Why I Don't Buy Magic Beans

I often listen to conservative talk radio in my car for a couple of reasons. First, I like to keep informed of all sides of political arguments and even though most of conservative talk radio is more akin to propaganda than information one can still get an idea of the right wing viewpoint by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. The good news is that you don’t have to listen for very long in that they endlessly repeat the same talking points ad nauseum (see the definition of propaganda). Second, since I live in an area that is heavily right wing in its general political leanings there is virtually no left wing or progressive radio available without having satellite radio which I don’t happen to have in my car.

I don’t normally have much of a reaction to what I hear on these shows beyond the amusement that comes from realizing how childishly simple and devoid of actual study most of these points are in reality. It is interesting to follow the careful application of facts and editing that Limbaugh employs in trying to make his points. He really is quite masterful at avoiding telling the whole story about anything while at the same time emphasizing and carefully stacking the half truths of his narrative to build his positions. On average I would say that he rarely goes over a sentence or two without badly distorting the truth or taking a half truth and expounding it as irrefutable fact. There is an old maxim that says “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”; in Limbaugh’s case I would expand this to “a little knowledge combined with a lot of half truths endlessly represented as the whole truth is a dangerous thing” (again, see the definition of propaganda).

As I was listening today I heard Limbaugh launch into his normal ridicule of Democratic positions by one of his favorite tactics of sarcasm combined with satire. The specific issue he was talking around today was the upcoming budget battles and the attempt by Republican’s to cut further into discretionary spending and Medicare programs. What is interesting is that both parties agree that rising health care concerns are an issue that is to a large extent driving much of our national debt problems. Unfortunately, this is about the only thing that both parties agree upon when it comes to health care. Typical of Limbaugh and his tactics he was not discussing the issue today or offering solutions to the problem but rather ridiculing the idea that Obama put forward in his speech yesterday that he was not willing to stand by and let the Republican party do away with Medicare programs that are the only means many Americans have of receiving the health care they need to survive. Limbaugh launched into an insulted tirade describing how Democrats are trying to paint the Republican party as the party that would have these people put out in the street without healthcare.

This is typical of the way Limbaugh operates, avoiding the substance of the issue by concentrating on the satirical implication that Democrats are only interested in demonizing Republicans. He went on to describe how offensive and silly it is to suggest that Republicans don’t care about people, that they are somehow immune to feeling of empathy for the needy. I doubt there are very many people who believe that Republicans want people to suffer or that they desire to somehow punish the poor and needy by denying them health care. The point that Limbaugh purposefully avoids and goes to great lengths to disguise is that this WILL be the result of doing away with Medicare programs and privatizing them with a public voucher system that everyone recognizes will lock people into set benefits at a time when actual health care costs are skyrocketing. Intentions count less than results when it comes to basic necessities of life. The fact that no one intends for people to suffer does not change that fact that people do in fact suffer and die when they can’t get the basic health care they need to survive. While it might be worthwhile in Limbaugh’s opinion to point out this was not the intention of such measures this is actually of no consolation to the people who will be suffering and dying as an inevitable result of the measures themselves. It is neither wrong nor imprudent to point out inevitable results of cutting such programs; it is in fact criminally irresponsible to avoid doing so.

There are two possible ways to interpret this behavior. The first and most obvious possibility is that Limbaugh simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. While it is easy to dismiss this out of hand there is perhaps a grain of truth to it. I would submit that it is hard to understand the concerns of those of us whose families are often at the mercy of such systems when you are as far removed from the cold hard realities of having to make hard choices as Limbaugh currently happens to be. Limbaugh makes some 28 million dollars a year in direct income without including endorsement contracts. This amounts to some 116 thousand dollars a day which probably does make it hard for him to have any understanding of the world that most of listeners deal with every day. It stretches the imagination to believe that someone who makes that much money could have any understanding of what it is like to do without basic needs. I would suggest that it has probably been quite some time since Limbaugh was even directly personally exposed to anyone who is struggling in today’s economy. While this also explains his undying and ridiculously nonsensical ideas about taxation and Reaganomics which preaches that lowering taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy, it doesn’t say much for his ability to be objective when he twists fact and figures so relentlessly to prove such a theory makes any sense economically while pocketing the results of the tax cuts so directly.

The second possibility is that Limbaugh actually is what he appears to be, a willing shill for corporate America who has as little use for truth and factual information as his hero Ronald Reagan. Reagan, who made a living many years being a direct employee of corporate interests as a spokesman in their campaigns to increase profit margins at any cost later graduated to a position in government where he could be even more effective in this pursuit; the President of the United States. It is impossible to know which possibility is correct or even if it is the combination of the two is what drives Limbaugh in his daily rants but it is easy to know the practical results of his choices; a show unmatched in its propaganda value if you are a wealthy American or a large corporation in its ability to influence voter opinions of the very people that such interests routinely abuse to build their wealth and power.

It is hard to imagine a better methodology for enriching the wealthiest amongst us than the talking heads of conservative radio. If I were to suggest a scenario that involved the wealthiest Americans gaining control of the levers of power with the full aid and support at the ballot box of the working class they are pilfering their profits from you would suggest that such a scenario is at best unlikely. However, both Limbaugh and Hannity, who manage to portray themselves as protectors of the common man while collecting millions of dollars each year from the wealthiest corporate interests in this country, are in fact two of the most effective agents for making sure this is exactly what happens. Hannity makes some 22 million dollars a year in salary before endorsements in case you are wondering. Not surprisingly, he is just as adamant that any increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans would be a disaster of the first order. One basic mantra that all conservative commentators constantly repeat is the idea that tax cuts lead to net increases in revenue.

Budgets as large as our national budget can be extraordinarily complicated instruments but the basic laws of addition and subtraction are not magically suspended when it comes to evaluating them. National budgets, just like personal budgets, are a balance between money coming in (revenue) and money going out (expenditure). While it is possible to increase relative revenue if you cut expenditures enough the net gain is simply a one to one ratio, every dollar saved equals a dollar available to pay against the debt. Common sense tells us that to decrease the deficit we must have a combination of reduced expenditure and increased revenue. Not surprisingly, history does as well. Contrary to the cherished magical myth that conservatives love to repeat about cutting taxes while simultaneously increasing government revenue it simply does not occur and we have proved that on four separate occasions since 1980. Reagan’s first tax cuts drastically reduced government revenue to the point that three later tax increases were necessary to keep us from breaking the government then. The difference is that the later tax cuts worked to shift the largest proportion of the burden from the rich to the middle class. Even with the later tax increases, the deficit doubled during Reagan’s tenure.

When Bush senior came into office with his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge he soon found that it was necessary to renege on this promise because we were still sliding into a deeper deficit and the only way to begin to pull us out of it was to increase revenue by raising taxes. While this may or may not have cost him the next election, it did manage to begin to increase revenue. With Clinton, we got more of the same in the way of increased taxes along with expenditure cuts that were well on the way to balancing the budget. With Bush junior we got another round of tax cuts that led directly to higher deficits. It is hard to stress this fact enough; tax cuts do not increase revenue. It really is voodoo economics to suggest that it does and recent history has pointed this out repeatedly no matter what conservative commentators say to the contrary. As anyone who has passed third grade math knows you cannot get larger numbers by subtracting no matter how many times you do it.

