Follow us: Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Google+ Follow us on Linkedin Follow us on Tumblr Subscribe to our RSS or Atom feed
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Southern Weather Radar


Our Writers

  • Adam Peck
  • Alan Gordon
  • Alex Kearns
  • Alex Seitz-Wald
  • Alice Murray
  • Allison Korn
  • Alyssa Cagle
  • Amanda Marcotte
  • Amanda Peterson Beadle
  • Andrea Grimes
  • Andrea Lee Meyer
  • Andrew Bowen
  • Andy Brack
  • Andy Kopsa
  • Andy Miller
  • Andy Schmookler
  • Ann Marie Pace
  • Ann Woolner & Leonard Ray Teel
  • Anna Dolianitis
  • Anna Forbes and Kate Ryan
  • Annelise Thim
  • Anoni Muss
  • April Adams
  • April Moore
  • Ariel Harris
  • Armando
  • Arthur Blaustein
  • Austen Risolvato
  • Austin McMurria
  • Barry Hollander
  • Bert Roughton III
  • Beth Ostlund
  • Betsey Dahlberg
  • Bill Hamm
  • Bill Mankin
  • Bill Montgomery
  • Bill Moyers & Michael Winship
  • Bill Phillips
  • Bill Semple
  • Bill Tush
  • Billy Howard
  • Bob Bohanan
  • Bob Pritchard
  • Booth Malone
  • Bootsie Lucas
  • Boyd Lewis
  • Brad Clayton
  • Braden Goyette For ProPublica
  • Brett Martin
  • Brian Randall
  • Brianna Peterson
  • Bruce Dixon
  • Bruce E. Levine
  • Burton Cox
  • Candice Dyer
  • Carl Kline
  • Carol Carter
  • Casey Hayden
  • Cathleen Hulbert
  • Center for American Progress
  • Chantille Cook
  • Charles O. Hendrix Jr.
  • Charles Seabrook
  • Charles Walston
  • Chelsea Toledo
  • Chelsey Willis
  • Chris Bowers
  • Chris Kromm
  • Chris Wohlwend
  • Christopher Burdette
  • Chrys B. Graham
  • Chuck Collins
  • Cliff Green
  • Cody Maxwell
  • Collin Kelley
  • Craig Miller
  • Crissinda Ponder
  • Dallas Lee
  • Dan Kennedy
  • Daniel Flynn
  • Daniel K. Williams
  • Daniel Palmer
  • Danny Fulks
  • Dante Atkins
  • Darby Britto
  • Dave Cooley
  • Dave Johnson
  • Dave Pruett
  • David Bradford
  • David Evans
  • David Harris-Gershon
  • David Jenks
  • David Kyler
  • David Rotenstein
  • David Swanson
  • Dean Baker
  • Deb Barshafsky
  • Debbie Houston
  • Deborah Chasteen
  • Denise Oliver Velez
  • Dennis McCarthy
  • Desiree Evans
  • Dian Cai
  • Diana Delatour
  • Dina Rasor
  • Dindy Yokel
  • Doc
  • Don Lively
  • Don O'Briant
  • Door Guy
  • Doug Couch
  • Doug Cumming
  • Dr. Brian Moench
  • Dr. Nick De Bonis
  • E. David Ferriman
  • Earl Fisher
  • Eden Landow
  • Eileen Dight
  • Eleanor Ringel Cater
  • Elizabeth Shugg
  • Ellen Brown
  • Elliott Brack
  • Erin Kotecki Vest
  • Fatima Najiy
  • FishOutofWater
  • Francisco Silva
  • Frank Povah
  • Fred Brown
  • Frederick Palmer
  • Gadi Dechter, Michael Ettlinger
  • Gail Kiracofe
  • Gaius
  • Georgia Logothetis
  • Gib Ennis
  • Gina Williams
  • Gita M. Smith
  • Glenn Overman
  • Gordon Anderson
  • Gregory C. Dixon
  • Gryphon Corpus
  • Hamp Skelton
  • Harriet Barr
  • Heather Boushey
  • Henry Dreyer
  • Hollis B. Ball III
  • Hugh
  • Hyde Post
  • Ian Kim
  • Ian Millhiser
  • Isabel Owen
  • Ivy Brashear
  • J.A. Myerson
  • Jack deJarnette
  • Jack Wilkinson
  • Jacklyn C. Citero
  • Jake Olzen
  • James Hataway
  • James Marc Leas
  • James N. Maples
  • Janet Ward
  • Jasmine Burnett
  • Jason Palmer
  • Jason Parker
  • Jay Thompson
  • Jeff Cochran
  • Jeff Davis
  • Jeff Rayno
  • Jeff Spross
  • Jennifer Hill
  • Jesse Harwell
  • Jessica Luton
  • Jim Bentley and Jeff Nesmith
  • Jim Clark
  • Jim Cobb
  • Jim Fitzgerald
  • Jim Newell
  • Jim Stovall
  • Jim Walls
  • Jim Warren
  • Jimmy Booth
  • Jing Luo
  • Jingle Davis
  • Joan Donovan
  • Jodi Jacobson
  • Jody Wegmueller
  • Joe Earle
  • Joe Shifalo
  • Joel Groover
  • Joey Ledford
  • John A. Tures
  • John Dembowski
  • John Hickman
  • John M. Williams
  • John Manasso
  • John Sugg
  • John Tabellione
  • John Yow
  • Jon Sinton
  • Jonathan Grant
  • Joni Hunnicutt
  • Jonna Pattillo
  • Joseph B. Atkins
  • Joseph Gatins
  • Josh Dorner
  • Josh Sewell
  • Joy Moses
  • Judith Stough
  • Judy McCarthy
  • Juli Ward
