How We Solve the Taxing the Rich Problem

Top Tax Rate was 15% in 1973.

Minnesota’s Governor, Mark Dayton, would like to raise additional state revenue with a marginal income tax rate.  Right now the number looks like an increase for annual incomes over %150,000 for individuals and an increase for straight married couples earning over $250,000, roughly the state’s top 2% of income earners.

A couple things to note here.  First, it is a marginal rate.  Minnesota’s top income tax rate is 7.85%.  Dayton proposes an increase to 9.85%.  In Minnesota, marginal rate only applies to earnings within the applicable tax bracket.  Therefore, that extra 2% is added to dollars earned over $150,000 for individuals or $250,000 for straight couples.  So if you’re earn $10,000 more than the threshold, your extra tax is $200 above what it is today.

Is that a lot?  I would argue that it is a sustainable tax rate and worthy investment.  We can debate that.  But it doesn’t seem like the facts behind the figures ever get discussed.  Why?  Because it gets lost in this almost belittling “tax the rich” rhetoric.

Politicians and reporters almost chortle…”Ho, ho, ho!  Tax the rich!  $150,000 a year?  Do you think that’s rich?”  Of course everyone shakes his head…

Is $150,000 a year rich?  Again, this is something we can debate and frankly the idea of what is or is not rich is entirely subjective.  To someone making $20,000 a year, $150,000 might not be the wealth of fantasy, but it is still a hell of a lot more than $20,000.  To a very fortunate person earning ten times as much, %150,000 might not seem like much at all.  My point is, why talk about taxing the “rich” at all when the meaning  of “rich” is so arbitrary?

I always like to point out that 35% of Americans think they are in the top 10% of income earners to shed light on how little we really understand about income tiers in the first place.  The tax the rich arguments simply distract people from the facts in the matter.

Even the arguments that these two-percenters in Minnesota are small business owners is merely a distraction.  First off, it isn’t any more true that a business owner is among the 2% than he is mixed in with more “middle class” incomes.  The fact is the majority of business owners are not in this tier.  But even if they were…so what?

In reality, we are taxing incomes, not people.  Whether you think $150,000 per individual (or $250,000 for straight married couples) is rich or not is hardly the point.  It is an income enjoyed by minority of people in the state who also are more likely to pay a lower effective overall tax rate anyway.  Again, we can debate who benefits more from a strong economy, the well-to-do or the poor, but it would seem obvious that the higher incomes have more means to pay.

A more philosophically honest and morally direct criticism of marginal tax rates is to say that all people should pay the same rate — a flat tax — regardless of  income status, but we are nowhere near that.  Conservatives in this country openly defend lower taxes for the wealthiest even as they cry foul about taxes generally.  It is hard to see how you can make any fairness or moral argument if in the first place your policies create different tax liabilities and subsidies.  (So screw them.)

But once again, in defending existing unfair tax policies, conservative politicians hide behind the seemingly uncool and unpatriotic position that you cannot tax the rich.  The argument works because we really don’t know what rich is, but more importantly it works because it takes focus away from facts and puts it on misunderstood abstractions about wealth, fairness, and demographics.

So the solution:  Stop talking about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” and start talking about what the tax is, what the marginal rates are, and why these necessary taxes are good for all of us, rich and poor alike.

Related articles

• Video: What are Income Tax Rates? (turbotax.intuit.com)
• House Progressives have the best answer to Paul Ryan (washingtonpost.com)
• Dayton’s new plan includes higher taxes on cigarettes, wealthy (minnesota.publicradio.org)

Sales Tax as a Moral Issue

National Public Radio reported on the trend among Republican governors to cut income taxes, often by proposing a broader sales tax.  Even in once-progressive Minnesota, Democratic governor Mark Dayton is proposing a scheme to increase sales tax by increasing the goods and services subjected to the tax.

In an era when the wealthiest enjoy a lower real tax rate than the poorest, it seems immoral to increase the tax burden on the poorest.  Furthermore, we have a depressed economy and that hurts the poor and the middle class the most.  Meanwhile, the very wealthiest, those already paying the lowest tax rates, have realized strong economic gains.

