To Reboot the Economy, $pend on Economic Infrastructure!

This is nothing new, per se.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has been saying this for quite some time, as well, which is that throughout America – coast-to-coast – we need to repair, enhance, and expand American economic infrastructure.

And, I’ve been saying that what we TRULY need to reinvigorate the economy since the onset of economic woes via the novel coronavirus, aka COVID-19, began to take its toll on our nation’s economy, is a wholesale reinvestment – top to bottom – in a repair, and expansion of our nation’s economic infrastructure.

While the “bailouts” for the individual citizens was good, and some of the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses was also good, we STILL need to do MUCH, MUCH MORE!

And there’s something else which – of necessity – must be done. And that is, to CHANGE the Income Tax structure for ALL Americans, to expand and increase the Personal and Corporate Income Tax brackets (which since about 1980 has been compressed and reduced, so that now, the net effect is a flat tax), and to increase the rates upon the rich, wealthy, and well-to-do, and to lower, or eliminate them upon the impoverished, and disabled. And that includes ELIMINATING the Income Taxes Reagan imposed upon Social Security, and the “Paris Hilton Tax Cuts.”

Such a measure WILL “pay for itself” through enhanced, and expanded economic capability and capacity, and will prepare America for the next 50 or more years.

Oh!

And one more thing.

In 2016, the ASCE published a document titled “Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America’s Economic Future,” which stated in part the following:

“The cost of deteriorating infrastructure takes a toll on families’ disposable household income and impacts the quality and quantity of jobs in the U.S. economy. With deteriorating infrastructure, higher business costs will be incurred in terms of charges for services and efficiency, which will lead to higher costs incurred by households for goods and services due to the rising prices passed on by businesses.

“As a consequence, U.S. businesses will be more inefficient. As costs rise, business productivity falls, causing GDP to drop, cutting employment, and ultimately reducing personal income.

“From 2016 to 2025, each household will lose $3,400 each year in disposable income due to infrastructure deficiencies; and if not addressed, the loss will grow to an average of $5,100 annually from 2026 to 2040, resulting in cumulative losses up to almost $34,000 per household from 2016 to 2025 and almost $111,000 from 2016 to 2040 (all dollars in 2015 value).

“Over time, these impacts will also affect businesses’ ability to provide well-paying jobs, further reducing incomes. If this investment gap is not addressed throughout the nation’s infrastructure sectors by 2025, the economy is expected to lose almost $4 trillion in GDP, resulting in a loss of 2.5 million jobs in 2025.

“Moreover, workers who are employed will earn lower wages, and in the long term, many higher paying jobs in technology and other leading sectors will be replaced by jobs that fulfill needs brought on by the inefficiencies of deteriorating infrastructure.

“Closing each infrastructure investment gap is possible, and the economic consequences caused by these gaps are avoidable with investment.”

You can read that, and other entries associated with economic infrastructure, on this site by searching for the term “economic infrastructure.”

A final, parting thought:

We aren’t out of the woods yet… not by a long shot. Such economic prognostication is shared by many within, and without various universities, educational institutions, economic think-tanks, governmental, and non-governmental agencies throughout this, and other nations. And economic infrastructure spending would be like putting the country on a defibrillator, and giving it steroids, all at the same time.

The Chinese have.

---

Rebuild the Stalled Economy With Infrastructure Investment

By Scott Paul
Scott Paul is president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

There are two discussion topics that federal policymakers should be having right now: relief and recovery. Relief, for the estimated 40 million people this pandemic has put out of work as well as the millions of others impacted by the steps taken to slow its spread. Recovery, for the day when it’s safe to return to work but the demand for goods and services is still missing.

Some economists predict many jobs will simply disappear as industries use this moment to reorganize, compounding the economic crisis our nation faces.

But, as we all know, this isn’t the first time we’ve faced an economic crisis. In the 1932 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt decisively beat President Hoover because of the latter’s inability to revive the economy in the early years of the Great Depression. Democrats eschewed Hoover’s volunteerism and leveraged the power of government to spur an economic revival, passing a landmark domestic preference bill that the lame duck president signed – the Buy American Act of 1933 – and then cleared the way as FDR expanded the federal response to the crisis.

The banking system was reorganized. Labor protections were established in exchange for regulating industrial production levels and price coordination. Farms were

Everything Old Is New Again

The Democratic Party’s Establishment cronies, whom are probably more accurately known as Corporate Democrats, or even as “Republicans Lite,” have had their knives out for Bernie Sanders for quite some time.

