Intro: "The defining political issue of 2012 won't be the government's size. It will be who government is for. Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government. But the surge of cynicism now engulfing America isn't about government's size. The cynicism comes from a growing perception that government isn't working for average people. It's for big business, Wall Street, and the very rich instead."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
The Defining Issue: Who Is Government For
20 December 11
he defining political issue of 2012 won't be the government's size. It will be who government is for.
Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government.
But the surge of cynicism now engulfing America isn't about government's size. The cynicism comes from a growing perception that government isn't working for average people. It's for big business, Wall Street, and the very rich instead.
In a recent Pew Foundation poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.
That's understandable. To take a few examples:
Wall Street got bailed out but homeowners caught in the fierce downdraft caused by the Street's excesses have got almost nothing.
Big agribusiness continues to rake in hundreds of billions in price supports and ethanol subsidies. Big pharma gets extended patent protection that drives up everyone's drug prices. Big oil gets its own federal subsidy. But small businesses on the Main Streets of America are barely making it.
American Airlines uses bankruptcy to ward off debtors and renegotiate labor contracts. Donald Trump's businesses go bankrupt without impinging on Trump's own personal fortune. But the law won't allow you to use personal bankruptcy to renegotiate your home mortgage.
If you run a giant bank that defrauds millions of small investors of their life savings, the bank might pay a small fine but you won't go to prison. Not a single top Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for Wall Street's mega-fraud. But if you sell an ounce of marijuana you could be put away for a long time.
Not a day goes by without Republicans decrying the budget deficit. But the biggest single reason for the yawning deficit is big money's corruption of Washington.
One of the deficit's biggest drivers - Medicare - would be lower if Medicare could use its bargaining leverage to get drug companies to reduce their prices. Why hasn't it happened? Big Pharma won't allow it.
Medicare's administrative costs are only 3 percent, far below the 10 percent average administrative costs of private insurers. So why not tame rising healthcare costs for all Americans by allowing any family to opt in? That was the idea behind the "public option." Health insurers stopped it in its tracks.
The other big budgetary expense is national defense. America spends more on our military than do China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, and Germany combined. The basic defense budget (the portion unrelated to the costs of fighting wars) keeps growing, now about 25 percent higher than it was a decade ago, adjusted for inflation.
That's because defense contractors have cultivated sponsors on Capitol Hill and located their plants and facilities in politically important congressional districts.
So we keep spending billions on Cold War weapons systems like nuclear attack submarines, aircraft carriers, and manned combat fighters that pump up the bottom lines of Bechtel, Martin-Marietta, and their ilk, but have nothing to do with 21st-century combat.
Declining tax receipts are also driving the deficit. That's partly because most Americans have less income to tax these days.
Yet the richest Americans are taking home a bigger share of total income than at any time since the 1920s. Their tax payments are down because the Bush tax cuts reduced their top rates to the lowest level in more than half a century, and cut capital gains taxes to 15 percent.
Congress hasn't even closed a loophole that allows mutual-fund and private-equity managers to treat their incomes as capital gains.
So the four hundred richest Americans, whose total wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 150 million Americans put together, pay an average of 17 percent of their income in taxes. That's lower than the tax rates of most day laborers and child-care workers.
Meanwhile, Social Security payroll taxes continue to climb as a share of total tax revenues. Yet the payroll tax is regressive, applying only to yearly income under $106,800.
And the share of revenues coming from corporations has been dropping. The biggest, like GE, find ways to pay no federal taxes at all. Many shelter their income abroad, and every few years Congress grants them a tax amnesty to bring the money home.
Get it? "Big government" isn't the problem. The problem is big money is taking over government.
Government is doing less of the things most of us want it to do - providing good public schools and affordable access to college, improving our roads and bridges and water systems, and maintaining safety nets to catch average people who fall - and more of the things big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy want it to do.
Some conservatives argue we wouldn't have to worry about big money taking over government if we had a smaller government to begin with.
Here's what Congressman Paul Ryan told me Sunday morning when we were debating all this on ABC's "This Week":
If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that's where the influence is going to go … that's where the powerful are going to go to influence it.
Ryan has it upside down. A smaller government that's still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, oil companies, big agribusiness, big insurance, military contractors, and rich individuals.
It just wouldn't do anything else.
If we want to get our democracy back we've got to get big money out of politics.
We need real campaign finance reform.
And a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court's bizarre rulings that under the First Amendment money is speech and corporations are people.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
But when you ask a Rightie to explain what the issue means, they nearly always blame the victim.
The high cost of medical care to Righties is not fixed by making the system less serpentine. Instead, they say to fix it by having competition. They blame the poor for being lied to and hypnotized by mortgage sales weasels into buying more house than they can afford.
