GOP: Party Like It's 1929

Who could possibly have foreseen malicious moron and businessman extraordinaire Donald "Shart Of The Deal" Trump's failure to grasp basic economic principles? 

President Donald Trump’s strategy to use import tariffs to protect and boost U.S. manufacturers backfired and led to job losses and higher prices, according to a Federal Reserve study released this week.

“We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices,” concluded Fed economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, in an academic paper.

While the tariffs did reduce competition for some industries in the domestic U.S. market, this was more than offset by the effects of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs, the study found.

“While the longer-term effects of the tariffs may differ from those that we estimate here, the results indicate that the tariffs, thus far, have not led to increased activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector,” the study said. [snip]

The top ten manufacturing industries hit by foreign retaliatory tariffs were producers of: magnetic and optical media, leather goods, aluminum sheet, iron and steel, motor vehicles, household appliances, sawmills, audio and video equipment, pesticide, and computer equipment.

The top ten industries hit by higher prices were: aluminum sheet, steel product, boilers, forging, primary aluminum production, secondary aluminum smelting, architectural metals, transportation equipment, general purpose machinery and household appliances.

(Trump:  "Smoot and Hawley are examples of  people who have done an amazing job and are being recognized more and more.")

... Or, that Trump's "greed is good" regime would usher in a period of runaway wealth accumulation by the top 1 per centers, unequaled since 1929?

... The world’s 500 wealthiest people tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index added $1.2 trillion, boosting their collective net worth 25% to $5.9 trillion.

Such gains are sure to add fuel to the already heated debate about widening wealth and income inequality. In the U.S., the richest 0.1% control a bigger share of the pie than at any time since 1929, prompting some politicians to call for a radical restructuring of the economy.

“The hoarding of wealth by the few is coming at the cost of peoples’ lives,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist, said in a Dec. 12 tweet as the U.K. began to vote.

If anyone thinks Republican trickle- down economics is going to come to the rescue...

What is behind the extraordinary rise in inequality and the near-stagnant growth of wages for typical workers over most of the past generation? The root cause is that workers are being cut out of their share of economic growth—as shown in the pay–productivity gap.  [snip]  The growing wedge between productivity and pay is the income generated by workers in the economy that has been claimed by corporate owners and managers and others at the very top of the pay scale.

The corporate class is also doing all it can to make sure that gap isn't closed by collective bargaining:

In the face of a worker campaign to form a union, employers routinely engage in a wide range of tactics to prevent workers from organizing... [M]ore than two in five employers were charged with illegal tactics—from coercion to threats to firings—in more than two out of five (41.5%) of union elections in 2016 and 2017. And one of the most severe forms of employer aggression—firing or discharging workers for union activity—is widespread. Employers were charged with illegally firing workers in one out of five (19.9%) of union elections in 2016 and 2017.

Meanwhile, Moscow Mitch McConnell is bottling up hundreds of bills in the Senate that the Democratic House has passed, including the Raise the Wage Act of 2019:

It’s not just minimum wage workers who benefit from minimum wage increases: Low-wage workers in general tend to get a wage bump when the wage floor rises. Wage growth for low-wage workers in states with minimum wage increases that have outpaced inflation is faster than in states without such increases.  Federal policymakers should heed the lessons from state increases and raise the federal minimum wage. The Raise the Wage Act of 2019 would raise wages for 33.5 million workers nationwide by increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 and would set it to update automatically each year based on median wage growth.

Lest we forget, what did those wealthfare tax cuts (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - TCJA) do that the rotted- out Republican Party passed in 2017? 

...[I]nvestment has not boomed since the TCJA’s passage. Instead of an investment boom indicating the TCJA is working, we see investment growth continuing along its pre-TCJA trend for a couple of quarters before falling all the way to 1.3% in the third quarter of 2019. To be clear, if the TCJA’s corporate rate cuts were working, we would be seeing a permanent rise in investment. Instead, investment growth is cratering.

In summary:  Republicans, afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable since 1921.

It's Stupid's Economy

Now that we're within a month of entering the third year of the catastrophic Trump regime, the one area the public gives Individual 1 credit for is handling the economy. (How about the record 75 straight months of job growth under President Obama that was handed to Individual 1? Pfft!)  That's about to be tested, as the economy is showing serious signs of a slowdown.

With a competent president in the Oval Office, meeting the challenge of an economic slowdown would be difficult enough. With an ignorant, impulsive narcissist in the Oval Office, well, hold onto your hats.