Beyond the simple mathematics of why this doesn’t work there is also the basics of how capitalism works to explain this more clearly. Capitalism is largely based upon the idea that accumulations of wealth can be used for investment which will spur more economic growth. It is a repeating cycle of continuous growth based upon the idea that one must first have accumulations of capital before there can be investment. If our country was in a situation where there was not enough capital to spur growth temporary tax cuts as a stimulus might be a viable option but we would still have to realize that any tax cut must be offset by expenditure cuts to keep from bloating the deficit. However, everyone agrees that there is a huge surplus of capital in this country right now; although much of it has been hoarded into offshore tax havens so that its owners can avoid paying taxes on it. In other words, cutting taxes on the wealthiest is not only unnecessary , it is actually counterproductive to inducing investment because it has been proven to further reduce the likelihood of investment for the simple reason that there is no inducement to reinvest this capital. This is largely the reason why there was such huge investment in the unregulated financial markets that crashed the economy in the first place. Every time there is a tax cut on the wealthiest Americans along with deregulation of the financial industry there is a corresponding increase in unfeasible financial markets that inevitably crash. Radical tax cuts to the top level of income earners in the twenties (70%-24%) immediately preceeded the rampant speculation that fostered the Great Depression. After the initial Reagan tax cuts we had the Savings and Loan crash. After the Bush tax cuts we had the recent financial crash of the whole US banking system that we are still trying to claw our way out from under. Nothing stimulates the ingenuity of the confidence men amongst us as much as large piles of cash reserves that become available with such tax cuts. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, we as the taxpayers bailed out the wealthiest Americans in each case so we not only don’t get to participate in the party; we have to pay the bill after the party is over.

What is actually needed is not further reductions in capital gains taxes and the income taxes of the wealthiest Americans, but the increase of such taxes to induce them to reinvest the money in industries that produce jobs in this country instead of encouraging further tax havens for shifting jobs overseas. Tax incentives could easily be written to encourage investment in industries that create jobs by tying tax rates directly to the number of jobs created while increasing tax rates on financial markets that do not. In other words, we have plenty of capital for investment. Tax cuts to increase the capital available for investment aren’t what we need. Tax increases with incentives designed to induce investment from existing capital in industries that produce jobs are what we need.

Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk would be comical if they weren’t doing so much damage to our political structure by deliberately spreading corporate propaganda. Shills have been a component of the business world since the first halting steps of capitalism but they have rarely been as effective as this new crop of them happens to be. While Reagan himself is their patron saint, they are all cut from the same cloth. It is up to the American public to recognize they are being fleeced by the people who proclaim to protect their interests but I find it especially ludicrous that two men who make 48 million dollars a year between them are widely seen as the protectors of the working class public by a large portion of the voting populace. They remind me of the peddler of the magic beans in the fable Jack and the Beanstalk with the exception that they are peddling “magic tax cuts” instead of “magic beans”. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as “magic tax cuts” that will grow us out of the deficit situation we are in. There are only real numbers and the reality that it takes addition to make larger numbers and tax increases to create more revenue.

A Swing to the Right

The far right in this country has managed to shift the whole political spectrum to the right in the last thirty years. While most of the conservatives on talk radio and Fox News would have everyone believe that the exact opposite is underway, the right wing media has managed to use propaganda very effectively in this country since Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine (see my posts Propaganda? and the Fairness Doctrine). Reagan himself was the first to successfully demonize the liberals in this country but he has been followed by many others with even more right wing conservative agendas; to the point that the political middle in this country today has shifted drastically to the right. To a certain extent the pendulum swing of politics is inevitable in a democratic based government, but the effective use of propaganda techniques utilized by the far right has shifted things further than any other time in recent history in this country.

I would like to point out a few examples of what I am talking about. As I have written about in a past post (The Redistribution of Wealth Parts I and II) we have seen a rather drastic upward shift in the wealth of this country since Reagan took office in 1980. This is the direct result of changes in our basic tax structure. Reagan cut income taxes for the wealthiest Americans some 40% and started a trend that has more or less continued without pause in the ensuing 30 years. What is less well understood is that cuts of an even more drastic measure were also made in other taxes designed to tax the wealthiest Americans; inheritance taxes, luxury taxes, and capital gains taxes. At the same time even though corporate taxes are posted at 35%, loopholes for the largest corporations have culminated with 8 of the top 12 corporations on the Fortune 500 list not only paying NO income tax last year; but also receiving almost 4 billion dollars in tax credits. The combination of these policies has resulted in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans now owning 45% percent of the wealth in this country instead of the 17% they owned when Reagan came into office.

If the right wing argument that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy actually held true we should be in the biggest economic boom this country has ever seen after the tax policies of the last 30 years. Instead, we find ourselves in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression brought about by the unimaginable greed of the wealthiest Americans. Where is the great investment in jobs and infrastructure that Reagan and his supporters predicted? It is in the internationally collapsed financial markets that the average American financed with huge losses to his 401K and hard earned retirement plan. Almost all of corporate America is healthy and showing near record profits but we don’t see job creation or infrastructure investment in this country. Instead, we see continuing shifts of jobs overseas and more investment in the same financial markets that collapsed the last time and had to be bailed out by the US government. Leaving aside the fact that it is reprehensible that the wealthiest amongst us just received government bailouts of their business interests it is plain that the jobs creation that tax cuts were supposed to produce are actually jobs overseas. Financial derivatives markets that are more profitable than production are the favored investment for this money and will continue to be as long as the tax structure remains tilted in favor of this type of market. Anyone who takes a look at the new Republican budget plan fostered by Paul Ryan will quickly see that one of the tenets of this plan is the further reduction and elimination of capital gains taxes. What we should actually be doing to stimulate the creation of jobs is raising capital gains taxes on these unregulated markets. This would induce investors to invest in industries that actually create jobs instead of putting all of their money in financial markets and overseas manufacturing owned by US companies that are specifically designed and structured to avoid paying US taxes. Investors seek profit so as long as there is greater profit margin in financial markets as opposed to manufacturing or production we will not see jobs created in these markets.

One form of conventional wisdom that the right wing loves to express concerning tax systems is that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. As I have noted in several other posts, a fair taxation system is one that taxes according to the benefit one receives from the government. The US government has explicitly been corporate business oriented since WWII in this country, especially since the Reagan years. The massive buildup of defense spending which Reagan used to boost the economy by doubling the money spent on defense spending in the first five years of his administration was a stimulus program aligned directly towards lining the pockets of the biggest American corporations. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while he at the same time fed them the largest increase in government spending ever seen up until that time in the form of defense contracts. It is little wonder that the budget deficit that we are still struggling with today originated during Reagan’s term. Reagan managed to more than double the deficit in just eight years; a feat that has not been matched before or since. It is true that Reagan cut taxes, what is not usually understood is that he stimulated the economy by doubling our defense spending and that all of this extra 600 billion dollars went to large American corporations. If this isn’t bad enough, the extra spending went directly towards the deficit because we also cut government revenue in the form of taxes at the same time.

Another conventional wisdom along the same lines is that any increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans leads directly to a decline in our economy. The basis of this particular myth is an attempt to directly correlate profit margins with taxes. The gist of the myth is as follows; since the wealthiest Americans are the ones who have money to invest and create jobs, raising their taxes leads directly to them cutting their investment and raising prices. In the first place, if American investors are so averse to paying taxes that they want to invest overseas to avoid it I suggest that they do so. What they will find is that without the force of the US government backing their investments with foreign policies explicitly designed to further their profits they will find the sledding a little tougher. Again, it goes back to the fact that they are the beneficiaries of a government system friendly to their interests and should be willing to repay the subsidies and support they get by paying their fair share of the taxes needed to support the government. Second, it is both disingenuous and ridiculous to suggest that higher taxes lead directly to higher prices. Oddly enough, such muddled logic is espoused by the same people who purport to be the biggest supporters of free markets and the capitalist system. Even a casual acquaintance with capitalist theory leads to the understanding that profits are based upon supply and demand; not some arbitrary decision by the owner of the manufacturing interest as to what his profit margin should be. I would suggest that if owners could set profit margins based strictly upon what they want to make, no one could afford to buy any of their products. In other words, profit maximization is one of the basic tenets of capitalism. Owners of manufacturing interests maximize profits as a matter of course based upon pricing that is the maximum that the market will bear; not upon what profit margin they would like to realize. To suggest that raising taxes on these owners will lead directly to them passing this cost directly along to the consumer is to suggest that they can somehow suspend the free market system in favor of some imaginary notion of desirable profit margins.

