A) birth control or abstinence or vasectomies; and B) get married before having kids you fools!; and C) have a stable income before you as married couples start your families!; and D) try studying harder in school and or training yourselves for a profession before becoming parents; and E) lay off the booze and the drugs!; and F) stop beating the crap out of your kids ([url]http://familyimpactseminars.org/s_mifis04c05.pdf[/url]) and beating up your baby’s mamas.
Those 6 things are what creates poor kids. When Apple sells an I-pad that people like or Geico sells car insurance that people choose to buy or when Hyundai makes a Sonata that brings them profits, that is all corporate greed. Corporate greed is not evil. Corporate greed does not cause stupid young people to make bad choices which results in a lot of broken homes and poor kids. Poor kids are entirely the result of the broken and failed cultures and sub-cultures.
The whole notion of blaming Nugget Market, a corporation which tries to satisfy its customers in our region, with causing poverty among children is typical of left-wing scapegoating. Actually, if you call National Socialists right-wingers, then it is typical of right-wing scapegoating as well.
[i]” I believe that what people are questioning and protesting is our public institutions which through our laws and regulations or lack thereof have allowed for the current degree of disparity between the richest and the poorest of our nation.”[/i]
This is clearly wrong. The Occupiers! have taken on Wall Street, not Washington D.C.
Also, your understanding of economics is … questionable. The regulations have not caused some to be highly productive and others far less so, unless you are talking about the bail-outs of the publicly traded banks and auto companies, which was a huge mistake in my opinion.
The unfortunate fact is that technological changes have allowed some people to operate successfully on a global scale; and others have lost out because poor people around the world are out-competing them. That has raised disparities of income. Yet you should take heart to note that this kind of change, due to technological advances, has happened many times in the past, has always brought on income disparities in the short run, but has made the world wealthier in the long run and eventually settles out where the disparities have shrunken. You might not know much economic history, but these periods of change have a pattern they always follow.
[i]The regulations have not caused some to be highly productive and others far less so, unless you are talking about the bail-outs of the publicly traded banks and auto companies, which was a huge mistake in my opinion. [/i]
That appears to be what they are talking about. It is also what infuriated the Tea Party members.
One thing I find interesting is how vehemently some are dismissing and disparaging these protesters.
Rifkin seems to forget that the “periods of change” he says have a pattern they always follow” is often the pattern is one of revolutionary change, peaceful or otherwise.
The ideology/technology of free trade, neo-liberal structural adjustment, and privatization has failed, and people globally, crushed by a system that does not provide for and protect the public good, and that has shut down any meaningful “democratic” participation are fed up. They are putting their heads and hearts together to try to create a new social, political, and economic order that defines and recognizes basic human rights and the rights of nature.
For validation and inspiration that this movement is alive and well in the U.S., read: Justice Rising: Building an Economy for People and Nature at http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pdf/AfDJR5.pdf and check out
the Democracy Convention held this summer in Madison, WI at
http://democracyconvention.org/
Don I agree with you. And somewhat surprised at the reaction on this blog. To my admittedly limited understanding of it all, it is not a political protest but rather a social protest and am sure, in addition to anger stemming from the bank, etc bailouts and their reluctance to then lend, etc, the protest is fueled by people’s frustration at the growng disparity between the top 1% and the rest and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Rich
I agree with you that all of those are desirable actions, but none of them except stopping beatings will help the children who are here now.
And, to be excruciatingly technical, it is lack of money that causes kids to be poor by whatever mechanism that occurs. In my case, the untimely death of my father. Maybe it was short sighted of my parents to not realize he would die, or to not be born into families who could pick up the slack ? And again, the straw man argument. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that “corporations are evil and I am still awaiting your quote from any of the current protesters to support your point.
Don already answered the next point for me.
I concede freely my lack of economic training. I am equally sure that you would concede a lack of full understanding of the profound effects of nutritional deprivation on the fetus during pregnancy and early childhood thus limiting these individual’s future prospects through no fault of their own. Because i agree with your point one ,as part of my career, I have been involved in a national initiative to make statistically effective birth control universally available and affordable which is fought tooth and nail every step of the way by groups that want to prevent contraception. These groups are typically not the liberals you seem to find so illogical.
Being married is no guarantee that your partner will stay with you for the longterm as I learned the hard way. Luckily, my father’s death had taught me that I could rely on no one but myself to support myself and my children, so I was financially if not emotionally prepared for my husbands departure.
Finally, just because economic disparities with their short term ill effects on innocents have occurred many times ithroughout history, is,in my opinion, no argument for a very rich society with full awareness of these deleterious effects to not take action to mitigate them while awaiting the long term improvement
“One thing I find interesting is how vehemently some are dismissing and disparaging these protesters.”
That statement really makes me laugh with the way liberals have treated the Tea Party.
It seems to me that the occupiers have two basic demands, when you sort through the mush:
1. We demand a bigger allowance
2. We want more recess
J.R.
LOL, I think you’ve got it.
[i][b]Rifkin seems to forget[/b] that the “periods of change” he says have a pattern they always follow” is often the pattern is one of revolutionary change, peaceful or otherwise.”[/i]
I concede that most of the time that revolutions have occurred, they have come in the wake of some sort of a major, global change, which helped to bring down the status quo and replace it with the revolutionaries.
For example, the revolutions which toppled the Marxist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire in the late 1980s and early 1990s came in the wake of satellite TV. Suddenly people from Minsk to Pinsk to Bucharest could see on TV how miserable life under Communism was compared with Western European capitalism. It was West German freedom and prosperity which caused East Germans to flee West and ultimately to topple the repressive Marxist regimes.
Other revolutions of recent times, though, are hard to clearly pin on technological changes. Almost all of Latin America moved from Socialist-Corporatist military dicatatorships from the late 1960s to democracy of some sort by the late 1980s. I don’t know if they were all revolutionary. Clearly the democracy movement of Chile was. The others? There is still a lot of corporatism and cronyism in most Latin countries.
It’s true that the Reagan Administration played a large role in toppling the dictators (in most cases without violence). But it’s hard to pin any of those overthrows on a specific technological change.
Some think Google and Facebook deserve credit for helping to topple the Arab socialist-corporatist dicatatorships this year. It’s too early to say if the changes in Egypt or Yemen or Tunisia or Libya or Syria are going to be revolutionary. I hope so. But I doubt Google and Facebook were key. I suspect if they did not have these new forms of “social media,” the same protests would have taken place. My sense is that the biggest culprits were A) the rising prices of grain (brought on the stupid policies in the U.S. and Europe to use corn for ethanol fuel); and B) the rising numbers of middle-class professionals in those countries who became wealthy enough to care to protest the corruption of pricks like Khadhafi and Mubarak and Al-Assad.
The Iranian Revolution is very often cited as having been made possible by radio. That is, Ayatollah Khomeini, living in luxury with his four wives in a French palace, recorded populist, Islamist, anti-Shah tirades in the mid to late 1970s. Those recordings were then broadcast on (makeshift) radio stations all over Iran. That leadership led to the formation of the Islamist militancy which, along with leftist student groups who were later slaughtered by the Mullahs, toppled the Shah’s military regime. Yet can you really credit that use of radio to a new technology? Iran had broadcast radio and TV and satellite TV and so on for a long time. Maybe the difference was that the poor of Iran’s rural areas had become much wealthier in the 1970s and could then afford radios.
As to our own revolution, no major new technologies spawned it. The main reason Americans revolted was because they were able to due to rising prosperity. The main reason the British quit the fight against us was because in that period England was becoming democratic, and its democratic leaders (following the lead of the English merchants) no longer wanted to pay the costs of fighting against the Americans. As such, we “won” our revolution only when the other side decided to pull out. The U.S. revolutionaries won almost no actual battles in the War.
[i]”The ideology/technology of free trade, neo-liberal structural adjustment, and privatization has failed, and people globally, crushed by a system that does not provide for and protect the public good, and that has shut down any meaningful “democratic” participation are fed up.”[/i]
This is the exact same argument that Smoot and Hawley used in 1930. They decided to destroy liberal trade with their tariff regime. They were successful. Every country followed suit. Trade was almost entirely shut down. And what followed was the greatest rise in mass poverty all over the world since the 1400s.
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. The greatest thing possible for average citizens of the world is to be tied into global trade, better still free trade. You think the 750 million Chinese who 25 years ago lived in dire poverty but today are well fed and have at worst lower middle-class incomes would be better off if the American labor unions had their way and we shut down global trade like Smoot and Hawley did?
[i]”They are putting their heads and hearts together to try to create a new social, political, and economic order that defines and recognizes basic human rights and the rights of nature.”[/i]
Good for them. Let’s see some real policies which don’t destroy the world economy or do place blame where it actually belongs.
