Molly Ivins; another nightmare for conservatives.
g. nelson (colleen@aa.net)
Tue, 26 May 1998 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
One of my favorite commentators on the political scene is Molly Ivins.
She is 6 feet tall, has red hair and was born and raised in Texas. She is
manages to be very funny about things that I am only beginning to learn to
laugh about. Hope that (most of) you enjoy.
Gwen
http://www.texasobserver.org/
By MOLLY IVINS
Creators Syndicate Inc.
AUSTIN -- A recent cartoon shows President Clinton bragging on the 8
million jobs that have been created since he came into office. A
waiter standing nearby with a tray full of glasses is thinking, "Yeah,
and I'm holding down three of them."
It is the genius of cartoonists to take headlines like "Worker
Earnings Post Rise of 2.7 Percent, Lowest on Record: Wages Stagnant in
Latest Year Even as Economy Expanded" and make them comprehensible to
us all. As the headlines keep telling us, the economy is roaring along
-- a 4.2 percent growth rate in the last quarter. But most of us are
worse off than we were 20 years ago. The proportion of workers holding
two jobs to make ends meet is higher than it has been in 50 years. We
live a great nation, n'est-ce pas?
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan kept telling us that we had to increase
productivity, productivity was the key, we had to be as productive as
the Japanese. So we were right-sized, downsized, streamlined and plain
old laid off to a fare-thee-well. And by George, productivity just
shot up there; we are just producin' fools these days. And most of us
are still worse off than we were 20 years ago.
Our canny corporate leaders have shifted to day laborers and "temps"
("permanent temp" is a phrase that managers can now say without a
glimmer of a smile) so they won't have to pay for health insurance or
retirement benefits. Even full-time employees are now having to pay a
larger share of such benefits.
So who's gettin' the dough? Executives and stockholders, stockholders
and executives.
The Progressive Caucus in Congress went through the Republican budget
and found $122.5 billion in new tax breaks for CEOs and others with
incomes of more than $100,000 a year. That works out to 4,224 times
what all minimum-wage workers would receive if they all got a
$1-an-hour increase for each of the next seven years. The problem of
stagnant wages, especially at the lower end of the wage scale, is
critical; men without college degrees have had their wages drop by 12
percent in 15 years.
But the Republican budget will aggravate this very problem. By sharply
cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Republican budget
effectively raises taxes for low-income workers. And, of course, the
Republican Congress will not even consider increasing the minimum
wage.
In early October, 101 distinguished economists, including three Nobel
Prize winners and seven past presidents of the American Economics
Association, signed a statement asking Congress to increase the
minimum wage. They noted that the minimum wage, adjusted for
inflation, is at its second-lowest level since 1955, and its
purchasing power is 26 percent less than it was on average during the
1970s.
The cautious economists emphasized that the old argument that raising
the minimum wage makes jobs disappear is not borne out by the facts.
"On balance, the evidence from recent economic studies ... suggests
the employment effects were negligible or small."
Nor do economists fear that wage increases will touch off inflation.
In fact, most of them are puzzled as to why increased corporate
profits and greater productivity have not already been reflected in
higher wages. Executives and stockholders, stockholders and
executives.
Meanwhile, with corporate profits already at a 40-year high, the
Republicans continue to offer more tax breaks to corporations.
According to the Progressive Caucus, repeal of the alternative minimum
tax on corporations will cost the treasury $25.2 billion, which
happens to match the $23.3 billion tax increase on working families
earning less than $28,000 a year from cuts in the EITC.
The $14 billion tax loophole granted by Republicans to highly
profitable mutual insurance companies would restore food stamps and
nutrition assistance for 7 million children. But hey, the Republicans
are determined to balance the budget, and who needs that $14 billion
more -- hungry children or mutual insurance companies already making
high profits?
I'm always pleased to hear Republicans carry on about moral decline in
this country. Bill Bennett, one of my favorite Public Scolds, is now
on a crusade to elevate the tenor of TV talk shows -- a worthy
endeavor. Boy, that's getting right to the heart of what's wrong with
this country.
It used to be, in the Texas Legislature, we could occasionally get our
right-wingers to vote for some social program by carefully showing
them how it would save money in the long run -- prenatal nutrition
programs, well baby and infant care and so on. Maybe the new key to
getting Republicans to act in the public interest is show them that
moral decline will result from certain policies.
I can pretty much guarantee that taking $23 billion a year away from
families making less than $28,000 will result in their moral decline,
especially when the money goes to eliminate that tax on wealthy
corporations. You see, people will notice what kind of behavior gets
rewarded in this system, and they too will take up greed, disloyalty,
irresponsibility and gouging their fellow man without a twinge of
guilt. Get Bill Bennett on the phone -- quick!
_________________________________________________________________