With less than twenty days until the 2012 election and the the parties presenting as stark a contrast as I can remember seeing, it’s time we take another look at what is at stake. The Republican party has remained a viable force in American politics because its leaders are masters at convincing gullible Americans to vote against their own interests. They are expert propagandists. They talk out of both sides of their mouths and behave in yet a third way and obscure facts enough that a great many of just can’t see that they are not on our side. The Republican party is the party of corporations, industrialists, big banks. They show us daily; we need only look and listen. So then, what are the differences between the two parties. Let’s look at them as individual matters.
Social Safety Net:
Just as the era immediately prior to the Great Depression, 1925-1929, taught us (at least for fifty years) the need for financial regulations to prevent irresponsible bankers, stock brokers and investors from crashing our national economy, the era after, 1930-1939, taught us that our government not only needed a way to help the least fortunate of us in the time of great need but it had a moral obligation to do so. In 1929, at the time of the The Great Crash, unemployment stood at just at just 3.1 percent. Herbert Hoover still had two years left on his term in office and he tried to address the disaster by using the same economic philosophy Mitt Romney proposes today. When Franklin Roosevelt took office, in January, 1933, unemployment had risen to slightly over 23.5 percent. By 1933, through no fault of their own, almost 25 percent of working age Americans were unemployed. The south, the mid-west and minorities, almost exclusively blacks, were hit by far the hardest. If the people of the mid-west hadn’t suffered enough, the storms of the dust bowl years, 1934 and 1936 and the run on banks in 1939 and 1932, hit adding exponentially to the misery of American across the country. By 1937, unemployment had, in response to the efforts of FDR, had fallen to 14.1 percent. In 1938, after FDR gave in to Republican pressure to institute a policy of austerity, unemployment again rose to 19 percent. The next time you hear a Republican singing that tired old tune that government can’t create jobs and austerity is a good policy in a depression/recession, remember the numbers.
When we discuss the efficacy of the Hoover (Romney) economic policies versus those of FDR we need to look at another set of numbers, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP, listed in present day billion/dollars). During the last years of Hoovers administration the GDP fell from $103.6 billion in 1929 to $58.7 in 1932. it was $56.4 when Roosevelt assumed the presidency. The GDP for 1934 had already risen to $66.0 and it continued to climb until it reached $91.9.in 1937. In 1938, concurrent with republican demands for spending cuts it fell to $86.1 and then started a steady rise as the US rearmed and prepared for war.
Roosevelt was a very wealthy man, just as Mitt Romney is, but there was a qualitative difference between the two men. Romney, and his sidekick, Paul Ryan, think watching out for themselves and their wealthy cronies is their highest calling. Ryan, while he hypocritically denies it now that he is running for office, is an Ayn Rand devotee and Romney, while not an avowed Ayn Randian, certainly practices what she preaches. FDR, for his part, saw the dilemma facing the country. He described it this way,
“For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away . . . Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.”
FDR had compassion and concern for struggling Americans and his approach to right the economy was the New Deal and from the New Deal came programs intended to help the middle class and poor such as:
Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC)
The Home Owner's Loan Corporation was created in 1933 to assist in the refinancing of homes. The housing crisis created a great many foreclosures, and Roosevelt hoped this new agency would stem the tide. In fact, between 1933 and 1935 one million people received long term loans through the agency that saved their homes from foreclosure.
The Federal National Mortgage Association
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), though it has been a publicly traded company since 1968. The corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts.(1)
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)
The Civilian Conservation Corps was created in 1933 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to combat unemployment. This work relief program provided jobs for many Americans during the Great Depression. The CCC was responsible for many public works and buildings and created structures and trails in parks across the nation.
Public Works Administration (HOLC)
The Public Works Administration was a program created to provide economic stimulus and jobs during the Great Depression. The PWA was designed to create public works and continued until the US ramped up wartime production for World War II. It ended in 1941.
