Select Coverage of State of the Dream 2011: Austerity for Whom?
State of the Dream 2011: Austerity for Whom? surveys the impacts of a tax-cutting, government-shrinking economic agenda – as prescribed by Republican leadership with Tea Party allies – on communities of color.
We find that if such an agenda advances, the dream of a racially equal society, as described by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. over four decades ago, will be pushed even further out of reach.
If you are a media representative or blogger on social and economic issues and are interested in covering this report, please contact Maz Ali at 617-423-2148 x101 and/or firstname.lastname@example.org. Scroll down for select media coverage of this report.
February 27, 2011
The nearly 400-year history of black people in America has always been a race to catch up. Recent data shows that history has not changed.
United for a Fair Economy last month released its “State of the Dream Report” showing that African Americans have only 10 cents in net wealth compared with 12 cents for Latinos and a dollar for whites. [...]
Joblessness is a major problem, too, among people of color. This is a “who you know” job market, which embraces white privilege. [...]
The...report also found that...whites are three times as likely as blacks and 4.6 times as likely as Latinos to benefit from the tax breaks for those earning more than $250,000. The report also shows that the benefits of the reduced tax rate for capital gains and dividends flowed “overwhelmingly to whites.”
That and the weakening of the estate tax will continue to widen the wealth gap. Again, this is the disadvantaged history of blacks in America, beginning as people who were property by law.
Read the full column by Lewis Diuguid on KansasCity.com.
February 24, 2011
Look a little closer at who really stands to lose if Scott Walker gets his way: Women and minorities
Amid all the rightful outrage over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to do away with collective bargaining rights for public sector unions in Wisconsin, one important point has been neglected: The demise of public sector unions would be most detrimental to women and African-Americans, who make up a disproportionate share of the public sector workforce. [...]
According to a report by the nonprofit United for a Fair Economy, blacks are 30 percent more likely than the overall workforce to hold public sector jobs.
Read the full post by Alyssa Battistoni on Salon.com
February 23, 2011
Racism is the salvation of late-stage American capitalism. For hundreds of years, real facts of human existence have been routinely turned on their heads, and non-facts accepted as ultimate truths, all to justify white supremacy. A society so afflicted can believe literally anything. Thus, the Republicans achieve wondrous success by planting the words "We're broke" in the mouths of men and women who are transparently rich, and who in turn serve the interests of the super-rich. [...]
This governmental brokenness coexists with December's Obama-GOP two-year, $850 billion tax giveaway, 40 percent of which goes to the top five percent of income earners, while 25 percent will go to the top one percent, according to the United for a Fair Economy.
Read the full column on OpEdNews.com.
February 19, 2010
When asked recently how they feel about their future, 85 percent of blacks said they are optimistic, with 65 percent indicating they specifically feel secure about their financial situation... [...]
Fifty-six percent of blacks, compared with 44 percent of whites, said the current economic situation is not causing stress in their lives.
The confidence level of blacks in the race and recession survey is in stark contrast to the depressing economic data showing that the economic crisis is still plaguing the African American community. [...]
Read the full column by Michelle Singletary on WashingtonPost.com.
February 10, 2011
Black and Latino families are continuing to disproportionally experience economic hardship, points out another report from the Boston-based research organization United for a Fair Economy. The reason is that they entered the recession with a meager cushion. In 2007, blacks had only a dime and Latinos 12 cents of assets compared to every dollar whites had.
“Very clearly, they don’t have the wealth to withstand and to endure economic hardships in the same way white families are able,” says Mazher Ali, a co-author of the report.
Read the full column by Eva Sanchis on Progressive.org
January 28, 2011
So how is it that this Democratic president has the temerity to deliver a State of the Union address that completely neglects any explicit mention of the calamitous conditions now afflicting his staunchest supporters: the poor? [...]
And things could get even worse for the poor if the president feels the need to cut too many deals with the new Republican-led House in order to appear more centrist.
According to Brian Miller, the executive director of the nonpartisan and Boston-based group United for a Fair Economy and co-author of the group’s report entitled “State of the Dream 2011: Austerity for Whom?” released earlier this month, “austerity measures based on the conservative tenets of less government and lower taxes will ratchet down the standard of living for all Americans, while simultaneously widening our nation’s racial and economic divide.” [...]