  • Julian Bond
  • Julianne Wyrick
  • Julie Ajinkya
  • Julie Puckett Fodera
  • Just Plain Will
  • Kaili Joy Gray
  • Kate Greer
  • Kate McNally
  • Kathleen Brewin Lewis
  • Kathleen Harbin
  • Kathleen R. Gegan
  • Kathryn Hoffman
  • KC Wildmoon
  • Keith Graham
  • Ken Edelstein
  • Ken Haldin
  • Kevin Austin
  • Kevin Duffy
  • Kip Burke
  • Kirk McAlpin
  • Kirsten Barr
  • Kos Moulitsas
  • Kristie Macrakis
  • Lacey Avery
  • Lamont Cranston
  • Laura Clawson
  • Laura Smith
  • Laurence Lewis
  • Lawrence S. Wittner
  • Lee Leslie
  • Lee Robin
  • Les Eatwell
  • LikeTheDew
  • Linda Hunt Beckman
  • Linda Jordan Tucker
  • Lisa Byerley Gary
  • Lisa Kerr
  • Lois Beckett, Propublica
  • Lorraine Berry
  • Louis Mayeux
  • Lovell Jones, Ph.D.
  • Lucy Emerson Sullivan
  • Lucy Guest
  • Maggie Lee
  • Maisha White
  • Mandy Richburg Rivers
  • Margi Ness
  • Marian Wang, ProPublica
  • Marie Diamond
  • Mark Dohle
  • Mark Johnson
  • Mark Sumner
  • Martha W. Fagan
  • Mary Civille
  • Mary Elizabeth King
  • Mary Kay Andrews
  • Mary Lee
  • Mary Willis Cantrell
  • Matt Johnson
  • Matt Musick
  • Matt Renner
  • Matthew Wright
  • Maurice Carter
  • Meg Livergood Gerrish
  • Meghan Miller
  • Melanie Rochat
  • Melinda Ennis
  • Michael Beckel
  • Michael Castengera
  • Michael Ettlinger
  • Michael J. Solender
  • Michael Linden
  • Michael Lux
  • Michael W. Twitty
  • Mike Copeland
  • Mike Cox
  • Mike Handley
  • Mike Lofgren
  • Mike Ludwig
  • Mike Williams
  • Mike ”Hunter” Lazzaro
  • Mimi Skelton
  • Moni Basu
  • Monica Smith
  • Murray Browne
  • Myra Blackmon
  • Nancy Melton
  • Nancy Puckett
  • Nancy Robinson
  • Nancy Rogers
  • Neill Herring
  • Nelly McDaid
  • Nikki Gardner
  • Niles Reddick
  • Noel Holston
  • Occupy Wall Street
  • Overman & Senn
  • Pamela Sumners
  • Pat Garofalo
  • Pat LaMarche
  • Patrick L. Ledford
  • Patsy Dickey
  • Patti Ghezzi
  • Paul Krupin
  • Paul Rutledge
  • Paul Thim
  • Pete & Jack
  • Peter Crawford
  • Peter Turnbull
  • Phil Gast
  • Phil Noble
  • Philip Graitcer
  • Phyllis Alesia Perry
  • Phyllis Gilbert
  • Piney Woods Pete
  • R. P. Singletary
  • R.L. Miller
  • Rafael Alvarez
  • Randy Conway
  • Randy Schiltz
  • Ray Bearfield
  • Raymond L. Atkins
  • Reagan Walker
  • Rebecca Sive
  • Richard Eisel
  • Righton C. Willis
  • Rob Chambers
  • Rob Coppock
  • Rob Douthit
  • Robert Dardenne
  • Robert Jensen
  • Robert Lamb
  • Robert M. Williams, Jr.
  • Robert Mashburn
  • Robert Weiner & Richard Mann
  • Robin Marty
  • Rodney Adams
  • Roger Gregory
  • Ron Feinberg
  • Ron Taylor
  • Rose Aguilar
  • Rose Weaver
  • Rosemary Griggs
  • Russ Wellen
  • Sam Morton
  • Sao Magnifico
  • Sara Amis
  • Sarah Ayres
  • Sarah Bufkin
  • Saralyn Chesnut
  • Scott Anna
  • Scott Borchert
  • Scott Keyes
  • Scott Wooledge
  • Seth Cline
  • Shane Gilreath
  • Sharon M. Riley
  • Shay Dawkins
  • Sheffield Hale
  • Sheila Barnard Nungesser
  • Sigrid Sanders
  • SoniaTai
  • Sonya Collins
  • Soraya Chemaly
  • Spencer Lawton
  • Stephanie Taylor
  • Stephen Lacey
  • Steve King
  • Steve Krodman
  • Steve Valk
  • Stuart Liss
  • Sue Sturgis
  • Sujigu
  • Susan De Bonis
  • Susan Soper
  • Susan Wilson
  • Suz Korbel
  • Tammy Andrews
  • Tammy Ingram
  • Tanya Somanader
  • Ted Kooser
  • Terri Evans
  • The Barnacle Goose
  • Thomas A. Bledsoe
  • Tiger Liliuokalani
  • Tim Oliver
  • Timothy Freeman
  • Timothy Hurst
  • Tom Baxter
  • Tom Crawford
  • Tom Ferguson
  • Tom Millsop
  • Tom Poland
  • Tom Walker
  • Travis Waldron
  • Travis Waldron & Pat Garofalo
  • Trevor Stone Irvin
  • Tricia Collins
  • Troubadour
  • Valerie Evans
  • Viveca Novak
  • Waldron, Somanader & Garofalo
  • Walter Rhett
  • Wanda Argersinger
  • Wayne Countryman
  • Wayne Johnson
  • We The People
  • Will Cantrell
  • Will Nelson
  • William Cotter
  • William Hedgepeth
  • Yana Kunichoff
  • Yasmin Vafa
  • Zack Beauchamp
  • Zack Ford
  • Zaid Jilani
  • Zaina Budayr



