comments_image -

Transgenerational Financial Terrorism

The nation's fast-weakening financial condition isn't Bush's or Clinton's fault -- it's embedded in a flawed economic model embraced by neoliberals in both parties.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Surprisingly few Americans are worried about the nation's fast-weakening financial condition, or even about our fast-widening economic divide. Yet one must wonder if this lack of concern is by design as, over the past two decades, laws favoring community-based broadcasting were repealed. As broadcasters merged, broadcasting ("the oxygen of democracy") consolidated, along with the range of available viewpoints.

Texas-based Clear Channel now owns 1,225 radio stations and syndicates programming to 7800 broadcasters, enabling hard-right radio icon Rush Limbaugh to dominate the nation's drive-time eardrums while crowding out other perspectives like nothing seen since the fall of the Soviet Union. With support from both major political parties, Americans find themselves immersed in a media environment where it's all but impossible to learn the real facts about the perilous state of their nation.

Media consolidation helps obscure the gross mismanagement of the nation's financial affairs as both parties embraced the University of Chicago's "neoliberal" economic model. As the 1980s began, the national debt was already a hefty $909 billion. After 20 years of leadership by two like-minded, neoliberal-inclined parties, that debt -- our debt -- is on track to reach $7384 billion by September 2004. In a 2003 survey on transgenerational accounting, economists working for the U.S. Treasury identify $43 trillion in unfunded government liabilities.

At every turn, this expanding liability -- our liability -- was used to expand the wealth of the already-wealthy. In 1981, while I served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, Republicans Reagan and Bush proposed supply-side investment subsidies enacted at a fiscal cost of $872 billion, every cent deficit-financed. In the mid-90s, Democrats Clinton and Gore enacted a similar investment subsidy at a fiscal cost of $268 billion, also totally deficit-financed.

Both the debt and the interest owed on that debt are backed by our full faith and credit. Interest payments -- received by just four percent of U.S. taxpayers -- grew from $58.5 billion in 1980 to $247.5 billion by 2000. Combine our interest payments with investment subsidies paid for with our debt and what's the result? In 1982, when the supply-side subsidies first became law, Forbes required $91 million for inclusion on its list of the nation's 400 richest. The average wealth of those listed was then $200 million. By 1986, average wealth topped $500 million.

By the close of the Clinton era, $725 million was required just to make the list (versus an inflation-adjusted $161 million). Average wealth by 2000 topped $1.4 billion as, from 1998 to 2000, the wealth of this politically favored few grew an average $1.9 million per day.

That's $240,000 dollars per hour, or 46,602 times the minimum wage. Good work if you can get it. Or if you can lease the loyalties of lawmakers willing to work at passing laws that get it for you, sticking us with the fiscal tab for policies that swelled the ranks of billionaires from 13 in 1982 to 274 by 2000, all the while crowding out the fiscal resources needed for healthcare, education, foreign aid, intelligence-gathering, environmental clean-up and such.

We Get The Mortgage, They Got The House

From 1992 to 2000, the income of the top 400 taxpayers grew at 15 times the rate of the bottom 90 percent. By 2000, America's deficit-subsidized few were pocketing an average annual income of $174 million ($87,000 per hour), nearly quadruple their $46.8 million average in 1992. At every turn, both parties piled on more debt to build more wealth and more income for ever fewer Americans, particularly those who contribute to their political campaigns (only 0.25 percent of us give more than $200 in an election cycle).

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
New Hampshire GOP Reps Offer Bill to Eliminate Lunch Breaks for Workers

By Booman | Booman Tribune

 
 
Montana Ban On Corporate Campaigning Heading To U.S. Supreme Court

By Steven Rosenfeld | AlterNet

 
 
$6.2 Million Settlement for Protesters Arrested at 2003 Iraq War Demonstration

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Running Out of Oxygen? Gingrich Loses Crucial Campaign Donor

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly Political Animal

 
 
FBI File Chronicled Steve Jobs' LSD Use

By Hunter R. Slaton | The Fix

 
 
Will Millennials Back Obama in 2012?

By Bill Moyers | BillMoyers.com

 
 
Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Bachus is Investigated for Insider Trading

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Obama's Savvy Plan to Circumvent Religious Groups' Freak Out Over Contraception

By Jodi Jacobson | RH Reality Check

 
 
Is the Catholic Church Just a Super PAC in Robes?

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]