Wealth concentration threatens America

If the wealthy are the job creators, they sure have been lousy at it lately.  You'd think we'd have jobs coming out of our ears.

No, the real job creators are the middle class, whose spending has always been the key driver of our economy.  A rapidly growing pool of wealth stagnates among the wealthy, while the shrinking middle class contributes less and less to economic circulation.

Blocking our recovery is the infamous Golden Rule: those with the gold make the rules.  As the rich have become richer, they have become more powerful, blocking any attempts to restore balance.  The concentration of wealth has now reached dangerous levels, a vicious cycle threatening not only our economy but democracy itself.

Imposing a modest surtax on income beyond a million dollars isn't about class envy, or punishing wealth, or ending capitalism.  It's about saving our country.

Congress and the President: Don't drop the millionaire surtax!

It has come to my attention that despite the President's laudable insistence so far on a new tax bracket for income over a million dollars a year, Democratic leaders are considering dropping it.  Please don't walk away from this important policy!

Bush-era rollbacks of progressive taxation resulted in a greatly increased concentration of wealth among a few powerful people, while the poor and the middle class saw their standard of living decline.

The problem with our less-progressive tax structure is not just that it's unfair.  It's also unwise.  Contrary to Republican rhetoric, job creation comes from the consumer spending of the masses, not the stagnant wealth of the rich. The economy is having a hard time recovering because the poor and middle class have a smaller slice of the pie than ever.

And in our money-driven political system, the increase in concentration of wealth has been accompanied by an even more dramatic increase in concentration of political power among the few.  The wealthiest now own not only most of the economy, but most of the Congress.  The "Golden Rule" of those with the gold making the rules has never been more true.

Restoring progressive taxation is crucial not only to millions of struggling Americans, but to the economic recovery and to the restoration of democracy in America.   Please strike a blow against corruption and decay, and don't back down now!

Republicans don't understand small business

Republicans say we shouldn't raise taxes on millionaires because many of them own small businesses whose profits are taxed as personal income.  This argument is ignorant and misleading.

Having once owned a small "S" corporation myself, I know these businesses' owners are only taxed on the net profits, after paying all expenses and workers.  Raising tax rates on the wealthiest of them does not discourage hiring, as the Republicans claim.  In fact, hiring an additional worker actually reduces their tax burden.

Too extreme for Robertson?

Pat Robertson blames hurricanes on gays, 9/11 on secularists, and the Haitians' earthquake on their ancestors for allegedly bargaining with the devil.  He believes separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.  He believes we should assassinate foreign leaders we don't like.

When a guy this extreme says the Republican candidates are getting too extreme ... well, for once he's right.

A better way to raise revenue?

Republicans claim that restoring tax rates on the rich will raise "only" 800 billion dollars, complaining that half of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.

Good point.  Maybe we could raise $800 billion from the poorest Americans!  After all, there aren't that many millionaires, but there are millions of poor people!

Well, as it turns out the total wealth of the bottom 50% is about 1.6 trillion dollars.  So we could pull it off ... if we simply confiscated half of everything they own.

Given the Republicans' rhetoric lately, I wouldn't be surprised to hear them say that's perfectly fair.  Serves the poor right for being poor, doesn't it?

Class warfare indeed

The economy stinks, but the rich have the biggest share of wealth ever.   And with few good investments available, they're just sitting on their money -- rather than spending and circulating it like the rest of us do.  No wonder the economy stinks!

It's a self-perpetuating problem.  The solution is to restore taxes on the rich to where they used to be.  Not only is this better for deficit reduction than taxing folks of lesser means, it helps get the money moving again!

The middle class is suffering.  If the rich now scream "class warfare," I can only thank them for finally acknowledging the truth.

You mean Drivers Ed isn't already required?

Wait ... what? Oregon doesn't already require Driver's Ed?

Well, no wonder most drivers don't use their turn signals here. No wonder I once heard someone claim innocence after a crash because "the sign said YIELD, not STOP!" And no wonder hundreds of Oregonians are killed by cars every year.

Driver's Ed taught me not just what the rules of the road are, but how to drive safely. It taught me that motor vehicles are deadly weapons. And it taught me that driving is not a right.

We're not getting our young drivers off to the right start. It's time for Oregon to join the rest of the developed world and mandate Driver's Ed.