  • Login or Subscribe

    Like the Dew?

    We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.

    It's the Economy, Stupid

    Tax Cuts Do Not Equal Increased Revenue

    by | Apr 23, 2011

    Let me begin this column by apologizing to my readers. Normally, in an opinion column the writer presents the highlights of an issue without needing to present, in detail, the facts underlying the issue being discussed. However, this column is going to go back and demonstrate that my opinions do not come from either pure ignorance or deceit but, instead, are informed by creditable sources. In this case, my figures are coming from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The apology is because of the data-laden presentation that may put some people to sleep. The issue being discussed is the relationship between tax cuts, deficits, and revenue.

    Federal Revenues as Percent of GDP - Reagan v. ClintonThe benchmark that will be used is a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). This allows one to compare relevant figures, such as revenue and spending, in relation to the overall growth of the economy and allows for apples to apples comparisons. Since Reagan lowered taxes and Clinton raised them on the top 2%, I will use these two Presidents to illustrate my points

    The claim was made that Reagan tax cuts almost doubled federal revenue over the following decade. When Reagan took office in 1980, individual tax revenue stood at 9% of GDP. That fell to 8% by 1988 when he left office. Corporate tax revenue fell from 2.4% of GDP to 1.9% during the same period. Total revenues for the government fell from 19% to 18.2% of GDP. Even though GDP grew from almost $3 to $5 trillion, government debt grew from 26.1% of GDP to 41%. What actually happened was that federal debt almost doubled, not revenue. The moral of this story: A thriving economy plus tax cuts equals less revenue and increased debt.