Not only have they no idea what they’re talking about when they go about Bernie bashing, and falsely claiming that the ideas he promotes are somehow “radical,” but they’re just plain old wrong. Of course, it would be very easy to imagine that anyone who opposes such ideals to benefit the people are in the pockets of their Big Money Corporate Donors, and doing the bidding of their Wall Street Corporate Money masters.

“We need to create a culture,
an entire culture,
which as Pope Francis has reminded us,
can not just be based on the worship of money.
We must not accept
a nation in which
billionaires compete as to the size of their super-yachts,
while
children in America go hungry
and
veterans sleep out on the streets.”

Neither is he a “socialist,” a brush and political nom de guerre which his opponents attempt to paint him with, and thereby demonize him. It would be more accurate to say he’s a social Democrat, insofar as his ideas and policies are designed to benefit the people – not mega-corporations, not billionaires.

President Harry Truman (D), seated LEFT

His opponents’ efforts to make political hay for themselves with the fact that he calls himself a “Democratic socialist” are purely self-seeking, self-serving efforts to ensure continued votes from their constituents… but most importantly, Big Money from Corporate Donors.

Bernie Sanders has NEVER participated in any anti-American activity or organization, and has NEVER promoted any such thing. And, in fact, like every Military Service Member, and countless others in Federal Service whether elected, or not, he has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the United States.

The principles Bernie Sanders talks about are NOT “radical.”

In fact, the ideas like a:
1.) Right to education;
2.) Right to earn a decent wage;
3.) Right to a job;
4.) Right to housing;
5.) Right to medical care,
and more, are straight out of the FDR playbook from his SOTU January 11, 1944, when he said in part that “necessitous men are not free men.”¹

The Democratic Party has simply chosen to ignore those ideals – wrongfully so, in my estimation – and instead, has proceeded down the merry Republican path, oblivious to the damage and destruction that lies ahead.

Time, and time again, Senator Sanders has made it abundantly clear exactly and precisely what he means when he uses the term democratic socialism. The most detailed example of which was a speech he delivered at Georgetown University, Thursday, November 19, 2015.
(see: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18623/bernie_sanders_democratic_socialism_georgetown_speech

• https://www.c-span.org/video/?400961-1/senator-bernie-sanders-address-democratic-socialism

• https://youtu.be/p9OP0gfmPgA

• https://www.georgetown.edu/news/bernie-sanders-defines-democratic-socialism-in-georgetown-speech/)

“Real freedom must include economic security.
That was Roosevelt’s vision 70 years ago.
It is my vision today.
It is a vision that we have not yet achieved.
It is time that we did.”

Republicans have a long lineage of falsely claiming anything that benefits the people is somehow “socialist.” It could be thought of as their “birthright,” because Republican fear mongering using that term, and others, is nothing new. If they can convince you that someone, some idea, plan, or thing, is going to steal something from you, they’ve already won. That’s their strategy, plain and simple.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Medicare Bill at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with President Truman seated next to him. Twenty years earlier, President Truman proposed his idea for nationwide health care. Archive photo from the White House Press Office.

They did it in the three Republican administrations (1921-1933) – Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover – which in turn, gifted America, and the world, with the Great Depression.

They did it with Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy’s unfounded fear-mongering “Red Scare” tactics, who found a Communist behind every shrub, and on every street corner.

They did it to “Give ’em Hell Harry” Truman in 1945 a mere 7 months into his Presidency when he proposed mandatory “universal” health care, and later proposed expanding Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance, which in his January 5, 1949 SOTU he called the “Fair Deal.”

• During a 1946 Senate hearing on the National Health Insurance Bill, Republican Senator Robert Taft shouted out: “I consider it socialism. It is to my mind the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it,” then led his party members out of the room. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Truman in 1947 of taking a “backroad to socialism” in the fast lane toward a “police state.”

They did it with LBJ’s Great Society programs.

Reagan did it long before becoming President with a 1961 recording “Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine,” and continued the same rhetoric after winning election in 1980, and re-election in 1984.

They did it to President Obama with the Affordable Care Act.
• Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann infamously called the ACA “the crown jewel of socialism,” and “socialized medicine.”