Paul Waldman expects typical Individual 1 behavior in response to bad news, and just hopes he and his Republican enablers don't take us all down with them:

... [S]hould a recession come, he’ll act as though the entire thing was planned and executed by his enemies to prevent him from receiving the adulation that is his due. He will make it intensely personal, just as he does everything else. 

As for any policy changes he might make to address a recession, the best we can hope for is that Trump doesn’t make things worse. His Republican allies in Congress will say the only answer to our economic problems is another round of tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, which will probably sound to him like a great idea. We know that because no matter what the problem is, that’s their solution. The bubonic plague could return, and Republicans would propose that we stop it with a cut to the capital gains tax.

Waldman's colleague Catherine Rampell looks at "the Keystone Cops" in charge of our economy, specifically the way Individual 1 and his foreclosure king Treasury Secretary handled the increase in the Federal Reserve's interest rate by Fed Chairman and Individual 1 appointee Jay Powell:

Over the decades, the Federal Reserve has cultivated a hard-won, well-deserved reputation for political independence — and with it, a credible commitment to stable prices. The entire worldwide financial system depends on that independence. 

With one fell swoop, Trump could destroy it, and set off a global panic. 

None of that has stopped some of Trump’s economic advisers, such as Heritage Foundation fellow Stephen Moore, from encouraging Trump to fire Powell, plus everyone else at the Fed, too. That’s ultimately what would be necessary for Trump to get the looser money he wants: He appointed four of five sitting Fed board governors, and last week they all voted unanimously for a rate hike. 

Fortunately, some Trump officials know how disastrous such developments could be. Unfortunately, those officials also appear to be incompetent. 

First, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin tweeted a quote purportedly from Trump himself, declaring that “I never suggested firing Chairman Jay Powell, nor do I believe I have the right to do so.”  [snip]

Then Mnuchin decided to make things worse. 

On Sunday, he released a seemingly panicked statement urging the public not to panic. From his Mexican golf vacation, Mnuchin had called heads of our biggest banks and then told the world that these banks had enough liquidity to continue lending. He also announced an emergency Christmas Eve convening of the “Plunge Protection Team,” which includes heads of the Fed, Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

I cannot sufficiently stress how amateurish it was for Mnuchin to make this announcement. 

Or, in other words, when you elect clowns, you should expect a circus.

Fortunately, we just elected a House full of competent Democrats who will try mightily to steer the circus clowns away from the rocks. For our sake, not Individual 1's, we need them to succeed.

Letters We Wish We'd Written Dept.

In today's WaPo:

The announcement by General Motors to drop car lines, close plants and lay off workers is more than just a signpost of where the economy is going [“GM closing plants, laying off 15,000,” front page, Nov. 27]. 

GM’s decision is rational thinking in the complex world of auto manufacturing. Shareholders reward profits and those companies that respond to market forces. Investors did not see a mistaken bet. In fact, GM’s stock price rose 4.79 percent on the news. 

More important, GM’s decision to drop car lines is just one more example that public-policy choices really matter for the country’s economic future. President Trump rolled back fuel economy standards. He rolled back climate change initiatives. He now has cheap fossil fuels, including at the pump. In foreign policy, he exited the Iran nuclear deal and is making a deal with the devil in Saudi Arabia to get the Saudis to pump more oil to keep prices low. The bottom line to all of Mr. Trump’s policy choices for the auto industry is a cold, wet blanket on demand for sedans. Fuel efficiency as a purchase motive is greatly reduced.  

The bottom line for the economy is that a lot of people will lose their jobs, capital investment will take a hit, and towns in Ohio and Michigan will lose a lot of tax base. Ohio and Michigan just got exactly what they deserve in voting for Mr. Trump: a transactional president, a short-term thinker, leading with an eye on the rear-view mirror, clueless about the far-reaching consequences of public-policy decisions. 

Daniel Keifer, Abington, Pa.

Also: Trump tariffs. A perfect storm.

Public Opposition to Republican Wealthfare Tax Bill Increasing

As coin-operated Rethuglicans ram through their tax giveaway to their donor class, a new CNN poll shows that the public opposition to their tax legislation is increasing. In just a month, disapproval of the Rethuglican giveaway to multi-national corporations and the top 1% has grown from 45% disapproval in November to 55% disapproval today. Sixty-six percent of Americans see the legislation as benefitting the wealthy rather than the middle class, with 37% saying that if the bill passes their family will be worse off. The poll also showed that neo-fascist con man Donald "Rump" Trump's approval rating is at 35%, the lowest point so far in CNN's polling.

Following the bill's passage, the amount of lying by the Rethuglicans about the nature of the bill and its impact on the middle class will expand exponentially, as they face voters in 2018. Signs are that the voters will be a lot smarter than the Rethugs think they are.