Forget the phony arguments about supporting job creators and business owners — an argument you’ll hear in NPR’s story — isn’t this really a moral question when we choose to increase taxes on those least able to pay them while those who have the resources to pay them get by with lower real rates?  There’s something almost criminal about that.

Let’s look at an example.

Let’s use after-tax disposable income and say that Family A has $50,000 after taxes and Family B has $500,000.  In this hypothetical example the sales tax rate is 5%.  Suppose family A spends only $40,000 of their income on taxed items at 5%.  That’s a tax of $2000.   Family B spends $200,000.  That’s a tax of $10,000.  So Family B is doing more to support our government, right?

Well, yes…in dollars.  But Family B has $300,000 in savings, a valuable asset that Family A does not have.  We could talk about the material benefit of having five times as much goods and services to enjoy, too, but cranks will complain that this is a subjective criticism akin to resentment.

The real issue is in the rate of tax.  We can look at the rate of tax as a factor of overall disposable income to make a comparison.  Family A pays an effective rate of 4%.  Family B, however, pays an effective rate of 2%, half as much.  Now I think we CAN look at the discrepancy of material benefit in items and services bought and savings gained.  Family B is much better off in the end while Family A pays a disproportionately higher amount in taxes.

In the age of inequality — with all the harm that that it creates — why would we foster further inequality?  On what sensible argument can you justify further depressing the wealth and power of those who are already behind?

Keep in mind, too, that the very poorest among us cannot escape sales taxes.  The mean-spirited argument that some people pay no taxes at all is demonstrably false.  Those “tax free” people actually pay.

Finally, as taxes expand to cover essentials like food and services like legal representation, the poorest are hit again.  We should protect the basic necessities of life, like food, clothing, and shelter.  And in a society where the quality of legal representation matters in issues of justice, freedom itself can depend on the ability to pay for legal services.  Taxing these services only tips the balance away from serving the poor and working classes.

In the age of inequality, sales taxes are not just a bad idea, they are an unjust solution that point to moral problems in our society.

Related articles

• Wealthiest Americans Pay Half the Effective Tax Rate That Poorest Pay in State and Local Taxes (yubanet.com)
• Budget 101:  A graphic primer to Dayton’s budget proposal (minnpost.com)
• The New Republican Tax War:  State Tax Hikes on the Poor to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich (politicususa.com)
• Poor Americans Pay Double the State, Local Tax Rates of Top 1 Percent (huffingtonpost.com)

Linden Avenue Vikings Stadium Site and the Basilica of St. Mary

Has anyone talked with the people over at the Basilica of St. Mary about the possible upside to having the Minnesota Vikings as a neighbor?   Maybe its time to ask:  WWRLD?

That, of course, is What Would Reverend Lovejoy Do…you know, the pastor providing Homer Simpson‘s spiritual guidance…

Anyway, it isn’t such a far-fetched question to ask.  I imagine Lovejoy being overjoyed with the prospect of tens of thousands of potential parishioners congregating only yards away from the Sunday service eight times a year, perhaps even more often if miracles really do happen.  So why shouldn’t the good people at the Basilica embrace the opportunity to welcome the Viking horde to Sunday service?

Of course other recruiting ideas exist, but these generally require planning and effort.  A new Vikings Stadium at the Linden Avenue site is a billion dollar freebie for the church, is it not?  Sure, there might be some traffic concerns, but churchgoers certainly can deal with that for the few Sundays when there might be a conflict in exchange for a chance to bring light and hope to thousands of hapless — and potentially debauched — Vikings fans, right?  And if future seasons look anything like this recent year, many people might opt for the pews over the bleachers anyway.

Hell…I mean heck…if I were a football fan, I might even get to Mass more often.

Alas, I don’t know much about football and I really don’t care much for doling out millions to millionaires, but if we’re going to do it, we might as well do it in a manner that benefits the public good as best as possible.  Why not add a concern for the holy good as well.  This is where I think the Basilica is looking at this situation from the wrong perspective.    Not only is the Linden Avenue site in good proximity to restaurants, hotels, and transit…it is close to a church, too!  Who can’t like that?

