WHAT CORPORATIONS GET FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN AND LOBBYING SPENDING

Corporations and other business interests spend billions of dollars each year on election campaigns and lobbying. (See this previous post for details.) This spending is an investment in influencing public policies and the way they are (or are not) enforced. It provides benefits that are much, much greater than what the businesses spend.

(Note: If you find my posts too much to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making.)

Here are some examples of what they get in return for their lobbying and campaign spending:

Deregulation so they can maximize profits with little regard for the safety of workers and the public or the fair treatment of customers and employees.
Lack of enforcement of antitrust laws, so they can become as big and as powerful as possible, while swallowing up or squashing competition.
Low tax rates and tax loopholes that allow them to minimize the taxes they pay.
Regulations, such as patent laws, that stymie competition.
Government bailouts when they’re in trouble.
Financial laws and regulations that facilitate acquisitions and mergers, including the vulture capitalism of hedge funds and private equity, such as bankruptcy laws (see this post for more detail) that allow rewarding executives and shareholders while ripping off every other stakeholder.

The safety risks of deregulation are apparent in the derailment of the Norfolk Southern train in Ohio on February 3, 2023, and the toxic nightmare that’s been the result. In 2017, after the railroad industry put over $6 million into Republican campaigns and millions more into lobbying, the Trump Administration repealed a regulation enacted by the Obama Administration that required better braking systems on rail cars carrying hazardous materials. Norfolk Southern and other railroads lobbied for its repeal because they claimed the regulation would be costly and wouldn’t increase safety that much. The railroad industry also lobbied to limit the regulation by defining the “high-hazard flammable trains” (HHFTs) that it would cover to include only trains carrying oil and not ones with industrial chemicals. The train that recently derailed in Ohio was NOT classified as a HHFT! [1] (See this previous post for more details on the railroad industry’s deregulation, consolidation, monopolistic behavior, working conditions, and soaring profits.)

In the aftermath of the train derailment, President Biden pointed out that deregulation has compromised Americans’ safety. He stated that “Rail companies have spent millions of dollars to oppose common-sense safety regulations. And it’s worked. This is more than a train derailment or a toxic waste spill – it’s years of opposition to safety measures coming home to roost.” [2]

Despite their rhetoric about the free market, big corporations do not want to compete for customers or for workers. Because of forty years of failure to enforce antitrust laws, monopolistic corporations dominate the U.S. economy from airlines to food processing to oil and gas to beer, banks, and health care. (See this post for more details.) For example, since 2006, banking regulators have processed 3,500 bank merger applications and haven’t stopped a single one.

To avoid competing for customers, huge monopolistic corporations eliminate competitors via the extreme capitalism they have gotten the government to allow, which includes wiping out small businesses. The dominant corporations buy small business competitors and swallow them, or drive them out of business with their market place power. For example, in the last decade, nearly 20,000 small businesses have been eliminated from the military goods and services market by the five huge defense contractors. Amazon did this in the book selling market and now does this in other markets as well.

Among other things, huge corporations that dominate an industry have monopolistic pricing power. Therefore, during the pandemic, these dominant corporations have been able to engage in price gouging to increase their profits. The best estimates are that between 40% and 53% of the inflation consumers have experienced over the last year is due to corporate price gouging. (See this post for more details.)

Huge, dominant corporations have dramatic negative effects on the economy if they get into trouble, therefore they’re too big to let fail. So, they get government bailouts when they’re in danger. The big banks and financial corporations got trillions of dollars in bailouts in the aftermath of the 2008 financial catastrophe they created. More recently, the airlines – the four huge airlines that are left after consolidation in this industry – got $25 billion in a government bailout during the pandemic. Nonetheless, they laid off thousands of workers, are now raising fares and fees at an exorbitant rate, schedule flights they know they don’t have the workers to fly, and are squeezing workers and customers to increase profits. [3]

Big businesses don’t want to compete for workers, so they have imposed non-compete clauses on many employees in many industries, including the fast-food industry. These non-compete clauses are in employment contracts employees are required to sign and prevent an employee from going to work for a competitor. This means lower wages for workers and less turnover, both of which boost corporate profits. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed banning non-compete clauses and big businesses are apoplectic about having to compete for workers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, big businesses’ powerful trade association and political megaphone, along with 99 other industry associations, have written a letter to the FTC to complain.