Less Xenophobia And More Economic Honesty

Much of the rhetoric on the economy that's employed by demagogue and sociopath Donald "Rump" Trump centers around economic xenophobia directed at such countries as China. While China's explosive economic growth in the past 20 years has impacted world markets, as this opinion piece by Linette Lopez in Business Insider notes*, the "laissez faire" economic policies initiated by right-wing icon Ronald "St. Ronnie of Hollywood" Reagan and taken as gospel by Rethuglicans was equally responsible for the decline of jobs in America.

For example, when St. Ronnie's Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that corporations could repurchase shares of their own stock (to manipulate the price), it shifted corporate focus to shareholder interests, rather than reinvesting in the workforce and lowering prices. It made the investor class very wealthy at the expense of economic sustainability and competition with foreign companies. Meanwhile, wages flat lined as cost-cutting by corporations to meet investors expectations of maximized profits dominated their thinking. Lopez writes:

"....Since the 1980s, companies have invested less than 10 cents of each borrowed dollar. They've put far more effort into buying back stock which, thanks to the way executive compensation works, makes the C-suite richer and richer.

From 2003 to 2012, S&P 500 companies used 54% ($2.4 trillion) of their earnings for stock buybacks. That has also contributed substantially to the inequality we're seeing, as the main beneficiaries of buybacks are wealthy investors."

There's more that right-wing economic policies did to damage the economy: budget cuts, and deregulation among them. So when you hear demagogues like Rump blame China, Mexico, etc. for the economic decline of American workers, right-wing laissez faire economic policies have contributed mightily to that decline, something that they'll never acknowledge.

(*hat tip to our friend P.E.C. for the lead)

All You Need To Know About Trump's Economic "Plan"

In one tweet:

Moody's Analytics, effects of economic plans compared to current law in 2020: Clinton +3.3-M jobs, Trump -7.6-M jobs

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) August 6, 2016

That's plus 3.3 million jobs under Clinton's plan, and minus 7.6 million jobs under Trump's.

That's not even touching on the effect of Trump's "plan" on the national debt (adding $12 trillion), the reliance on debunked "trickle down" economics through tax policies favoring the rich and corporations, and gutting regulations to allow the polluters and banksters to run roughshod over the environment and economy.  So much for Trump's phony populism.  As one writer put it:

On immigration and trade, he is a pitchfork-wielding Pat Buchanan Republican; on taxes and regulation, he is a dark-suited Paul Ryan Republican. Perhaps the old saying is right and consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Little hands, little, uh, mind.

BONUS:  Let's give it the Andy Borowitz treatment:

At a speech in Detroit on Monday, the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, spelled out the details of his economic plan, which calls for every American to inherit millions of dollars from his or her father.

Republican "Laboratories Of Democracy"

BONUS:

BREAKING: Holy, crap, Kansas.
$106 million BELOW tax revenue estimates for FY 2016.
$34 million BELOW in June

— Yael T. Abouhalkah (@YaelTAbouhalkah) July 1, 2016

BONUS II:  Here's another Republican "laboratory of democracy" fail.

"The Biggest Threat To The Economy" (UPDATED)

In a speech to be given later today in Columbus, Ohio, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is expected to flay what passes for the economic "policies" of neo- fascist dimwit Donald "Rump" Trump.  It's a particularly well- timed speech, in that those "policies" have come under scrutiny from a respected economic analysis firm, Moody's Analytics, and what they have to say is devastating [pdf]:

... [W]hat he is asking for is fiscally unsound. His tax and spending proposals will result in very large deficits and a much higher debt load. A future Congress may be able to rein in this profligacy, but it will not be easy, as there is a gulf between what he says he wants on taxes and spending and what it will take to make the budget arithmetic work. 

He is also very suspicious of globalization. His willingness to threaten higher tariffs on U.S. trading partners and his sharp criticism of major trade deals signal a reversal on the long-running expansion of U.S. trade and foreign investment. Requiring millions of undocumented immigrants to leave the country also signals less openness to the rest of the world. 

The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic policy positions under almost any scenario is that the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished.  (our emphasis)

Not that this should be surprising to anyone who follows Rump's hare- brained "policy" prescriptions on any topic.  After all, he's the epitome of post- policy Republicanism. Nor is the warning likely to penetrate the skulls of a large portion of Rump's frothing base: endlessly aggrieved white working- class Americans.  After all, contrary to corporate media myth- making, it's not "economic anxiety" that's driving these voters;  it's racial/ cultural anxiety.  So, what would be the reward for these folks in a Rump presidency?  Catherine Rampell puts it like this:

Overall, the picture painted by these forecasts is terrifying. It suggests voters here — not so unlike our friends across the Atlantic who favor Brexit — may voluntarily bring a Category 5 economic hurricane upon themselves. And for what? To “shake things up”? To give the middle finger to “the establishment?” To make Washington a little more entertaining, or a little less politically correct?

