40 YEARS OF CLASS WARFARE

ABSTRACT: Class warfare has been going on in the US for 40 years, but most people either haven’t realized that it is class warfare, or deny its existence. Inequality between the wealthy, elite class and the middle and working class has grown dramatically. This is the result of policy decisions made by federal and state governments not the accidental or inevitable result of non-political events or changes in our economy.

Since 1979, workers’ productivity has grown by 65% but their median pay has grown by only 8%. Large employers’ profits after taxes have increased 239% since 1980.

Since the 1970s, changes in government policies have tended to reward corporations, their executives and investors, at the expense of workers. Trade policies, deregulation, tax policies, and labor laws are key examples. As the incomes of the richest 1% have grown dramatically, the income tax rate for those with the highest incomes has been reduced from 70% to 39%, with even lower rates on income from investments (as opposed to income from work). Meanwhile, the minimum wage has failed to even keep up with inflation.

Increasing incomes for the working and middle class doesn’t just benefit them and their families, it will benefit the whole economy by increasing the purchasing power of the average consumer. Consumer spending is two-thirds of our economy.

It’s time to acknowledge that 40 years of class warfare has occurred, that government policies have been its weapons, and that tremendous (and growing) inequality has been the result. It’s time to work to improve the pay, benefits, and job security of the working and middle class. And it’s time for our wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share of our taxes. Policy changes to achieve these results are possible and will be essential to strengthening our economy and reducing the startling inequality present in America today.

FULL POST: Class warfare has been going on in the US for 40 years, but most people either haven’t realized that it is class warfare, or deny its existence. The incomes and wealth of the wealthiest individuals and families in the US have grown dramatically, while the vast majority of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate, at best, and their wealth fall with the crash of home prices and the financial system in 2008. Large employers’ profits have grown significantly as well, while workers’ pay has stagnated or fallen.

As a result, inequality between the wealthy, elite class and the middle and working class has grown dramatically. This is the result of policy decisions made by federal and state governments, driven by wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists. It is not the accidental or inevitable result of non-political events or changes in our economy.

It used to be that as our economy and worker productivity grew, the rising tide lifted all boats. From 1947 to 1973, workers’ productivity grew by 97% and their median pay grew by 95%. That changed in the 1970s when the 40 years of class warfare began. Since 1979, workers’ productivity has grown by 65% but their median pay has grown by only 8%. The share of the national economy’s income going to workers in wages and salaries has declined from 67% (where it had been for decades) to 58% (the lowest level since this statistic has been recorded). Meanwhile, the share going to corporate profits is at a record high. [1] Large employers’ profits after taxes have increased 239% since 1980. [2]

Since the 1970s, changes in government policies have tended to reward corporations, their executives and investors, at the expense of workers. Trade policies, deregulation, tax policies, and labor laws are key examples. These policy changes have allowed and provided incentives for corporations to shift jobs overseas, reducing jobs and wages in the US. Financial deregulation has benefited Wall St. corporations and executives while hurting average American homeowners, credit card holders, and borrowers. Small businesses have been hurt by trade policies, deregulation, and tax policies that favor big corporations.

Changes in labor laws have shifted the balance of power toward employers, especially large employers, at the expense of workers. The use of part-time workers, “temporary” employees, and “independent” contractors instead of full-time employees has stripped workers of job security, benefits, and labor law protections, including the ability to unionize.

During the first 30 years of this class warfare, workers made up for the lack of income growth by working more hours (especially by women in two-parent households) and by borrowing, most notably against their homes (mortgages, second mortgages, and home equity loans), through their credit cards, and for the costs of higher education. Then, the Great Recession hit and the incomes and assets (primarily homes) of the middle and working class crumbled.