So buck up Basilica.  Get on the band wagon and stand behind the idea.  Perhaps you can negotiate a “Basilica Plaza” or some such thing in exchange for your enthusiastic support.  (The Cathedral of Saint Pauldidn’t come out so badly with that crazy ice racing thing…perhaps the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis can come figure this one out, too.)

So I vote even more enthusiastically for the Linden Avenue site.  Get on the phone and call your elected elected folks and others and see if we can’t get this Vikings stadium boondoggle done right.

Related articles

• Why Arden Hills is the Vikings’ Choice for a New Stadium… (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Why Beggars Ought Not Be Choosers (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• New Vikings stadium could be ‘disastrous’ for Catholic basilica (catholicnewsagency.com)

Compromise

As long as Republicans refuse to compromise, you cannot criticize Governor Mark Dayton as he tries to resolve the budget mess in Minnesota.

By insisting that they have the only answer and refusing to compromise, Republicans prove yet again how unfit they are for governing.  Never mind their lack of facts to support their backwardness, they simply do not possess the awareness or skills to serve the best interests of our future.

Of course there are two ways to look at compromise.  Compromise can be a give-and-take or it can be a negative outcome of a bad situation, as in compromising the future of our state.  In this sense, Republicans excel.

Republicans are set on putting our traditions and security in jeopardy.  They want government to fail.  They want to dismantle what better Minnesotans had once created for all of us.  In short, Republican interests don’t serve the state and I am getting tired talking about it.  The danger Republicans pose should be obvious.

Governor Mark Dayton has offered cuts that conflict with his principles.  Using facts, not opinions, Dayton explains how tax parity and fairness can raise desperately needed income to balance our state budget.  He is talking sense and he is offering a compromise.  Dayton is a serious and hard-working professional.

Republicans on the other hand?  Nothing…nothing but the same bad ideas that put us in this mess in the first place.  Obviously we could not afford tax cuts in preceding years, what makes us think we can afford them now?

So yes…conservatives want to compromise, but not in productive way, they want to compromise the basic security of our society.  Republicans strive to fundamentally change our society, rearrange economic opportunity, and sell off individual power and freedom.  These people are bad — very bad — for our future.

Therefore better people cannot back down.  Support governor Mark Dayton and other good people fighting to protect decades of progress and success.  That is the way to ensure a better future.

(This is becoming very, very tiresome…)

More GOP Tripe

The Minnesota House Republican Campaign Committee is busy doing what Republicans do best, skewing political positions by misrepresenting the facts.

Today on the StarTribune website they have been running a link pinning the blame for an impending shutdown of Minnesota state government on Governor Mark Dayton.  They suggest that not only can Mark Dayton personally endure a shutdown but that he strategically wants the shutdown.

Perhaps Republicans should worry less about people they think can endure a shutdown and worry more about those who cannot.  Moreover everyone will be worse off if we suffer a government shutdown.  There is no good reason for a responsible person to want a shut down.  The GOP simply does not get it.

Of course a large group of poorly informed or unsophisticated Minnesotans will believe the GOP’s false argument, and too many of them are elected representatives in our government.  That is the diseased core of so much that is turning back the clock on Minnesota’s progress.

Arguing that Mark Dayton wants a government shutdown is a not-so-well-thought-out opinion.  It is Mark Dayton, after all, who has made sincere and real efforts to compromise and negotiate.  The GOP, on the other hand, pouts and digs in, making their agenda a priority over the interests of the state.

Let’s not forget that more Minnesotans back Governor Dayton’s positions compared with the agenda of the GOP.  If Republicans did not want a shutdown, they could respond to the political and fiscal reality we face and work with our governor.  Instead they block progress and blame Governor Dayton.  Typical GOP strategy.

First of all, if you want to blame a governor, the governor who bears the blame is currently running for president.

Tim Pawlenty and his misguided belief that we can get more if we do less left Minnesota starved for resources.  The result of ransacking our public services and underfunding our budget is clear.  In an economic crisis we have no investments to fall back on, no room for adequate cuts.

Pawlenty and the GOP left Minnesota unprepared for fiscal disaster.  To turn around now and blame the current administration for this problem is irresponsible.  It is far worse to do nothing to help fix the problem you created, and this is exactly what the Republicans are doing today.

