|
A Real Memo to Rachel Maddow
An Earth Manifesto publication by Dr. Tiffany B. Twain
February 2, 2010
Rachel,
Congratulations
on the success of The Rachel Maddow Show. You’re great!
It is very refreshing and illuminating to see such an intelligent woman
in a prominent place on television, and to hear your passionate, articulate,
and progressive voice on the airwaves. I
salute your excellence, Ms. Doctor of Philosophy, and your charm and good sense
of humor as well.
You
are a California girl, so you probably share a special concern for the latest
episode of political paralysis in your home state. The severe recession has caused a series of
budget shortfalls that have required emergency fixes. In February 2009, $42 billion in spending
cuts and tax increases and budgetary gimmicks were enacted to plug the
2008-2009 and 2009-2010 budget shortfalls.
The most cynical gimmick it contained was a ‘lottery securitization’
gambit that would have relied on borrowing against future proceeds from the
state lottery. This initiative was
essentially a way to get money by borrowing it from a form of state-sanctioned
gambling which primarily appeals to middle class and poor people. The voters rejected this provision not long
after the legislature approved it.
Then
on July 20, budget fixes to deal with another $26 billion in budget shortfalls
were tentatively approved by Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders. This current budget proposal consists of
spending cuts on education, prisons and programs for the poor (58%), borrowings
from county governments (15%), and more accounting gimmicks (19%).
One of the most important aspects of a civilized
society is its investment in good quality public education. The deep cuts in budgets for schools are very
shortsighted. More than 300 of the
nation’s most noted scientists from all nine campuses of the University of
California recently warned that the State’s latest budget cuts would make the
state less competitive. They also
indicated that it would result in a detrimental “brain drain” as professors are
lured away by better managed states. We
need to invest in a well-educated work force and ‘greener’ initiatives and a
solid infrastructure to compete successfully in the global economy.
Budgets are, in a sense, blueprints for the
future. They reflect our collective
social priorities. As such, budgets are
moral documents that should correspond closely with our values. Instead, they are determined by special
interests that cater to rich people and CEO’s
and giant corporations, all of which wield enormous power. Their goals are narrow and self-interested. Profit-making is their overriding concern,
and common good goals mean very little to them, as Robert Reich points out in
his valuable book Supercapitalism.
The accounting gimmicks in the latest proposed
budget for California are an absurd approach to “solving” budget problems. Our representatives are apparently not
courageous enough to make the bold and smart decisions that would be best for
the common good.
I
have a proposal that would solve budget impasses like these. At the same time, this proposal would
galvanize solutions to looming deficit-spending problems at the national
level. Read on! We need long-term-oriented solutions to our
budgetary problems. We must shift our
priorities to fairer, more socially responsible and more sustainable plans. We must stop perpetuating increased
inequities and shortsighted expediencies and accounting gimmicks and Ponzi
schemes and loyalty to the dysfunctional status quo.
Right
now, the federal government is running unprecedented budget deficits. Almost all state governments are in dire
fiscal straits due to a combination of recession-associated declines in tax
revenues and high levels of spending. Simultaneously,
the substantial majority of people are living hand-to-mouth, or they are
suffering serious financial insecurity due to unemployment or home foreclosures
or healthcare cost inflation or reduced home and stock market asset
values. Many small businesses are also
hurting, which is bad news because they are the veritable engine of job
creation in our economy. As a result, governments
and most citizens and small businesses are not in a position to invest more
money in the needs of our nation.
There
is only one obvious source of money to be invested in our societies to ensure
that they have high quality educational systems and sustainable economies and a
robust physical infrastructure. That source is the people and corporations that
are prospering the most under the current system.
We
should tap into this source of funding. Instead
of kowtowing to the powerful influence of the wealthy and giant corporations, we
should make our tax system much more progressive. Taxes should be lower for small businesses
and the majority of people, and higher for those who can most easily afford to
pay more to improve our states and nation.
We should change the structure of our tax system to reduce taxes for those
people and entities that are struggling most to stay afloat, and we should
assess higher rates of taxes on incremental earnings at the top levels. This restructuring would make our tax system
more progressive, while preserving the eminently fair principle of assessing
every person the exact same amount of tax on every dollar earned.
Consider,
for instance, the California taxes rates.
Every married person in 2009 will be required to pay taxes on their
‘Taxable Income’ (earnings after deductions and exemptions) according to this
schedule:
1.25% on all earnings up to $14,120.
2.25% on all earnings between $14,120 and
$33,478.
4.25% on all earnings between $33,478 and $52,838.
6.25% on all earnings between $52,838 and $73,350.
8.25% on all earnings between $73,350 and $92,698.
9.55% on all earnings above $92,698.
Recognize
what this means in the Big Picture. Every
person pays the exact same amount of tax as every other person on every dollar
they earn. Those who make more money
than other people pay a higher rate on higher levels of earnings, as reflected
in this Tax Rate Schedule.
Think
about the maximum 9.55% tax rate for all earnings above $92,698. Think about it at the same time that you
consider the following fact: Forty
percent of all the wealth in the United States is owned by one percent of the
people. The top 1% of Americans are
super-rich; they own forty percent of
all the wealth! At a time we are in a dire
fiscal emergency, desperately looking for some way to finance our government
commitments, here is an obvious clue pointing the way to a ‘common good’
solution. Here is the proverbial
elephant in the room. We must extend the
progressive nature of our tax system, as reflected above, to higher levels of
earnings.
