Enlighten Radio Podcasts:Podcast: Resistance Radio: Driving nails in the Coffin of Trumpcare

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio Podcasts
Post: Podcast: Resistance Radio: Driving nails in the Coffin of Trumpcare
Link: http://podcasts.enlightenradio.org/2017/09/podcast-resistance-radio-driving-nails.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Trump Gives Tax Cuts to Rich and Fairy Tales to Everyone Else [feedly]

Trump Gives Tax Cuts to Rich and Fairy Tales to Everyone Else
http://prospect.org/article/trump-gives-tax-cuts-rich-and-fairy-tales-everyone-else

(Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump talks to reporters as he walks to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2017, in Washington.

trickle-downers_35.jpg

After toiling away for months, the so-called "Big Six" gang of Republican architects have finally unveiled their initial tax proposal, with the feel-good slogan "More Jobs, Fairer Taxes, Bigger Paychecks." Despite all the political spin in recent weeks from Trump and his lieutenants about how the plan won't be a big giveaway for the rich (and might even raise their taxes!) and will be a boon for the middle class, the proof is in the paper.

As expected, the details of the plan show a proposal that was explicitly written for the rich, with provisions aimed at easing the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. And for the middle class? Nothing but outright lies and murky promises to iron out the details in Congress.

The plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, a move that Republicans claim will unleash a surge of economic growth. In fact, it will only serve to further fill up corporate treasuries and enrich shareholders. Big companies are not capital constrained—if they were, they would not be spending so much cash on stock buybacks that serve no economic purpose other than to pump up the share price.

On top of that, Republicans are calling for a "territorial" tax system that critics say will allow multinational corporations to effectively pay little to no taxes on their offshore profits—compounding the current epidemic of phony booking of profits in tax-haven countries.

Under the guise of helping small businesses, the plan cuts the tax rate for owner-operated pass-through entities from 39.1 percent down to 25 percent. In reality, this gives powerful business operations like the Trump Organization a huge tax break and creates a whole new opportunity for tax evasion. Meanwhile, small owner-operated firms get no relief, since they're already paying lower rates.

In its push to purportedly "simplify" the tax system, Trump's plan folds the current series of seven progressive tax brackets down to three, and in doing so slashes the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. It also eliminates the estate tax, which amounts to an average$2 million windfall for the top 0.2 percent and more than $20 million for the wealthiest families in the country. Furthermore, it repeals the alternative minimum tax, which ensures that the wealthy don't get away with paying too little in federal taxes.

Clearly Trump and the Big Six have given a great amount of thought as to how to best secure tax cuts for the rich. So, one might assume that they'd have given at least a little thought as to how best to help the average American—since slashing the corporate and pass-through rates and repealing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax do absolutely nothing for them.

Apparently not. Trump is actually calling to increase the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent. Republicans say, "Don't worry," as they're going to double the standard deduction, which will result in a big tax break for low- and middle-income Americans.

But if you look closely at the fine print, this promise to double the standard deduction is an absolute lie. As Josh Barro explains for Business Insider, the plan actually would only increase the standard deductions available to taxpayers by 15 percent (and even less for seniors).

Barro writes:

Here's how that math works. Let's say you are single with no dependents, and you have a moderate income. Currently, you get to take the standard deduction ($6,350) and one personal exemption ($4,050). If you are 65 or older, you also get to take an additional standard deduction ($1,250). That adds to $10,400, or $11,650 if you're a senior citizen.

The Republican plan would replace all these provisions with a single deduction of $12,000 ($24,000 for married couples.) That's a 15% increase — except for seniors, who get a 3% increase."

Meanwhile, middle-class taxpayers who benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction and state and local tax deductions would likely end up paying more in taxes.

Republicans promise in the plan that there will be "additional tax relief" that will be determined during the congressional committee process. That is to say, the middle class will likely not be getting additional tax relief. As corporate and special-interest lobbyists descend on Capitol Hill as they try to get their lucrative carve-outs from sympathetic committee members, the interests of the middle-class will fall by the wayside.

Don't be fooled by Republican talking points that this simplifies the tax process and will put more money in the pockets of the middle class. And don't buy it when Trump claims that he's not giving a gigantic handout to the wealthy (including himself).

This is straight-up trickle-down taxation. The economic growth and jobs will not come, no matter how low the rates go. It's just tax cuts for the rich and powerful, and fairy tales for everyone else. 

Tax Cuts for the rich. Deregulation for the powerful. Wage suppression for everyone else. These are the tenets of trickle-down economics, the conservatives' age-old strategy for advantaging the interests of the rich and powerful over those of the middle class and poor. The articles in Trickle-Downers are devoted, first, to exposing and refuting these lies, but equally, to reminding Americans that these claims aren't made because they are true. Rather, they are made because they are the most effective way elites have found to bully, confuse and intimidate middle- and working-class voters. Trickle-down claims are not real economics. They are negotiating strategies. Here at the Prospect, we hope to help you win that negotiation.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Summers: Trump could help Puerto Rico with the stroke of a pen. Why hasn’t he? [feedly]

Trump could help Puerto Rico with the stroke of a pen. Why hasn't he?
http://larrysummers.com/2017/09/28/trump-could-help-puerto-rico-with-the-stroke-of-a-pen-why-hasnt-he/

My modestly-informed guess is that Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico will appear in history textbooks right next to Katrina and New Orleans. Puerto Rico's unique territorial status and institutional constraints make the federal government's response very difficult. And as I shall suggest in a subsequent post, the hurricane has greatly exacerbated Puerto Rico's profound debt burden and development challenges. Yet one has to wonder why we are fanning the flames.

