It’s possible that someone could write a column arguing that efforts to restrict the influence of big money on our political system do more harm than good. Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson tried to pull it off on Monday (2/20/12), but the results were pretty ugly.
You don’t need to read the whole column. All you need to read is his “Myth One,” which appears about halfway through the piece:
Myth One: The rich and corporate interests rule government through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is absurd. In 2009, $2.1 trillion (60 percent) of federal spending went for “payments for individuals.” This included 52.5 million people receiving Social Security; 46.6 million on Medicare (many of the same people); 32.9 million on food stamps; 47.5 million on Medicaid; 3.9 million with veterans benefits. Almost all these benefits go to the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, the richest 5 percent of American pay 44 percent of federal taxes.
Does this look like government for the rich?
So to summarize: No, corporations and the wealthy don’t work the system to their benefit, because there is still a Social Security program. And poor people. Presumably a political system really tilted towards the interests of the elite wouldn’t allow either to exist.
The comment makes less than no sense. Social Security is paid for via its own dedicated tax, which is only levied on wage income under (currently) around $106,000. To claim that the existence of Social Security places ANY burden on the rich is absurd, in fact the existence of Social Security in its current incarnation BENEFITS the rich!
The two primary ways are #1) By forcing the working class to set money aside for their own retirement, it reduces the need for actual “welfare” programs for the elderly. Social Security ensures that the working class is pays for its own minimum level of retirement and disability coverage.
#2) The massive increase in the Social Security tax under Reagan, doubling it from 6.2% to 12.4%, which resulted in massive Social Security surpluses for 30+ years, was a major enabler of federal income tax cuts, because essentially the Social Security tax became a backdoor tax on the working class. Over $2.5 trillion in excess Social Security taxes have been collected since the 1983 reforms. That $2.5 trillion essentially financed the deficit, which basically means that we borrowed $2.5 trillion from the salaries of low and middle income workers for the past 30+ years and used it to finance federal income tax cuts, which went hugely disproportionately to the wealthy!
So, the claim that Social Security is a system that in any way is against the interests of America’s rich is totally absurd on its face.
A better argument could be made for “welfare” (food stamps, housing assistance, etc.), Medicaid, and to a lesser degree Medicare, but even these arguments are weak at best.
#1) Many of America’s wealthy are providers for Medicaid, Medicare, and “welfare” programs. Obviously doctors, (who are generally among the top 1%) benefit overall from the existence of Medicaid and Medicare, not to mention providers of things like those electric wheel chairs and other medical devices, which get paid for by Medicaid and Medicare!
In addition, corporations use things like “low-income housing” tax credits to offset their tax bills. Essentially corporations buy tax credits on an open market from low income housing developers, who get the tax credits by building low income housing and then sell the tax credits to corporations. Not to mention the ways that companies like Lowes and Home Depot, etc benefit from the federal subsidies for housing in general and low income housing in particular.
Let’s also not forget that the corporate farm lobby as well that the grocery store and drug store lobby are major backers and beneficiaries from things like food stamps and Medicaid, and even stuff like school lunch programs (which as we have recently seen, have a major interest in America’s school lunch system).
#2) And let’s not overlook the ways that these programs help to placate the poor and stave off violence and revolution. This is why back in the day many in the American Communist Party were opposed to the New Deal reforms and to welfare programs. Any good Communist of course wants to see the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, driven by the crisis in capitalism, not some system of placating the poor to assuage revolutionary tendencies.
The rich are definitely getting their money’s worth from the taxes they pay toward programs that help the working-class just via the placating effect that they have alone.
#3) And finally, the redistribution from the wealthy to the working-class is dwarfed by the redistribution from the working-class to the wealthy.
See my blog post here: Redistribution vs. Redistribution: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=2123584
“In 1960 roughly 0.5% of gross national income went to welfare programs for the poor and roughly 1.5% went to the capital income of the rich. Both of these are forms of redistribution from workers.
As of 2010 roughly 4.5% of gross national income went to welfare programs for the poor and roughly 12% went to the capital gains of the rich, and again, both of these are forms of redistribution.”