To think like a Republican you must suspend all understanding of cause-and-effect, you must live in a naive world where what you did yesterday has no bearing on conditions today and likewise where today has no ramifications for tomorrow.  Better people grew out of this kind of immaturity as school children when many of us were taught integrity and responsibility.  That is a lesson today’s GOP never learned.

 

 

Questions About a Proposed New Stillwater Bridge

Stillwater Lift Bridge. High water, Late Summer 2010.

I believe I have made up my mind regarding whether I will support a new bridge crossing the St. Croix River near Stillwater, but I wouldn’t mind hearing some discussion about questions I have about the bridge.

First, I question why anyone in Minnesota would support this bridge other than for altruistic reasons.  Economically it doesn’t seem to make much sense for Minnesotans.

The proposal considered most often has a current price tag of $690 million.  Understanding how these things work and with inevitable delays, the price almost certainly will rise above that estimate.  So we are talking about spending nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars for a bridge that will punch another hole in a natural economic boundary that benefits Minnesota and the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro.

Building this bridge will further dilute the economic core that centers around the Twin Cities by enabling more development in Wisconsin.  Therefore does it make sense for Minnesotans — and Minnesota’s political leaders like Governor Mark Dayton and Senator Amy Klobuchar — to support a new bridge? 

Even in the best of times this does not make a lot of sense, but today we are trying to close a nearly-$6 billion budget gap in Minnesota.  Diluting our state’s tax base, which would be the result of more Minnesota workers moving to Wisconsin, hardly makes sense.  What are the economics supporting a bridge? 

Highway 36

Supporting businesses in downtown Stillwater doesn’t add up.  Literally.  Furthermore, building a bridge a mile south of downtown Stillwater will mainline them onto Highway 36 and right past Stillwater.  People in Stillwater should be careful of what they wish for.  Ask residents in Long Lake, MN, for example, what happened when Highway 12 was re-routed past them.

Second, let’s consider the environment.  A lot of arguments for and against a new bridge focus on what will happen directly at the proposed bridge site, but what happens there is only part of the story.

Activity miles away from a river impact a river.  A river is more than the wide flow of water we cross with bridges, it is the entire watershed.  A river is a system of many rivers, streams, ravines, and groundwater.  Building another bridge across the St. Croix River into Wisconsin will only encourage and accelerate growth.  That is not a good thing…

Sadly, we still are not very good at smart land use planning in this country.  Even as we lose more and more natural resources, especially land, we don’t manage what remains very well.  The very Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was a response to this fact.  The very reason that legislation passed was to ensure that economic interests did not trump the long-term value of precious natural resources.  Now we have a potentially dangerous precedent in making.  If we can ignore the law here, why not elsewhere?

What are the environmental considerations being discussed beyond the river’s banks? 

A multi-lane interstate bridge downriver only a few miles serves west central Wisconsin very well.  Let’s agree that the Stillwater Lift Bridge does not serve Stillwater as well.  The complaints center around traffic problems in downtown Stillwater.  Does that justify building yet another multi-lane bridge across the river?

If the trouble is an aging bridge funneling traffic into the heart of a congested downtown, then shouldn’t the solution be a new bridge that does not do this? 

Luther Dale, chair of the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, proposed a sensible answer to the bridge question and one that I think addresses legitimate concerns I am raising here.  There are legitimate concerns about a “lower and slower” bridge solution like the one Mr. Dale proposes, but again that seems to take into account the impact of a bridge right at the bridge site.  Any new bridge will have impact well beyond the crossing point.

 If we make a mistake here, there is no turning back. 

Related Articles

• Tea Party’s Bachmann Finds Plenty to Like in $690M Bridge Proposal (nytimes.com)

Don’t Let The Door…

Minnesota State Capitol

Close your eyes and imagine for a moment Minnesota‘s future — or any state’s future, for that matter – if the people who threaten to leave when taxes go up do in fact leave….

…enjoy that thought for a moment…

Wow…wasn’t that nice?  But hardly going to happen.  These people aren’t going to leave a great state until they ruin everything that’s keeping them here.  So back to reality.