At present, Puerto Rico is desperate for inputs — tools to fix generators so that electricity can be restored, supplies to purify water and avoid cholera, materials to buttress its damaged, crumbling infrastructure, and provisions to feed its population. And as an island, most of what it needs arrives by sea.

One would imagine at a moment like this, every available ship would be put to use to supply Puerto Rico.

Not so. One of our more benighted statutes, the century-old Jones Act, prohibits foreign-owned, foreign-staffed ships from carrying cargo between U.S. ports. Puerto Rico has been among the hardest-hit victims of the law.

In a rational world, the statute would have been repealed decades ago. But really only the smallest bit of common sense is needed to understand the Jones Act should be waived for Puerto Rico over the coming weeks. How can one justify increased prices for fresh water during a once-in-a-generation humanitarian crisis?

Yet, the Trump administration has refused to grant even the short temporary waivers that were instated after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Maybe there is a good explanation. Or maybe President Trump and his team think Puerto Ricans are not as important as U.S. southerners.

Pathetic.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Enlighten Radio Podcasts:Podcast Moose Turd Cafe -- 9/28/17 -- "You Asshole You"

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio Podcasts
Post: Podcast Moose Turd Cafe -- 9/28/17 -- "You Asshole You"
Link: http://podcasts.enlightenradio.org/2017/09/podcast-moose-turd-cafe-92817-you.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

CBPP:Doubling of Extreme Poverty Belies Welfare Reform Success Claims

Doubling of Extreme Poverty Belies Welfare Reform Success Claims

LaDonna Pavetti, Ph.D.

Vice President for Family Income Support Policy

pavetti@cbpp.org

As Congress seeks agreement on overhauling Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), lawmakers must address TANF's dismal failure to help the poorest Americans, many of whom are desperately trying to find work, as documented in the new book $2 a Day.  Authors Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer found that the number of families surviving on cash incomes of no more than $2 per person, per day in any given month more than doubled, to 1.5 million, in the decade and a half after the 1996 welfare law created TANF (see graph).  Nearly 3 million children lived in those extremely poor households.

 

Edin and Shaefer trace the rise in extreme poverty to the weakening of the cash safety net for families when the TANF block grant replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  One parent, asked why she didn't receive TANF, replied, "What is that?"; another said, "They are not giving that out anymore."  That's not surprising, since TANF reaches so few families. 

For every 100 families in poverty, only 26 received cash assistance from TANF in 2013 — down from 68 families in 1996.  In ten states, fewer than ten families received TANF cash assistance for every 100 poor families. 

The $2 per person per day standard, which the World Bank uses to measure extreme poverty across the globe, amounts to about 12 percent of the U.S. poverty line, or about $180 per month for a family of three.  Edin and Shaefer provide a devastating account of what life is like for families that don't have money to pay the rent, keep the utilities on, or even buy second-hand clothes for their children. 

Yet despite the harsh realities facing families whom welfare reform has left behind — selling plasma for $30 twice a week, spending hours collecting scrap metal to earn a few dollars, "trading" sexual favors for rent money — some conservatives continue to tout welfare reform as a success and a model for other programs.   

The 1996 welfare law essentially assumed that the economy would produce enough jobs that match the skills of the parents required to work.  But Edin and Shaefer found people desperate for work and a cash safety net so rare that families didn't even know it existed. 

Their proposed solutions include a guaranteed job and a robust safety net if work fails.  We're long overdue for policy changes to improve TANF, they argue:

The $2-a-day poor are willing — even eager — to work.  But the low-wage labor market is failing them with too few jobs, inadequate hours, and unsafe working conditions.  If our stories are any guide, the long-term consequences for children are particularly high.  Is that a price we're willing to pay for hanging on to an approach to welfare that is two decades old?

--

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Check out Socialist Economics, the Enlighten Radio website, and 

The Poets and Mechanics Quaker Worship Group

Activist Art in Working-Class Communities [feedly]

Activist Art in Working-Class Communities
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/activist-art-in-working-class-communities/

The impacts of government sell-offs of public housing on working-class communities are highlighted in new documentary film released in the UK. Dispossession: The Great Social Housing Swindle (2017), features experts and politicians, but at its heart are the working-class people affected by forced evictions and the loss of communities. The filmmaker, Paul Sng, is committed to telling working-class stories. His previous feature documentary, Sleaford Mods – Invisible Britain (2015) follows a British punk band, The Sleaford Mods, on a tour of some of the working-class areas of Britain hit hard by the Tory government's austerity agenda. Dispossession has been screened across Britain and has received positive reviews. This important exposé of the housing crisis in Britain (or what is referred to in the film as a 'tragedy') highlights the very real and tangible effects of reductions in public housing. I've written before about the importance of public housing, including the positive aspects of these communities. Watching the continued sell-offs, demolitions, and forced relocations of public housing tenants is heartbreaking – and, for someone who grew up in a public housing community, personal.