In terms of taxes, the effective tax rate for large, profitable corporations (i.e., what they actually pay) has fallen from 16% in 2014 to 9% in 2018. Furthermore, the portion of large, profitable corporations paying no corporate income tax has increased to 34%. This has occurred in part because of the 2017 Republican tax law that cut the maximum, theoretical corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and added even more loopholes to a tax code already riddled with them. Corporate taxes are now less than 11% of government revenue; in the 1950s, they were over 30% of revenue. [4]

The ever-increasing wealth of large corporations and rich individuals gives them plenty of money to spend on election campaigns and lobbying. This enhances their political power and allows them to tilt the playing field further and further in their favor, from lax antitrust enforcement to favorable tax and bankruptcy laws to weak regulations to employer-leaning labor laws. This lets them disempower workers (see this post for more details) and destroy communities. It leads to rising prices for housing, food, and medical care; to lower pay and worse working conditions; to the degradation of the quality of the information we get from mass media; and to further concentration of wealth and power.

All of this undermines democracy. It’s past time to take on American corporatocracy and reinvigorate democracy. My next post will discuss current and potential future strategies for fighting back against monopolistic corporations.

[1] Cox Richardson, H., 2/15/23, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-15-2023)

[2] Cox Richardson, H., 2/22/23, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-22-2023)

[3] Warren, Senator E., 2/15/23, “Keynote speech at the Renewing the Democratic Republic Conference,” Open Markets Institute (https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL%20-%20Senator%20Warren%20Speech%20Antitrust%20Open%20Markets%202023.pdf)

[4] U.S. Government Accountability Office, 12/14/22, “Corporate income tax: Effective rates before and after 2017 law change,” (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105384)

CURRENT U.S. CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM IS UNDEMOCRATIC

The key takeaways from this post are:

Business interests are spending billions of dollars each election cycle on political campaigns.
Supreme Court decisions have allowed unlimited campaign spending by wealthy special interests who are increasingly hiding their identities from voters.
Business interests are also spending billions of dollars on lobbying each year.
This huge spending by business interests is affecting public policy, allowing extreme capitalism where returns to shareholders outweigh all other interests.

(Note: If you find my posts too much to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making.)

The 2022 midterm (i.e., non-presidential) federal elections were the most expensive ever by a wide margin. Candidates and political action committees (PACs) spent a total of $9 billion, up from $7 billion in 2018 and $5 billion in 2014 (both figures are adjusted for inflation). Identifiable business interests contributed $3.5 billion to federal campaigns, a record amount. They spent 14 times as much as organized labor. [1]

In the 2022 election cycle, business interests gave $66 million to members of Congress who voted NOT to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, the so-called Sedition Caucus. Numerous corporations pledged to stop or re-evaluate supporting these members of Congress after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. A significant number of these corporations have resumed making corporate PAC contributions to members of the Sedition Caucus, including contributions from AT&T, Boeing, Cigna, Comcast, General Motors, Home Depot, Lockheed Martin, Marathon Petroleum, Pfizer, Raytheon, UPS, UnitedHealth, Verizon, and Walmart. [2]

A growing number of members of Congress (73) refused corporate PAC money for the 2022 elections; 59 did for the 2020 elections. A much smaller number (7 members of the House and 6 Senators) refused money from all business PACs, including PACs of businesses not organized as corporations (e.g., many law, lobbying, and accounting firms) and of industry associations (e.g., the National Association of Realtors). Note that neither of these categorical refusals excludes the receipt of donations from corporate executives.

Election spending by outside groups has been growing since the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision (as well as other related decisions). The Supreme Court’s decisions allow unlimited outside spending (i.e., spending that is [supposedly] independent of candidates’ campaigns and the political parties). Since 2010, there’s been over $9 billion in outside spending. A growing portion of this money is coming from sources that aren’t required to disclose their donors – so-called “dark money” groups. Most of the dark money comes through non-profit “social welfare” groups, but shell corporations are also used.

