REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES: REGRESSIVE MILLIONAIRES

As I said in my last post:  “at least two-thirds of these (presidential) candidates (and the two most recent aspirants – Rick Perry and Dan Huntsman) are millionaires. Their views represent and benefit just 1% of the U.S. population, and they, themselves, stand to gain personally from their own proposals!”

In doing some research online, I came across a number of quotes about each of the candidates that just beg to be shared.  So this particular post is full of quotes from others as to the “qualifications” of the Republican Regressive candidates.  The up-front characterization of each candidate is my own introduction.

Mitt Romney: the great flip-flopper who changes views depending on whose vote he needs; the initiator of state health care that doesn’t even adequately cover a young adult with MS; unemployment suits him.

Romney has a personal fortune estimated in 2008 at $190 million to $250 million.  (Reuters quoted on msn.com) "I should tell my story," Romney told a group of unemployed people in Florida. "I'm also unemployed." 

Ron Paul:  some of his ideas sound good until you actually examine them or implement them; he obfuscates very well; unfortunately he’s more anarchist than libertarian.

Turns out, the old doctor, Ron Paul, (he's even older than Sen. John McCain) is a millionaire, a few times over.  An Air Force veteran and ob-gyn who often champions the cause of the little guy, Paul disclosed 41 separate financial holdings that have a combined value of between $2.29 million and $5.3 million (in 2008). (latimes.com)

Michele Bachmann:  she touts the fact she has 23 foster children; but has no qualms about cutting programs that could enhance the lives of other children, teenagers or young adults, especially those struggling to afford college.

When (Michele Bachmann) and her other millionaire pals in Congress such as Paul Ryan (another Congressional preacher of austerity who also happens to be a man born to wealth who has never personally known economic hardship himself and sits on an inherited wealth of over $3 million) use words like “austerity” it means different things to them than it does to the majority of us.
For the 261 millionaires in Congress, austerity means that maybe they sell that vacation home. Perhaps they sell their speedboat but keep the sailboat. But to those of us on Main Street who are not millions of degrees removed from the cliff’s edge of economic disaster, austerity has an entirely different connotation.  Apparently members of Congress are not aware that today 77 percent of all Americans live from paycheck to paycheck [From a Report issued Jan 2011 by CareerBuilder]. (Letter to the Editor, Tiftongazette.com)

Tim Pawlenty:  girly-man who refused to take on Romney’s state health plan to his face; Minnesota Flat and boring.
 
In a GOP presidential race peppered with millionaires, Pawlenty is the closest thing in sight to a regular guy — and it’s a card he plays often.  (Gainesville Sun)
Is he perhaps a bit intimidated by Romney’s wealth, and that of the others?

Rick Santorum:  doesn’t watch Leno or Conan; believes that terminating any pregnancy is out of bounds; lives in another century; is also a loser of big elections.

Rick Santorum is a candidate whose assets are difficult to pin down: his income disclosures (open secrets.org) show little income other than congressional salary and some income from his wife’s two books, but there are some real estate purchases and other investments that appear to put him in the millionaire category.  In 2006, a case could be made for him having over a million in assets, but it is difficult to determine.  One interesting quote states: “While experts and politicians may debate the propriety of Santorum’s real-estate dealings and PAC spending, one thing became clear during a recent visit to the Estates at Shenstone Farms. Very few of the development’s residents can afford the bulky $750,000-plus homes without two sources of income.”  (prospect.org)

Dan Huntsman:  snappy dresser, but boring so far; an unknown.
 
