Spending money is not free speech, we need to take it to the streets


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In the recent Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v. FEC, the right wing Bush appointed Supreme Court Justices tipped the scales and ruled essentially that spending money is free speech. When Abel Collins interviewed famed linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, Noam asked rhetorically asked why not just admit that we have given up on democracy and admit that we are a plutocracy- accepting rule by the wealthy class, the 1%.


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas- who may go down as the worst justice in the history, went further writing that “all limits on campaigns contributions are unconstitutional.”

This makes the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz article the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%“, quite prescient:

“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.”

So what’s the solution? Abel Collins offers this:

“We have the numbers. Let us freely assemble, muster our forces, and occupy politics from the bottom up. Put your name in the hat for city or town council. Start a blog, plan street theater, get arrested and be heard. By all means, we should start by reversing the effects of Citizens United. Municipal and statewide resolutions calling on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that corporations aren’t people and political campaign spending isn’t protected speech can get the ball rolling. Amending State Constitutions via voter initiative or legislative referendum to this same effect as I have proposed in Rhode Island is another step. Whatever else, let us not cede the political sphere to the corporations, whether they are people in the eyes of the Supreme Court or not.”

At least it is one strategy, but considering the ethics of our state legislature it seems rather unlikely. Getting mass numbers assembled and engaged seems a more likely strategy to succeed. But can we do it? That is up to you.

(This video is from 10-8-13 #2 Abel & Noam Interview Part 2 Money as Free Speech Produced by Robert Malin c.2014)

RI economy improved for 1%, but it got worse for 99%


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
one percent epi graphic
Click on the image for a larger version.

Rhode Island’s economy is recovering. But not for the 99 percent it isn’t.

A new report by the Economic Analysis and Research Network shows that between 2009 and 2011, the 99 percent – those Rhode Island’s who make on average $41,958 a year – saw an average decline of 4.1 percent in their earnings.

On the other hand, the one percent in Rhode Island – those who make at least $287,311 a year – did quite well in the same two years. Their earnings increased by 17.3 percent from 2009 to 2011.

“Rhode Island has not escaped the disturbing trend of growing inequality over the past decades,” said Kate Brewster, executive director of The Economic Progress Institute. “Today, the average income of the top one percent is 20.3 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent.  We call on leaders in Washington and here at home to put in place policies that increase income for the majority and help close the income gap.”

Only in four other states – North Dakota, Massachusetts, Texas and Colorado – did the one percent fare better from 2009 to 2011. And only the 99 percent in Nevada fared worse than the 99 percent in Rhode Island did from 2009 to 2011.

Conversely, there was less income disparity between the one percent and the 99 percent in Rhode Island from 1979 and 2007, and Rhode Island had less income disparity than the national average. The richest one percent of Rhode Islanders income grew by 170.3 percent from 1979 to 2007 compared to 40.4 percent for the poorest 99 percent of Rhode Islanders. Nationally during that same time frame, the richest one percent increased their earnings by 200.5 percent and the poorest 99 percent increased by only 18.9 percent.

The change in income distribution coincided with not only the economic collapse but also broad income tax cuts for the top tax bracket in Rhode Island proposed by former Governor Don Carcieri, a tea party Republican, and approved by the General Assembly, which took a hard turn to the right on economic policy during and after the Carcieri era.

From 2005 to 2011, the highest income tax rate in Rhode Island dropped from 9.9 percent to 5.99 percent. And during that same time frame that taxes were lowered on Rhode Island’s richest residents and they simultaneously started to earn a higher percentage of the state’s overall income, the unemployment rate creeped up to among the highest in the nation, further eroding the talking point from the far right and conservative Democrats that tax cuts help create new jobs.

The new report released today does not breaks down the data only into the one percent versus the 99 percent. You can read the full report here. Or check out the online version here. Here’s the Rhode Island-specific data.

In 2007, the one percent in Rhode Island accounted for 18.1 percent of all income. That was up from 1979, when the one percent only accounted for 10.3 percent. In 1928, the one percent in Rhode Island were responsible for 23.6 percent of all income.

Lucky Duckies


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

One of the more reprehensible things that conservatives have come out with of late is the idea of the ‘lucky duckies.’