Outside spending was about $2 billion in the 2022 federal elections and over $637 million of that was dark money. All but $25 million of this dark money was contributed to PACs (this is essentially money laundering) or was spent on activities that avoid requirements for reporting to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). (These activities are typically ads promoting or attacking candidates but without explicitly calling for their election or defeat, and that are run before the short period prior to an election when reporting is required.) [3]

In a troubling but not surprising development, the non-profit dark money groups that spent the most on the 2022 elections, $346 million, are closely linked to Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress. The largest spender was One Nation, a dark money non-profit linked to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). It spent $145 million, of which $74 million was contributed to PACs, with the vast majority going to McConnell’s Leadership Fund PAC. Note that his PAC shares staff and offices with One Nation. So much for the independence of such spending, despite the requirement for independence in the Supreme Court’s decision! One Nation also spent $71 million on ads, on which it was careful to avoid triggering reporting to the FEC. McConnell’s PAC spent more money on the 2022 elections than any other outside group: $246 million on U.S. Senate races across the country. [4]

Majority Forward, a dark money non-profit linked to the Democratic Senate leadership, spent over $102 million with $27 million going to ads (that avoided FEC reporting) and $76 million in political contributions (with $72 million going to Senate Majority Leader Schumer’s (D-NY) PAC). On the House side, the Republican dark money group spent $77 million, while the Democratic group spent $21 million.

Business interests spend money on lobbying in addition to campaign spending. For example, the National Association of Realtors spent $4 million on federal campaigns in the 2022 election cycle and $126 million on lobbying in the same two-year period.

Overall, $4.1 billion was spent on federal lobbying in 2022, an all-time record in terms of dollars and the highest since 2010 after adjusting for inflation. Over the course of 2022, over 13,000 organizations paid over 12,600 lobbyists. The $1.7 trillion budget bill passed in late 2022 was the subject of lobbying by 1,393 organizations. [5]

The top ten clients hiring lobbyists ranged from the National Association of Realtors, which spent $82 million on lobbying in 2022, to Meta (parent company for Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), which spent $19 million. Amazon, the only individual corporation other than Meta on the list, spent $21 million. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was second on the list, spending $81 million, followed by the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PHRMA, $29 million), the American Hospital Association ($27 million), and Blue Cross / Blue Shield ($27 million).

In terms of industries, pharmaceuticals topped the list, spending $372 million on lobbying in 2022, followed by electronics ($220 million), insurance ($158 million), securities and investments ($140 million), and real estate ($135 million). Electric utilities, oil and gas, hospitals and nursing homes, and health services and HMOs each spent roughly $120 million on lobbying.

With billions of dollars being spent by business interests on campaigns and lobbying, it’s clear there’s a lot at stake in federal policy making and implementation. These businesses spend this amount of money because they see a return on their investment. My next post will discuss what they get for their money.

With corporate and business interests spending so much money to buy and exercise influence over government actions, it’s no wonder that we have largely unfettered capitalism in the U.S. The result is extreme capitalism that puts returns to investors and executives ahead of all other stakeholders – workers, consumers, communities, and the public interest. This creates high levels of economic insecurity and inequality in our society.

Everyday citizens have little voice to fight back against the megaphones all this money gives to businesses’ voices. Our only hope is to elect people to office who will stand up for workers, consumers, communities, and the public interest. This is why elections and campaign financing are so important. We must all be involved and informed citizens and voters if we want to stand a chance against the onslaught of corporate and business interests’ spending to influence public policy.

[1] Giorno, T., 1/27/23, “Business interests spent $3.5 billion on federal political contributions during the 2022 cycle,” Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/01/business-interests-spent-3-5-billion-on-federal-political-contributions-during-the-2022-cycle/)

[2] Giorno, T., 1/27/23, see above

[3] Massoglia, A., 1/24/23, “ ‘Dark money’ groups have poured billions into federal elections since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision,” Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/01/dark-money-groups-have-poured-billions-into-federal-elections-since-the-supreme-courts-2010-citizens-united-decision/)

[4] Massoglia, A., 1/24/23, see above

[5] Giorno, T., 1/26/23, “Federal lobbying spending reaches $4.1 billion in 2022 – the highest since 2010,” Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/01/federal-lobbying-spending-reaches-4-1-billion-in-2022-the-highest-since-2010/)

HOW TO REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCING TODAY TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY

Here are the three takeaways from this post:

Our current system of election financing gives wealthy special interests outsized influence.
Using public funds to magnify small donations to campaigns can change this.
New York State is implementing an innovative campaign financing system for the 2024 elections that significantly magnifies small donations and could dramatically reduce the influence of wealthy special interests.

