Tomgram: Nomi Prins, Welcome to Panem 2016 (Starring Donald Trump But Not
Katniss Everdeen)
By Nomi Prins
Posted on November 29, 2015, Printed on November 29, 2015
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176074/
Here is what's grimly fascinating in this year's dystopian carnival of a
Republican presidential primary. When it comes to what can be said in
America, all bets are off. These days, the concept of "beyond the pale"
couldn't look more wan. All of a sudden, there's nothing, no matter how
jingoistic or xenophobic, extreme or warlike that can't be expressed in
public and with pride by a Republican presidential candidate. You want
torture back in the American playbook? You've got it! Just elect Donald
Trump or Ben Carson -- and our future torturers don't even need to justify
its use in terms of getting crucial information from terror suspects.
Employing good old American-style enhanced interrogation techniques to
inflict pain on "them" is fine and dandy in itself.
When it comes to refugees from the grim war zones we had such a hand in
creating in the Greater Middle East, if you want the Statue of Liberty to
hold a "Christians only" sign, welcome to the worlds of Jeb Bush and Ted
Cruz. Should you prefer a registry for either Syrian refugees or American
Muslims and mosque closings aplenty, you've got it from Donald Trump (and
the closing of any facility "where radicals are being inspired" from Marco
Rubio) -- and no matter how much politically correct liberals may complain,
Trump's not walking either of those proposals back far. (Where, by the way,
are all those religious freedom types now that mosques are at stake? Can you
imagine the uproar in this country if Bernie Sanders were to call for the
shutting down of a few right-wing Christian churches?)
If you have the urge to compare Syrian Muslim refugees to "rabid dogs" and
thought you had to keep your mouth shut about it, step into the universe of
Ben Carson and speak out! Should you want to claim that, on September 11,
2001, crowds of thousands of Muslims cheered and tailgated in Jersey City,
just across the Hudson River from the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers,
and that it was all recorded on video that only Donald Trump and maybe Ben
Carson saw, then you're in just the right exceptional nation at just the
right moment. I could go on, but why bother?
In 2016 there is evidently no longer anything, no matter how extreme or
offensive, that Donald Trump and the rest of the crew can say to the
Republican base that will affect their popularity negatively. Quite the
opposite, such statements, along with the promise to be "tough" on the
Islamic State, are now the equivalent of popularity meters. In a country
where public opinion not so long ago seemed down on more boots-on-the-ground
interventions in the Greater Middle East, you can't threaten to send in too
many boots and planes these days. The attacks in Paris and threats of them
elsewhere are clearly God's gift to Republican extremity. And right now, Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi and his caliphate pals seem to control the electoral fate
of politicians in both the United States and Europe.
In the midst of this Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to election 2016, lest you think
that the category of extreme and perverse is confined to foreign policy, and
refugee or immigrant bashing, climb aboard TomDispatch's campaign tour bus
and let Nomi Prins, author of All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden
Alliances That Drive American Power, take you on a wild, Hunger-Games-themed
ride into the wilderness of Republican economic policy in the ongoing
campaign from hell. Tom
The American Hunger Games
The Six Top Republican Candidates Take Economic Policy Into the Wilderness
By Nomi Prins
Fact: too many Republican candidates are clogging the political scene.
Perhaps what's needed is an American Hunger Games to cut the field to size.
Each candidate could enter the wilderness with one weapon and one
undocumented worker and see who wins. Unlike in the fictional Hunger Games
for which contestants were plucked from 13 struggling, drab districts in the
dystopian country of Panem, in the GOP version, everyone already lives in
the Capitol. (Okay, Marco Rubio lives just outside it but is about to enter,
and Donald Trump like some gilded President Snow inhabits a universe all his
own with accommodations and ego to match.)
The six candidates chosen here (based on composite polling) have remarkably
similar, unoriginal, inequality-inducing, trickle-down economic
recommendations for the country: reduce taxes (mostly on those who don't
need it), "grow" the economy like a sprouting weed, balance the budget by
cutting as yet not-delineated social programs, overthrow Obama's health-care
legacy without breaking up the insurance companies, and (yawn)... well, you
get the idea. If these six contenders were indeed Hunger Games tributes,
their skills in the American political wilderness would run this way: Ben
Carson inspires confusion; Marco Rubio conveys exaggerated humility; Ted
Cruz exudes scorn; Jeb Bush can obliterate his personality at a whim; and
Carly Fiorina's sternness could slice granite. This leaves Donald Trump,
endowed with the ultimate skill: self-promotion. As a tribute, he claims to
believe that all our problems stem from China and Mexico, as well as Muslim
terrorists and refugees (more or less the same thing, of course), and at
present he's leading the Games.
When it comes to economic policy, it seems as if none of them will ever make
it out of the Capitol and into the actual world of American reality. Like
Hillary Clinton, blessed by Wall Street's apparently undying gratitude for
her 9/11 heroism, none of the Republican contestants have outlined a plan of
any sort to deal with, no less break the financial stronghold of the big
banks on our world or reduce disproportionate corporate power over the
economy, though in a crisis Cruz would "absolutely not" bail them out again.