The tax whiners are at it again making outrageous claims about the evils of taxes and it seems that these misleading claims constantly need to be answered. 

Let’s begin by being clear and fair.  Of course it is important that taxes are levied and invested responsibly.  Not wanting to waste money is admirable.  However supporting thoughtful and adequate taxes is not one and the same with supporting waste.  Responsible people understand this.  But the tax whiners don’t understand this; they don’t understand the wisdom of smart tax policy and condemn taxes across the board…almost. 

Even Republicans — perhaps especially Republicans (Gotcha!) – support spending on pet projects and interests.  Selfish?  Well, you judge. 

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

How do you defend United States House Speaker John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, pressing his support for a multi-billion dollar investment in a military jet engine that the military does not want?  Billions for that, but cuts to programs for health care?  Someone should be crying “Hell no you can’t” now, but don’t count on it.

Hypocrisy is one thing, but failing to understand is another.  Perhaps therefore GOP leaders can be forgiven because they simply don’t get it.  (Humor me.)  Voters, however, shouldn’t be let off the hook.  The collective intelligence of the people should outweigh the charismatic and ideological stupidity of its leadership.   (Remember…In a democracy elections have consequences and, boy, do we have consequences.)

Sadly, it is hard to say which is more tragic, the dismal leadership conservatives offer or the pathetic butt kissing of the people who elect them.

At its most  fundamental level, conservatives don’t understand the costs of their tax proposals.  When they cut taxes more than they cut spending, for example, they increase deficits and debts; there’s a real debt-raising cost to doing that.  (That is essentially GOP  Paul Ryan’s approach to balancing our federal budget, by the way.  Odd, huh?)

Granted, thinking through these grown up issues requires application of facts and reasoning –together, at the same time – which is something that seems beyond the average conservative intellect, nevertheless you would think that individual self-interest would lead people to support better solutions.  Again, the answer here is a depressing one.  The public appears increasingly disengaged from both facts and their own best interest…and we all suffer for it.  (The “Invisible Hand” of economics might be better used giving today’s ignorant right a swift and firm spank.)

The GOP's Zellers and Koch. It looks like someone took away their ball.

Look at Minnesota, where whining is reaching an unbearable screech.  It is irrational, it is ideological.  Most notably and frustrating, it is the source of our problems, not the solution.

Minnesota’s conservative turn has cut away many of the benefits and advantages given to us by generations of progressive, hard-working Minnesotans.   We have gone from a state that wasn’t afraid to lead to one that cowers behind conservative pessimism.  We were given more, we should at least have the decency to protect what was given to us.

Rather than defend our legacy, we are being drawn down into a rat hole.  Increasingly, and almost exclusively, Republicans are at the head of the line leading us in decline.  In Minnesota, many of the GOP leaders are not old school conservatives, but people like our former Governor, Tim Pawlenty, who owe a great deal to Minnesota’s progressive tradition.  Becoming a conservative in Minnesota is a very pathetic way of saying thanks.

Conservatives failed to destroy us by creating hysteria over social issues.  Unfortunately they are having much better luck misleading the public through fiscal and economic issues.  And while in power they will take a few whacks at those social issues for good measure, all in the distorted name of the Holy Founding Fathers.

First, let me say that anyone wanting to move to South Dakota from Minnesota in order save a few hundred dollars a year isn’t a big loss, in my opinion.  In fact, I think we would be much better off if they did leave.  We keep hearing all of this brave talk about moving to take advantage of lower taxes, but unfortunately we don’t see many of these chickens following through.  A big disappointment, especially now. 

Here in Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton rolled out is budget proposal for Minnesota and the right wing is calling it a “job killer.”  (Michele Bachmann — who is a United States Congresswoman, but doesn’t always seem to know that — hasn’t weighed in yet, but she’ll surely claim that “our founders” would not stand for tyranny, loss of freedom, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…What a fool.)  What the fanatical right does not understand is how the practice of underfunding our state’s government over the years has left us with no option but to start paying for neglect.  There is not enough government to cut to balance the budget!  This is what “starve the beast” anti-government thinking gets you. 