Right wing terrorism a serious threat

The 1990s saw a wave of right wing terrorism, with bombings of courthouses, IRS offices, Amtrak trains, Forest Service offices, the Atlanta Olympics and the Oklahoma City federal building.

Now the paranoia and violence are back. And a member of Congress has been shot in the head.

As before, fuel is poured on the flame by right wing media personalities spouting hatred, paranoia and lies, from G. Gordon "head shots" Liddy to Glenn Beck. Now we even have politicians calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" and exhorting the true believers to "reload" rather than retreat.

It is their right to do this. But that doesn't make it right.

Rep. Blumenauer: Reject the tax compromise!

I thank you for your opposition to the tax compromise coming before the House. It is my belief that the proposal endangers Social Security by reducing its income and breaking the wall between it and the general fund; perpetuates unfair tax policy that will be even more difficult to repeal later; and stimulates the economy insufficiently to justify its trillion dollar price tag. In the long run it causes far more economic damage than it averts.

No doubt failure to pass this bill will endanger the weak economic recovery by abruptly cutting off extended unemployment benefits and by raising taxes on lower income earners. It is unfortunate that President Obama has set a trap whereby liberal Democrats will appear to be at fault for this, when in fact it is the fault of filibustering Republicans who refuse to give up staggeringly unfair tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. But regardless of the political fallout, voting NO is still the right thing to do. Thank you again for standing up for fiscal sanity.

Rep. Walden: Reject the compromise!

As an Oregonian, I strongly urge you to join the rest of our state's delegation in rejecting the tax legislation before you. While I certainly don't understand how liberals could support a bill that raids Social Security and continues the enormous redistribution of wealth towards the wealthy, I find it even harder to understand how alleged fiscal conservatives could support a bill that adds nearly a trillion dollars to the deficit and stimulates the economy so inefficiently.

While failure to pass this bill may cause short-term harm to the economy, its passage would cause far greater harm in the long run. I implore you to vote NO.

Sens. Wyden and Merkley: Reject the compromise!

I strongly urge you to reject the compromise tax measure about to come before the Senate. It is lousy fiscal policy and lousy politics.

Failure to renew unemployment benefits will cause much suffering and could endanger the weak economic recovery. It is unfortunate that the President has crafted a compromise in which "liberal" Democrats may appear responsible for these results. But sometimes it is necessary to do the right thing anyway regardless of the consequences -- which would still be the responsibility of filibustering Republicans, not of Democrats standing up for fiscal sanity.

In the long run, future suffering will likely be far greater if this legislation does pass. President Bush's regressive tax cuts will now come up for renewal in a Presidential election year when it will be more difficult to finally reject them permanently. The proposed bill also adds a trillion dollars to the deficit without targeting the funds optimally, undermines Social Security's trust fund when it needs strengthening, and breaks down the wall between Social Security and the general fund. All of these factors will cause far greater long term damage to the economy than any immediate damage to the current recovery from failure to pass the bill.

I desperately hope that you vote NO.

Economic ignorance is expensive

Republicans preach the myth that businesses and homeowners can't run deficits, so government shouldn't do so either. The truth is that Americans run deficits -- that is, borrow money -- with great enthusiasm.

And thank goodness, because borrowing and lending directly increase the money supply, with every dollar of lending further generating several additional dollars of new economic activity.

The 2008 banking crisis abruptly wiped out the private sector's ability to borrow, causing a powerful economic contraction. As bad as the economy is today, it would have shrunk much further (making the deficit worse yet) if the federal government hadn't been the borrower of last resort.

The best news from this week's elections is that the Republicans didn't gain enough power to actually put their reckless economic agenda back into practice.

Fool us once ...

It was the Republicans who presided over tax cuts for the wealthy, two expensive pointless wars, and the housing bubble and collapse. These are the primary causes of the ballooning deficit -- which is now sweeping them back into office.

They're like the burglar who breaks into my house, and then shows up again the next day to sell me an alarm system.

Candidates for Metro President: Metro and Mountain Biking

[sent to candidates Tom Hughes and Bob Stacey]

I am a local voter, genuinely undecided with respect to the current race for the Metro Council Presidency. I need to ask you about an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and upon which Metro could have a tremendous influence.

As you well know, we are renowned as a bike-friendly community. As a regular bike commuter I am grateful for the fantastic infrastructure that has been built both near my Portland home and where I work in Beaverton, and I am aware that you share my pride in what has been accomplished so far.

