The North Carolina general assembly is all about increasing charter school opportunities for North Carolina students and their parents. As the story goes, charter schools provide parents with the opportunity to better align their child's interests with educational opportunities. Moreover, charter schools put pressure on regular public schools to improve performance. How can anyone argue with this win-win scenario?
I would subscribe to this scenario if charter schools, which exist because of public funding, are subject to the same rules as regular public schools. Specifically, regular public schools are responsible for instructing all students who appear at the school house door regardless of age, emotional baggage, educational qualifications and the like. In marked contrast, a student failing to make the grade - academically or behaviorally- in a charter school can be dismissed - returned to their local regular school.
The subtle benefit of an all inclusive public school system is that schools mirror real life. Students in public schools reflect the full range of racial and economic diversity present in the larger population. Their experiences better prepare them for effective adult participation in American society. Public schools served as the spoon that blended the racial and ethnic differences in America's melting pot approach. The quality of public schools may have been monitored by the parents of certain segments of this society, but their oversight applied to the entire school population. School boards, elected by the entire population, were expected to respond the needs of all societal segments.
Fast forward to a world populated by charter schools - public institutions of learning that have been effectively'privatized'. Students have to compete for admission and those who 'fail the grade' are returned to the public school system. Good teachers will naturally be attracted to such schools, in part because of the curriculum offerings and, in part, because of the knowledge that problematic students tend to be weeded out of the charter school environment. Worsening public school environments only feeds the pressure to create additional charter schools. With no ceiling on the number of schools the process will likely accelerate; the public school system will ultimately become the home base for those students who are unable to enter or maintain their enrollment in a charter school.
Students who are favored by intellect, self-confidence, and financial security are going to do well in any environment. Moreover, they set the example, albeit imperfectly, to fellow students as to what is possible in this country. These same students - via their positive academic participation-- also serve to improve the learning environment for all concerned. In this regard public schools tend to mirror society. Charter schools, in fulfilling their promise, erode this core dynamic.
My Slice of Life ..... a compendium of thoughts on the American political-economy.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Hard Choices Require Mutual Respect
A storm had thrown the Mayflower well off course- to the uninhabited west coast of the Cape Cod bay. The Pilgrims realized they had free reign in choosing how to structure their lives together in the New World. Their compact to one another – to which all subscribed – was to abide by the will of the majority as long as each had a say in voting on the Colonies laws. Their individual acceptances of majority will was facilitated by the recognition that all were in the same situation: there was no social or economic stratification among the Pilgrims. In short, there was no wealth to fight over.
Fast forward almost three hundred years. The United States had become the most powerful and richest nation in the world. It had evolved into a society where the distribution of income had become highly skewed, more so that at any time since the days of the robber barons of the late nineteenth century. Class struggle – long a scourge of any democracy- has moved front and center in public policy debates.
Paul Krugman speaks to this dynamic in his 13 January New York Times op-editorial –A Tale of Two Moralities. One side, he notes, believes strongly that “society’s winners” should be taxed to pay for a “social safety net” for all citizens. They effectively subscribe to the socialist tenants prevalent throughout Western Europe. Other Americans are equally strong in their conviction that citizens have the right to keep what they have worked hard to earn: they view “taxes and regulation” as “tyrannical impositions on their liberty”. Krugman points out, correctly, that there is no middle ground in this debate.
This class warfare was far less fractious in the past, in part, because the Republican Party was more moderate in its outlook than it is today. More importantly, past Administrations were able to simultaneously address needs of both factions. President Reagan substantially cut taxes without reducing the safety net: President George Bush cut taxes substantially while increasing Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Both did so by using America’s credit card to partially fund government operations. The consequence of this continued deficit spending has been the steady rise in U.S. indebtedness.
We can no longer have it both ways. The annual deficits from programs instituted but not funded during the Bush years have been exacerbated by the current Administration’s spending to first stem the economic downturn and subsequently to facilitate economic recovery. At this point America has effectively reached its credit limit. Although we probably cannot afford to constrain debt growth immediately, we must come to grips with disconnect between tax collections and government expenditures.
Our democracy is faced with making some fundamental choices regarding what we stand for as a nation. Unlike the past, there will be real winners and losers in the current debate. Those who cling to a relatively flat tax rate may be faced with absorbing substantially higher tax burdens. Those who believe in a central role for government in ensuring minimal levels of health care and personal income may be faced with substantial reductions in government support. Substantially cutting US defense and homeland security spending only mitigates this dilemma. Something and someone has to give.