The chemical company and Huntsman name would …help the family scion win Utah’s governorship, make him a multimillionaire and position him for White House appointments, including as President Barack Obama’s ambassador to China.
Huntsman Corporation’s revenue in China surged 57 percent from 2009 to 2010 during his ambassadorship, almost two decades after its entrance there, data compiled by Bloomberg shows.
Huntsman, grew up middle class – until his father Jon Huntsman Sr. became a billionaire when he founded the Huntsman Corporation. Huntsman Jr. has held executive positions at the Huntsman Corporation, but spent most of his life in politics – so he's not worth quite as much as his Dad. Some estimates say he has up to $90 million in his pocket. (mogulite.com)

Herman Cain: the Pizza guy; wants to be a problem-solver but only has solutions that fit his ideology; doesn’t know how to solve problems by soliciting a myriad of solutions from many sources
 
As the son of a chauffeur to a former Coca-Cola executive, it's worth recognizing that Herman Cain is a self-made millionaire who at one time was the chief executive of Godfather's Pizza. Such a story embodies the American dream and is understandably alluring to some Americans in need of such symbolism.  (grio.com)

Rick Perry:  another Texas Governor?  Spare me the agony. He’s a “tweeter” all right.

How did Texas Governor Rick Perry become a millionaire while being a politician for most of his adult life?  None of his political jobs paid enough to make him a millionaire.
Looking at his financial background, it seems he believed Texas would prosper, and purchased real estate that appreciated in value. (yahoo answers.com)
"Rick Perry has become a millionaire on the public payroll," the narrator says in a TV ad that was posted on YouTube Oct. 4. "He's a career politician who's taken a government check for 25 years, and today, he's a millionaire." The words "Murky land deal mark Gov. Rick Perry's past" and "Gov. Perry wealth fueled by land deals" appear on the screen.
It's not novel for (democratic gubernatorial candidate, Bill) White to niggle Perry about his wealth; he earlier zeroed in on the governor living in a posh rental home while the Governor's Mansion was repaired. But we haven't yet explored White's claim that Perry's gotten rich while a state official. (PolitiFact)

Newt Gingrich:  has $500,000- $1 million line-of-credit at Tiffany’s on jewelry and wants to tell us how to balance the federal budget?

The 67-year-old former speaker, who led a conservative resurgence in Congress during Bill Clinton’s presidency, has become a multi-millionaire as an author, speaker and commentator, with his services packaged through Gingrich Productions, a company co-run with his wife. (London telegraph.com)
Joe DeSantis, a spokesman for Gingrich, said that the candidate’s personal financial disclosure filing, which is due within 30 days of his formal entrance into the presidential race, will “show that the Gingriches had a $500,000 to $1 million line of credit at Tiffany’s...”  Need we say more….

Yes, we do need to say more, for even Barack Obama is now a millionaire…with an estimated net worth of $10.5 million dollars.  Obama’s base salary is $400,000 a year. He also has access to a $150,000 expense account as well as a $100,000 tax free travel account and $20,000 entertainment budget. (celebritynetworth.com)

According to The Wall Street Journal, the president’s reported assets are between $4.25 million and “well north of $23 million,” most of which can be attributed to royalties from his two books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope.  While those income estimates may be vague, they do hint at Obama’s growing wealth. “The value of his book royalties alone is between $2 million and $10 million,” the Journal reports. (mainstreet.com)

Perhaps we can only hope that the President has been enough influenced by his past, by the struggles of a single mother and those of attentive middle-class grandparents, and by the struggles of those with whom he worked as a community organizer, that he can still place himself in the shoes of the 77%  who must live paycheck to paycheck, the millions without a job, and the 98% of us who will never know what being a millionaire is like.  We need him to be our advocate, because the Republican REGRESSIVES running for President are not ever going to desire or accept  that role.

Republicans “Debate”–REGRESSIVES Win!

On Monday of this past week, I listened to the entire debate of GOP candidates in New Hampshire.  It was definitely scary!  How regressive and reactionary can you get?  Without answering that question directly, let’s take a look. 

Republican candidates proposed solutions for the economy that will help just one segment of the population:  the rich, the corporations, the business leaders.  Not one thing was proposed to assist the working or broad middle class and the bulk of the unemployed (except maybe Ron Paul’s rant about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya).

