THE BILLIONAIRE SPACE RACE: WHAT PRICE EXPLORATION?

Fifty-two summers after America put the first men

on the moon, in 2021 a “space race” again captivated the nation. This one generated not the unity the events of 1969 did, but a variety of views that conjured up longstanding questions about equity and

privilege when juxtaposed against the lure of adventure in space. Our reactions reflected that, ranging from the innately practical, through middle range theories, to the spiritual.

This race involved privately funded space forays that to some seemed like joyrides for the rich.  On

July 11, English entrepreneur Richard Branson flew on his company’s Virgin Galactic spaceplane above the 50-mile altitude the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognizes as the beginning of space. 

Nine days later, the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos and three

others used his company’s Blue Origin rocket  and spacecraft for a ten-minute suborbital flight to an altitude of 66 miles. Bezos and his crew essentially mimicked NASA’s 1961 suborbital missions by Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, America’s first men in space.

      

Woodson: First, Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes

Jeff Bezos’s space explorations don’t excite me. I 

view this as I view dead beat dads who drive expensive vehicles but don’t make child support payments.

According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization that investigates abuses of power, Bezos’s wealth exploded by $3.8 billion in 2007.  In that year and in 2011, he paid no federal income taxes. Between 2006 and 2018, his wealth increased by $127 billion and he paid a .98 per cent tax rate. During the same period, the median household in the United States earned $70,000 per year and paid a 14 per cent tax rate.

Following his flight, Bezos made unintelligible comments about Americans one day traveling into space when the earth becomes unlivable. A seat on that first flight went to the highest bidder at $28 million. That seems out of reach for most Americans.

Bezos said later, “I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this.” Mr. Bezos, Americans paid for “all this.” We held the country together with our tax dollars while you withheld yours for your private project.

Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first labor secretary, responded, “Amazon workers don’t need Bezos to thank them. They need him to stop union busting – and pay them what they deserve.”

Bezos should pay his fair share of taxes and let the American people decide when they want to spend money on space exploration. We need him to help the rest of us strengthen our social safety net, save the planet from greenhouse gases, and rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools.       

Rob:  A Mixed Bag

Few Americans cared more about space exploration than I did during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. I rose at the crack of dawn for launches, missed school a few times, and could name every

astronaut in NASA’s first four groups. I was into it. I still am. I believe space exploration benefits humankind in general and the United States in particular through technological advancement, national security, and scientific progress.

Space exploration, manned and unmanned, can help us address problems like climate change, energy inefficiency, and manufacturing processes. I do not, therefore, condemn the efforts of billionaires as they vie for a role in space exploration.  As one commentator pointed out after the Bezos flight, many things we take for granted began with a wealthy person experimenting with something that seemed far-fetched and just another pleasure for the idle rich. SCHEDULED commercial air service? Nah, that’ll never work.  

Having said that, I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments of the critics, including my brother Walker. Both those who contend billionaires should spend their resources on other things (like higher

wages for their employees) and those who argue space exploration is a job for government have a point. I thought about that as I watched Bezos take off. But, it was still fun. I’m a sucker for rocket launches. Always have been. Always will be.      

Henry:  Discovery

I don’t find billionaires investing in space exploration difficult. It’s not my focus in this post. I agree with Woodson’s sentiment and  hope those moneyed interests will use their funds to invest in space exploration and in practical and immediate efforts that benefit humankind. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The issue reminds me of the love I have had, and still have, for flight and space exploration.

As a kid I collected model airplanes and subscribed to every publication I could on flight and space. My

junior high career book detailed a career in the Air Force as a test pilot and space explorer. I sought appointment to the Air Force Academy to further that dream, but my senators weren’t ready.

Today, my cell phone contains Skyview, NASA, Skywalk, and Satellite Tracker apps. I may have

cared more about space exploration than Rob during the early days. I agree with him on the benefits of space exploration. An aspect of the human spirit demands this stretch of the imagination and investigation of the difficult and

seemingly impossible. My longing tugs at philosophical and spiritual components. That we still reach for the stars strengthens my faith in our ability to carve a path toward our destiny. We are a part of all that space contains.

              If in a twinkle lies eternity

               and all we discover is known

               all encompassing must be the Power

               to hold us and time for so long

 

                If I am stretched from boundary to boundary

                and yet can be reduced to less than a single atom

                where lies that in between for all 

                and rushes forth for each of us to complete

 

                If we are but a single thought

                strung throughout Eternity

                of what wonderful thread

                to form us are we sewn 

CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

PAYING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE: THE COMING TAX FIGHT – WHO PAYS?