Social Security Act (SSA)
Perhaps the most important new legislation to come out of the New Deal was the Social Security Act. It was designed to combat the widespread poverty among senior citizens by providing income to retired wage earners. The Great Depression did not affect everyone the same way. Many rich people felt no impact at all, and were oblivious to the suffering of others. Up to forty percent of the country never faced real hardship during those years but most were touched by it in some way, none more than the elderly and minorities. In the deep south black sharecroppers were forced to try to live on 5-10 cents per day. (2)
The program has become one of the most popular government programs and is funded by current wage earners and their employers. It is also the number two target of Republican hit men, the number one target being Medicare/Medicaid. More on this later.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
The Tennessee Valley Authority was established in 1933 to develop the economy in the Tennessee Valley region which had been hit extremely hard by the Great Depression. The TVA was and is a federally owned corporation that works in this region to this day. It is the largest public provider of electricity in the United States.
Works Progress Administration (WPA)
The Works Progress Administration was created in 1935. As the largest New Deal Agency, the WPA impacted millions of Americans. It provided jobs across the nation. Because of it, numerous roads, buildings, and other projects were completed. It was renamed the Works Projects Administration in 1939. It officially ended in 1943
Republicans hated these programs because they took money that could have been lining the pockets of the plutocrats and “redistributed” it to suffering Americans. FDR recognized Republicans for what they were and he had this to say about them,
“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs.”
Republicans fought against all these programs as they were put into place and they’ve tried to kill Social Security ever since. It didn’t matter to Republicans that the programs helped millions of Americans through the toughest of times. They didn’t care that the programs eased suffering. They didn’t care then and they don’t care now. Mitt Romney says he wants to save Social Security but what he really plans to do is privatize it. When you hear a Republic extol the virtues of privatization just remember that what he’s really saying is “lets turn this over to Wall Street so they can make a buck off it.” Your second thought should be about what would have happened if George Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security after his reelection in 2004. If you are not certain what would have happened to a privatized Social Security then just ask someone who had their retirement in an IRA or a 401k in 2008.
Other Social Safety Net Legislation
Glass-Steagall Act
The New Deal years also saw the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). After the excesses of the 1920s and the damage done in part by irresponsible banking and investment practices it was clear that new rules were need to protect the middle class. Some of those new rules came in the form of the GSA named for its authors, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.). When we speak of Glass-Steagall we're usually thinking of the second Glass-Steagall legislation. The first (officially known as the Banking Act of 1933) was a sort of emergency legislation limited to expanding the powers of the Federal Reserve and was intended to control runaway deflation. The second GSA, among number of other things, established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and imposed a number of restrictions on banking practices. Both were intended to protect the middle class investors and savers from the excesses and abuses of the 1920s that had cost so many their job, their savings, their dignity, their future.
The GSA imposed four new restraints on a financial industry that had proven itself incapable of restraining itself. First, commercial banks were prohibited from engaging in investment activities. That is to say, commercial banks could no longer risk monies given to them as savings in investment schemes in which the investor's money (rather than the banker's) was lost if the scheme failed. Secondly, investment banks could no longer also act a commercial banks, the flip side of the first provision. Next, no Federal Reserve member bank could affiliate itself with any bank primarily involved in investment activities and, finally, no individual could serve in an official capacity for a commercial bank and an investment bank at the same time. (3)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC}
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States government corporation operating as an independent agency created by the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. It provides deposit insurance, which guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, up to $250,000 per depositor per bank as of January 2012
Medicare
In 1965, Congress created Medicare as an adjunct to the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Before Medicare's creation, only half of older adults had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable, or unaffordable to the other half even when an insurer could be found. Older adults had half as much income as younger people and paid nearly three times as much for health insurance. Medicare also spurred the integration of thousands of waiting rooms, hospital floors, and physician practices by making payments to health care providers conditional on desegregation.
Medicare is often the only form of health insurance for millions of Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities as well as people with end stage renal disease. As a social insurance program, Medicare spreads the financial risk associated with illness across society to protect everyone, and thus has a somewhat different social role from for-profit private insurers. For profit insurers are not interested in your health other the degree to which they can make money off of you. In reality, they aren’t in the health business at all; they are in the making money business and they maximize profitability by denying coverage to those they anticipate will need it. In 2008, the US Federal Government spent $391,266,000,000 billion on Medicare. The Congressional Research Service has put the Operation Iraqi Freedom price tag, George Bush’s war, at $806 billion and it is anticipated that the final cost will exceed 1 trillion dollars. In the eleven years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders the conflict the cost of the two wars is $3.7 trillion and counting. The cost in lives and suffering can’t be defined in dollars.
