Tax Breaks For "Job Creators"

Many Americans, concerned that essential programs will be cut to reduce the deficit, reasonably expect that America's wealthiest citizens and corporations be taxed at a higher rate, and contribute a more equitable share to the common good of the country.  Under such extraordinary economic circumstances as we see today, tax breaks that were extended to the wealthy, under former President George W. Bush, should be rescinded. 

The  monetary amounts raised by this requirement would help the country's financial health, and would hardly be felt as a dent in the pocketbooks of these enormously wealthy citizens and corporations

Yet, in an effort to block this reasonable requirement, many political figures, most of them among the country's wealthiest citizens, fight tooth and nail against this idea, stating that it is bad policy in a weak economy to tax "job creators".

The term "job creators" is rarely debated or questioned, neither in Congress nor in the White House.  But it is such a bald-faced misdirection that it cries out for immediate scrutiny from intelligent journalists, concerned citizens, and political leaders.  The protection given "job creators" should be a leading topic on the news, covered relentlessly.  So-called "job creators" should be made to justify the misleading title they seem to embrace.  I wondered why this concept was rarely challenged over the airwaves.

Based on a large number of writers in the blogosphere addressing this topic, I am not alone, which was a comfort, albeit a small one.

The lack of calling-out of these "job creators", who are getting rich on the backs of a dwindling workforce, is especially irksome in light of the recent bleak U.S. employment news, and the discouraging haggle over Mr. Obama's upcoming speech  to address the jobs crisis (as though either the Republican presidential debate, or the season premiere of the National Football League, were the ONLY two nights available to discuss a topic that should have been done two years ago--or whether these two competing events should have had any bearing on this address in the first place).

By the way, Mr. Obama acquiesced to the Republicans and their Presidential debate, and will now compete with a season-opener football game.  Bad judgement on the President's part; unnerving, almost laughable disrespect from the Republicans.  All political theater, on every side.  No matter.  My instinct suggests that a majority of football fans would not have tuned in to the speech, nor supported Obama's plan, no matter when the speech was scheduled to be given.  

Lila Shapiro's Huffington Post article on Friday, September 2, nicely summarized the alarming news that continues to bode ill for our economic recovery. Americans, meanwhile, remain either too scared or too complacent to take to the streets, preferring instead to retreat to their football games, or to their paternalistic Republican despots (who they naively think represent them), or to the two or three jobs (if they can find work at all) they must work to make ends meet:

The number of those out of a job for six months or more remained above 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the unemployed. A total of 2.04 million were out of work for 99 weeks -- the limit for jobless benefits in some states -- or longer, a slight rise from 2.01 million last month, according to BLS figures not in the report.

"Their horizon for a brighter day is moving away from them," said Carl E. Van Horn, a labor economist at Rutgers University and co-author of a recent report focusing on the long-term unemployed. "Their optimism has been crushed by reality: They are still not working, or if they are working they're making a lot less money. You're either devastated or you're hurting, that's the range."

Meanwhile, corporate profits remain at pre-recession levels of strength. Many experts say that robust corporate profits alongside stagnant wages and declining workweeks points to a grim future for America's workforce.

"Many companies have simply come to the conclusion that labor is just too expensive," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group. "We are moving increasingly into a labor-less society."

Perhaps there should be a requirement that tax breaks be extended to those who can demonstrate that they have created new American jobs each year, for Americans on American soil, whether they be a wealthy individuals, corporations, or small entrepreneurs who nevertheless have successfully grown to the need to hire workers.  Make it a simple process to account for added jobs; make loopholes difficult to create, or easy to dispense with.

Every one else on the highest end of society would have to ante up.

Don't Exactly Understand Why I Feel Sad About AOL Buying Huffington Post

In this revolutionary time for journalism, when resourceful on-line journalists have the opportunity to write freely without corporate influence; when it is possible for independent sources of news and information to multiply and find new readership on the Internet; it came as a surprise that one of the most successful and influential independent Blogs is about to become part of a corporate giant.

I heard it on the NPR News while in my car this morning: AOL has purchased the popular and influential News Blog The Huffington Post for over $300 million. 

As soon as I could stop driving and get to a computer, I logged onto the HuffPost site and  read Arianna Huffington's essay  about the purchase.

As if in anticipation of the misgivings of the vast network of readers and contributors who are the heart of the Huffington Post, Huffington stressed the following:  "Far from changing our editorial approach, our culture, or our mission, this moment will be for HuffPost like stepping off a fast-moving train and onto a supersonic jet. We're still traveling toward the same destination, with the same people at the wheel, and with the same goals, but we're now going to get there much, much faster." 

I tried to make sense of my own fearful reaction to the news, which was based more on instinct than on any real evidence that the merger would result in censorship of content or potential loss of independence for the site.

I have been reading Huffington Post for almost two years.  It is a welcoming and fertile on-line environment for provocative thought and expression, unlike anything else in the media.  Visiting the site, for me, is like being part of a civilized, intelligent group of thinkers, where being Liberal is embraced, where enrichment and dialog prevail, free from corporate corruption and conformity. 

Besides, on a very personal note, it was the Huffington Post, specifically "The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging", that finally convinced me to begin this Journal.


To hear that that place, where I feel comfortable to think and express myself, was being "taken over" by a corporate giant, reminded me of other mergers I had experienced in my career.  I felt like I was about to be left out in the cold, no longer safe, no longer completely trusting of the leadership who allowed it to happen.

Then, I felt unsure about these misgivings.  I had no proof that the Post would begin to skew right to maintain a larger readership; or that advertising on the Post would be more aggressive at the expense of actual content; or that AOL would somehow use the registered commenters on the site for market research or more dubious purposes; or even that there would not be real benefits to the site and its readers from the additional resources.

Still, I had to ask myself how much faster the Post needed to get where it wanted to go?  What rules would  be imposed governing content, comments, and bloggers?  What would HuffPost need to sacrifice to come in line with its corporate "parent"?  Where would it need to draw the line to appease corporate ownership?  How much would the Post be influenced by profits?

Judging by the comments of thousands to Huffington's essay and to the press release from AOL and Huffington Post, an overwhelming number of contributors are afraid, angry, and determined to leave the site, convinced that HuffPost has sold out.

Perhaps the most telling statement that the Post might become first and foremost a profit-generating arm of AOL, is this statement from Tim Armstrong, chairman and CEO of AOL: "The acquisition of The Huffington Post will create a next-generation American media company with global reach that combines content, community, and social experiences for consumers.  Together, our companies will embrace the digital future and become a digital destination that delivers unmatched experiences for both consumers and advertisers."

Consumers. Advertisers. 

I suppose I should have more faith, take a wait and see attitude.  I suppose if I were approached by an Internet giant and offered millions for my "Reinvention" Journal, I would have a hard time ignoring it.  But I also admit that it would certainly forever change the freewheeling and satisfying experience I have of putting it together every day.

What do you think about all of this?