From: Paul Krugman's Blog at the New York Time The Conscious of a Liberal

Infrastructure

From: Seeing the Forest Blog

By Dave Johnson

"So the owners of companies try to convince us that unions are bad. They form and fund "business groups" like the Chamber of Commerce, to fight to keep unions from having the right and power to organize their workers. We hear it repeated over and over in our corporate-dominated society, a drumbeat that labor unions are sinister, shady, harmful, corrupt, violent, “raise prices,” ”cost jobs,” and generally hurt the economy and country. We hear they force workers to pay dues (never mind that unionized workers pay the dues from higher pay and benefits.) We hear that "union bosses" tell workers what to do and "union thugs"make them do it. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. The owners of companies have a lot of money to spend on convincing the public to let them have free reign, and they know from selling products how to sell things to the public. Repetition, repetition and repetition. Marketing works."

This Labor Day weekend we can expect to hear even more of this. Business groups plan Labor Day blitz against Senate Dems, candidates,

Local chapters of groups like the National Federation of Independent Business, state Associated Builders and Contractors and other commerce and retail groups will hold events on Monday targeting the incumbents and candidates, particularly on their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or "card-check").

Go Read the Whole Post at Seeing the Forest Blog

From: The Huffington Post

By Les leopold

"The cause of the crash is no mystery. The Great Depression happened the same way: a skewed distribution of income combined with a deregulated financial sector created a big bubble, and it burst. The only way to break the cycle is to attack those fundamental causes -- we need to move money from the very top of the income ladder to the middle and the bottom, and we need to tie Wall Street up in regulatory knots.

Through steep progressive taxes on the super-wealthy, fair income taxes on hedge funds and transaction fees on Wall Street's proprietary trading, we can keep that bubble from reinflating -- and in the process raise the money we need to put America back to work. With the revenue we collect, we can hire millions of people to weatherize homes and buildings and rebuild our infrastructure. Instead of laying off teachers we can hire more, and provide them with better training and support. We can expand universities and colleges too, and allow people to go to college for free, which will improve our peoples' skills -- and keep young people off the unemployment rolls."

Of course all this would be costly in the short run. But progressive taxes on the super-rich and a windfall tax on Wall Street profits and bonuses would pay for it all, and then some. The American people would understand that it's only fair to require the super-rich (whom we just bailed out) to fund the jobs they helped destroy through their reckless financial gambling. And in the long run, investing in infrastructure and education will make our country richer. Just look at the GI Bill: Giving returning WWII vets a free college education was expensive -- but Congress later found that every dollar spent on the program yielded a return to our economy of $6.90."

Plus.....

It's time to say "the end" to the "We're all to blame" fairytale. Let's start a new story this Labor Day. It's called, "Put our people back to work."

Go Read the Whole Article at The Huffington Post

From Blue Oregon

On Measure 67, Steve Duin shows the media how it's done

Kari Chisholm

When critics of Measures 67 say that it caused or is causing Oregon businesses to flee across state lines, I have - along with many others - been imploring the media to insist: Show us the math.

The critics almost never even point to an actual business that's actually moving. When they do, they never provide the hard numbers. They just wave their arms wildly and expect us to believe that any tax increase at all is enough to drive folks into the waiting arms of Idaho, Nevada, Washington, or California. (And here, I'll offer another plug for the Is the Grass Greener? report that actually answered the question - are taxes on business higher or lower in Oregon than in other states?)

At the O, Steve Duin provides a welcome example of how to handle the critics. Insist on specifics. Insist on the math. In his column a week ago about the "Is the Grass Greener?" report, he engaged with critics in his comment thread - insisting on specifics:

Jimbob: Which company? For all I know, it made sense: This stuff is impacting every company differently. But I'd appreciate a few more details.

And again:

I'll repeat the request. Name a company that's left Oregon because of 66/67. And tell me where that company landed in search of a better deal.

There were, of course, no specific responses. Later, one of his commenters noted that the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter, has been saying that Oregon businesses have been fleeing there. So, Duin called Gov. Otter. Here's what he found...

From the New York Times

Tax Cuts That Make a Difference

By DAVID LEONHARDT

"The last 30 years offer some pretty good answers. For one thing, a permanent reduction in tax rates focused on the affluent — along the lines of those 2001 Bush tax cuts — does little to lift growth in the short term. An across-the-board, one-time cut — like the one that Mr. Bush signed in 2008 or that Mr. Obama signed last year — does more.

But the most effective tax cut for putting people back to work quickly is one that businesses and households get only if they spend money. Last year’s cash-for-clunkers program was an example. So was a recent bipartisan tax credit for businesses that hired workers who had been unemployed for months. Perhaps the broadest example is a temporary cut in the payroll tax for businesses, which reduces the cost of employing people."

Go Read the Whole article: Tax Cuts That Make a Difference

From: Blue Oregon

Hello insanity, thy name is corporate kicker

Carla Axtman

From the always interesting Oregon Economics blog, Professor Patrick Emerson provides this graph, courtesy of the New York Times Economix Blog:

State economist Tom Potiowsky describes corporate profits in Oregon as "booming", largely due to staff cuts and pay. Apparently all those incentives for businesses in Oregon are helping somebody, if not the rank and file Oregonian.

Tax revenue from corporations are up enough to possibly trigger the kicker to the tune of $40 million while at the same time facing a massive budget shortfall.

In the meantime, Oregon Republicans are hand-wringing about the lack of revenue while wanting no substantial discussion of ending the corporate kicker.

Comments are closed here. You should definitely comment over at Oregon Economics blog because this is really Professor Emerson's story, not mine.

From: Will Bunch's Attywood Blog

There's an interesting article from the New York Times tonight about the changing demographics of Orange County, long-known as the right-wing mecca that gave us Richard Nixon and John Wayne and was a hotbed of the John Birch Society. Here's the money paragraphs:

At the end of 2009, nearly 45 percent of the county’s residents spoke a language other than English at home, according to county officials. Whites now make up only 45 percent of the population; this county is teeming with Hispanics, as well as Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese families. Its percentage of foreign-born residents jumped to 30 percent in 2008 from 6 percent in 1970, and visits to some of its corners can feel like a trip to a foreign land.

The demographic changes that have swept the county reflect what is happening across the state and much of the nation. It has happened slowly but surely over the course of a generation, becoming increasingly apparent not only in a drive through the 34 cities that fill this sprawling 789-square-mile county south of Los Angeles, but also, most recently, in the results of a presidential election. In 2008, Barack Obama drew 48 percent of the vote here against Senator John McCain of Arizona. (By comparison, in 1980, Jimmy Carter received just 23 percent against Ronald Reagan, the conservative hero whose election as California governor in 1966 and 1970 was boosted in no small part by the affection for him here.)

Two things here really dovetail with the things we've been discussing. One is that this is a clear-cut indicator of one of the major sources of social anxiety for the white, middle-class, 50-and-over folks who are moving into the Tea Party movement. But the numbers also suggest that -- whatever hay the political right may be able to make in the 2010 elections -- in the long run that Tea Party movement may be doomed, unless the GOP shifts gears quickly and comes up with some kind of appeal to younger people and at least some non-whites.

RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilization

Check out the Following websites:

Review of Measure 73: Healthy Democracy Website Measure 73

Review of Measure 74: Healthy Democracy Website Measure 74