Here’s what they all seem to want to do to “boost” the economy: 
  
>Cut corporate tax rates that are already lower than they’ve been in decades 
>Cut taxes on foreign profits by allowing repatriation of those profits at little or no cost to the profit-makers 
>Lower tax rates for the rich to lowest levels in decades 
>Lower or abolish the capital gains tax 
>Let profits of the big guys trickle down (Santorum actually said it!) 
>Union-bash: UAW has taken over the car industry – I’m sure that‘s be news to them! Right-to-work laws are their mantra;  they want to repeal other laws that protect unions 
>Get rid of government job programs for the unemployed;    

>Repeal strong regulations that protect consumers 
>Get rid of regulatory agencies such as NLRB, EPA 
>They want to support the Ryan Budget plan, maybe with some amendments, none of which were delineated

These are the failed policies of the past that got us into this mess in the first place.  By the way, did you realize that at least two-thirds of these candidates (and the two most likely to declare soon – Rick Perry and Dan Huntsman) are millionaires?  Their views represent and benefit just 1% of the U.S. population, and they, themselves, stand to gain personally from their own proposals!

Where is the guarantee that these tax cuts, tax breaks, incentives, and de-regulation will produce any jobs for the average citizen?  Not one candidate brought forward a commitment on the part of any corporation or business that, if all of these proposals were instituted, they would commit to producing a certain number of jobs in the U.S.  Would Coca-Cola offer to expand its business in the USA when 80% of its profits come from its foreign enterprises?  How about GE, that didn’t pay any taxes on profits in 2010?  Will they commit to hiring a certain number of people in the U.S. in  2011 and 2012?  Not one candidate brought forward any such commitments.  Why? because they can’t.  Theirs is a “trickle-down” theory of job growth: give corporations and businesses enough incentives, and they will take some of their profits and create jobs.

But facts do not back up their theory.  Corporations have already made enormous profits, and are sitting on around $2 trillion dollars, but where are the jobs?  They are still going overseas where the huge profits are waiting.  The “trickle-down” theory is a sham and an illusion because corporations, manufacturers, businesses are not in the business of creating jobs; they are in the business of making profit -- for themselves, their Boards, their share-holders, and their paid lackeys (lobbyists, lawyers, and legislators) who keep fomenting the same old tired “solutions” to growth and joblessness.  Their incentives, no matter how generous, are not going to prevent the multi-nationals from closing factories and businesses here while moving jobs overseas, because they can make bigger profits elsewhere. 

You are being bamboozled if you think any of this works for you, the broad middle class.  It doesn’t; never has; never will.  Corporations and businesses are looking to put their efforts not only where taxes are the lowest, but where several more items come into play: they go where incentives-- like buildings,  equipment and infrastructure, are the best-- where regulations restricting business practices are at a minimum; where pensions are the lowest they can be if they exist at all; where health care as a benefit is not an issue; and where wages are so low as to be unmatchable.  This is what the Republican candidates want for you: to become like third world laborers who get a pittance for their labor, but who don’t mind because it’s better than what they had before. 

Did you hear anything that would lead you to believe that Republicans favor a decent wage, good-paying jobs?  No.  What you heard was an attack upon labor unions (that advocate for decent wages and benefits), an attempt to get rid of governmental regulatory agencies like the NLRB and the EPA, and maybe even the FDA.  What you didn’t hear is any actual job creation or enhancement.  They didn’t even offer enhanced job training programs (instead, they want to “consolidate” those under the Ryan Plan so they can contain them, and eventually get rid of them).  No guarantees of pensions, or health care benefits, or other benefits.  The efforts to restrict bargaining rights and union organizing by certain Republican governors, is also part of this well-orchestrated attack on the working middle class. 

About half of the jobs created last month were at McDonalds.  That’s what Republicans want; they want to reduce wages and benefits so that we become like developing countries where corporations and businesses can hire cheap labor.  Republican candidates won’t say it aloud, but they are working covertly to make sure wages remain stagnant and actually fall.  Is this what you want?