The result of this multi-faceted warfare against the working and middle class is the following (all figures adjusted for inflation):

Bottom 90% of the US population
- Average household income: $31,000, down 24% since 1980
Top 10%
- Average household income: $175,000, up 46% since 1980
Top 1%
- Average household income: $700,000, up 124% since 1980

The top 10% of Americans as a group now have as much income as the bottom 90% for the first time in 100 years. And the average US CEO’s salary is now 331 times the average workers’ pay. [3] The inequality in wealth is even greater than the inequality in income; the top 1% have 76% of wealth in the US.

If the incomes of all classes had grown at the same rate since 1979, low and middle income families would be earning $6,000 – $8,000 more each year than they are. [4]

In perhaps the starkest example of this class warfare, as the incomes of the richest 1% have grown dramatically, and as inequality has grown dramatically, the income tax rate for those with the highest incomes has been reduced from 70% to 39%. And many of those with the highest incomes pay a far lower effective income tax rate because of tax loopholes (such as offshore tax havens) and even lower rates on income from investments (as opposed to income from work).

Another stark example of this class warfare is that as upper incomes have soared, the minimum wage has failed to even keep up with inflation. This is a clear example of the eroding power of workers and a significant factor underlying their eroding incomes. Although successful efforts to increase the minimum wage have recently occurred in some states and cities, this is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Much more will need to be done if workers are to regain the financial well-being and stability they enjoyed from the end of World War II until the 1970s.

Increasing incomes of the working and middle class doesn’t just benefit them and their families, it will benefit the whole economy by increasing the purchasing power of the average consumer. Consumer spending is two-thirds of our economy and the current economic recovery has been slow and weak because consumers simply don’t have money to spend.

[1] Meyerson, H., July / August 2014, “Why Democrats need to take sides,” The American Prospect

[2] Gilson, D., Sept. / Oct. 2014, “Survival of the richest,” Mother Jones

[3] In These Times, Sept. 2014, “Just the facts,” In These Times

[4] Horowitz, E., 8/23/14, “Mass. Economy still hasn’t rebounded,” The Boston Globe

OBAMACARE IS WORKING!!

ABSTRACT: Obamacare, or more formally the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is working: more people have health insurance. Nationwide, over 20 million people now have health insurance who didn’t before the ACA went into effect. With this and other good news about the ACA, the American public is growing more positive about it, despite continued efforts by Republicans to trash it and the failure of Democrats, including the President, to effectively get the message out about its successes and benefits.

The increase in health coverage is particularly evident in states that have fully adopted the provisions of the ACA for expanding Medicaid and establishing the clearinghouses (known as “exchanges”) where people can buy health insurance. In these states, the percentage of residents without health insurance has dropped by 4 percentage points in the last year. In states that have adopted neither or just one of these ACA provisions, the decline in the uninsured was roughly half that.

In the 24 states that have not adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion, up to 12 million of their residents will not have access to free health insurance. It is estimated that 45,000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance. The refusal of states to adopt the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act is basically for political purposes – so legislators and Governors can proclaim their opposition to Obama and Obamacare.

This refusal to provide Medicaid health coverage to low income residents is unconscionable and will be an issue in the 2014 campaigns. I encourage you to support candidates and officials who favor Medicaid expansion (and the ACA in general) and oppose those who don’t. The benefits for the millions of Americans who now have or will get health insurance due to the ACA is truly immeasurable.

FULL POST: Obamacare, or more formally the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is working: more people have health insurance. Nationwide, over 20 million people now have health insurance who didn’t before the ACA went into effect: roughly 10 million have purchased insurance through the exchanges, 7 million have been covered by the expansion of Medicaid, and 2 million children up to age 26 have been able to stay on their parents’ insurance. [1]

Another indication that the ACA is working is that the number of insurers participating in the ACA exchanges is growing, giving consumers more choices and very likely lowering premiums. The concern that many people would sign-up for health insurance but not follow through and pay for it has not been the case. With all the good news about the ACA, the American public is growing more positive about it, despite continued efforts by Republicans to trash it and the failure of Democrats, including the President, to effectively get the message out about its successes and benefits. [2]

The increase in health coverage is particularly evident in states that fully adopted the provisions of the ACA for expanding Medicaid coverage for low income individuals and establishing the clearinghouses (known as “exchanges”) where people can buy health insurance.