But it is particularly ironic that because I live here, where I can so comfortably and easily reduce my carbon footprint by bicycling to work, I have to get into my polluting automobile and drive for an hour in order to go mountain biking.

Most metropolitan areas similarly blessed with so much natural bounty have seen fit to develop mountain bike trail systems accessible to local cyclists without leaving town. In fact, the lack of local mountain bike access was cited by Bicycling magazine earlier this year as a primary reason for ranking Minneapolis ahead of Portland as America's most bike-friendly community. The League of American Bicyclists may even consider removing our region's "Platinum" rating next year over the issue.

Continued national accolades will clearly be contingent on remedying this deficiency. Efforts to date have met with little success. A recent proposal to add a modest amount of new trail, in a part of Forest Park with minimal ecological significance, has met with furious opposition from hiking user groups and has ultimately been stymied. Most other existing areas of publicly owned land are being managed for natural values and not developed for recreation, leaving us with few possibilities there.

And here is where Metro comes in. Metro is the only local agency acquiring significant areas of land for parks and preservation. No doubt many of the parcels being purchased have sufficient ecological significance to justify limiting recreational access (and I don't just mean by bicyclists). But it would surprise me if at least some of the acquisitions might not be suitable for mixed recreation including off-road bicycling.

Metro's core mission is to manage our growth and foster the development of a healthy, livable community where we all drive less and pollute less. Mountain biking is clean, quiet, non-polluting and healthy. Encouraging this popular activity to occur locally, rather than outside the growth boundary, is entirely consistent with that mission, and Metro is in a unique position to do something about it.

As Metro Council President, would you encourage your organization to evaluate the suitability of your lands for mountain biking, and at least consider allowing the development of bike trails on suitable lands? I eagerly await your response prior to election day.

Republicans: keeping us in stitches

I can't help but laugh when I hear Republicans whining about the process used to pass health care reform. Backroom deals? Using the reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster rule? Sounds like one of the cleaner months of the Bush era.

Nothing unconstitutional about health care reform

So the obstructionist Republicans think they can block health care reform in the courts?

Sorry guys, but there's nothing new or unconstitutional about mandatory health care coverage. For nearly half a century all working Americans have been forced to pay for medical coverage, and a government run plan no less! It's called Medicare.

Rep. Blumenauer: Thank you for your vote

I want to to thank you for standing up for Medicare reimbursement rate reform, and to let you know I now strongly support your YES vote on health care reform.

Like many of your constituents I would very much prefer a single payer system, and am appalled that the bill does not even offer a public option. Nonetheless, the events of the past year demonstrate that this is the best we can do in any foreseeable American political climate, and this bill still accomplishes many good things.

Thank you for standing up for Oregon, and against Republican obstructionism.

McCall's dream fulfilled

Back in 1973, Governor Tom McCall proposed to make education funding more equitable by slashing property taxes and increasing taxes on the wealthy and big business.

The first half of this vision was accomplished years ago, but we've suffered as a result of the remaining unfinished business. Now we've finally finished the job.

Measure opponents spread misinformation

Like many business owners who have publicly opposed Measures 66 and 67, Jan Eldredge (Letters, Jan. 23) butchers the facts when describing the impact to their business. Specifically, it is completely untrue that the new revenue-based corporate minimum tax will be levied on top of corporate income tax.

This tax of approximately 0.1% will be levied only upon businesses such as Portland General Electric that do not declare profits, and which therefore pay no corporate income tax.

It will truly be a shame if voters reject these measures based on widespread misinformation like this. Oregon's businesses and the wealthy would only be very modestly burdened by passage of Measures 66 and 67. Our poor and middle class, however, will be very heavily impacted if we are forced to find some other way to close a $1.2 billion hole in our budget.

Class warfare? You bet!

Measure 66 and 67 opponents are quick to scream "class warfare!" Well, heaven forbid the losing side should fire a single shot! Class warfare has been waged brutally on America's working and middle classes for the last 30 years.

Real income has shrunk - we now see a generation less well off than their parents - while concentration of wealth has increased drastically. Taxes on the wealthy are at an all time low, a recipe for economic stagnation punctuated by repeated asset bubbles.

Measures 66 and 67 will restore a little more fairness to the system. They will place an undue burden on no one, and they will plug a $1.2 billion hole in the state budget. The budget cuts caused by their failure would create enormous misery around the state. Don't let today's class warriors win yet another round.