The candidates on that stage Monday night brought nothing but theory, ideology, and conservative think-tank propaganda and offered these as worn-out political solutions to overwhelming problems, at the expense of the middle class. 
 
In addition, Republicans have no idea what to do about health care beyond repeal of the Obama administration’s health care reform act, leaving solutions to the states, getting rid of Medicare & Medicaid, supporting PHAs for workers and inadequate vouchers for the elderly.

The “debaters”  presented no substantive ideas on reform of health care; instead, they distorted the $500 million cut in Medicare costs and deplored the Commission that will present ideas for further reform measures.  They all want to support the Ryan plan, maybe with other ideas added, but none of  them actually delineated specific proposals. 
    
We also heard a lot Monday about the States being the place for development, for experimentation, for handling of national issues in a way that doesn’t provide a national solution.  One-size-fits-all is not their rallying cry unless it suits their particular agenda (like a constitutional amendment on when life begins, or an amendment that prohibits same sex marriage).  

We actually tried giving such powers to de-centralized states in the 18th century (it was called Articles of Confederation) and produced such a hodge-podge that the founding fathers rejected the idea that our government should be a confederation of states.  Instead, they called for a stronger central government (Madison, Jay, Hamilton writing as Publius in the Federalist Papers) and argued against a mere confederation because they saw the dangers inherent in a structure that could not address national problems.  However, the Founding Fathers never did permanently resolve the question of powers left to the states.  That is why we still have arguments over states’ rights and central authority.

    Right wing radicals and Republican conservatives want us to believe that the national government is somehow evil, incompetent, interventionist, and obstructionist.  They want it to get out of the way, and let the states resolve most of our problems, and let the private sector conduct all of our business without any restraints.    Federal authority has been a developing concept, both helped along and restrained by constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and legislation.  What is more to the point is to decide what states should be allowed to do and not do.  That is the unresolved constitutional issue that causes problems.

Two points:

One, allowing states to solve problems like heath care puts a lot of people in jeopardy.  Let’s say you are an adult with an acquired disability like MS or MD or ALS.  The state you live in provides adequate health insurance options for you to live a reasonably normal life.  But now, because of circumstances beyond your control, you must move to a neighboring state that does not provide the same choices or supports, but has inadequate provisions for what you need.  What do you do?  You must move, but the lack of care and supports from the other state may be a matter of life and death for you.  If only there was some way to get adequate health care wherever you were to live in this country!  That is the dilemma, not only for health care, but for public education, safety on the job, pension protection, and a myriad of other problems that must have a national foundation in order to protect you from those exigencies that could arise if states are allowed to set up their own very different solutions to such problems (and don’t forget: some states would opt to do nothing!).

So, when Paul Ryan wants to block-grant Medicaid to the states and allow them to put together their own systems of care, watch out.  It is a disaster waiting to happen. For one, administrative costs will sky-rocket, taking dollars from actual care.

Two, not only was our early Confederation of States an example of how not to deal with national problems, it hindered us from becoming a “player” on the world stage at that time.  Now fast forward to today and take a look at India.  Here is the largest democracy in the world, and one of the reasons it is not as much of a international player as China, is its lack of a strong federal government.  Indian Regions or states have too much control and they cannot act together to make India the international powerhouse that it has the potential to be.  Fareed Sakaria, in “A Post-American World,“ put it this way: “India is Tip O’Neill’s dreamland.  ‘All Politics is local’… In India, that principle can be carved in stone.   This diversity and division complicate the work of the Indian state.  They make it difficult for New Delhi to define a national interest, mobilize the country behind it, and then execute a set of policies to achieve its goals, whether in economic reform or foreign policy.  In economic terms, this means a future of muddling along, minor reforms, and….a less active and energetic role on the world stage.”  Is that what reactionary Republicans want for our nation?