[i]”I am equally sure that you would concede a lack of full understanding of the profound effects of nutritional deprivation on the fetus during pregnancy and early childhood thus limiting these individual’s future prospects through no fault of their own.”[/i]
That is just not an important reason why the poor in the United States go on generation after generation being poor. I am not saying that it is inconsequential, but it is a side issue. I am 6’2″ and stout because I had proper nutrition as a child and probably when my mother was pregnant with me. My grandparents were all little teeny people: 4’10” and 5’3″ on my dad’s side; 5’0″ and 5’5″ on my mom’s side. Why so small? Because they were malnourished. Yet all of them thrived in the United States due to their stong cultural values. It is largely the same with most poor Asian immigrants to the United States today. The little Vietnamese who have come here have thrived. Same with Koreans. Same with Chinese and Taiwanese and Japanese. They all started out small and underfed and so on. But they valued family and school and hard work. That has made them much more successful than most white Americans who were born into average families. The story of the Oriental Asians is similar to that of most South Asians and East Africans and Arab-Americans and so on. But other groups with crappy cultures who don’t value education or family go on generation after generation producing kids with problems like those you describe.
I guess the next time I post, it’ll be about compassion instead of anger.
[i]”The ideology/technology of free trade, neo-liberal structural adjustment, and privatization has failed, and people globally, crushed by a system that does not provide for and protect the public good”[/i]
Here we have the classic example of the socialist/Marxist/collectivist tactic of waiting-in-the-weeds patiently until an inevitable economic cycle down, ironically brought on by decades of incremental doses of economic policy from those with a similar central-control mindset, to pop up and claim righteousness again.
Never mind the decades of prosperity that produced the most free, diverse and prosperous superpower in the history of mankind.
Never mind economic growth that puts our poor in the top 10% of the global standard of living.
Never mind that the marvelous technology used to type such drivel would not exist but for the things these folks rail against.
Please explain to me… what “damage” has the technology of free trade and privatization really done to humans to warrant any dialog with people holding this view… especially in light of the history of untold human misery, suffering and death provided us by the examples of the demanded alternative to democratic free-market capitialism.
The “evil corporation” is a myth manufactured by Hollywood to prevent people twisted in their left-world ideological view from ever having to say they were wrong and to take responsibility for the truth… that they, not businesses, are responsible for the greater numbers of humanity not achieving greater levels of prosperity.
The housing bubble and the ensuing financial meltdown were all caused by central-control government policies for engineering society from egalitarian impulses. Had banking been left to their conservative business practices by CRA and the repeal of Glass Steagall, had rates not been kept artificially low for decades by the Fed, had Freddie and Fannie not been supported by the government to buy up all the toxic junk mortgages, had the home mortgage deduction not been allowed… the free market would have not created a bubble and we would not be in the economic mess we are in.
The occupiers should be occupying the halls of Congress and the Whitehouse.
Much if not all of this Occupy movement can be attributed to Obama and the divisiveness he has created through his class warfare politics. Obama is tearing this country apart, I hope he dials back his rhetoric before it’s too late and people get hurt and property is destroyed.
Bob
I will eagerly look forward to your thought on compassion.
[i]”Much if not all of this Occupy movement can be attributed to Obama and the divisiveness he has created through his class warfare politics”[/i]
Rusty, I agree with you. Here is a bit of a WSJ op-ed by David Moore that addresses that point well IMO:
[quote]Like most people I know, I think President Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy would make sense if we believed he was sincere about—and could be successful at—reforming Washington’s overspending, out-of-control entitlements and regulation. Instead, his attacks on Wall Street bankers (“fat cats,” a phrase Mr. Obama now owns and was eloquently repeated by the panhandler on Friday night), Las Vegas, oil companies, jet manufacturers and “millionaires and billionaires” are inflaming both sides and placating no one. They seriously undermine the chances for reasonable compromise.
The president’s incendiary message has now reached the streets. His complaints that rich people must “pay their fair share” have now goaded some of our society’s most unfortunate, including one who felt compelled to refuse money because it was not enough. President Obama has become the “Great Divider” instead of the “Great Unifier” that we all hoped he would be.
I do not recall another president in my lifetime whose negative drumbeat about large segments of the population has been so relentless. I do not recall another president (even those similarly frustrated by congressional gridlock and the stifling of their agendas) repeatedly targeting a specific economic class, complaining as loudly and using his bully pulpit so consistently for bashing those who disagree with him.
Presidents, once elected, instantly become president of all the people. They are the ultimate parental figures who should show no favoritism while always reaching across the dinner table to keep the family together. Even when they are confident their plan is the right one, they must communicate it such that everyone in the family knows they care equally about each of them. Painting important parts of our economy and population with such a negative brush is not only un-presidential, it is destructive to the fabric of our nation.[/quote]
Medwoman:[i]”Finally, just because economic disparities with their short term ill effects on innocents have occurred many times ithroughout history, is,in my opinion, no argument for a very rich society with full awareness of these deleterious effects to not take action to mitigate them while awaiting the long term improvement”[/i]
It IS a valid argument when the accumulation and perpetual-ness of short-term benefits short-circuits individual self-determination and drive toward long-term self-sufficiency. This is the historical difference… the wealth of entitlements.
Economies are cyclical, and people fall down and need a temporary hand up until they can climb back up the social and economic ladder toward greater prosperity. However, at this time in our country’s short history, many have chosen to be satisfied, if still angry from envy, with a life in poverty. The wealth of entitlements enables them to do that.
The resident of a small mountain community that asks me for $5 for cigarettes, but then turns down my offer of $50 for him to do some work for me… he lives in section 8 housing, and collects welfare and food stamps. My heart aches for him too, but it is for the wealth of entitlements that has corrupted his personal development and wrecked his self-determination… that has reduced him to begging his neighbor for money to buy cigarettes and rejecting work.
Bob and medwoman
I’m with you. Think more compassion and less anger here good.
[i]”It continues to fascinate me that there is so much anger, underlying so much of the ‘political’ and personal dialogue these days, in every corner of the world. Anger is so toxic and so communicable. Nor am I any different; anger continues to be a poison in my own life.”[/i]
Bob, nice post.
Related to this, my thought on human emotions is that the emotions are not the problem. It is only our behavior that matters.
Yeah, but the vast majority of all human behavior is primarily ’emotion based’, even though we pretend we are creatures governed by intellect. And the predominance of the ’emotion component’ is even more pronounced when we behave poorly, abusively or violently.
I’m not arguing that people should suppress their anger, but just bear in mind that angry communication only actually communicates anger; “You’re shouting so loud I can’t hear what you’re saying.” Communication stripped of that anger is far more effective.
JEFF: [i]The “evil corporation” is a myth manufactured by Hollywood to prevent people twisted in their left-world ideological view from ever having to say they were wrong and to take responsibility for the truth… [/i]
History would tell you otherwise, Jeff. The demonization of the evil corporation goes back long before motion pictures were ever thought of, let alone popular forms of entertainment. You should read what Americans were saying about the railroad corporations in the 1850s. You should read Charles Dickens around the same time, whre he lambasts the evils of the corporation in a number of his books. But the demonization of the corporation long precedes Dickens and Crocker. You should read the English and French and Dutch writers of the early 1600s who readily attacked the colonial merchant trading companies, like the Dutch East India Company (for which my Polish grandfather, living in Jakharta, worked for. … To be fair to Hollywood, the attacks on its politics are far more like the socialist attacks on the German banking houses of the 1800s than Hollywood has ever been against the corporation.
JEFF: [i]”… the free market would have not created a bubble and we would not be in the economic mess we are in.”[/i]
Who knows. I blame much of the problem of the housing bubble on the secondary mortgage market, which itself was mostly the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, themselves created by the federal government and made worse by affirmative action policies of Congress.
But that said, you should know enough to distinguish between the bad banks which foolishly bought up mortgage notes without knowing what they were doing and the smart banks which stayed away from those risks because they knew they were bad risks.
In other words, some of the blame falls entirely on some for-profit companies for making bad business decisions which others knew enough to avoid. And no one should excuse home buyers who kept choosing to risk their money long after I wrote in the Lexicon Artist that we were clearly in a housing bubble. I wrote that in late 2004!
Moreover, many market bubbles have had nothing to do with governments. We had a huge tech stock bubble in the late 1990s, which I am sure you recall, and no government policies created that bubble. It was, to quote Mr. Greenspan, the product of irrational exuberance. We regularly have market bubbles for fad items, only to find a lot of suckers holding huge stockpiles of some toy which no one, eventually, wants to buy from them. That too is irrational exuberance.
History’s first bubble, the Tulip Mania of the 1630s, I am sure you also know, came just a few decades after equity markets were created in Amsterdam (by the Portuguese Jews who fled oppression in their native Iberia). No government policy-makers caused that craze. It was also irrational exuberance. There was also a coffee bubble and a tea bubble around that time as well.
The term bubble comes from the market crash in the early 1720s in England, when it became apparent that all the debt and equity surrounding the South Sea Company was full of hot air. The English government does deserve some blame for that catastrophe, but mostly, like other bubbles, it was due to irrational exuberance.
[b] the Dutch East India Company (for which my Polish grandfather, living in Jakharta, worked for. …[/b]
I need to correct that. Grandpa Davis, who was a tailor, worked for a descendant company of the DEIC, making uniforms for the company’s officers. The Dutch East India Company was long gone by the time my grandfather was in Jakharta (c. 1909).
It seems to me that if they keep their message simple it could resonate.
If it was too big to fail, it’s too big. Break it up.
If the bankers did something illegal, prosecute them. If what they did was legal, change the laws. Better yet, enforce the laws you’ve already passed.
If you took money from the government to save your business, expect some rules about your behavior.