Let’s say you could cut taxes and government services more, would that make cutting governemtn and taxes the preferred route?  What would be the value of what we would give up?  If state revenues increased because of higher incomes, would we reinstate programs that are cut now in order for us to “live within our means?”?  (Forget that last rhetorical question…I almost used my first LMAO.) 

Let’s talk about tax increases killing jobs.  This is a primary GOP scare tactic and it recklessly applies basic Econ 101 lessons that reflect simple academic economic models more than it does the reality of today’s markets and economic situation.

First, many of the businesses that would be affected by Dayton’s budget proposal have no employees.  They are individuals who have formed LLCs, for example, and are paid personal income from their business revenues. 

But let’s say a business has employees.  Would a business choose not to hire if hiring would increase profits because they would get taxed more on those increased profits?  If the decision to hire an employee is profitable, a business will hire.  It is difficult to see how a marginal tax rate increase that might add a couple hundred or even a few thousand dollars to a tax bill would outweigh what would otherwise be a profitable decision to add a unit of labor.  For most small businesses that Republicans talk about, the tax is on income paid to the owners of the business from profits…and possibly regardless of profits. 

If a new employee generates profits high enough to push your income into the higher tax bracket, is that a bad thing?  Moreover, if you’re content with your current pay, wouldn’t higher earnings give you incentive to reinvest back into your business opportunities rather than increase your pay?  Most people raising issues with a higher marginal tax rate simply are not being honest about the math or they don’t understand taxes.  Maybe both. 

Second, sensible taxes do not automatically deter talent; people with money don’t go running for the border when tax rates rise.  Some of the highest taxed places in the United States attract the country’s most talented people.  Why?  Smart people look for more than a few extra dollars in their bank account when making quality of life decisions.  They appreciate strong public amenities, including good schools and public services that help maintain a stable community.  They recognize that public goods make economic sense, too.  Taxes reinvested in the community build these assets that smart, talented people find attractive.  Smart, talented people earn money, create jobs, and help sustain a strong economy.  When was the last time a Republican politician could claim ANY of that?

Finally, the idea that people will move a business to another city or state needs to be addressed.  This is true and it happens.  Businesses do move.  But conservatives fail to see that the real issue here is a global one, not a national, regional, or state issue.  On the more local level it does make sense to invest in public goods, in fact, in order to attract talent as mentioned above.  But conservatives act as if we are back in the 1950s with an economy sustain by the competitive advantages we enjoyed then.  That is not the case. 

We need two things:  Investment in new economies where our resources enjoy a competitive advantage and a focus on the health of local economies.

Perfect Competition

The first issue will be addressed in part by investment in solid public goods:  Education, health care, research…things in which the private sector will not invest because of difficulties monetizing and collecting profits.  We need something like a space race again.  We also need reinvestment in the social programs and infrastructure that gave America a productive edge.

On the local level things are a bit more like the old days.  If you own a home repair business and you choose to move because you don’t like the tax environment, someone else will fill the void.  A real supply/demand curve exists in local economies and they adjust to factors like taxes, which are much maligned by the right.  If demand exists for locally supplied — and needed — goods and services, someone will find a way to make it work.  It is hard to imagine an economy in which all the local dog groomers move to Sioux Falls to enjoy a tax break. 

So if you do want to pull up stakes and head across the border for a better tax deal, please, by all means go, especially if you have been voting Republican in recent elections.  We need to regain the forward-thinking edge that Minnesota once had.  Minnesota prospered and we can do it again, but that won’t happen until Minnesotans once again value the advantages that strong social programs and sound infrastructure bring to a state’s economy and culture.  If more naysayers choose to leave, all the better.  We will thrive again with positive and optimistic enthusiasm for the future.

Besides…negative thinking is such a drag.

Related Articles

• Boehner thinks ‘we’re broke,’ but can afford wasteful spending in Ohio (washingtonmonthly.com)
• NYT: House GOP battles turmoil in its ranks (msnbc.msn.com)

More of the Same

Everyone...Run to the Bank!

Minnesota politics isn’t as smart as it used to be.  Not only do we have too many Republicans in office, but we have too many of today’s petulant brand of Republican in office. 