Finally, let’s be clear about one thing: as long as health care insurance is tied to work, corporations and businesses will continue to look to those countries where this is not an issue.  Republicans, by having nothing to offer but the repeal of “ObamaCare”, have opted out of resolving this issue for businesses.  In fact, because they have no other alternatives, they are as much the cause of “outsourcing” of jobs as anyone. 

They say they will reduce health care costs, but that is untenable if all they do is return us to the clutches of the huge health insurance conglomerates who have no intention of reducing premiums, but every intention of raising premiums and reducing benefits.  Republicans cannot resolve the health care issue for business until they remove it from the workplace, and they refuse to do that because they refuse to support a public option.  A single-payer system is the only viable way to get health insurance out of the workplace.  Republicans deride this concept as “socialism”, but they support the VA health care system which is run by -- guess who? -- the federal government!  Once again, these purists get caught in a contradiction that they will not, and cannot, resolve. 

    So remember voters: if that “whoosh” you hear is the sound of more jobs going overseas or to other countries in our own hemisphere, where having to pay for health care is not an issue for employers, you have a recalcitrant Republican party to thank for a substantial loss of jobs because they continue to burden businesses with responsibility for paying health care benefits!

BOLD ACTION is Imperative

Now that a large shift has occurred in the political scene, so that JOBs, JOBs, JOBs is only part of the equation (except for those without them), and “it’s the economy, stupid!” has taken over, it is time again to call for bold action on the part of the Obama Administration.  I say “again” because I, and others, called for this about a year ago, but the Administration did not respond adequately.  Now, time is of the essence; the administration either responds or the “game is over.”
First of all, however, let’s deal with some realities:
--Many manufacturing jobs are gone, and they aren’t coming back.  Constantly calling for return to “things as they were” is not realistic.
--The United States has lost key industries and services, its people have stopped saving money and are increasingly in personal debt, its government has become increasingly indebted to Asian central banks.
--We live in a world “different” from what we have known; global realities, such as the need for more necessities-- like water, fossil fuels, and electricity-- are affecting many nations, including our own.  How we react to global changes will affect our strength and status in the very near future.  American “exceptionalism” is not the most helpful response.   We continue to be quite unaware of the world beyond our borders, speaking few languages, ignorant of foreign cultures, unconvinced that we need to change anything.
--Corporations are sitting on profits (now near 2 trillion dollars); they are not spending profits on new jobs, new equipment, or R&D.  My take is that they may be deliberately sabotaging the Obama administration, and will only begin to spend if Republicans win in 2012.
--However, it is also a fact that multi-national corporations almost uniformly report that their largest growth is in their foreign markets.  Companies on the S&P 500 generate 46% of their profits outside the U.S., and many, like Coca-Cola, report much larger foreign profit percentages (80%), with a larger percentage of employees in foreign countries.  So, perhaps their focus is elsewhere than here.
--Unemployment is going to remain high no matter what is done to ameliorate it;  we are no longer an innovative, pot-boiler of a manufacturing society, but a slow-growth service society that has mainly low-paying jobs with few benefits to offer the broad middle-class. We desperately need innovation in new products. 
--College graduates are going to be less and less able to find high-paying jobs; and, as a matter of fact, if Republicans have their way, very soon only those with money and position will even get into the “prestigious” universities with a shot at the top echelon of jobs.
--Republicans are not going to “save” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; they will continue their efforts to gut and terminate FDR’s New Deal programs and government welfare for the poor and middle classes.  They will not compromise on tax cuts for the rich. 
--Negotiating with Republican radicals is like negotiating with a Grizzly bear: it’s futile and useless since the bear wants only to devour its prey.
Thankfully, President Obama has recently acted to push Treasury to increase the number of people saving their mortgages from foreclosure by going after the banks that are not following through on re-structuring mortgages.  He is seeking the stoppage of incentive payments to banks who continue to drag their heels.  This is bold action of the kind that is needed.  But, the roll-out of this action was so benign as to render it ineffective.  He should also strongly push his 2011 proposal for a financial crisis responsibility fee against banks with more than $50 billion in assets.