    On the other hand, Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% of the population. In 1992, individual tax revenues were 7.6% of GDP and grew to 10.2% by 2000. For corporations, it was 1.6% and 2.1% respectively. Total revenues grew from 17.5% of GDP to 20.6%. GDP grew from $6 to almost $10 trillion but total government debt dropped from 48.1% of GDP to 34.7%. Taxes went up, revenue went up, and national debt went down. A thriving economy plus tax increases equals more revenue and less debt.

    Federal Spending as Percent of GDP - Reagan v. ClintonRevenue is one side of the coin, spending is the other. So how do these Presidents stack up on the spending side of the equation? The charge was made that spending tripled under Reagan because of the Democrats. At first blush, you must wonder if they held a gun to Reagan’s head to force him to sign all of that spending legislation. But what do the facts tell us? Did spending increases cancel the effect of Reagan’s tax cuts? Well, discretionary spending dropped from 10.1% of GDP to 9.3% under Reagan and from 8.6% to 6.3% under Clinton. Mandatory spending dropped from 10.7% of GDP to 10.1% under Reagan and from 11.5% to 10.5% under Clinton. Total spending dropped from 21.7% of GDP to 21.3% under Reagan and from 22.1% to 18.2% under Clinton. In other words, total spending dropped under both Presidents but only under Clinton did tax increases on the top 2% produce enough revenue to reduce the national debt — significantly.

    US National Debt Reagan through ClintonUnder both Presidents there was a thriving economy as measured by GDP growth. Both Presidents reduced both discretionary and mandatory spending. One cut taxes and one raised them. One President almost doubled the national debt and one actually reduced it. One President proved that tax cuts along with spending cuts do not reduce the debt. Conservatives can continue to spout the tax cut equals increased revenue manta all they want but they lack an understanding of economic reality. They can continue to beat the drum that tax cuts coupled with reduced spending will reduce the debt but economic history is not on their side. Chambliss (R-GA) and Ryan (R-WI) are beating this drum right now. Beware.

    ###
    Jim Fitzgerald

    Jim Fitzgerald

    A clinically trained psychologist, Jim had a private practice in Cobb County for almost 30 years. For the last ten years he has been a Professor of Psychology at Goddard College in Plainfield, VT, but lives in the North Georgia Mountains.

     

    Print Friendly

     

    Note: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for the agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of LikeTheDew.com. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click here to report a violation.

    • MonicaSmith

      You, my friend, are being logical and that is your mistake.
      (Excuse my use of the second person, but you’ll see it’s use as a rhetorical device that’s central to conservative thought.)
      You are assuming that the costs and benefits being referred to apply to the same entities. In conservative land that’s never the case. When conservatives look at what the country owes, their perspective is entirely self-centered and the question they ask is “does what you (the country) owe benefit me?” Thus, the country’s debt is good when the interest on it is paid to “me and my cronies,” as a guaranteed tax-exempt unearned income, and it’s bad when the interest on it is paid into the Social Security Trust Fund as unearned income for people who paid in less than they get out. In conservative accounting, any time you get a benefit, it’s a cost to “me” simply because I didn’t get it. Moreover, in the conservative world view, not having one’s expectations satisfied registers as deprivation. That’s because one person benefitting from another’s cost is the norm.
      It’s a matter of perspective. Liberals get confused because the conservative habit of framing a discussion as “objective” is a pretense which involves the substitution of the object of their envy for themselves. The real purpose of their nattering is to get benefits for themselves that they haven’t earned — i.e. at your cost. But, of course, they’re not going to admit that.

      The problem with the current national debt is that it is owed to and paying interest to the Social Security Trust Fund and China and American bond clippers aren’t getting what they’re entitled to. Obama’s promise to reduce the national debt is not going to make them happy because what they want is a bigger trickle down. Indeed, the increase in the national debt that went to state grants is adding insult to injury because those grants substituted for state and local bonds and, in effect, frustrated the strategy of making local governments borrow instead of collecting to spend. Our leisured elites don’t just want to avoid paying taxes; they want a cut of every public dollar spent. And, on the local level, they want to be able to control what the public dollars are spent for.