Stumbling around in the wilderness, Carson at least offered a series of
disjointed, semi-incomprehensible financial suggestions during the last
Republican "debate," when asked why he wouldn't break banks up. "I don't
want to go in and tear anybody down," he said. "I mean that doesn't help us,
but what does help us is to stop tinkering around the edges and fix the
problem."
Rubio, already in top Hunger Games form, swears that it's recent regulations
(not legacy elite decisions) that did the dirty deed. "The government made
[the banks] big by adding thousands and thousands of pages of regulations,"
he said of Dodd-Frank legislation (which doesn't actually alter Wall Street
structurally in any way). In fact, in recent decades every major power grab
or consolidation in American business, from banks to energy companies,
resulted from bipartisan deregulation.
None of these big-money-backed candidates seem particularly concerned that
another economic crisis could ever cripple the country, or have evidently
even noticed that most Americans have yet to experience the present
"recovery." None seem to realize that when the Federal Reserve winds down
its cheap money policy and banks and companies are left to fend for
themselves, more economic hell could break loose in the style of the
2007-2008 meltdown. Jeb Bush recently summed up the general 2016 Republican
position on the economy in a single what-me-worry-style sentence: "We
shouldn't have another financial crisis." 'Nuff said.
In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney's chances dwindled after he
disparaged 47% of the country as so many leeches. Today's Hunger Gamers have
learned from his experience. Optics spell opportunity, so as a group they're
shuffling the usual Republican-brand tax cuts for corporations and the
wealthy in with selective recognition of the broader population and promises
to kill all loopholes in some future utopian tax bill. None of them, of
course, would consider raising the minimum wage to put more money in the
pockets of workers before tax-time hits. Even old Henry Ford knew the power
of wages when, early in the last century, he strengthened his car empire by
doubling the then-prevailing minimum wage for his workers to $5 a day --
enough for them not only to save up and buy his Model-Ts, but also boost
productivity.
The present set of Hunger Gamers could invoke Republican President Teddy
Roosevelt's trust-busting ire, or President Dwight D. Eisenhower's
willingness to fund vast national construction projects, or even (to reach
into the distant past) President Herbert Hoover's initial attempts to pass
what became, under Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 1933
Glass-Steagall Act that separated deposit-taking from speculation at banks.
But to be realistic, none of them belong to the Republican Party as it once
existed. They all live in an American Panem and so feel no compunctions
about promoting the idea that corporations contributing ever less to the
federal till would Make America Great Again.
Now, let's send those six candidates into that wilderness, weapons in hand,
one at a time, and while we're at it, examine their minor differences by
checking out their campaign websites to see what kind of games we can expect
in a coming Republican era of "good times."
Ben Carson
If you look through the index of Ben Carson's latest bestseller, A More
Perfect Union, you won't even find the words "economy," "banks," or "Wall
Street." Instead, his campaign slogan, "Heal, Inspire, Revive," could
headline a yoga retreat. His position as the Republican co-frontrunner or
runner-up (depending on which polls you look at) relies on his soft-spoken,
non-politician persona, not his vague economic ideas that flash by in a
chameleon-like fashion.
Yes, he was a brilliant neurosurgeon, but the tenacity and skills required
to become a gifted medical practitioner have not translated well into
presidential-style economic policies. To the extent that he has a policy at
all, it's a shopworn version of the twenty-first-century Republican usuals:
ratifying a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution "to restore fiscal
responsibility," introducing a flat tax, not raising the minimum wage, yada,
yada, yada. In a Washington Post op-ed last year, he recounted his mother's
days as a "domestic in the homes of wealthy people who were generous to her"
and would slip young Carson and his brother "significant monetary
incentives" in return for good grades. One even loaned him a luxury
convertible. With such employers -- and the incredibly rich are a well-known
generous bunch, at least when it comes to supporting Republican presidential
candidates (just 158 families have contributed more than half the money to
this election so far, mostly to Republicans) -- who needs a
government-declared minimum wage?
Regarding taxes, Carson considers the 74,000-page tax code "an abomination."
And who would argue otherwise? But like his various opponents, he's not
about to point out that it was largely crafted by the representatives of
mega-corporations, not Wal-Mart workers at meet-ups with senators. He's for
a flat tax of 10% with no exemptions for the poor, based on biblical
economics 101. Maybe people who don't produce bumper crops should just pray
for a better lot.
He would conveniently cut the official corporate tax rate from 35% (the
average effective tax rate is 27.9% but the biggest, brightest companies
don't even approach that amount) to between 15% and 20%, the definition of
corporate manna from heaven. He would also allow companies to bring their
foreign profits back to the U.S. completely tax-free if they would even...
pretty, pretty please... consider allocating 10% of them to "finance
enterprise zones" in major cities. And so it goes in Carsonland.
Best bet on his campaign website: A $25 bumper sticker that says
#IAMACHRISTIAN, proof that he's eager to channel his inner evangelical
Katniss.
Donald Trump
Trump actually brought up President Dwight Eisenhower recently, but only for
Operation Wetback, his grim Mexican immigrant deportation program. No
I-like-Ike mention was made of his funding of the interstate highway system
or the way he strengthened banking regulations.
