It's no secret that wealthy Americans have enjoyed low taxes since the dawn of the Reagan era—even as they have scored huge income gains thanks to changes in the economy. A less well-known fact, though, is that middle and low-income earners have seen far bigger cuts in their federal taxes, which has helped offset stagnant incomes for these groups and may explain why there hasn't been a bigger revolt against income inequality in America.
The most likely consequence of the sequestration will be be slower growth and lower tax revenues, and it’s a distinct possibility that the sequestration could actually increase the deficit.
The crisis in Washington was always partly a story about money in politics, with big conservative donors pushing GOP lawmakers to an extreme stance with threats of primary challenges to those who didn't fall in line.
Now, even after the bid to defund Obamacare turned into an abject rout for Republicans, these same donors are making good on their threats.
Assuming some short-term deal emerges in Washington to avert a default, pending later budget talks, we all know what comes next: Another dead-end debate over taxes.
Why? Because if there's one issue that conservatives in Congress are even more implacable about than Obamacare it's taxes -- as in, no new taxes, ever.
The closer you look at the crisis in Washington, the more you can see how it's yet another story about money in politics. It's not just that congressional Republicans are running scared before big conservative donors who threaten to finance primary challenges, as I have written here and here.
The case is a challenge to the total cap on the amount that one wealthy donor can give to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs, known as “aggregate contribution limits.”
Those Bush tax cuts are a gift that just keeps on giving. They are a big reason the national debt is so high, requiring huge interest payments, and a big reason that the Treasury faces such large shortfalls every month between what comes in the door and what goes out.
Yet, somehow, conservatives have managed to spin the national debt strictly as a "spending problem." And strangely, Democrats have largely let them do that with barely a word about how low taxes got us in this jam.
WASHINGTON DC -- Today, oral arguments in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC brought protesters to Washington in an effort to urge the high court to uphold the constitutionality of aggregate campaign contribution limits, in the most significant big money in politics case since Citizens United v. FEC.
With a bad ruling, the Roberts Court could unleash more than $1 billion in McCutcheon Money from just 1,500 elite donors.
One of the most alarming aspects of a possible default is also one that gets the least attention: A default would raise the cost of federal borrowing, perhaps for years to come, and send the deficit soaring.
If Treasury securities become, well, less secure, the United States will have to pay investors more to buy them. Hence higher interest rates on new debt that is issued.
The current “aggregate contribution limit” is $123,200 — as of this post, that's the total amount of money one wealthy individual is permitted to contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs. The Supreme Court will consider this cap in McCutcheon v. FEC.
WASHINGTON – This Tuesday, as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, activists and organizations across a wide spectrum of issues will speak out in support of protecting the integrity of our democracy at a rally outside the court. In the McCutcheon case, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to strike down important caps on how much money an individual can contribute directly to political campaigns.
WHAT: Rally against big money in politics and McCutcheon v. FEC
NEW YORK, NY – As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in the McCutcheon v. FEC case, national public policy center Demos has partnered with U.S. PIRG to release new data quantifying the potential dollar impact of striking down federal aggregate contribution limits.
Demos and U.S. PIRG project that striking aggregate contribution limits would bring more than $1 billion in additional campaign contributions from a small segment of elite donors through the 2020 election cycle.
WHAT: Press call about upcoming SCOTUS Case McCutcheon v. FEC featuring NAACP, Sierra Club, Communications Workers of America, People For The American Way Foundation, Greenpeace, Main Street Alliance, OurTime.org, Rock The Vote, American Federation of Teachers, Working Families Organization, U.S. PIRG and Demos.
Why isn't anyone talking about the role of wealthy campaign donors in gridlocking Washington and precipitating a likely government shutdown?
In the standard telling, it's extreme base voters, whipped up by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, who have turned the GOP into what Paul Krugman called the "Crazy Party" on Friday. But there is another reason why hardline members of the House are pushing demands that even John Boehner won't embrace: they fear the big money on the right that is available to finance primary challenges.
Fiscal hawks love to remind us that interest payments on the national debt will be a major driver of future U.S. budget deficits. Just last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) published a doom-and-gloom paper that noted that interest payments were the single fastest growing part of the U.S. budget and the most volatile area of future spending.
Have you heard of the Freedom Partners? According to a Politico investigation, the group raised and spent $250 million in 2012 to shape political and policy debates. According to IRS filings, the group has 200 donors, each of whom paid at least $100,000 in annual dues. And while its head, Marc Short, claims that, “our members are proud to be part of [the organization],” they refuse to be publicly identified. So, proud to be a part of it, as long as you don’t know who I am?