Brian Beutler

  • May 2, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    If one really needs another example of how out of touch or clueless some of the nation’s super wealthy are, Adam Davidson’s piece on a retired multimillionaire for The New York Times Magazine provides it.

    As Davidson notes the retired former partner of Bain Capital, the outfit that excelled in tearing down other businesses for a profit, is plumping a forthcoming book that extols alleged virtues of the filthy rich. Davidson writes that the “spectacularly wealthy guy” believes the “wealth concentrated at the top should be twice as large,” to spur slackers or “art-history majors” into pursuing outlandish wealth.

    Economist Paul Krugman, in his Times’ blog, says the former Bain Capital partner’s argument “might have some plausibility if the era when America didn’t have such overweening plutocracy – the 50s and 60s, when the top 0.01% received only about a fifth the share of income that it commands today – were a time of economic stagnation and low innovation. In fact, the postwar generation experienced the best economic growth – and the fastest productivity growth – of any era in the past century.”  

    Since discussion of the nation’s growing economic inequality, right-wing pundits have attacked or belittled studies showing that the middle class is dwindling, while a tiny few continue to become wealthier. In a widely cited article for Vanity Fair, Columbia University Business School Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz noted that the “upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.”

    While the former Bain Capital multimillionaire, Edward Conard, is no innovator, he’s not invented anything that has enriched the lives of Americans; he has invested in a company that uses less aluminum for soda cans. “It saves a fraction of a penny on every can,” he told The Times. “There are a lot of soda cans in the world. That means the economy can produce more cans with the same amount of resources. It makes every American who buys a soda can a little richer because their paycheck buys more.”

    This is the gibberish that passes for an argument that investors should be celebrated and indeed helped by economic policies?

    Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is unlikely to be persuaded. Last fall Baker scored economic policies that have catered to the super wealthy for far too long, and noted that those policies do redistribute the wealth – to the super wealthy.

  • December 13, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    In late October, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Republican presidential hopeful, unveiled tax policy that despite the already historically low tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest would advance even more tax benefits for that tiny, but politically powerful, group. As reported by TPM’s Brain Beutler, Newt Gingrich’s tax policy, reviewed by the Tax Policy Center, continues the Republican Party presidential candidates’ formula of advancing tax policy geared to coddling the super wealthy.

    As Beutler writes, “And like all the plans that came before it, Gingrich’s constitutes a massive tax cut for the rich. Indeed, no matter how you stack the numbers, Gingrich wants a tax system that permanently holds tax rates on the highest earners lower than the tax rates on the middle class."

    With study after study showing the decline of the nation’s middle class and sharp increase in poverty, the GOP presidential candidates are either oblivious to the research or are collectively shrugging their shoulders. It was Fox’s Britt Hume who said earlier this year of growing economic inequality, “who cares?”

    The Tax Policy Center, Beutler notes in conclusion, would drastically “reduce federal revenues.” Groups, such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, have advocated this type of policy for years – that is starve the federal government of revenues, so policies intended to help the less fortunate dwindle. The group’s mission, as noted on its website, is directed at shrinking what it sees as an unwieldy federal government. “The government’s power,” the group’s mission statement reads, “to control one’s life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized.”    

    The Republican Party, as Tim Dickinson explores in this piece for Rolling Stone, has evolved to become a movement beholden to the nation’s wealthiest.

    Dickinson writes, “Today’s Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometime required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.”

    Earlier this month in Osawatomie, Kan., President Obama echoed some of the concerns that the Occupy Wall Street protestors have brought, in dramatic fashion, to the fore in recent months, when he decried economic policies that have damaged the middle class while benefiting a tiny few.

    “Look at the statistics,” the president said. “In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.”

    In a Dec. 11 column for the Chicago Tribune, Geoffrey R. Stone, a distinguished law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and an ACS Board member, called Obama’s speech “groundbreaking,” for likely speaking to whom he dubbed “The Concerned Majority.”

  • December 8, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Republican senators, in brazen fashion, stepped up their obstructionism of the administration’s nominees this week. First, Republicans successfully blocked an up-or-down vote on one of the president’s judicial nominees, and now they’ve scuttled his selection to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    The Senate voted 53-45 to invoke cloture, falling short of the 60 votes needed to force an up-or-down vote on the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray (pictured) to head the agency, created to crack down on corporate malfeasance, and as The New York Times reports, “one of the administration’s main responses to the financial crisis.”

    Republicans have attacked the Bureau, whose creation was advocated by Harvard University professor and now Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, since its inception, demanding significant changes to the agency, which would effectively hobble its oversight authority.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), The Huffington Post reports, blasted Republicans for their ongoing efforts to protect Wall Street power. Brown said his Republican colleagues are “almost always flacking for Wall Street. It never ceases to amaze me.”

    In comments at the White House, President Obama slammed Republican-led obstructionism, and suggested he may use a recess appointment to put Cordray to work, The Washington Post reports.

    Obama said, "We are not giving up on this. We will not allow politics as usual on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected from unscrupulous operators."

    The president also knocked senators for denying "well-qualified" judicial nominees up-or-down votes.

    Taking to the Senate floor to push for Cordray's nomination, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) lauded Cordray for “looking out for the middle class. He’s looking out for homeowners who have been scammed by mortgage servicers. He’s looking out for pensioners who’ve lost their pensions at the hands of Wall Street recklessness.”

    TPM reports that Democrats are making a “public issue out of the GOP’s vow to hamstring the agency,” noting that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has “hinted at a recess appointment. Obama, Schumer said, should do ‘everything within his power to get Cordray on board.’”

    On Tuesday, Republicans successfully blocked the president’s nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit. ACS President Caroline Fredrickson blasted that action as “ushering in an unfortunate era of unprecedented obstructionism.”

  • January 12, 2010

    After ACSblog published "The Abuse of the Filibuster," by Derek Duarte, a slew of columnists spilled ink on the Senate rules that have proven fertile ground for legislative gridlock. And one idea is being floated on Capitol Hill that may change the way that Washington works.

    The modern filibuster was born in 1975, with a revision to Senate Rule 22. This week, Attorney Thomas Geoghegan outlined the filibuster's evolution in The New York Times

    As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching ["Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"] on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates. 

    One proposal for changing this state of affairs graced the pages of The New Republic last month: Act now to end the filibuster in, say, 2017. Since changing Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote, and considering that no minority party is going to forfeit their power to block enactment of the majority's will -- the argument goes -- Senators should be amenable to curing the body's dysfunctional rules of operation at a date when the majority party is unknown.

    Sen. Tom Harkin has another idea.