Another conventional wisdom that the conservatives love to use as camouflage is the idea that small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country are being stifled by high tax rates. As in most common sense ideas there is a grain of truth to this notion. Small businesses without the means to hire large teams of tax attorneys do wind up paying the high tax rates and this is without a doubt a drain on their ability to create jobs. However, what most conservatives don’t like to admit is that the statistics they like to throw around about “small business” include some of the largest corporations in this country. The classification itself is so skewed as to be meaningless under current government regulations. What we really need to do is separate small business owners from the large corporate interests they are grouped with in our efforts to stimulate small business. I am all for giving tax breaks to companies under 100 employees or some like category. However, the current definition of the term “small business” allows some of the largest companies in this country to fall under this heading. It is this heading that conservatives from both parties use to disguise the fact that there is a difference between what most Americans consider a small business and what the US government specifies as a small business. This gives them the ammunition they need to loudly proclaim the sad stories about actual small businesses suffocating under high taxes and continue to attempt to cut taxes for all business interests, including those that are not paying taxes now because they can afford to hire teams of attorneys to find loopholes in the system.

This same tactic is used in the income tax tables for individuals. Currently in this country those that make from 53 to 174 thousand dollars in this country pay 28% of their income in federal income tax. The highest rate is 35% for those reporting above 379 thousand dollars in income. It is indeed debatable where the dividing line should be for paying higher rates of tax but I don’t think anyone in this country could reasonably argue that someone who makes 53 thousand dollars gets the same benefit to his business interests that someone who makes 379 thousand dollars from living in this country. Let’s take this analogy a little further and compare someone who makes 53 thousand dollars and someone who makes 2 million dollars a year. Can anyone seriously suggest that both receive the same benefit to their interests from the US Government? In previous years, when the US deficits were small and manageable, we had a progressive tax rate that topped out from 70-90% for the highest wage earners. However, these tax brackets were also progressive for much higher incomes. In other words, the tax tables topped out from 1 to 5 million dollars and were graduated accordingly. Who benefits the most by grouping themselves with those who earn less in deciding what their tax rate will be? It is not accidental that the top brackets were lowered when Reagan came along as it makes it possible for the very wealthiest to group themselves with those who make much less income. In reality the business interests most favored by living under the US government are the very wealthiest Americans and a tax table that accurately reflects this would in fairness progress at a much steeper rate for those Americans who make the highest incomes.

Much has been made recently about excessive executive compensation, especially amongst those large companies that the US taxpayer recently bailed out. The rate of pay for top US executives is literally hundreds of times higher than they are in the rest of the world. They are also on average some 700 times higher than they were just thirty years ago in this country. What is not well understood is that the elimination of the higher tax brackets that Reagan brought about during his administration was the catalyst for this change. There is a direct correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and the beginnings of the runaway executive pay system. I would also point out that there is a direct correlation between these astronomical rises in compensation for top executives based upon profit margins for the corporations they manage and the rise of corporate fraud and illegal bookkeeping practices that have crashed numerous large corporate entities in this country in the last 30 years. It is simply too tempting for many of these executives to obtain almost limitless wealth by cooking the books and often destroying their own companies in the process. This factor should not be underestimated in many of the recent large financial disasters that recently crashed the world economy. By replacing the top 35% brackets with 90% brackets we could remove much of the temptation for such avarice while at the same time adding immensely to government revenue at a time when we are suffering from record deficits.

If anyone is unconvinced that we have swung to the far right of the political spectrum in this country, try to remember the last time you heard any such discussion on the US tax structure on a news network. In actuality, what we hear is not discussion at all but carefully choreographed commercials aimed at convincing us that anyone who dares suggest higher taxes is either a socialist or simply unable to understand basic economic theory. Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the working middle class is disappearing under a mountain of seemingly insurmountable public and private debt.

The Fruits of Supply Side Economics

We often hear the right wing Reaganites espousing the same old supply side rhetoric that Reagan himself pushed so successfully. I suppose this is a natural response, trying to continue a lie that worked once until it is finally disproved to the point that you can no longer use it effectively is a basic strategy. While most of those using the arguments today have fallen away from some of the terminology Reagan used because it has been proven to be disastrously wrong, there is still strong sentiment for the basic idea of smaller government and more free market enterprise. Without bothering to repeat that this didn’t work in Reagan’s time and has had disastrous results ever since, I want to go a little deeper into how big business in this country really works and explode the myth that the free market has anything to do with corporate business in this country.


Of the top ten Fortune 500 companies in the United States in 2010 3 were oil companies who between the 3 of them generated some 34 billion dollars in after tax profits last year. Taking the time to add up all profits from these same top ten Fortune 500 companies and divide this total number into the oil company profits I realized that these 3 oil companies account for 36% of the total profits of the top ten corporations. The interesting connection that most people fail to make after this point is that the US government supports this industry in a very large way financially. While it is near impossible to pin down exact amounts in the form of government subsidies these companies receive in various forms the best estimates are somewhere between 15 and 35 billion a year industry wide. For arguments sake let us take the lowest number of the two and say that 15 billion a year is an accurate number.


Adding up the total oil production of the top 50 companies in the US and dividing this into the production of the big three oil companies we see that these three oil companies account for about 37% of the total oil production in the US. Assuming these top three companies get an equal share of government subsidies this comes up to some 5.5 billion dollars a year these companies receive in the form of subsidies or 16% of their total profits. While this is fairly typical of the large corporations and their working agreements with the US government it hardly makes for a level playing field for the rest of us. Talk to any small business owner in this country and ask them if a 16% subsidy would help them. The subsidies themselves come in many different forms; the following of which are just a partial list:

• Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
• Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
• Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
• Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
• Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
• Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
• Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
• The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve


Looking a little deeper into oil companies in the US and their deals with the government we come upon another set of circumstances that work differently in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. Presently, most of the oil reserves in the US are under public lands or in publicly owned waters offshore. While this is not unique to the US the sweetheart royalty deals that US oil companies get with our government in the use of these lands most definitely is different. US oil companies typically pay some 40% of their profits on the oil from these publicly owned lands back to the government while the average in the rest of the world on such deals is 65%. This number is further reduced on offshore deepwater rigs to 18%, or in special cases where the extraction is prohibitive; eliminated entirely. What this amounts to is another 25-38% of profits that oil companies in the US get to keep as opposed to the way this business works in the rest of the world.


How any of this fits into the description of free market enterprise is beyond me; a more accurate description would be government subsidized enterprise and the dirty little secret that the Republican party and Conservative commentators don’t want you to know is that all large corporations in this country operate under a similar umbrella while usually at the same time complaining that they are taxed too high. If they actually paid the 35% tax rate they are supposed to according to the law they might have a point. As we shall see, this is not the case.


For example, oil field lease agreements and drilling equipment are taxed at 9% in this country while almost all similar equipment cost taxes are in the 25% range. What this amounts to is that government subsidized corporations not only get incentivized deals to support their industry but they also don’t pay their fair share of the taxes on the profits they make. In 2009 Exxon advertised that they paid some 15 billion on a 34.2 billion profit before taxes. What they failed to point out was that this 15 billion was paid out to foreign governments where they had set up offshore tax structures specifically to avoid paying US taxes. In actuality they paid absolutely zero in US income taxes that year but were able to receive tax credits for the taxes they paid overseas while simultaneously taking advantage of the subsidies that the US government affords them. During the same time period Chevron paid some 200 million in US income taxes on 10 billion dollars reported profits. In case you are wondering, this comes out to about a 2% tax rate which is a little high for a large US corporation as we will see.