Stop arguing about infrastructure and do something about it.
[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b]:
Whether or not you like the idea of phasing in the project over about 20 years, it is not “killing the project”, and is the most effective way to keep rates lower. It would be more fruitful to discuss concepts that you don’t agree with rather than to just label them.
[i]”Yeah, but the vast majority of all human behavior is primarily ’emotion based’, even though we pretend we are creatures governed by intellect.”[/i]
Bob, you will get no argument from my on that point! Isn’t the opposite of emotional behavior, rational behavior? As children we are emotionally impulsive… we throw a tantrum on the floor from our anger and frustration of not getting what we want.
I think we are still that same child, only with much more practice, hopefully, for how to control our emotional impulses. That is the difference… acting on impulse, or thinking it through to a rational response.
I think we also need to all develop a more empathetic ear related to emotions trapped within communication. Or said another way, we need to understand the potential to get hooked and escalate and develop the thick skin required to prevent it.
One of my favorite personal victories is to maintain the calmer head and voice in a heated exchange. I am not harmed by words… really, I am not. Neither are others unless they let themselves be harmed. I am called “an idiot”, but I know I am of at least average intelligence. I am called “mean”, but I know I am caring. I am called “greedy”, but I know I am charitable. I frankly am disappointed in myself when I let the words of others burn me. If they are wrong, it gives them more power than they have earned. If they are correct, then I should thank them for helping my growth and development eliminating blind spots.
JB
“Isn’t the opposite of emotional behavior, rationale behavior”?
Perhaps, but that does not mean that either has a consistent correlation with moral or ethical behavior. Your example is of a child throwing a tantrum as a “bad” example of acting on impulse because we did not get our immediate desire. A different example would be the altruistic example of one person risking their own life to save that of another. Clearly an impulsive action which most of us would deem admirable.
Or, another example,while it is both rational and moral to decide to study hard to get a good education to get a high paying job, it may be rational, but not ethical to steal someone else’s idea or work to get ahead financially if there is low probability of being caught.
Rich
“I am not saying it is inconsequential” but then you go on to do just that in your comments.
Poverty is the lack of money. It is not dependent upon the way in which the lack of money occurred. No matter how much you prefer to see it as moral failing , and no matter how many anecdotes that Jeff may tell about individuals who prefer to beg than do work for cash, it does not change the fundamental unifying factor behind poverty, lack of money.
For every story of generational poverty you can site, I can counter with the story of farm laborers, extremely hard working, and living in poverty because our society stacks the economic deck against their type of labor. Same for housekeepers and nursing assistants, I know, I was one and frequently worked as hard in that position for minimum wage as I have as a doctor. For each of your stories, I can counter with a family impoverished by one members illness not covered by insurance because the company decided to invent some pretext for a pre-existing condition such as acne, claim the patient “lied about this condition ( forgot to enter it on their application since it hadn’t been an issue for 30 years) and thus denied payment for their cancer treatment. For each of your stories, I can counter with poverty caused by death, or illness causing job loss, or just plain inability to find work in the current economy. Regardless of how much more comfortable it may be to think that people are poor because they are lazy, or somehow corrupted by “entitlements” the reality is that poverty has only one common denominator, lack of money. And there are as many ways of arriving at that state as there are people who are there.
Rational and emotional are not opposites. But they can be in conflict. Just look at the work of Albert Ellis (REBT), as well as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) if you want to see how they can be used to complement each other and lead to healthier outcomes.
[i]”History would tell you otherwise, Jeff. The demonization of the evil corporation goes back long before motion pictures were ever thought of, let alone popular forms of entertainment.”[/i]
Rich, yeah, you are right about that. I should have written “The current accusation “evil corporation” is a myth manufactured by Hollywood.” In any case, what is the moral equivalent for these claims? I understand the political motivation exploiting class envy, but what is the corresponding solution? Where is the evidence (past or present) that tells us there is an alternative to free market capitalism that doesn’t lead down a path to lower prosperity for all? And please don’t point to the Dutch or Finnish people with their homogeneous and sparse population and reliance on US defense spending.
In 1965 when the top federal income tax rate was 90%, the top 20% of income earners paid 40% of the tax revenue. Now the top 20% contributes 70% of the tax revenue.
See the following:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/IncomePercentiles.jpg[/img]
The bottom tier of the top 20% makes just over $100,000. Wealth at that level, if you can call it that, is spread among a larger group. These are the people funding entitlements as the pay their own way in life. Guys like Warrant Buffet are few and far between; yet they are the poster children for this class war being waged by the Democrats.
These charts tell it all…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/ReceiptsGDP.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/SpendingGDP.jpg[/img]
Except for the dip in revenue from the Great Recession, tax revenue per GDP has remained flat even as income tax rates were lowered. However, entitlement spending has blown through the roof at the same time.
We certainly have economic problems, but not because the “rich” do not pay enough.
[i]” can counter with the story of farm laborers, extremely hard working, and living in poverty because our society stacks the economic deck against their type of labor.”[/i]
Medwoman: Here is one area where you and I differ, and where I think you are missing the boat. The farm laborer that migrated to this country without marketable skills, without an education and without the ability to communicate has his own deck stacked against him. However, he can still climb the social and economic ladder in this country. There is nothing stopping him other than his own self-determination.
You seem to turn “type of labor” into a different type of class definition. I know Americans like to identify with the work they do, but nothing need be permanent. I have changed careers. If you don’t like your work then quit. If you don’t have marketable skills, then go get them. If acquiring a certain skill or credential is too challenging, then the job is probably not right, so find something different to do.
There is competition. It means there will be winners and losers. But any loser can pick himself back up and try again… or try something different. Without this competition, we are doomed as a country.
Excellent. Let’s bump those tax receipts back up to the percentage they were in 2000.
Here are a couple of charts you might want to add to your collection:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/a_560x375.jpg[/img]
Don’t worry, you could add a few percent to the tax rate of the very wealthy. They’d still have plenty of money left over.
[i]You should read what Americans were saying about the railroad corporations in the 1850s[/i]
You should read what the railroad corporations were doing in the 1850’s.
Don:
What is “share of income”?
Is there a fixed pie?
Let’s say the wealthiest 1% are those that sell things to foreigners in the new global market. Do other’s deserve a share of that new wealth that did not exist before?
Your graph on the right is straight out of the class envy book.
The one on the left tells a story that all but the bottom tiers have seen their household income rise. The bottom are the result of the US losing its manufacturing base giving jobs to the low skilled.
Why should Bob care that Frank grows more wealth when it does not have anything to do with Bob’s wealth?
Let’s take Mr. Buffet. He made $62 million last year. He said he paid a 17% tax rate. Let’s increase that to 27%. The difference is $6.2 million. That is $6.2 million out of Mr. Buffets pocket and into the pocket of the government. So, now Don, how does that help the economy and fix the wealth gap you and others are so fond of pointing out?
As a related question, do your charts count the value of entitlements and free stuff given to low income people?
[i]”Excellent. Let’s bump those tax receipts back up to the percentage they were in 2000.”[/i]
That was tech stock bubble time. You know, that Clinton luck of timing… the recession that George Bush got handed… then 9-11… and still managed to grow tax receipts back to above average before the housing bubble popped.
[i]What is “share of income”? Is there a fixed pie?[/i]
Share of income is percentage of the total income. It grew for nearly everyone. It grew a lot, lot more for the top 1% than it did for anyone else.
[i] Let’s say the wealthiest 1% are those that sell things to foreigners in the new global market. Do other’s deserve a share of that new wealth that did not exist before? [/i]
Yes, of course they do. That is why we tax income. As noted by others, they reaped the benefits of many public expenditures in creating wealth. Roads, schools, universities, public spending on basic research, and more. They didn’t create that wealth out of thin air.
[i]Your graph on the right is straight out of the class envy book. [/i]
So describing the change in wealth distribution is “class envy”? The graph doesn’t give policy recommendations. It just shows what happened. Who wrote this “class envy” talking point that every Republican candidate and conservative talking head is suddenly using?
[i]The one on the left tells a story that all but the bottom tiers have seen their household income rise. The bottom are the result of the US losing its manufacturing base giving jobs to the low skilled.
Why should Bob care that Frank grows more wealth when it does not have anything to do with Bob’s wealth?[/i]
Therefore we use public funds to provide the safety net that Bob now needs, because he is out of work, is uninsured or underinsured, needs WIC or housing vouchers, needs job training, and so on. The money for those public funds comes from taxing others. In the short term, we can also spend money on infrastructure, creating jobs that way.
Just for the record, Republicans in congress oppose every one of the things I just mentioned.
[i]Let’s take Mr. Buffet. He made $62 million last year. He said he paid a 17% tax rate. Let’s increase that to 27%. The difference is $6.2 million. That is $6.2 million out of Mr. Buffets pocket and into the pocket of the government. So, now Don, how does that help the economy and fix the wealth gap you and others are so fond of pointing out? [/i]
It provides the safety net. I have no idea what fiscal policy will yield more jobs or income for lower-tier Americans. No fiscal policy seems to be creating jobs. If tax cuts worked, we’d be awash in jobs. If direct stimulation worked, we’d be awash in jobs. Government just needs to provide what people need during difficult times. You can provide a lot of WIC vouchers and school lunches with $6.2 million.