Read the full column by Charles Blow on NYTimes.com
January 24, 2011
The world has changed since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream on the National Mall in 1963. But this year, during Black History Month, we should remember that King's messages remain as powerful--and necessary--today.
Nearly 43 years after King's assassination, the racial economic divide in our country endures. And if the austerity agenda advocated by deficit hawks in Congress succeeds, the state of King's dream is sure to decline.
MLK once said, "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word." The unarmed truth--or data, in this case--is startling.
Read the full post by Wanjiku Mwangi of United for a Fair Economy.
January 20, 2011
"Them that's got shall get. Them that's not shall lose," as the Billie Holiday song goes. "Yes, the strong gets more while the weak ones fade. Empty pockets don't ever make the grade."
It is a tale of two cities in early twenty-first century America. Wall Street is enjoying hefty bonuses and corporate America is awash in cash. Yet, all you can hear, whether inside the Beltway or around state houses is talk of austerity, the new buzzword that's all the rage. Conservative politicians in Congress and in statehosues around the country rode a wave of Tea Party pseudo populism, funded by Republican philanthropy, corporate lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Read the full post by David A. Love.
January 19, 2011
Countries around the globe have gone from implementing stimulus packages to austerity measures as a model for economic recovery. The new Republican-led House of Representatives here in the United States is now mounting up a campaign of its own.
Eliminating social service programs, tax cuts for the rich, and rolling back public sector employees are all on the GOP agenda. But a new report argues that these policies will further widen economic inequalities for U.S. minorities and the public at-large.
The Boston-based nonprofit United For a Fair Economy published the findings last Friday to highlight Dr. Martin Luther’s King vision for economic justice. The analysis is not only a rebuke to the House majority’s policies, but also stands in stark contrast to a recent International Monetary Fund report that suggests countries should continue promoting fiscal austerity.
Read the full column by Akito Yoshikane on InTheseTimes.com
January 17, 2011
Nearly a half century after King's I Have a Dream words the black poor are still just as tightly trapped in the grip of poverty and discrimination that King warned about. On the eve of the King national holiday and Obama's second year in office, the Boston based research and economic justice advocacy group, United for a Fair Economy, released its eighth annual King Day report. It found that the gaping disparities in income, wealth, employment, quality and availability of housing, decent schools, and health care between blacks, minorities and whites has grown even wider.
Read the full column by Earl Ofari Hutchinson on HuffingtonPost.com.
January 17, 2011
Making King Bland: Every year on MLK Day, a bland liberal version of Martin Luther King is celebrated, and leftists take time to point out how radical King was, toward the end of his life, at any rate. Two contributions of note. [...]
Read the full post by Chris Sturr on DollarsandSense.org.
January 17, 2011
January 17, 2011
When judging the state of King's dream for economic justice, the verdict is clear: Black America faces a nightmare.
African-Americans bore the brunt of the Great Recession's job losses and economic slow-down. And it only promises to get worse: The slash-and-burn agenda proposed by the new Congressional House leadership, as well as many state legislatures, will have a uniquely devastating impact in low-income and black and Latino communities.
Just how bad? A new report by United for a Fair Economy offers a valuable survey of the damage that's already happened, and how it will likely get much worse.
Read the full post by Chris Kromm on SouthernStudies.org.
January 17, 2011
Whenever governments cut spending, the pain is uneven.
But African Americans are especially vulnerable, as a disproportionately high number rely on government dollars for crucial services, a new study has found. As black people are more dependant than white people on public safety nets, and are more likely to be on public payrolls, governmental austerity could wound the black community especially severely.
Read the full column by William Alden on HuffingtonPost.com.
January 16, 2011
"[B]ecause we exist in a society that has an infrastructure and legacy of racism, the effect of these policies is the same as explicitly racist ones. For example, if you work at the DMV in your state and you're a minority, it probably will seem very much like racism to have your job eliminated while simultaneously the wealthy White guy at your counter is registering his new Bentley as a result of his brand new tax cut. Especially if half your co-workers are of color and most of the new luxury vehicle registrations are from people who are White."
Read the full post on DailyKos.com.
