When it comes to economic fairness, Republicans of the 1950s would be Democrats today. Under Eisenhower, arguably the most successful Republican president of the 20th century, the income tax rate for the wealthiest one percent was around 90%. "Ike" was just fine with that. I've never heard any Republicans call "Ike" a socialist.
Today that number is about 36%, or even less if they have foreign holdings like Mitt Romney. With our political system continuously sold to the highest bidder, Republicans in the modern political era are more radical than any other time in our history. They advocate moving the marginal tax rate as close to zero as possible, while making up for the lost revenue by cutting programs and subsidies that affect the middle class, people at risk and young adults trying to better themselves through education.
In November we will arrive at a crossroads. One path continues our efforts to fix the disastrous Bush years by investing in infrastructure, education and exports. The other path locks us into a two-class system where the rich get richer, government gets less revenue to operate properly and working people like you and me get owned. This is not our grandparents' Republican Party. The budget alternatives the Republican Party of today is proposing would cripple our country for an entire generation. Progressive voters need to get involved and do everything possible to not let that happen! So much is at stake!
Conservatives and even some DLC types continue to ignore the fact that our current gap in demand will continue to prevent our economy from accelerating faster than it is now. The middle class is squeezed. Working paycheck to paycheck, families do not have money to spend and invest. Income inequality is a huge issue this election year, as it should be. Until the middle class has a higher share of America's relative wealth, demand will remain lackluster.
William Galston of the Brookings Institution explained why the economic recovery won't continue without growth in demand, and what that will mean for Obama in November:
The Federal Reserve Board, OECD, and the World Bank all predict slowing global growth, which is bound to dampen an export-led recovery in the United States. And the fourth quarter report issued on January 27 wasn’t exactly a blockbuster. GDP rose at an annual rate of 2.8 percent (a bit below expectations), but final demand rose by only 0.9 percent while inventories swelled. Consumer spending outpaced growth in disposable income, meaning that households spent more only by saving less. This can’t continue indefinitely: Over the past year, real actual tax incomes actually fell by 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, business investment grew at the slowest pace in two years. And as the Fed recently noted, the modest growth predicted for 2012 would not be enough to reduce unemployment significantly from current levels.The Obama campaign would like to frame the 2012 election as a choice between two visions for the country. It’s not hard to see why. If the election is a referendum on the economy rather than a choice between candidates and ideologies, the evidence suggests that it would be a tough, hard-fought race decided by a margin narrower than the one Obama received in 2008. It also suggests that if the economy underperforms over the next three quarters, the incumbent could end up on the losing side.
The Obama Administration's strong emphasis on an export-driven recovery is a smart policy. Under Bush, we were importing way too much in relation to exports.
But exports alone won't fix the economy. Exports represent demand abroad. They do create jobs at home, but only to an extent. What happens with non-Americans economies slow? We must increase demand at home. It starts by increasing the middle class' share of wealth, as opposed to having a tax code that benefits rich people who are more likely to save and invest money abroad.
The Paying Fair Tax Act, known in most circles as the "Buffet Rule", was introduced into the Senate. It would set into law that millionaires and billionaires would pay no less than 30% in taxes. Anyone making less than one million dollars per year would not be affected. The bill is authored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and sponsored by Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Mark Begich (D-AK), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and leadership member Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
By 20th century standards, the 30% minimum is pretty fair. As you can tell from the chart below, the marginal corporate, capital gains and income tax rates have declined significantly since the economic boom in the 1950s, with the exception of the 1990s, which were also boom years.
Mitt Romney's money machine is hard at work in Nevada, the next primary state. The Romney Campaign is pounding Newt Gingrich with mail sent out to Nevada residents. In this illustration of the disparity between the pocket books of the two candidates, these mass mailings describe Gingrich as "erratic", "sleaze", "unethical" and "reckless."
Here is mailer number one.
And here is the second one. Click on the photo to view a larger image.
Notice that this is not Romney's super-PAC. It is Mitt Romney's campaign. Just another example of low Romney will go to get the White House. As progressive activists, we had better get ready!