The Donald lists five core positions on his site, including the two economic
pillars of his campaign: "U.S.-China trade reform" and "tax reform," both of
which would, of course, "make America great again." This may already sound a
bit repetitively familiar to you, but he wants to reduce the corporate tax
rate to 15% because it "would be 10 percentage points below China's and 20
points below our current burdensome rate that pushes companies and jobs
offshore." Given that our biggest companies already pay far less than that
"burdensome" rate, can there be any question that lowering it further would
produce more generous CEOs and slay dreaded China at the same time?
Like President Snow, Trump would start aggressively and only get more so,
economically speaking. He would "attack" the national debt and deficit by
eliminating government waste, fraud, and abuse, and "grow" the economy
xenophobically by doing in local Mexicans and distant Chinese, and all of
this cutting and slashing would, like a Chia Pet, make the economy sprout
even as tax revenues were savaged. Or, even if it isn't one of his five
core positions, he could pull a genuine Snow and get rid of
old-fashioned-style government, leaving Americans officially beholden to an
oligarch.
In another piece of (black) magic, his campaign website assures readers that
cutting the deficit and reducing our debt would also stop China from
"blackmail[ing] us with our own Treasury bonds." No matter that China
actually lent us money to run our government and bolster our financial
system, and that a thank-you note might be in order (on paper made in China,
of course).
When it comes to tax reform, Trump's "populist" program would remove 75
million households from the income tax rolls and provide them, so he claims,
with a simple one-page form to send the IRS, saying "I win." Though he
would cut the current seven tax brackets to four -- 0%, 10%, 20%, and 25% --
it's his 15% corporate tax rate that trumps the field. Rubio would only chop
it to 25%, Bush to 20%, Cruz to 16%, and Carson... who knows? Various
estimates suggest that Trump's plan would lead to a staggering federal
revenue loss (so lucky for us that, in a Trump presidency, the rich would
undoubtedly be so grateful that their generosity would soar beyond
imagining). The nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice computed the cost of
his plan at $12 trillion over 10 years. So don't expect any
Eisenhower-esque national building campaigns (other than that "beautiful"
wall on the Mexican border).
Best gimmick on his campaign website: A $15 Trump dog sweater modeled by the
saddest damn wiener dog ever. Perhaps its mother was a deported Chihuahua.
Marco Rubio
Rubio's slogan "a new American century" couldn't be grander, perhaps to
compensate for the lackluster version of economic policy at his campaign
website. It's certainly not the sort of thing you'd expect from someone
aspiring to be president of the world's largest economy. Despite that, rest
assured that he's had economics and success on his mind 24/7. After all,
Goldman Sachs is now his top contributor and his super PACs are on a run,
too, including the rap-inspired "Baby Got Pac" just launched by
multimillionaire John Jordan.
And in true Hunger Games fashion -- when the "odds" head in a tribute's
favor, the patrons and gifts begin rolling in -- Rubio just bagged
Republican mega-donor billionaire Frank VanderSloot. Mitt Romney's former
national finance co-chairman, VanderSloot joins a growing roster of Rubio
billionaires, including hedge-fund moguls Paul Singer and Cliff Asness.
"Marco Rubio is the brightest and most capable candidate," wrote VanderSloot
of his new political buddy. Of the others he and his brain trust considered,
he added, "Jeb simply does not have the leadership skills necessary to unite
the people behind him"; Carson lacks "the international knowledge or skill
set"; Cruz and Trump are "simply not electable in a general election" (no
billionaire-envy there); and Fiorina, his second choice, "simply isn't
resonating with the voters."
Rubio's tax plan, the "cornerstone" of his economic policy, would -- you
won't be surprised to learn -- reduce the number of tax brackets from seven
to three and eliminate taxes in ways particularly beneficial to the
billionaire (especially hedge-fund billionaire) class, including the estate
tax and taxes on capital gains and dividends. For the broad population,
Rubio includes family tax cuts. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy
Center, his plan would be a bargain compared to Trump's, costing federal
government coffers a mere $2.4 trillion or more in receipts over the next
decade. As a byproduct, his program is essentially guaranteed to spark a new
round of financial speculation, but don't for a second let the 2007-2008
meltdown cross your mind since, as every Republican knows, with a Marco
Rubio, Donald Trump, or Ben Carson in the Oval Office that can't happen.
Best gimmick on his campaign website: You can "fall into campaign season" by
ordering a "Marco Polo" made-in-the-USA shirt for $48 in patriotic red,
white, or blue naturally! For a mere $500 extra, you can personally have the
honor of buying Rubio a "plane ticket" (perhaps to meet and greet his next
billionaire).
Ted Cruz
The Cruz campaign website offers a hodge-podge of semi-incoherent economic
salesmanship. His tax plan, or what he likes to call (without the slightest
justification) the "next American revolution," promises to "reignite growth
in our economy." His "simple flat tax" (yep, another of those!) would
abolish the Internal Revenue Service as well. Personal income tax brackets
would go from seven to... count 'em!... one at a 10% rate across the board
and the corporate income tax would be replaced by a flat tax of 16%. And it
should be taken for granted that the American economy would soar into the
stratosphere!
Cruz's tax code would be so "simple with a capital-S" that it would make
Donald Trump's look complicated. A postcard or phone app would suffice for
individual and family filings. There would be no tax on profits earned
abroad and it almost goes without saying that Obamacare taxes would die a
strangulated death. Loopholes for businesses would apparently go, too.
