Rep. Tom McClintock California Office 8700 Auburn-Folsom Rd., Suite 100 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Phone: (916) 786-5560
Re.: Paul Ryan's 2011 Budget Proposal
Dear Rep. Tom McClintock -
On April 15, 2011 you, along with 234 other Republicans in the House of Representatives, voted for and passed the Republican, Paul Ryan’s, 2011 budget. Although not surprised, I and many people of the California 4th district were very disappointed with your support for such a heartless and punitive approach to balancing America’s budget. The Ryan Plan does not balance the budget for at least a generation nor does it create American jobs. The federal and state budgets are not only numbers on balance sheets, they are investments into the priorities of the nation or state for which they are created. The Ryan Plan creates a brutal America ruled by a punishing government. I along with a majority of Americans do not share the 2011 Republican Party vision for America.
The United States of America for the last three decades has seen its national debt explode from less than a trillion dollars in 1980 to nearly thirteen trillion dollars at the end of 2008. It’s anybody’s guess what the national debt will be at the end of President Obama’s first administration. There is a question that seems to be avoided by both major political parties; how was this debt and financial crisis created? Only until this question is answered can we begin to reverse the policies that led us to our current situation.
It has not been the American people and its workers that caused the financial crisis or national debt; it has been the Republican agenda of permitting unchecked and reckless behavior by the large banks, unpaid for and illegal invasions and occupations of sovereign nations, tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans, and an unpaid for Medicare Part D drug plan written by big pharmaceutical lobbyists. In addition, the size and power of the federal government have been drastically increased with new defense agencies, along with the devastating and revenue reducing trade agreements promoted by multi-national corporations and embraced by the Democratic and Republican Party leaderships.
I’m not a member of either major political party. My opinion of the budget and the policies of our government is not formed by Republican or Democratic partisanship. The Obama budget, out of the three budget proposals, was the worst at balancing the budget though it created American jobs. The Ryan budget, as mentioned above, doesn’t balance the budget or create American jobs while making vicious cuts to the programs that help the most vulnerable among us. The Republican agenda is an obvious attempt to reverse almost every advance fought for by working Americans to secure ourselves from poverty over the past 80 years: Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, Education, Unemployment Insurance, and other social safety nets agreed upon by the people. Unfortunately both of our major parties are controlled by big money special interests, one by choice and the other by necessity, and the American people have become unrepresented in our state and federal capitals.
There was a third budget proposed called the People’s Budget that was ignored by the major media. I encourage you to research and support the People’s Budget. This proposal, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have a budget surplus of $30 billion by 2021, years ahead of the Ryan plan while strengthening Medicare and including a public option. It would accomplish this by reducing the deficit by $5.6 trillion, by increasing revenue $3.9 trillion and reducing our spending by $1.7 trillion. In the savings from the spending cuts, $1.4 trillion are freed to go into our crumbling infrastructure creating jobs, education, and research/ development. America could regain its competitive edge in the 21st Century with other developed nations. This budget brings our troops home from Afghanistan and promotes American manufacturing. The increase in revenue will come from ending the Bush tax breaks and taxing all income after $1 million at a 49% rate. This budget creates a fair-shared sacrifice by all Americans while digging us out of the hole that 30 years of horrendous economic and trade policies has dug for us.
What America needs are policies that bring us together. It isn’t necessary to divide us and turn working class Americans against each other. The reason neither major party’s leadership will even consider such a budget is because of the corruption that plagues our entire system with big money special interest influence over our policies.
2010 was a big year for the Republican Party. First, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Citizen United vs. FEC gave domestic and foreign corporations the ability to secretly spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising under the banner “money is equal to free speech.” In the 2010 election cycle a new form of non-profit 501c 4/5/6 were created and raised over $400 million to spend in political ads, either in support of or against opponents of the Republican candidates, and in my opinion, democracy. In November, 42 percent of registered voters in America voted for local, state, and federal offices. For all intents and purposes, 21 percent plus one decided for the rest of us what type of representative government we shall receive. This is not a mandate or democracy, and it’s a perfect example of why major campaign/electoral reform is needed. After gaining control of many state governments and picking up 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party has gone on the attack.
Republican governors and state legislators are using the financial crisis to attack and pit the private sector against public sector workers in hope of keeping the electorate divided. We are seeing collective bargaining rights assaulted, state houses locking out citizens while letting in lobbyists, large corporate tax cuts, and taxes for working and poor Americans raised while vital social programs are cut. The most egregious bill, in Michigan, is the ability to dissolve and then privatize entire city governments.