Let’s look at some other of the corporations on the Forbes ten lists for a moment. GE, which is listed as number 4 on the list with some 11 billion in profits last year, paid zero in US income taxes over that same period. As a matter of fact they have some 2.4 billion in tax credits for the same year. Hold onto your hat, it gets worse. GE, as a large corporate conglomerate, managed to relieve itself of most of its tax burden by shifting jobs overseas and hiring a small army of ex IRS examiners to help it file its taxes. Let’s look at this a little closer. GE makes a substantial amount of its profit margin in government contracting so it is a direct recipient of government funds while at the same time is steadily laying people off in the US to help its tax burden. From the US government’s point of view, this is a lot like handing someone a gun and paying them an obscene amount of money to shoot you in the foot.


Bank of America is listed at number five on the list. In 2010 Bank of America showed some 6.2 billion dollars in profits on their books. Of course this was after they received almost 1 trillion in interest free bailout money from the government so it isn’t hard to see how good their business acumen is to start with. Nevertheless, they also paid zero in income taxes while at the same time receiving a 1.9 billion dollar tax refund; not a bad way to make a living if you ask me.


Conoco-Phillips is next at number six on the list. As an oil company they also receive the same subsidy treatment that Exxon listed above does. The best figures available show them receiving some 16 billion in profits in the last three years while paying 450 million in income taxes. Obviously they need to hire better accountants because they paid in to the US coffers at an astounding 2.8% while Exxon paid zilch. Of course this is probably because of their less effective use of money spent lobbying Congress. They only spent 19 million dollars in that effort in 2009.


Ford Motor Company comes in at number eight on the list. They only reported 3 billion in profits in 2010. To their credit Ford didn’t take a government bailout last year. To the discredit of their accountants they actually paid in some income tax as well, some 69 million for a whopping 2.3% tax rate. Try to keep in mind as you read this that the unfair tax rate that all conservatives regularly complain about for business interests is 35%.


Earning honorable mention is Citi Group at number 12 on the list. While they didn’t manage to crack the top ten last year in total revenue they did manage to make some 4.4 billion in profits while paying exactly zero in income taxes. I don’t suppose their board of directors is too despondent about those two slots out of the top ten because they also managed to garner 2.5 trillion in federal money in the recent bailout.


Let’s see if we can make sense of all of this. Of the 8 corporations I have listed (all within the top 12 on the Forbes 500 list) they took in some 63.9 billion in reported profits last year. From these profits they paid in a total of 283 million in income tax over that same period. Wait a minute, I almost forgot; they also received 4.3 billion in tax credits over that same period. In actuality that means on 63.9 billion dollars in profits they paid in a -4.27 billion dollars in taxes (or made an extra 4.27 billion in refunds). Yet the American public is somehow supposed to believe that we live in country that is not business friendly.


Our government in actuality has evolved into a bunch of well paid cheerleaders for large corporations and the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Not only is our foreign policy built around supporting large business interests; much of the legislation bought and paid for by lobbyist from these same interests in Washington is specifically designed to help them line their pockets with subsidies. Our tax structure is an abysmal joke and if you are by any chance wondering who is the butt of the joke look at your pay stub next week to figure out where these subsidies come from. They are listed under income tax withholding.


The beginning of the deficit issues we are currently smothering under in this country occurred when Ronald Reagan came into office and began drastically cutting the tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. The truth of the matter is that we would not be in a deficit situation if we had not been handing out free passes in the form of subsidies and tax loopholes to the wealthiest among us for the last thirty years while steadily shifting the burden for paying for everything to payroll deductions on the middle class.

Tax Philosophy in America; a Brief History

The United States has been blessed with an abundance of natural resources unlike most any other nation in the world from the very beginning of our nation. Plentiful rich land for expansion, an abundance of coal, oil, natural gas, and a mostly congenial and mild climate combined to make this a haven for those willing to work hard and have an independent spirit for the better part of three centuries now. Combine this with rich soil, and almost limitless supplies of fresh water and wild game and you begin to get a feel for how uniquely rich this country has been since its inception. It is hard to overstate the fact that much of the rich character of our nation is directly attributable to the vast bounty in natural resources that our part of the continent of North America contained when the first settlers from Western Europe set foot here. We as Americans are fond of bragging about the individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that made us the greatest economic and military power in the world today without giving due credit to the vast richness the land held when we came here.

At the outset of the experiment that the United States government is we were almost overwhelmingly an agricultural nation. What made this country unique from so many of the nations of Western Europe where so many of the original immigrants came from was the heretofore unimaginable amount of land available for the taking. This is the only nation of the western world where for centuries there was more land available than people to work it. This led to low prices on land and high prices on labor; both uniquely and vastly different from what the rest of the western world knew as normal. It was this great abundance of land that financed much of our government expense for most of the first two centuries of our existence as a nation. Money from the public sale of these lands along with moderate tariffs on imports from overseas provided the great majority of revenues that our government needed to survive. While much of Western Europe struggled with high taxes and all manner of attempts to raise enough revenue to cover expenditures Americans were for the most part completely unconcerned with such problems.

Indeed the American Revolution by which we as a country gained our independence from Great Britain was largely fought over Americans refusal to pay taxes to the British government. Great Britain believed that since she had provided the military that fought two wars against foreign powers and Native American allies to these powers, the colonies should share in the high taxes these expenditures had levied on her citizens in Great Britain and other colonies of the crown. American colonial leaders disagreed. It is worth noting here that even at that time the preponderance of this tax burden fell upon the first wealthy class that had sprung up in this nation. These taxes that American colonial leaders found so objectionable were not levied on the average American small farmer they were taxes on the merchant and planter class; the wealthiest Americans.

As Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" notes; it is the division of wealth that is in many ways the root cause of government expense to begin with. If all nations are equal in wealth there is little motive for one nation to attack another. If all citizens within a country are equal in wealth there is little reason for the expensive protections government provides in the form of justice systems, police, and standing armies. It is the division of wealth, furthermore the unequal division of wealth that makes stronger central governments necessary. Central governments from the very beginning of civilization have been necessary to support property rights. John Locke, the enlightened thinker from whom Jefferson borrowed the immortal "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, stated the function of all government more clearly as the protection of "Life, Liberty, and Property". While both Jefferson and Locke agree that all true governments receive their power from the consent of the governed Locke was much more honest about the three basic rights governments have the duty to protect. In other words, justice systems, courts, police, and to a great extent national armies are necessitated by the need to protect property rights. In largely agrarian societies with equal wealth smaller, less expensive governments have always sufficed. An axiom that Smith well recognized is that the larger the division of wealth within a nation, the more complex and expensive the government system that is needed to support it.

Smith spends a great deal of time in his book explaining this theory. It is the basis for his justification for taxing the populace in proportion to their wealth. After all, if they are the reason why a larger more expensive government is necessary, they should be willing to pay for it in proportion to their need. This is an important point and one that we seem to have lost sight of in this country in the recent past. Much of our governmental effort goes into protecting the business interests of our wealthiest citizens. Our nation's foreign policy since the beginning of the 20th century has been overwhelmingly slanted towards protection of the largest business interests in the country. When we were an isolationist nation with little business interests outside of our borders we had little need of a huge military or a large and expensive state department. As corporate giants began to dominate the market place both here and abroad our government grew to protect and support their interests.

When the bulk of this nation was agrarian we had little need of a large central government. For much of the first 120 years of our history as a nation this held true. However, with the growth of corporations, manufacturing interests and international trade interests at the end of the nineteenth century this began to change. This change was manifested in our growing involvement in international affairs on a national basis. We didn’t become intimately involved in international affairs through a national referendum; we became involved because of the growing influence of a wealthy class of Americans whose financial interest necessitated a strong military and diplomatic international presence to support their interests. Anyone who takes the time to read the writings of our founding fathers will find them almost unanimous in their disdain for a strong central government supported by large standing armies. This is because as an agrarian nation, we had no need of such exigencies, but as an economic leader in world financial centers this is no longer the case. I don’t think anyone would sensibly argue we don’t need a standing army today or an international diplomatic corp. Aside from those who believe we should revert to being an agrarian nation, everyone understands this is simply a necessity in today’s world.