(Note: If you find my posts too much to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making.)

Current campaign financing systems in the U.S. allow a handful of wealthy special interests to dominate election funding and, therefore, gain undue influence in policy making. The 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling ended decades of campaign finance laws that maintained a reasonable semblance of democracy. Now, wealthy individuals and corporations, often using Political Action Committees (PACs) and dark money non-profits (501(c)(4) organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors), have become the dominant funders of campaigns.

In the 2022 election cycle, $16.7 billion was spent on national and state elections. The biggest donors (organizations and individuals donating $1,000 or more) have been consistently increasing their share of election spending since the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which (along with other court rulings) allows unlimited spending by wealthy special interests.

The most effective immediate solution, given the Supreme Court’s rulings, is using public funds to magnify small donations. New York City has had such a campaign financing system in place since 1988. It offers a six-to-one match for donations up to $175 by city residents. Therefore, an ordinary resident’s donation of $50 or $100 now has the clout of a much larger contribution – $350 or $700, respectively. As a result, more people are donating, because their small contributions are more impactful and their voices are amplified. This has also led to higher voter turnout. [1] (For more details see this previous post.)

New York State will implement a new, innovate system using public funds to magnify small campaign donations in its 2024 elections for statewide and legislative offices. In its 2022 elections, the 200 biggest individual campaign donors gave $15.9 million, outweighing the 206,000 donors of $250 or less who gave a total of $13.5 million. In addition, millions of dollars were spent by big donors through PACs and dark money organizations, further amplifying their influence.

Candidates in 2024 will have the option of participating in the new campaign financing system. Those running for statewide office who opt-in will receive $6 of public funds for every $1 of small donations (up to $250) from New York residents. Candidates for the legislature who opt-in will receive public funds magnifying small donations from residents in their districts on a sliding scale ranging from $12 for every dollar from donors of $50 or less to $8 for every dollar from donors of $150 to $250. To qualify to receive public funds, a candidate must raise a threshold number of small donations from their constituents and those in lower income districts will require fewer donations to qualify. There is a cap on how much public money a qualified candidate can receive and they must abide by limits on the size of contributions. Fundraising and spending must be publicly reported and will be subject to strict oversight and enforcement. [2]

Modeling of the effects of this new campaign finance law based on the 2022 elections for the NY legislature shows that it has the potential to flip the predominant source of campaign money upside down so more money is coming from small-donor constituents than from wealthy special interests. In New York’s 2022 elections, 11% of campaign donations to candidates for the legislature came from small donors ($250 or less) and 69% came from big donors ($1,000 or more from an individual or organization). If all candidates participate in the new campaign financing system and donations came from the exact same set of donors, 53% of campaign money would come from small donors (up from 11%) and 39% would be from big donors (down from 69%), flipping the source of the majority of campaign funds.

Moreover, a significant increase in the number of small donors is likely and would dramatically increase their impact. New York City’s public financing system produced a significant increase in campaign donors and it now has a rate of donor participation that is about twice that of the rest of the state. If, with the new financing system, the statewide donor rate matched that of NYC, small donors would provide 67% of campaign funding (up from 11%) versus 28% from big donors (down from 69%). This would be a watershed change with the financial weight of small donors being six times what it was in 2022.

For New York’s statewide races (i.e., governor, lt. governor, attorney general, and comptroller), a similar effect would be expected. In 2022, small donors provided just 6% of these candidates’ funds and big donors contributed 90%. With all candidates participating in the new system and the same contributors, small donors would provide 27% of the funds, 4 ½ times what it was. If the number of small donors doubled, their share would increase to 41%, almost seven times what it was. The governor’s race and its high dollar amounts skews this result. If only the other three offices are considered, the small donor share of funding with a doubling of their numbers would be 73% of candidates’ funds compared to just 27% for big donors.