President Biden’s infrastructure plan comes with a hefty price tag -- about $2 trillion over

eight years. Biden calls it a “once in a lifetime investment in America.” The plan requires new tax revenue. When he rolled it out, the 27-page fact sheet the White House presented listed not just rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, upgrading housing, installing electric charging stations, developing mass transit, and providing redress for usually non-white neighborhoods divided by highways, it also included detailed tax proposals. Biden suggests paying primarily with higher corporate taxes.  

Battle lines formed quickly. Most Congressional Republicans voiced opposition, offering the usual argument that increasing taxes kills jobs. Some Democrats, like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, support smaller tax increases than Biden

wants. So, where does that put the president?

Bumping Up Corporate Taxes

So far, Biden has proposed only corporate tax changes, something to which most Americans

don’t object. Many didn’t get much benefit from the 2017 Trump tax cuts which favored corporations and the wealthy. Rolling them back seems popular. One survey showed support for the infrastructure plan increased when pollsters told respondents increasing corporate taxes was part of the plan.  

Trump’s cuts reduced the corporate tax rate from

35% to 21%. Few corporations, especially those with international operations, pay 21%.  Loopholes and incentive provisions allow many companies to whittle

what they actually pay to about eight

per cent. According to the White House, a “recent independent study found that 91 Fortune 500 companies paid $0 in federal corporate taxes in 2018.”  Biden would change that by, among other things:

*Setting the corporate rate at 28%;

*strengthening the Global Minimum Tax for U.S. Multinational Corporations, stopping American companies from claiming tax haven countries as their residence, though they have management and operations in the U.S., a process called “inversion;”

*eliminating intellectual property loopholes that

encourage U.S. companies to locate jobs abroad, a problem the Trump tax bill made worse by giving tax breaks for shifting assets offshore; and

*enacting a minimum tax on “book income,” profits large companies report to shareholders, while avoiding reporting those profits for tax purposes.

The Poor and the Middle Class

Biden apparently does not plan on taxing middle class and poor taxpayers. The poor

have been saddled with a federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour since 2009, a major factor in America’s income inequality. Since the 1980s the gap between the rich and everyone else has expanded significantly. As Thomas Piketty reported in Capital and

Ideology, between 1960 and 1980, the bottom 50% of earners claimed 20% of national income. Between 1980 and 2015, however, the bottom 50% dropped from 20% to 12%.  Meantime, the top 10% went from a little more than 10% of income earned to more than 20%. The public intuitively understands this, so Biden’s choice not to tax lower income groups to pay for infrastructure should remain popular.    

Public opinion, however, hasn’t translated into GOP support in Congress. Biden keeps talking with Republicans in the hope of peeling off a few of their votes. He still thinks the country needs a bipartisan approach to problems like infrastructure and the funding needed for paying for it. He says he would welcome input from Republicans on specific proposals. If one of them has a better idea, he’d like to hear it.

The GOP response has included tepid support

for a much smaller program. Republicans object to making climate change measures and such things as home care part of the package, saying that’s not really infrastructure. They’d focus only on roads, bridges, and other “traditional” infrastructure items. They contend paring the proposal down, maybe to $600-900 billion, would reduce or eliminate the need for most, if not all, the tax increases. That’s a dubious proposition but, so far, it’s all they’re suggesting.

Republicans likely will accuse Biden of fighting 

a class war on tax issues. We think he should argue it’s past time someone fought for poor and middle class taxpayers (those in the lower 50%) and that corporate America should pay its fair share. Many Americans believe they elected a president who would champion the poor and the middle class. The infrastructure plan offers Biden a good opportunity for proving he’s that president. 

2009 All Over?

To date, Biden’s team has resisted the Republican track, apparently having learned a lesson from the Obama-Biden experience in

2009. That new administration kept making concessions on the size of the recession rescue package, hoping that would garner Republican support.  Cut this or don’t do that, they said, and we might support you. ‘Might’ was the key word. No concessions satisfied Republicans and the plan passed with only Democratic votes.  Some warned the package was too small and

wouldn’t extricate the economy from the ditch it found itself in. Many economists blame the slow growth that followed on the failure of the administration to “Go Big.”  Biden’s people say they won’t make that mistake this time.

Americans, of course, generally don’t like tax increases. Will the current polling showing support for the infrastructure plan and the tax increases hold, especially after the fear campaign the GOP will likely run  when the

real debate begins? Who knows?  We hope Biden, while continuing his dedication to bipartisanship as a governing principle, will remember the lessons of 2009.  This country faces important issues at a perilous moment. Timidity does not seem in order.  