Harsh choices require all of us to heed President Obama’s plea for an end to the vitriolic animosity that has become part and parcel of our national debate. The health of our democracy will depend, in no small measure, on the ability of the political ‘winners’ to be sensitive to the deep-seated values held by the ‘losers’. By analogy, those factions that do not get their way in public policy debates must accept that such losses are a natural outcome of the democratic process.
In our democracy, each citizen is equally entitled to their view of the proper role of government. This fundamental legitimacy should not be denigrated no matter how ‘irrational’ or ‘irresponsible’ their views may appear to others. Politicians espousing programs that go against one’s personal views are not ‘misguided’or a‘threat to the country’. They are simply representing the views of the electorate.
Failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views threatens the vitality of a democracy that started some three-hundred years ago when one hundred and two men and women combined to form a government based on equal participation in decision making and the shared recognition that each individual owed their allegiance to those decisions that were agreed upon. A tenacious clash of values is part and parcel of the democratic process, but so too is the recognition that everyone is entitled to an equal say in the matter regardless of their views. Democracies are sustained, not by policy outcomes, but by the process by which these outcomes are reached.
Fast forward almost three hundred years. The United States had become the most powerful and richest nation in the world. It had evolved into a society where the distribution of income had become highly skewed, more so that at any time since the days of the robber barons of the late nineteenth century. Class struggle – long a scourge of any democracy- has moved front and center in public policy debates.
Paul Krugman speaks to this dynamic in his 13 January New York Times op-editorial –A Tale of Two Moralities. One side, he notes, believes strongly that “society’s winners” should be taxed to pay for a “social safety net” for all citizens. They effectively subscribe to the socialist tenants prevalent throughout Western Europe. Other Americans are equally strong in their conviction that citizens have the right to keep what they have worked hard to earn: they view “taxes and regulation” as “tyrannical impositions on their liberty”. Krugman points out, correctly, that there is no middle ground in this debate.
This class warfare was far less fractious in the past, in part, because the Republican Party was more moderate in its outlook than it is today. More importantly, past Administrations were able to simultaneously address needs of both factions. President Reagan substantially cut taxes without reducing the safety net: President George Bush cut taxes substantially while increasing Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Both did so by using America’s credit card to partially fund government operations. The consequence of this continued deficit spending has been the steady rise in U.S. indebtedness.
We can no longer have it both ways. The annual deficits from programs instituted but not funded during the Bush years have been exacerbated by the current Administration’s spending to first stem the economic downturn and subsequently to facilitate economic recovery. At this point America has effectively reached its credit limit. Although we probably cannot afford to constrain debt growth immediately, we must come to grips with disconnect between tax collections and government expenditures.
Our democracy is faced with making some fundamental choices regarding what we stand for as a nation. Unlike the past, there will be real winners and losers in the current debate. Those who cling to a relatively flat tax rate may be faced with absorbing substantially higher tax burdens. Those who believe in a central role for government in ensuring minimal levels of health care and personal income may be faced with substantial reductions in government support. Substantially cutting US defense and homeland security spending only mitigates this dilemma. Something and someone has to give.
Harsh choices require all of us to heed President Obama’s plea for an end to the vitriolic animosity that has become part and parcel of our national debate. The health of our democracy will depend, in no small measure, on the ability of the political ‘winners’ to be sensitive to the deep-seated values held by the ‘losers’. By analogy, those factions that do not get their way in public policy debates must accept that such losses are a natural outcome of the democratic process.
In our democracy, each citizen is equally entitled to their view of the proper role of government. This fundamental legitimacy should not be denigrated no matter how ‘irrational’ or ‘irresponsible’ their views may appear to others. Politicians espousing programs that go against one’s personal views are not ‘misguided’or a‘threat to the country’. They are simply representing the views of the electorate.
Failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views threatens the vitality of a democracy that started some three-hundred years ago when one hundred and two men and women combined to form a government based on equal participation in decision making and the shared recognition that each individual owed their allegiance to those decisions that were agreed upon. A tenacious clash of values is part and parcel of the democratic process, but so too is the recognition that everyone is entitled to an equal say in the matter regardless of their views. Democracies are sustained, not by policy outcomes, but by the process by which these outcomes are reached.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Management 101
For the last decade I have taught high school students government and economics. The previous thirty years were spent in service with the Central Intelligence Agency, holding a number of managerial assignments of steadily increasing importance. As Director for the CIA’s Office of Training and Education I administered the design and delivery of a wide range of managerial training.