In these states, the percentage of residents without health insurance has dropped by 4 percentage points in the last year. Leading the way was Arkansas where the uninsured dropped from 22.5% in 2013 to 12.4% by the middle of 2014 – a 10 percentage point drop. In Kentucky, the uninsured dropped from 20.4% to 11.9% – an 8.5 percentage point decline. [3]

In states that have adopted neither or just one of these ACA provisions, the percentage of uninsured residents fell, but by only 2.2 percentage points. In other words, the decline in the uninsured was roughly half that of the states that fully adopted the ACA.

In the 24 states that have not adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion, up to 12 million of their residents will not have access to free health insurance. [4] Not having health insurance is hazardous to your health. It is estimated that 45,000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance. [5] A specific example is that women with no health insurance are 4 times more likely to die in childbirth or during pregnancy than women who have health insurance. In the US, 18.5 women die in childbirth or pregnancy for every 100,000 births. In countries with universal health coverage, the rates are much lower: in Canada the rate is 8.2, in Britain 6.1, and in Iceland 2.4. [6]

The refusal of states to adopt the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is harming millions of people’s health and killing some of them. The refusal is basically for political purposes – so legislators and Governors can proclaim their opposition to Obama and Obamacare. Although they will come up with other reasons for their failure to expand Medicaid, none of them really hold water. In particular, the Medicaid expansion will cost the states nothing for the first 3 years; it will be fully federally paid for. After the first 3 years, states will be asked to pick up part of the cost, but it will be less than 10%. And the benefit to the covered individuals and the state’s health care providers will far exceed the cost.

This refusal to provide Medicaid health coverage to low income residents in 24 states is unconscionable and will be an issue in the 2014 campaigns for federal and state offices. If you are in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid (see the Families USA reference to find out), I encourage you to ask your elected officials and candidates if they support the refusal to expand Medicaid and, if so, why. I encourage you to support candidates and officials who favor Medicaid expansion (and the ACA in general) and oppose those who don’t. The benefits for the millions of Americans who now have or will get health insurance due to the ACA is truly immeasurable.

[1] Gaba, C., (aka Brainwrap), 5/4/14, “ACA signups: The final graph for the 2014 open enrollment period,” Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/04/1296851/-ACA-Signups-The-Final-Graph-of-the-2014-Open-Enrollment-Period)

[2] McCarter, J., 6/13/14, “Obamacare’s very good week,” Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/13/1306811/-Obamacare-s-very-good-week)

[3] Alonso-Zaldivar, R., 8/6/14, “Health care law paying off for states that embraced it,” The Boston Globe

[4] Families USA, 5/30/14, “A 50-state look at Medicaid expansion: 2014,” (http://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion-2014)

[5] Cecere, D., 9/17/09, “New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage,” Harvard Gazette (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)

[6] Reich, R., 5/13/14, “How the right wing is killing women,” RobertReich.org (http://robertreich.org/post/85556159055)

WHERE O WHERE HAS INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM GONE?

ABSTRACT: Investigative journalism, especially by the mainstream media, is rare these days. Yet it is critical to an informed citizenry, which in turn is critical to a successful democracy. On a recent Bill Moyers TV show, “The lies that lead to war,” Moyers and his guest, investigative journalist Charles Lewis, explore the value of investigative journalism and the reasons for its scarcity. Currently, Lewis says, the media largely just report what those in positions of authority and power tell them, with very little analysis or commentary.

Part of the reason for this is that the corporate, for-profit mainstream media have cut the budgets and staffing of news operations and investigative journalism. The media also have a conflict of interest: they don’t want to alienate elected and corporate officials because they want them as sources for stories and appearances on TV shows.

The Obama administration has been very aggressive in discouraging the leaking of information to members of the media. It has prosecuted leakers. The likelihood that leakers will be caught is high given the extensive surveillance that’s in place. In addition, the Obama administration has been very aggressive in prosecuting investigative journalists. Obama has used the Espionage Act against journalists far more than any other president.