Lets make this perfectly clear: it was the financial sector’s greed and reckless behavior that caused the financial crisis, not the American worker. In fact, the American worker has been taking it in the teeth for the past three decades. According to a Policy of Economic Institute income analysis of 1979-2005 Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 percent received 80 percent of the economic gains in this period.
We need to understand this isn’t an accident. It has been an evolving plan since the Lewis Powell Manifesto of 1971 for corporate America to gain control of the federal government and its policies. The ideas from the manifesto started the conservative think tanks that came up with two practicing strategies: “Two Santa Claus” and “Starve the Beast,” which both came to fruition in 2007. This is also the reason that Eisenhower (principled) Republicans cannot recognize their party any longer.
The “Two Santa Claus” strategy is to reduce taxes and create hundreds of tax loopholes/ shelters for the wealthiest 1 percent, decreasing the long-term revenue of the federal government while increasing spending (especially defense spending), creating an illusion of prosperity. It requires Republicans to be very outspoken of deficit spending only during Democratic administrations, forcing Democrats to abandon being the party of the people (Santa Claus) but being the responsible adult in our government instead. These strategies have been essential for drastically increasing the national debt. It took nearly two hundred years from the George Washington administration to the Jimmy Carter administrations to accumulate a $900 billion national debt. Once Ronald Reagan embraced the two strategies, his administrations added over $3 trillion to the national debt, and George W. Bush tacked on $6 trillion with more tax cuts and unfunded war spending, for a grand total of $12 trillion of U.S. debt by the end of 2008. Calculations show that Republican administrations have created $10.5 trillion of that national debt. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Americans haven’t seen such a low tax burden since 1950. Decreasing taxes while increasing spending and military action around the world does not balance a budget, let alone start bringing down the national debt, plus interest.
Free trade agreements that President Clinton and the Republican Party eagerly promoted are another major factor that has contributed to the “Starve the Beast” (that is, eliminate government) policies that have brought the deficit to crisis levels, forcing social programs to be cut or eliminated. Unfortunately we did not heed Ross Perot’s warning of the “Giant Sucking Sound” in the 1992 presidential election. These free trade agreements control the United States’ ability to promote and keep living wage manufacturing jobs in America, another tax revenue-reducing policy. Instead, an economy based on credit, not wages, was created. The credit has run out, and we see “Starve the Beast” policies falling into place.
The results of these strategies and policies are self-evident and should no longer be taken serious.
NEVADA CITY – While Democratic and Republican candidates in the 4th Congressional District here continue to pocket contributions from big special interests, independent candidate Ben Emery shuns that money, has quietly raised more than $10,000 from individuals and is running hundreds of television commercials.
Touting himself as the only candidate who is actually from the 4th District, the 40-year-old private ranch manager from Nevada City also has dozens of campaign workers serving as "human billboards" in the sprawling district – from Nevada City to the outskirts of Sacramento.
Emery (www.benemery.org) takes dead aim at the Republicans and Democrats in both of his 30-second television spots, which are running on CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, Fox News and other cable networks in the vast reaches of the district, from the tip of Sacramento east to the Nevada and north to the Oregon border.
In the spots, Emery asks voters if they are "tired of sending jobs overseas and bailing out banks," and then states: "That's what Republicans and Democrats have done to us."
“We’ve been listening to Republicans and Democrats talk about changing the system in Washington. But all we get is more of the same. I’m independent of the large special interests who control these politicians, and have mucked up our political system,” said Emery.
Emery notes in the spots that "Government doesn't happen. We vote for it." Emery says that his solutions are not based on what lobbyists or special interests want but what is best for voters. "I will fight for you," his commercial pledges.
Emery says in the TV spot that he stands for "Local governance and economies, grassroots Democracy and ending corporate personhood."
The cost of placing a candidate statement in voter pamphlets was enough to prevent congressional candidate Ben Emery, of Nevada City, from using that forum to get out his message.
Emery, an independent candidate, is running for the 4th U.S. District congressional seat against incumbent Republican Tom McClintock, of Elk Grove.
In early August when the candidate statements were due, the grassroots campaign was “hand to mouth,” Emery said Friday. He didn't have the money to pay for statements in every county pamphlet in the nine-county 4th District, he added.
In Nevada County, candidates are charged a flat fee of $75 plus $0.025 for every voter in the district, said Senior Assistant Clerk-Recorder Beth Goodrich.