Are 9.4 million fewer jobs and the longest recession since the Great Depression really worth those meager rewards?

Moody's isn't the only voice warning of Rump's catastrophic plans.  As Rampell goes on to note:

... A Trump presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. It’s rated above an armed clash in the South China Sea, a fracturing of the European Union and even the rising threat of jihadist terrorism. 

And with Rump's proposed $10 trillion in tax cuts skewed to upper income brackets, who do you think would be the "winner" while the majority of us would be "losers" in a Rump Recession?  Why, none other than Donald "Rump" Trump!  Shocking, we know.

J.E.B.! Bush: Born With A Silver Foot In His Mouth *

This morning, Eugene Robinson notes the unfortunate confluence of J.E.B.! Bush's syntax with Millionaire Mitt Romney's economic royalism:

... Bush made news for announcing an economic strategy that sounded straight from the Mitt Romney playbook. He told the New Hampshire Union Leader that “people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families.”

Simple as that, beleaguered American middle-class proles. You’re slacking.

The echo of Romney’s infamous “47 percent” remark was unmistakable. Bush seemed to blame those struggling in these unsettled economic times for their own predicament. Coming from a man who was born into great wealth and privilege, it was tone-deaf to say the least. [snip]

Bush’s supporters claimed that what the candidate meant to say had to do with the millions of men and women who would like to have full-time jobs but are settling for part-time work — and also the millions who have dropped out of the workforce altogether. But why, then, didn’t he speak of the need to create better jobs for the underemployed? Why did he approach the problem from the opposite angle by blaming the workers for their plight?  (our emphasis)

We'll go with "Because he's a privileged jerk."

Furthermore, as we've been assured, J.E.B.!'s the "smart Bush" (which is a low bar, indeed).   It's just that, as this Wonkette headline notes, "Jeb Bush No Like Big Words."  Here's J.E.B! from the same interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader quoted above:

“This guy — this president and Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry – when someone disagrees with their nuanced approach, where it’s all kind of so sophisticated it makes no sense. You know what I’m saying — big-syllable words and lots of fancy conferences and meetings — but we’re not leading, that creates chaos, it creates a more dangerous world.”  (our emphasis)

As Wonkette goes on to note, the Bush family prefers words of one syllable, like "oil" and "bomb."

The fact that this doofus, along with blowhard racist wig-stand Donald "Rump" Trump, is co-leader in the polls for the Republican nomination is a perfect reflection of today's Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party.

* Reference to the late, great Ann Richards' classic put-down of J.E.B.!'s poppy, George Herbert Walker Bush, at the 1988 Democratic convention.

(Photo:  J.E.B.! Bush with Millionaire Mitt Romney:  "We're rich and you're not!")

Whose Policies Would Bring A Greece-Like Disaster To The U.S.?

One of the latest talking points of numbnut Republicans (who have a hard time grasping economic lessons from 70 years ago, much less 7 years ago) goes something like this piece of sophistry on Greece by the very- desperate- for- attention Louisiana Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (a.k.a., "Kenneth"):

The way of Greece is where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will take us. It’s simple math: You can’t spend more than you take in. You can’t make it impossible for business to thrive and expect the economy to grow. 

Actually, Piyush, you can spend more than you take in;  it's called running a deficit, and sometimes it's a good thing (see Keynes, John Maynard).  It's one way we got out of the Great Depression and what your hero St. Ronnie of Hollywood tripled in his administration.  But let's let Prof. Krugman handle the history of the current Greek debt crisis and how a certain group of knuckle-draggers would, indeed, bring policies that led to the Greek disaster here to America:

... Greece’s formula for disaster, in other words, didn’t just involve austerity; it involved the toxic combination of austerity with hard money.

So who wants to impose that kind of toxic policy mix on America? The answer is, most of the Republican Party.

On one side, just about everyone in the G.O.P. demands that we reduce government spending, especially aid to lower-income families. (They also, of course, want to reduce taxes on the rich — but that wouldn’t do much to boost demand for U.S. products.)

On the other side, leading Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan incessantly attack the Federal Reserve for its efforts to boost the economy, delivering solemn lectures on the evils of “debasing” the dollar — when the main difference between the effects of austerity in Canada and in Greece was precisely that Canada could “debase” its currency, while Greece couldn’t. Oh, and many Republicans hanker for a return to the gold standard, which would effectively put us into a euro-like straitjacket.