It’s a common malady among the punditocracy …
Selective amnesia.
Samuelson and his confreres conveniently forget about tax cuts for the wealthy, and corporate subsidies, and regulatory failures, and a “law enforcement” and “justice” apparatus geared to protect privilege.
There is a cure for this debiliating social disease.
It’s called a conscience.
But I don’t imagine that will be recollected, either.
At his is a good example of the fake news brought to you, by corporate money.. This is like the media constantly complaining about the liberal media (IE: then why are all these conservatives given the media microphone to complain).. Corporate money obviously has a strong influence over our elections, and this money comes in part from foreign nationals (multi national corporations).. Corporate money controls the media, and gives the most money to the candidate they most want to win (and the best funded candidate usually wins).. Corporations are not people, and should have no control over elections (allowing extremely wealthy owners of corporations this control, is like going back on time to when only wealthy land owners could vote).
Wow! Breath-takingly stupid and reckless, even for Samuelson, and that’s saying something.
Dear Mr. Samuelson,
I don’t know if you are poorly informed or if you are a hypocrite, knowing full well of the influence the rich and superrich have and increasingly seek to have upon our government but, for the sole purpose of obfuscating the facts, you choose to pretend to explode a myth which, in fact, is no myth but a reality. The American people has no use for prevarication.
I do not contest the fact that a large part of US revenue is paid out to individuals. Never mind that Social security recipients have paid into their fund, your inclusion of payments made to them under the Social Security Act is disingenuous. Just as disingenuous is your inclusion of Medicare payments. You try to elevate to the level of a logical, relevant observation facts which are irrelevant to the solution of ills, largely attributable to the fraud practised by the rich and superrich, our society must now grapple with.
However, what is total rubbish is that, besides the 2+ trillion paid out to individuals, or some 60% of total spending according to your figures, you deliberately pass over the other 40%, not exactly small change and
1. You ignore how those 40% are paid to the rich and superrich in the form of trillion dollar long term commitments favoring the corporations and institutions the rich and superrich control.
2. You ignore how the rich and superrich return the favor by contributing to the campaigns of legislators and candidate legislators, selected on the basis of their “sympathy” to the interests of the rich and superrich, in such obscenely gross amounts that they dwarf the efforts of the rest of the population, the 99%, to fund the campaigns of legislators and candidate legislators attuned to the needs of the 99%.
3. You ignore how the rich and superrich pay billions to lobbyists hired to convince our legislators to help them return the “sympathy” by voting for or against proposals which the rich and superrich respectively promote or denigrate,
4. You ignore how the rich and superrich, by equally obscenely gross secret political contributions, help create political platforms allowing the rich and superrich to influence the decisions of our legislators known to favor the interests of the rich and superrich and hiring media hacks willing to destroy the credibility of legislators who look primarily to the passage of laws recognizing the needs of the 99%.
5. You ignore how the rich and superrich disproportionately outspend the 99% in television and other media advertisements to help spread lies, smears and myths about the 99%, their needs and proposals and the reputation of their representatives in Congress and their officials in the White House.
In summary, you totally ignore the disproportionate influence which the superrich, through their money, have achieved and aim to increase on the fortunes of our Nation, for their sole profit and the maintenance of their privileged status. Instead, you attempt, by your comments in the media, to obfuscate the facts and shift the national attention from the greed and excesses of the rich and superrich, and redirect it exclusively to the participation the middle class and the poor demand in the riches of our Nation. I cannot help but suspect that you know perfectly well that the overriding purpose of the rich and superrich is to buy the next Presidential and Congressional election so their interests may be better entrenched, and that you too, for you own benefit, have chosen to associate with the rich and superrich and knowingly betray the best interests of the rest of your countrymen, the 99% .
Sincerely,
Yvon O. Heckscher
I agree with your comments.
The real Myth #1 is : the Rich Never use their money to buy political favors and influence for their benefit alone.
I am so angered by this claim that I really do not want to get started…
Yvon point out even one way the so called super rich have bought Obama.Lets stop the hyperbole.Show me one man who has bought this president?One super rich man?