31 August 2011
The more things change, the more they stay the same
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ~~ Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (USMC), from his book War Is a Racket (1935)
30 August 2011
Miracle my ASS
Rick Perry brags about the wonderful job he's done of job creation in Texas, but the truth about the Texas "jobs miracle" is certainly nothing to brag about. I have posted before about how most of the jobs Perry brags about are minimum wage jobs with no benefits, but it gets even worse than that. When you subtract the growth of the labor force in the state from the number of new jobs you find that there are now more than 300,000 people out of work in Texas than before the jobs were created. In other words, Texas has lost ground on the jobs front (and lost more ground than any other state).
Reposted from Jobsanger
29 August 2011
Here Comes Rick!
The deeply disturbing similarities to George W. Bush aside, Rick Perry has also got that Ronald Reagan thing happening, have you noticed that? Good hair, telegenic, sunny disposition, smooth talker - and dumber than an empty box of Rice Crispies. Ronnie with a Texas twang. The perfect candidate in this era of soundbites and snake oil. Just when you thought that the 2012 clown parade could not possibly get any stupider, enter Rick Perry, stage right - extreme right.
For the rest of this post click here.
28 August 2011
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By Warren Buffet
Reposted from the New York Times
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Reposted from the New York Times
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
27 August 2011
26 August 2011
UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT
The United Nations' most recent global climate report "fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends," says a new research from MIT.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.
However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT'S Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).
The research team's findings will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.
After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off. IPCC models focused on changes in temperature, which are one way to lose or gain ice. However, Rampal said that the report underestimates mechanical forces that contributed to ice-melting.
Mechanical forces like wind or ocean currents batter the ice causing it to break up. Ice in small pieces behave differently than ice in one large mass and are more susceptible to thinning due to temperature changes.
Wind and currents also play a significant role in winter, when they can cause "drastic effects" on the ice's shape and movement, said Rampal.
Since the Arctic Ocean's winter ice-cover has grown thinner over the years, it breaks up more easily under the influence of winds and currents. This leads to even more ice break up in the summer. The study states that smaller pieces of ice are more likely to escape from the Arctic basin and move to warmer waters in the south where the ice would melt, which would mean more Arctic ice thinning.
On the other hand, large cracks in winter's ice cover help create new ice, since the extremely cold air in contact with the liquid ocean promotes refreezing.
Because "everything is coupled" in these intricate feedback loops, "it's hard to predict the future of Arctic sea ice," Rampal says.
Rampal believes that it is necessary to improve the accuracy of the Arctic ice thinning predictions by considering mechanical forces and other ice phenomena that have taken a back seat in IPCC models.
Rampal is working on a project with researchers at MIT and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to combine models and observations which will produce a more accurate picture of what's happening.
Rampal and his research team aren't the only ones contemplating the fate of the Arctic ice.
Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) published a study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, stating that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
Computer simulations showed that the level of Arctic sea ice loss was not wholly the result of warming, but ran hand in hand with climate variability.
"One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice. The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted," said NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author.
Despite the thinning of Arctic ice getting a short reprieve in the next decade, even Kay admitted that the long term trend did not bode well.
"When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there's no escaping the loss of ice in the summer," Kay said.
Studies show that ice in the Arctic has shrunk by about a third since 1979. Arctic ice cover hit a new monthly record low, this July.
Scientists have warned that Arctic summer ice could soon be a thing of the past.
IPCC predicts that this could happen by 2100. But MIT researchers seem to disagree, saying that it could be sooner. It is still uncertain when we might see an Arctic summer devoid of ice.
The most important thing to do is to start "with the interventions even earlier. Now," Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, said in an interview reported by The New York Times.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.
However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT'S Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).
The research team's findings will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.
After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off. IPCC models focused on changes in temperature, which are one way to lose or gain ice. However, Rampal said that the report underestimates mechanical forces that contributed to ice-melting.
Mechanical forces like wind or ocean currents batter the ice causing it to break up. Ice in small pieces behave differently than ice in one large mass and are more susceptible to thinning due to temperature changes.
Wind and currents also play a significant role in winter, when they can cause "drastic effects" on the ice's shape and movement, said Rampal.
Since the Arctic Ocean's winter ice-cover has grown thinner over the years, it breaks up more easily under the influence of winds and currents. This leads to even more ice break up in the summer. The study states that smaller pieces of ice are more likely to escape from the Arctic basin and move to warmer waters in the south where the ice would melt, which would mean more Arctic ice thinning.