The point is that if you really worry that the U.S. might turn into Greece, you should focus your concern on America’s right. Because if the right gets its way on economic policy — slashing spending while blocking any offsetting monetary easing — it will, in effect, bring the policies behind the Greek disaster to America.  (our emphasis)

As we've seen in the Greek experience, austerity and hard money only advantage one group -- the wealthy -- while driving everyone else, but especially the poor,  into even more dire economic straits. Sounds like a Republican dream world.

That Texas "Miracle" (Wink Wink) You'll Be Hearing About

Paul Krugman writes about one of the only selling points for former governor and future Lenscrafters spokesmodel Rick "Oops" Perry:  the so-called "Texas Miracle:"

Remember the Texas economic miracle? In 2012, it was one of the three main arguments from then-Gov. Rick Perry about why he should be president, along with his strong support from the religious right and something else I can’t remember (sorry, couldn’t help myself). More broadly, conservatives have long held Texas up as a supposed demonstration that low taxes on the rich and harsh treatment of the poor are the keys to prosperity.

So it’s interesting to note that Texas is looking a lot less miraculous lately than it used to. To be fair, we’re talking about a modest stumble, not a collapse. Still, events in Texas and other states — notably Kansas and California — are providing yet another object demonstration that the tax-cut obsession that dominates the modern Republican Party is all wrong.

Krugman also contrasts the Republican economic governance of Texas and Kansas with the Democratic economic governance of California.  You might guess how that comparison goes, but if not:

For those who haven’t been following the Kansas story, in 2012, Sam Brownback, the state’s hard-right governor, pushed through large tax cuts that would, he promised, lead to rapid economic growth with little, if any, loss of revenue. But the promised boom never materialized, while big budget deficits did.

And, meanwhile, there’s California, long mocked by the right as an economy doomed by its liberal politics. Not so much, it turns out: The budget is back in surplus in part because the emergence of a Democratic supermajority finally made it possible to enact tax increases, and the state is experiencing a solid recovery.

Keep in mind too, the prevailing right-wing philosophy behind Perry's economics is deregulation, which has certainly added greater meaning to the concept of a "booming economy."

Meanwhile, in the Republican-wired newsroom at the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, cub reporter Jimmy Olsen Stephanie McCrummen wonders if Perry is more style or more substance, a question she somehow avoids answering ("we report, you decide").  Is the "Texas Miracle" mentioned?  Why, of course it is, but only with attendant glowing quotes from a corporate  suit who was "incentivized" to build his plant in Texas (no unions, no taxes, no environmental protections, yee-haw!).  So what issue does McCrummen spend the first 19 paragraphs talking about (and refers back to as a theme)?

... a man poses a question about the importance of speaking plainly, and Perry pauses a moment before he answers by asking rhetorically, which is to say confidently: “Did I say anything today you couldn’t understand?”

People laugh, and this is when it happens: Rick Perry winks.  (our emphasis)

Yes, Perry's wink!  Nineteen paragraphs.  He's winking at you, Stephanie! Looks like he made the sale.

"Vampires Of Finance" And Their Bought Republican Congress

(click on image to enlarge)

(Tom Toles, once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle)

The banks, hedge funds and other Wall Street "creators of wealth" -- largely for themselves -- have a right-wing Republican Congress in their pocket, ready to do their bidding, whether it's on tax cuts for the wealthy or deregulation of their industry. Here's Paul Krugman today on what keeps the "vampires of finance" at bay:

Last year the vampires of finance bought themselves a Congress. I know it’s not nice to call them that, but I have my reasons, which I’ll explain in a bit. For now, however, let’s just note that these days Wall Street, which used to split its support between the parties, overwhelmingly favors the G.O.P. And the Republicans who came to power this year are returning the favor by trying to kill Dodd-Frank, the financial reform enacted in 2010.

And why must Dodd-Frank die? Because it’s working.

This statement may surprise progressives who believe that nothing significant has been done to rein in runaway bankers. And it’s true both that reform fell well short of what we really should have done and that it hasn’t yielded obvious, measurable triumphs like the gains in insurance thanks to Obamacare.

But Wall Street hates reform for a reason, and a closer look shows why.

Be sure to read Krugman's op/ed, in which he lists the reforms "the vampires of finance" (and Republicans) hate, that are working thanks to Dodd-Frank, like regulation of derivatives and abusive lending practices.  And the "vampire" analogy?  It's all about the "sunlight:"

... [A]lmost nobody wants to be seen as a bought and paid-for servant of the financial industry, least of all those who really are exactly that.