They blame the unions when private employers want more money for the corporation and when the sate coffers dry up due to lack of jobs, the unions get blamed for that.
I could go on for hours, but it is like seemingly intelligent folks that happen to subscribe to Righty politics leave the ability to analyze and connect the dots, especially on economic issues.
Which is why they cannot see how critical it is to reverse Citizen's United and outlaw all Corporate participation in our political dialogue. Let the people figure out what is best for themselves FIRST.
There is no right to enslave another to satisfy your wants and government that does such no matter how large the majority that supports that precept is immoral
When government, as in the Citizens United ruling, takes it upon itself to provide rights to corporations beyond what has been defined then a corruption of our political process has occurred.
What Robert Reich is suggesting is that We The People, reverse that ruling by clarifying the Constitution via amendment. And once that is done, create laws that raises the wall we must have between corporations and government.
Who's money?
IF it is the legal fiction - like a corporation or Union then yes the money should be ended.
IF the money is US citizens - the share holders of the USA then no the money should not be limited - just reported.
A PAC made only of US Citizens - say your tree hugger PAC of Northern California could take contributions from US citizens in Texas - Florida etc and be able to do the political bidding of people who can't be there in person but want to help.
If has PAC is non citizens Corporation,uni on, other non citizens then no.
That would include protecting individuals from corporations.
Neither Corporations nor unions nor churches have rights they are not people.
How?
By doing a limited list of things - common defense - common trade - consistent set of laws that do not favor some over another thus the general welfare will be best aided.
I find this a legitimate statement. thank you for saying it.
What about the inherent right of individuals to breathe clean air, drink unpolluted water and eat uncontaminated food? Who will protect that if government doesn't?
Honestly, bro, sometimes it seems as if you live in another century, before the rise of the industrial system. "Enslaving another to satisfy your wants" is a more accurate description of corporate kleptocrats than of those who wish to hinder their damage.
How do you earn your living? Do you work with other people? Do you like them?
Now if we could just make our government more effective at protecting one set of "inherent rights" without unnecessarily infringing on another set of "inherent rights."
I have no right to enslave or burden my neighbor with my trash.
IF government was constrained to protecting the rights of individuals then there would be no EPA to sell (permit) away my right to clean land air and water where the government courts protect the polluters, pollution is trespass.
From what do you derive your notion that anyone here wants to enslave anyone? Where do you get your ideas?
It's hard to see people call themselves Christians when they disregard the well-being of others. No religion advocates callousness toward all others except those who are part of your group.
Everything important that's been achieved in this country, has been achieved with the facilitation of government, communal support.
Henry Ford paid his workers a living wage because the government was going to force him to do so.
The middle class was created by the emergence of the labor union and the determination of the Congress at that time to protect the rights of workers to organize and negotiate for their compensation (The NLRA).
A downsized government can't protect our inherent rights when it is infested with special interest representatives who have a mandate to violate them in the interests of their clients.
You Ayn Rand acolytes need to grow up or get out of the way and let Americans with a strong sense of justice take charge and drive the money lenders from the temple.
We need to take our government back from the machines you and yours so ardently defend.
We need better government, not less government. We need a government owned by the people, the electorate, not the corporations. Get a clue.
Many good persons become compromised by the power of the corporations, and their strength is growing while our Democracy becomes less democratic and more imperial. It shows off its massive strength to hide the weakness of its growing imperialistic notions.
Sorry, but that is what is at stake.
Reich doesn't address the basic problem. the reason we have government is that we need laws to protect most of us, not only from crime but from the greed and lust for power of the 1% of us.
The case for war is easily established. Just fill us with fear of our country being attacked by "others" and the politicians will take away our freedoms one by one, to protect us.
Preparing for and extending war (to protect ourselves) has become a way of life.
FYI: Congress IS the 1%.
Our Constitution was largely created to protect us FROM the government.
It is no accident the Bill of Rights starts with "Congress shall make no law..."
PROVE IT. This is so obviously untrue. Why do you keep making assertions you can't back up?
Please call it as it is:
NATIONAL OFFENSE!
Thanks! You are making my point! People are not dependent on government handouts as you call them because they are stupid or lazy. They get assistance because they are underemployed, underpaid, and overworked. Since our current economic system is tilted toward rewarding those at the top of any enterprise, the rest get short changed. Their jobs get sent away; did you ever see a price drop due to outsourcing?
"Now made in China for only pennies, we pass the savings on to you!"
No that savings goes to the top, and the former WORKERS are left getting handouts.
While I cannot speak about your tree, but our environmental laws are in place to protect us all. Can you vent mustard gas from your house? Why not? It your property. The trees are necessary for us to breath, excuse us for wanting clean air.