 

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN: HOW MUCH ‘‘SOCIALISM’’ IN AMERICA?

Some conservatives have complained

about the measures Congress enacted aimed at helping Americans get through the coronavirus dislocation. They label the measures “socialist,” “un-American”,

and at odds with capitalism.  They say

we must get business as usual going or risk having these adjustments become permanent.

The country faces questions about the

appropriate level of government involvement in the economy and other aspects of life. Cries of “socialism” are not new when the government tries helping non-corporate middle America and the poor.

The 1936 Republican presidential nominee, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, attacked Social  Security as “socialism” (Franklin Roosevelt won the Electoral College, 523-8).

New York Governor Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that year, “The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is this cry of socialism anything new?... I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican Party … for over a quarter-century.”   

Many Americans who never thought

they’d seek or accept government assistance found themselves doing just that under the unprecedented circumstances the pandemic wrought. The pandemic exposed flaws in our healthcare and food supply systems. What happens when the

pandemic ends? Is the kind of government assistance provided in connection with the pandemic an outlier or are significant policy changes on the horizon?

Will the nation remedy these weaknesses in our health care system

with new measures addressing some of the systemic shortcomings that made the coronavirus situation worse? Or, will the “socialism” objections prevail and keep the status quo in place?

Harry Truman’s 1945 health care

proposal was defeated in large measure by the American Medical Association’s labeling of the legislation as “socialized medicine.”  Things have changed. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed over 70 percent of respondents favoring universal health care.

                     

That Old Definitional Issue

When opponents leveled charges that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs

were “socialism,” he said in his 1936 State of the Union Address that the proper role of government was “the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, and the protection of the people’s property.”

This year, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presented safety net programs aimed at assuring more Americans better access to health care,

child care, and other services. They proposed Medicare-for-All, a federal guarantee of health insurance mandated for everyone that would replace private health insurance. Other candidates, including presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, also proposed expanded health insurance plans, though not Medicare-for-All.

In light of the virus experience, must we adopt measures that seem like “socialism?” The pandemic exposed three particular shortcomings in the health care system. First, many Americans don’t have insurance

coverage, meaning they couldn’t get adequate treatment if infected. Second, the lack of health care puts some groups at greater risk. Louisiana, for example, became an

early coronavirus “hot spot” because so many of its low-income citizens, most of the people of color, had limited access to health care before the virus hit. They suffered from medical conditions – hypertension, diabetes, obesity - that made death more likely upon contracting the virus. Finally,

health care workers faced massive shortages of equipment and supplies.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26^th president, responding to charges he was a capitalism obstructionist and opponent of individualism, wrote, “Ruin faces us ... if we permit ourselves to be misled into refusing to exert the common power of the community where only collectively action can do what individualism has left undone or can remedy the wrongs done by an unrestricted and ill-regulated individualism.”

What Will Americans Accept? What do they Want?

Post pandemic life in America probably will look different than life before March

2020.  Until we get a coronavirus vaccine, limits on large gatherings and close personal contact will likely remain necessary. Many won’t like that (sports fans?), but they’ll probably accept it in exchange for re-starting the economy. But what about political changes?  How much government will Americans accept or desire?

Democrats flipped the House of Representatives in 2018, relying on health care as a way of attracting suburban women and people of color. The pandemic assures the push for improved health coverage will play a central role in the 2020 campaign and in the next session of Congress. Once the emergency ends, will Republican resistance to expanded health insurance fade? We don’t know.

                   

Many Democrats will seek a larger

federal investment in the health care system. That means lots of money for assembling and maintaining government stockpiles of medical equipment. Will anybody suggest rolling back the Trump tax cuts for financing such investment? Is doing such a thing “socialism?” 

                                        

What about unemployment insurance?  That’s mostly funded by taxes on employers. In light of the record number of unemployment claims, will

political and business leaders agree on a different way of funding that system? Would using general revenue and assessing higher taxes for that purpose make sense? Debating the issue seems reasonable now.

The Most Vulnerable

Many of these questions center on what America does about issues faced for the first time by middle-class people. How much “socialism” will they accept or want? That’s a political question on

which the spotlight will fall in the months ahead. Another issue, however, lurks beneath the surface. America has a population for whom the issues raised by the pandemic were not new. They live with them every day and have for a long time.

For this group, health insurance often doesn’t exist. Visits to doctors don’t happen except in the direst emergencies. Trips to food banks occur regularly, something middle-class people recently experienced for the first time. These most at-risk Americans need a voice in the political debate about “socialism.” Over the next few months, in this space, we intend to give it to them.