This is what the Wall St Journal’s op-ed page called those of our society who are ‘fortunate’  enough to make such a low salary that they don’t have to pay fed income taxes.

This is truly verging (has crossed into?) Newspeak. You know, 1984–war is peace, freedom is slavery etc…)

In most people’s minds, getting stuck in a job that makes you $20k a year is the opposite of  ‘fortunate’.  And if those WSJ writers think these folks are so lucky, all they have to do is quit their cushy office job and stand on their feet 8 hours a day flipping burgers.

Lucky duckies, indeed.

[ Pre-emptive strike: the idea is that these people have no ‘skin in the game’, so they don’t care about tax rates because it’s so hard to make ends meet on $250k per year,  yadda yadda.  Utter nonsense.  Give me the $250k, I’ll pay the 39% tax rate from the Clinton years, and still be waaaaaaayyyyy ahead of where I am now.  And so would most of you reading this. ]

So far, this has been standard class warfare stuff as waged by the 1%. True, people in the bottom half don’t make enough to pay fed taxes.  Think about that: almost half the country, by conservatives own reckoning, don’t make enough to pay fed taxes. Is the problem that their a) tax rate is too low;  or, b) that their salary is too low?

If you’re a conservative, the answer cannot be (a), because tax rates are NEVER low enough.

And yet, that’s what they’re saying. That tax rates on the bottom half of the country have to go UP. While tax rates on the top 1% have to go DOWN.  Talk about internally inconsistent.

Or, it would be if they actually cared about being logical. Or consistent. They don’t. They only care about waging class warfare against everyone who’s not part of the 1%.

What truly takes this distortion to another level, and makes it reprehensible is the way it looks at a tiny sliver of the situation, cherry-picks what suits their cause, then ignores the rest.

The fact is, this lower 47% that pays no fed income tax, pays plenty of other taxes. Payroll tax, which is hugely regressive since it’s capped at around $100k (may be higher; it moves with inflation), sales taxes (also hugely regressive) excise taxes, state taxes, local taxes, and so on.

What happens when we factor all of these in?

Here’s the result:

This is a chart done by the Corporation for Enterprise Development. It shows what the total, overall tax rate is for all income quintiles by state.  It shows how much of their income the poorest 20% pays, vs how much of their income the top 1% pays in each state, then shows the ratio between the two.

The median state is Mississippi. The poorest 20% pay about 10.8% of their total income in taxes. The top 1%, OTOH, only pay 5.5% of their income.

In other words, the effective tax rate of the bottom 20% is about twice as high as the tax rate for the top%–despite paying no fed taxes.

And how does RI stack up? We’re worse.

Here, the bottom 20% pays about 11.9%, while the top 1% pays 5.5%.

In other words, the bottom 20% pays a rate that is more than twice the rate paid by the top 1%.

And Mass is two spots worse, CT is one spot better, so spare me the “Oh, I could just move to Mass and save all this money” lie.  And founder of a certain ‘alternative’ party, I’m looking at you.

What does this mean? The top end earners are not overtaxed. They have a great gig going. And if we elect someone named either Willard or Newt, it will only get better for them, and much, much worse for the rest of us.

Lucky duckies, indeed.

Republican Presidential Candidates’ Tax Policy Would Destroy the Economy (Even More)

There’s nothing quite like a political campaign to demonstrate just how extreme the national Republican Party and its primary voters are. The Center for Tax Justice has an analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans which shows just how much they favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Some high(low)lights:

  • Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s $18.1 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $391,330.
  • Texas Governor Rick Perry’s $10.5 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $272,730.
  • Former Senator Rick Santorum’s $9.4 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $217,500.
  • Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s $6.6 trillion tax plan would give the richest one percent of Americans an average tax cut of $126,450.

To put these numbers into better perspective, let’s compare them to the 2010 median wgae of $26,363, as reported by the Social Security Administration (note: median wage means that 50% of workers earned less and 50% or workers earned more. This is a much better calculation to use since “average” income skews higher because of the outrageous sums of wealth that some people generate).

