No tax cuts for the rich

I’ve been writing a lot about lately about the growing gap between rich and poor in American, and the systematic destruction of the middle class, and how I believe both trends to be destructive to our Democracy. I didn’t want to write about it tonight, though. I was actually planning to take the night off, but then I happened across this op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in today’s New York Times, and felt compelled to share it. I don’t know what good it’ll do, as I suspect that most of you agree with me already that it’s a significant problem, but I suppose it’s possible that one of you out there tonight is right on the brink of getting off your ass and actually doing something about it. And, if that’s the case, and if I can be the one to give you that final push that’ll get you off the couch, I don’t see as how I can just take the night off. So, with all that said, here’s a clip from Kristof’s piece:

…My point was that the wealthiest plutocrats now actually control a greater share of the pie in the United States than in historically unstable countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana…

The best data series I could find is for Argentina. In the 1940s, the top 1 percent there controlled more than 20 percent of incomes. That was roughly double the share at that time in the United States.

Since then, we’ve reversed places. The share controlled by the top 1 percent in Argentina has fallen to a bit more than 15 percent. Meanwhile, inequality in the United States has soared to levels comparable to those in Argentina six decades ago — with 1 percent controlling 24 percent of American income in 2007.

At a time of such stunning inequality, should Congress put priority on spending $700 billion on extending the Bush tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 a year? Or should it extend unemployment benefits for Americans who otherwise will lose them beginning next month?

One way to examine that decision is to put aside all ethical considerations and simply look at where tax dollars will do more to stimulate the economy. There the conclusion is clear: You get much more bang for the buck putting money in the hands of unemployed people because they will promptly spend it….

But there is also a larger question: What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?

Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent…

I think we have to draw a line in the sand. This is a fight that we can win. All the polling data says that a majority of Americans are against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And, the evidence, as we discussed yesterday, seems to indicate that extending them, despite what we’re being told, wouldn’t stimulate the economy. So, we’ve got the American people behind us, and evidence that these tax cuts wouldn’t fuel the economy the same way the middle class tax cuts would. But, for some reason, we’re still scared to stand up and fight for what we know is right… It brings to mind something that George Soros is said to have told people in a private D.C. meeting a few days ago. Explaining to a gathering of progressives why they might be better served investing in individuals other than our President, Soros said that he was:

“…used to fighting losing battles, but doesn’t like to lose without fighting…”

And that’s how I feel right now. I’m tired of compromising on the things that matter. I’m tired of sitting back and taking it when the Republicans pursue policy that’s clearly destructive. I’m tired of letting them play their games, like walking away from the most recent nuclear arms agreement with Russia, for no reason other than to discredit Obama, when doing so makes us less safe. (It also makes Putin stronger, by the way.)

How did we get here? When Reagan was President, the tax rate on the most wealthy was considerably higher, for Christ’s sake. Have we moved that far to the right? Here we are, scared to death to even suggest that we might want to tax the rich at a rate less than Ronald Reagan…. And, speaking of Reagan and nuclear treaties, let’s remember that he said he dreamed of a day without nuclear weapons. Can you imagine a Republican saying that today? Or, how about this quote from President Eisenhower?

…Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people…

I can only think of two Democrats who might dare to make a speech like that today. We’ve let the pendulum swing way too far to the right, and it’s time to say that enough’s enough. It’s time to stand up and fight for what we know if right. And it starts with the killing of these Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. We can’t afford them. They won’t help us. And they’re destructive to Democracy.