On the other hand, large cracks in winter's ice cover help create new ice, since the extremely cold air in contact with the liquid ocean promotes refreezing.
Because "everything is coupled" in these intricate feedback loops, "it's hard to predict the future of Arctic sea ice," Rampal says.
Rampal believes that it is necessary to improve the accuracy of the Arctic ice thinning predictions by considering mechanical forces and other ice phenomena that have taken a back seat in IPCC models.
Rampal is working on a project with researchers at MIT and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to combine models and observations which will produce a more accurate picture of what's happening.
Rampal and his research team aren't the only ones contemplating the fate of the Arctic ice.
Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) published a study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, stating that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
Computer simulations showed that the level of Arctic sea ice loss was not wholly the result of warming, but ran hand in hand with climate variability.
"One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice. The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted," said NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author.
Despite the thinning of Arctic ice getting a short reprieve in the next decade, even Kay admitted that the long term trend did not bode well.
"When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there's no escaping the loss of ice in the summer," Kay said.
Studies show that ice in the Arctic has shrunk by about a third since 1979. Arctic ice cover hit a new monthly record low, this July.
Scientists have warned that Arctic summer ice could soon be a thing of the past.
IPCC predicts that this could happen by 2100. But MIT researchers seem to disagree, saying that it could be sooner. It is still uncertain when we might see an Arctic summer devoid of ice.
The most important thing to do is to start "with the interventions even earlier. Now," Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, said in an interview reported by The New York Times.
25 August 2011
Corporatism Is Destroying America
Reposed from Thurman's Notebook
The abuse of corporate power and privilege is the root cause of the decline of the American working class today. The founders of our American experiment fought and died to overthrow the abuse that inevitably results from the unholy marriage of business interests – especially corporate interests – to government power. One of the results of our victory in the war fought for our independence was that corporate charters were severely restricted in the earliest days of our republic.
Before the ink had time to dry on the Articles of Confederation, corporate business interests had already begun fighting to increase their power and influence. Today we’re in circumstances as bad or worse than those which inspired the revolution of 1776. It is our duty to resist and fight back against the tyranny being forced down our throats by the oligarchs of our time.
Many corporations start out as small, virtually harmless local businesses, but a few eventually grow into large conglomerates providing services that society becomes dependent upon, such as electricity, fuel or food distribution, telecommunications, and transport. As these entities grow, so does their financial and political power, and enormous power is often abused, whether the perpetrators realize they’re doing it or not.
In the early years of the United States, corporations were only chartered for very specific purposes, such as building canals or other infrastructure that small local business entities could not accomplish alone. Once the initial goals of the venture were accomplished, most corporate charters were expired after a reasonable amount of time and profit had been earned. Early American corporations were also not allowed to own subsidiaries. The result was a vibrant, diverse business environment in every community, and that should be the goal we work toward today.
Giant corporations should be carefully broken apart into small, more manageable, local or at most regional entities. Those which provide vital public services or depend upon interstate infrastructure such as cable networks, pipelines, or satellite communications should eventually become property of the people, managed by public/private partnerships in which employees or taxpayers eventually become the owners, managers, and financial beneficiaries as profits are funneled into schools or other social benefits.
Today corporate officers are legally bound to pursue profits above all other concerns. Look where that’s gotten us! New corporate charter laws need to be established and the rules of the game changed. Corporations should have as their first motive – a prime directive if you like – a requirement to place the well being of their employees and that of the communities in which they operate above profits and shareholder returns. Strong governmental regulation must be established and maintained at all times to keep corporate greed in check.
Big business has become Big Brother, manipulating public opinion and behavior, running roughshod over the greater interests of the nation, buying politicians from the federal to the local level, and generally behaving like the despots our ancestors died fighting 235 years ago. Adam Smith never envisioned corporate entities so huge and powerful that they could subvert the free market and overpower the invisible hand hr described, but that’s exactly where we find ourselves today.
Local businesses are owned by local people, keep local money in the community and benefit local people in the form of good jobs. We need more small partnerships and sole proprietorships in place of the dominant corporate business model of today. Small is beautiful. Small is sustainable and responsible. Too big to fail is too big to exist, and if we don’t change course soon we’re going to discover that the United States of America, as it exists today, is too big to survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