Cruz claims his simple flat tax will elevate the gross domestic product,
increase wages by 12.2%, create nearly five million new jobs, and
undoubtedly fill the world with unicorns. It would also wipe out between
$768 billion and $3.6 trillion in federal tax receipts over 10 years.
Best gimmick on his campaign website: For $55 you can get a bad-boy poster
of Cruz sporting a Sons of Anarchy look (tattoos, cigarette in mouth, etc.)
captioned "Blacklisted and Loving It."
Jeb Bush
Jeb! has by far the sleekest web page. He and his donor entourage took the
"presidential concept" seriously with a look that seems to have been stolen
directly from "the Capitol" in the Hunger Games.
Its economic section excoriates the tax code for being "rigged with multiple
carve-outs for favored industries." He blasts Obama's economic policies for
leading to "low growth, crony capitalism, and easy debt." Yet, under Jeb's
governorship, Florida's debt escalated from $15 billion to more than $23
billion. After his term, the housing-bubble that had inflated the state's
coffers burst big time, and Florida's economy under-performed much of the
country during the financial crisis. While homeowners statewide went
underwater, he landed a multi-million dollar consultancy gig with...
gulp!... Lehman Brothers.
By now, you won't be shocked to learn that Bush's plan would cut tax
brackets from seven to three: 28%, 25% and 10%, and that he would cut the
corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, five points below China's. (These days,
if you're a Republican, you've got to stick it to China.)
While Jeb would not rein in Wall Street (for all the obvious and already
well-documented reasons), right now it looks as if he's not going to have a
chance to not rein in anything. While his PR team maintains "Jeb can fix
it," invigorating his wilting campaign will require more than a bow and
arrow and a mockingbird.
Best gimmick on his campaign web page: "The Guaca Bowle" for $75 because who
doesn't need one? (Bush family guac recipe not included.)
Carly Fiorina
Fiorina's web page doesn't offer a lot of economic anything. It's more like
a personality infomercial. For her official positions, you need to watch
video clips of her TV appearances from CBS This Morning to late night talk
shows and -- if you're starting to get bored -- just imagine Stanley Tucci
as Hunger Games host of festivities Caesar Flickerman narrating.
Fiorina calls for "zero-based budgeting" because "zero" sounds so much
cleverer than "balanced" and touts ad nauseam a three-page tax plan (perhaps
the current one in a microscopic font, since we don't actually know the
details). The repetition of simple concepts to the masses seems to be her
modus operandi.
Best gimmick on the Carly for America Super PAC website: For only $26 you
can get a "Hillary Who?" infant one-piece, the perfect gift for any
Republican baby.
How Corporations Really Pay Taxes
Despite the prominence of tax cuts in the policies of the top six Republican
candidates, even the venerable Brookings Institution found that they have a
minimal effect on economic growth. In addition, when you consider all the
promised corporate cuts, you should know that corporations already don't
contribute much.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2008 and 2012, 26 of the 288
Fortune 500 firms (consistently profitable in those years) managed to pay
nothing, nada, zero in federal income tax. The 288 firms collectively paid
an effective federal income tax rate of 19.4%, and a third of them paid an
effective rate of less than 10%. Five companies -- Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM,
General Electric, and Verizon -- also bagged over $77 billion of the $364
billion in tax breaks doled out in those years. Extra jobs didn't follow.
Think of this crew as the real winners of the American Hunger Games in this
period.
For 2014, for instance, Goldman Sachs avoided forking over federal income
taxes on almost half of its $6.8 billion in U.S. profits, paying an
effective tax rate of 18.6%. Between 2010 and 2012, due to tax breaks
associated with executive pay, Fortune 500 companies saved an extra $27
billion in federal and state taxes. That's a lot of dosh to use for Super
PAC support.
In 2012, the Democrats blasted candidate Mitt Romney's tax plan as a
giveaway to the rich. This time around, our six tributes-cum-candidates are
taking no such chances. They're making sure to throw crumbs to the middle
and working classes, even as they offer more caviar to the wealthy and
corporations. Depending on the candidate and plan, the overall loss of
national revenue will range from an estimated $1.6 trillion (even factoring
in growth that may never happen) to $12 trillion, but will be a stunning
amount.
Perhaps with such a field of candidates, the classic Hunger Games line will
need to be adapted: "Let the games begin and may the oddity of it all be
ever in your favor." Certainly, there has never been a stranger or more
unsettling Republican campaign for the presidential nomination or one more
filled with economic balderdash and showmanship. Of course, at some point
in 2016, we'll be at that moment when President Snow says to Katniss
Everdeen, "Make no mistake, the game is coming to its end." One of these
candidates or a rival Democrat will actually enter the Oval Office and when
that happens, both parties will be left with guilt on their hands and all
the promises that will have to be fulfilled to repay their super-rich
supporters (Bernie aside). And that, of course, is when the real Hunger
Games are likely to begin for most Americans. Those of us in the outer
districts can but hope for revolution.