January 15, 2011
Just the other day, though, one of my more socially liberal friends forwarded a story about how the top 1% has seen massive wealth increases in the last 30 years while the lowest 40% have seen not only a drop, but have fallen into the negative wealth zone (owing more money with very little assets).
Could this finally be a tipping point? [...]
Just in time for that tipping point, my friends at United for A Fair Economy have released their 2011 State of the Dream Report. With the Republican majority in the House demanding “austerity,” and Democracts likely to join them on some of their agenda items, this report shows who will get hurt the worst by “centrist” economic policies.
Read the full post by Craig Wiesner.
January 14, 2011
As we prepare to observe MLK Day Monday, we take a look at the "state of the dream"
The group United for a Fair Economy released a report today that sheds some light on how far we've come in realizing Dr. King's dream.
It shows that current public policies worsens the racial economic gap...hitting African Americans and Latinos hardest.
Read the full post by Nordia Epps on WDEF.com.
January 14, 2011
In advance of Martin Luther King Day next Monday, United for a Fair Economy has released its 8th annual "State of the Dream" report, surveying the economic challenges facing workers of color. The 2011 edition focuses on the impact of economic austerity on African American and Latino workers.
The report documents several ways in which the austerity agenda sweeping Washington hurts the African American and Latino middle- and working-class.
Read the full post by John Schmitt.
There are few Congressional theatrics as dramatic as the filibuster. In the movies, in order to filibuster, Senators must bravely stand in the Senate and passionately make their case to the American people.
But in today's modern Senate, things have become downright lazy. Rather than taking a bold stand of impassioned principle or courage, Senators can filibuster by placing a phone call to a clerk and heading off to a leisurely dinner. The mere threat of a fillibuster is often enough to stop legislation dead in its tracks. What's worse, the lack of a strong filibuster has contributed to the worst partisanship and gridlock we've seen in decades.
This January 5th, we have an important opportunity to demand that the rules of our Senate change. We can demand that our elected officials go on the record with their positions in an all night talk-a-thon in order to block legislation or nominations.
Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM) are calling for a new filibuster rule to make the voice of the minority heard and to make the Senate more productive. This new rule must be adopted on the first day the Senate convenes next year, when only a simple majority of Senators is required for a change in Senate rules.
Take a stand today to demand that your Senators take a stand! If you want to return to the days of Mr. Smith, take action today! Call your Senators by January 5 and ask them to support the improved filibuster rule.
Ninety-seven percent of Americans got the muddy end of the stick in the lopsided tax bill President Obama signed into law in December. Of that 97 percent, people of color will suffer the most.
When it comes to tax policy, the national conversation typically fails to account for race as a factor. So, although the progressive tax movement suffered a setback in the Obama-GOP tax deal, the debate offered reason for hope in the coming two-year battle over the estate tax and top-tier Bush tax cuts.
The Congressional Black Caucus stepped up to express its overwhelming distaste for the tax deal. In doing so, those legislators have signaled their awareness of the connection between tax breaks for the super-rich and the economic backsliding of African American communities. CBC member Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. likened President Obama's tax plan to Reaganomics:
"I'm worried that the deal President Obama cut with Republicans sets us up for a Reagan-style set of bad choices…That was President Reagan's strategy: a 'starve the beast' plan of lowered taxes and increased military spending that would force Congress to make deep cuts in programs for the most vulnerable."
The CBC wasn't alone in their outrage. A group of Black church leaders, representing 50,000 congregations, loudly denounced the tax deal. Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson, chairman of the Conference of National Black Churches, wrote:
"Based on our prophetic responsibility to speak to those in power on behalf of the poor, underserved, and vulnerable, we find it utterly shameful that those who insisted that the deficit be reduced, now celebrate billions of dollars being added to the deficit as tax cuts for the wealthy."
Latinos are also among those to feel the scald of poor tax policy. Oscar Chacón, Executive Director of the National Alliance of Latin American and Carribean Communities (NALACC), explains the insecurities Latinos, like African Americans, face in the Obama-GOP tax deal:
"The continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in this time of crisis is an utterly irresponsible act. With the incoming Congress, it is foreseeable that the significant increase in federal debt generated by this "compromise" will be used as a leading argument to enact cutbacks in key social programs that will inevitably have a disproportional negative impact on Latino and Latin American immigrant communities in the U.S."
