Will Blog for Food

The Fable of the Century

by Robert Reich

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset – their home – keeps shrinking in value.

Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on – such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.

Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power. 

These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices – all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino. 

Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.

Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money – they round up investors to buy the target companies – they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.

And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent – even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.

Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes – a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.

Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more – so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on – Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.

What happens next?

There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.

In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled – beyond your imagination.

The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.”

And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).

But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.

The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.

Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.

The Truth about 'Class War' in America

Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

 

Republicans claim, in Orwellian fashion, that Obama's millionaire tax is 'class war'. The reality is that the super-rich won the war

by Richard Wolff

Republicans and conservatives always fight back against proposals to raise taxes on corporations and rich individuals by making two basic claims. First, such proposals amount to un-American "class warfare", pitting the working class against corporations and the rich. Second, such proposals would take money for the government that would otherwise have been invested in production and thus created jobs.

Taking his cue from Warren Buffett, President Obama has announced a 'millionaire tax' as part of his budget plan; Republicans have denounced it as 'class war'. (Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters)

Neither logic nor evidence supports either claim. The charge of class war is particularly obtuse. Consider simply these two facts. First, at the end of the second world war, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. Today, that ratio is very different: for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it takes 25 cents in taxes on business. In short, the last half century has seen a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation off business and onto individuals.

Second, across those 50 years, the actual shift that occurred was the opposite of the much more modest reversal proposed this week by President Obama; over the same period, the federal income tax rate on the richest individuals fell from 91% to the current 35%. Yet, Republicans and conservatives use the term "class war" for what Obama proposes – and never for what the last five decades have accomplished in shifting the tax burden from the rich and corporations to the working class.

The tax structure imposed by Washington on the US over the last half-century has seen a massive double shift of the burden of taxation: from corporations to individuals and from the richest individuals to everyone else. If the national debate wants seriously to use a term like "class war" to describe Washington's tax policies, then the reality is that the class war's winners have been corporations and the rich. Its losers – the rest of us – now want to reduce our losses modestly by small increases in taxes on the super-rich (but not, or not yet, on corporations).

To refer to this effort as if it had suddenly introduced class war into US politics is either dishonest or based on ignorance of what federal tax policies have actually been. Or perhaps, for conservatives, it is a convenient mixture of both.

Much the same sort of analysis applies to the Republican claims that taxing corporations and rich people takes money that would otherwise be invested in business growth and thus create jobs. Last Friday, the US Federal Reserve reported a record quantity of cash on the books of US businesses (over $2tn). Even with the currently low taxes on businesses and the rich, that money is not being invested and is not creating jobs. It is not being distributed to anyone else and so is not being spent on consumer goods either. Taxing a portion of that money to finance Washington's stimulation of the economy by spending that money – or even better, by using it to hire and pay the unemployed – would be a much more effective way to provide jobs than leaving it as cash hoards in corporations' coffers.

Last month, Warren Buffett upset many of his "mega-rich friends" by what he stated categorically in a New York Times op-ed. He made it clear that he had never encountered any serious investor who decided whether or not to invest based on tax rates. It was always the prospects of profit that made the difference. He then urged Americans to raise taxes on the rich like himself. He also hinted – none too subtly – that it was becoming politically dangerous for the whole economic system's survival to keep having the minority of extremely rich people paying federal tax at lower rates than the middle- and low-income majority.

The final irony of loose talk about class war is this: the Republican and conservative voices opposing all tax increases for corporations and the rich thereby provoke, as Buffett intimated and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg more explicitly warned last week, a renewal of class consciousness in the US. Then, Washington might learn what class war really is.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited

Richard D Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a visiting professor in the graduate program in international affairs of the New School University, New York City. Richard also teaches classes regularly at the Brecht Forum in Manhattan. His most recent book is Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It (2009). A full archive of Richard's work, including videos and podcasts, can be found on his site

more Richard Wolff

We Have Both a Spending Problem AND a Revenue Problem

Decrease spending on Defense and Corporate Welfare and Increase Spending on Job Creation and the Safety Net. Increase revenues from Corporations and the Wealthy.