  • Under Newt Gingrich’s plan, the median worker would need to work almost 15 years to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 10 years and 4 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Santorum’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 8 years and 3 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.
  • Under Rick Perry’s plan, the median worker would need to work about 4 years and 8 months to earn as much as the average tax cut received by the richest 1%.

And these calculations don’t include the millions of people who are either “officially” unemployed, or have stopped looking for work, just those that are fortunate enough to find jobs. Why these proposals are even being seriously considered is beyond me.

It’s important to remember that not all taxes (or tax cuts) are equal. For instance, a payroll tax is more regressive than an income tax, a sales tax is more regressive than a payroll tax, and a capital gains tax is the most progressive of all since the wealthy benefit the most from capital gains (hence why capital gains taxes were sharply cut under George W. Bush). It’s also important to remember that the US tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958 and also federal income taxes are at historically low levels. The LAST thing this country needs right now are additional transfers of wealth to the already rich.

Each of the GOP candidates’ tax plans would further starve the federal government of much needed revenue, increase borrowing to provide for all the important things the federal government does for us, further increase the national debt and the interest we pay on that debt, and exacerbate the growth of income inequality, albeit in varying degrees. What they wouldn’t do is deal with the real economic problem facing the country: not enough money is going into the hands of people who will spend it.

Since the 1970s, U.S. wages have largely remained stagnant. At the same time, the vast majority of all the wealth created in the country over the last 30 years has been flowing upward.

Because the super wealthy don’t actually work to generate their income, wages as a share of national income has been declining for just as long. What that means is less and less money is being earned by workers, and that’s bad for the economy because workers spending money is what fuels economic growth. Consumers earning more money means that they can buy more goods and services, increasing the effective demand in an economy. Seems pretty simple, right? Well, yes, it is.

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy” Movement

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy Wall Street”

As somebody’s momma once said, “the best thing you can do is show up.”  This has been happening all over the country since a group of folks decided to head down to that bull on Wall Street and call out to stop the bullshit.  This is not a report on “OWS,” it is an insight on the historical demolition of popular movements.

Divide and Conquer

The classic method of the powerful to distract the masses is to get them to fight amongst themselves.  The easiest one is via racism, and the other is class warfare pitting the Middle Class vs. Lower Class.  America’s long struggle with racism needs no extra lesson here, but one can see the tensions within OWS, and it is guaranteed that the Koch Brothers of the world, the Rupert Murdochs, with all their corporate and media power, will find every crack to expand.

The powerful have often inserted rabble rousers in the midst of the protest class, to pose as one, and to stir up internal strife.  This was done in the early Labor movement and overwhelmingly in the Civil Rights era.  Many a Native American activist has remarked about how there were times that the undercover agents outnumbered the activists.  They have been known to be the one who turned a peaceful protest violent, or manipulated factions against each other.  Will the current Occupiers be on guard for this?

Before continuing, let me add a disclaimer: I don’t speak on behalf of any ethnic or political group, nor organization, nor ideology.  I’m just one independent thinker.

I’ve seen various reports of racial tensions on the front lines of these actions and in the planning committees.  I read and hear about them with the expectations that the opposition will exploit them, and may have had a hand in manufacturing them.  It is worth noting that a true Popular Movement, one widespread enough to change a culture, thereby enacting political and economic change, will not have a corporate vertical structure.  Those who see the Occupy actions as opportunities to craft a single agreed upon message will doom the actions.  Those who are coming from Top-Down organizational structures, and wish to implement them more broadly, will suffocate the movement.

The 1% knows how to fight an army with a vanguard of leadership, it does not know how to deal with a hydra, or a million hydras.  It is not unexpected that many activists in a Movement are not directly affected, and it is typical that solidarity members can gravitate towards leadership roles if they have good communication skills.  These people are often referred to as “White Liberals,” but defining the affected class in an economic movement is not so simple as to break it into racial demographics.  If the result of such a “Black and White” view were to exclude poor and working class White people, a popular Movement is dead in its tracks.  Ultimately, the majority of America is poor and working class White people.  If a bulk of that group is convinced to wave the American flag and believe protesting political policies is being “un-American”, then it is over.