It was our nation’s rise as an industrial nation that necessitated the growth of our government. In other words, the growth of wealth in this country led to our becoming a leader in the world and this wealth also has costs associated with it that we pay in the form of a larger, more expensive government. You simply cannot have one without the other. Therefore, since it is the wealthiest among us who profit the most from this system they should pay the largest share of the expense in maintaining it. This has been the basis for a fair system of taxation from the very beginnings of organized governments. To quote from Smith again;

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

The growth of corporate power in this country is another reality that we seem to not understand very well as a voting public. Corporations have gained legal status that allows them to have many of the same rights as individuals without the requisite liability of an individual. Just for example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations have the same right of free speech as individuals so they should not be limited as to how they contribute to campaigns of their favorite candidates. While this may seem plausible on its surface it covers up the fact that as an individual you and I are responsible for all of our actions to the very limits of our financial ability to cover them while corporate leaders are only liable as far as their corporate finances while their individual finances are beyond the ability of a court to reach. This is just one example of how the vast capabilities of large corporation’s wealth don’t match their culpability in our legal system. There are many others that favor corporations which is exactly why their success has been tied so closely with the growth of our nation’s power and the growing division between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and the rest of us. I don’t believe corporations are evil entities but they are favored entities under the legal system of this country which is exactly why they have so much wealth and requisite power in our government today.

It is in their best interests that many of the foreign policy decisions that the rest of us pay for are routinely made. Receiving the great abundance of favor that such decisions afford them, one would think that they would happily pay the heaviest share of the expenses put forth to gain them but that is not what is going on in this country today. Since the Reagan revolution we have seen a steady increase in corporate profits along with a steady decrease of the amount of revenue the government receives from them. It is true that the Corporate Tax Rates in this country are high compared to most other industrialized nations (close to 35%). However, what is also true is that tax loopholes that have progressively been extended throughout the last 30 years have reduced the actual tax liability of corporations to all time lows. In 1978 the percentage of total tax revenue raised in this country off of tax revenue on corporations was 15% as opposed to some 47% in individual income taxes at the same time that corporations took in some 40% of the total profits realized. In 2009 the percentage of revenue gathered from corporations was 6% as opposed to 46% in individual income taxes. In other words, corporations which took in some 70% of the total profits made in this country paid 6% of the taxes collected. Looked at another way if corporations earn 70% of the profits and pay 6% of the revenue they are paying a vastly smaller percentage of the cost of the government that makes their profit margin possible while at the same time capitalizing on the protection government affords them. Taking into account the recent rulings on campaign contributions by corporations it is easy to see how this vast increase in profit margins will allow them to continue to consolidate control over the election process in the near future.

Beyond the unlevel playing field of corporate America is another level of unequal taxation the Reagan revolution ushered in that is just as devastating to the deficit. The highest tax brackets in this country have historically paid some 70-90% in income taxes. Again, this is the group of Americans who profit the most from the business environment that our large government creates through subsidies, government research and development grants, and foreign policy decisions built around protecting the financial interests of this same group of people. This same group of people today typically pays some 15% on their income taxes by the time all the loopholes available to them through tax attorneys and favorable legislation are assessed while the average upper middle class citizen pays close to 30% on their income taxes in direct payroll deductions. This is exactly why the upper 1% of the wealthiest Americans now own 45% of the wealth of this country as opposed to the 18% they owned when Reagan came into office.

Without a doubt we as a country have some serious problems as far as our financial situation. We are continually spending more than we take in which is obviously unsustainable. The question is what do we do about it? Do we continue to slash government programs until we can subsist on the lower revenues our present tax codes provide or do we believe that it is both necessary and proper for the government to provide basic services and increase our revenues through higher taxation on corporate profit? The ugly truth we seem to be ignoring is that our government which has steadily grown more and more to be controlled by corporate interests in the financial interests of the wealthiest Americans has at the same time continuously reduced their responsibility for paying the bills. The good news is that we are approaching a point to where these questions will have to be answered. The bad news is that we don’t seem to realize why or how we got into this situation. Corporate interests of the wealthiest Americans continue to gain more control of our government while at the same time increasing their profit margins by cutting the amount of taxes they pay while pointing to the poorest among us as the financial drain on the economy. The choice is ours to make. We can either institute a taxation system based upon the timeless values of equal taxation espoused by Adam Smith above or we can continue our present system of unequal taxation and see the eventual financial collapse of our government as we now know it. What we cannot do is expect to continue on the path we are presently on without facing up to where it is leading us.

Observations Concerning Governments and Taxation

In this country today we have some serious problems with deficits. Anyone who takes the time to look into the situation soon understands that this is a problem that has consistently grown since the Reagan revolution. After the national deficit had basically stabilized since the early 1940’s Reagan’s Administration managed to double the deficit in just eight years. The vast mobilization of armed forces that the United States won WWII with temporarily doubled the deficit but it was quickly paid back down shortly afterwards. Reagan and his policies managed to double the deficit during peacetime with the added legacy that the policies he espoused have directly led to the fact that we still have not managed to get it back under control in the thirty years since.

Governments, unlike personal budgets have regularly and routinely run budget deficits since the beginnings of organized governments in Sumeria some 4000 years ago. The reason for this is very simple. Revenue for governments can come only from taxation and taxation is based upon last year’s expense so there is always a time delay in the reaction of taxation to expenditure. While this is a little alien to the way the most people understand budgeting on a personal level, it is inherent in government expenditure. It is only in recent modern history that methodologies for predicting expenditure have come into common usage for governments and the success rate of these methods is not exactly stellar as governments are frequently faced with situations that require immediate response. We must always remember that any government’s ability to raise revenue is not immediate; it is always lagging behind the need to make expenditures. Modern budgeting methods are predictive modeling attempts at seeing future need and setting money aside accordingly. Barring a discovery of omniscient future sight governmental budgeting will always be at best a very inexact science.

From the very beginnings of organized governments it has been necessary to match revenues (money coming in) with expenditures (money going out). While there is an inherent delay in this process it is still necessary to adjust expenditures and revenues accordingly. While most everyone understands this process from their own efforts to balance their household budgets the public at large in this country today seems unnaturally predisposed to seeing only one side of the budgeting method of our country; expenditures. In a nation as large as ours with as many different obligations as we have it is inevitable that we will disagree on the relative importance of expenditures. Largely these disagreements center on regional interests but they are often further divided based upon our individual status in the economic hierarchy. Farmers in Iowa consider government agricultural subsidies to be of prime importance while government workers in Alabama who work on government facilities are much more likely to favor government investment in military research and development. This discussion can go on ad infinitum without respite, the point being that part of belonging to such a diverse country is an inherent disagreement on priorities. While this diversity is a weakness when it comes to budgeting it is in many other ways the source of our greatest strength as a nation.

Let’s look at some history of governments and taxation to better understand the problem. There is a large push in this country today to do away with big government; to go back towards smaller government and more of a pure capitalist system. Virtually everyone seems to believe this is the path we need to take to recover our economic strength and upgrade our standard of living. Unfortunately for the proponents of this theory, history seems to teach us just the opposite. The advents of organized governments throughout history have directly corresponded with marked advancement in civilization. The Sumerian city states were the first organized governments and marked the beginnings of advancement in cultivation techniques that allowed the growth of populations that had never before been seen on this planet. It is the combined efforts of groups of people and the resultant division of labor that has led to all advancement in living conditions since the beginning of recorded history, not the individualistic efforts of the strongest amongst us. The pooling of labor resources and revenue resources led to large irrigation projects that simply could not have occurred by individual effort. The source of this combined effort, whether in labor or capital was taxation. Each individual by contributing his part in the group effort advanced his own standard of living infinitely quicker than he could have in isolation. This is the root source of all government, the bonding of individual effort for the common good.

Government provides stability. Stability is necessary for advancement. Without government, people are forced to fend for themselves spending large proportions of their time defending their gains from becoming plunder for others. Division of labor collapses and efficiency collapses along with it. Even a cursory glimpse of the history of civilization proves the indivisibility of these two concepts; progress and government. The larger and more effective the government the greater the progress and the higher the standard of living for its citizens; there is an undeniable and direct correlation.