Medicare guarantees all enrollees hospital care under Part A and outpatient medical services Part B. To cover the Part A and Part B benefits, Medicare offers a choice between an open-network single payer health care plan (traditional Medicare) and a network plan (Medicare Advantage, or Medicare Part C), where the federal government pays for private health coverage. A majority of Medicare enrollees have traditional Medicare (76 percent) over a Medicare Advantage plan (24 percent). Medicare Part D covers outpatient prescription drugs exclusively through private plans, either standalone prescription drug plans or through Medicare Advantage plans that offer prescription drugs
In 2010, Medicare provided health insurance to 48 million Americans, 40 million people age 65 and older and eight million younger people with disabilities. Medicare serves a large population of old, sick, and low-income people. On average, Medicare covers about half (48 percent) of health care costs for enrollees. Medicare enrollees must cover the rest of the cost. These out-of-pocket costs vary depending on the amount of health care a Medicare enrollee needs. They might include uncovered services such as long-term, dental, hearing, and vision care and supplemental insurance.
In 1972, Congress expanded Medicare eligibility to younger people who have permanent disabilities and receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments and those who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Congress further expanded Medicare in 2001 to cover younger people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease).
Despite what he says, Romney wants to privatize Medicare by changing it away from "the current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model" and to accomplish that he supports a Medicare transition to a "premium-support" model with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee's choice. While it hasn’t gotten as much attention as the “voucher plan” Romney and his cohorts think, ”age eligibility in Medicare must be made more realistic in light of longer life spans.” to that end they have proposed a scheme that asks seniors to screw over their children in return for being left alone now. When gangster do this it’s called a protection racket and falls under federal RICO statutes. Don’t be fooled; this a coupon program. Republicans can call it what they like, Premium Care, Voucher, it’ still a coupon and it becomes less valuable as you get older. Premium Support is actually a pretty good name for it. It supports the insurance companies being able to collect a premium from you until you become too expensive. Then they can drop you and you will become dependent on something else such as your life savings, the equity in your home, your children and finally, Medicaid, if it is still there.
Medicaid
Medicaid is the health program for certain people and families with low incomes and little or no resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states acting under federal guidelines. People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.
Under Romney, Medicaid services for low income people would be transformed into a block grant program in which the states would be given the flexibility to determine the best programs for their residents (or the states could just decide not to have Medicaid and spend the money on something else, like building more prisons).
I’ve spent a lot of time on what is essentially a preface but it is crucial that we understand at least a little about the history of the social safety protections we enjoy today. It has been the goal of the Republican party to destroy these protections ever since they were first enacted. Republicans don’t believe the government should be handing out money unless it is handing it out to them. They will lie and try to make you believe that the New Deal didn’t work in the 1930s and that New Deal type programs, the stimulus is a good example, don’t work now. The numbers tell the truth.
Republicans also hate financial reform. Financial reform limits how deeply they can dip their grubby little paws in your money and mine and use it as their own, risk free.
Women’s Health and Economic Rights
Fair Pay
The first indication of where the two parties stand on equal rights for women can be found in The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This Act is a federal statute that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama. It amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. During the campaign before the 2008 elections Barack Obama supported the bill. John McCain's opposed it. Republicans had previously defeated the 2007 version of the bill.
Abortion
The Republican party has in it’s platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." They make a big show of opposing the use of public monies to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. They will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage. Significantly, nor will the party take any action to provide that child with basic nutrition, medical care, an education or a roof over its head once it is born. Having been unsuccessful at overturning Rowe v. Wade in the courts, Republicans have turned to a state by state plan. Their high minded, states rights drivel is just a smokescreen to allow friendly state legislators to pass bill making obtaining an abortion either so difficult, s expensive or so onerous a woman just won’t put herself through the ordeal.