Nomi Prins, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of six books, a speaker,
and a distinguished senior fellow at the non-partisan public policy
institute Demos. Her most recent book is All the Presidents' Bankers: The
Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former
Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his
superb work on this piece.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and
Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government:
Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a
Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2015 Nomi Prins
C 2015 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176074
Tomgram: Nomi Prins, Welcome to Panem 2016 (Starring Donald Trump But Not
Katniss Everdeen)
By Nomi Prins
Posted on November 29, 2015, Printed on November 29, 2015
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176074/
Here is what's grimly fascinating in this year's dystopian carnival of a
Republican presidential primary. When it comes to what can be said in
America, all bets are off. These days, the concept of "beyond the pale"
couldn't look more wan. All of a sudden, there's nothing, no matter how
jingoistic or xenophobic, extreme or warlike that can't be expressed in
public and with pride by a Republican presidential candidate. You want
torture back in the American playbook? You've got it! Just elect Donald
Trump or Ben Carson -- and our future torturers don't even need to justify
its use in terms of getting crucial information from terror suspects.
Employing good old American-style enhanced interrogation techniques to
inflict pain on "them" is fine and dandy in itself.
When it comes to refugees from the grim war zones we had such a hand in
creating in the Greater Middle East, if you want the Statue of Liberty to
hold a "Christians only" sign, welcome to the worlds of Jeb Bush and Ted
Cruz. Should you prefer a registry for either Syrian refugees or American
Muslims and mosque closings aplenty, you've got it from Donald Trump (and
the closing of any facility "where radicals are being inspired" from Marco
Rubio) -- and no matter how much politically correct liberals may complain,
Trump's not walking either of those proposals back far. (Where, by the way,
are all those religious freedom types now that mosques are at stake? Can you
imagine the uproar in this country if Bernie Sanders were to call for the
shutting down of a few right-wing Christian churches?)
If you have the urge to compare Syrian Muslim refugees to "rabid dogs" and
thought you had to keep your mouth shut about it, step into the universe of
Ben Carson and speak out! Should you want to claim that, on September 11,
2001, crowds of thousands of Muslims cheered and tailgated in Jersey City,
just across the Hudson River from the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers,
and that it was all recorded on video that only Donald Trump and maybe Ben
Carson saw, then you're in just the right exceptional nation at just the
right moment. I could go on, but why bother?
In 2016 there is evidently no longer anything, no matter how extreme or
offensive, that Donald Trump and the rest of the crew can say to the
Republican base that will affect their popularity negatively. Quite the
opposite, such statements, along with the promise to be "tough" on the
Islamic State, are now the equivalent of popularity meters. In a country
where public opinion not so long ago seemed down on more boots-on-the-ground
interventions in the Greater Middle East, you can't threaten to send in too
many boots and planes these days. The attacks in Paris and threats of them
elsewhere are clearly God's gift to Republican extremity. And right now, Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi and his caliphate pals seem to control the electoral fate
of politicians in both the United States and Europe.
In the midst of this Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to election 2016, lest you think
that the category of extreme and perverse is confined to foreign policy, and
refugee or immigrant bashing, climb aboard TomDispatch's campaign tour bus
and let Nomi Prins, author of All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden
Alliances That Drive American Power, take you on a wild, Hunger-Games-themed
ride into the wilderness of Republican economic policy in the ongoing
campaign from hell. Tom
The American Hunger Games
The Six Top Republican Candidates Take Economic Policy Into the Wilderness
By Nomi Prins
Fact: too many Republican candidates are clogging the political scene.
Perhaps what's needed is an American Hunger Games to cut the field to size.
Each candidate could enter the wilderness with one weapon and one
undocumented worker and see who wins. Unlike in the fictional Hunger Games
for which contestants were plucked from 13 struggling, drab districts in the
dystopian country of Panem, in the GOP version, everyone already lives in
the Capitol. (Okay, Marco Rubio lives just outside it but is about to enter,
and Donald Trump like some gilded President Snow inhabits a universe all his
own with accommodations and ego to match.)
The six candidates chosen here (based on composite polling) have remarkably
similar, unoriginal, inequality-inducing, trickle-down economic
recommendations for the country: reduce taxes (mostly on those who don't
need it), "grow" the economy like a sprouting weed, balance the budget by
cutting as yet not-delineated social programs, overthrow Obama's health-care
legacy without breaking up the insurance companies, and (yawn)... well, you
get the idea. If these six contenders were indeed Hunger Games tributes,
their skills in the American political wilderness would run this way: Ben
Carson inspires confusion; Marco Rubio conveys exaggerated humility; Ted
Cruz exudes scorn; Jeb Bush can obliterate his personality at a whim; and
Carly Fiorina's sternness could slice granite. This leaves Donald Trump,
endowed with the ultimate skill: self-promotion. As a tribute, he claims to
believe that all our problems stem from China and Mexico, as well as Muslim
terrorists and refugees (more or less the same thing, of course), and at
present he's leading the Games.
When it comes to economic policy, it seems as if none of them will ever make
it out of the Capitol and into the actual world of American reality. Like
Hillary Clinton, blessed by Wall Street's apparently undying gratitude for
her 9/11 heroism, none of the Republican contestants have outlined a plan of
any sort to deal with, no less break the financial stronghold of the big
banks on our world or reduce disproportionate corporate power over the
economy, though in a crisis Cruz would "absolutely not" bail them out again.