Trump, and others, are doing it to Bernie, and to AOC’s Green New Deal.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – I , official portrait

For Republicans, the dread “socialism” is their great boogeyman – a nondescript, amorphous thing to fear, that’ll not only kill you, but will eat your babies first. It’s their ideological whipping boy. But like the boy who cried ‘WOLF!,’ the problem with their tired old argument, and oft-repeated claim, is that not only is it a disservice to the public, and an utter lie, but by so doing, they take the people for complete fools who they manipulate by using such terms.

They have NEVER defined the term “socialism,” because it is not in their interest to do so. In fact, no Republican, Corporate Democrat, Wall Street trader, billionaire, or any other person who has never had the people’s interest at heart has ever defined, nor attempted to define, “socialism.” NEVER.

Senator Sanders, on the other hand, has.

In his Thursday, November 19, 2015 Georgetown speech, he said in part that,

“So let me define for you,
simply and straightforwardly,
what democratic socialism means to me.
It builds on what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said
when he fought
for
guaranteed economic rights
for all
Americans.
And it builds on what Martin Luther King, Jr. said
in 1968 when he stated that;
“This country has socialism for the rich,
and rugged individualism for the poor.”
It builds on
the success
of
many other countries around the world
that have
done a far better job
than we have
in protecting
the needs of
their working families,
the elderly,
the children,
the sick
and
the poor.

“Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.

“Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.”

He continued by saying, “It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

“And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.”

In short, just like the Scriptural passage in 2 Kings 2:13 describing the transition of one generation’s prophet to another
–
“He also took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood by the bank of the Jordan.”
–
Bernie Sanders has picked up FDR’s mantle.

 

•••
•••
•••

(¹ Vernon v. Bethell (1762). 2 Eden 110 alp. 113, 28 E.R. 838 (H.C.)), found in “Abusive or Unconscionable Clauses from a Common Law Perspective” (2010) p381, by Stephen Waddams, Universil.y Professor and holder of the Goodman/Schipper Chair, faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 49 Canadian Business Law Journal 378-399. The complete quotation in context is: “The court, as a court of conscience, is very jealous of persons taking securities for a loan, and converting such securities into purchases. And therefore I take it to be an established rule, that a mortgagee can never provide al the lime of making the loan for any event or condition on which the equity of redemption shall be discharged, and Lhe conveyance absolute. And there is great reason and justice in tills rule, for necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men, but, to answer a present exigency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon lhem.”)

What will President Obama do in his next four years?

Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview

In an Oval Office conversation with a leading historian, the president discusses what he would do with a second term – and his opponent’s embrace of ‘the most extreme positions in the Republican Party‘

by: Douglas Brinkley

Photo by Mark Seliger

Barack Obama can no longer preach the bright 2008 certitudes of “Hope and Change.” He has a record to defend this time around. And, considering the lousy hand he was dealt by George W. Bush and an obstructionist Congress, his record of achievement, from universal health care to equal pay for women, is astonishingly solid. His excessive caution is a survival trait; at a time when the ripple and fury provoked by one off-key quip can derail a campaign for days, self-editing is the price a virtuoso must pay to go the distance in the age of YouTube.

Viewed through the lens of history, Obama represents a new type of 21st-century politician: the Progressive Firewall. Obama, simply put, is the curator-in-chief of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. When he talks about continued subsidies for Big Bird or contraceptives for Sandra Fluke, he is the inheritor of the Progressive movement’s agenda, the last line of defense that prevents America’s hard-won social contract from being defunded into oblivion.

Ever since Theodore Roosevelt used executive orders to save the Grand Canyon from the zinc-copper lobbies and declared that unsanitary factories were grotesque perversions propagated by Big Money interests, the federal government has aimed to improve the daily lives of average Americans. Woodrow Wilson followed up T.R.’s acts by creating the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission and re-establishing a federal income tax. Then, before the stock market crash in 1929, the GOP Big Three of Harding-Coolidge-Hoover made “business” the business of America, once more allowing profiteers to flourish at the expense of the vulnerable.

Enter Franklin Roosevelt, a polio victim confined to a wheelchair and leg braces. His alphabet soup of New Deal programs – the CCC and TVA and WPA – brought hope to the financially distraught, making them believe that the government was on their side. Determined to end the Great Depression, Roosevelt was a magnificent experimenter. Credit him with Social Security, legislation to protect workers, labor’s right to collective bargaining, Wall Street regulation, rural electrification projects, farm-price supports, unemployment compensation and federally guaranteed bank deposits. The America we know and love today sprung directly from the New Deal.

