Reality-based tax breaks

By now you’ve heard the bitter, widespread debate over whether giving the wealthiest Americans fat tax breaks will ever create jobs.

But everybody agrees on one thing – we shouldn’t just give rich people tax breaks so they can have even more money to do whatever they like with.

Don’t we?

That’s why I was intrigued by this proposal that would tie tax breaks to the actual creation of jobs.

The proposal was floated by Benjamin Barber, a Democratic theorist writing on Huffington Post.

Barber suggests a system of vouchers to make sure they’re creating jobs with their tax breaks.

“Conservatives should certainly welcome the principle of vouchers, which they have been proffering for a long time to the poor for education, groceries and housing – and now, courtesy of Mr. [Paul] Ryan, for Medicare too,” Barber writes, referring to the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s proposal to have the government give future Medicare recipients cash to buy insurance instead of health care. “The premise has been that a voucher prevents "irresponsible behavior" by those being helped, like buying drugs instead of groceries or a golf caddy instead of private schooling for the kids. It's a way to prevent the poor from getting all that "free stuff" Mitt Romney thinks they are always conniving to acquire.

Basically, it’s so simple I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t suggested it before: If you create real jobs, you get a tax break. No job creation, no tax breaks.

While Barber appears to suggest granting the tax cuts first and taking them away if the tax break doesn’t lead to jobs, I’d flip it: base the tax cut on hard proof that the jobs have been created.

Proponents of this latest version of the trickle-down theory should have no problem with the wealthy actually having to prove they’re creating real jobs to earn their tax breaks.

Because nobody wants to give away money for nothing, right?

I think the proposal could be refined to link the quality and number of jobs to the size of the tax cut.

For example, buy a yacht: no tax cut. Enjoy your yacht.

But prove you created a significant number of high-wage jobs with health care benefits and pensions, get a bigger tax cut.

Extending the logic of Barber’s idea, if you outsource jobs, shouldn’t your taxes increase?

Barber has hit on an issue that extends beyond just tax cuts – government officials have been extending all kinds of subsidies to business owners for creating jobs without ever requiring proof that the business owners actually create the jobs, or requiring that the subsidies be returned if the jobs are destroyed.

The very notion that we’ve allowed these huge tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding proof that they lead to real, not just theoretical, job creation, suggests how far we’ve moved away from the sensible fact and data-based world into a realm based on wish fulfillment for the wealthy who dominate our politics. The notion that proponents of the tax cuts want to pay for their extension by eliminating tax breaks that help the middle class, like the home mortgage tax break, also suggest how far our political debate has gone astray. Barber’s proposal suggests a way to get it back from fantasyland.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan / Tax breaks - 08/27/2012

D.C. Disconnect: The Real Yes Men

While the political prank behind news reports that General Electric had decided to pay all its taxes was quickly uncovered, a much greater fraud continues undetected.

Behind the GE prank was a group of political satirists and activists who call themselves the Yes Men. But it’s the nation’s major media that’s really earned that name with its relentless unquestioning hype of deficit hysteria and the need for harsh cuts to social programs.

Anointing only those politicians willing to consider the most severe cuts as the most serious, the major media haven’t questioned who’s behind this austerity agenda, and who will profit from it: Wall Street.

It’s the same crowd that sold the politicians and the public on the benefits of financial deregulation in the 80s, and then scared the country into providing Wall Street with a no-questions asked bailout. We all know how that worked out for the rest of us.

Who would fall for their snake oil a second time without closer examination? The real yes men just keep out churning out the Wall Street-induced hysteria with a straight face. When regular folks insist they're more concerned with unemployment and foreclosures than they are with the deficit, the real yes men just tut-tut.

The little people will never understand.

For Wall Street and its political enablers, the austerity agenda hoax is a just a Trojan horse to carry them to their real goals: crippling government’s ability to regulate and keeping taxes low for the wealthiest Americans.

The financial industry plays the two teams off each other: Republicans claim the Democrats aren’t man enough to make real cuts, while Democrats argue we should go along with their version of austerity to avoid the Tea Party’s lunatic extremes.

After caving in and extending the Bush era tax cuts last year, President Obama has recently talked about sprinkling increased taxes for the wealthiest among the cutbacks on the poor and middle class. But so far in his presidency he has shown little stomach to fight for even his own positions when they encounter resistance from either Wall Street or Republicans.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the continuing hoax is the respect given to the credit rating agencies, which have been justly chastised, but so far escaped prosecution, for their irresponsible antics in the financial collapse. They have about as much credibility as the recently junked color-coded terror alerts.

Now we have credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which never raised alarms about toxic mortgage securities, and slept through the both the budget-busting Bush tax cuts and the Obama extension, throwing the stock market into conniptions over the deficit.

It’s not just a coincidence. The ratings agencies are bought and paid for by servants of Wall Street. They know that Wall Street was reaping big short-term profits off the mortgage securities, and favors tax cuts for the rich. They also know Wall Street favors government-crippling budget cuts.

Just how long will the real Wall Street, its servants and cronies get away with this ruse?

 

Around the Web / D.C. Disconnect / Martin Column - 04/22/2011

Happy Talk

Treasury officials and many politicians are busy patting themselves on the back because the Troubled Asset Relief Program will end up costing taxpayers less then expected.

The way these folks describe it the TARP and other aspects of the federal bailout were just supposed to function as a loan program for the banks while they were having some trouble.

TARP is also winning praise for having “restored trust” in our financial system.

Beyond the scary rhetoric that gave birth to the bailout and self-congratulatory sermons it’s being buried with, the bailout consisted of a set of rules and a way of picking winners and losers in the economic crisis that did anything but build trust.

Remember when the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, insisted that he was a Main Street guy, that he was interested in the financial system only inasmuch as it helped out Main Street?

But the bailout institutionalized a system where the government could only afford to bail out the biggest bankers and corporate officials while abandoning smaller banks and business owners along with millions of troubled homeowners and vulnerable employees.

As Fortune’s Alan Sloane wrote, “the more bailout rocks you turn over, the more well-connected players you find who aren't being forced to pay the full price of their mistakes.”

Oh well, the apologists say, nothing’s perfect. It could have been so much worse.

One official who hasn’t joined in the festivities is Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who bid the bailout a scathing farewell in the New York Times, which you can read here.

The Obama administration and bailout apologists would like to have us believe that it was just a necessary first stage of the recovery to ensure that the bankers stayed rich and the wealthiest Americans’ increasing share of the nation’s wealth kept on growing.

But in Barofsky’s view, there was nothing inevitable about the no-strings attached bailout that filled the bankers’ pockets while offering little to Main Street. It had nothing to do with the operation of the free market either. It was very carefully crafted by public officials working hand in hand with Wall Street to maintain its power while gnawing away at the increasingly fragile livelihoods of ordinary Americans.

As Barofsky notes, “Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to 
stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no 
material change, effectively assuring that Treasury's most specific 
Main Street promise will not be honored.”

And while recent employment gains are welcome news, Dean Baker points out the losers – African-Americans among whom unemployment remains distressing high and wage earners in general, whose pay is not keeping up with inflation.

The bailout celebration is just part of the happy talk designed to buoy the notion that the recovery is well underway. But this bailout-fueled recovery continues to pick highly predictable winners – with the powerful, wealthy and politically connected doing swimmingly while everybody else just limps along.

 

 

Around the Web / Martin Column / SIGTARP / TARP - 04/04/2011