And this in turn means that so far, at least, the vampires are getting a lot less than they expected for their money. Republicans would love to undo Dodd-Frank, but they are, rightly, afraid of the glare of publicity that defenders of reform like Senator Warren — who inspires a remarkable amount of fear in the unrighteous — would shine on their efforts.

It's yet another issue that defines the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party as working assiduously for the interests of the wealthy 1 per cent against the interests of the middle- and working classes.  It's only progressive fighters like Sen. Warren, who can get the attention-deficit "mainstream media" to take notice, that are keeping them at bay.

Baltimore And The Choices We've Made

(click on image to enlarge)

(Matt Wuerker, Politico, via gocomics.com)

In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof tells us that "inequality is a choice":

THE eruptions in Baltimore have been tied, in complex ways, to frustrations at American inequality, and a new measure of the economic gaps arrived earlier this year:

It turns out that the Wall Street bonus pool in 2014 was roughly twice the total annual earnings of all Americans working full time at the federal minimum wage.

You read that right: Just the annual bonuses for just the sliver of Americans who work just in finance just in New York City dwarfed the combined year-round earnings of all Americans earning the federal minimum wage.  (our emphasis)

And why is that, you say?

We as a nation have chosen to prioritize tax shelters over minimum wages, subsidies for private jets over robust services for children to break the cycle of poverty. And the political conversation is often not about free rides by corporations, but about free rides by the impoverished.

Kristof cites an upcoming book by British economist Anthony Atkinson that offers policy recommendations should we, as a nation, ever want to get serious about addressing the issues of poverty, inequality and the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a wealthy elite.  Here are a few of Atkinson's recommendations, as summarized by Kristof:

o Trade unions should be bolstered to represent workers’ interests.

o Government should provide public-sector jobs at minimum wage to those who want them, in areas such as meals-on-wheels, elderly care, child care and so on.

o In addition to a minimum wage, there should be a framework to restrain pay at the highest levels. Atkinson cites companies that have voluntarily decreed that executive pay should be capped at 65 or 75 times the average pay in the firm.

o Every child should get a “child benefit” payment, to help keep kids out of poverty.

2016 could be a defining election in this regard, because the contrast couldn't be greater between the Republican Party's interest in protecting the wealthy few at the expense of the middle and working classes, and the Democratic Party's interest in promoting economic and social equality.  But, as Kristof concludes: "The problem isn’t inequality; the problem is us. We’re paralyzed."

There's one way to begin to end the paralysis, and that starts in November 2016.

BONUS:  Robert Reich has a good read on economic inequality and what we need to do to address it.

Here's What's The Matter With Kansas, Cont.

The increasingly Galtian Republican "paradise" of Kansas, under the "leadership" of recently re-elected (WTF is wrong with you people?!) pea-brain ideologue Gov. Sam "Brownshirt" Brownback, has already made a reputation for itself as a nasty place to live for a low-income person. But, if you're wealthy, Republicans will always be looking out for you:

Wealthier Kansans are paying much less in taxes after Republican Gov. Sam Brownback overhauled the state's income tax a few years ago. Brownback and other Republican officials hoped that more generous policies would stimulate the economy, bringing more revenue into the state's coffers and making up the difference on the bottom line.

It didn't work. Kansas's economy has kept expanding at more or less same plodding pace as the rest of the country. And now, according to official estimates released Monday, the state will have at least a $143 million budget shortfall in 2016, and likely more. Lawmakers are looking for a way to plug the hole.

You think the Republicans would think about maybe rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy to "plug the hole" they blew in the State's budget?  Dream on:

[I]n a legislature that last week barred welfare recipients from using their benefits to go swimming or watch movies, the proposals that look most likely to succeed are sales and excise taxes that would be paid disproportionately by Kansas's poor and working class.  [our emphasis]

Any other ideas for how to "plug the hole," Republicans, while simultaneously sticking it to another  "Democratic constituency?"

Six school districts in Kansas will close early this year, following budget cuts signed in March by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.

Two school districts, Concordia Unified School District and Twin Valley Unified School District, announced earlier this month that they would end the year early because they lacked the funds to keep the schools open. This week, four more districts confirmed they would also shorten their calendars, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

This Republican agenda of starving education and shredding the social safety net while using "trickle down" voodoo economics as a fig leaf to further enrich the rich is in their DNA.  You can see it in Wisconsin, where Koch-endorsed employee Gov. Scott "Koch Head" Walker is slashing education funding while cutting taxes (and skipping debt payments) and giving $200 million in tax breaks to a multi-millionaire sport franchise owner for a new stadium. You can see it pretty much everywhere where Republicans control state government.  And you'll see it if they ever control the Federal government.