In the short-term, a worrisome finding in the Obama-GOP tax plan is that the poorest Americans would experience a slight tax increase due to the replacement of the President's "Make Work Pay" tax credit with a temporary 2 percent cut to the payroll tax. Workers of color are strongly represented in the lowest tax brackets, and would therefore carry a disproportionate amount of the weight of that tax hike.
The payroll tax cut itself is like whiskey in a Red Bull can. Measures that cut holes in safety net programs–as this cut threatens to do with Social Security–are dangerous for the working class and people of color, who are more likely to rely on those programs than white Americans. If the payroll tax cut now is used as a reason to cut benefits later, the overall economic impact will be more contractionary than stimulative.
In determining which way is forward, we must constantly consider the type of society in which we want to live. At the most basic level, many of us want the same things, regardless of race or ethnicity: meaningful work that adequately provides basic needs for ourselves and our families, time and the means for recreation and others with which to enjoy it.
We first have to realize that when our communities as a whole do well, we as individuals are more likely to do well. Then it's up to us to create the circumstances that make that possible by fighting for policies that provide opportunity to the most vulnerable populations.
It starts with you and I. We get informed, we take action and we pay it forward to as many others as possible.
The super-rich got an early Christmas gift in the $858 billion tax package that President Obama signed into law on Friday. On top of a two-year extension of Bush-era income tax rates, the wealthiest Americans dodged an estate tax that was set to jump up from zero to 55% for individuals worth more than $1 million. Instead, under a deal Senate Republicans negotiated with the White House, individuals can exempt estates up to $5 million and pay 35% beyond that. The exemption for couples is $10 million.
Official estimates pin the two-year cost of the adjustment at $68 billion, and it will shield all but about 3,600 estates from the levy, according to a projection by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
The windfall for the well-heeled wasn't delivered out of thin air. Indeed, a small band of the richest Americans have acted as their own secret Santas on this issue for years. A 2006 report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy -- both nonprofits opposed to concentrated wealth -- identified 18 families financing a coordinated campaign to repeal the estate tax altogether. Among the leading names behind that push: the Gallos (E&J Gallo Winery), the Kochs (Koch Industries), the Mars' (Mars Inc.), the Waltons (Wal-Mart), and the Wegmans (Wegmans Food Markets). At the time, the report estimated the families' collected net worth to be at least $185 billion, roughly equal to the market cap of Google today.
Several of the families organized their efforts through an association called the Policy and Taxation Group. Lobbying disclosure laws don't require the group to list its members, and as such, it hasn't disclosed any of them since 1999. But disclosures show the group itself remains active, with two hired-gun lobbying firms on its payroll this year. One of those shops, Patton Boggs, separately shills for the Mars and Wegman families on the issue.
Small estates vs. large estates
Proponents of an estate tax repeal make their argument by citing the burden of the tax on people with significantly less money -- namely small business owners and family farmers. And a wide range of trade associations organized under the banner of the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition -- a group that includes the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Federation of Independent Business -- has stayed active lobbying to scale the tax back. They argue the levy is so onerous that small to middle-sized concerns are frequently forced to sell just to pay the piper.
Independent analysts question the veracity of those claims. The Tax Policy Center, for example, concludes there is "little hard evidence [to suggest] that the impact of estate taxes on family farms and businesses is a major concern." [...]
By Tory Newmyer for Fortune magazine, December 21, 2010
The sellout of a tax deal has been signed into law. Despite all our best efforts, all the efforts of thousands of groups, hundreds of thousands of individuals, and a few stand-up politicians, we appear helpless to resist the onslaught of the “starve the beast” strategy (except for war, policing & corporate giveaways).
The utter failure of the Obama Administration to stand up to the rightwing assault on lower and middle-income workers, families, and communities has left many angry and feeling powerless.
It is truly dispiriting.
I believe, however, that there is a silver lining. For the first time in a long time, there appears to be a groundswell of recognition that what has happened is in large part due to the lack of a progressive social movement to counterbalance the power of the oligarchy and its Tea Party ground troops. Union leaders, community-based organizing coalitions, progressive beltway think tanks, and many others who have traditionally put most of their strategic eggs in the basket of support for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, are calling for strategies that will build an independent movement.