If Romney is elected we will undoubted see a Justice Department less interested in fighting for women’s rights and, given the age of the members, a Supreme Court determined to overturn Rowe v. Wade
What’s my opinion on this? Abortion is a personal issue no matter what your hypocritical, witch doctor preached religious beliefs say and, unless it effects you directly, it’s none of your goddam business.
Cost of Health Insurance
Women presently pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage, according to new research and data from online brokers. at this point this inequity is scheduled to end in 2014 when a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) banning gender pricing goes into effect. Earlier, insurers claimed that they would start easing in some provisions of the AFA but gaps persist in most states, with no evidence that insurers have taken steps to reduce them.
According to the New York Times, for a popular Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in Chicago, a 30-year-old woman pays $375 a month, which is 31 percent more than what a man of the same age pays for the same coverage. In a recent report , the National Women’s Law Center, a research and advocacy group, says that in states that have not banned gender rating. More than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men.
Of course, Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA his first day in office. Not only would this mean that women would continue paying more for insurance but pre-existing contions would not have to be covered and children could not stay on their parents health plan until they were 26 as is now the case.
Taxes
President Obama reduced taxes on middle-income families during his first term and plans to continue the Bush tax cuts only for wage earners making less than $250.000 (although $1 million has been discussed). In fact, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office, tax rates under Obama hit a 30-year low in 2009, in part because of the tax cuts he implemented in response to the country’s economic downturn. As Ezra Klein has pointed out, the Obama administration passed three major bills affecting the taxes people paid over the last four years: The stimulus, which included $289.6 billion in tax cuts; the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $800 billion in tax cuts; and the payroll tax deal, which extended the payroll tax cut and a handful of other policies through 2012.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a self-described non-partisan organization, released a report that read: "The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals." This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800. The ACA passed by the administration, meanwhile, includes a tax credit that could cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to insure its workers. The Recovery Act also included such tax breaks as a $1,500 credit for home energy improvements, and an $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers.
To be honest, not all of us on the left of the progressive movement have been completely satisfied with the areas President Obama chose for his cuts. Many of us opposed the tax cut element of the stimulus preferring that it be spent on more job creation projects.
The Republican Party platform has in its tax plank, "We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations." (Unless that crony capitalism benefits one of their big donors like, say for instance, for profit universities that are really diploma mills that live on federally insured student loans or companies like the Paul Ryan family business that amassed a fortune building highways with federal tax dollars or that speaker at the Republican convention who made his fortune making road signs with federal dollars or . . . oh hell; you know what I mean).
Their platform says a Republican administration would extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, pending reform of the tax code. It says (in the forlorn hope that it keep everyone from noticing that the rich will make out even more like the bandit’s they are) the party would strive to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains altogether for lower- and middle-income taxpayers (Is this some kind of sick joke - how many lower- and middle-income taxpayers do they think get any of their meager funds from interest, dividends and capital gains). It also would work to repeal the estate tax (that would really help those lower- and middle-income taxpayers. - They are probably crying tears of joy and singing paeans to the Republicans as I type. I can hear them now. Oh, thank ya, Massa Mitt. Thank ya for lettin’ us middle income and po’ folks keep our interest, dividends and capital gains funds elsewise we don’t know what we’all do what with winter comin’ on and all). The party backs constitutional amendments to balance the federal budget and require a super majority for any tax increases (We know this is a great idea because Grover Norquist told us so. Anyway, we know this would never be ratified because it would bankrupt the country but it sounds good because most voters don’t understand the difference between a government budget and a household budget).
Romney, himself, proposes an across-the-board, twenty percent tax cut except when he is claiming he isn’t offering a tax cut to the wealthy. He insists that his cuts can made deficit neutral (he doesn’t want to offend Grover) without ending deductions popular with middle income voters. Romney has been frustratingly evasive about the details probably because the non-partisan Tax Policy Center just released a report saying the Romney’s numbers just don’t add up, a failing most economist use to criticize Paul Ryan’s budget. The findings in the Tax Policy Center report have been studied and supported by a number of reputable economists including Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody’s Economy.