Stumbling around in the wilderness, Carson at least offered a series of
disjointed, semi-incomprehensible financial suggestions during the last
Republican "debate," when asked why he wouldn't break banks up. "I don't
want to go in and tear anybody down," he said. "I mean that doesn't help us,
but what does help us is to stop tinkering around the edges and fix the
problem."
Rubio, already in top Hunger Games form, swears that it's recent regulations
(not legacy elite decisions) that did the dirty deed. "The government made
[the banks] big by adding thousands and thousands of pages of regulations,"
he said of Dodd-Frank legislation (which doesn't actually alter Wall Street
structurally in any way). In fact, in recent decades every major power grab
or consolidation in American business, from banks to energy companies,
resulted from bipartisan deregulation.
None of these big-money-backed candidates seem particularly concerned that
another economic crisis could ever cripple the country, or have evidently
even noticed that most Americans have yet to experience the present
"recovery." None seem to realize that when the Federal Reserve winds down
its cheap money policy and banks and companies are left to fend for
themselves, more economic hell could break loose in the style of the
2007-2008 meltdown. Jeb Bush recently summed up the general 2016 Republican
position on the economy in a single what-me-worry-style sentence: "We
shouldn't have another financial crisis." 'Nuff said.
In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney's chances dwindled after he
disparaged 47% of the country as so many leeches. Today's Hunger Gamers have
learned from his experience. Optics spell opportunity, so as a group they're
shuffling the usual Republican-brand tax cuts for corporations and the
wealthy in with selective recognition of the broader population and promises
to kill all loopholes in some future utopian tax bill. None of them, of
course, would consider raising the minimum wage to put more money in the
pockets of workers before tax-time hits. Even old Henry Ford knew the power
of wages when, early in the last century, he strengthened his car empire by
doubling the then-prevailing minimum wage for his workers to $5 a day --
enough for them not only to save up and buy his Model-Ts, but also boost
productivity.
The present set of Hunger Gamers could invoke Republican President Teddy
Roosevelt's trust-busting ire, or President Dwight D. Eisenhower's
willingness to fund vast national construction projects, or even (to reach
into the distant past) President Herbert Hoover's initial attempts to pass
what became, under Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 1933
Glass-Steagall Act that separated deposit-taking from speculation at banks.
But to be realistic, none of them belong to the Republican Party as it once
existed. They all live in an American Panem and so feel no compunctions
about promoting the idea that corporations contributing ever less to the
federal till would Make America Great Again.
Now, let's send those six candidates into that wilderness, weapons in hand,
one at a time, and while we're at it, examine their minor differences by
checking out their campaign websites to see what kind of games we can expect
in a coming Republican era of "good times."
Ben Carson
If you look through the index of Ben Carson's latest bestseller, A More
Perfect Union, you won't even find the words "economy," "banks," or "Wall
Street." Instead, his campaign slogan, "Heal, Inspire, Revive," could
headline a yoga retreat. His position as the Republican co-frontrunner or
runner-up (depending on which polls you look at) relies on his soft-spoken,
non-politician persona, not his vague economic ideas that flash by in a
chameleon-like fashion.
Yes, he was a brilliant neurosurgeon, but the tenacity and skills required
to become a gifted medical practitioner have not translated well into
presidential-style economic policies. To the extent that he has a policy at
all, it's a shopworn version of the twenty-first-century Republican usuals:
ratifying a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution "to restore fiscal
responsibility," introducing a flat tax, not raising the minimum wage, yada,
yada, yada. In a Washington Post op-ed last year, he recounted his mother's
days as a "domestic in the homes of wealthy people who were generous to her"
and would slip young Carson and his brother "significant monetary
incentives" in return for good grades. One even loaned him a luxury
convertible. With such employers -- and the incredibly rich are a well-known
generous bunch, at least when it comes to supporting Republican presidential
candidates (just 158 families have contributed more than half the money to
this election so far, mostly to Republicans) -- who needs a
government-declared minimum wage?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1568584792/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1568584792/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20Regarding
taxes, Carson considers the 74,000-page tax code "an abomination." And who
would argue otherwise? But like his various opponents, he's not about to
point out that it was largely crafted by the representatives of
mega-corporations, not Wal-Mart workers at meet-ups with senators. He's for
a flat tax of 10% with no exemptions for the poor, based on biblical
economics 101. Maybe people who don't produce bumper crops should just pray
for a better lot.
He would conveniently cut the official corporate tax rate from 35% (the
average effective tax rate is 27.9% but the biggest, brightest companies
don't even approach that amount) to between 15% and 20%, the definition of
corporate manna from heaven. He would also allow companies to bring their
foreign profits back to the U.S. completely tax-free if they would even...
pretty, pretty please... consider allocating 10% of them to "finance
enterprise zones" in major cities. And so it goes in Carsonland.
Best bet on his campaign website: A $25 bumper sticker that says
#IAMACHRISTIAN, proof that he's eager to channel his inner evangelical
Katniss.
Donald Trump
Trump actually brought up President Dwight Eisenhower recently, but only for
Operation Wetback, his grim Mexican immigrant deportation program. No
I-like-Ike mention was made of his funding of the interstate highway system
or the way he strengthened banking regulations.