Sumerian civilization with its localized city state governments was closely followed by Greek civilization with its larger city state governments. Each led to rapid advancements in agriculture, science, and business practices that led directly to rapid advancements in standards of living for its citizens. Along with these governments came taxation which also directly corresponded to this advancement. It was the advances in taxation policies which gave the governments the labor and capital they needed to protect and advance this standard of living, allowing it to further advance.

Roman civilization featured even larger governments with further refined systems of taxation that led to stronger central government and more rapid advancement in standards of living for its citizens. With the collapse of Rome and the drift of European civilization towards feudalism and this system's inherent individualism we had the advent of the dark ages which saw standards of living regress and scientific knowledge collapse. It was the inherent inability of governments to centralize power that led directly to these problems and the resultant drop in standards of living all across the western world.

As western national governments began to re-emerge and consolidate power we saw the return of economic advancement and a corresponding steady increase in the standard of living for their citizens. Larger, more centralized governments subsidize economic prosperity by providing security for their citizens and allowing ever greater divisions of labor which in turn lead to higher efficiency. In short, the strength of central governments and their ability to raise revenue for the common good have always directly corresponded to increases in standards of living. Smaller, less centralized governments have always had just the opposite effect throughout the history of the civilized world.

This leads to the United States and our own history of economic growth compared to governmental strength. The United States, even though it possessed the greatest abundance of natural resources of any one nation, was basically a third world power economically and militarily until the consolidation of power in our central government began to take place. Our economic prosperity is directly correlated to the size and strength of our central government and this has held true throughout our nation’s history. For the same reasons that western civilizations advance has always been tied to the strength of government, the explosion of economic power that the United States experienced happened along with the growth of the central government and the resultant revenue increases that came with it.

The United States financed much of the world’s economic recovery after WWII through the ability to raise revenue. The growth of our national educational system, our national road system, our national electrical power system, and virtually every other economic engine that led to our world leadership in both standard of living and economic capacity are all directly related to the strength of our national government and its ability to raise revenue and disburse it for the common good. Individuals didn’t build the road systems, they didn’t build the schools, they didn’t subsidize the space exploration that led to most of the technologies that have so rapidly advanced our standard of living in this country. The central government with its vast ability to raise revenue for the common good did. Individual companies didn’t bring the cost of food down to its lowest relative level the world has ever seen, the central government with its subsidies of crops did.

Americans once understand this concept. No one likes paying taxes but it is a necessity to finance government and government of the people, by the people, is the guarantee that makes the whole system work. The idea that our government, the one we elect and control, is somehow an evil thirsty beast that must be slain so that we can inherit economic prowess is directly in conflict with the truths that our own history conveys. We have been sold a bill of goods by a small wealthy minority in this country who believe they should have the benefits this national system allows them without paying the costs associated with maintaining it.

Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations”, which is widely espoused as the founding tome of capitalist theory addresses the idea of taxation as follows:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

This is exactly why we as a people voted in a progressive income tax in 1916. The people of this nation well understood the idea that those who prosper greater under the protection of the government are most responsible for paying its costs. The top tax brackets in this country were historically in the 70-90% range previous to Ronald Reagan. Since he was a product of some very wealthy patrons it is only natural that he would attempt to advance their interests but it is literally amazing to me that the general public fails to make the obvious connection between the drastic cuttings of this tax rate with the immediate rise of the deficit. The theory that cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans and Corporations would lead to economic growth has been tried for the last thirty years and we find ourselves in the same kind of depression that this kind of fiscal irresponsibility netted us in 1929. George Bush Senior was right, it is "Voodoo Economics".

If cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans leads to economic prosperity we should be in the biggest economic boom this country has ever seen right now because we have been doing it for 30 years now. What we have actually seen is the distinct degradation of every facet of our national economic infrastructure along with a drastic redistribution of the wealth of this country from the middle class to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. The tax burden has shifted dramatically to the middle class while the wealthiest Americans get relief. We have the highest deficits ever seen along with the lowest tax burdens for those that prosper most under the umbrella of protection our government affords.

Government finance is always an adjustment between revenue and expenditure. We cannot solve the problems we have by attacking only one of the two basic levers that control our system. The only way we will regain our economic strength is to return to the proper balance between what is earned under the protection of the government and what is owed in its support and that means raising the tax rate on those who prosper most.

Is Our Health Care System Broken?

Is the Health Care system in this country broken? This is the basic question we need to ask ourselves as Americans. I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is; that we are paying for a Cadillac and receiving a Yugo with warranty issues. I often hear it said that we have the greatest health care system in the world but I seldom hear that particular sentiment out of anyone who is not a right wing Republican, a doctor, an insurance spokesman, or a drug company executive. This issue really isn’t that different from any other; it is all a matter of perspective.

Let’s look at that argument of those who like the system as it is. First off, if you are a doctor in this country you make almost twice as much as a doctor in the rest of the world on average. This number climbs to four times as much for specialists but on the average it comes out around twice as much. There are probably numerous reasons for this but the ones most often presented as justifications are the costs of doing business as a doctor. Education to become a doctor is extremely expensive and time consuming. There is little doubt about this but I would also point out that it is the AMA who controls the medical education field. The AMA controls how many doctors get into the field and how long it takes to get a medical degree. The AMA, as a union for doctors, well understands that the best protection for high fees is a moderate supply of doctors and almost all studies agree that we have a shortage of doctors in this country so I would suggest that they are doing a very good job of controlling the supply of doctors which can be directly correlated to the pay of doctors by the simplest rules of supply and demand. The AMA also regulates who can practice medicine in this country which is why we don’t have nurse practitioners, holistic doctors, and other types of medical practitioners treating many patients in this country. In alliance with the AMA, private insurance providers refuse to provide payment to non AMA approved practitioners even though they are much more cost effective for most common ailments.

The next argument that the AMA puts forward as a reason for high costs is tort policy in this country. It is without doubt that high malpractice insurance adds cost to the practice of medicine. However, experiments in tort reform policies in Texas and several other states have shown that such reforms actually only lower medical costs some 1-2%. While this is not something to be ignored it hardly goes towards explaining why health care costs in this country are higher than in any other industrialized nation in the world but I will get back to tort reform a little later. As a percentage of GDP we are fast approaching 20% for health care costs in this country while no other industrialized nation in the world has more than 12% of their GDP associated with health care costs. It is also worth remembering that our GDP is larger than any other country in the world.

Let’s look at some numbers to see if we can decide how our health care system fares when compared with the rest of the industrialized world. The US GDP is estimated to be 14.1 Trillion dollars. If you are anything like me you have a hard time visualizing this type of number but I decided to do some comparisons with other countries to try and make sense of this number. If you add up the GDP totals of Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Spain, Belgium and Australia you get a number just a little less than the 14.1 Trillion dollars of the US GDP. Therefore, the combined total of these countries’s GDP is roughly equal to the US GDP. If you add up the averages of these western countries percentage of GDP spent on health care and average it out it comes out to a roughly 9%. Currently in this country the best estimates put our percentage of GDP spent on health care at 17.3% (and projected to grow at an astonishing 6.78% per year in the near future).

To decide what this means in actual dollars per person I looked at the population totals. The population total in the US is presently some 307,212,123 people. If you take 17.3% of our 14 trillion dollar GDP and divide that by the number of people in the US you get $7883.00 per person as the average cost per person in this country. If you take the total population of the eight countries I listed above (352,179,713) and do the same calculation based upon 9% of their GDP the total comes out to $3552.00 per person. In other words we pay on average 221% higher health care costs per person in this country than do the people in these eight nations which I would argue are probably the closest to this country in culture and standard of living.