All of Nevada County is within District 4, so the congressional candidates each would have to pay $1,605.45 for the statement, Goodrich said.
Other counties charge fees under similar formulas, Goodrich said. In Placer County, with about 196,000 voters in the 4th Congressional District, the candidates each would have to pay $4,050 to have their statements printed, she added.
The district also covers all or part of Sierra, Plumas, Modoc, Lassen, Butte, El Dorado and Sacramento counties, with nearly 589,000 people 18 years old or older in 2009, according to the most recent U.S. Census information.
Emery offered his statement to readers of The Union:
“I am a family man, father, ranch manager, youth athletic coach, outdoorsman, and was born and raised in Northern California. I have long-term, vested interests in the district I hope to represent.
“For too long, we have been voting for career politicians or candidates running to represent their parties. I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I am an independent man running for the people of the 4th District.
“I am running against the corruption in Washington, DC. My campaign does not accept political action committee or corporate donations. The reason for this is, I do not want any entity or organization to have influence on the votes I will be taking or the legislation I will be writing. The people of the district are my special interests.
“My main platform once in office will be regaining the control of our elected officials through public financing of campaigns. Those who control the purse strings of our elections, control the elected officials in our government. The revolving door and influence of lobbyists in our nations capital is a big part of the problem we face today.
“Slowing this process of elected officials becoming lobbyists or vice versa is a key element to regaining control of our government.
“Government doesn't happen to us; we vote for it.
“I look forward to representing my neighbors and the beautiful 4th District of California in the 112th congress of the United States of America.”
Originally posted in TheUnion.com. By Liz Kellar, Staff Writer
Editor's note: The Union is presenting the positions of candidates in local elections in a question-and-answer format as part of our overall election coverage.
Republican U.S. Representative Tom McClintock is facing Democrat Clint Curtis and independent candidate Ben Emery in the 4th Congressional District. The largely conservative district encompasses most of Northeastern California, including all of Nevada County. Despite more than two decades of electing Republicans, however, voters nearly elected a Democrat two years ago.
McClintock, the incumbent who was first elected in 2008, bested GOP challenger Michael Babich in the June primary. Curtis ran uncontested for the Democratic nomination in June.
Q: What issues have you been focusing on during the campaign?
Clint Curtis: 1. Providing representation to all the parties so we can work together for real solutions to real problems. 2. Bringing jobs to the citizens of this district. 3. Bringing our tax dollars home to help our communities. 4. Making sure that Social Security is not destroyed. 5. Bringing broadband to the entire district. 6. Protecting our water and our environment.
Ben Emery: Our campaign has been focusing on government corruption, the importance of citizen-legislators, and accountability. Our elected officials have become dependent on special interest money to compete in elections, creating a disconnect with constituents. This money doesn't necessarily come from their district. Both (major) parties chase obscene amounts of money to compete in hundreds of races. Neither party will work with the other for any program that will cut off the money. My candidacy focuses on this corruption and how it is the root cause of almost all of the problems in our government.
Tom McClintock: I have focused my campaign on the damage that (the Obama) Administration and Congress have done to our economy by too much spending, too much taxing and too much borrowing. These policies have put us trillions of dollars in additional debt, and we're no better off than we were before. I agree with Ronald Reagan that government isn't the solution to our economic problems — government is the problem. We know how to revive an economy because we've done it before — by reducing the tax and regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy. It worked when Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman all did it. Unfortunately, this administration is doing the opposite.
Q: What steps would you take — or are taking — to represent such a diverse district?
Curtis: In my congressional office, I will bring in representatives from all the political parties across District 4. These people will be elected from their own parties based on those that have applied. We will work as a team on a day-to-day basis to reach the best possible solutions for all the citizens of District 4. Together, we can openly exchange ideas and work toward solutions that work for everyone. This means that not only will the Democratic and Republican parties have a seat at the table, but for the first time, the Greens, American Independents, Libertarians, Peace and Freedoms and even the decline-to-state voters will be able to have true input into the political process.
Emery: No one can represent a district if they don't talk to the people throughout the district. More than a couple of former candidates and even elected representatives have told us that campaigning is strictly a numbers game. The conventional wisdom is to ignore our neighbors north of Nevada County because there is no money or enough voters there to get you elected. I have ignored this advice, maybe to my peril, but I aim to be a representative of the entire district and population, not just of those who voted for me and those who donated to my campaign. We have and will continue to visit the people of the northern counties and will ask them what they want and need their representative to do for them in Washington, D.C. It would be my job to represent all of them.