    • Trevor Irvin

      Jim, Another very good piece, as usual.
      T

    • Maria

      Republicans use the same data but change the color of the bars to the party controlling congress ;-)

    • James S. Bauman

      May 19, 2011

      RE: Tax Revenues CANNOT cause Deficits or Debt, Excess Spending ALWAYS DOES!

      Greetings:

      Looks to me like you “Stacked the Deck” in “favor” of your argument from the VERY BEGINNING. You compared your graph as a percentage of the GDP. However, the GDP ALREADY INCLUDES ALL of the INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, as can be shown by the following GDP formula:

      GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports -- imports).

      The GDP therefore ALREADY includes INCREASED Government Spending! So you are including INCREASED GOVRERNMENT SPENDING on BOTH sides of the comparisons! For instance If Government Spending Goes UP in the GDP, Naturally Increased Income from Tax Cuts will no longer be as high -- NOT WHEN COMPARED AGAINST the MUCH HIGHER INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

      1) Why not just perform a standard straight-Line comparison Of Revenues BEFORE the TAX CUTS and Revenues AFTER the TAX cuts. That would be a better way to comparing “apple to apples” here.

      2) Next do a straight-line comparison of National Spending BEFORE the Tax Cuts verses National Spending AFTER the Tax cuts. Again that would compare “apple to apples” here.

      3) Finally, Compare what the National Debt WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT the INCREASED NATIONAL SPENDING and WITH the actual additional Revenues obtained after the National Tax Cuts. Makes a VERY BIG difference in your graphs now doesn’t it?

      Quote: ” It’s the Economy, Stupid Tax Cuts Do Not Equal Increased Revenue Wednesday, May Apr 23, 2011”

      OH REALLY? Let us just use the “raw data” for both Clinton and Bush’s Back-to-back administrations here, shall we? That way we can compare “apples to apples” here (like you SHOULD HAVE DONE in the first place), now can’t we?

      http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown
      Total Government Revenue in the United States Federal, State, and Local

      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown
      Total Government Revenue in the United States Federal, State, and Local

      Under Clinton:
      1) Revenue steadily increased from $1.154 Trillion in 1993 to $2.0 Trillion in 2000 or an average increase of $105.75 Billion per year for 8 consecutive years.

      2) Spending Increased from $1,410 Billion in 1993 to $1,789 Billion in 2000 or an average of $47.375 Billion per year for 8 consecutive years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

      3) Revenue increased at better than twice the rate of spending. Yet the Debt Ceiling Limit was STILL RAISED 4 times from $4,145 Billion on April 6, 1993 to $5,950 on August 5, 1997! Our Politicians INCREASED the Debt Ceiling by $1,805 Billion Dollars (or $1.805 Trillion Dollars)!

      Under Bush:
      1) Revenue increased from $1.8 Trillion in 2003 (when his tax cuts became fully active) to $2.5 Trillion in 2008 or an average of $140 Billion per year for 5 years. Compared with Clinton that is a net gain of $34.35 Billion PER YEAR for each of the 5 consecutive years -- or a 75.535% annual increase in Tax Revenue!

      2) Spending for the same time period under Bush’s Administration went from $2,160B in 2003 to $2,983B in 2008 or an average of 164.6B per year for 5 consecutive years. As you can clearly see, spending increases more than tripled (347.44%) under Bush’s Administration.

      3) Spending increased at better than three times the rate of revenue. Therefore the Debt Ceiling Limit was RAISED 7 times from $5,950 Billion on June 11, 2002 to $11,315 on October 03, 2008!

      Because spending grew so much faster than revenues, Our Politicians increased the Debt Ceiling by $5,365 Billion Dollars (or $5.365 Trillion Dollars)! Our Politicians have only increased the Debt Ceiling 60 consecutive times in the last 50 Years!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

      PERHAPS the .com Bubble Bursting (a recession), two wars, The Twin Towers, Terrorists and the Housing Bubble Bursting at the end of his administration just MIGHT have had “something” to do with the spending increases, don’t you think?