(Photo:  Gov. Brownshirt - "Eh!  Who needs education!?  Not the Republican base!")

Rubio: The "Fresh Young Face" On The Republican Voodoo Economics Zombie

(click on image to enlarge)

(Tom Toles, once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle)

Matt O'Brien provides a perspective on Sen. Marco "Glug Glug" Rubio's simple-minded, reactionary "voodoo economics" agenda at Wonkblog (worth an extended quote):

Marco Rubio's toughest political opponent may be math.

That's because his economic agenda has a simple arithmetic problem. He wants to balance the budget—in fact, he wants to amend the Constitution to make that mandatory—but at the same time he wants to cut taxes by $4 trillion or so, increase defense spending, and keep antipoverty spending where it is. That doesn't leave a lot of places to find savings. There probably aren't any in non-defense discretionary spending—things like roads and research—when it's already at a 40-year low. So you'd have to get them all by cutting Social Security and Medicare, and cutting them now. Rubio, though, only wants to "reform" entitlements for future seniors, not current ones. And that leaves you with big, fat deficits for a good, long while.

This is the same problem Republicans have had for 35 years now. That's how long they've been running on deficit-financed tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. So Rubio, who's trying to portray himself as a new kind of Republican, is seizing on the only thing that makes that combination work: saying tax cuts will pay for themselves. Specifically, he's said that the way to balance the budget is with "dynamic economic growth," which, of course, his tax cuts are supposed to provide. That's saying you can eat your cake and have it too, because eating it will make more of it appear. But anyone who remembers the big deficits that came after Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's big tax cuts knows that's not the case. Indeed, former Bush adviser Greg Mankiw knew this himself, calling people who said otherwise little more than "charlatans and cranks."

But that hasn't stopped the usual supply-side suspects, like the right-leaning Tax Foundation, from claiming that Rubio's trillions of dollars of tax cuts would, after nine years of bigger deficits, actually make tax revenues go up after that by supercharging growth so much. If this sounds like wishful thinking masquerading as actual analysis, well, you're in touch with empirical reality. "This would not pass muster," economist Laurence Kotlikoff told the New York Times's Josh Barro, "as an undergraduate model at a top university."  (our emphasis)

Of course, Glug Glug isn't alone;  every one of his Republican presidential rivals (and the party in general) subscribes to this "wishful thinking masquerading as actual analysis."

Today's Cartoon And Reading - The Republican Budget "Tell"

(Tom Toles, once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle)

How can you tell Republicans are lying when they talk about easing income inequality?  Their lips are moving (heh - rimshot).

As noted the other day, the House Crackpot Caucus Republican produced a "slumlord budget" that promotes a plutocratic dystopia of winners (the 1 per centers) and losers (the rest of us), using "magical asterisks" and blatant dishonesty (surprise!) in  the process.

Today, E.J. Dionne, Jr., shows how Republicans are pushing policies and budget priorities that exacerbate income inequality rather than ease it:

The wholesale assault on efforts to provide lower-income Americans with health insurance is the clearest sign that Republicans don’t want to deal with inequality. The inability to get health insurance is one of the biggest burdens on low-income families, particularly those working for low wages and few or no benefits. 

Obamacare has helped 16.4 million Americans get health insurance. Where would they turn? And Republicans would compound the damage: The Senate proposes cutting an additional $400 billion from Medicaid over a decade, the House more than double that. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that on other low-income programs, the Senate budget cuts even more than the House’s. The vagueness of these plans makes it hard to tally how much damage would be done to food stamps, Pell Grants for low-income college students and the like, but Greenstein estimates that about two-thirds of the cuts in both plans come “from programs for the less fortunate, thereby exacerbating poverty and inequality.” 

Greenstein concludes that under such proposals — here’s hoping President Obama is relentless in blocking them — “ours would be a coarser and less humane nation with higher levels of poverty and inequality, less opportunity” and an “inadequately prepared” workforce.  

The "tell" in all of this budget smoke and mirrors is what Republicans would do to affordable health care and other programs for low- and middle-class Americans if given the chance.  It's been there for all to see not just in this year's Republican budget proposals, but ever since St. Ronnie of Hollywood and his acolytes took over the party with their promises of "trickle down" prosperity, busting unions, shrinking government, tax cuts for the wealthy and "pain-free" cuts to social programs.  Every single one of the putative Republican candidates for president continue to bow down at the altar of this smiling sociopath, the former corporate pitchman.  They're not even trying hard to hide their true goals;  they know they won't be challenged by the "mainstream media," and they continue to hope that there are enough plutocrat bucks, gullible voters and fellow sociopaths* out there to keep them in power until they can finish America the job.