Here
is a simple proposal: Replace the “9.55%
on all earnings above $92,698” with:
9% of
all earnings between $92,698 and $200,000.
10% of
all earnings between $200,000 and $500,000.
12% of all earnings between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
14% of
all earnings between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000.
16% of
all earnings above $2,500,000.
In
a true democracy, 99% of the people would support this idea, because 99% of the
taxpayers would either pay the same amount of tax or a little less, and ALL would benefit from the improvements afforded by
the higher taxes collected from the top 1% of tax payers. The fact that ideas like this proposal are
not even on the negotiating table prove that our form of government is not a
true democracy, but a plutocracy that is dominated by the undue influence of
the rich. Estate taxes, which are taxes
on the inheritances of kids with wealthy parents, should likewise be more
steeply graduated, i.e. more progressive.
The
best way to implement this idea of more progressive taxes would be at the
national level, for a number of reasons. Higher taxes on capital gains should be
included, not just taxes on workers’ incomes. Some of the revenues generated should be given
to the states in exact proportion to the additional revenues received from the
various states. A portion of the funds
should be applied to reduce the federal deficit, because deficit spending is
another very shortsighted expediency that contains significant risks and
inequities.
One
way that the rich get richer is because our economic system is established to
be ever-more beneficial to those with the most money and assets. The reason for this is that our political
system is essentially controlled by those with the most money. Giant corporations and rich investors can
afford to give large sums of money in campaign contributions, and to hire lots
of lobbyists. This is a form of
institutional corruption that gives extraordinary power to small groups of
people to influence the system, and to define it to their great advantage. This severely undermines the basic principles
of economic fairness and fair representation in our democracy.
The
record is clear that federal tax policies were made significantly more regressive by changes instituted
by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Reagan cut the marginal tax rate (the rate on the highest categories of
income) from 70% to 35%. George W. Bush
gave tax cuts which were significantly skewed to benefit the super-rich. He did this in an expedient and shortsighted
way by borrowing money from future generations to finance this government
largesse. This is an extremely unfair
gambit, and it is foolish because it represents a hardship and detrimental
legacy for our children and grandchildren in future generations.
It
is the nature of our political system that it is easier to borrow-and-spend
than to more fairly and sensibly control spending and mandate pay-as-you-go
policies. We must find a way to change
this expedient nature of our political system.
Clean Money campaigns seem to me like a great idea to begin
accomplishing this goal.
Our national policies should serve to
mitigate the natural trend in capitalist economies toward increases in
disparities of wealth and power between the rich and the poor. Egregious extremes in the distribution of
wealth, and great disparities between the privileges and prerogatives of rich people
and everyone else, are a danger to the stability of a society. Too much economic insecurity for the masses
poses dangers for all, especially when combined with growing Gilded Age
disparities in wealth. Policies that are
ever-more advantageous for the rich are not acceptable in a democracy, for they
corruptly alter it, and they make our form of government a plutocracy of rich
people and a corporatocracy driven by corporate and investor prerogatives
rather than common good goals.
One of the lessons of history is that
violent revolutions are often caused by too great a degree of social
injustice. The price of insurance to
prevent revolution and violence against the rich is a reasonable modicum of investments
in social fairness, financed by higher taxes on higher incomes. The so-called ‘social contract’ between the
citizens of a society mandates that those who have the greatest advantages and
the most wealth must agree to allow less fortunate people to have enough social
justice to prevent them from arising and killing the rich or expropriating
their wealth.
All manner of stubbornly ideological
arguments are adduced to prevent progressive reforms from being made in our economies
and governmental institutions. These
arguments are often ones that are narrow-minded and idiotically shortsighted. Fiscal conservatives and other economic
fundamentalists say that lower marginal tax rates impede investment. They say that estate taxes -- the
inheritances of rich kids -- are wrong.
I say that the current inegalitarian system, with forty percent of all
assets being owned by the one percent of Americans who are super-rich, is
wrong. Who is right?
Contempt for government is popular these
days, and often for good reasons.
Government is susceptible to corruption, fraud, waste, exploitation, pork
barrel spending, perversions of the military-industrial complex, job
featherbedding, pension ‘spiking’, and hijackings by self-serving vested interests. We must find ways to do a much better job of
controlling government spending and making government less intrusive in our
lives.
At the same time, we must implement
full-cost pricing of all products to include all costs in every product and
service so that corporations do not externalize significant costs onto society
and the environment. Annie Leonard has
done an excellent online film The Story
of Stuff that convincingly articulates this point of view in valuable
detail. Check it out online!
Thanks, Rachel, for your time in giving
consideration to this proposal. Please
note that an extensive body of ideas awaits discovery in the Earth Manifesto. They include three compendiums of common
sense, common good plans in Part Four of the Manifesto. These specific ideas could make our world a
far better and more sustainable place.
They are: (1) Three Bills of Right: A Triumvirate of
Responsible Actions for the Greater Good;
(2) One Dozen Big Initiatives to
Positively Transform Our Societies; and (3) a Progressive Agenda for a More Sane Humanity.
I would love it, Rachel, if you could help
expose the American people to the compelling ideas in the Earth Manifesto! They are cogently and wisely set forth, and
they are clothed provocatively and evocatively in prose and poetry, analysis
and holistic synthesis, so they have the potential of becoming some of the most
influential ideas of the twenty-first century.
Truly yours,
Dr. Tiffany B. Twain
www.EarthManifesto.com
August 1,
2009
(updated February
2, 2010)
SaveTruffulaTrees@hotmail.com
| 