      What ever the reasons, THE FACTS clearly show that:

      1) Bush’s Tax Cuts RAISED REVENUE when compared to Clinton’s previous administration,

      2) The ONLY thing that raised faster than the INCREASED revenues was the INCREASED spending,

      3) Both administrations continued to steadily INCREASE the DEBT CEILING, and

      4) The wise-old adage that “Excessive Spending Causes Deficits/Debts while (INCREASED) Revenue NEVER causes Deficits/Debts!” just may be correct, don’t you think?

      Alternate Quote: “The last resort of the mentally challenged when they can: 1) No longer understand a situation, 2) No longer understand an explanation, or
      3) No Longer defend their position is to either: 1) Use profanity, 2) Start name calling, or 3) Strike out in any manner they can.”

      Did you REALLY want to start calling those who disagree with you (based on the facts) “stupid”?

      Respectfully,

      James S. Bauman

      • Jim Fitzgerald

        I have no idea what you are arguing here because you so conflate your “facts” and “figures” with reality that there is no room for an honest comparison.

        You also attribute quotes to me that are not mine. Why did you insert quotes to rebut that were not in my article?

        Finally, I never said increased spending wasn’t a problem. My thesis was that cutting revenue does not equate to an increase in revenue.

    • Steve

      Deficit numbers are irrelevent when discussing revenue increases. Deficits are a function of spending versus revenues, not revenues versus tax rates. The real revenue numbers (actual money the government took in) went up by about $2 trillion during the Reagan administration. A period during which we had the second greatest tax cuts since the Kennedy administration (which also experienced a real increase in revenue).

      • Jim Fitzgerald

        Are you arguing that the huge debt racked up under Reagan was a result of his excessive spending?

    • http://www.thisweekinstupid.com thisweekinstupid

      I think you meant “deficit” there.

  • Worthy of Comment



  • Also on the Dew

    ‘Not everyone named Michelle is a loser’

    'Not everyone named Michelle is a loser'

    By: Monica Smith

    That’s what the spouse said when I wrote him how surprised and disappointed I was to discover that Michelle Nunn has gratuitously endorsed the XL pipeline from Canada, because buying oil from “neighbors” is better than from overseas, as well as to read a report that Nunn wants changes to Obamacare to allow cheaper policies for the young. Like they don’t have car accidents and sports injuries, etc? (Read the other day that there’s a chance auto and workmen’s comp insurance rates are going to decrease now that people have health insurance. Ripple effect). He went on to observe that “Kenny and Tracy hav  Read on →

    Busted Brackets

    Busted Brackets

    By: Will Cantrell

    You knew in the beginning it was folly, no good -- like that girl who lived around the corner your Momma said was "fast." “She's gonna take your money and your stomp on your heart,” Momma said. You knew it too ... but you went anyway. YOU You promised yourself you would not get involved this time. You knew all about the probabilities ... the impossibilities, really. You knew all about the odds against success, heard Nate Silver -- or somebody -- use $5 words like “implacable,” “infinitesimal” and “asymptotic” to assure Charlie Rose the odds were ridiculous. And yes, you knew it was a Fool's Notion  Read on →

    Dems should run on campaign finance constitutional amendment

    Dems should run on campaign finance constitutional amendment

    By: Andy Schmookler

    Do the 2014 elections look promising for the Democrats? Not so far as I can tell. Do the Democrats have a bold plan to inspire the American people to turn the House back over to them? Not so far as I’ve heard. Is there a solution available? I think there is. We’ve got a Supreme Court that just doubled down on its disgraceful 2010 decision in Citizens United, continuing in the new case (McCutcheon vs. FEC) to pretend to believe that opening the floodgates still wider for big money to flow into our elections does not corrupt our political system. And we’ve got poll   Read on →

    America by the Numbers

    America by the Numbers

    By: Dave Pruett

    "Government should prevent an immoderate accumulation of riches." -- James Madison In a previous post, we revisited Martin Luther King, Jr.'s iconic "Beyond Vietnam" speech of April 4, 1967. King, confronting head-on America's "triple evils" of racism, economic injustice and militarism, challenged America to find its true values and "come home." Polls and statistics suggest that, in the 47 intervening years, America has not "come home" and sadly is further from home than ever. King knew "Beyond Vietnam" would be controversial. He devoted more effort into preparing it than to any other speech. As feared, he was roundly criticized -- by blacks  Read on →