And many voices have been raising the need for a unifying, values-based narrative to counter the ultra-conservative blame the victim, blame big government, blame unions, blame Muslims, blame immigrants story amplified by Fox News and mainstream media echo chamber.
More and more progressives are recognizing the importance of organizing, not just mobilizing, and perhaps most important of all, the need for unity across issues and constituencies. As George Lakoff explained:
“Those of us outside of government have to organize that unified movement, and not be limited by specific issue areas. The movement is about progressivism, not just about environmentalism, or social justice, or labor, or education, or health, or peace. The general principles govern them all.”
There is an opportunity here to put aside our notions of turf and any “we’ve got the key facts or the correct analysis or the pipeline to people in power” mentalities. We may need to let go of our egos and keep our eyes on the prize and get some agreement about those general principles.
To my colleagues:
I am proud to be part of the extraordinary work you do day in and day out, and am amazed at how, even with our resource constraints, you still manage to ramp up the intensity when needed. We are suffering defeats but our efforts are not for naught.
Seeds may stay dormant for years before springing to life. I am grateful for the work you do in the garden.
The $900 billion tax bill that was passed by Congress this week provides massive tax breaks for the wealthy. These tax breaks will not create jobs or improve the economy. They add to the deficit and will worsen economic inequality in the United States.
The worst part of the bill is the gutting of the estate tax, which only affects multi-million dollar estates, to its weakest form in 80 years.
Progressive organizations and progressive representatives in the House fought long and hard to establish a stronger estate tax. The sole positive aspect of the estate tax provision is that the cut lasts for only two years.
It’s clear the estate tax will continue to be at the center of future battles for tax justice.
Senate Republicans held relief for unemployed Americans hostage in the middle of the worst employment crisis in decades. Tax breaks for the wealthy were the ransom they demanded.
This bill makes clear the hypocrisy of deficit hawks in both parties. Now that it has been passed, the same deficit hypocrites are already saying their next goal is to shrink public spending on programs that benefit the working and middle classes.
President Obama says that he wants these tax cuts for the wealthy to be temporary. UFE will fight to make sure they are.
The President also says that he plans to focus on overall tax reform. UFE will fight for a stronger estate tax, for taxes that ensure the wealthy pay their fair share, and for taxes that reduce economic inequality.
We face several important choices between now and 2012. Our country will have to seriously consider this question: Do we want an economy that works for everyone, or one that excessively rewards the wealthy?
In the coming years, we at UFE will redouble our efforts to build a movement for tax fairness and a more just and inclusive economy.
Les inégalités sont-elles responsables de la crise?
By Laura Raim for L'Expansion (French business journal)
Les Etats-Unis sont-ils condamnés à plonger dans une nouvelle crise? Le compromis fiscal conclu entre Obama et ses adversaires républicains a été approuvé jeudi par le Congrès américain. Il s'agit du dernier avatar de l'échec du gouvernement à résorber des inégalités sociales qui ne cessent de se creuser depuis des décennies. Inégalités qui seraient pourtant à l'origine aussi bien de la crise de 1929 que de celle de 2007.Les inégalités sont-elles à l'origine des crises ?
C'est la thèse des économistes Michael Kumhof et Romain Rancière. Dans un article publié fin novembre pour le FMI, ils rapprochent la montée des inégalités de celle de l'endettement des ménages. Pour eux, c'est le point commun entre les décennies précédant la crise économique actuelle et celles d'avant la Grande dépression de 1929. Entre 1910 et 1929 comme entre 1989 et 2008, la part des revenus de la fraction de 1% des ménages les plus riches est en effet passée de 15% à 25%.
"On a étudié comment les agents réagissaient à cette tendance, explique Romain Rancière, professeur associé à la Paris School of Economics. On a constaté que malgré l'érosion de leurs salaires, les Américains 'd'en bas' cherchaient à maintenir un certain standard de vie, comparable à celui des Américains 'd'en haut'. L'expression anglaise 'keeping up with the Joneses' est symptomatique de cette culture où les gens se comparent constamment les uns aux autres et veulent avoir la même maison ou la même voiture que le voisin". Les ménages pauvres ont donc abondamment emprunté pour compenser la stagnation de leurs revenus.