McClintock: I have held 19 tele-town hall conferences and 22 live town hall meetings with constituents throughout the 4th Congressional District, returning every week of session to attend meetings and to listen to community concerns. The message is loud and clear: Stop the spending.
Q: How important are community ties when it comes to effective representation of your constituents?
Curtis: The need to have local ties depends on the congressman. In the case of our present congressman, his decisions are made based on ideology rather than direct representation of this district's citizens. His pledge is to “not” provide funding for the district, and he doesn't need to live here to vote against or turn down available funding. In that sense, it would make no difference whether he lives here or has even ever visited the area.
My concept of representation is to address the needs of the citizens of the district and surround myself with a staff drawn from the citizens of the area. This would provide me with decades of local experience drawn from all walks of life. Both myself and my staff would be real people and not career politicians or DC insiders. Our decisions would be based on the needs of the citizens and not on hard-line political philosophy.
Emery: This is an important issue in this particular race because I am the only candidate with long-term interests and proven loyalty to the district. The real issue isn't a candidate's ZIP code or whether that person knows about the Dorsey Drive interchange, but that they feel an obligation to the people they represent because they are their neighbors. I have been an active participant and volunteer in Nevada County for years. I have coached youth sports and junior high and high school athletics, been a science docent and a member of a number of local nonprofits, and participated in annual fundraisers with many different organizations. My wife and I chose to live in Nevada County because this is where we wanted to raise our children (both are students at Nevada Union High School).
McClintock: They are important, and that is why I have made it a high priority to return to the district every week and to hold an unprecedented number of public meetings across the district.
To contact Staff Writer Liz Kellar, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org or call (530) 477-4229.
Clint Curtis Party: Democrat Age: 52 Residence: Roseville Political experience: Curtis has been heavily involved in the election integrity movement in Florida and in efforts to curb waste in government contracts. He was featured in several documentaries on the election integrity issue.
Ben Emery Party: Independent Age: 40 Residence: Nevada City Political Experience: A member of the Green Party, but running as an independent candidate. “The highest office in a democracy is that of citizen.” — Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
Tom McClintock Party: Republican Age: 54 Residence: Elk Grove Political Experience: United States Representative for District 4 (including Nevada County), 2009-present; California State Senator from Southern California, 2000-08; California State Assemblyman from Southern California, 1982-1992 and 1996-2000
Nothing in our Constitution addresses political parties or partisanship. However, over the past 30 years, political parties have presented partisanship as the only operating paradigm. Our government has become less representative because that’s what BOTH parties want. They fight for campaign dollars instead of votes, then use those dollars to manipulate opinion in an effort to frighten voters to take their side. This was not what the founders envisioned for our grand republic.
I am running a true grassroots campaign. I have a small staff of volunteers who believe in our cause. Instead of the obscene sums of special interest money the major parties prize, our war chest consists of our volunteers’ work. We pledge to fight for a government that represents the values and the interests of the people who live, work, and own businesses in California’s 4th congressional district.
The 112th Congress should have several members whose objective is government for, of, and by the people. I hope to find common ground with members who aren’t afraid to use the power of government to restrict the impact that money has on our representative republic. I will work to influence others in Congress to pull our elections off the “open market” and instead make them publicly financed. Not only will we bring about an improved, transparent, and representative government, we will also achieve significant savings by ending the cycle of money from election to earmarked, pork barrel legislation and back to the next election.
Again, thank you for your interest. In our past, we have faced crucial tests and Americans have rallied. I have to believe we’ll do that again now. However, we can’t do that until our government represents the people instead of representing the benefactors of the political parties. Together, we have important work to accomplish.
We hope you can join our team. Working together, we can achieve our goals.
Thank you. Ben Emery
Originally posted at YubaNet.com on September 25, 2010.
Nothing in our Constitution addresses political parties or partisanship. However, over the past 30 years, both political parties have presented partisanship as the only operating paradigm. Our government has become less representative because that’s what BOTH parties want. They fight for campaign dollars instead of votes, then use those dollars to manipulate opinion and frighten voters into supporting their "side." This was not what the founders envisioned for our grand republic.
I am running a true grassroots campaign. I have a small staff of volunteers who believe in our cause. Instead of the obscene sums of special interest money the major parties prize, our war chest consists of our volunteers' time and work. We are committed to fight for a government that represents the values and the interests of the people who live, work, and own businesses in California’s 4th congressional district and the United States of America.