by John Lawrence

Everyone is concerned about creating a 2012 budget that will get the US annual deficit and finally the national debt under control. Republican Paul Ryan has proposed one that would balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while voucherizing Medicare and giving tax breaks to the wealthy. President Obama has proposed one that would keep Medicare the way it is and raise taxes slightly on millionaires and billionaires. Then the progressive Democratic caucus has proposed the "People's Budget," which is the virtual opposite of the Paul Ryan budget. All these plans would decrease the deficit over a period of time.

First, a little background on how we got into this mess. Number one: a bloated Defense Department whose budget has doubled in size since 2001.  Second, Bush tax cuts for the rich. Bush dropped the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. To be fair Bush also dropped the lowest tax rate from 15% to 10%. So the Bush tax cuts were across the board, but the rich profited most from the cuts. Bush also finagled the income ranges to which the rates applied. For instance, the Clinton 15% rate applied to incomes up to $43,050. The Bush 10% rate applied to incomes only up to $12,000. Then the 15% rate kicked in for incomes up to $46,700. So the Bush rates did nothing for the middle class; they were essentially the same as the Clinton rates. Bush also lowered taxes on capital gains. Clinton kept the top capital gains tax rate at 28% until 1997, when he agreed to lower it to 20%. President Bush lowered it to 15% in 2003. Capital gains revenues increased by 0.7% of GDP from 1994 through 2000 under President Clinton, and they fell to 0.6% of GDP from 2000 to 2004 under President Bush. Under Bush the estate tax was reduced from 55% to 35% and the exclusionary amount was increased from $675,000 to $5 million.

Third, tax revenues from corporations went from 30 percent in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent today thanks to loopholes drilled into the tax code by lobbyists. So corporations are not paying their fair share by historical standards. Fourth, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush were unfunded which means they were just added to the deficit. These represent a structural built-in ongoing deficit. Fifth, Bush's Part D drug plan for Medicare recipients was just added to the deficit. Cheney, notably said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Ha! Sixth, Bush signed into law the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Plan) which was a $700 billion bank bailout although most of this is expected to be paid back. Seventh, in order to prevent a world wide economic meltdown, Obama enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment ACT (ARRA). However, there are no long term effects of this on the deficit after 2011.

On the other hand Bush policies are ongoing and structural, and, until they are changed, will significantly affect deficits for years to come. This is from "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years":

Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections. Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1). Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

So now that we have established that Bush is to blame for much of ouir budgetary woes, the question is what to do about it. I agree with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who said on Meet the Press on Easter Sunday that he favored a VAT. I recently blogged about the need for a VAT tax here. It's nice to be corroborated by such an eminence gris as Paul O'Neill. But a VAT would at one and the same time solve a myriad of problems. It would eliminate the lobbyists on Capitol Hill whose only purpose is to drill holes in the tax code for special interests. It would act as a tariff eliminating the advantages of manufacturing overseas and importing into the American market. It would eliminate corporations playing one state off against another or one municipality against another on tax breaks as a quid pro quo for plant location. It would make it less profitable for corporations to locate factories in foreign countries where labor is cheaper and tax advantages are greater. The question is what do corporations most want to do? The answer is they want to sell into the American market. The VAT is the only tax that taxes this privilege. What does it matter whether foreign or domestic corporations locate plants in the US as long as they provide jobs and pay taxes? They are all transnational corporations anyway locating plants and selling into markets all over the world. Let American corporations leave the country and let other foreign corporations take their place here. So what? 

The incentive structure with a VAT would be such that it would be to the advantage of corporations to locate here as there would be no advantage to locating elsewhere and then importing into the American market. The sooner our politicians figure this out, the better we'll all be in terms of jobs and corporate tax revenues. Make them pay for the privilege of selling into the American market, the largest consumer market in the world. The VAT would have so many benefits and advantages that no wonder it is not even being considered by the nincompoops who run the country. Lowering corporate tax rates and closing loopholes, as Obama and Ryan want to do, would not work since corporate lobbyists would then drill new loopholes (after all that is their job) albeit at the lower tax rate.