*UPDATE:  And let's not forget Supreme Court-abetted voter suppression.

John Ellis "J.E.B." Bush Doesn't Want A Federal Minimum Wage

Millionaire son and grandson of millionaires John Ellis "J.E.B." Bush had something to say yesterday about the federal minimum wage:

“We need to leave it to the private sector,” Bush said. “I think state minimum wages are fine. The federal government shouldn’t be doing this.”

The "smart Bush" made his remarks yesterday to a collection of yahoos in South Cackalacky Carolina. Bush's race to the bottom approach on wages is perfectly in line with the right-wing social Darwinist ethos, which includes "right to work (for less)" laws that have popped (pooped?) out in a number of Republican-led states, the latest of which was signed in Wisconsin by Koch brothers employee of the year Gov. Scott "Koch Head" Walker (R-Kochland), who also doesn't want to raise the minimum wage.

At the same time, these grifters want people to believe they're concerned about income inequality, which raising the minimum wage would address directly. Why?  Not for philosophical reasons, of course:

- 75 percent of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $12.50 by 2020

That's right.  As usual Republicans are on the wrong side of public opinion and want to fudge their positions as much as possible. (This is a Hart Research Associates poll, but similar results have been seen by Pew Research and others.)

This is Bush the "moderate conservative" that the "mainstream media" is so desperate to sell to us, when he's same old reactionary Republican in the same old reactionary Republican party that gave us the "slumlord budget" the other day.  Nice try, though.

Today's Reading - We Would Label Them "Sociopaths"

Linda Greenhouse has some advice for the "Justices" who agreed to hear King v. Burwell, which aims to gut Obamacare's (the Affordable Care Act) subsidies and thus end affordable health insurance for tens of millions of Americans:

I have no doubt that the justices who cast the necessary votes to add King v. Burwell to the court’s docket were happy to help themselves to a second chance to do what they couldn’t quite pull off three years ago. To those justices, I offer the same advice I give my despairing friends: Read the briefs. If you do, and you proceed to destroy the Affordable Care Act nonetheless, you will have a great deal of explaining to do — not to me, but to history.

Greenhouse believes, rightly, that some on the Court have led it into a partisan, not legal, battle.  We know who they are: the five Republican "Justices" on the Supreme Court who call themselves Roman Catholic.  So far their "faith" hasn't impelled at least four of them to come down on the side of justice and mercy on any number of cases.  Maybe if they can't be bothered to read the briefs, maybe they could read  Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching, especially the "Option for the Poor and Vulnerable."

Both Harold Meyerson and E.J. Dionne, Jr., take on Republican "big ideas man" Rep. Paul "Lyin'" Ryan's (Koch-WI) labeling President Obama's budget as practicing "envy economics."  Here's a taste of Meyerson's snarky rejoinder:

“Envy economics” — that’s how Paul Ryan (Wis.), the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, characterized the budget that President Obama submitted to Congress on Monday. 

I suppose he has a point. 

Who among us, for instance, doesn’t envy the ability of our most profitable corporations, such as Apple, to cut their taxes by shifting profits to low-tax Ireland, even though, in Apple’s case, the company doesn’t really do much business in Ireland? Obama’s budget would exploit this envy by requiring U.S. corporations to pay a 14 percent tax on the money they’ve stashed overseas to avoid paying the taxes that U.S. workers — willing but unable to pretend they’re Irish — are compelled to pay.

Dionne, in turn, labels Ryan's approach (and that of the Republican/ New Confederate/Stupid Party):

Ryan’s label invites a comparable description of his own approach, which would slash taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and many middle-income Americans. If Ryan wants to play the branding game, is it unfair to ask him why “greed economics” isn’t an appropriate tag for his own approach? 

While we're talking Catholic social teaching, perhaps Lyin' Ryan, who's already been called out by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for previous mean-spirited budgets, could profit from reading the Catholic Social Teachings as well.  There's great stuff in there about the dignity of work and the rights of workers.

Try to read all the articles -- their common denominator is showing what a hypocritical, selfish, greedy, spiteful, inhumane collection of sociopaths we have in the right wing of American politics.

"Zombie Lies:" Republican Lies That Refuse To Die

Bill Maher on Republican lies that refuse to die ("like a plastic bag in a tree"):

Chart of the Week

Given the information above, how can Rethuglicans still be viable?
Thanks to dear friend and reader P.E.C. for pointing us to this chart.