Moreover, what Obama needs to do is to come up with a PLAN of bold steps touted with massive publicity that is unrelenting.  Here’s some of what he must do (with thanks to people like Robert Reich, Fareed Zakaria, the CPC, Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson, Bill Moyers, Kevin Phillips, etc.):
1) Substantially increase the run-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Withdraw large numbers of troops; trumpet the savings; say to the world:  America must act on economics as its number one concern not only for itself, but for the world economy.  Iraq and Afghanistan must stand on their own.  Emphasize the war on terror continues and that more special ops and drone attacks will continue as we hunt down El Qaeda. 
2) Re-structure Foreign Aid.  Withdraw aid to dictators and potentates.  Give mainly to humanitarian causes through established vehicles other than failed governments.  Support institutions and organizations (including rebel groups) that support and encourage human rights, peace, freedoms and economic justice.  Cut back on arms and weapons supplied to other nations or bought from us with our aid money.  Give foreign aid only under a spending plan that is subject to audit. (Consult my Blog of  Feb. 20, 2011 for further discussion).
3) Present a massive infrastructure/jobs bill to the Congress.  Put people to work on highways, schools, bridges, roads, etc. etc.  Indicate that any opposition to the bill  must answer to the people who need jobs now; we cannot wait any longer for the private sector to act because they are sitting on profits and not aiding their countrymen and women.  In addition, expand already-existing government job programs that are showing success or that have potential to be successful: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, STEP & SCEP, Job Corps, WIA, etc.
4) Support best provisions of “The People’s Budget”, and frame it as part of economic recovery:
+Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and repeal corporate welfare provisions for oil, gas and coal companies; replace with incentives and penalties for innovation in new energy sources
+Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned rather than when earnings are repatriated
+Rescind upper-income tax cuts in the tax deal with Republicans, repealing the 33 and 35% rates and adding millionaire tax rates of 45-49%
+Tax capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
+Propose a public option or “Medicare for all” to enhance health reform
+Negotiate Rx payments with Pharmaceutical companies
+Raise the taxable maximum on employee side of SS to 90% of earnings and eliminate taxable maximum on employer side
+Increase SS benefits based on higher employee side contributions
+Invest in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure , housing and R&D
5)  Go to bat for the stimulus policies that have worked, and strongly challenge the deregulatory, Hoover-emulating policies that got us into this mess in the first place. 
6) Strongly oppose “spending caps”, “triggers”, and other process-related gimmicks that serve to divert us from real solutions, and that are nothing more than sneak attacks on entitlements.
7) Offer incentives for personal savings and for less consumption; for innovations in all areas, but particularly in the field of energy
8)  Expand the EITC on a progressive scale to cover people earning $20-50k.
9)  Expand unemployment insurance and institute a “wage insurance.” by which any loser of a job who takes a new job at lower pay would be eligible for 90% of the difference for up to 2 years.
10) Boost longer-term job training programs.  Increase adult and worker training programs in high schools, community colleges, universities, and on-the-job locations.  Provide income support (wage insurance) for an additional year for those training to become nurses or teachers, or in other positions for which there are labor shortages.
11) Impose a “severance tax” on profitable corporations that lay off workers perhaps equal to 75% of the full-cost of the laid-off worker’s annual salary.
12) Increase tuition loans and grants for young people, especially those performing national service.
Mr. President:  the time is NOW!  We can’t wait any longer.  We can’t continue to be at the mercy of the rich and powerful.  We can’t survive as an example to others if we can’t take bold actions to bolster our economy and save the middle class.  We can no longer dictate how foreign countries will act or how they will govern; we can only set an example.  Be less like Jimmy Carter and more like FDR and Truman.  Do not be reticent or cool or a capitulator.  Do not live up to early predictions of your being a “lightweight.”  Be The President: the most powerful elected official in the world; the head of the Executive Branch; the leader of the Free World.  We need you now, not as a candidate, but as our BOLD, UNCOMPROMISING, ASSERTIVE leader.  