[i]As a related question, do your charts count the value of entitlements and free stuff given to low income people?[/i]
I assume so. They were from the CBO.
Why shouldn’t tax levels be returned to what they were in 2000?
Seriously, David, I think it is extremely important for people to get involved in national issues and I although the local level is my job and as such I focus on it, don’t think that our local problems hold a candle to our national problems.
We can’t solve our local problems in a vacuum.
Re: Don Shor:
“It seems to me that if they keep their message simple it could resonate.
If it was too big to fail, it’s too big. Break it up.
If the bankers did something illegal, prosecute them. If what they did was legal, change the laws. Better yet, enforce the laws you’ve already passed.”
Agree 100%!
Finally a moderate on this topic; not rabidly fanatical on the side of either uber-capitalist worship or slacker socialism.
I concur with all of Don Shors posts on this topic.
Re: Jeff Boone
“Is there a fixed pie?
Let’s say the wealthiest 1% are those that sell things to foreigners in the new global market. Do other’s deserve a share of that new wealth that did not exist before?
Your graph on the right is straight out of the class envy book.”
I would say it’s right out of the book of boundless avariciousness.
Jeff, perhaps our current economic malaise is a result of skewed, unfair policies for our business and corporate leadership, by both government and boards of directors. Because of all the regulations and prejudices of the boards, they are not being compensated by the boards to the level of value they truly contribute, and are further restricted by onerous regulations, bylaws, and taxes. This does not give sufficient incentive for the best to work their way to the top. By increasing executive compensation and reducing taxes so that the top 1% controls >90% of the countries wealth; we can then ensure that we get the most truly talented as the leaders; by creating so much more extra wealth due to their superhuman talent (and also of course trickle-down) the 10% of total wealth shared by the bottom 99% would make the bottom 99% even better off than today. Unfortunately due to our skewed system, this truly just awarding of wealth to the ‘wealth creators’ may not happen in our country; although it has worked as a stable system for over a century in many Latin American countries.
We are not here to serve ourselves.
I have several random and somewhat unrelated thoughts:
1. The Occupy message seem like it says “Someone has to be at fault for my problems and I’m blaming the rich folks”.
2. I believe the disparity in wealth is very troubling, and the issues associated with it will become more significant, not less. Conservatives will be making a mistake if they underestimate this group, much as the liberal group would like to dismiss the tea party folks.
3. The national debt problem is not going to be solved by taxing the wealthiest 1 or 5%. You just can’t get there if 47% of the folks are paying no federal taxes. The much better answer is to broaden the tax base, lower rates and get rid of much of the byzantine tax code which subsidizes various industries with deductions and tax credits.
4. Much to my surprise, I believe that Obama has decided that his political future depends on divisiveness and re-igniting his core group plus the liberal leaning independents. It is a very dangerous path for our country, and very surprising for a man whose primary message was about bringing folks together.
5. Bush undertook to lower taxes in 2001 after 9/11 in order to revive the economy. I think it was a good idea at the time, but we have engaged in some very expensive wars since then, and we have to replace those funds with some higher taxes. It is implausible for an economy to have ever decreasing tax rates – we don’t have a sound economy if that is the only way it ever grows!
“Much to my surprise, I believe that Obama has decided that his political future depends on divisiveness and re-igniting his core group plus the liberal leaning independents. It is a very dangerous path for our country, and very surprising for a man whose primary message was about bringing folks together.”
You hit the nail on the head. Right now Obama cares more about getting re-elected than he does about the country.
Adam Smith
I do not see what you would find surprising about Obama seeking support from his core and liberal leaning independents after four years of hearing that the main goal of the Republican leadership was not to work together for solutions, but rather to ensure that he failed and was a one term president and seeing how this played out with virtually every Democratic proposal.
Oh please, Obama couldn’t even get 50 votes out of the Democrat controlled Senate for his new jobs bill.
The topic of this article really was not Obama – in fact it was the opposite, to look at local issues.
[i]I do not see what you would find surprising about Obama seeking support from his core and liberal leaning independents after four years of hearing that the main goal of the Republican leadership was not to work together for solutions, but rather to ensure that he failed and was a one term president and seeing how this played out with virtually every Democratic proposal. [/i]
I guess I feel that he has really decided that what’s good for the country is not his focus – it is to get re-elected. And the way he is choosing to do that is not a positive message or way – he has taken to split the country and energize one set of folks with ” you are being screwed” message. This is not the president he promised to be, and it is much more divisive than George Bush ever was — he never sought single out a group, label them as “screwed and disenfranchised” and pit them against another group of citizens. I understand that some folks didn’t like George Bush (and for good reasons), but he did not seek to divide like Obama has.
Adam Smith: [i]”This is not the president he promised to be, and it is much more divisive than George Bush ever was — he never sought single out a group, label them as “screwed and disenfranchised” and pit them against another group of citizens.”[/i]
It amazes me that Obama still has as much support as he does. He demonstrates all the traits of a weak leader seeking to prop up his popularity with one group at the expense of another. He is a silver-tounged Ivy League-educated Hugo Chavez.
Again, this is not an Obama discussion thread.
[quote]It seems to me that if they keep their message simple it could resonate.
If it was too big to fail, it’s too big. Break it up.
If the bankers did something illegal, prosecute them. If what they did was legal, change the laws. Better yet, enforce the laws you’ve already passed.
If you took money from the government to save your business, expect some rules about your behavior.
Stop arguing about infrastructure and do something about it. [/quote]
All excellent points. However, the protestors don’t seem to be arguing this. In fact, they seem to be saying we are going to sit here and create a mess until we get what we want, but we don’t know exactly what that is. I walked by Central Park last night, to see overflowing trash cans from the 10 or so “protestors” who had camped out with their laptops and all sorts of other modern conveniences. Who will clean up their mess? I suspect not them. And yet I have seen part time jobs advertised…
If you want to protest something, the least you ought to have is a coherent message; and the least you ought to do is clean up after your own messes…
[i]Again, this is not an Obama discussion thread. [/i]
Sorry David. Back on point – are you suggesting that Occupy Davis ought to be much more concerned about municipal unions and their negative impact in CA than Wall Street’s impact? If so, I completely agree. Lead on!
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: Whether or not you like the idea of phasing in the project over about 20 years, it is not “killing the project”, and is the most effective way to keep rates lower. It would be more fruitful to discuss concepts that you don’t agree with rather than to just label them.[/quote]
I call ’em like I see ’em!
DON SHOR: [i]”You should read what the railroad corporations were doing in the 1850’s.”[/i]
They were employing an Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.
BOB A.” [i]”We are not here to serve ourselves.”[/i]
Why not? Is serving oneself exclusive of serving others, as well?
It seems to me man starts out (after childhood) serving himself. He needs to earn (or somehow otherwise obtain) enough resources to feed, house, clothe and entertain himself. Once he has that, he can take on a mate and make children and help to take care of them. But doing so, he is still helping himself, and presumably he likes kids and enjoys his mate.
Once he has taken care of his family’s needs and wants, he can help his community and beyond. But by necessity, he has to first take care of himself, hopefully without doing so in a way that harms others.
Don: [i]”Yes, of course they do. That is why we tax income. As noted by others, they reaped the benefits of many public expenditures in creating wealth. Roads, schools, universities, public spending on basic research, and more. They didn’t create that wealth out of thin air.” [/i]
You are not advocating just taking the existing portion of their earned wealth. You are advocating taking a greater percentage of their earned wealth just because they acquired it. That is classism.
You can justify this approach all you want, but it the long run it will not create more jobs. Your approach is the same that Argentina has taken and look how it has helped them.
Rich: “But by necessity, he has to first take care of himself, hopefully without doing so in a way that harms others.”
Correct.
Some people like to think they can assign higher morals to certain pursuits over others. What is the net impact of help provided by the CEO of a successful corporation and the college professor? The left political template is to demonize the CEO and angleize the professor based on their role.
Both pursue their selfish interests which is their right and natural tendency. The CEO works to keep his company profitable so it earns him weatlh and allows him to make a positive impact. The professor delegates teaching of his classes to graduate students while he focuses on his research and publication which allows him to make a positive impact.
Which man is more “moral”?
Mr. Shor, I don’t think it’s fair that you own a business and I don’t. I feel you should make me a part owner of your business because I’ve helped pay for the roads and infrastructure that your customers use when they go to shop at your store. Of course I’m being facetious but as far as fair share goes, where does it stop?
[i]You are not advocating just taking the existing portion of their earned wealth. You are advocating taking a greater percentage of their earned wealth just because they acquired it. That is classism.[/i]
Or it is called investment. Depends what you spend it on. If spent on critical infrastructure and development, then it leads to even greater wealth.
It’s the difference in Apple Inc. in Steve Jobs’ absence (when they sat on their laurels and just sought to make the quarterly numbers look good) vs. Apple Inc., 1998 to present when they invested R&D in good products.
Rich:
Thanks for the opportunity to explain. I do not believe that “He who dies with the most toys wins.”. Nor do I believe that the accumulation of wealth is strictly a function of one’s own merit or a reflection of one’s real human worth. It appalls me that our culture continues to teach our children that what you have and what you own is somehow a reflection of some divine approval of you. Some wealthy people come across as believing they are “entitled” to what they’ve accumulated and “entitled” to better treatment from the rest of us because of their accumulations.