Election systems with significant public funding have been operating in Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine for a number of years. Roughly a dozen other states and some municipalities also have some public funding for elections. Bills have been offered in Congress that would create a campaign financing system for congressional elections that is similar to New York City’s.

In New York City, the system of public funds magnifying small donations has changed candidates’ attitudes and approaches to the voting public and to the solicitation of donations. It has muted the importance of large contributors, motivated more citizens to run for office, and made races more competitive. Candidates spend less time fundraising and can, therefore, be more engaged with and responsive to their constituents.

Using public funds to magnify small donations has multiple benefits: [3]

Reduces the importance of big donors, thereby reducing the influence of wealthy special interests.
Amplifies the voices of average voters and their small donations, and can be used to amplify only those donations coming from constituents, i.e., residents of the area the candidate would represent.
Encourages more citizens to make campaign donations and to vote.
Incentivizes candidates to seek broad support from many voters in their jurisdiction, as opposed to focusing on support from a few wealthy backers, including out-of-district interests.
Enables more people, and more diverse people, to competitively run for election.
Supports candidates in being competitive without big donors and even when an opponent has big donors.
Allows candidates to spend less time fundraising and more time interacting with voters and talking about issues.

I encourage you to support the use of public funds to magnify small donations to candidates’ campaigns. It will make our elections more democratic. I also encourage you to make contributions of whatever size to candidates who are running to represent you, and to get to know them and your elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels. This is what makes democracy work!

[1] Migally, A., & Liss, S., 2010, “Small donor matching funds: The NYC election experience,” The Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/small-donor-matching-funds-nyc-election-experience)

[2] Vandewalker, I., Glavin, B., & Malbin, M., 1/30/23, “Analysis shows amplification of small donors under new NY State public financing program,” The Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/analysis-shows-amplification-small-donors-under-new-ny-state-public

[3] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved 2/1/23, “Public campaign financing: Why it matters,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/public-campaign-financing)

REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, THE DEBT, AND THE ECONOMY

Here are the three takeaways from this post:

The U.S. economy is strong, it’s growing and creating jobs, despite the Federal Reserves’ interest rate increases.
Over the last 90 years (the period for which data has been captured), the economy has been significantly stronger under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones.
Republicans’ current concerns over the federal government’s debt and deficit are hypocritical as they had no such concerns when Trump and other Republicans were president.

(Note: If you find my posts too much to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making.)

The U.S. economy finished off 2022 with strong 2.9% growth in the 4^th quarter in Gross Domestic Product (GDP, the total of all goods and services sold). GDP growth was 2.1% for the full year. The economic growth was strong despite big interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve (the Fed) designed to slow the economy in an effort to reduce inflation. Employers added 4.5 million jobs in 2022, the second-best year on record; 6.7 million jobs were created in 2021 (available data goes back to 1940). The unemployment rate is 3.5%, a 53-year low. [1]

Inflation is down significantly. Actually, in December, prices were DOWN 0.1% from the previous month. Over the last six months, prices have risen just 1.9%. This is below the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%, which would suggest that the Fed should stop increasing interest rates in its fight against inflation. [2]

However, the mainstream media have focused on the fact that prices in December were 6.5% higher than a year earlier, even though this is a significant decrease from June when they were up 9.1%. This focus supports the Fed continuing to increase interest rates, which benefits the banks, investors, and financial elites, but hurts workers and everyday Americans trying to buy homes and pay debts.

Moreover, the current inflation is different than inflation historically; it’s being driven by corporate price gouging, supply chain problems, and the war in the Ukraine. Therefore, interest rate increases are not likely to be as effective in fighting this current inflation as they have been historically. Nonetheless, the Fed’s interest rate increases may well needlessly drive our economy into a recession.

