So who can spot what's wrong with this picture? Something is seriously so out of alignment in this country. The Washington Post has a lengthy report this morning on the "surge" in welfare recipients and applications, including some parts of the country where the number of people seeking assistance has risen 50% over last year.
After reading that story, I came across a little piece on Bloomberg News about Goldman Sachs and how they have essentially reduced their tax rate to 1% from 34.1% last year. How lovely for them. You know where their profit is going if not to taxes or back to the federal government that gave them $10 billion from the bank bailout? You guessed it - bonuses.
Just like we talking about the rising demand for food stamp assistance a few weeks ago, the story is similar with the welfare program. The Washington Post reports on a "surge" of welfare rolls and applications in numerous states:
More striking is who is coming onto welfare and why. Here in Florida, as elsewhere, the new face of welfare includes people who have tumbled from the middle class -- and higher -- after losing jobs, savings and self-reliance. And some are returning to welfare years after they thought they had found permanent work and independence. In the county that includes Fort Myers, nearly 40 percent of the 812 people who applied for welfare in October had never before asked for help.
In Florida, the number of people seeking assistance has risen 20% and some areas are particularly hard hit, including Ft. Myers, which has seen a 50% increase over last year.
Given that the welfare law will be reauthorized in 2010, many of those interviewed by the Post believe Democrats should aim to loosen work requirements that have been tightened over the years. If jobs are hard to find, should the focus be on education and child care, rather than trying to get a job - any job - as quickly as possible?
The job-centric nature of welfare remains popular in principle across the political spectrum -- but harder to put into practice. "If there is no employment out there to get, then what?" asked Shery Bader, employment services manager for Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida.
Many people coming onto welfare "shouldn't be receiving assistance if there [were] jobs out there," said Kevin McGuire, the Maryland Department of Human Resources' executive director of family investment. "The problem is, what we are seeing here is something that looks more like 1936 than 1996."
Another issue with welfare: the assistance has not kept pace with the rising costs of just about everything. The Post reports that in Florida, the benefit allotment for a family of three is $303/month - the same as it was in 1993. This comes on the same day as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that 63% of Americans have been hurt financially by the economic crisis.
::::::
Um... with all the news about welfare applications skyrocketing, more and more Americans needing food stamps or food banks, numerous states slashing their budgets, and our national debt increasing by the second, what is wrong with this picture?
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.
The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent, New York-based Goldman Sachs said today in a statement. The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year after paying $10.9 billion in employee compensation and benefits.
$14 million, eh? On profits of $2.3 billion? After receiving assistance from the federal government?
The rate decline looks “a little extreme,” said Robert Willens, president and chief executive officer of tax and accounting advisory firm Robert Willens LLC.
“I was definitely taken aback,” Willens said. “Clearly they have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.”
This is insane. The article mentions $14 million in worldwide taxes. I wonder how much of that will actually go to the government that bailed them out?
“This problem is larger than Goldman Sachs,” Doggett said. “With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore.”
::::::
Oh, but I certainly hope all those Goldman Sachs execs enjoy their holiday bonuses, as The Guardian (UK) reports:
A multimillion-pound bonus pot will still be shared by workers at Goldman Sachs, which benefited from a US bank bail-out and yesterday posted its first loss since going public nine years ago.
The payout, worth around £55,000 per employee, was confirmed as the Wall Street bank blamed "extraordinarily difficult operating conditions" for a fourth-quarter loss of $2.12bn (£1.4bn). It still achieved a $2.32bn profit for the full year to November, although this was sharply lower than last year's $11.6bn.
I know there are so many things to be outraged about lately, but this really sets me off. Working and middle class Americans are losing their jobs and relying, in ever increasing numbers, on welfare or food stamps or soup kitchens. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs takes $10 billion of taxpayer money and pays barely any taxes and then distributes its profits for bonuses. Am I missing something here or is this definitely an outrage?
::::::
In other news this morning, reaction continues to the expected announcement today of Tom Vilsack to head the Department of Agriculture. The New York Times looks at the bio-fuels issue:
One of the first major decisions Mr. Obama and Mr. Vilsack may have to make is whether to grant the ethanol industry’s requests for billions in federal aid in the stimulus bill, which Mr. Obama has said he hopes to sign into law quickly, perhaps on his first day in office.
“The big issue for him and any incoming secretary is going to be biofuels, that’s the sector that right now is in such a volatile position,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that is a leading critic of federal farm subsidies. American farmers, Mr. Cook said, are “hitched to both the food system and the energy system, both of which are oscillating.”
The Times also claims that both Obama and Vilsack are "staunch advocates" of ethanol and other bio-fuels. Philip Brasher at the Des Moines Register also looks at how Iowa will have "one of its own" in the department that dispenses federal crop subsidies.
::::::
The Hill reports that the departure of Senator Ken Salazar is causing the GOP to foam at the mouth in anticipation of 2010:
Amid news that Salazar will be the next Interior secretary, his seat instantly became the most imperiled Democratic Senate seat in the country. It also gives struggling Colorado Republicans another chance after losing an open seat last month — their third-straight cycle losing the top statewide race.
State GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams is looking at the Senate race and Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter’s reelection race as a great opportunity for Republicans to get back on track in 2010.
The article speculates that Attorney General John Suthers would be the leading Republican candidate in 2010 - that is, as long as former Gov. Bill Owens decides not to run.
::::::
In terms of who will get Salazar's seat until the next election, the Denver Post reports that there are three main names in contention:
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, outgoing state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter are three of the names in serious contention, strategists said.
The Colorado Springs Gazette editorial board thinks Ritter should give "extra special consideration" to Romanoff. Other Colorado press speculate that it will be a tough choice for Ritter because he will want to find someone who can raise enough money to hold the seat in 2010.
::::::
I really would love to know what happened behind the scenes that derailed Grijalva. The Arizona Republic is reporting that he turned down Pelosi's offer of an appointment to the Ways and Means Committee:
One day after losing out on a possible Cabinet post, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has turned down an appointment to the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
In a news release, Grijalva announced that he "respectfully declined" an assignment that is generally listed among the most esteemed in the House of Representatives.
Hmmm... interesting. He probably would rather stay where he is and work on the issues he really cares about, but still... interesting.
::::::
I thought this was pretty cool. After each presidential election, the UVA Center for Politics redraws the map of the US to show the blue and red states based on their weight in the Electoral College. Here is what it looks like after the 2008 election:
Man I love that blue!
Obama's base is broad and his Democratic Blue ranges widely. Every region of the nation is represented in his coalition, and the sectional polarization that occurred under George W. Bush has been considerably reduced. It isn't just the sweep of the territory won by Obama. Amazingly, Barack Obama's 52.7 percent of the national vote ranks sixth best among Democrats in the 38 elections since 1860.
::::::
Finally, the Bush history-rewriting project is getting even more ridiculous. Matthew Yglesias points out an exchange Dana Perino had with a reporter yesterday during the press briefing:
QUESTION: But he wasn’t a guest. We’re occupiers.
PERINO: No, we’re not. We are absolutely a guest.
It so absurd that it is actually funny. There is no question that was is going on right now in Iraq is an occupation. The Bush administration can try to make it seem like we are "invited guests" in Iraq, but no one is buying that bull. I have a tendency to think that their attempt to rewrite history will actually do them more harm than good, at least in the short term, by cataloging all of the mistakes and errors that have gone on over the last eight years. Not like we need any reminders.
::::::
What's on your mind this morning?