My hope is that the 112th Congress should have several members whose objective is a government for, of, and by the people. I hope to find common ground with members who aren’t afraid to use the power of government to restrict the impact that money has on our representative republic. I will work to influence others in Congress to pull our elections off the “open market" and instead make them publicly financed. Not only will we bring about an improved, transparent, and representative government, we will also achieve significant savings by ending the cycle of money going from elections to earmarked, pork barrel legislation and back again to the next to the election.
I want to personally thank you for your interest and support of our cause and campaign. Our country has faced crucial tests in the past, and while it was not always fast or easy, in each circumstance Americans have rallied. I believe we have it within ourselves to rally again. I believe we can create a government that represents the people instead of representing the benefactors of the political parties. I believe, with your help and support, we can make a difference in Washington.
IIn 2010 the Democratic-controlled White House commissioned a deficit committee. This sounds good, but they are proposing to slash benefits to a program that doesn’t contribute one penny to our nation’s deficit or national debt. Social Security is under attack with hyperbole and misleading information. We might expect this from the Republican Party, with their seething hatred for well-run government programs, but having the former party of the people attacking the most successful program in our country’s history shows the influence of special interests and their lobbyists on our entire political system. We cannot let this happen.
Since the 1950s, retirement has been a three-pillar stool of Equity in our homes, Pensions, and Social Security. In 1980 we had a private workforce that was about twenty-five percent unionized; fifty percent of workers had pensions, and the average U.S. homeowner had two-thirds equity in their homes. In 2010 only about six percent of the private workforce is unionized, eight percent have pensions, and our housing market has crashed, leaving one in three American homeowners owing more on their home than it’s worth. The only remaining solid pillar in this stool is Social Security, because it hasn’t been subject to the privatization epidemic we have experienced over the past 30 years.
The fact is that Social Security is solvent and in 2009 brought in a surplus. If nothing is done to the insurance program it will pay out full payments until the year 2039. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in 2010 there is a $2.5 trillion surplus, and that will grow to $4 trillion by 2023. So the Republican fear tactics are a lie and the Democratic leadership inability to stand up to the financial sector lobbying efforts is a symptom of a corrupted political system that is leaving average Americans out in the cold.
The Republican Party and the Corporate Democrats are proposing to privatize Social Security and to increase the retirement age to seventy.
Privatizing was pushed hard by the Bush administration, and luckily the plan didn’t go through. Imagine how much worse condition our nation would be in if Social Security had been at the mercy of Wall Street CEOs. Tens of millions of Americans are already hurting because of the deregulated Wall Street giants and their direct involvement in the American economy’s collapse. The big payoff for Wall Street in privatizing Social Security would be the administrative costs of processing trillions of dollars, which translates into more fees and risk for workers. This is an absolutely horrible idea and must never happen.
The second proposal is to increase the retirement age to seventy. Seventy! This is an immoral proposal for a number of reasons. One, it increases the likelihood that tens of thousands of Americans will die before receiving a single payment due to having to work well into their retirement years. Two, by increasing the age, about fifteen percent of benefits will be lost by younger workers due to the extended years they have to pay into program but are not receiving payments from it. Three, this will increase the number of people in the work pool, thereby increasing unemployment and decreasing workers wages. Increasing the retirement age to seventy is immoral, wrong, and counterproductive in building a strong middle class.
I’m proposing a simple answer that will make the FICA tax progressive and Social Security solvent forever. Remove the FICA $106,800 cap and make all income susceptible to the tax, except long-term investments of seven years or more. By doing this, millionaires and billionaires will pay into the program at the same percentage as the rest of us. According to the New America Foundation and their recent study and article on Social Security “Secure Retirement for All Americans,” we could increase benefits to recipients by 50% if the cap is removed. My proposal is to give a paycheck tax break to all Americans by reducing the roughly 12 percent tax down to a 10 percent tax, allowing more people to have more money in their pockets while creating a solvent Social Security forever.
Lets make the adjustments needed to ensure a retirement with dignity for all Americans for generations to come.
From 1950 to 1980 America was the manufacturing superpower with the strongest and largest middleclass in world history. We were the number one exporter of finished goods and importer of raw material to make those goods. We had a twenty five percent unionized private work force, roughly fifty percent of Americans had pensions, and we balanced budgets. Today we have a less than seven percent unionized private work force and around six percent of Americans have a pension.