We need good and unintimidated investigative journalism. The whole reason for including freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights was so that the media could report information that those in power and with authority might want to keep hidden. Knowledge in the hands of an informed citizenry is essential to the success of democracy.

FULL POST: Investigative journalism, especially by the mainstream media, is rare these days. Yet it is critical to an informed citizenry, which in turn is critical to a successful democracy. Investigative journalism uncovers and publicizes revealing information not available elsewhere that often has been purposely kept from the public.

According to Wikipedia, “Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. An investigative journalist may spend months or years researching and preparing a report. … In many cases, the subjects of the reporting wish the matters under scrutiny to remain undisclosed. … [Investigative journalists work] to discover the truth and to identify lapses from it.” [1]

On a recent Bill Moyers TV show, “The lies that lead to war,” Moyers and his guest, investigative journalist Charles Lewis, explore the value of investigative journalism and the reasons for its scarcity. [2] Lewis’s recent book, “935 Lies: The future of truth and the decline of America’s moral integrity,” documents the lies that led to the Vietnam and Iraq wars. In both cases, there was a pattern of knowing deception and an orchestrated campaign of lies by Presidents Johnson and G.W. Bush and their administrations that led to these wars of choice. And in both cases, the mainstream media failed, for the most part, to engage in the timely investigative journalism that would have exposed the deception.

Lewis states that the failure of the media to expose deception by public and private officials has gotten worse over time. Currently, he says, the media largely just report what those in positions of authority and power tell them, with very little analysis or commentary.

Part of the reason for this is that the corporate, for-profit mainstream media, in the interests of profitability, have cut the budgets and staffing of news operations and investigative journalism. The media also have a conflict of interest: they don’t want to alienate elected and corporate officials because they want them as sources for stories and appearances on TV shows. Therefore, the media avoid asking them tough questions or engaging in reporting that would embarrass them or cast them in a negative light.

The Obama administration has been very aggressive in discouraging the leaking of information to members of the media. It has prosecuted leakers. The likelihood that leakers will be caught is high given the extensive surveillance of phone calls and emails, the ability to track cell phones’ locations, and the thousands of surveillance cameras in Washington (and elsewhere). Leaked information is essential to investigative journalism, so these aggressive anti-leaking efforts make investigative journalism much more difficult.

In addition, the Obama administration has been very aggressive in prosecuting investigative journalists. Obama has used the Espionage Act against journalists far more than any other president. Nixon used it only once, against Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Obama has used it eight times. Obama says he supports a shield law for reporters that would protect the confidentiality of their sources, but he is criminalizing investigative reporting by prosecuting leakers and the journalists with whom they share information.

Currently, James Risen, an investigative journalist for the New York Times, is being threatened with jail by the Obama administration for refusing to identify a source he used in his book, “State of War,” about the secret campaign against the Iranian nuclear program. Risen, one of only about a dozen reporters that focus on national security issues, co-authored stories about domestic surveillance that won him a Pulitzer Prize in 2005.

The Obama administration wants to prosecute the person who leaked information to Risen. It knows who the leaker is, but it doesn’t want to have to reveal the intelligence and surveillance tools it used to identify him. Those tools may be illegal or may appear to be unseemly ways of monitoring government employees. Therefore, it wants to force Risen to reveal his source.

In the case of Eric Snowden, who leaked the information on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) extensive surveillance of Americans and others, he has had to take asylum in Russia to avoid prosecution. The investigative journalists who have published his material have had to work from and remain overseas, while taking extraordinary steps to keep their phone and email communications, as well as their computers and the leaked files on them, from being hacked into by the NSA and the US intelligence agencies.

[1] Retrieved from Wikipedia on 8/5/14, “Investigative journalism,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

[2] Moyers, B., with Lewis, C., 6/27/14, “The lies that lead to war,” Moyers and Company (http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-truth-vs-dcs-propaganda-machine/)