In both careers I was responsible for subordinate productivity – adults in my previous life and students in my current one. Getting workers to perform well is one tough assignment. Boosting worker productivity has been the subject of countless books, business school classes, and professional seminars. Analogously, studies abound on the best way to improve student performance.
To my way of thinking, there are but a few core principles for enhancing worker productivity:
• Keep the supervisor-worker ratio at manageable levels: the supervisor must be able to appreciate the nature of each worker’s contribution and to develop individualized strategies to boost the productivity of each of his subordinates.
• Provide material incentives: the supervisor has to have the ability to match pay to performance. Pats on the back clearly help, but workers will slack off if hard work does not impact on weekly pay packets.
• Provide the supervisor with hiring and firing authorities: workers who fail to pull their load need to be replaced by those who will.
• Reward supervisors who boost worker productivity: promotions and bonuses should incentivize managerial best practices.
Having worked as a supervisor for over twenty-five years, I can attest to the importance of these tools, and to the difficulties of motivating subordinates when they are not in place.
Educational institutions are in the business of equipping young men and women with the various skill sets required to be productive employees in an increasingly demanding work environment. Classroom teachers effectively serve as first line supervisors. In recent years, these supervisors have come under increasing scrutiny -from politicians and educators alike- for the manifest failings in documented student performance. Most of the criticism has been heaped on the training and motivation of the individual teacher. Everyone seems to be seeking ways of cloning super-teachers.
Applying basic management principles to the educational environment may provide some insight in why it indeed may take a super-teacher to meet the current spate of student success criteria.
• Teachers are assigned two to three times the number of ‘workers’ to supervise as their counterparts in industry. Moreover, the ‘workers’ are adolescents or younger vice mature adults.
• Teachers have no say in the students assigned to them and no power to ‘fire’ those that were not willing to work. Teachers can’t even remove students from the classroom when they interfere with other students trying to do their jobs.
• Teachers are faced with meeting ever higher productivity targets – student test scores-- along with ever more time consuming performance measures that take time away from teaching the requisite skills.
• Teachers have no means to explicitly reward quality performance: students, they are told, had to be motivated by convincing them it was in their own best interest to maximize production. They could give productive students a shout-out or higher performance grade but nothing more.
• Teacher remuneration has nothing to do with their success in these endeavors: pay is based on education, training certifications, and longevity. Worse yet, productive teachers risked being saddled with a more challenging batch of students in the next cycle.
Any business would be hard pressed to succeed under these constraints. The situation becomes even more problematic when one factors in the uneven quality of educational administrators, often counterproductive parental involvement, and limited funds for improving the learning environment. Cloning super-teachers is oxymoronic: they are super teachers precisely because of their uniqueness. If education is to have its own Stakhanovite movement, it will first have to address the fundamental disconnects between today’s teaching environment and management best practices. At the end of the day, teachers lack both the tools and incentives provided to their business world counterparts when seeking to boost student achievement.
In both careers I was responsible for subordinate productivity – adults in my previous life and students in my current one. Getting workers to perform well is one tough assignment. Boosting worker productivity has been the subject of countless books, business school classes, and professional seminars. Analogously, studies abound on the best way to improve student performance.
To my way of thinking, there are but a few core principles for enhancing worker productivity:
• Keep the supervisor-worker ratio at manageable levels: the supervisor must be able to appreciate the nature of each worker’s contribution and to develop individualized strategies to boost the productivity of each of his subordinates.
• Provide material incentives: the supervisor has to have the ability to match pay to performance. Pats on the back clearly help, but workers will slack off if hard work does not impact on weekly pay packets.
• Provide the supervisor with hiring and firing authorities: workers who fail to pull their load need to be replaced by those who will.
• Reward supervisors who boost worker productivity: promotions and bonuses should incentivize managerial best practices.
Having worked as a supervisor for over twenty-five years, I can attest to the importance of these tools, and to the difficulties of motivating subordinates when they are not in place.
Educational institutions are in the business of equipping young men and women with the various skill sets required to be productive employees in an increasingly demanding work environment. Classroom teachers effectively serve as first line supervisors. In recent years, these supervisors have come under increasing scrutiny -from politicians and educators alike- for the manifest failings in documented student performance. Most of the criticism has been heaped on the training and motivation of the individual teacher. Everyone seems to be seeking ways of cloning super-teachers.
Applying basic management principles to the educational environment may provide some insight in why it indeed may take a super-teacher to meet the current spate of student success criteria.