A Budget Solution You Won’t Hear Much About

There is a solution to the Budget mess floating around Congress right now that you will probably never hear much about. It’s called “The People’s Budget”, and it is a budget proposal for 2012, but also a roadmap for controlling the national debt, and investing in the future. Why won’t you hear about it? Because it comes from a group of about 80 congress persons that the Media love to ignore simply because it is not the Tea Party, not conservative, not well-known, not well-publicized, not much thought about even by the constituents of its members. On top of all that, it is composed of “progressives” (or “liberals” if you prefer) who are out-of-favor right now, and whose solutions are sometimes shunted aside by the electorate. Too bad, because here is a proposal that actually meets many of the tenets that the polls say are wanted by the public.

So let me quote the first few paragraphs of the Executive Summary of this budget, which should give you the flavor of its content.

“Budgets are more than collections of numbers; they are statements of our values. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget is a reflection of the values and priorities of working families in this country. The ‘People’s Budget’ charts a path that keeps America exceptional in the 21st century, while addressing the most pressing problems facing the nation today. Our Budget eliminates the deficit and stabilizes the debt, puts Americans back to work, and restores our economic competitiveness.

“The CPC Budget addresses these problems by listening to the American people. In poll after poll, they are telling us, their representatives in the American government, that they want to preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand job-training programs, to cut taxes burdening the middle class, to subsidize affordable housing, and to provide financial assistance for those struggling to prevent foreclosures.” They find cuts in heating assistance to low-income families, student loans, unemployment insurance, and scientific and medical research as completely unacceptable to most Americans.

“Americans find a progressive tax policy very acceptable. The overwhelming majority of America supports additional taxes on millionaires and billionaires, eliminating unnecessary weapons systems, eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries, phasing out Bush tax cuts, and eliminating subsidies for new nuclear power plants.

“Our Budget, in response, listens to what the American people are telling us. It does all of the above in a fiscally responsible way that dramatically reduces our borrowing from banks and foreign governments, and ensures our long-term economic competitiveness. It does all of the above recognizing that in order to compete, we need every American to be productive, and in order to be productive, we need to raise the skill level of every American and meet the basic needs of every working family. It does all of the above while remaining rooted in fairness, recognizing that America works when everyone has an opportunity to make it in America.”

Let’s take a closer look at a few of the components of this “People’s Budget”. First, it targets the “true drivers of deficits”: the Bush Tax cuts, the unfair tax code and the wars overseas. By addressing these, it is indicated they will achieve a budget surplus of over $30 billion by 2021, ending up with a debt that is less than 65% of GDP.

Income Tax:

Allow Bush-era tax cuts to expire at end of 2012; extend marriage relief, credits and incentives for children, families and education.

Immediately rescind upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal

Establish Millionaire tax rates to include 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates

Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income

Institute a Progressive estate tax (progressive tax rates after a $3.5 million exemption)

Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability (to 28% for high earners)

Corporate Tax Reform:

Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned (not when it is repatriated to the U.S.)

Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas and coal companies

Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee (.15% of covered liabilities on large banks with over $50 billion in assets)

Financial speculation tax (on derivatives, foreign exchange - levied against those who caused the financial crisis)

Social Security:

Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate taxable maximum on employer side

Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Defense Spending:

End overseas contingency operations emergency supplemental starting in FY 2013, saving more than $1.8 trillion from current law spending

Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement and R&D programs

Comprehensive Jobs Program:

Invest $1.5 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy, broadband, infrastructure, housing and R&D

The latter category indicates that the People’s Budget not only reduces spending, but centers on investments that are not only necessary, but critical for restoring American competitiveness. More on that next time. For the moment, just one comment: too bad the Congress, the President, and the Media are all pretty much ignoring the importance of listening to what Americans want. This Budget puts forward real cuts, real reforms, real policies that could move us forward in a balanced and stable manner.