This page was last updated on July 18, 2011.
Tell Rep. Altmire Hands Off Social Security & Medicare Noon Wed. July 20th; Randy Shannon; Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th CD Chapter; July 17, 2011.
If you’re familiar with the positions taken by Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th CD Chapter, you won’t be surprised to learn at least three members of Beaver County Reds are communists, whether they still refer to themselves that way or not. BCR leadership consists of Tina Shannon (chairperson), Randy Shannon (treasurer), Robert Schmetzer (vice president), Peter Deutsch (secretary), and Carl Davidson (webmaster and perhaps unofficial leader), a self-described Marxist who once “tr[ied] to create a new communist party.” They also appear to be the leaders of Beaver County Peace Links and some or all are involved with the Marcellus Shale Organizing Committee of Beaver County (MSOCBC) and Can We Afford It? (CWAI). Of this group, one was a leader of the now-defunct Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) and, according to KeyWiki, two are (or at least were in 1993) members of the Communist Party USA. The Shannons were also leaders of the apparently-defunct Beaver County Coalition for Social Justice. In the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) [originally a splinter group of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)], Mr. Davidson is a co-chair and the Shannons are members of the CCDS national coordinating committee. Robert Schmetzer is Democrat party local town chair for South Heights.
“The 4th CD chapter of Progressive Democrats of America is holding a noon vigil at Congressman Altmire’s office at 2110 McLean St., Aliquippa on Wednesday July 20th to demand he back off threats to cut Social Security and Medicare.
“The vigil is one of over 100 PDA actions at Congressional offices across the country. PDA is also sponsoring a national call-in day on Wednesday to demand hands off Social Security and Medicare.”
[RWC] Because this posting mostly repeats stuff from previous BCR posts by Mr. Shannon, please read my critiques of “THERE IS NO DEFICIT!!!” and “Top 5 Social Security Myths” for most of my comments.
Regarding “THERE IS NO DEFICIT!!!,” Carl Davidson (See above.) explained, “‘No deficit’ simply means the tax system is broken. There’s plenty of potential revenue out there to correct imbalances with progressive change in the tax laws and their enforcement.” In other words, “THERE IS NO DEFICIT!!!” because there’s income or other property either not taxed or not taxed at a sufficiently high rate.
Since the subject “vigil” doesn’t appear to meet any of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions, I believe “vigil” is leftyspeak for “demonstration,” “protest,” et cetera.
“Social Security and Medicare are paid up national insurance programs and do not contribute a dime to the deficit. These programs actually reduce the deficit by transferring money into the hands of people who will spend it.”
[RWC] Please read my critique of “Wasted effort” for most of my comments about the first sentence. As noted in that critique, “SS went into deficit (benefits paid exceed SS taxes collected) in 2010.” Since the feds long ago spent the difference between SS taxes collected and SS benefits paid, the feds now must borrow to pay current SS benefits. The same is true for Medicare HI.
Since both Medicare and SS require the feds to take on debt to pay benefits, I’m at a loss to understand how “[t]hese programs actually reduce the deficit by transferring money into the hands of people who will spend it.”
“The only solution to the deficit is fair taxation of wealthy individuals and corporations and a full employment program that puts people to work.”
[RWC] When leftists use the term “fair,” it usually means special treatment – either good or bad – for some target group. That’s the case here.
Mr. Shannon didn’t define “wealthy individuals,” but if he’s using President Obama’s definition of “millionaires and billionaires,” Mr. Shannon means people earning $200,000/yr and above for single federal income tax filers and $250,000/yr and above for joint returns.
Quoting the Tax Foundation, “Despite the charges of critics that the tax [rate] cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the ‘rich,’ these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.” The TF further stated, “7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts.” Based on 2008 income tax data, the top 1% (AGI greater than $380,000) of filers paid 38% of the total and the top 5% (AGI greater than $160,000) paid 59%. The bottom 50% (AGI less than $33,000) paid less than 2.6% of the total. Based on the facts, it would be interesting to learn Mr. Shannon’s idea of “fair taxation of wealthy individuals.”
Eventually we had record tax revenue from the tax RATE cuts. Before the current economic mess began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession), the deficit was down to $161 billion. This fiscal year’s projected federal deficit is about $1.4 trillion, nearly nine times that of 2007. Once again, tax revenue isn’t the problem, spending is.
I believe Mr. Shannon uses “corporation” as a synonym for “business,” though it’s possible he believes partnerships and proprietorships are taxed sufficiently. As for “fair taxation of … corporations,” I oppose so-called “business taxes” for at least two reasons. First, corporation income taxes are double taxation. That is, the government taxes a corporation’s taxable income and then taxes the dividends (after-tax profits) shareholders [including pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s] receive. Second, business taxes are a scheme to hide true taxation from the ultimate taxpayers, you and me. In some cases, businesses are prohibited by law from itemizing taxes on their invoices. You see, businesses - like government - don’t have any money; it all belongs to the owner(s). One way or another, business taxes are paid by individuals - customers, employees, and owners. According to the Tax Foundation, the average U.S. taxpayer worked eight days in 2002 to pay federal income taxes levied on corporations. In addition, we worked a fraction of a day to pay other business taxes. Business taxes are approximately seven percent of our total personal tax burden. That is, seven out of 100 tax dollars we pay are business taxes. Unfortunately, a lot of people like Mr. Shannon don’t know this fact or choose to ignore it. As for “wealthy individuals,” it would be interesting to learn Mr. Shannon’s idea of “fair taxation of … corporations.”
“Full employment” may not mean what you think. The obvious definition of full employment is 100% employment. That is, everyone who wants a job has one.
The other definition of full employment is something less than 100% employment. The reasoning behind this definition is economies need flexibility to handle whatever comes along. Think of a pair of blue jeans with an elastic waistband. This definition of full employment varies depending on circumstances and any claimed full employment level is at best an educated guess. That said, most people tend to go with five percent for the U.S. economy of the last several decades. The average unemployment rate for both 2006 and 2007 was 4.6%, and was as low as 4.3% during some of those months.
Based on his paper “Time to Fight for Full Employment” (HTML, PDF), Mr. Shannon appears to use the strict definition of “full employment” (Everyone who wants a job has one.). While true 100% employment sounds like a nice goal, here is why that’s not something we want. As an economy approaches 100% employment, businesses chase fewer and fewer potential employees with the required qualifications (scarce supply). The combination of high demand for - and scarce supply of - potential qualified employees drives up wages and benefits and thus drives up inflation. When the increased cost of employing Americans becomes too high, at least four things happen.
First, businesses will find ways to cut the manpower required to produce a good or service in order to remain competitive. Second, businesses will find ways to offshore manpower to countries with a lower labor cost. Third, businesses that don’t find ways to control labor costs will go under. Fourth, the resultant higher prices for goods and services result in less sales and decreased consumer buying power. Anyone care to guess which end of the income spectrum is hurt most by decreased buying power? In fairness, these things happen even when there’s less than full employment, but true 100% employment or anything close would accelerate the process because businesses would have no flexibility regarding the ability to hire/keep employees.
Finally, Mr. Shannon doesn’t tell us how increasing taxes “of wealthy individuals and corporations” results in “a full employment program that puts people to work.”
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.