To the extent that I am smart, attractive, athletic or otherwise ‘gifted’, I did nothing to earn those things. They are truly gifts, like a five dollar bill I found on the sidewalk. The real question is, ‘What am I going to do with that five dollar bill?” I think my brains and skills, being gifts I did nothing to earn, oblige me to use them to serve others, not myself. And not merely my wife and children. Those gifts were given to me to share with others. Those gifts were not given to me solely to enrich myself and my loved ones.
I am not here to serve myself. I am here to serve others less gifted/less fortunate than myself. Although I am terribly imperfect, I really believe this and I am trying to live my life that way. I have taught my children this and they too are struggling to live their lives this way too. It makes me very proud of them.
For many, this world sucks, typically due to little or no fault of their own. I am committed to trying to change that. I do not believe we change that by simply taking whatever our gifts allow us to get away with.
I know I’m getting myself in trouble now. But obviously I’ve shown evidence of this personality flaw many times in the past.
[i]”It appalls me that our culture continues to teach our children that what you have and what you own is somehow a reflection of some divine approval of you.”[/i]
So you are not a Calvinist?
Although your sermon about what is right and what is wrong is not a prescription for government policy, it is easy to conclude this about your philosophy: it cannot work with exceedingly high rates of taxation.
If, as you say, the point of life is to choose to help others, your ability to do so will be decimated if the government takes away from you nearly all of your income. If you are left with barely enough to clothe, house and feed yourself, despite your productivity in the marketplace, you won’t have money or time to care for the poor. And because such a system of taxation necessarily takes away the incentive of most people to work hard and produce, there will be far more people who are poor and in need, and far fewer to help them.
As such, the policy platform which follows the Aaronson ethic must be one of minimal taxation, allowing as many people to choose to help others as possible.
Rich, you did make me laugh out loud, in appreciation of your perspective.
I apologize. Although I can see how it reads that way, I did not intend a sermon. And I believe it is my moral obligation as an American to pay my taxes in full. I do not expect government or any other human enterprise to be any more perfect than I am. But I do hope that each and every one of us aspires to a better existence for all of us.
And even when the marginal tax rates were well over 70 percent for the highest brackets, people were still afforded opportunities to serve others.
Jeff: [i]You are advocating taking a greater percentage of their earned wealth just because they acquired it. That is classism. [/i]
It is called progressive taxation. I can’t think of a single country in the world that doesn’t have a progressive tax structure. Why you single out Argentina is beyond me. You seem a little fixated on that country right now.
[i]You can justify this approach all you want, but it the long run it will not create more jobs.
[/i]
I specifically said I have no idea what fiscal policy will create jobs. Neither do you.
rusty: [i]I feel you should make me a part owner of your business because I’ve helped pay for the roads and infrastructure that your customers use when they go to shop at your store. Of course I’m being facetious but as far as fair share goes, where does it stop?[/i]
I pay lots of taxes, rusty.
Don: [i]”Or it is called investment. Depends what you spend it on. If spent on critical infrastructure and development, then it leads to even greater wealth.”[/i]
Don, as a business owner I am concerned for you based on your apparent lack of understanding of business finance terminology. What business owner classifies the taxes they pay as “an investment”? Taxes are a business expense. Certainly anyone can understand the secondary benefits of taxes paid resulting in infrastructure development. However, that is not where the growth in government spending has occurred over the last several decades. In fact, infrastructure spending has declined as a percentage of GDP. What government has consistently done is to create $1.40 in additional long-term entitlement payment obligations with every new dollar they take in. So, based on this actual performance, the best long-term “investment” we business owners can make in our country is to work to reduce the extra dollars we send to the government so they cannot tack on 40% additional debt, and instead use that extra capital to invest in business expansion that creates more jobs and even greater wealth. In other words reduce taxation per GDP, and increase GDP. That is what this country needs… economic growth. This view of expanding government is the antithesis of a rational plan to mend and improve our economy.
Let’s say there are 100 Redwood Barn businesses throughout the country, and 15% of these owners are ambitious and want to expand to a chain or franchise. Now raise the corporate and individual tax rate. Not only did you cause 5 out of the 15 expansion projects to no longer pencil out, but you also caused another 15% of the remaining businesses to close because their new tax rate puts them in the red and unable to operate.
Now, the remaining 76 stores plus the 5 expansion projects are paying a higher tax rate so that the government can redistribute more entitlements to a larger pool of nursery employees out of work.
Just run this same scenario up the food chain to larger companies (e.g., those run by those “fat cat” CEOs as Obama is so fond of saying)… it is all the same. Taxation is an expense, and when you run any business the goal is the same… to make profit and stay viable. When you increase expenses of taxation and regulatory compliance you cause more business projects to not pencil out. Then capital chases other ventures where a better return can be had.
The Laffer Curve is real. It is more pronounced these days because of hyper global competition. That did not exist in the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was 90%. It did not even exist to this level when Clinton was in office and the US dominated most high-tech industries. The global competitive game has been ramped up. Taxation and demands for more are like a ball and chain around our entrepreneurs and business risk-takers. The liberal egalitarian view is a spiral downward toward lower economic freedom and prosperity. Pursuing this path, like in Cuba, we may end up with free healthcare and little else.
Jeff: [i]Don: “Or it is called investment. Depends what you spend it on. If spent on critical infrastructure and development, then it leads to even greater wealth.”[/i]
Damnit, Jeff, that’s my comment you’re answering, not Don’s.
Jeff, I define infrastructure expenditures to include human capital as well as physical capital, which includes health and education. A healthy, educated workforce is a benefit to business, and makes us more competitive as a country.
wdf1, sorry about that! I am currently flogging myself for the error. I have done that before as you and Don tend to have similar views for many topics. I will pay closer attention. Assuming you are Don, how might you respond?
Don, as Rosanna Danna Danna would say… “never mind!”
Don: [i]”Why you single out Argentina is beyond me. You seem a little fixated on that country right now.”[/i]
Argentina abandoned free markets, ostensibly in the interest of social justice. The predictable result has been greater injustice, more poverty, and increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the political class and its friends. Efforts to make the economy competitive have repeatedly been defeated even as the standard of living declined.
Don: [i]”I specifically said I have no idea what fiscal policy will create jobs. Neither do you.” [/i]
Please don’t tell me what I do not know. My profession is small business economic development. I know a lot about how to create jobs and how fiscal policy impacts job creation.
Don: [i]”I pay lots of taxes”[/i]
I think Rusty’s point was that there are people is worse economic shape than you that would like you to pay more taxes so the government can take better care of them.
Do Shor:
“I pay lots of taxes, rusty.”
Ha,ha, well maybe the Occupy bunch will say that you don’t pay enough. I’m sure most business owners, millionaires and billionaires all think they pay lots of taxes too. So what’s your “fair share”? I mean the roads, schools, universities, public spending on basic research, and more that they didn’t create out of thin air (as you say) that we all paid for needs to be paid back.
[i]”A healthy, educated workforce is a benefit to business, and makes us more competitive as a country.”[/i]
Agreed.
Where we differ is HOW to get that done.
David: [i]”To me, the schools issue is crucial to understand because it ties everything back together. The economic downturn caused California to have huge budget deficits. Our leaders chose to balance that budget with huge cuts to K-12 education and huge cuts to higher education.”[/i]
We have to figure out how to do education and other services provided by the government faster, better and cheaper like private industry has done… or cut other programs and/or government employee compensation and benefits to direct more fund to education. If government can’t, then we should turn it over to the private sector and require the public sector to work on oversight and contract management instead of providing the actual services. We simply cannot afford to increase taxes on the wealthy. They will just leave. You can increases taxes on the middle class because they are more captive to the state… however a percent of them will leave too.
DON: [i]”It is called progressive taxation. I can’t think of a single country in the world that doesn’t have a progressive tax structure.”[/i]
You seem to have realized, with your edit, that there are a handful of countries with flat taxes–mostly former communist countries that had high rates of poverty in the early 1990s but now are mostly doing quite well.
Among them are Hungary (with a 16% flat income tax), Lithuania, Estonia and the Czech Republic. There are also crap countries including Albania and Russia with flat income tax structures.
My own view is that you can have an equitable income tax system with a flat rate in a country like the United States, if you structure it properly. This is what I favor:
A personal exemption for all adults of roughly $20,000 and an exemption for up to two children in each family equal to one-half the exemption per adult for each child. So if you have a family of four (two parents and two kids), they would have an exemption of $60,000. If they had more than two kids, they could only exempt 2 from income tax.
So if that family of four had an income of $70,000 per year, only the last $10,000 would be subject to income tax.
I am not sure exactly what the right rate should be. I would want it to be tax neutral from the perspective of the federal goverment.
Say it is 25%. That family of four would pay $2,500 per year in income tax (25% x $10,000). If some other family of four had an income of $250,000 per year–say both mom and dad are firefighters in Davis–they would pay $47,500 in income tax ($250,000 – $60,000 = $190,000 x 25% = $47,500).
In my ideal system, all personal income (including income from sole proprietorships) would be taxed the same. So if someone made his money from dividends or earnings or capital gains or bank interest or gambling, the income (after the exemption) would be taxed at the same rate of say 25%.