Mais pour emprunter, il faut qu'il y ait des prêteurs. Et justement, les ménages aisés étaient à la recherche de rendements élevés pour placer leur surplus d'épargne. La soif d'endettement des ménages pauvres leur a permis d'investir dans des produits financiers adossés sur ces crédits.
A noter que cette volonté d'emprunter des uns et d'épargner des autres a augmenté les besoins en services financiers et donc gonflé le secteur, dont la taille a doublé entre 1981 et 2007 pour atteindre 9% du PIB.
Le gouvernement a quant à lui encouragé ce processus dans les années 90 en dérégulant le marché bancaire et en poussant Fannie Mae et Freddie Mac à accorder des prêts immobiliers aux ménages les plus modestes. De fait, il est plus facile de masquer les inégalités en encourageant le crédit facile plutôt que de s'y attaquer à travers des politiques de redistribution.
"Le problème, c'est que cet endettement excessif des classes pauvres et moyennes a fragilisé le système financier : quand les prix de l'immobilier ont arrêté de progresser, des emprunteurs ont fait défaut en masse, et cela a déclencé la crise en 2007, poursuit l'économiste. La réduction des inégalités n'est donc pas seulement une question de justice sociale. C'est aussi une nécessité pour empêcher l'éclatement de nouvelles crises financières".La politique fiscale explique-t-elle le creusement des inégalités ?
La croissance des inégalités s'explique surtout par la montée spectaculaire des très hauts revenus. En ce qui concerne la période récente, les raisons pour cette tendance sont multiples : baisse du pouvoir des syndicats susceptibles de négocier des augmentations collectives, augmentation de la part de la rémunération variable...
Mais la politique fiscale mise en place depuis la présidence de Reagan, et accentuée par celle de Bush, a amplifié cet accroissement des inégalités. D'une part, la baisse des taux marginaux supérieurs d'imposition sur le revenu favorise l'accumulation patrimoniale dans le haut de la distribution. D'autre part, "le capital est bien moins taxé que le travail : l'impôt sur les investissements est de seulement 15%, ce qui profite surtout aux riches car ce sont principalement eux qui ont des investissements, explique Lee Farris, spécialiste de politique fiscale chez United for a Fair Economy, un groupe de pression qui lutte contre les inégalités. C'est pourquoi le taux d'imposition effectif des riches est bien plus bas que celui des classes moyennes".
Pour Paul Volcker, ancien président de la banque centrale et conseiller économique d'Obama, les avantages fiscaux concédés par Bush en 2001 et 2003 ont en effet donné lieu à la plus grande redistribution de revenus de l'histoire américaine "depuis la famille américaine moyenne vers un petit groupe de riches".Le compromis fiscal d'Obama aggrave-t-il ces inégalités ?
Pour le moment oui. Pour commencer, Obama n'a pas réussi, comme il le souhaitait initialement, à augmenter à 20% l'impôt sur les investissements pour les 2% des contribuables les plus aisés. Il a également échoué à supprimer les allègements consentis aux ménages gagnant plus de 250.000 dollars par an. Mais ce qui choque le plus les démocrates, c'est qu'il accepté d'accorder des exonérations sur l'impôt sur la succession pour tout patrimoine inférieur à 5 millions de dollars. Soit un paquet fiscal encore plus généreux que celui de Bush ! "L'impôt sur les successions aurait pourtant été l'un des plus juste et facile à augmenter, puisque par définition il est acquitté par un mort qui n'a plus besoin de son argent ! s'indigne Lee Farris. C'est même le républicain Teddy Roosevelt qui l'avait instauré."
"D'autres facteurs non fiscaux devraient malgré tout contrebalancer légèrement cette tendance, relativise Romain Rancière. La réforme du système de santé d'Obama par exemple représente un certain transfert de richesse qui doit permettre aux ménages plus pauvres de moins s'endetter".
Twenty states gathered in Atlanta, Georgia on December 5th and 6th, 2010 for the annual TFOC Conference. Below are links to presentations and notes from the conference.