Secondly, if a VAT is not enacted, there are tons of loopholes that need to be eliminated. How about an alternative minimum tax for corporations that would have them pay a certain percentage of profits no matter what? Too many corporations including the most profitable, GE and Exxon Mobil, pay absolutely no taxes at all. Third, create higher tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. It's ridiculous that John Paulson who made $5 billion in 2010 should pay at the same rate as someone who made $375,000. But that's not the worst of it since he paid at the even smaller rate of 15% because his income was all capital gains. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed as ordinary income with higher tax brackets for millionaires and billionaiures.

For social security the answer is simple. Means test it and raise the cap. Right now no FICA taxes are paid on incomes over about $100 K. Let it apply to total income not just the first $100 K. That's called raising the cap. And no one with retirement income of over $250 K needs to collect it unless all of a sudden they lose part of their income. Then social security could kick in for them. In other words for high rollers it would still be an insurance policy. Problem solved. Republican Eric Cantor has said, rightfully in my opinion, that right now we're providing a social safety net for people who don't even need it. So I would agree with him and not have the government pay out social security benefits to anyone with a retirement income of $250,000. although these individuals should pay in during their working years because they don't know what their retirement income will be. And in the event that they go bust, social security would be available to them. It just would not be available to those who are fortunate enough to have become wealthy.

The same applies for Medicare. Those who have retirement incomes of over $250,000. should not get Medicare. They can well afford to buy health insurance on the private market. Thom Hartmann disagrees with Cantor on the grounds that if the wealthy opt out of Medicare, Medicare would not have enough money to function. Poppeycock! First of all the wealthy are only 1% to 5% of the population. this means that 95% would still be paying in. Second of all, the wealthy would be paying in anyway during their working years because nobody knows - including them - whether or not they will be wealthy in retirement. Medicare's costs can be brought under control by creating a public option and using government's purchasing power to negotiate downward the price of prescription drugs. Health care costs in general need to be brought under control. Medical technology, much of it of dubious value, continues to be invented which drives up the cost of health care. Technologies need to be considered as much for their cost as for their supposed benefits and some rational decision made about what will be supported under Medicare.

A Financial Transactions Tax could bring in $100 billion a year. In 1936 during the Great Depression John Maynard Keynes advocated the use of a financial transactions tax on the dealings of Wall Street. He said it would help control excessive speculation by uninformed financial traders and reduce volatility. In an article,"1000 Economists Call for a Financial Transactions Tax," by Richard Murphy, published April 13, 2011, we find:

1,000 economists (with me included in that number) have written to the G20 and Bill Gates to call for a financial transaction tax. We said: Dear G20 Finance Ministers and Bill Gates, We write to you as the call for a Financial Transaction Tax is now gathering global momentum, and the French government has made it a key priority for their G20 presidency. This tax is an idea that has come of age. The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been broken. It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to society. Even at very low rates of 0.05% or less, this tax could raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually and calm excessive speculation. The UK already levies a tax on share transactions of 0.5%, or ten times this rate, without unduly impacting on the competitiveness of the City of London. This money is urgently needed to raise revenue for global and domestic public goods such as health, education and water, and to tackle the challenge of climate change. Given the automation of payments, this tax is technically feasible. It is morally right. We call on you to implement the FTT as a matter of urgency. Yours. More on this here.

Government subsidies to large scale agricultural corporations and oil companies should be eliminated. No one making a profit should get any subsidy. Subsidies should only go to businesses who are creating jobs or creating new businesses like alternative energy, in other words, which are involved in the economy in ways that are constructive. In general the same applies for business as for individuals: we shouldn't be supplying a safety net for those who don't need it.

