I hate to say "We told you so" but we did. Now there is credible back up to our 2010 claims.
First, here's an acronym glossary for the three expert organization now in agreement that the GOP economic policies are a proven failure. You can click on each to learn more about each. Actually, any copy below that is either brown or orange will take to you the source documents:
I wrote this in July, 2010, the year Democrats didn't show up to vote in droves, heralding in the Tea Party takeover of the House which gerrymandering might keep in tact.
It's not Political Rocket Science.Anyone who has read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein knows that the IMF Austerity programs, foisted on countries around the world, created a world of hurt for the majority of their citizens and stellar investment opportunities for the world's multi-national corporations.
And when you hear either side mention ANY form of tax cuts to solve our economic woes, know you are being lied to, AGAIN.
Also, this just in, recommended reading Ruh Roh! CBPP Report "Big Dangers Ahead for the Economy, the Budget, and Low-Income People"
Tax cuts cause deficits. Unfunded war spending causes deficits. It's plain and simple. It's not Accounting Rocket Science. If you take in less than you spend, you have a deficit. In the governments case, if they take in less taxes then they spend, we have a national deficit.
The Republicans caused the deficit.
The IMF recipe, in short, has been: Debt, Privatization of Resources, higher costs for utilities, reduced social safety nets, increased poverty for the citizens, and chaos followed by government repression of the chaos.
Perhaps the IMF ran out of countries to anchor with economically suffocating debt, because they changed their mind recently, proving we have been right all along: The IMF & GOP foundation principles are wrong.
I highly recommend reading this article that exposes how the Republican Senate squashed the release of the September, 2012 CRS report (see below) that obliterated the GOP position that lower taxes and austerity will solve the American economic woes:
But wait a minute. Maybe not! Maybe the title of the above article takes some liberties.
Right off the bat the authors of this report, Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers, include this disclaimer:
This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.Within the paper the authors make a good case that austerity causes contraction, not expansion of the economy.
However, the article concludes (page 20):
Thus, our results should not be construed as arguing for any specific fiscal policy stance in any specific country. In particular, the results do not imply that fiscal consolidation is undesirable. Virtually all advanced economies face the challenge of fiscal adjustment in response to elevated government debt levels and future pressures on public finances from demographic change.I am not qualified to discern the science presented in the above report and will leave that to the economists.
However, and more importantly, in September, 2012 (just before the election) the Congressional Research Service concluded its research on the effects of lower tax rates on the economy.
The CRS reported concluded with this important paragraph:
Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%.You will find some great charts in the CRS paper; however, I wish this CRS report had included this chart that shows how the Income Inequality prior to the Depression was almost identical to the Income Inequality prior to the Great Recession.
There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth.
Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.
The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.
This Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dated September 9, 2009, adds fuel to the fact that only the 1% has gained any benefit from the Lower-Taxes-help-the-economy falacy:
Just in case the above chart isn't quite stark enough for you, here's another
The closing statement of this CBPP report concludes:
Whether the highest income households will once more capture a highly disproportionate share of income gains as the economy begins to recover is uncertain, but Saez, along with Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, points to previous recessions and notes that only major policy shifts like the New Deal have prevented income concentration from “bouncing back” after a decline. In the absence of significant policy changes, income concentration levels could well return to their previous highs after the current recession ends and resume their 30-year climb.Again "only major policy shifts like the New Deal have prevented income concentration from “bouncing back” after a decline."
History has proven time and time again that when the masses are impoverished in order to increase wealth for the few, all hell breaks loose. Mass unemployment, unjust policies, and reductions in social services are a recipe for chaos as proven by riots in many countries today.
That said, we know what is needed. The economists that aren't drinking the GOP cool aid know what is needed. History has proven what has worked.
Will the Obama Administration apply the real medicine needed to put Americans back to work and return the shared prosperity enjoyed in the decades prior to the laissez-faire takeover of US policies in the 1980s?
What did FDR do? You can read all about that at Wikipedia New Deal
Well, that was interesting. I had to edit Wikipedia! which had said that "the first Democratic president after FDR, Dwight D Eisenhower". I changed that to REPUBLICAN.
America's infrastructure is crumbling, we need to
move to green energy,
bring back jobs,
improve and expand education
honor and improve our social safety nets
undo the chains of special interest
In short, we need to do the polar opposite of what the Tea Party GOP is pushing for.
FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson agreed on policies that produced the greatest results for most Americans for decades. The 1950s - 1980 were truly the Golden Years for most white Americans. We improved opportunities for African Americans. It wasn't perfect, but shared prosperity was a whole lot better than today.
What will it take to convince the Obama Administration that the majority of Americans believe we can share some sacrifice in order to get this country back into a semblence of balanced economic opportunity?
They are coming for our Social Security and other social safety nets. It's been a neo-liberal dream for years and they are using the deficit as an excuse to get this heartless desire manifest.
I call it Manifest Poverty.
IF you have a minute, check out these 10 CHARTS that further demonstrate the disgusting income inequality in the United States in 2013. SHAMEFUL:
Can public outcry, now supported by credible sources, force the administration's hand?
Didn't the President tell us WE have to make this happen, WE are the change?
Or perhaps the share holdings by Congress members has locked their alliegence away from us.
And we wonder why policies don't shift! and why companies are gaining monopolies
1 General Electric 94 46 48
2 Procter & Gamble 74 33 41
3 Cisco Systems 72 33 39
4 Microsoft Corp 70 28 42
5 Pfizer Inc 61 27 34
5 Bank of America 61 23 38
7 AT&T Inc 57 20 37
8 Intel Corp 54 24 30
8 Johnson & Johnson 54 18 35
8 Verizon Communications 54 22 32
11 Exxon Mobil 53 14 39
12 Apple Inc 51 21 30
13 Coca-Cola Co 49 22 27
13 JPMorgan Chase & Co 49 19 30
15 PepsiCo Inc 47 22 25
16 IBM Corp 46 16 29
16 Wells Fargo 46 19 26
18 Berkshire Hathaway 43 18 25
19 Walt Disney Co 41 19 22
20 Home Depot 40 16 24
21 Hewlett-Packard 39 15 24
22 McDonald's Corp 38 17 21
23 Merck & Co 37 14 23
23 Citigroup Inc 37 15 22
25 Abbott Laboratories 35 11 24
26 Wal-Mart Stores 31 12 19
27 3M Co 30 16 14
27 Oracle Corp 30 13 17
29 Apache Corp 29 10 19
30 Qualcomm Inc 28 12 16
31 Google Inc 27 10 17
32 Goldman Sachs 26 9 17
32 Ford Motor Co 26 8 18
32 Conocophillips 26 7 19
32 Time Warner 26 14 12
36 United Technologies 25 9 16
36 Bristol-Myers Squibb 25 7 18
36 Chevron Corp 25 8 17
39 BP 24 2 22
39 Amgen Inc 24 9 15
39 Duke Energy 24 10 14
39 Emerson 24 8 16
39 Kraft Foods 24 10 14
39 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries 24 12 12
45 Schlumberger Ltd 23 7 16
45 Comcast Corp 23 12 11
45 EMC Corp 23 13 10
45 Altria Group 23 6 17
49 CVS/Caremark Corp 22 7 15
50 Devon Energy 21 6 15
You can go tothis link to see who the wealthiest Congress members are, how much yours are worth, and what they are invested in.
TAKE NOTE of the interactive search feature in the upper right hand corner. Search and learn about your Congress members.