The Donald lists five core positions on his site, including the two economic
pillars of his campaign: "U.S.-China trade reform" and "tax reform," both of
which would, of course, "make America great again." This may already sound a
bit repetitively familiar to you, but he wants to reduce the corporate tax
rate to 15% because it "would be 10 percentage points below China's and 20
points below our current burdensome rate that pushes companies and jobs
offshore." Given that our biggest companies already pay far less than that
"burdensome" rate, can there be any question that lowering it further would
produce more generous CEOs and slay dreaded China at the same time?
Like President Snow, Trump would start aggressively and only get more so,
economically speaking. He would "attack" the national debt and deficit by
eliminating government waste, fraud, and abuse, and "grow" the economy
xenophobically by doing in local Mexicans and distant Chinese, and all of
this cutting and slashing would, like a Chia Pet, make the economy sprout
even as tax revenues were savaged. Or, even if it isn't one of his five core
positions, he could pull a genuine Snow and get rid of old-fashioned-style
government, leaving Americans officially beholden to an oligarch.
In another piece of (black) magic, his campaign website assures readers that
cutting the deficit and reducing our debt would also stop China from
"blackmail[ing] us with our own Treasury bonds." No matter that China
actually lent us money to run our government and bolster our financial
system, and that a thank-you note might be in order (on paper made in China,
of course).
When it comes to tax reform, Trump's "populist" program would remove 75
million households from the income tax rolls and provide them, so he claims,
with a simple one-page form to send the IRS, saying "I win." Though he would
cut the current seven tax brackets to four -- 0%, 10%, 20%, and 25% -- it's
his 15% corporate tax rate that trumps the field. Rubio would only chop it
to 25%, Bush to 20%, Cruz to 16%, and Carson... who knows? Various estimates
suggest that Trump's plan would lead to a staggering federal revenue loss
(so lucky for us that, in a Trump presidency, the rich would undoubtedly be
so grateful that their generosity would soar beyond imagining). The
nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice computed the cost of his plan at $12
trillion over 10 years. So don't expect any Eisenhower-esque national
building campaigns (other than that "beautiful" wall on the Mexican border).
Best gimmick on his campaign website: A $15 Trump dog sweater modeled by the
saddest damn wiener dog ever. Perhaps its mother was a deported Chihuahua.
Marco Rubio
Rubio's slogan "a new American century" couldn't be grander, perhaps to
compensate for the lackluster version of economic policy at his campaign
website. It's certainly not the sort of thing you'd expect from someone
aspiring to be president of the world's largest economy. Despite that, rest
assured that he's had economics and success on his mind 24/7. After all,
Goldman Sachs is now his top contributor and his super PACs are on a run,
too, including the rap-inspired "Baby Got Pac" just launched by
multimillionaire John Jordan.
And in true Hunger Games fashion -- when the "odds" head in a tribute's
favor, the patrons and gifts begin rolling in -- Rubio just bagged
Republican mega-donor billionaire Frank VanderSloot. Mitt Romney's former
national finance co-chairman, VanderSloot joins a growing roster of Rubio
billionaires, including hedge-fund moguls Paul Singer and Cliff Asness.
"Marco Rubio is the brightest and most capable candidate," wrote VanderSloot
of his new political buddy. Of the others he and his brain trust considered,
he added, "Jeb simply does not have the leadership skills necessary to unite
the people behind him"; Carson lacks "the international knowledge or skill
set"; Cruz and Trump are "simply not electable in a general election" (no
billionaire-envy there); and Fiorina, his second choice, "simply isn't
resonating with the voters."
Rubio's tax plan, the "cornerstone" of his economic policy, would -- you
won't be surprised to learn -- reduce the number of tax brackets from seven
to three and eliminate taxes in ways particularly beneficial to the
billionaire (especially hedge-fund billionaire) class, including the estate
tax and taxes on capital gains and dividends. For the broad population,
Rubio includes family tax cuts. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy
Center, his plan would be a bargain compared to Trump's, costing federal
government coffers a mere $2.4 trillion or more in receipts over the next
decade. As a byproduct, his program is essentially guaranteed to spark a new
round of financial speculation, but don't for a second let the 2007-2008
meltdown cross your mind since, as every Republican knows, with a Marco
Rubio, Donald Trump, or Ben Carson in the Oval Office that can't happen.
Best gimmick on his campaign website: You can "fall into campaign season" by
ordering a "Marco Polo" made-in-the-USA shirt for $48 in patriotic red,
white, or blue naturally! For a mere $500 extra, you can personally have the
honor of buying Rubio a "plane ticket" (perhaps to meet and greet his next
billionaire).
Ted Cruz
The Cruz campaign website offers a hodge-podge of semi-incoherent economic
salesmanship. His tax plan, or what he likes to call (without the slightest
justification) the "next American revolution," promises to "reignite growth
in our economy." His "simple flat tax" (yep, another of those!) would
abolish the Internal Revenue Service as well. Personal income tax brackets
would go from seven to... count 'em!... one at a 10% rate across the board
and the corporate income tax would be replaced by a flat tax of 16%. And it
should be taken for granted that the American economy would soar into the
stratosphere!
Cruz's tax code would be so "simple with a capital-S" that it would make
Donald Trump's look complicated. A postcard or phone app would suffice for
individual and family filings. There would be no tax on profits earned
abroad and it almost goes without saying that Obamacare taxes would die a
strangulated death. Loopholes for businesses would apparently go, too.