The People's Budget also would solve most of the problems. Here it is in a nutshell:

Individual Income Tax Policies

• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and
incentives for children, families, and education
• Immediately rescind the upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal
• Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)
• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)
• Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
• Progressive estate tax (Sanders’ estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
• Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28% for high earners
• Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer

Corporate Tax Reform

• Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
• Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
• Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)
• Reinstate Superfund taxes

Health Care

• Enact a public option
• Negotiate Rx payments with pharmaceutical companies
• CMS program integrity and other Medicare and Medicaid savings in the president’s budget
• Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (maintain doc fix)

Social Security

 
• Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable
maximum on the employer side
• Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Defense Savings

• End overseas contingency operations emergency supplementals starting in Fiscal Year 2013,
providing $170 billion in FY2012 to fund redeployment, while saving more than $1.8 trillion
from current law spending levels over ten years.
• Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces,
procurement, and R&D programs

Comprehensive Jobs Program

• Invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure,
housing, and R&D
• Infrastructure bank
• Surface transportation reauthorization bill ($213 billion)

(End of People's Budget)

So the hallmarks of any budget which would bring the deficit under control are

1) Cut defense spending.

2) Cut corporate welfare in terms of subsidies and loopholes.

3) Increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

4) Raise the cap on social security and means test the payouts.

5) Include a public option for Medicare and use the power of the Federal government to negotiate drug prices. Means test Medicare. The wealthy can afford to buy private health insurance.

6) Invest in infrastructure and alternative energy.

The Republican Paul Ryan's budget is just the opposite of the above. He wants to cut taxes for millionares, billionaires and corporations, increase defense spending, cut spending on social services and education for the poor and middle class and privatize Social Security and Medicare. Obama's budget (dare we call it Obamanomics) would place a five year freeze on non-security discretionary spending, increase the defense budget slightly, cut low income home energy assistance and community service block grants and preserve Medicare and Social Security as we know it. He would raise taxes somewhat on banks and oil companies. He preserves Pell grants and R&D spending. He would reform the tax code for corporations, eliminate loopholes and lower the tax rate.

In short Mr. Obama's budget is halfway between Paul Ryan's budget and the People's budget. He makes some modest reforms and preserves Social Security, Medicare and Pell grants. The problem with Obama's budget is that it doesn't go far enough in any direction and it actually hurts the poor and middle class although modestly and not drastically like the Paul Ryan budget which balances the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. The People's budget gets closer to the core of the problem.

The only ways I would differ with the People's Budget are that I would means test Social Security and Medicare on the theory that those who can afford to pay should not get a taxpayer subsidy. For example, for those who have retirement incomes over $250,000., they can well afford to not receive an extra $1000. a month in social security income. And they can well afford to buy medical insurance on the private market. Let's not pretend that the wealthy need the assistance of these programs. On defense spending I suggest we go back to the defense budget in 2000 of around $300 billion. This amounts to approximately a 50% reduction in defense spending. I also propose closing half of the 1000 bases located around the world. We do not need to be the world's policeman. I support the Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal except I would definitely have an even higher rate for billionaires. I also support a VAT tax to eliminate corporate lobbyists drilling holes in the tax code no matter how "reformed" it is and to correct the imbalance in the trade deficit. I am a big believer in the need for Federal government investment in infrastructure particularly alternative energy development and high speed rail. Incentives should be given, as they were in Germany, for individuals and families to develop solar and wind on their individual properties to the maximum extent not only for their own use but to sell back into the grid. This way the profits from the sale of energy would not be concentrated in a few energy corporations but be widely distributed. This would result in a distribution of wealth as opposed to a redistribution of wealth. The government should facilitate this.

The People's Budget

From Huffington Post, April 8, 2011

by Jeffrey Sachs, Economist and Director of the Earth Institute, Columbia University

Just when it seemed that all of Washington had lost its values and its connection with the American people, a bolt of hope has arrived. It is the People's Budget put forward by the co-chairs of the 80-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. Their plan is humane, responsible, and most of all sensible, reflecting the true values of the American people and the real needs of the floundering economy. Unlike Paul Ryan's almost absurdly vicious attack on the poor and working class, the People's Budget would close the deficit by raising taxes on the rich, taming health care costs (including a public option), and ending the military spending on wars and wasteful weapons systems.

