The best thing about this PCCC ad is how the one protester says that “these issues are not unique to the state of Wisconsin, these are national issues. Money is being taken away from workers, and tax breaks given to major corporations.”
That’s certainly true. Wisconsin is a bellweather, but in no way unique. You’re starting to see that as other budgets get rolled out across the nation. In addition to the play to strip workers’ rights in Ohio by denying binding arbitration and putting them in jail if they strike (this should come to a vote in the Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee today), there’s the budget from Maine Governor Paul LePage, which may be the worst yet:
In his budget that was released yesterday, the governor has unveiled a slew of tax cuts, cutbacks in public services, and the gutting of public employee benefits and pensions.
Included in the budget is a provision that would raise the retirement age of public workers from 62 to 65, cut Maine’s prescription drug and health coverage for working parents program, end $400 of property tax relief for more than 75,000 middle-income Maine households, and freeze cost of living adjustments for state employee retirees — which already provides a meager average pension of only $18,500 per year.
Yet at the same time, LePage is pushing through hundreds of millions of dollars of tax cuts. While most Mainers will receive a tax cut under the governor’s plan, the lion’s share of the cuts will go to the wealthiest of state residents. The Maine Center for Economic Policy notes that the average tax cut for most working families in Maine will be a measly $83, while upper income earners will take home an average of $874, and those who earn more than $363,438 — just one percent of the population of the state — will take home a whopping extra $2,770, on average.
This is practically a right-wing blueprint of their budget priorities. Across the country, Republican governors want to reduce health care costs by kicking the poor off the rolls or reducing prescription drug coverage. Basic health plans that go above Medicaid are being gutted. In addition, GOP governors want to increase retirement ages or shift into 401(k)-style plans for state worker pensions, which is a terrible idea based on incorrect fearmongering about pension shortfalls. And of course, there’s the attack on unions, about which Jim DeMint was refreshingly candid today, saying that “without the unions, the Democrat Party fades away.”
State budget shortfalls, a direct result of the financial crisis and the recession, were always going to be a problem. And Washington’s fiscal policy actively harmed this by putting in place a business tax cut that will expand state budget deficits by another $5 billion; this is also true of the estate tax cut in states that piggyback on federal tax law. But given these yawning deficits, there are smart ways to deal with it, like bulk purchasing. But solving the deficit isn’t the goal of these right-wing governors. It’s to benefit corporate interests, cripple the entities that fund and support their political enemies and shift wealth upwards from the poor to the rich. And they are trotting out policies that would do that.
This is the M.O. for GOP governance, a joke that has popped up the past few days:
A dozen cookies are put down in front of a C.E.O., a union member and a Tea Partier. The C.E.O. takes 11. Then he says to the Tea Partier, “That union guy wants yours.”




7 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Uh, what is the definition of “average working family”?
Or better yet, put those tax cuts in context of tax liability being paid out; how much tax is someone who makes $300k per year paying as compared to those who belong to the “average working family”.
I believe the median wage earning family is at $47K per annum.
So obviously it’s better to tax them at a higher percentage than the person making $300k.
Does the person making $300k pay a larger raw amount in taxes than the person making $47k? Of course. But the percent of taxes is paid is a much smaller differential. But of course, you know this already,
Ah, I see. Let’s try this: tax the high earners at a precipitous rate, say 75% or so and see what happens. Or we could try something really novel like a flat tax, but that idea has been shot down so many times it’s barely worth resurrecting again.
Well, let’s see. The marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower years of the 1950s had a pretty nice sustained growth for the US yet the rates were 90% – so that would work for me.
And if your ominous tone asking what would happen if the rates were 75% were to imply that all those earners at the 75% rate would leave the market and “go galt” all I can say is “Please do so” because I for one am tired of the WATB crying about how things are so tough even as they receive all the benefits of our society including police and fire protection, roads, Food inspections and all the other things that benefit everyone
If the Galters want their libertarian utopia, I’m sure they can find some flights to Somalia
They would take what they have and retire or at least semi-retire. In the case of small business owners, they would close up shop and release all their workers. They would continue to enjoy all the perks of citizenship without paying as much into it.
I’m not sure you would like an America that didn’t have those high-earners paying taxes, considering just how much of the income tax burden is paid by them.
As for Eisenhower’s tenure, real GDP growth averaged an anemic 2.5% and suffered from recessions. Sustained growth, sure, but there’s growing an inch and there’s growing a foot.
Growing an inch, if it is well buttressed and provides a solid foundation, beats the living shit out of growing a foot but with so little support that a slight breeze topples things over into disaster
And I kinda have an idea that if all those folks went galt, if their businesses were such worthy enterprises, others would come along and pick up the business anew. Including some of those workers “released” originally
I can only assume your comments are intended as satire, though admittedly it’s getting increasingly difficult to tell these days. Given that the overall tax burden is extremely regressive – considering sales and sin taxes, property taxes, estate tax giveaways,payroll taxes, etc – the elite pay significantly less as a proportion of income and wealth.