Cut Social Security!

The conclusion always is: cut benefits and raise the retirement age. That's how Economists think, apparently. A self-described Economist, said, the way Economists do, that public employees were overpaid (i.e. paid "above the average" for private sector workers) and paid more "generous," hear 'over-generous', pensions. Those "golden years lifestyles" are going to have to change.

And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.

Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.

But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.

Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.

Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.

It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.

But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.

We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.

A Progressive for NY?

A friend of mine announced he was running for Governor of NY. He's not Andrew Cuomo. He's Joel Tyner, a Democratic County Legislator, running until a progressive with more credibility steps forward.

Joel has no money and Andrew Cuomo is highly popular, but, as Joel said in his speech, "I don't want to have to tell you, 'I told you so,' a couple of years from now."

Andrew Cuomo represents a disturbing trend among Democrats, and it's hard to say whether it's tactically or ideologically driven. Socially, Cuomo is somewhat progressive, proposing independent redistricting, ethics reforms and marriage equality.

It's obvious New York State needs reform. It still hasn't passed a budget (due March 31st!); it underwent a Republican "coup" in the Senate, then a Democratic counter-coup; it has seen the former Republican Majority Leader convicted of graft, a Democratic Senator, one of the two coup leaders, convicted of slashing his girlfriend; the AG (Cuomo) is suing the other for "looting." In addition, the state faces growing budget deficits (between $8.2 and $9.2 billion).

So, admittedly, the state is in dire need of better fiscal management, and ethics reform. But this is the state with Wall Street. Wall Street made over $61 billion in profits last year, paying out bonuses of $20 billion in cash!

But Cuomo has pledged "no new income taxes on the wealthy," "capping state spending" and "freezing state employee salaries." Worst of all, Cuomo calls for a property tax cap, despite the horrendous 20+ year experience of a property tax cap in California (Prop 13), where California's services have had to be slashed repeatedly--yet California is in worse fiscal shape than New York!

Joel Tyner points to an initiative by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill as a better solution for property taxes (NY's are nearly the highest in the country): Cahill would fund counties and schools with a version of what New York City already has: progressive local income taxes.

Tyner also points to the stock transfer tax, collected since 1915, but rebated to Wall Street for the last 30 years: a quarter of it would collect $4 billion a year, and would reduce incentives for wild stock speculation.

Taxes on millionaires' income were 15.5% until the early 70's; they now pay 9%. The middle classes pay 11% in local taxes, the wealthy 8%; income inequality has risen, so, raising millionaire's taxes is justified, would reduce inequality, and since Wall Street is in such bad odor, it could be popular. It would also fund the deficit.

Cuomo, however, is pandering to Wall Street and the "Tea Party," (the Selfish Class, like the one that brought down Rome). Other Democrats are, too.

Why? Are they all afraid of Fox and Limbaugh?

Joel offers a progressive alternative, but has no money. Yet, Democratic timidity could strand us in a real Depression: you don't get out of recessions by cutting jobs and expenditures.

We need an FDR, not a Democratic Hoover.