Daily Archives: November 11, 2014


Bernie Sanders Takes A Big Step Towards Challenging Clinton for 2016 Democratic Nomination

Politicus USA has the article Bernie Sanders Takes A Big Step Towards Challenging Clinton for 2016 Democratic Nomination.  They cite a number of quotes from The Washington Post article Tad Devine signs on to work with Bernie Sanders on potential 2016 run.  First the good news.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has spent months fishing for a strategist to guide his potential 2016 presidential campaign. On Monday, he hooked a big one: Tad Devine, one of the Democratic Party’s leading consultants…

They also quote a description on what are the issues for Sanders.

Over breakfast on Saturday in Los Angeles, Sanders said that he would center a possible campaign on the “collapse of the middle class” and “income and wealth inequality,” which he calls a “huge issue from a moral sense and a political sense.”

Of course, I would think these are important issues.  Whether or not they are winning issues for any near term political campaign or candidate is even less important than getting the public to focus on these issues.  Well, the voters are already focused on these issues, but they need some indication that someone has some ideas on what to do about it.

Well, I couldn’t make any blog post without criticizing something, so here is the end of the first quote above.

… and a former high-level campaign aide to Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis.

if the campaign aide positions were on all of their Presidential campaigns, this does not bode well.  Perhaps he worked on the successful Senatorial and Gubernatorial campaigns for these politicians.


CEO Compensation: “Cheaters Prosper”

New Economic Perspectives has the article CEO Compensation: “Cheaters Prosper”.

While the scandal of not prosecuting any of the senior officers who were enriched by leading the three epidemics of accounting control fraud that drove the financial crisis for those frauds is well known, the public does not understand that the fraudulent senior bankers have also been able to keep virtually all of the fraud proceeds they received through leading the accounting control frauds.

This excerpt may help to justify my constant harping on the Obama administration’s failure to criminally prosecute cases of accounting control fraud.  Eric Holder’s chosen head of the effort to prosecute criminal conduct in the financial meltdown pretty clearly stated that he had no clue as to what accounting control fraud was.  How can you be in charge of law enforcement in an area that is rife with a crime you gladly profess you don’t even know exists or what it is?

The above excerpt barely scratches the surface of what you would learn if you actually read the article at the above link.  It is so frustrating for me to know what is in these articles, and to also know that even the people reading my blog are mostly unaware of the content of these articles.  Short of plagiarizing these articles, or copyright infringement by publishing them on this blog, I don’t know what else I could do.  Any suggestions?


The Great Wage Slowdown, Looming Over Politics

The New York Times has the article The Great Wage Slowdown, Looming Over Politics.

Since I know that very few if any of you will click through to read the article, I am forced to copy the graph, and show it here.  My appologies to the copyright police who may be lurking, but I claim it is  fair use.

wage stagnation graph

Now that the proof of the premise is in front of you, I can go on to comment on the article itself.  This is an interesting article because it goes from solid identification of the problem, to crazy solution, to sanity rescuing detail.

Here is the solid identification of the problem.

A quiz: How does the Democratic Party plan to lift stagnant middle-class incomes?

.
.
.
The fact remains that incomes for most Americans aren’t growing very fast and haven’t been for years. Median inflation-adjusted income last year was still $2,100 lower than when President Obama took office in 2009 — and $3,600 lower than when President George W. Bush took office in 2001. That’s not just because of the financial crisis, either: Last month was another solid one for job growth and another weak one for average wage growth, the latest jobs report showed.

We’re living through the great wage slowdown of the 21st century, and nothing presents a larger threat to the Democrats’ electoral fortunes than that slowdown.

Here is the seemingly insane proposal for a solution.

The best hope for doing so, in the immediate future, is probably the oldest and most obvious play in the book: a tax cut.

Here is a sanity rescuing detail.

Because the long-term budget deficit remains a problem, any such tax cut could be paired with a tax increase for top earners, who — even after the expiration of some Bush-era tax cuts — still face lower rates than they have for most of recent history. “Taxes for high-earning Americans are too low,” argues Roger Altman, the Wall Street executive and Democratic adviser. Most Americans favor tax increases on the well-off, polls show.

A sane solution is not nearly the same as a good solution.  Cutting the taxes on a too meager income is not enough.  Sure you get to keep a little more, but the income for many would still be too meager.

What about the people who are working multiple jobs, and long hours at minimum wage, and still don’t make enough money to owe any income taxes?  A huge boost on the earned income tax credit would help those people.

Yes, huge marginal rates of income tax for the wealthy with very constrained loopholes would reduce the incentives for the ultra-wealthy to grab all the income there is.  Using the money collected to invest in all the needed public services that we have been deferring would employ people, boost wages, and make the economy run better.

Eliminating tuition and fees for higher education would lift a huge strain on many in the middle and lower classes.

Increasing the Social Security benefit would diminish the need for people to have so much private savings to cover their retirement.

I leave it up to your imagination to think of other parts of a plan that would answer the initial question, “How does the Democratic Party plan to lift stagnant middle-class incomes?”


Let me explain that one about Social Security.  Supposing that you could find a safe investment that would pay you a 5% rate of return above inflation.  (For the sake of simplicity, let us assume the inflation rate is zero.)

If you were getting $28,000 per year in Social Security today (that is an actual example), you would need a $560,000 nest egg to produce that income stream a 5% rate of return.  ($560,000 * 5% = $28,000).

Suppose that you could only get a 3% rate of return such as in the current environment.  That would require a nest egg of over $933,000. ($933,000 * 3% = $27,990)

Depending on how much income you think you need in retirement, you can scale up or down the amount of nest egg that is needed to back your retirement.  One way or another, through a combination of private savings and publicly funded pensions, this is the amount that is needed.

If this were wholly publicly funded, the government would need a nest egg large enough to fund the current (and expected maximum) of retired people at any one time.  Since the public nest egg is left behind when a person dies, that nest egg could fund the retirement of the next person to come into the retirement pool.  Contrast this with private savings backed retirements.  Unless you had relatives that you knew would pass on their nest egg to you at the moment of your retirement, you would have to be saving up for your retirement throughout your whole working life.

The private savings for investment would be less onerous if your retired people would die, or be dead when you were ready to retire.  These people could not have used up their nest egg to live the really good life during retirement.

In any case, the private system seems to require savings for retired people and for non-retired people.  The public pension plan would only need savings for the retired people (and enough to support expected population growth).