Jobs
President Obama and the majority of the Democratic Party believe in Keynesian Economics, “a bottom and middle up” macro-economic theory. Keynesian Economics holds that a strong, vibrant economy is achieved by creating jobs for the bottom and middle wage earners who are unemployed, even if that involves government spending at first. There are a lot more of the middle class than there are super-rich and when they have money they spend it. They spend it on housing, on food, on manufactured goods on services, on health care, even entertainment. They spend it things that create a demand up the chain and, in this way, create jobs to meet that demand.
The Republican party plank on jobs states, "We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs." Mitt Romney and the Republican party want you to believe in a fairy tale. They want you to believe in a fantasy called Supply-side Economics, a “ top down” macro-economic theory based on the delusional and forlorn idea that if you cut taxes on the super- rich, lower capital gains taxes, end estate taxes and deregulate, they will create more jobs. It’s a pipe dream that was brought to Washington by Ronald Reagan. It didn’t work for him, it didn’t work for George H.W. Bush, it didn’t work for George W. Bush and it won’t work now. Romney talks frequently of creating 12 million new jobs in his first four years but, as with pretty much every thing he claims, he offers no details. That’s because he has no new ideas. Supply-side economics is just another term for “trickle down.” Unfortunately, experience has shown that not very much trickles down. Most of it trickles into tax dodges available only to the super rich, people like Mitt Romney. The most easily identifiable result of Trickle down has been to create the greatest income inequality since the the Great Crash of 1929.
There are more areas I need to cover but I’ve far exceeded the word count I allocated myself for this post. So, I’ll leave it at this for now and be back with more in a few days. I do,however, need to say this. I am completely mystified at the bump in the polls Romney got following the first presidential debate. Essentially, he lied for ninety minutes disavowing everything he had been running on up to that night. He even denied knowing that companies were getting tax incentives for outsourcing jobs to China. Can you imagine the laugh that would have gotten from from Joe Biden? I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, though. Romney has held every conceivable position on every issue during the past year. He is a panderer who holds no real values, has no real ideas, is without a vision for America except for gaining control of the government so he and his fat cat buddies can drain more of the life blood out of this country. They will not be satisfied until all of us are living in today’s equivalent of indentured servitude. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to move America in that direction and if a majority of voters are so ignorant (lets call it what is. They are not “low information” voters; they’re ignorant) that they can be convinced to vote for this vacuous empty suit then they deserve what they get. The tragedy is the rest of us don’t
(1) Unfortunately, it was these mortgage backed securities that became the derivatives that criminally unscrupulous bankers used to help crash the US economy in the late 2000s.
(2) Sadly, most New Deal programs provided little help to southern blacks. In order to keep the Democratic Party together and pass New Deal legislation through a Southern-dominated Congress, most of the programs targeted unemployed white males. Black males were either shut out completely or had to settle for separate and lower pay scales.
(3) Republicans started chipping away at the protections in the CSA in the 1960s when banks began employing lobbyist to argue the case for them being allowed back into the bond market. Lobbying against GSA became a career specialty and a very lucrative endeavor but not much was really accomplished until the mid 1980s when the assault was greatly ramped up. In 1986, the Federal Reserve Board, popularly known as just the Fed, the entity with regulatory power over banking practices, seized on wording in GSA, the phrase "engaged principally," and decided that it meant banks could get into the securities business a little bit, up to five percent of their gross income. The first chink in the armor had just appeared. Throughout 1987 the Fed chipped away at GSA with a ruling in favor of banker here, another one there. In January 1989, with Alan Greenspan having been in charge of the Fed for a couple of years, it was decided that ten percent of gross income met the less than "engaged principally" limitation. A bigger chink could be seen. In December 1996, The " engaged principally" limitation was raised to twenty-five percent and the provisions GSA prohibiting commercial banks from engaging in investment activities becomes essentially toothless. By the fall of 1997 the remaining protections separating commercial banking are mostly gone.
Over the years 1960-1999, legislation was introduced twelve times and eleven times it failed. In Phil Gramm Republicans found the water carrier who would finally get the job done. With the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (officially the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) in November of that year the job was done, Glass-Steagall was at last officially dead. In less that ten years the same irresponsible behavior that showed the need for regulatory protections would again take the US to the brink of a second Great Depression.