- Participatory Media (PDF)
- Working with Ethnic Media - CrossRoadsNews (Doc)
- Stories from the Front Lines - New York (PDF)
- Stories from the Front Lines - Colorado (PDF)
- Stories from the Front Lines - Washington (PDF)
- Stories from the Front Lines - Virginia (PDF)
- Demos - Talking about Taxes in Tea Party Times (PDF)
- Demos - updated compendium on page 10 (PDF)
The House leadership heard our message loud and clear! But, we still have work to do. TODAY, the House will hold a vote on an amendment to the tax package for a stronger estate tax at the 2009 level.
Our best hope for a stronger estate tax is passing this amendment in the House. Let your representative know what you want right now!
MAKE THREE CALLS using our toll-free number to the Congressional switchboard at 800-830-5738:
If the House fixes the bill to include a stronger estate tax, there’s still time for the Senate to pass the bill.
While we at UFE do not consider the 2009 estate tax to be ideal – with a $3.5 million exemption per spouse and a 45% rate on amounts above that – it is far better than the estate tax in the Senate bill ($5 million exemption per spouse and 35% rate).
Please forward a link to this alert to friends, family and colleagues. Call and urge them to take action. And, help spread the word further by blogging about this important issue, and sharing this alert on your social networks.
Here are a few news updates on this debate that may be helpful in getting you up-to-speed:
- This is a great estate tax editorial by USA Today. We hope this helps to inspire you and others in your network to take action.
- On December 15, the Senate passed, with an 81-19 vote, the Obama-GOP tax deal with a severely weakened estate tax and extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. See how your Senators voted here.
- Unfortunately, the Sanders amendment to fix the whole bill by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, setting the estate tax at the 2009 level, and replacing the payroll tax holiday with a one-year extension of the Make Work Pay Credit, failed 43-57.
The House Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus are wise in their righteous opposition of the shameful tax compromise put forth by the Republican Caucus and the Obama Administration. Their message is clear: there will be no deal until significant improvements are made to the package. We must encourage them to hold the line on that demand.
The most inexcusable part of the Obama-GOP package is the dramatic slashing of the federal estate tax even further beyond the already weakened 2009 law. Although the estate tax impacts less than 0.25% of all estates – the wealthiest of the wealthy – it has profound implications for all Americans and communities of color in particular. By curbing the transfer of unlimited wealth from generation to generation, the estate tax is an important tool for ensuring that the inequalities of generations past, including those drawn along the lines of race, do not forever haunt our nation.
For much of U.S. history, white Americans have had greater opportunities to build wealth, often with the help of the federal government programs such as the Homestead Act and the GI Bill. African-Americans were largely denied these opportunities as the weight of overt racism, Jim Crow, bank redlining, and more prevented African-Americans from closing the gap with their white counterparts. Though many of these unjust structures and policies are now gone, the inequalities they created continue to this day thanks to the power of inheritance.
Currently, African-Americans earn 62 cents and Latinos earn 68 cents for every dollar of white income. Troubling as these numbers are, the wealth disparities are even more unsettling. African-Americans have only 10 cents and Latinos have only 12 cents of net wealth for every dollar of white net wealth. To see these appalling disparities, is to see generations of injustice carried forward as wealth, mostly in white hands, is transferred from one generation to the next.
This intergenerational transfer of wealth takes place over many years, including help in buying a first car, paying for college, or subsidizing the down payment on a first home. The apex of this transfer though is at the time of death, when the remainder of the parent’s wealth is usually transferred to the children or grandchildren.
Because the estate tax acts as a check to the concentration of wealth at the very top, it helps to even the economic playing field for each generation to follow. That is precisely why it is of critical importance not only to communities of color, but also to working class white communities
Obama’s decision to concede so much ground to Republicans on this issue is simply baffling. Further weakening of the estate tax is unacceptable. We should instead be finding ways to significantly strengthen it. It’s also clear that buckling on the estate tax, and the tax cuts for the wealthy more broadly, would be dangerous move for Democrats. Congressional Republicans will leverage the deficits created by this tax giveaway to millionaires and billionaires for massive cuts in social services and other public structures, on which all Americans depend.
In the days ahead, we must rally behind the House Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus. Encourage them to stand strong and not back off their demands in those crucial negotiations. In the words of Frederick Douglas, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."