I would eliminate all deductions and all tax credits. I would not allow a deduction for mortgage interest, charitable giving or medical costs. If someone fixed up an old building, I would not give him any special tax credits. My ideal personal income tax system would be clean and simple.
I would also get rid of the corporate income tax for domestic corporations. If such companies pay dividends, the recipients would have to pay tax on the dividends. If the companies pay salaries, the recipients of the salaries would pay tax on those salaries.
I would treat global companies differently. I would have them pay a flat 25% corporate tax on their domestic earnings. Why? Because if we had a zero percent income tax on a global company, they would claim a high income here and then ship their profits overseas in salaries and dividends to countries with low rates of tax on salaries and dividends.
A tough question with business taxes (including those on sole proprietorships and partnerships) is what the business can deduct as legitimate expenses. In this quick post I cannot explain my full view, other than to say the government needs to be much stricter in allowing deductions which are not directly related to the business operation–such as deductions for dinnners at fancy restaurants, most travel costs, tickets to ballgames and so on.
DON: [i]”Why you single out Argentina is beyond me.”[/i]
Jeff answered this, but I will add my thoughts: Argentina is an interesting example of a country which managed through bad policy choices to go from a 1st World economy in the mid to late 1940s with a standard of living higher than most European countries and an educated 1st World population to a wreck of a 3rd World country 10-20 years later and Argentina is a country that has never fully recovered from its past mistakes.
Unlike Brazil, with a massive population of blacks and sambos and indigenous tribes, whose cultures were not modern and who were terribly uneducated and violent, Argentina’s culture was entirely European/Western. Argentina was (and is) a white country. The people there don’t trace their roots to the jungles of Africa or the Amazaon. They are largely Spaniards, Italians, Germans, Jews, Frenchmen and Scots.
And yet they have made themselves through policy choices as poor as anyone else in Latin America.
There are some caveats to point in this story which Jeff did not mention. A great amount of the wealth they had was the byproduct of two crops, beef and wheat, at a time when the global market was demanding more beef and wheat was growing, and the largest country which should have been providing more beef and wheat, Soviet Russia + The Ukraine, was under the thumb of a man who wanted his people to starve to death. So Argentina was lucky in that respect, as were the U.S., Canada and Australia.
What Juan Peron, the dictator who destroyed Argentina did, was to destroy the cattle and grain crop industries. He did this in the name of industrialization. Peron was the patron saint of the industrial labor unions. He thought he could help Argentina industrialize by taxing the profits of beef and wheat and use that money to build cars and refrigerators and television sets in companies owned by the Argentine government. To capture all that money the cattle ranchers were making, he forbade them from exporting beef. He required that all their beef be sold to him and his government. The government would decide the price and then sell off the beef and leather and bones and so on to domestic or foreign buyers. The profits Peron thought he would make would be used to build up industry. He then did the same thing with the grain crops in Argentina.
Guess what happened? Argentine beef and wheat production fell in half, then half again, then half again, and half again. Pretty soon this rich, productive country was producing almost nothing and could no longer export.
They did get some industrial production going: as you might expect, they produced sh!tty products that no one wanted.
So in a decade, in the name of industrialization and industrial unions, Argentina was as poor as Honduras.
Today, Argentina’s policies are no longer corporatist. They have reformed and privatized most of their economy. But culturally they have never recovered from Juan Peron.
[i]”I am not sure exactly what the right rate should be. I would want it to be tax neutral from the perspective of the federal goverment. Say it is 25%.”[/i]
I forgot to add this: I would ban all state income taxes and municipal income taxes.
In their place, I would commit in advance some share, say 20%, of the income taxes paid in each state (plus D.C.) to the states based on how much was paid in.
For example, if the federal rate was 25%, I would have the feds keep 20% and give the states (plus D.C.) the last 5%.
The reason I favor this is that it gets rid of the temptation of the people in the various states to excessively tax their wealthier residents and it stops wealthy people from cheating the system by moving their income from one state to another based on a lower or no income tax.
In my system, effectively, all states would have a 5% income tax. They just would not run the tax collections and would have no ability to determine what the rates should be. But each states would fiscally benefit from keeping their share of the income tax collected in their state.
One more bit with tax policy: my getting rid of all tax deductions that are not direct business expenses means no company could write off its expenses for purchasing medical plans for its employees. Likewise, any amount an employee received in medical benefits would be taxed at the full 25% rate (assuming an income higher than the standard family deductions described above).
The result would be that employers, generally, would no longer buy medical plans for their employees. And most young, healthy employees would no longer want to pay $5,000 in taxes out of pocket to get a $20,000 per year plan he never uses.
Insofar as that divorces medical coverage from one’s job, I believe that is a good thing. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who will not start a business or leave their current job for a job which would make them happier, because they are afraid of losing their healthcare plans (especially when they have a pre-existing condition or one of their kids has some bad disease).
What I think is a much better option for the United States is a semi-Canadian plan for all Americans, regardless of job or income status.
We now spend something like 16% of our GDP on healthcare. Canada spends 10% and has much better health statistics (in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, recovery from major diseases, etc.)
The plan I favor would be one which, for people 18-65, covered the basics: emergency care, one trip per year to the doctor, some generic meds and insured everyone for a catastrophe, like cancer or a major accident. Nothing fancy. It would be like a typical Blue Cross plan.
It would be paid for by a new special personal income tax of 10%, taken on top of the regular 25% income tax. It would also have a personal exemption.
I would treat the elderly and children better, giving all a plan as good as current Medicare Part A provides.
Unlike Canada, which has a very good system for everyone, my basic plan for those 18-65 would be basic. But anyone who wanted a cream of the crop plan–the kind City of Davis employees get–could buy that on their own, if they could afford it. The expenses for the cream of the crop plans would be entirely unregulated. The insurers could charge what they want and cover whatever they want. The doctors would be free to take on these private patients, charging whatever the market would bear.
One of the main reasons the Canadian system is so cheap compared with ours, is that the Canadian government sets all the prices for basic meds and provider services. I would do that here, much like MediCare does. No doctors would be forced to accept the rates set by the government, but if they wanted to take any patient on a basic coverage plan they would have to. If cutting rates caused a shortage of doctors, we would have to train more doctors and or raise the rates. That limits how far the monopsony power of the government would be.
Another big reform I would institute would be to get rid of all medical malpractice lawsuits. We would have no more men like John Edwards enriching themselves. I would instead place the responsibility on medical license boards to punish bad practioners. Getting rid of malpractice suits would likely make our system much cheaper than it is now.
I realize that a basic plan given to all citizens and all legal permanent residents would be far from perfect. But compared to what we have now, it would be ideal. It would greatly help businesses in our country, who are harmed by our current employer-provider system. And it would greatly help all workers who feel they cannot leave their current jobs for greener pastures. Mostly, it would make medical delivery in the United States efficient.
Rich
” he has to take care of himself first, hopefully invite out doing so in a way that harms others”
Unfortunately when the goal becomes not just providing for his own and his family’s needs, but in amassing as much wealth, possessions, and power as possible, it frequently does do harm to others.
And I disagree with you fundamentally that he has to take care of himself first. This ultimately pits every individual against everyone else. This idea rests exclusively on the competitive aspect of man’s nature and completely ignores the social and cooperative nature which for me is equally if not more important.
As for your suggested changes to the medical system, I am in near complete agreement. I probably would tend to be more generous with the “basic plan” than you favoring giving everyone a plan at least as good as Medicare Part A provides. I feel that in the longterm, this would save money by catching problems earlier when they are likely to be less costly to deal with. I also would like to see incentives in place for preventive health measures demonstrated to save money in the long run. Like you, I definitely favor uncoupling employment from health care, doing away with malpractice lawsuits and providing universal coverage. I also agree with having all basic meds and service charges
set by the government. Finally, I would do away completely with “fee for service” billing in favor of set salaries for providers. I think it is very hard for those not in medicine to understand how in fee for service medicine how many unnecessary tests, procedures and medicines are given for a profit motive rather than for what will truly benefit the patient. While this may benefit the economy by increasing the individual doctor’s purchasing power, it is a major source of driving up health care costs unnecessarily.
It is amazing that the censors who control this blog let the most blatant racism appear but arbitrarily take down speech they find offensive. Here are a few examples of subtle coded bigotry and more outright racist remarks, Now I do understand that they may have slipped through due to the limited intellectual capacity of the censors but I must point out that ignorance is no excuse.
” The little Vietnamese who have come here have thrived. Same with Koreans. Same with Chinese and Taiwanese and Japanese. They all started out small and underfed and so on. But they valued family and school and hard work. That has made them much more successful than most white Americans who were born into average families. The story of the Oriental Asians is similar to that of most South Asians and East Africans and Arab-Americans and so on. But other groups with crappy cultures who don’t value education or family go on generation after generation producing kids with problems like those you describe.”
” I blame much of the problem of the housing bubble on the secondary mortgage market, which itself was mostly the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, themselves created by the federal government and made worse by affirmative action policies of Congress. “
“Unlike Brazil, with a massive population of blacks and sambos and indigenous tribes, whose cultures were not modern and who were terribly uneducated and violent, Argentina’s culture was entirely European/Western. Argentina was (and is) a white country. “
I’ve explained the rules of the blog to you, Mr. Toad. If you have a disagreement with Rich Rifkin’s analysis, you are welcome to debate your disagreements with him. Personal attacks aren’t allowed, as you know.