• Teachers are assigned two to three times the number of ‘workers’ to supervise as their counterparts in industry. Moreover, the ‘workers’ are adolescents or younger vice mature adults.
• Teachers have no say in the students assigned to them and no power to ‘fire’ those that were not willing to work. Teachers can’t even remove students from the classroom when they interfere with other students trying to do their jobs.
• Teachers are faced with meeting ever higher productivity targets – student test scores-- along with ever more time consuming performance measures that take time away from teaching the requisite skills.
• Teachers have no means to explicitly reward quality performance: students, they are told, had to be motivated by convincing them it was in their own best interest to maximize production. They could give productive students a shout-out or higher performance grade but nothing more.
• Teacher remuneration has nothing to do with their success in these endeavors: pay is based on education, training certifications, and longevity. Worse yet, productive teachers risked being saddled with a more challenging batch of students in the next cycle.
Any business would be hard pressed to succeed under these constraints. The situation becomes even more problematic when one factors in the uneven quality of educational administrators, often counterproductive parental involvement, and limited funds for improving the learning environment. Cloning super-teachers is oxymoronic: they are super teachers precisely because of their uniqueness. If education is to have its own Stakhanovite movement, it will first have to address the fundamental disconnects between today’s teaching environment and management best practices. At the end of the day, teachers lack both the tools and incentives provided to their business world counterparts when seeking to boost student achievement.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
His Pledge of Allegiance
Bill Ordway wasn't much to look at - a rather runty and pock-marked young man from a mill town trying to be the first in his family to obtain a college degree. Self-effacing, athletic, and popular, Bill easily adopted to our college's social and athletic environment. Rooming across the hall from one another, Bill and I became close friends during our freshmen year, pledging the same fraternity.
Things were less sanguine on the academic front. Bill lacked the academic discipline required to compensate for his relatively poor high school preparation. Nonetheless, he would have likely completed college excepting for his need to maintain the C+ average (when C was the average grade given) required to keep his scholarship. Failing to do so, Bill left school in February 1966.
Dropping out of college in 1966 held severe ramifications for a young man. The war in Vietnam was ramping up, and many would mirror Bill's decision to volunteer for the Army's Officer Candidate School in lieu of the certainty of being drafted. Ordway was not in favor of the war but, like many of his peers, respected the allegiance he felt towards the United States government.
Bill was the first fraternity brother to serve in Vietnam. As an Infantry lieutenant operating in a highly contested region, he was constantly in and out of combat. His letters, albeit infrequent, described his wartime experiences in a detailed, matter of fact manner. Fraternity brothers would pause by the bulletin board outside the kitchen to read about his exploits, learning for the first time about spider-holes, ambushes, and booby-traps. I remember clearly the letter he wrote to me describing being in combat for over one straight month just prior to Christmas 1967.
His death in the field -a bouncing-Betty mine severed his neck- during the furious combat that followed the Vietnamese Tet Offensive, seemed surreal to all of us. We attended the wake, the service, and the military burial in the small central-Massachusetts cemetery in a state of denial: none of us wanted to face up the harsh realities of this war which threatened to become intensely personal for many who would graduate in the coming spring.
Bill Ordway died in the worst kind of war. Unlike WWII that proceeded and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed, the war in Vietnam was fought by men who didn't want to be there on behalf of an American citizenry that resented them for their allegiance to the United States government. There would be no free tickets to sporting events nor singling out for praise by their neighbors and peers upon their return from Vietnam. Their desperate need for some sense of acknowledgement for their year of horror and sacrifice was often replaced by derision and scorn. In the best of circumstances they were simply ignored.
As a high school teacher I daily pledge my allegiance . During these moments I often think of Bill Ordway and the other Vietnam veterans who honored their school-day pledges regardless of their personal feelings. The Vietnam conflict may have ended some 35 years ago, but the sacrifices of men like Bill Ordway remain undiminished in the eyes of those who knew them.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Obama's Achilles Heel
Presidents come to the job with a kitbag of personal strengths and weakness that together determine, in part, their effectiveness on the job. President Obama stands high in many of the core characteristics of a successful President. He has a clear vision of what he wants to do, a moral compass that guides his actions, is a strategic thinker who listens to various sides of an argument, and is not subject to emotional distractions. So far so good, you may say. But this President has shown to have an Achilles Heel as well, one which precludes his ability to leverage his strengths to lead America through these troubled times.
During the presidential campaign, Sarah Palin made the observation that she had more leadership experience as a town mayor than Obama would have ever gained as a community organizer. The observation seemed politically self-serving at the time; in retrospect she may have been on to something big.