Paul Sng's film makes a significant contribution because it highlights working-class life and demonstrates the value of public housing, which is ignored or denied by those responsible for the sell-offs. The sale of public housing has been described as social cleansing, but it also benefits developers. Once public housing tenants are moved out, the estates are often redeveloped for wealthy private buyers whose presence changes the fabric of the community. Many of the homes in the private developments have been bought by investors who then charge high rents for the properties – at rates beyond reach of the original tenants. Public housing estates were never intended for wealthy people. They were built to provide working-class people with the dignity of life that comes with housing security.

With the new wealthy owners and tenants comes gentrification. Neighbourhoods change as working-class residents are priced out. The small number of original tenants rehoused by councils in the local area watch as their old estates are handed over to wealthy people. The infrastructure of the old community makes way for these new residents. Old pubs close, community centres shut down. Laundrettes (laundromats) disappear; popular cafes (caffs as they used to be known in London – serving cheap but home cooked food) turn into expensive coffee shops. And 'art' begins to appear.

I am a big fan of art, always have been. My auto-didactic working-class father introduced me to the world of art as a young child, and I've always been aware of its classed dimensions. While many people have been excluded from the official art world, isn't it a positive to be able to find art in working-class communities? Surely the appearance of street art democratises art, making it free and accessible? Technically, yes, and artists have often lived in low-rent areas, and they can benefit a neighbourhood. But art is also a sign of gentrification. It tends to appear along with rising rents, contributing to a 'cool' and 'arty' vibe. Small boutique galleries open in the closed-down businesses that used to serve the working-class community. Too often, the creative arts are dominated by middle-class people, and the art presented in the small galleries and even street art projects commissioned by councils and companies is not likely to be created by working-class artists. Art galleries filled with the work of middle-class artists attract other middle-class people, shifting the local demographic as it becomes more affluent and whiter.

If working-class people object when boutique galleries replace the old barber shop or corner store, or if they don't celebrate street art installations, they may be accused of misunderstanding art or not appreciating its value. Many working-class people love art, but not when it represents gentrification or the covering up of corporate interests taking over public spaces. They understand that private companies often sponsor art to 'improve' the look of a neighbourhood and boost local property prices. Developers use the presence of art to sell the neighbourhood to investors. This process has been called 'artwashing'.  When public housing is sold and redeveloped, new privately owned spaces (theoretically for public use) often include street art. But who is it now for? The original working-class residents, or the new middle-class owners and renters? Even Richard Florida (who famously championed so-called 'creative cities') has admitted that artists contribute to gentrification.

But working-class people have used art to protest against social cleansing and to assert their presence in neighbourhoods earmarked for redevelopment. In Sydney, Australia, residents of two public housing towers in inner-city Waterloo, both scheduled for demolition, recently collaborated on an art installation called 'We Live Here 2017'. Volunteers helped residents place colourful LED lights in their windows and light the blocks up at night to show that the towers contain people and homes. This is art as protest rather than art as serving corporate interests.

Paul Sng's film and the installation on the Sydney estate demonstrate how art is being used to tell working-class stories that highlight the impacts of social cleansing. These projects show how the sale of public housing by conservative governments in Britain and Australia is an assault on working-class people. Through film and art, they show the value of working-class experiences and insist that working-class stories must be told.

Sarah Attfield

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Place-Based Initiatives and Economic Mobility in Rural Areas [feedly]

Place-Based Initiatives and Economic Mobility in Rural Areas
http://www.mobilitypartnership.org/publications/place-based-initiatives-and-economic-mobility-rural-areas

Much research on the effects of concentrated poverty and residential segregation has focused on urban areas and issues. Similarly, discussions of economic mobility from poverty often focus on urban geographies and use urban assumptions that may not be true for rural communities. Rural communities experience different types of place-based effects on poverty, and rural poverty has often been forgotten and hidden behind a myth of an idyllic agrarian past. But compared with metropolitan areas, rural areas have a higher prevalence of persistent poverty, where 20 percent of the population has been living at or below the federal poverty level for three consecutive decades. In 2010, 85 percent of the 429 persistently poor counties in the US were rural. At the same time, some rural communities have seen growing inequality between low-wage service workers and wealthier retirees and tourists who drive up local costs of housing and services. Several place-based initiatives to build rural opportunity have been launched in recent years, but they have not yet been fully evaluated. There is also no comprehensive research on what a move to rural opportunity areas looks like for poor households. This knowledge gap is significant, given the high rates of residential instability among rural people in poverty and the well-documented out-migration of more educated and skilled individuals from rural areas. We have learned some lessons about creating economic mobility in rural places, but additional research is necessary to understand how to create and implement pathways from rural poverty.

VISIT WEBSITE
 -- via my feedly newsfeed