Today Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton rolled out a reasonable bonding proposal for rebuilding and reinvesting in Minnesota.  Predictably, the GOP, behind state senate talking head Geoff Michel, repeated the same empty babble that conservatives everywhere repeat. 

Michel responded with empty slogans which reflect the GOP’s worship of private market capitalism, making the same tiresome claim that only the free market can save the day.  Never mind that multiple failures within private market capitalism sank our economy two years ago — not taxes, not regulation — and forget that private investment remains locked out of the economy because profitable returns don’t exist for private investment in our demand-starved markets.  That’s all irrelevant.  The GOP spews the same empty rhetoric regardless.

It is, as I said, tiresome, but let’s take it one more time.

Today Governor Mark Dayton rolled out a reasonable bonding plan designed to restart smart investment in state infrastructure and provide jobs.  Geoff Michel criticized the plan and argued that private jobs, not government jobs, will save our economy.   Michel must think that overpaid government bureaucrats — if you can find any — would be out there driving piles for bridges and rebuilding schools.  He doesn’t realize that these projects would contract with private, ideally local, firms hiring local workers.  This would put money in working class Minnesotans’ bank accounts which — unlike tax cuts for wealthier Minnesotans — more likely would be spent in the local economy. 

Next, the tax cut myth surfaces again.  (There’s a reason why conservatives think the word “ditto” is a clever rhetorical trope.)  The idea that tax cuts automatically equate with job growth simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  We have been cutting taxes already.  In fact we just extended the Bush tax cuts.  Where are the jobs?  (Hint:  Look overseas.)  Moreover, job growth in recent years hasn’t been the solid opportunities that built America’s middle class, including job opportunities that benefited many of today’s Republicans. 

The middle class has suffered badly under GOP influence.  Real wages for most Americans has been flat or in decline while at the same time America’s wealth has trickled upward into the hands of a very small and fortunate minority.  Wealth has not been so unbalanced in America since 1928, on the eve of the Great Depression and at the end of the Gilded Age.

The GOP seems unable to grasp this.  They act as if the United States remains unchallenged in the global economy.  The GOP confuses its ideological fantasies with economic reality.  The stubbornly operate on wrong-headed opinion and deceitful propaganda alone.  Fact and logic has no place in GOP arguments and strategies.  One has to ask why.  Most people following the GOP lead, especially those wrapped up in populist movements like the Tea Party and including the party leadership itself, are serving interests that compromise their own.  It is called cognitive dissonance and it does not help our country.

Minnesota is a microcosm of the larger problems wrought by conservatives today.  The fact that Republicans have gained so much power in a state that benefited so much from smart politics is most interesting.  Minnesota was a shining example of progressive success.  The state has slowly lost its strength and standing as conservatives have taken more control.  What happens in Minnesota is happening elsewhere and it is high time it stops.

Related Articles

• Surprised by the degree of surprise (washingtonmonthly.com)
• The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter (usnews.com)
• Building a better business climate in Minnesota (brickcity.wordpress.com)

The Economy and The Sock Market

A Guy Could Get Great Socks Here -- In the Dayton's Era.

Whatever happened to unique, stylish, and luxurious socks?  I mean the thick comfortable ones made of wool, cashmere, and blends of both.  The kind that fit well and right.  Whatever happened to those?

I am going to make a useful observation that I think will be easy for everyone to understand. 

We see economic measures like our country’s GDP and points rising and falling on stock market but how does that really relate to the quality of every day experience for most people?  While our economy was soaring several years ago, for example, a few people made out like bandits — or robber barons — while most people simple got their lives tussled up a bit in the economy’s slip stream. 

Economic growth hasn’t really “trickled down” to most people very well.  Real wages have been flat — or even declining — for most of our working and middle class while the top 1% of us have managed to hoard more than a quarter of existing wealth.  So it seems to me that judging how well we are living based on economic figures might not really be a good measure to judge by.

So I got to thinking about socks.  I like socks, especially nice socks…maybe exclusively nice socks…and it is getting harder and harder to find unique, stylish, and luxurious socks anymore.  That got me thinking about why.  What has changed?