Insulting the moderator and/or the blog owner is not a good idea.
So its good to know that racism is allowed here. Calling all racists go to Davis Vanguard where you will be welcome.
Toad, if you have any evidence that anything I said is not true, then tell me. I am always happy to be proven wrong. But if all you can do is call me racist, with no evidence of that at all other than your bizarre misinterpretation of my words, then you are worthless. And if you want to address this to me personally, then write me an email. I would be happy to meet with you, anywhere, any time.
lxartist@yahoo.com
Toad, if your goal was to piss me off, then you have succeeded. But lord knows the facts are on my side on this one. You are running away from the truth.
[i]”Canada spends 10% and has much better health statistics (in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, recovery from major diseases, etc.)”[/i]
Rich, I have to digest all your recommendations for reforming our tax system. I will do so and comment later. I am in favor of a flat tax, and am intrigued by Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as I have been Steven Forbe’s plans.
However, note that Premier of Nova Scotia, Danny Williams, came to the US for a heart procedure because it used modern laparoscopic technology. In Canada, after waiting on a list, Mr. Williams would have experienced Canadian doctors sawing and cracking open his ribcage because they lacked current medical technology. Many Canadians take a health-holiday to the US to get special life-saving procedures either not available or backlogged in the Canadian system. Compared to the US, cancer survival rates are much lower in Canada and other countries with socialized medicine. If we are going to laud Canadian healthcare, then at least we should round out the information about it.
Medwoman: [i]” And I disagree with you fundamentally that he has to take care of himself first. This ultimately pits every individual against everyone else. This idea rests exclusively on the competitive aspect of man’s nature and completely ignores the social and cooperative nature which for me is equally if not more important.”[/i]
Assuming you are flying with a child or person with special needs and the jet loses cabin pressure, doesn’t the flight attendant instruct you to first put on your oxygen mask? It is impossible to help others is you suffocate first.
Competitive free man collaborates with others as needed as part of his competitive nature. Bleeding heart liberals have not cornered the market on free collaboration… maybe forced collaboration, but not the free type.
IMO, I don’t think you understand competition very well. It is a constant improvement mechanism that provides for the survival of the fittest and the advance of a species. Without this mechanism, most plants and animals on this planet become extinct.
I second Rich Rifkins overall health care plan! (I also liked his Davis Enterprise editorial on Davis water issue)
It seems inevitable that we will need to go to some sort of a system like this; Rich’s plan pretty closely matches my own thoughts on this!
Good to see another moderate on the forum.
Medwoman, do you have an opinion on this?
Cancer survival rates in Canada and the U.S.:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Cancer[/url]
[i]I don’t think you understand competition very well. It is a constant improvement mechanism that provides for the survival of the fittest and the advance of a species.[/i]
Evolution and natural selection (and genetic drift, and mutation) apply to populations. That doesn’t mean that we use them as a model for developing social policy.
Re: competition
Seems to me to develop a healthy society we need not promote either competition or cooperation, but simply contribution. That is, you must earn your access to material goods by contributing positively to society in some form or other; mainly by doing meaningful work that is useful to other people besides yourself.
Leave the notion of competition alone, as far as educating our children. It is as fundamental to human nature as is cooperation; and will manifest on its own without our educational system encouraging it.
In the short run, encouraging those competitive aspects of human nature and amping them up and hyping them up can indeed have an upside for business and corporations, as everyone tries to excel and work harder than their neighbor. In the long run, it can have detrimental pschological effects on individuals, including isolation, and I think this competitive mindset is one of the main factors leading to the splintering and disintegration of our culture and communities.
It might be wiser to encourage cooperation a bit rather than competition, for social cohesion in our very complex society, as is done in much of Asia.
Again, don’t discourage competition, but no need to encourage it either; it will manifest in any case.
I would propose the main way to achieve a healthy society is to encourage and help enable all members to contribute, and leave them free to compete, cooperate, or achieve on their own!
“Toad, you are not a person who cares about fair argument.”
“But if all you can do is call me racist, with no evidence of that at all other than your bizarre misinterpretation of my words, then you are worthless.”
“Toad, if your goal was to piss me off, then you have succeeded. But lord knows the facts are on my side on this one. You are running away from the truth.”
I would respond, in fact I did, but my post was taken down, censored, for pointing out that racism is allowed but pointing it out is not.
Oh and I thought personal attacks were prohibited.
I think all I did was quote you Rich.
[i]”I would propose the main way to achieve a healthy society is to encourage and help enable all members to contribute, and leave them free to compete, cooperate, or achieve on their own!”[/i]
jimt, very well said.
The problem is that we make the safety net so expansive that people become trapped in it and lose their self-determination. It feeds and breeds complacency. It sets low expectations for performance. Our safety net should be more about a hand-up; teaching everyone to compete for prosperity and to earn their own better life. This drive to earn a better life is the essence of what has made this country great. The story of Argentina is evidence for what happens when we stop understanding this and fall into the trap of social policy driven by short-sighted bleeding-heart, central-control aficionados. It only took a decade for the country to fall. How long will it take them to climb back?
There is a tendency for some with this “save the people” worldview to see competition as anathema to morality. The two are separate. Immoral behavior is immoral behavior. Lying, cheating, stealing… seeking to harm others… these are undesirable and punishable behaviors in any case.
How might any professional or collegiate sport have evolved with a safety nets like some would have us provide society? Suffice to say that we would not be watching much of it on TV.
Note that competition in sports requires an optimization of individual AND cooperative performance. For example, individuals compete for a position on the team, and then the team cooperates to win competition against other teams. A similar model is best-practice for business. There are winners and losers. The losers pick themselves up and learn to compete in some other game or using different methods.
Competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. What drives effective cooperation is capable participants working on shared goals and leadership to help steer them toward the desired outcome. Individual competition can and should exist before cooperation in many cases… to develop a vision of shared goals, and then leadership motivates cooperation to accomplish the goals.
To win the game of economic competition, business require both individual and cooperative performance. However, we expect top-shelf moral behavior from all. We should save our scorn for the immoral, stop demonizing the successful, and stop angelifying handouts that corrupt the spirit and destoy the competitive nature of humans.
Why does this blog take down comments that take exception to racism but leave the racist remarks up. Curiouser and curioser. Is it that racism is allowed or is it that criticizing racism is banned. In my post I mentioned nobody by name I simply copied the offensive remarks. The author responded offensively but I was just objecting to the remarks and saying they were racist. So how does that violate the policy?
Any questions or concerns about moderation decisions on the blog can be directed to me at donshor@gmail.com, or to David Greenwald at the contact link above.
Moderation actions will not be debated on the blog. Posts debating moderation practices will be removed.
No debate from me. I for one appreciate the difficult unpaid job of moderator. However, I will say that having a post rejected feels like a one-sided rejection slap and causes quite a bit of anger. Just ask me about my experience on the Huffington Post.
Here are three relevant lines from the Society Of Journalism’s Code of Ethics (one that few in media seem to follow these days):
Journalists should:
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Note that the last one conflicts with the fist two. The first two, although reasonable on the surface, tend to irrationally stifle much useful conversation, research and debate. For example, why do Asians tend to do so well in academics and blacks tend to be overrepresented in professional sports? These questions are considered off limits by the hyper-sensitive political correctness police. We have also made certain words off limits. This creates new problems communicating about our histories when these same words were part of the normal vocabulary.
I think we are missing a key benefit of open dialog by sanitizing, deleting and demonizing too much free speech. We are all different… not robots.
” Posts debating moderation practices will be removed.”
But racist remarks will remain.
Why is this blog cool with racism in its comments?
jimt
In my post of 10/17 at 8:30 my second paragraph addressed some areas of agreement with Rich’s suggestions.
1) I agree with a universal coverage plan
2) I would like to see it include everyone in a comprehensive package that would cover preventive care, acute illness, chronic illness, catastrophic injury or illness, mental as well as physical conditions and both short and long term assisted living and or residential treatment. The argument against this is that it is “too expensive”.
My counter position is that it is too expensive not to provide this. The way we are doing it now is to provide all of this care when it is most expensive, namely in the Emergency Room where the uninsured present when they are desperately ill when it is very expensive to provide care, instead of preventing the illness to begin with.
This is not “short sighter, bleeding heart” but an understanding of the economic benefits of prevention vs high tech. rescue medicine.
3) I agree with Rich’s recommendation to do away with malpractice lawsuits. If we were to cover everyone’s health care, we would in large part do away with the need for some of our most costly lawsuits, those involving
obstetrical “malpractice” which in many cases are brought not because anything was done wrong medically, but because the family has no means to support the needs of a child with severe and lifelong neurologic deficits.