This is exactly why so many of the supporters of the present system are so adamant about saying we have the best system in the world. It better be; as it is more than twice as expensive as any other system that is directly comparable. Let’s look at some comparison studies to see if this theory holds water. In terms of general health and measurable statistical information I am afraid that the numbers don’t support this theory at all. According to the CIA World Factbook the US ranks 41st in the world in infant mortality rate which is hardly something to brag about. There is controversy over how these figures are gathered in that many countries vary according to how they specify when an infant is alive but the US also ranks 41st in the world in infant low birth weight which I think anyone can see is directly correlated to infant health. We rank 46th in the world in life expectancy and it is worth noting that there is a rapidly growing disparity in this country between life expectancy for the wealthy upper classes and life expectancy for the financially lower classes. Those who can afford our best health care simply live longer.

There are other basis for doing relative comparison studies on health care efficiency that are based upon years of life lost under the age of seventy in cases amenable to being saved by health care. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development publishes studies based upon these cases under the heading of “years of potential life lost”. This is where we should shine as a nation if our health care system, which is heavily slanted towards cure instead of prevention, is actually efficient. Unfortunately, the US ranks third from the last for women in the study just behind Mexico and Hungary. For men, we rank fifth from last for men just ahead of Slovakia and Poland. Being in a class with Mexico, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland is not necessarily something I think we need to be bragging about; especially when we pay more per person than anyone in the world to get there.

The fact of the matter is that the US leads the world in specialized care for many types of technologically complex treatment systems. This is one area of health care where our system shines and this is exactly the area that is so often highlighted by proponents of the system. If you have plenty of money and inexhaustible insurance coverage this is the place to come for such treatments and people from all over the world come here for that reason. However, if you don’t have insurance and a lot of money besides this is not something you will likely be afforded access to in this country. After all, the medical industry has to make a profit in this country too; that is how capitalism works.

As I have covered in several posts already the private insurance industry in this country well understood the pitfalls of providing health care insurance from the beginning and they have avoided them admirably. By tying insurance to employment from the beginnings of the rise of private health insurance in this country they effectively assured themselves that they could control profit margins by providing insurance for the healthiest people (those that are gainfully employed) while removing those from their rolls who are the worst risks (the elderly and those who get too sick to work). While this is good business for private health insurance companies it is a problem for those who actually need medical care and one that continues to add exponentially to actual health care costs. As is often the case, the goals of meeting profit margins and providing needed services are frequently in direct opposition.

For example, a very high percentage of personal bankruptcies in this country are directly attributable to health care costs. Estimates range from 50-80% as far as percentage of people filing bankruptcy because of medical bills depending on which agency you get your information from. The story that is repeated over and over again is the same. Person A, who has health care insurance through their work, is unlucky enough to get cancer or some other debilitating medical condition. This person soon loses their ability to work and with it their health care insurance (some 80% of medical related bankruptcies come from people who originally HAD health care insurance through their work but later lost it). Being unexpectedly unemployed bring many financial hardships to working class people and very few of them can afford the higher rates they are forced to pay to keep insurance after being removed from a group plan where they work. Therefore, they are soon without insurance and the bills instantaneously get higher without insurance. If any of you have been to a hospital recently you know that the bill you get is usually two to three times higher than what the hospital eventually accepts from the insurance company as payment. However, if you don’t have insurance you also don’t have the power to barter with the hospital to get this same reduction. The truth is that the hospital recognizes that people cannot afford to pay the high costs associated with a long treatment and they fully expect to take a loss on the costs so they are not willing to barter. They would much rather take a loss and write it off on their taxes while collecting what they can through government sponsored Medicaid. It is just good business sense for them and they too are part of the capitalist system wherein profit is the final motive. The end result is bankruptcy for the individual who is unlucky enough to need the care. Even worse, if this person is lucky enough to survive the disease, the treatment, and the bankruptcy they are now faced with the certainty of not being able to attain private health insurance for this condition for the rest of their lives. This leads to the surprising conclusion (and one that most working class people aren’t aware of until it is too late) that having private health care insurance through your work is a lot like playing Russian roulette; everything is fine until you hit on the chamber with the bullet in it.

Let’s talk about the uninsured for just a moment. Some 15% of the population in this country is currently uninsured. While a good percentage of these people are younger workers who are not working in industries that offer employer health care programs the fact remains that all of these people are at risk of accident or catastrophic disease that would quite literally bankrupt them if it were to occur. Russian roulette is equally deadly whether you are aware you are playing it or not. If an uninsured person does need routine medical care, no matter how innocuous, the large majority of them show up at emergency rooms where health care costs are the most expensive because most emergency rooms are required to provide the care they need. Because there is often no other choice these people get the most expensive care possible; often for problems that could easily be taken care of much more efficiently at a clinic by a nurse practitioner were lobbyist from the AMA not actively making sure this is not legal. Between the government’s reluctance to help set up such alternative programs and the AMA’s insistence on protecting their memberships ability to make exorbitant amounts of money we have another situation wherein the worst solution is the only possible one for people without insurance.

Tort reform is another solution that is often tossed about as something that will cure the problems we currently have with health care costs. The theory is that by protecting doctors from high lawsuit settlements we can thereby bring down the costs of malpractice insurance which will be reflected in lower overall costs for the consumer. Even though there have been several instances in the last few years where such plans have been tried out, the results are not encouraging as costs have simply not come down appreciably from such efforts. If we had a nationalized health care system where everyone was guaranteed health care coverage this whole argument would disappear because the whole system of high settlements is based upon the recognition that health care costs are so high. This isn’t a chicken or egg argument, it is more like a cow and calf argument in that it is quite evident which one came first in this situation; the high health care costs. If you pursue a lawsuit against a doctor for malpractice the vast majority of the settlement set aside it is to cover the costs of future medical expenses. If you had nationalized health care insurance that will cover these costs already; there is little reason to collect a high settlement outside of pain and suffering incurred due to the doctor’s negligence. Without the high settlement possibilities the very volume of such lawsuits will steadily diminish as lawyers are capitalists too.

There is yet another aspect to this marriage of employment and private health insurance that we as consumers are now being forced to deal with. In an economic downturn such as we just experienced in this country unemployment is one of the first symptoms. With unemployment comes loss of employment based insurance for the workers who lose their job; involuntary Russian roulette for both the worker and his immediate family. Therefore, the Medicaid costs in the states where they live grow as well as these people are still going to inevitably have the normal every day health care needs even if they are lucky enough to avoid catastrophic disease or accident. The states are forced to come up with money to make up this difference at the same time they are suffering loss of revenue associated with the recession; both from payroll taxes and from dwindling sales tax revenues. The net result is higher deficits for the state at the same time they need more revenue; in effect a double blow to the economy. We are currently seeing this played out all across the country as states struggle to balance their budgets with rising costs and dropping revenue. The Kaiser Family Foundation released a study in 2008 that suggested a 1% increase in unemployment equates to roughly 1 million extra people without health care insurance in this country which winds up costing some 3.4 billion dollars in extra health care costs. This is a direct result of the fact that our current system of private health care insurance is largely weighted towards employment benefit packages and simply would not occur with a nationalized health care system.

Aside from same tired old mass hysteria argument that the right always trots out about the country being overrun by socialists who want to turn us into a communist state, the main fear surrounding a nationalized health care system is that it would be too expensive for us to afford. Unfortunately, as we have seen and continue to see on a yearly basis, health care costs are the real issue and we have to be able to control these costs to deal with health care issues. The average administrative cost of private health care servicea in this country is about 12% of total costs. Add to that a 3-6% profit margin for the company and we now have an additional 15% levied on top of our health care costs with the present system that is quite unavoidable. I would start out by saying that adding 15% to the costs right off the bat by having private health insurance belongs in the tally of problems rather in the tally of solutions. In any case, as a worker who has employment provided insurance my costs have steadily risen over the last ten years as costs have increased. The national average for such coverage has risen 78% since 2001 while employee compensation has risen just 19% during the same time period. Plainly, rising health care costs are the source of the problem and we have to make strides toward solving this problem. However, I now pay some $350 a month in payroll deductions for my health care insurance with the promise that it will only grow more in the future while the problem itself continues to spin out of control due to all the reasons I have listed above. A lot of these issues would be solved by integrating a national health care system and if we took what we are all paying into private health insurance plans that add to the problem and put that money into taxes that would help alleviate the problem I think it would be a step in the right direction.