For the next three decades, the vast majority of voters benefited from Roosevelt’s revolution. And every president from FDR to Jimmy Carter, regardless of political affiliation, grabbed America by the scruff of the neck and did huge, imaginative things with tax revenues. Think Truman (the Marshall Plan), Eisenhower (the Interstate Highway System), Kennedy (the space program), Johnson (Medicaid and Medicare), Nixon (the EPA) and Carter (the departments of Energy and Education). Whether it was Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy going after the Mob or LBJ laying the groundwork for PBS, citizens took comfort in the knowledge that the executive branch was a caring iron fist with watchdog instincts that got things done.

It was the election of Ronald Reagan that started the Grand Reversal. Reagan had voted four times for FDR, but by 1980 he saw the federal government – with the notable exception of our armed forces – as a bloated, black-hatted villain straight out of one of his B movies. His revolution – and make no mistake that it was one – aimed to undo everything from Medicare to Roe v. Wade. Ever since Reagan, both the New Deal and

Is Government & the process of governing really evil, truly corrupt, and criminal?

Those who assert that government is evil, yet participate in the process by and through their own candidacy & election, are admitting they are evil.

Ironic, eh?

And yet, it’s pure logic… something sadly & noticeably absent in the GOP.

For years I have shared this (astute & regular readers will recognize my quote, and the category of the same name), that

“Politics is the art of compromise, and first begins in the home.
For neither Daddy, nor Mama, nor children always get their way all the time.
On occasion, however, Daddy gets his way, Mama gets her way, and by mutual agreement, the children get their way.
And by this effort, in which on occasion everyone gets their way from time to time, no one is harmed, the family is not harmed, and everyone learns how to get along, to love, and cooperate with each other, and to help one another.
In that way, we teach children how to love, to live, to respect, and increase our own sense of love and respect for each other.”

Regular readers of this blog will also recognize the song which I’ve been singing, which is that the Republican party – since 1964 – has been, as then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller said at the RNC convention at Cow Palace in San Francisco, “The Republican party is in real danger of subversion by a radical, well-financed and highly disciplined minority.” {Ed. note: I encourage the reader to also read the entry of November 10, 2009 entitled “These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror.”}

Further, those who tear down things are destroyers, although through our process of governance, there are some who are hell bent upon deconstructing it.

It always takes more creativity, energy and effort to maintain and operate a thing, than it does to create it, simply because maintenance efforts are ongoing and continuous, whereas once a thing is made, there is no further energy or effort required to make it, for it is already made.

In the same way, our nation’s governance requires more effort now than in 1776 (when it was 2,500,000 – in contrasting comparison, NYC’s population is now over 8,400,000) to operate for several reasons, not the least of which is that our nation’s population is in excess of 300,000,000 (300 Million) – a mere drop in the bucket when compared to China or India – both nations which have 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) more people each.

Logically and rationally, with the proliferation of inventions, discoveries & patents, it is utterly absurd – so much so as to be insane – to assert that in this era, with all the continual increase of those same inventions, discoveries & patents multiplied by our population – that somehow, we will have fewer laws, smaller needs, and a decrease in any kind of governance, rule, regulation or law is beyond the scope of any rationality or comprehension. Analogously, it’s like asserting that adults should – and can – wear children’s sized clothing.

—

How ‘Government’ Became A Dirty Word

by NPR Staff
September 1, 2012

Listen to the Story
All Things Considered [11 min 29 sec] / Download / Transcript

The message at the GOP convention this week was clear: Government is too big, too expensive, and it can’t fix our economic problems.

President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy Reagan, in the inaugural parade in Washington, D.C., in January 1981. In his speech after being sworn in, Reagan called government “the problem.”

“The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government. And we choose to limit government,” said Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan.

There’s nothing new about the message. Anti-big government sentiment is practically part of the American DNA, and it has deep roots in the Republican Party.

“Republicans, dating back to the New Deal, had always voiced their opposition to the expansion of government,” says Julian Zelizer, who teaches history and public policy at Princeton. “It was always part of the party the idea that centralization was bad, bureaucracy was dangerous, taxes were bad.”

But before the 1960s, the Republican Party also had a liberal wing, Zelizer tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.

“They had New York Republicans, they had a lot of Midwestern progressives, who still said government is good for a lot of things,” he says.

Extremism ‘Is No Vice’

At the 1964 Republican convention, the party showed a shift away from