In his seminal text, Presidential Power, Richard E. Neustadt addresses the means by which the chief executive can put his stamp on public policy in the readily stalemated American political system. To do so the President has to assertively use the powers of his office to build and maintain public support, and to hone a reputation among fellow policymakers as a skilled, determined political operator.
No one doubted Lyndon Johnson’s ability to close the deal, and Ronald Reagan’s ability to mold public opinion was second to none. George W. Bush, despite his poor public speaking skills, marshaled broad public and legislative support for a pre-emptive strike in Iraq.
In contrast, President Obama has allowed the right to define the public agenda time and time again. Rather than build on his considerable accomplishments to instill American confidence in his leadership, he has sat quietly on the sidelines as the airwaves are pummeled with stories over federal death panels, the rising threat of illegal immigration, European socialism and the like. Instead of driving home the impact of his stimulus program on limiting job losses, he has allowed the program to be characterized as a failure and eroded requisite public and political support for further economic injections. In his dealings with Congress he has alienated many Democratic supporters, making more difficult the job of the House and Senate leadership to move legislation.
To be sure, the President will take to road to build up political support over the coming months but it will likely be viewed as the very politicking that he promised to rise above when running for office. Cool and poised to a fault, and uncomfortable in the often bruising political ring, President Obama has failed to live up the promise of leadership that engaged so many voters.
Winning the White House without even a plurality of voter support, George Bush was quick to speak about and act on his ‘mandate’ for change. President Obama, elected to office by a significant voter majority, seems to lack the will to lead and fight for the principles that propelled him into office. His popularity has plummeted along with prospects for maintaining a Democratic legislative majority. Whether he has the fight in him to preserve is problematical.
The Great Tax Debate
Pundits and cable networks will soon focus on Congressional deliberations regarding income taxes, specifically what should or should not be done to the tax cuts - put into place by President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress in 2001-2003- that are set to expire at the end of this year. Since there will be substantial political spin from both sides, a common understanding of the tax and income distribution situations might be in order - a citizen’s tax playbook if you will.
By way of background, US budget deficits rose substantially under Presidents Reagan and Herbert W. Bush as a result of substantial tax cuts and increased military spending. Subsequent tax increases to contain and then reduce the deficit- the first by President Bush at the end of his term and second under President Clinton- did the job. Higher tax rates, and more importantly, a growing economy operating at full employment, ultimately resulted in budget surpluses beginning in 1998 and rising to $230 billion in 2000. Presidential candidate George W. Bush campaigned, in part, on his pledge to bring the budget back into balance by reducing tax burdens.
The Bush tax cuts, when they came, were re-packaged as a response to the mini-recession of 2001. Although there were cuts for everyone, the lion’s share of the cuts went to upper-upper class Americans, the top 1% of Americans who were most likely to invest heavily in U.S. Corporations. Income taxes paid on corporate dividends were slashed from 28% to 15%: long term capital gains taxes - paid on earnings from the sale of stock were reduced significantly. Simply put, stockholders paid lower taxes on the dividends they received from corporations and on any stocks they sold for a profit. Economists and politicians debate the economic impact of the tax cuts, but none deny the shift in the distribution of wealth that has occurred as a result. Currently, the disparity in wealth is greater than at any time since the late 19th century’s Gilded Age, the time of the robber barons such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt.
The impact is born out in actual tax data. According to most recent Congressional Budget analyses, the top 1% of Americans – those with an adjusted gross income of over $400,000 – receive almost 25% of the income earned by all Americans (as opposed to 8.4% in 1980). To put this in perspective, envision being one of one-hundred people gathered to share the proceeds of a $100,000 lottery winning. One individual, say the individual who bought the ticket on behalf of the group, steps forward and takes $25,000 for himself leaving the other ninety-nine to split up the remaining $75,000.
The actual disparity is likely far greater. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals.
The upper-upper class pays more taxes, to be sure, but less so than in the past. The top 1% of American taxpayers faced an average tax rate of 22.5% in 2007(as opposed to 34.5% in 1980 and 27.5% in 2001). By way of comparison, those Americans earning between $66,000 and $113,000 saw their average tax burden fall by only one percentage point since 2002, to 9.43%. Bottom line: the very rich have substantially out-earned the rest of us over the last decade, while enjoying proportionally greater benefits from Federal tax reductions.