Our government controls very little. Almost all government decisions, especially tax policy, is driven by business. They even get tax breaks to send jobs overseas.
Stop blaming the victims, its a really shameful way to live.
The savings go to the customers who choose to purchase at Wall mart rather then some more expensive place. Profits,AFTER the customers voluntarily vote with their dollars, and after expenses are covered then profits go to the top... The top like the mutual funds in retirement plans across the nation.
News flash: people don't 'choose" to shop at Walmart. They do it because they can't afford expensive places. What world do you live in?
A pity you live in a state controled by republicans. Here the small business is encouraged and helped through local, state and fedral agencies. But there must be a demand.
Now WalMart remains a huge culprit in that the don't offer significant health insurance to their store workers (Wal-Mart has a limited benefit plan, called Starbridge.
Fast-Growing Health Plan Has A Catch: $1,000-a-Year Cap
Employees Pay $10 or So Weekly, for Basics That Provide Little Help for Serious Illness)that creates a burden for the rest of us and great anxiety for the least of us. Walmart owners enjoy their 30 billion each, when a little humanity would go a long way in their company. Vendors for Walmart have their products made overseas or Walmart is not interested in them.Regulations seem not to be an issue, but greed is.
There are lots of things wrong.
Some who read this blog need to stand back a little and look in the mirror though. What is happening in America is the fault of more than the extreme righties. Oh, they are way out there but Clinton signed to repeal Glass Steagall and passed the Commodities Modernization Act which gave the banksters the power to lie cheat and steal. This is not a Republican bad, Democrat good only outcome.
Borrowing money was in everyone's self interest when inflation caused the prices of houses to climb year after year. Leverage benefited ALL who played that game. Most people felt they had no choice. Barney Frank was a proponent of FNM and FRE and the ownership society. To do this, lots of rules had to be either abandoned or ignored.
Again, Where is the Justice Department? Why aren't the obvious Fraudsters indicted? During the S&L debacle, thousands went to prison. Today it is only Madoff who stole from the 1%.
Come on, give posters like Martintfre a break. What they have to say is also true, even though some can't handle the truth and dis him/her.
A restriction would eliminate payoffs to politicians (both parties) from corporations (who don't vote) whose clout is the "campaign" funds they "give". No more lobbyists influencing elected officials to support "special interests". They can send in their donation and be like everyone else.
Just imagine what the impact would be on the industrial-military complex, and on those corporations that have become so big that they can do anything they want.
As Reich asks - why are the 1% able to use the clout they have, while the other 99% (without a voice) get the shaft?
And let's think about the elected officials, federal, as well as state and local. If they didn't have the voters (where the campaign funds come from) behind them, they're guaranteed to lose in the next election. All of a sudden it becomes very important to do exactly what the voter wants.
The time has finally arrived for some serious campaign reform.
I agree we have to get money out of politics, but I don't have a clue how it can be done, as long as Citizens United and Buckley stand as law of the land.
First we need a constitutional amendment to undo the damage this and the previous conservative court have done to our democratic system. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.
I wound up purchasing a book called "The Cheating Culture" by David Callahan which was written some 10 years of so earlier. He explained how the laws had been manipulated to allow large companies to cheat in order to insure monetary success.
He started his book by explaining that he initially went to find all the surviving members of the a class of 1957 MBA graduates. He said that they knew they would be successful in business and they all had an edge over the rest of the population because of their training and schooling. They, therefore, were required to learn the ethics of being successful and were taught to "give back" to their communities.
The surviving graduates complained that this aspect of learning to be business men was dropped long ago and that the new graduates of today were being taught to "win at all costs" instead.
This is the basic problem in America today. The values system behind making a living is no longer balanced in any way.
or pay off student loans. Of course, you are not told this when you apply for one!
The answer to the question: "Who is Government for?" will ALWAYS be: those with power and influence. And the more power government has, the more money will be spent on lobbying and influence, and the MORE it will serve the moneyed interests. To pick but a single example, do you know whose Congressional district got 40% of all the waivers to the new health care legislation? Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker of the House). And she is a Progressive!
As Reich states:
"Some conservatives argue we wouldn't have to worry about big money taking over government if we had a smaller government to begin with."
That's NOT what conservatives argue! They would argue that we ALWAYS have to worry about big money taking over government, which is why we need to ensure that government has LIMITED powers.
Progressives are attached this idea of "If only...", as in if only the Supreme Court's ruling were overturned, if only we could restrict the role of money in elections, if only etc. etc. But we had 2 years of government under a Progressive president and a liberal congress, and they produced one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation --health care-- a model of how influence pedaling benefits the money-interests under the guise of "benefiting the people".
RSS feed for comments to this post.