The 1% stands on the backs of poor and working class Whites.  They also stand on the backs of middle class Whites and People of Color, who believe assimilation and accommodation are the path to prosperity for their families.  The 1% has convinced a bulk of those groups that their stability is connected to standing on the necks of others.  And this connects with the second method of destroying OWS:

Pay the Protesters

Professional advocates can become beholden to their funders- be they government, corporate, or foundations.  Often, that funding is for the affects of an economic and political system that created this all-too-predictable financial crisis.  The funding typically is explicit in barring advocacy for structural change.  The pay-off will go to anyone who will take it, but generally the first offers go to those who appear to have credibility; sometimes that will be People of Color, and other times it will be White Liberals.  Someone to carry the water and be highlighted as a “responsible” leader of these people, and a commission is formed, and the new activists are told to go home so the chosen leaders can advocate on their behalf.  This is not so difficult to do when a movement looks more like an organization, and structured with a top-down approach (even if the top looks like the consensus of a small group).

What to Do?

People need to keep showing up.  Show up with a cacophony of voices, with ALL their issues.  Whether the issue is foreclosure, unemployment, civil rights, or something else, it is all tied into the structure of consolidated wealth that uses the government to protect this wealth.  In an uncertain feudal society, the King needs his lords and barons to protect him.  The nobility, in turn, needs their sheriffs, soldiers, and tax collectors to keep the serfs in line.  It is cheaper for them to hire more sheriffs and build more prisons than for their economic system to be modified.

Why is there never any discussion of automated technology leading to unemployment?  Because it is more Divisive to have working class Whites railing against Latino landscapers and in the streets about Voter ID, Secure Communities, and funding immigrant detention prisons.  In truth, there are so few skilled blue collar jobs in America for two primary reasons: (1) machines replaced humans (more profit for shareholders), and (2) companies moved businesses overseas after bipartisan pushes to change international laws (such as NAFTA).

The most un-American people in America are those who do not care about employing Americans, and would rather make another million via machine or cheap Chinese labor.  Even more un-American would be to take these profits and invest them outside of America, and then call on the American taxpayers to bail them out, or protect their economic interests in other countries.  Will mayors reign in police, or will riot gear be the new standard gear for every patrolman?  How many will be arrested?  Will the police themselves question their orders?  Few scenes so far have encapsulated OWS than a NY  Marine yelling at the NYPD, asking why they are in full riot gear and attacking unarmed civilians engaging in their 1st Amendment rights.

Why should multi-national corporations that do nothing for the common good in America receive favored status?  Why should a nation that proclaims an adherence to “market forces” bail out those who played and lost?

The bipartisan bailout followed the bipartisan deregulation that caused it.  For every action, there is a reaction.  Bush and Obama, Dems and Republicans, were all in position to respond to the economic debacles of the past few years.  Rather than launch full scale investigations (Governors and Attorneys General included), they re-filled the empty pockets.  This was the reaction in Washington, D.C., where millions upon millions of corporate money flows- both in campaign donations and public contracts.  This was the greatest theft in modern history.  And now people are legitimately rallying around this, as clearly it went too far: many Middle Class people are slowly acknowledging they are no longer in the club.  For every action there is a reaction.

Is there an end game?  Is it possible that the current economic system can employ another ten million people- or employ five million to incarcerate the other five million?  Neither scenario looks likely.  The latter is a bit more possible, but only if the 1% pay vastly more taxes, as the incarceration tab has come home to roost.  Unless automation and foreign labor are drastically altered, there are simply not enough jobs in the current structure… and that is just presuming that shifting millions of jobs back home would not result in a catastrophe elsewhere.

Every day I walk down the street past bank-owned homes that are boarded up; past homeless people, and folks hanging out because they can’t find work.  It makes me feel that the mayor of my city should be forced to sit on that curb until an idea pops in his head, one which involves blighted property and eminent domain.  One which involves community development bloc grants.  One which recognizes that the homeless lady and the unemployed guy are more important than any entity who would balloon a mortgage payment, evict an owner, and sit on a boarded up home collecting rats, overgrown with weeds… until someone buys the house for the land it is worth and demolishes the home.  (after they collected the insurance money on the defaulted mortgage, so there is no loss).

It doesn’t matter what one looks like to see that things need to be stopped and shouted about.  It just matters that one stops to look.