Since 1980 to 2010 our manufacturing industry has left the country in the auspices of free trade agreements. We were supposed to export our goods to China and India not export our jobs to these countries. The American worker has seen their pay remain stagnant for decades and even drop by $2,000 since 2001 because of these policies. Millions of good paying blue collar jobs have left our country and were replaced with low paying retail (would like to super size your order) jobs causing Americans to work more hours and bring home less money. We are in a race to the bottom as Ross Perot predicted in 1992, Giant Sucking Sound. We need to exit the WTO and renegotiate our trade policies so all nations benefit not just trans-national corporations, international banks, and global trade organizations.
In the 1980 we flipped our economic policies upside down and we have suffered ever since. George HW Bush and opponents of Supply Economics referred to the theory as voodoo economics. They accurately predicted the results from such policies but we don’t hear about the failures of Supply Side/ Trickle Down economics in today’s news due for one simple fact of; The people or organizations that benefit from our economic system have bought our government through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. It is the same few that own ninety percent of the US media and seventy- five percent or more of every major industry in the United States. These entities are corporate monopolies, international banking institutions, and global trade organizations.
The result is we no longer make goods in America. The inequality gap has exploded to the most unequal society in the top 40 industrialized nations on the planet, where the top one percent earn fifty percent of income and own nearly ninety percent of the wealth ( property, homes, luxury items,
The answer is simple, but making the shift back to demand side economics and rational trade policies will be difficult. We need to start electing representatives that support public financing of elections, refuse large corporate donations, and want to reduce the influence of lobbyists on our government. Once enough representatives are in office that support these ideas we can then start implementing;
Enforcement of Sherman Anti-Trust laws and break up monopolies in every industry
Exit the WTO and GATT agreements
Selective import tariffs on manufacturing we want to promote in US
Restructure our tax policies back to Eisenhower through Carter ranges, to give incentive to reinvest capital back into American productive economy
Create a Green Industrial Revolution with existing and advancing technology to spark an economic recovery that includes well paying jobs that will put money in workers pockets, which will create demand for other goods
Create a movement to buy American made goods once again, support local economies keeping our money on Main St instead of Wall St.
Put incentives in place where it is more cost effective to do business practices in a safe sustainable way.
The major tenants of the Supply Side/Trickle Down Economics:
Drop top marginal tax rate on millionaires and billionaires
Increase money supply by dropping interests rates making credit easily accessible (a.k.a. debt)
Deregulate business allowing them to increase productivity by avoiding the cost of government regulations
1. Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Theory By allowing the investor class (top 0.5%) to have more money they will invest in more American business creating more jobs. This was the first blow to American wages.
Results It removed the incentive of reinvestment of capital back into the business that created the wealth. This reinvestment came in the form of higher pay, benefits, pensions, and research & development. Instead of investing in American productive economy the investor class kept much of the money and invested in:
Factories in other countries
Reality The only thing that creates jobs is demand in a sustainable economy. Demand, in traditional economics, is equivalent to wages or workers pay. People having money to spend on goods and services create demand, which in turn creates the need to higher more workers.
2. Drop Interest Rates Theory This allows business to expand easier and develop new technologies that will increase productivity.
Results As wages didn’t increase with cost of living, credit was the only way to maintain lifestyle we have grown accustom to from 1950 -1980. As credit becomes more available boom and bust economic cycles are the result. Savings and Loans Crisis late 1980’s, dot com boom of the 1990’s, and housing boom and collapse of 2000’s.
Reality This has caused more and more Americans get further and further in debt. In 1980 the average homeowner had 2/3 equity in their homes, in 2009 that number was less than 1/3 equity in their homes. Also in 2009, 1/3 of American homeowners were underwater with their mortgages, which means owning more than the house is worth.
3. Deregulate Business's or Let the Market Regulate ItselfTheory This allows business to aggressively move towards the most productive practices and increasing profits.
Results BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, Wall St. reckless behavior that caused the 2007/ 2008 meltdown and the collapse of the American economy, and Massey Coal disaster killing 29 miners to give a few examples.
Reality This gives the wrong incentive to business to cut safety corners and exploit worker rights. For the market to regulate itself people must suffer or die. I don’ want myself or my parents, family, or friends to be the one’s who suffer or die for the market to correct itself, do you?
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Cliché, sure, but it's also more true than at any time since the Gilded Age. While politicians gloat about our "recovery," our poor are getting poorer, our average wages are still falling behind inflation, and social mobility is at an all-time low. But, yes, if you're in that top 1%, life in America is grand.