4) With regard to Jeff Boones praise of our high tech emphasis, unfortunately this is frequently used simply because it can be, and because it is more lucrative for the providers. I will give just one example. There are three major types of hysterectomy: open abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic. Open abdominal is more expensive in terms of length of hospital stay and overall length of time to recovery and thus usually a less attractive option for benign cases. Vaginal hysterectomy is low tech and does not require specialized training beyond what any gynecologist receives, does not require a lot of specialized and very expensive equipment, and is usually much faster than laparoscopic hysterectomy thus saving very valuable OR time and the time of a very specialized team of personnel. Unfortunately, it is much less “sexy and high tech” than is laparoscopic hysterectomy and thus is becoming a bit of a lost art. Thus laparoscopic surgery in this case is driving up the cost by diverting patient’s from an equally effective and much less expensive procedure to the high tech one. I know because I have had to counsel a number of patients who erroneously had been sold on the idea that the latest advance was the best for them just because it exists regardless of cost.
Jeff
“It is impossible to help others if you suffocate first”
Correct, but I doubt that our top !% would be “suffocating” if they were to contribute a little more so that none of our children were left hungry or without shelter.
“How might any professional or collegiate sport have evolved with a safety net….”
I would pont out to you that both professional automobile racing and professional hockey are currently in the process of tightening their “safety nets” due to deaths in the case of car racing and concussion in the case of hockey. Now you may argue that this will decrease viewership as they become less of a “blood sport”, but I would argue that it is worth the trade off.
Jeff
“fall into the trap of social policy driven by “short sighted, bleeding heart, central=control aficionados”
Wow, could you have accumulated any more thoughtless, knee jerk, and virtually meaningless stereotypes into one sentence ! I thought what we were doing was discussing the value of ideas as you seemed to apply on another thread, not just throwing around what you apparently consider to be disparaging terms.
[i]”Correct, but I doubt that our top !% would be “suffocating” if they were to contribute a little more so that none of our children were left hungry or without shelter.”[/i]
Medwoman: I have said over and over that I am not talking about children, seniors without means and people with true disabilities that prevent them from working. If we were to stop paying such high compensation to government union workers, and we were to reduce the size of government, and stop giving entitlements to people that do not require it, we would not need to fire up the class envy engine to grab more private wealth to distribute. Stop being angry at the successful and be angry at your government for the irresponsible use of funds that leave less for the truly needy.
On your counter point about professional sports I think you use a false emotive about “blood sport”. No fan of professional racing or any other sport wants their heroes to die in the sport. Watch a cage fighting match where the two fighters embrace each other after the fight. The race car drivers wanted to win, but most of them are friends and were devastated at the young driver’s death. Also, your safety net analogy misses the mark, IMO. I think you might not truly understand competition… you seem to see it as a wholly negative thing. Didn’t you have to compete with other students for grades growing up? Didn’t you have to compete for jobs with a resume and interviewing skills? Don’t how have to compete with other employees for promotions? All of this competition leads to greater prosperity and success and ensures that the winner is the best-fit. Why is this negative thing?
Nobody is advocating eliminating all business regulations; however, the primary goal of government, like the governance of professional sports, should be to keep the industry/program healthy, competitive and as safe as possible. A government style safety net for professional racing would be taking prize money from the winners to distribute to the losers. How might that practice destroy the sport?
Medwoman:
On your point about vaginal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy… You have two choices:
1. The government tells you which procedure you have access to.
2. Patients can make their own informed choice.
I assume you are against HSA health insurance. My thinking is that is exactly what we need to help motivate people toward #2.
It is interesting to me that your advocacy for helping people tends to portray them as helpless and in need of government to make their decisions for them. That seems like it may be a bit insulting to them does it not? Instead, how about government providing some services to help educate people so they are better equipped to make their own informed choices? Doesn’t that feel like a more honorable and respectful approach?
My company has provided high deductable HSA coverage for our employees for the last eight years. We deposit almost the maximum contribution in each employee’s account at the beginning of the year that they use to meet their deducible and out of pocket maximum. We save about 40% of the cost of a low deductable HMO plan just because utilization goes down as employees know they keep and accumulate all the money in their HSA account that they do not spend (on qualified medical expenses) and they make economic value decisions about their healthcare. You know, the same type of thing they do for their home, their auto, their pets… every other maintenance service they purchase.
Now we hear that our carrier will be cutting many of the plans they currently offer to small businesses, and they are eliminating some HSA options because of Obamacare.
[i]On your point about vaginal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy… You have two choices:
1. The government tells you which procedure you have access to.
2. Patients can make their own informed choice. [/i]
Then….
[i]Now we hear that our carrier will be cutting many of the plans they currently offer to small businesses, and they are eliminating some HSA options because of Obamacare.
[/i]
So apparently there is
3. Your insurance company decides what you can offer and who they will cover. Which is how it works now.
My assumption is that many small businesses will turn to the health insurance exchanges that the states set up. It won’t surprise me to see some small private insurers drop small business coverage. I imagine others will fill that competitive void.
It is possible that HSA’s will lose their appeal in this transition. They only make up about 7% of insurance right now. Mostly I had heard concerns about HHS regulations putting them out of business. That would be a shame. I hope they can preserve that option somehow.
Don, you can always find another insurance company, which is what we will do. You can also choose to pay more for premium services. Lastly, you can always pay the non-covered portion of any procedure you choose for yourself.
The options and affordability would be better with greater choice. Currently the government limits choice by preventing insurance companies from doing business in other states.
If the government controls health care you have ZERO choice. You will be told which procedure you must use and when and even if you have the financial ability to pay for a different procedure and have it completed sooner. You would be prevented from doing so from the bureaucrats given God-like powers by Obamacare.
But then we can all sing egalitarian Kumbaya that our healthcare system is more “fair”.
One of my concerns is how socialized healthcare in the US will cause the Canadians so much more pain and suffering without access to so many US medical specialist that are not available in Canada. What will happen is that high-end treatment and surgery centers will start popping up in countries with lower medical labor costs… and wealthier Americans and Canadians will take more healthcare holidays. That is already happening, but Obamacare will just accelerate the practice.
Obamacare will destroy healthcare access, choice and quality for the middle class only to slightly and temporarily improve it for the poor. As always, the wealthy will take care of themselves.
Don: [i]”It is possible that HSA’s will lose their appeal in this transition. They only make up about 7% of insurance right now. Mostly I had heard concerns about HHS regulations putting them out of business. That would be a shame. I hope they can preserve that option somehow.”[/i]
I think you are correct here.
It is a shame that we don’t hear more political and media support of HSA plans. They work, but people do not understand them and are afraid of them. My own employees about blew a gasket when we swithced. It took a year or two and now all of them love it… especially since most are sitting on many hundreds or even thousands of dollars in their HSA accounts that they can use for:
1. Elective procedures.
2. Non-covered procedures and supplies.
3. Retirement healthcare (since the are no in the public sector with healthcare-coverage-for-life benefits)
One employee was able to get non-covered fertility treatment by banking HSA money for her good health years.
Another was able to have gastric bypass surgery to help combat a life of being overweight.
They would not have been able to do these things without the HSA plan.
Surprisingly, about.com has a good overview of the health insurance exchanges
[url]http://insurance.about.com/od/reformresources/a/Health-Insurance-Exchange-101.htm[/url]
and the current regulations regarding the HSA’s.
[url]http://insurance.about.com/od/healthgloss/a/Hsas-And-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm[/url]
Why is your carrier eliminating some HSA options? Do they not meet the guidelines? Or do they think the market won’t be big enough?
[quote]Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance
1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
…
5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
etc.
[url]http://occupywriters.com/by-lemony-snicket[/url]
[/quote]
For those unfamiliar with Lemony Snicket, it is the pseudonym of a children’s author. More info here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemony_Snicket[/url]
Don:[i]Why is your carrier eliminating some HSA options? Do they not meet the guidelines? Or do they think the market won’t be big enough?[/i]
Blue Shield is changing their small business plan offerings. The are not offering the same or similar HSA plan, and all of their plans going up. Part of the problem is that HSA plans have not caught on like expected and so there is not enough economies of scale to spread the utilization risks/costs. Here is an article that does a good job explaining the situation.
[url]http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/story/businesses-question-insurance-tax-credits-some-fear-premium-hikes-will-cut-gains[/url]
However, the main reason is this:
[quote]”In California, five companies control 96 percent of the health insurance market. It’s almost a cartel,” he said. “After a decade’s worth of double-digit increases, and you get them again in a recession, there’s just no more money to pay the price.”[/quote]
Observations about the occupy Wall Street crowd:
1. Not very big
2. Many paid to protest by Soros and union money
3. Appear to be primarily spoiled, confused, misdirected children of the first Me generation America has had the misfortune of owning (sigh… I’m part of it)
4. Fringe
5. Not representative of even left moderates. Democrats embrace them at their own peril
Here is their list of demands from their website:
• Immediate debt forgiveness for all
• Free college education
• Elimination of free trade
• A $20-an-hour minimum wage
• Guaranteed “living wage” regardless of income
• Open borders
• $1 trillion government spending on infrastructure
• $1 trillion government spending on ecological restoration
• A racial and gender equal rights amendment and
• Easier unionization voting procedures
Yeah – we can all get our arms around this worldview. Their Marxist professors should be proud!
That’s just one group, just as the Tea Party is comprised of multiple organizations. Here is another list:[url]https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/[/url]
Observations on the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street from the opinion section of Aljazeera:
[url]http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011101883450141716.html[/url]
(and then while you’re at it, you can see their coverage on the death of Gaddafi)