Follow the below link to gain access to the onilne version of Saratoga Today for Feb 2 - 17, 2012. Read Michele Madigan's Letter to the Editor commentary on page 7.
The simplest, most direct presentation on the US debt increase that I have seen. Everyone should see the graph at the very bottom and relate it to the chronology outlined below.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, "Deficits don't matter."
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives -- including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act -- which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation's AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage -- a move without precedent in American history -- until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility
The Wrong Inequality
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 31, 2011
Click here to read the article on nytimes.com
We live in a polarizing society, so perhaps it’s inevitable that our experience of inequality should be polarized, too.
In the first place, there is what you might call Blue Inequality. This is the kind experienced in New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston and the District of Columbia. In these places, you see the top 1 percent of earners zooming upward, amassing more income and wealth. The economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole and Bradley Heim have done the most authoritative research on who these top 1 percenters are.
Roughly 31 percent started or manage nonfinancial businesses. About 16 percent are doctors, 14 percent are in finance, 8 percent are lawyers, 5 percent are engineers and about 2 percent are in sports, entertainment or the media.
If you live in or around these big cities, you see stores and entire neighborhoods catering to the top 1 percent. You see a shift in social norms. Up until 1970 or so, a chief executive would have been embarrassed to take home more than $20 million. But now there is no shame, and top compensation zooms upward.
You also see the superstar effect that economists have noticed in the income data. Within each profession, the top performers are now paid much better than the merely good or average performers.
If you live in these big cities, you see people similar to yourself, who may have gone to the same college, who are earning much more while benefiting from low tax rates, wielding disproportionate political power, gaining in prestige and contributing seemingly little to the social good. That is the experience of Blue Inequality.
Then there is what you might call Red Inequality. This is the kind experienced in Scranton, Des Moines, Naperville, Macon, Fresno, and almost everywhere else. In these places, the crucial inequality is not between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. It’s between those with a college degree and those without. Over the past several decades, the economic benefits of education have steadily risen. In 1979, the average college graduate made 38 percent more than the average high school graduate, according to the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. Now the average college graduate makes more than 75 percent more.
Moreover, college graduates have become good at passing down advantages to their children. If you are born with parents who are college graduates, your odds of getting through college are excellent. If you are born to high school grads, your odds are terrible.
In fact, the income differentials understate the chasm between college and high school grads. In the 1970s, high school and college grads had very similar family structures. Today, college grads are much more likely to get married, they are much less likely to get divorced and they are much, much less likely to have a child out of wedlock.
Today, college grads are much less likely to smoke than high school grads, they are less likely to be obese, they are more likely to be active in their communities, they have much more social trust, they speak many more words to their children at home.
Some research suggests that college grads have much bigger friendship networks than high school grads. The social divide is even starker than the income divide.
These two forms of inequality exist in modern America. They are related but different. Over the past few months, attention has shifted almost exclusively to Blue Inequality.
That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident. That’s because the liberal arts majors like to express their disdain for the shallow business and finance majors who make all the money. That’s because it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. That’s because many people are wedded to the notion that our problems are caused by an oppressive privileged class that perpetually keeps its boot stomped on the neck of the common man.
But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.
If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 1, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: The Wrong Inequality.
November 2, 2011 at 6:01 am by TU Editorial Board
The full story can be read here!
Our opinion: In Saratoga Springs, we believe Brent Wilkes has the right combination of a broad view and commitment to open government.
Saratoga Springs voters have an enviable choice between a mayor who has performed competently in trying times and a credible challenger who says he would foster a more open, forward-looking government.
We endorse Democrat Brent Wilkes, who we believe would best engage the community as it meets new challenges.
Republican Mayor Scott Johnson has done a solid job since he took office in 2008 and was re-elected in 2009, when he got this newspaper's endorsement. He helped the city weather a recession and state aid cuts. He reined in health insurance costs and took other steps, sometimes in the face of union resistance, to save money. City government is more civil these days, he says.
Where we find fault with Mr. Johnson is largely with a style that shuts at least some Saratogians out of city governance.
Mr. Johnson's style reveals itself in his ongoing court battle with Saratoga Citizen, a group that seeks a public vote on changing the city's charter and commission form of government. Under the charter change, the city would keep its mayor and four commissioners, but it would replace the commissioners' full-time deputies with a city manager.
Mr. Johnson has challenged a petition signed by some 2,100 residents calling for a vote. He argued that Saratoga Citizen failed to submit a cost analysis for the change. The petition was upheld in court, but Mr. Johnson has appealed.
The issue is really about who should decide what form of government should serve citizens - one they choose, or one that a particular elected official may prefer. Mr. Johnson won't say what form he would like best, but he is effectively imposing a choice by refusing to let the public decide. His stated desire for a cost analysis isn't without merit, but it doesn't trump the much larger issue - that citizens choose their government and their leaders.
Of the two, Mr. Wilkes also seems to have the larger view. Mr. Johnson, for example, wants to deal with a growing population on the city's east side by building an emergency medical services outpost on public land that's also targeted for a waterfront park. It may be an economical solution, but it may also be, at best, a short-term one.
Mr. Wilkes says a more centrally located facility might be smarter in the long run, and avoid the need to spend money twice.
Mr. Wilkes also has his eye on other key issues, including the affordability of housing, not just for the affluent but for the city's service population. And, importantly, he makes opening government and engaging the populace central themes of his campaign.
Admittedly, Mr. Wilkes lacks elective experience. But he has worked with governments, as an adviser to former Mass. Gov. Michael Dukakis; as chief operating officer of Gloucester, Mass.; and, most recently, as a management consultant to hundreds of communities in the Northeast.