Cruz claims his simple flat tax will elevate the gross domestic product,
increase wages by 12.2%, create nearly five million new jobs, and
undoubtedly fill the world with unicorns. It would also wipe out between
$768 billion and $3.6 trillion in federal tax receipts over 10 years.
Best gimmick on his campaign website: For $55 you can get a bad-boy poster
of Cruz sporting a Sons of Anarchy look (tattoos, cigarette in mouth, etc.)
captioned "Blacklisted and Loving It."
Jeb Bush
Jeb! has by far the sleekest web page. He and his donor entourage took the
"presidential concept" seriously with a look that seems to have been stolen
directly from "the Capitol" in the Hunger Games.
Its economic section excoriates the tax code for being "rigged with multiple
carve-outs for favored industries." He blasts Obama's economic policies for
leading to "low growth, crony capitalism, and easy debt." Yet, under Jeb's
governorship, Florida's debt escalated from $15 billion to more than $23
billion. After his term, the housing-bubble that had inflated the state's
coffers burst big time, and Florida's economy under-performed much of the
country during the financial crisis. While homeowners statewide went
underwater, he landed a multi-million dollar consultancy gig with...
gulp!... Lehman Brothers.
By now, you won't be shocked to learn that Bush's plan would cut tax
brackets from seven to three: 28%, 25% and 10%, and that he would cut the
corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, five points below China's. (These days,
if you're a Republican, you've got to stick it to China.)
While Jeb would not rein in Wall Street (for all the obvious and already
well-documented reasons), right now it looks as if he's not going to have a
chance to not rein in anything. While his PR team maintains "Jeb can fix
it," invigorating his wilting campaign will require more than a bow and
arrow and a mockingbird.
Best gimmick on his campaign web page: "The Guaca Bowle" for $75 because who
doesn't need one? (Bush family guac recipe not included.)
Carly Fiorina
Fiorina's web page doesn't offer a lot of economic anything. It's more like
a personality infomercial. For her official positions, you need to watch
video clips of her TV appearances from CBS This Morning to late night talk
shows and -- if you're starting to get bored -- just imagine Stanley Tucci
as Hunger Games host of festivities Caesar Flickerman narrating.
Fiorina calls for "zero-based budgeting" because "zero" sounds so much
cleverer than "balanced" and touts ad nauseam a three-page tax plan (perhaps
the current one in a microscopic font, since we don't actually know the
details). The repetition of simple concepts to the masses seems to be her
modus operandi.
Best gimmick on the Carly for America Super PAC website: For only $26 you
can get a "Hillary Who?" infant one-piece, the perfect gift for any
Republican baby.
How Corporations Really Pay Taxes
Despite the prominence of tax cuts in the policies of the top six Republican
candidates, even the venerable Brookings Institution found that they have a
minimal effect on economic growth. In addition, when you consider all the
promised corporate cuts, you should know that corporations already don't
contribute much.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2008 and 2012, 26 of the 288
Fortune 500 firms (consistently profitable in those years) managed to pay
nothing, nada, zero in federal income tax. The 288 firms collectively paid
an effective federal income tax rate of 19.4%, and a third of them paid an
effective rate of less than 10%. Five companies -- Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM,
General Electric, and Verizon -- also bagged over $77 billion of the $364
billion in tax breaks doled out in those years. Extra jobs didn't follow.
Think of this crew as the real winners of the American Hunger Games in this
period.
For 2014, for instance, Goldman Sachs avoided forking over federal income
taxes on almost half of its $6.8 billion in U.S. profits, paying an
effective tax rate of 18.6%. Between 2010 and 2012, due to tax breaks
associated with executive pay, Fortune 500 companies saved an extra $27
billion in federal and state taxes. That's a lot of dosh to use for Super
PAC support.
In 2012, the Democrats blasted candidate Mitt Romney's tax plan as a
giveaway to the rich. This time around, our six tributes-cum-candidates are
taking no such chances. They're making sure to throw crumbs to the middle
and working classes, even as they offer more caviar to the wealthy and
corporations. Depending on the candidate and plan, the overall loss of
national revenue will range from an estimated $1.6 trillion (even factoring
in growth that may never happen) to $12 trillion, but will be a stunning
amount.
Perhaps with such a field of candidates, the classic Hunger Games line will
need to be adapted: "Let the games begin and may the oddity of it all be
ever in your favor." Certainly, there has never been a stranger or more
unsettling Republican campaign for the presidential nomination or one more
filled with economic balderdash and showmanship. Of course, at some point in
2016, we'll be at that moment when President Snow says to Katniss Everdeen,
"Make no mistake, the game is coming to its end." One of these candidates or
a rival Democrat will actually enter the Oval Office and when that happens,
both parties will be left with guilt on their hands and all the promises
that will have to be fulfilled to repay their super-rich supporters (Bernie
aside). And that, of course, is when the real Hunger Games are likely to
begin for most Americans. Those of us in the outer districts can but hope
for revolution.
Nomi Prins, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of six books, a speaker,
and a distinguished senior fellow at the non-partisan public policy
institute Demos. Her most recent book is All the Presidents' Bankers: The
Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former
Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his
superb work on this piece.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and
Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government:
Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a
Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2015 Nomi Prins
C 2015 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176074