Reviewing economic growth historically, there’s a stark pattern in the U.S. over the last 90 years (the period for which data have been captured): The economy has performed significantly better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. Although a president has limited control over the overall economy, this pattern is true for all the major measures of the economy: GDP growth, job creation, incomes, productivity, and even stock prices. And the gap is significant in size. [3]

Over the last 90 years, there have been seven Democratic presidents and seven Republicans. (This does not include the current president.) In terms of annual GDP growth, the top four (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton) and number six (Carter) are Democrats. Three of the bottom four are Republicans (Trump [worst], G. W. Bush, and G. H. W. Bush) with Truman (D) as the third from the bottom. Overall, since 1933, the average annual GDP growth has been 4.6% under Democratic presidents, but only 2.4% under Republicans.

Looking at job growth (instead of GDP growth), the top six rates were under Democrats (the five top performers above plus Truman), while the bottom four were under Republicans (the three bottom performers above plus Eisenhower). Trump, by the way, is at the bottom and is the only president in this 90-year period with negative job growth.

Identifying the cause of this pattern is difficult, and, therefore, a bit inconclusive. However, it’s NOT spending and, in particular, it’s NOT deficit spending. In fact, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits than Democrats. (I’ll come back to this below.) Control of Congress is not the answer either.

The answer with the most supporting evidence is that Democratic presidents have been more willing to be pragmatic and follow evidence about which policies have actually strengthened the economy in the past. On the other hand, Republicans have clung to the theory that tax cuts (tilted heavily toward wealthy individuals and corporations) and deregulation will spur economic growth, despite consistent evidence to the contrary based on actual experience. Interestingly, tax increases enacted by President G. H. W. Bush in the late 1980s (to reduce the deficit created by Reagan) and by President Clinton in 1993 were both followed by strong economic growth.

In addition, it may be that Democratic presidents are more aggressive at using the government to respond to crises and that they are more focused on ensuring people have jobs. Democratic presidents may also be more aggressive in having the government invest in job-creating innovation when the private sector doesn’t, such as in medical research and clean energy.

While the causes of the better economic performance under Democratic presidents than Republican ones may not be entirely clear, the pattern is clear, strong, and long-term. (I have written about this pattern before, here.)

In terms of the federal budget deficit and the debt, over the last 40 years, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits and added more to the debt (a bit over $12 trillion) than Democrats (a bit under $7 trillion). (I have written about this pattern before, here.) The last president to balance the federal budget was Clinton (D), who actually reduced the debt over his eight years in office. Previous to that, President Johnson (D) was the most recent one who had a budget surplus.

So, when Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling, it’s blatant hypocrisy. Under President Trump, they voted to raise the debt ceiling three times as $6.6 trillion was added to the federal debt. The tax cut they passed in 2017 raised the annual deficit by about $200 billion. Moreover, raising the debt ceiling simply allows the government to pay for the spending Republicans and Democrats have already approved in annual budgets.

Republicans’ rhetoric about the debt and deficit is a smokescreen for their efforts to cut spending that supports average Americans, like Social Security; Medicare, Medicaid, and Obama Care that provide health insurance; and the Child Tax Credit that helps low-income families with children. On the other hand, they support spending that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, often giving them the money through tax breaks. Moreover, Republicans have for years cut the funding for the IRS, preventing it from enforcing our tax laws. As a result, wealthy individuals and corporations are dodging about $100 billion a year in taxes they owe under current tax laws.

Without the Republicans’ 2017 tax cut and with better enforcement of tax laws by the IRS, the federal government wouldn’t be hitting the debt ceiling now. So, Republicans’ opposition to raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or the debt. Rather, it’s all about holding our government and economy hostage to their demands for cuts in spending that supports everyday Americans. Meanwhile, they protect the wealthy (who provide lots of money for Republicans’ campaigns) from having to pay their fair share in taxes. [4]

[1] Wiseman, P., 1/27/23, “Slow US economy grew last quarter,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[2] Kuttner, R., 1/13/23, “The misleading reporting on inflation,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-01-13-misleading-reporting-on-inflation/)

[3] Leonhardt, D., 2/2/21, “Why are Republican presidents so bad for the economy?” The New York Times

[4] Warren, E., 1/24/23, “The Republican con on the debt ceiling,” The Boston Globe