When it comes to the issues facing Saratoga Springs, Mr. Johnson clearly sees the trees. But as it deals with growth, a continuing influx of new residents and the natural tension between the old and the new, Saratoga Springs would be best served by a mayor who sees the forest, too. Mr. Wilkes would be the better guide.</div>
Times Union Endorses Brent Wilkes for Mayor of Saratoga Springs!
The United States Congressional Budget Office has issued a report which analyzes the distribution of income from 1979 through 2007.
The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan research arm of the U.S. Congress serving both the House and the Senate.
Click the below link to read the full report.
Click this link to go to the CBO's website to read the report.
Click this link to download a PDF summary of the report.
Click this link to download a PDF full version of the report.
TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007
After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
Shifts in the distribution of market income underlie most of the changes in the distribution of after-tax income. (Market income—or income before taxes and transfers—includes labor income, business income, capital income, capital gains, and income from other sources such as pensions.)
Government transfers and federal taxes both help to even out the income distribution. Transfers boost income the most for lower-income households, while taxes claim a larger share of income as people's income rises.
In 2007, federal taxes and transfers reduced the dispersion of income by 20 percent, but that equalizing effect was larger in 1979.
From The Saratogian, click here to read the story at www.saratogian.com
Published: Thursday, September 29, 2011
SARATOGA SPRINGS — As the race for finance commissioner heats up, candidate Michele Madigan has released a statement criticizing incumbent Kenneth Ivins’ vote at the Sept. 20 City Council meeting to change some positions in the Public Works Department.
The council — with the exception of Commissioner of Accounts John Franck — voted to approve changing a part-time position to full-time, increasing another position’s pay and the creation a third position of “reservation coordinator” for city properties that can be rented by the public.
Madigan questioned the timing of the decision.
“It is incomprehensible that Mr. Ivins would vote to increase city expenditures two weeks before the release of the 2012 city budget,” Madigan’s statement said. “Budget hearings are scheduled to take place shortly after the release of the city budget, and this is the appropriate time to discuss these new positions and salaries.”
However, Ivins pointed out only one position was created and added he is still in negotiations with Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco about the funding of the new position.
“Just because I voted to create the positions does not mean I voted to fund the positions,” Ivins said. “Mr. Scirocco made a good argument for creating the position (of reservation coordinator),” adding that he has been meeting with the commissioners this week, going over requests for each department and “crunching the numbers.”
The comprehensive budget is due out at the Oct. 4 City Council meeting, and Ivins said it will be done just under the wire. He said there is no guarantee the new position would be included in it.
In the statement, Madigan also called for public budget hearings in different neighborhoods throughout the city “to increase citizen participation and so voters have a better understanding of what the city does with their tax dollars,” she said, challenging Ivins to hold them.
“I’m always open to talking to the public,” Ivins said, adding he has been going door to door talking to voters about the budget. “It’s campaign season; I always go door-to-door. One of the biggest issues on people’s minds is keeping taxes down.”
Click here to read the full article at the timesunion.com!
Full excerpt from the Times Union below:
As Council acts on 2012 budget, political lines in the sand are being drawn
By DENNIS YUSKO Staff writer
Published 12:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 27, 2011
SARATOGA SPRINGS -- The city's 2012 Comprehensive Budget doesn't come out until next week, but the political arrows are already flying.
The City Council last week voted 4-1 to create line items for one new city job and to change the salaries of three others.
The vote would allow Public Works Commissioner Anthony Scirocco to hire a reservation coordinator to schedule weddings and events at the Canfield Casino and other city venues, upgrade the job of engineering technician to full-time from part-time and increase the duties and salary of a senior engineering technician.
The new casino job would pay $20.39 an hour plus benefits. The part-time engineering technician's hours would increase to 40 from 20 and his hourly salary to $19 from $11, and the senior technician's annual pay would increase by 14 percent to $64,000, Finance Commissioner Kenneth Ivins said Monday.
The council also approved a request from Mayor Scott Johnson to change the senior building inspector title to zoning and building inspector. That job would pay $65,000 to $75,000.
The changes approved by the council's Republicans were opposed by its sole Democrat, Accounts Commissioner John Franck, who objected to the timing of the requests. Ivins is due to release his budget Tuesday, Oct. 4. Franck said he felt uncomfortable voting for the expenditures "when I don't know if we are laying off firemen and policemen."
Scirocco and Franck are the only members of the City Council not facing re-election in November. Ivins' Democratic opponent, Michele Madigan, released a statement late last week that criticized Ivins for his vote.
"It is incomprehensible that Mr. Ivins would vote to increase city expenditures two weeks before the release of the 2012 city budget," Madigan said. "Budget hearings are scheduled to take place shortly after the release of the city budget, and this is the appropriate time to discuss these positions and salaries."
Ivins responded Monday by saying that while he voted to create a line item, he would decide this week if he would fund the casino planner position in the 2012 budget. "I'm not fully convinced at this time," Ivins said. The mayor could fill the zoning and building inspector job as soon as he finds a worthy candidate, Ivins said.
The casino planner would promote the city and raise revenues, Scirocco has said. The senior technician would take on added duties in reducing the city's energy costs.
A city auditor reported last week that the city has an unappropriated surplus fund of $4.2 million.
Reach Dennis Yusko at 454-5353 or dyusko@timesunion.com.
©2010 - 2011, Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, The Democratic Voice for the City of Saratoga Springs, NY.
PO Box 124, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, 518-587-9409. All rights reserved.
With gratitude to Hilary McLellan (1950-2009), our good friend and first webmaster.
Share Article