The unvarnished truth about our system’s private health insurance is that the only way it is profitable to sell and administer is if there are enough healthy people paying premiums to offset the costs of those who need care. Insurance executives recognized this fact from the very beginning which is why they were so anxious to tie insurance to employment in the beginning. In our system the private health care insurance companies get to reap the benefits of insuring the healthiest Americans while skipping out completely on paying for health care for the unhealthiest. When people in this country retire or are unemployed the government picks up the tab for their health care which is exactly why Medicare and Medicaid programs are so expensive; they are forced to deal with the unprofitable refuse that private health insurers have tossed overboard after they have milked them for all the money they can get. If we had a comprehensive health care system like the rest of the civilized world we would be able to offset the high health care costs for the elderly with the premiums in the form of taxes paid in by the healthiest citizens; the young working class people. Is this a socialist idea? Of course it is but so are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs were put in effect originally because we were faced with the choice in this country of providing steadily rising health care costs for retiring citizens with little or no savings or letting them die. Capitalism had no solution for the problem so we adapted a socialist idea to solve the problem.

Over the course of the last 30 years we have proven that the combination of rising health care costs and an aging population have contributed to another situation that Capitalism has no solution for so maybe it is time we started to admit that what we need is another socialist solution. I shouldn’t say Capitalism doesn’t have a solution as the unseen hand of the free market always has a solution. The only problem is that this solution is the same as all others in the free market. If you can’t afford health care do without. To paraphrase our esteemed Speaker in the House of Representatives when told that the Republican spending cuts proposed recently would cost 800,000 jobs in an economy already in recession, “So be it.”

Conventional Wisdom

I have read several books lately by John Kenneth Galbraith; while they are older, they are very informative. In “The Affluent Society” I think he was still formulating some of his later ideas but he has a whole chapter on conventional wisdom. When you break it down to its simplest explanation conventional wisdom is simply what most people find acceptable. This doesn’t seem completely negative until you start to consider what that really means in that it is simply the net average of the most common shortcut to understanding.


Conventional wisdom therefore can be a very functionally useless but dogmatic and dangerous thing when applied to politics, economics, or any other social based and therefore intricately complicated process. Because these processes inherently contain so many different variables they are constantly changing; often rapidly. In other words, since these fields are affected by an almost limitless array of variables, the rate of change in the basic laws of social systems is likely to be exponential. Therefore, a constantly evolving understanding is necessary to deal effectively with these changes. This requires a great deal of effort and concentrated study just to keep abreast of changing conditions so that one can even begin to know how to deal effectively with basic social concerns. Conventional wisdom, by its very nature, is fundamentally incapable of effectively dealing with changing circumstance yet it is the core principle of most of our modern political parties.


In other words, politicians cannot get elected unless they understand how to play upon most people’s perception of conventional wisdom. It is an absolute necessity for success at the polls in our modern system. The logical inverse to this is the ability to gain political power by controlling media so that you can shape conventional wisdom; now you have something that is infinitely powerful even though it is also functionally unable to deal with changing circumstance. The very tool that tends to strengthen a candidates ability to get elected weakens his ability to effectively govern. The upshot is that politicians cannot ever really go against conventional wisdom without alienating their own voter base. Unfortunately, this rules out the ability to innovate and deal with issues in a proactive way. Instead, politicians must wait for conventional wisdom to convincingly fail in order to prove the necessity for innovation. Conventional wisdom is the natural enemy of innovation of any kind. Therefore, both in the field of economics and politics what we have are groups of people steadfastly devoted to anachronistic systems that are outdated but cannot be discarded until they completely collapse. At that point, innovation must come about to solve the issue and we start the whole cycle all over with this innovation now becoming the new Conventional wisdom to be protected against further innovation until it also fails because it is not allowed to innovate for changing circumstance; ignoring the truth that circumstance is always changing.


Most of our social beliefs and economic theories have historically been controlled by this cyclical process of conservative resistance to change followed by failure. We are always far behind in reacting to change because we are so enamored with conventional wisdom and the mental laziness that nurtures it. Imagine if we took this model and applied it to scientific studies (although it could be argued that this is exactly what creationist theory is all about). We would still be riding horses and struggling to grow enough food to eat every day. For some reason we have accepted that our understanding of science is constantly evolving and that every theory is just that…. a theory that only remains to be proven wrong before we adapt a new one. Yet in the social sciences of economics and politics we treasure conventional wisdom and will often violently oppose innovation that threatens it. I would venture to say that most wars can actually be traced to this kind of collision between circumstance and conventional wisdom that becomes both outdated and fanatically defended.



This is exactly the reason why American politics is so enamored of opinion polls. Successful politicians are not leading they are following. Any successful politician on the American political scene today is much more interested in finding out what the majority of the voting public believes than actually searching out solutions to problems that come from ever changing circumstance. This tendency is not limited to one political party or another. It is also not limited to conservatives vs. liberals as both are equally careful to avoid contradicting the perceived conventional wisdom of the voter base that put them into office. The key to power is holding office, not in effectively governing once elected. Unfortunately, this pandering to conventional wisdom of any kind is the exact opposite of the innovation that is needed to solve the issues arising from the circumstantial complexity of the social and economic spectrum.


While there is a growing effort to control conventional wisdom by propaganda in this country there seems to be no effort to understand the real problem behind our inability to deal with changing circumstance; our fundamental reliance on conventional wisdom and its inherent inability to deal with change. It is the crippling deformity that paralyzes our government from the very top downward. We seem much more interested in finding men who have the wisdom to spout our own beliefs back at us than finding men who want to solve problems. What we need is the understanding that, like scientific knowledge, political expertise must first accept the premise that every theory is only as good as its most recent proven effectiveness for dealing with problems. We seem to value politicians who are principled beyond those who are willing to innovate. To be seen as someone who “flip-flops” on the issues is to be seen as politically weak or possibly even corrupt and is usually the death knell of an election effort. Innovation in almost all fields is well understood to be both desirable and necessary to increase efficiency but innovation in political or economic fields is looked upon as weakness or worse yet, fundamentally foolish.


The term Conservative in its most basic sense implies an effort to preserve. This preservation can extend to many different areas or beliefs but is most often a basic resistance to change and supports the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports in society. While most conservatives would probably agree that a certain amount of change in society is inevitable, it is their basic belief that the amount of change should be minimal so as to provide stability. Unfortunately, this puts them in the insupportable position of resisting change in a modern world where technological advancement has literally exploded in the last 30 years. The fields of modern communications, economics, manufacturing, and energy are vastly different than they were just a short time ago. Advances in these fields have impacted every strata of modern society and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The conventional wisdom of the conservative agenda is quite literally unable to deal with how these changes have impacted society effectively. To be fair conventional wisdom in any form is incapable of dealing with innovation but a political movement that insists in basing its core beliefs on conventional wisdom to the exclusion of innovation is especially prone to this tendency. Abraham Lincoln was fond of explaining to his detractors that he “dealt with circumstances as he found them” rather than trying to control them to meet his preconceived beliefs. It is that spirit of understanding that we need to promulgate in politics and economics today. The spirit of modern conservatism can be captured in two observations.


1) Those who have power are the most anxious to maintain the status quo.
2) Fear of the unknown is directly proportional to how comfortable you are right now.



It is my own basic antithesis to the idea that conventional wisdom is an effective means of governance that leads me to say that I am not a Conservative. It is this same understanding that deeply confounds me when so many people who are obviously at the bottom of the social strata proudly proclaim that they are.