It used to be easy for a guy willing to spend an extra few bucks to find a wide assortment of great socks.  I thought about this.  Not so long ago — say 20-25 years ago?  Certainly 30 years ago – a guy could go to a retailer like Dayton’s Department Store here in Minneapolis and bypass the Gold Toe and find racks and tables full of great socks.  In fact, not so long ago, a guy could find a great selection of all sorts of things at a place like Dayton’s ranging from relatively affordable to somewhat upscale.  There was a nice vertical element to what was offered.    In one store a person might be shopping for Docker’s khakis or Armani slacks.  And you did it in relative style and comfort.

The store itself had class and style.  Well-dressed adults were happy to see to your needs at the store.  You could go to a great little restaurant — a real restaurant — or grab a great snack.  Sales were real events and infrequent.  In short, it was a civilized way to shop and you didn’t have to be a Vanderbilt to enjoy it.

Dayton’s acquired Marshall Fields of Chicago and things changed a little, but not too much.  I could still find my socks.  But things were indeed beginning to change.  Stock became more horizontal in quality and price point.  You could choose a blue polo from Tommy Hilfiger or a blue polo from Ralph Lauren or maybe select one of the new store brands which were essentially the same thing.  Instead of local style the stores adopted more of the Marshall Fields chain uniformity, but still a notch above more discounted retailers.  Nevertheless, the layered sense of variety and the open mix of practical with luxury was disappearing. 

Some of My Favorite Socks...

Today it is hard to find my socks even at high end retailers.  Places like Neiman Marcus really don’t even stock them anymore.  Nordstrom has some, but only some.  Retailers like JC Penny’s never carried them.  Discounters like Target never have either.  You can try perusing catalogues, but good luck.

This is about more than socks, however.  In the last 30 years we have gone from taking a level of quality for granted to having it all but disappear entirely.  People might argue that we have more selection and more choice today.  True, perhaps.  But we also have more crap.  Do you really need a dozen Old Navy shirts or two or three good shirts?  Does it matter that you can choose between colors differentiated as lavender or lilac? 

The reality is, I think, that the more choices you have, the less important that choice becomes.  Sometimes choice means we don’t think about what we really want, we just take the easy route.  Think of it as a dating situation.  If you go online and see thousands of profiles on a dating site, it is pretty easy to start eliminating options.  There are so many so why not wait for the perfect one?  (You will wait forever.)  But people eliminate potential dates based on what is easiest.  No grad education?  Next profile.  Doesn’t like badminton?  Next profile.  The same thing happens with buying now.  The proliferation of choice hasn’t really made the quality of our choices better, it has only made choosing easier.

So I’m supposed to be happy choosing between different shades of tan socks.  They lay out essentially the same sock, but slightly different, so like in a dating situation, I can easily eliminate one and take home the other.  But I don’t really get what I want. 

And in the retail environment look at what has happened.  You would have a mix of incomes and classes shopping in one place together.  Everyone had the same opportunity to buy up or buy down, to see and experience and mix it up a bit.  Maybe you would buy the inexpensive loafers but dress them up with high end socks!

Now…well, we have retail stores like Macy’s that have an aesthetic that recalls 1970s era Soviet chic.  shockingly banal promotional signs in overly lit monotony offered in a perpetual sale of discounts is what you get.  “Take an extra 15% off when you use your Macy’s card!”  Every day.  And no selection. 

Stores like Dayton’s filled a niche — an accessible niche — between places like Penny’s and Sears and places like Saks and Neiman Marcus.  That niche is gone and with it the variety of quality choices that once came with it.  Now you have a growing gulf between the sameness of the shopping mall retailers and the increasingly inaccessible luxury retailers.  It is a pretty good reflection of what is happening in our country economically and socially, I think.  But as long as people have the “freedom” to choose from a never ending stream of faux variety and crap, they seem not to notice.  Or care.  We need to focus more on the value of quality of choice rather than quantity of choice.

I want better socks and all that comes with them.

Related Articles

• $500 Stockings – These Mohair and Alpaca Socks are the World’s Most Expensive Socks in the World (trendhunter.com)
• Accessory Style: Lounge Socks (beso.com)
• Atlanta Hats? Seattle Socks? Macy’s Goes Local (nytimes.com)