There is no single answer for the ‘proper’ distribution of wealth among American citizens. Each of us has a right to our own opinion regarding what is fair or unfair. Many decry the million dollar bonuses paid to corporate leaders and bankers and hold the President accountable for allowing these payouts. These same people subsequently defend the need to limit the tax burden on the very rich in order to avoid stifling risk-taking and creativity. Most experts, in contrast, are of the opinion that the best way to stimulate long-term investment is to reduce annual deficits and thus upward pressure on interest rates.
In the early 1990s the Republicans artfully used Congressional rules to craft a $1.3 trillion tax cut -well in excess of the amount that would bring the Federal budget into balance. Attaching a ten-year sunset provision allowed Republicans to pass a bill that without having to justify the likelihood of substantial future budget deficits: taking the route of budget reconciliation – the same route that was decried by Republicans when suggested by the Democrats as a means to pass health care-- avoided the possibility of a Democratic filibuster. Now these cuts are up for renewal. The sunshine provision means that -if Congress does nothing- the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded. As you follow the debate, be careful not to lose sight of the bigger picture: who were the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts and what is fair treatment for the very rich given how far they have advanced in recent years.
By way of background, US budget deficits rose substantially under Presidents Reagan and Herbert W. Bush as a result of substantial tax cuts and increased military spending. Subsequent tax increases to contain and then reduce the deficit- the first by President Bush at the end of his term and second under President Clinton- did the job. Higher tax rates, and more importantly, a growing economy operating at full employment, ultimately resulted in budget surpluses beginning in 1998 and rising to $230 billion in 2000. Presidential candidate George W. Bush campaigned, in part, on his pledge to bring the budget back into balance by reducing tax burdens.
The Bush tax cuts, when they came, were re-packaged as a response to the mini-recession of 2001. Although there were cuts for everyone, the lion’s share of the cuts went to upper-upper class Americans, the top 1% of Americans who were most likely to invest heavily in U.S. Corporations. Income taxes paid on corporate dividends were slashed from 28% to 15%: long term capital gains taxes - paid on earnings from the sale of stock were reduced significantly. Simply put, stockholders paid lower taxes on the dividends they received from corporations and on any stocks they sold for a profit. Economists and politicians debate the economic impact of the tax cuts, but none deny the shift in the distribution of wealth that has occurred as a result. Currently, the disparity in wealth is greater than at any time since the late 19th century’s Gilded Age, the time of the robber barons such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt.
The impact is born out in actual tax data. According to most recent Congressional Budget analyses, the top 1% of Americans – those with an adjusted gross income of over $400,000 – receive almost 25% of the income earned by all Americans (as opposed to 8.4% in 1980). To put this in perspective, envision being one of one-hundred people gathered to share the proceeds of a $100,000 lottery winning. One individual, say the individual who bought the ticket on behalf of the group, steps forward and takes $25,000 for himself leaving the other ninety-nine to split up the remaining $75,000.
The actual disparity is likely far greater. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals.
The upper-upper class pays more taxes, to be sure, but less so than in the past. The top 1% of American taxpayers faced an average tax rate of 22.5% in 2007(as opposed to 34.5% in 1980 and 27.5% in 2001). By way of comparison, those Americans earning between $66,000 and $113,000 saw their average tax burden fall by only one percentage point since 2002, to 9.43%. Bottom line: the very rich have substantially out-earned the rest of us over the last decade, while enjoying proportionally greater benefits from Federal tax reductions.
There is no single answer for the ‘proper’ distribution of wealth among American citizens. Each of us has a right to our own opinion regarding what is fair or unfair. Many decry the million dollar bonuses paid to corporate leaders and bankers and hold the President accountable for allowing these payouts. These same people subsequently defend the need to limit the tax burden on the very rich in order to avoid stifling risk-taking and creativity. Most experts, in contrast, are of the opinion that the best way to stimulate long-term investment is to reduce annual deficits and thus upward pressure on interest rates.
In the early 1990s the Republicans artfully used Congressional rules to craft a $1.3 trillion tax cut -well in excess of the amount that would bring the Federal budget into balance. Attaching a ten-year sunset provision allowed Republicans to pass a bill that without having to justify the likelihood of substantial future budget deficits: taking the route of budget reconciliation – the same route that was decried by Republicans when suggested by the Democrats as a means to pass health care-- avoided the possibility of a Democratic filibuster. Now these cuts are up for renewal. The sunshine provision means that -if Congress does nothing- the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded. As you follow the debate, be careful not to lose sight of the bigger picture: who were the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts and what is fair treatment for the very rich given how far they have advanced in recent years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)