There are now four budget positions on the table. Far to the right is Paul Ryan's plan, an artless war on the poor that would take a meat-cleaver to Medicaid (health care for the poor), food stamps, support for child care, the environment, and the rest of government other than the military, Social Security, and Medicare (that is, until 2022, when the slashing would begin on Medicare coverage as well). Ryan would keep taxes below 20 percent of GDP (specifically, 19.9 percent of GDP in 2021), at the cost of destroying entitlements programs and other civilian spending.

Then there is President Obama's budget, which is really a muddled proposal in the center-right of the political spectrum. It would keep most of the Reagan-era and Bush-era tax cuts in place. Like the Ryan proposal, Obama's tax proposals would keep total taxes at around 20 percent of GDP. The result is a major long-term squeeze on vital programs such as community development, infrastructure, and job training. Also, Obama's plan never closes the budget deficit, which remains as high as 3.1% of GDP in 2021.

In the progressive middle is the People's Budget. Like Ryan's plan, the People's Budget would cut the budget deficit to zero by 2021, but would do so in an efficient and fair way. It would close the budget deficit by raising tax rates on the rich and giant corporations, while also curbing military spending and wrestling health care costs under control, partly by introducing a public option. By raising tax revenues to 22.3 percent of GDP by 2021, the People's Budget closes the budget deficit while protecting the poor and promoting needed investments in education, health care, roads, power, energy, and the environment in order to raise America's long-term competitiveness. The People's Budget thereby achieves what Ryan and Obama do not: the combination of fairness, efficiency, and budget balance.

The fourth position is the public's position. The Republicans often say that they want Congress to respect the voice of the people. The voice of the people is crystal clear. In one opinion survey after the next, the public says that the rich and the corporations should pay more taxes. The public says that we should tamp down runaway health care costs through a public option, one that would introduce competition to drive down bloated private health insurance costs. The public says that we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and reduce Pentagon spending. (Just yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates let loose the predictable Pentagon canard that we should stay in Iraq if the Iraqi government asks for it. Better yet, we should respond to what the American people are asking for: to bring our troops home).

The fact is that the People's Budget is the public's position. That's why it is truly a centrist initiative, at the broad center of the U.S. political spectrum. Ryan reflects the wishes of the rich and the far right. Obama's position reflects the muddle of a White House that wavers between its true values and the demands of the wealthy campaign contributors and lobbyists that Obama courts for his re-election. Many Democrats in Congress have also gone along with the falsehood that deficit cutting means slashing spending on the poor and on civilian discretionary programs, rather than raising taxes on the rich, cutting military spending, and taking on the over-priced private health insurance industry. Only the People's Budget speaks to the broad needs and values of the American people.

The current budget negotiations have been a dialogue among the wealthy. The big debate has focused on which programs for the poor should be axed first. There has been no discussion of raising taxes on the rich, and quite the contrary, the White House and the Republican leadership agreed to further tax cuts last December. Obama has repeatedly expressed regret at slashing community development, energy support for the poor, and other programs, but he is not fighting the trend, only regretting it.

Most of Washington has stopped listening to the people. Campaigns are now so expensive that most politicians do anything to court the favor of the rich. Yet ultimately the public will prevail. Twice before in American history -- during the Gilded Age of the 1880s and in the 1920s, just before the Great Depression -- big corporate money effectively owned Washington. But in both eras great progressive leaders (including the two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin) came along to restore the true meaning of American democracy: a government truly of the people, by the people, and for the people. With public protests against government by the rich now spreading in Wisconsin, Ohio and beyond, and with the launch of the People's Budget by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a great national movement to restore American democracy has begun.

 

Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffdsachs