Category Archives: income taxes

American Middle-Class Now Second Class — Take Two

It’s nice to have successful friends of diverse opinion. When a couple of them are capitalists in the truest sense of the word — i.e., they increase their wealth and incomes by moving their funds around the globe chasing rates of return and potential asset value — are sought after for their investment advise, and have their own financial and economic publications, they also get to disagree with you in the open. In response to “American Middle-Class Now Second-Class To Canada — It Didn’t Have To Be This Way,” I was treated to two alternate views of why I am wrong on specific points.

Pay rose with productivity and then it didn't

BENEFITS “RE-COUPLE” THE DECOUPLED PAY & PRODUCTIVITY

————————————————————————————————–

First, one such individual referenced a couple of British economic analysts who had addressed the observation I pointed out in my article when writing:

They show that when you add in benefits to pay and use the same measure of inflation for both pay and productivity, the disconnect between worker pay and productivity goes away, both in the US and Britain.

Their conclusion? “Middle-class stagnation and the ‘decoupling’ of pay and productivity are illusions. Yes, the U.S. economy is in the doldrums, thanks to a variety of factors… But by any sensible measure, most Americans are today better paid and more prosperous than in the past.”

Yes, but this is only a sleight-of-hand trick that these partisans pontificate to advance their own agenda, not because it is meaningfully accurate — it is just technically accurate.

Notably, using the “same measure of inflation for both pay and productivity” is a non-starter as that is not how productivity increases over time, nor is this how it’s measured in real terms. It’s just a mathematical trick to reduce or deflate actual productivity growth to bring it closer in line with stagnant incomes. Monetary inflation and production productivity are not connected in this fashion and doing so is disingenuous.

Truth is that what used to not show up on workers’ ledgers now shows up on their ledgers, and truth is that the component now has less value in real terms than it did prior to reassignment to the workers’ ledgers. The analysts also conflate wealth and incomes inappropriately.

What we are both referencing is the change from defined benefits for workers to defined contributions.

For example, as average life spans increased, the financial pressures exerted on organizational pension systems grew overwhelming and a shift occurred across the private and public sectors from traditional pension programs where one received a defined amount per year after retirement for the balance of their lives to one predicated upon 401k and IRA programs and the like where one received a defined contribution from their organization with no guarantee of what that looked like at retirement.

Several things occurred in this transition. What used to show up as an asset of the organizational pension now was moved to the ledger of the worker as an asset in the form of 401k’s etc. But, that move did not make the worker wealthier in reality nor improve their incomes — both are simply mechanisms through which retirement incomes derived. It just changed where things resided accounting-wise and controlled organizations’ costs.

All things equal, the worker is no better off and no worse… as long as the final retirement income remains unchanged. But all things are not equal, and final incomes are not guaranteed, thus we see today retirees not having the same incomes as those previously based upon traditional retirement pensions. So, there is a net loss of income to the worker overall, even while it appears their wealth increased.

Moreover, these 401k programs require more significant worker contributions to obtain the largest matching employer contributions. This reduces the net-net income of a worker and is not reflected in the aggregate numbers used by these analysts. So their view assigns an asset value to workers that is just an accounting move and inappropriately shows increased wealth while also not including the decreased net-net incomes from the move.

Finally, the “benefits” to which they refer are inclusive of health benefits. As we all know, these costs have increased dramatically over the decades. This alone adds an illusory increased benefit to workers when, in fact, they, too, are paying larger premiums for that health benefit, and worker costs are up dramatically more in deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums… Thus, all contributing to reduced net-net incomes — not the improved financial standing these analysts would have us believe.

The “benefit” appears more significant because of cost inflation yet the worker is no better off and receives the same basic benefit of health care provision they received when the “benefit” appeared at lower cost. Now the worker is made poorer on a net basis by the increased direct costs from the benefit’s cost-sharing mechanism. Moreover, just because the benefit cost grew larger on the employer’s ledger does not mean the income of the worker increased accordingly or that the benefit had more “income value.”

Oy vey!

washdry timecost

“TIME COSTS” OF APPLIANCES HEALS ALL WOUNDS

————————————————————————————————–

Second, another individual posited that my position ignores the relative increase in incomes and wealth of workers because improved productivity and globalized production have reduced the “time costs” of attaining and maintaining a middle-class lifestyle. The writer maintains that costs of clothing, major appliances, cars etc. (the lifestyle asset cost of middle-class life) cost less today in terms of how many hours one must work to attain them… and the middle-class person is better off today.

Therefore, if it cost 3000 hours to purchase a standard car back in the 1960’s and now costs 1200 hours to purchase today’s standard car, then the real incomes of average middle-class persons have increased relative to the past. His point is that while this situation may not show up on balance sheets cost-adjusted for inflation, it is a very real phenomenon that means the middle-class is larger and more robust than we believe it to be.

Thus was written:

Bottom Line: The comparison of the “time cost” of appliances over time above confirms what Aparna finds in her analysis – average (and low-income) Americans are much better off today than they were 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, thanks in large part to the significant reductions in the cost of common household appliances like refrigerators, washers and dryers, and TVs. The reasons for the significant reductions in the cost of appliances include innovation, technology improvements, supply chain efficiencies, increases in productivity and other market-driven efficiencies that drive prices lower and lower year by year, measured in what is most important: our time, and the amount of labor it takes to earn the money to purchase household appliances and other goods and services. As much as we hear about declines in median income, economic stagnation, the disappearance of the middle class, falling real wages, increasing income inequality, the data tell a much different story: The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

“The poor are getting richer” — Argh!

To be certain, technology has improved such that the “standard” has shifted and provided a lifestyle unimaginable or unattainable in the past; i.e., today, nearly all persons of age have a personal cell phone and internet access (hence access to instant communications); access to music proliferates on numerous mobile devises (not just families able to afford large stereo systems, or further back, their own music chambers); and the list goes on.

As they say, though, all things are relative. And, thus, to say that one has access to “absolutely” more of something now, or to something that never previously existed, or to say that it takes less working time to purchase a particular staple item of the middle-class lifestyle is not to say that they have access to more or better… relative to what their predecessors had relative to their own time. Standards change.

The average middle-class lifestyle requires more and different inputs than that same lifestyle from 1940. It’s not just a car, a refrigerator, and a radio. It is also a middle-class lifestyle relative to itself over time and those levels above it and below in any given year. As society evolves one would hope that the absolute standard improves (i.e., having only 1940 middle-class assets or household items today may mean you are “poor” today and not [or no longer] middle-class), and that is reality.

The middle-class standard and what it costs to maintain that standard have moved upward. This is called progress and something that we should desire for society. The lifestyle of today’s middle-class may appear to have obtained things impossible for the middle-class in times past, but that same cultural standard is relative to its position of the other classes.

If the death rate from cancer devolved back to that from 1960, would it be correct to say that’s acceptable because even then it was better than the survival rate from the 18th century? Of course not. Standards improve, and if the average person in a period can’t maintain their relative position over time in that moving standard, then we have declined as a society. Here is where America rests today. Fewer American families are able to stay in the current standard of the “middle-class.” Moreover, they are not able to stay in the same income percentile on a global basis — reference again this table of percentiles.

Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, it requires well more than two earners working to equal the wages of a one-income household of 40 years ago. In fact, wages have plummeted so low that a two-income household is now (on average) 15% poorer than a one-income household of 40 years ago.

With the year 2000 as a base, real wages peaked in 1970 at around $20/hour. The average worker today earns $8.50/hour — more than 57% less than real earnings in 1970. Moreover, as the average wage directly determines society’s standard of living, it may accurately be said that the average standard of living in the U.S. has plummeted by more than half over the last 40 years.

Inflation for the last 40 years has hidden the 57% collapse in the standard of living for the average person. Nonetheless, if you’re fortunate enough to be at or successful enough to have earned a place at the top of the income charts, the situation is significantly reversed in your favor. While average American workers have seen their real wages plummet by 57% over the past 40 years, in just 15 years (1992-2007) the 400 wealthiest Americans saw their incomes rise by 700%.

Now we have the complete picture: real wages crumbling steadily lower year after year, decade after decade for “The 99%,” while earnings skyrocket for “The One Percent.” Is that acceptable? I don’t know… is going back to the cancer death rates of 1960 acceptable to you because that’s still better than it was in 1700?

middle_class 1

middle_class 2


American Middle-Class Now Second-Class To Canada — It Didn’t Have To Be This Way

America’s middle class has been richest in the world for several generations, but we’ve lost that distinction to our northern neighbors.

Canada is officially home to the richest middle class on the planet, according to figures released from the Luxembourg Income Study Database. The flowing chart details 30 years of destruction to America’s lower and middle classes, the loss of standing internationally, and the concentration of income to the wealthy class in the U.S. (Click Chart For Larger View):

Screen Shot 2014-04-22 at 9.06.29 AM

How did we lose the lead? It’s no secret really; economists have been sounding the alarm for twenty-five years, and Americans have continued supporting the policies (both Republican and Democrat, alike) that have furthered their own economic erosion, even as they believe, individually, they are immune to the deleterious aspects of these political and economic choices (privatization, deregulation, free-trade agreements, free-floating exchange rates, globalization, dismantling of the safety net, poor school systems, conservatism, economic libertarianism).

Kevin Phillips wrote about the situation in a 1991 book I read when it came out: “The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath.”

Blame three broad factors encompassing the above issues: 1) Canada’s education attainment is outpacing the U.S. and most of the world; 2) American middle-class market wages (driven by globalization) aren’t keeping up with overall economic growth; and (3) Other governments are doing more to redistribute income to poorer families in other countries, particularly in western and northern Europe (the social safety net and progressive taxes).

As a result of America’s belief in the divinity of unfettered virginal markets and the evils of progressive government policy, after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada grew markedly higher than in the United States, while the poor in most of Europe now earn more than poor Americans.

Economic growth in the United States remains as strong or stronger than other industrialized nations, but only a small, elite percentage of American households fully benefits income-wise from that growth. The middle-class wallow in stagnation with no noticeable inflation-adjusted income progress in a decade. The plight of the U.S. poor is even starker than those of the middle class. A family at the 20th percentile of the income distribution in this country makes significantly less real income than in decades past and less than a similar family in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. Thirty-five years ago, the reverse was true.

Make no mistake, economic statistics — per capita gross domestic product — continue to show the United States maintains the lead as the world’s richest large country. Crucially, those numbers are averages, which do not measure the distribution of income. Here is where America fails: in distribution of incomes. The U.S. is the most unequal in income of mature industrialized nations.

With the majority share of income gains in the U.S. now flowing to an extremely small percentage of high-earning households, for the next generation or more, most Americans will not keep pace with their counterparts around the world — nor will they obtain the economic levels of their parents. Implement progressive policy changes, and this situation may begin to slowly improve. Stay the course and past will be prelude to the average American’s diminished future.

I may be an economic and social liberal with a clear preference, but the facts are undeniable, as are the reasons for these changes. Read ‘em and weep:

9-13-11pov4

median-income-by-age-and-gender

final-salary-map2

global_middle_class


Individualism, Libertarianism, Paul Ryan & His Ayn Rand Love Affair

Oh my goodness… Republicans are attempting to rebrand themselves as compassionate conservatives (again)… shades of George W. Bush. “Compassionate conservatism” as a theme and rallying cry seem to arise after Republicans have taken rhetoric to such an extreme that the country is disgusted and the party fears citizens will push them and their nasty ideology of unbridled greed and hate aside. George W. Bush famously resorted to the term campaigning for president after Republicans disgraced themselves with anti-Clinton conspiracy theories, witch hunts, and the unpopular impeachment.

Of course, Bush is better known for wasting trillions of dollars and killing more than a hundred-thousand lives in Iraq, failing citizens injured during Katrina, and the financial collapse of the U.S. and world economies.

And now we have a budget “deal,” courtesy of Paul Ryan, that drops unemployment benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed. Earlier, Senator Rand Paul said helping the unemployed does them a “disservice” because it keeps them from getting jobs.

CCoftheweek.jpg~originalSo now it’s Paul Ryan’s turn to claim the mantle of “compassionate conservatism” and attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of Republicans. But really, Paul Ryan… Compassionate?

Last month the Washington Post published, “Paul Ryan, GOP’s budget architect, sets his sights on fighting poverty and winning minds,” and portrayed Ryan as attempting to steer Republicans away from the angry Tea Party and toward a “more inclusive vision.” Right. The Paul Ryan of the infamous “Ryan Budget” — also called the “Path to Prosperity” and passed by House Republicans — that privatizes Medicare, repeals Wall Street regulation, wipes out student loan programs, repeals Obamacare, guts Social Security, and dramatically reduces taxes for the “deserving” wealthy and corporations.

That Paul Ryan hardly seems “compassionate” — well not to those who actually want to see all citizens doing better, and at least not toward anyone making less than half a million a year.

One need only seek the source of Ryan’s personal philosophical motivation (his love affair) to understand his deep psychological dysfunction and the reason why he can create such absurd rationalization’s for his priorities. Ryan said it himself, “[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”

Who is Ayn Rand, and what is the philosophy of this person Ryan calls a “thinker?”

379174_10151238232336275_143212049_n copy

Ayn Rand’s philosophy actually says it is not only bad for society, but morally wrong to help other people because it makes them “dependent” — sound like familiar rhetoric? Rand’s philosophy says that,

  • altruism is evil, and that…
  • democracy (which they call “collectivism”) is the ultimate expression of this evil because it brings about a society in which government works to make people’s lives better.

Rand’s, Ryan’s, and current Republican philosophy says that,

  • “individualism” — looking out for oneself only—is the moral principle that should rule society, not democracy…
  • a “utopia of greed” is most humanly liberating… I suppose they might better claim it’s “compassionate greed,”
  • there are but a few “producers” or “makers,” and the rest of citizens are “parasites” or “takers” who live off of the producers,
  • Collectivism, or democracy, is bad because the many underserving takers can vote to do things like make the producers pay taxes so regular people can live better.

I’m sure there must be a few ways Paul Ryan and the Republicans can form a philosophy of “compassionate conservatism” out of their core belief that altruism and democracy are not just wrong for people and society, but are actually evil. And, I’m sure some citizens will fall for the ploy. Recall that many slaves during the Civil War supported the South, and even after, refused to leave their plantations.

But here is what compassionate conservatives like Ryan intend in the pursuit of “Randian” Liberty…

  • they say that giving the big corporations more tax breaks, subsidies, no-bid contracts, etc. will load them up with so much money that they will just have to use some of it to hire people… eventually, and…
  • when they say they want to overhaul federal health and retirement programs they mean
    • cut Medicare (healthcare for the elderly),
    • cut Medicaid (healthcare for the poor),
    • eliminate Obamacare (healthcare for the rest of us) and
    • destroy Social Security (retirement)

Nice.

And compassionate.

An evergreen Republican mantra is that government is too big, so it must be cut. What they mean by this is not cutting the huge, bloated, astronomical, sky-high military budget (we spend more on weapons and preparing for destruction than all other nations combined). They mean they want to cut out the things government does to make our lives better, like assistance for the needy, sick, disabled, elderly and unemployed. And get rid of the minimum wage, child labor laws, equal pay for women, workplace safety rules, etc.

compassionate-conservatism-shrink-govt

So, “Compassionate Conservatism” is a euphemism for Libertarian Individualism that enshrines destruction of society, the commons, the middle-class, and then purchases only further means of destruction through a vast and powerful military power.

Frankly, I only see psychological dysfunction in any of this, in the Libertarian philosophy. I wonder what depravity in formative years leads to such a condition?

Quite the love affair with Ayn Rand utopianism. God help us all.

Compassionate-Conservatism


1984: The Year Income Equitability Began To Die In The U.S.

Today, I watched a market analyst’s presentation regarding retailer performance this holiday season. What stood out dramatically was the difficulty those retailers were experiencing who cater to middle Americans (GAP, Abercrombie & Fitch, Aeropostale, etc — with the noted exception of “trend” retailers catering to “teen” markets with high style, cheap products: H&M, Forever 21, etc.) while those retailers catering to the upper 5% of society were performing remarkably well.

Why the disparity? How’s that happen? Get used to it… this is your future:

Income Chart

1984 was the year America’s inequality trend began in earnest. 1984 is the year the future for most Americans diminished. 1984 is the year any hope of income equitability died.

So how is it that the U.S. income gap has grown large enough for us to claim the title of worst inequality in the developed world? Here are a few of the many explanations:

1. Tax Cuts For The Rich:

Many of the spikes in the chart correspond with periods when the government slashed taxes on the rich. As the Center for American Progress notes, Ronald Reagan’s early 1980s tax reforms helped to increase income inequality.

The same thing happened in the late 1990s when Bill Clinton passed a tax cut on capital gains, or investment income, which rich people are more likely to have than ordinary Americans. And then it happened again when George W. Bush cut the top marginal tax rates in 2001 and 2003.

Altogether, about 30 percent of the expansion of the after-tax income gap between 1979 and 2007 was due to tax and budget policies becoming less progressive, according to a June analysis from the Economic Policy Institute.

2. Corporate Profits & Executive Pay Soar:

Over the past several years corporate profits — which go in large part to rich investors — have soared to the point where they now make up the highest share of the economy on record. And over the last several decades, CEO pay also skyrocketed. The result: The ratio between CEO and average worker pay ballooned by roughly 1,000 percent since 1950.

3. Workers’ Wages Decoupled From Productivity Growth:

In the 1960s workers and their families used to be able to live above the poverty line on a minimum wage income. But now, that’s no longer the case, according to EPI. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept up with boosts in worker productivity over the past several decades it would be $18.30, according to EPI. That’s more than double the current minimum wage of $7.25.

Part of the reason workers have had a tougher time securing higher wages in recent years is because of a marked decline in unionization. Drops in union membership typically correspond with growth in income inequality, research finds.


What’s The Big Deal About Chained CPI? — Obama vs Social Security

Robert Reich on Chained CPI (Obama’s proposal to cut Social Security benefits)

In an effort to assuage Republicans and entice them to sign on to long-term deficit reduction with increased revenues, President Obama proposes to throw under the bus the generation he lauded in his inaugural address.

Apparently, President Obama quickly forgot his own inaugural words:

We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.”

Reich established this petition to the President:

Mr. President, the chained CPI is a cut to Social Security benefits that would hurt seniors—it’s an idea not befitting a Democratic president. If you want to reform Social Security, make the wealthy pay their fair share by lifting the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.

If you agree, please sign this petition, then share with your friends.

http://signon.org/sign/mr-president-please-do-1


Wealth Inequality In America — Easily Explained

Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers.

The reality is often not what we think it is.


Faustian urGe Manifesto

Ensuring That Serving “Capital” Interests Must Also Serve To Broadly Improve The Lives Of “We The People”

manifesto

CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST often bemoans ethical failures while he also attempts to mitigate, in some minuscule way, the social damages he and too many other citizens suffer from “Traditional” American Values (social and business). Inappropriate personal agendas and indifference toward obligation and ethics are significant annoyances that he addresses by trying to learn more — what wags the world and why.

Given the circus of extremes on display in society and within the political realm since President Obama’s re-election, CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST is currently working through the conundrum of how so many intelligent, educated people manage to place their feet in their mouths while their heads are so firmly up their arses.

He’s frustrated, and believes the nation is threatened, by libertarianism — knowing the objectivist/libertarian belief system is inappropriate to a fruitful, functional society. Libertarians disregard a profound reality: We are responsible for the decisions we make, yes, but we’re not responsible for the options we’re given. Thus, CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST believes that we should create that “society we would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be.”

He sees that another libertarian delusion is establishment of the fanciful “self-made” individual. The laughable concept discounts external influence or inspiration and exhibits a blatant disregard for the interconnectedness that is the human condition.

He remains convinced that we humans do not have to destroy each other to survive (as in two wars extinguishing 100,000+ lives as revenge for the prior killing of 3000) but that we choose to do so… not the nonsense propounded that genetics or patriotism demands it. CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST knows we have the ability to reason and that too many simply choose the easier way of reactive non-thought.

Though imbued with a simmering cauldron of rage just below his deceptively pleasant (and not altogether unpleasant looking) exterior, he’s always willing to self-examine and learn — yearning for family, friends, community members to take the same ride.

The hope… the desire… the craving… for forward movement and betterment on cultural, political, and individual levels are woven into his personal fabric, with key objectives toward equality/equitability*, liberty, fraternity, justice-for-all, empathy, self-awareness, growth, momentum, compassion, and humor.

(*EQUALITY of advancement opportunity and treatment under the law and social memes — EQUITABILITY of rewards and outcomes [economic and social])

On EQUALITY:

It appears that a large number of citizens seeking minimalist government from the Right are for strong government, though, when it favors their perceived social interests, such as interfering with the reproductive rights of women, the marriage rights of non-heterosexuals, and the civil rights of non-whites.

CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST relishes challenging the authority of political, religious, and societal priests, as he liberally supports marriage for everyone, equal rights for everyone, less poison for the environment, progressive taxation, removal of corporate personhood, financial regulation enforcement up to and including criminal incarceration, the elimination of all “consensual crimes,” and many other positions that lead conservatives to squirm uncomfortably in their seats.

On EQUITABILITY:

The Right will argue that allowing the free market to function will fix our problems. But, the free market doesn’t guarantee social outcomes, merely economic ones. Yes, it may provide more efficiency on the whole and grow the economy faster as a whole, but by itself doesn’t guarantee how wealth is distributed. The Right cannot be indifferent to the consequences of a middle-class life undermined, nor can it be indifferent to half the population’s inability to buy the products and services that businesses sell.

The Left would argue that the solution is for laws to transfer wealth from the rich to the middle class. But, while that would increase consumption, depending on the scope, it could threaten the amount of capital available to investment by the transfer itself and by eliminating incentives to invest. The Left cannot be indifferent to the fact that one can’t invest what they don’t have, and that no one will accept the risk of investment if the payoff is transferred completely away.

CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST understands the take away to be that “reasonableness” must prevail as to the extent, but transfers of some wealth should ensue as a part of the solution. So, let’s avoid extreme redistribution and focus on finding the correct amount that ameliorates the problems at hand (which will improve sales and garner more aggregate profit for firms, shareholders, and stakeholders… alike) while retaining enough incentives to invest and risk take.

As a Social-Capitalist/Social-Democrat**, CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST favors smart government — a government as big or as small as needed to achieve progressive social and capital ends, ensuring that serving “capital” interests must also serve to improve the lives of “We the people” broadly (hence, “Social”).

“Our” government’s job is best done when it benefits all of the people, and not just capital interests — as he interpretes the right favors.

(**Social Democracy is exhibited as an economic precept of Social Capitalism. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the efficient and wealth-building capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system. Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of the commonweal, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure stakeholders’ rights.)

“This vast number of worlds, the enormous scale of the universe, in my view, has been taken into account, even superficially, in virtually no religion, and especially no Western religions.” – Carl Sagan

Taking exception with the very concept of “American Exceptionalism,” CORONARE MODESTUS FAUST feels compelled to explore these issues in rambling-though-coherent thoughts and an adventurous assortment of arbitrary amusements.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Liberalism is “Life.”

It is an unrelenting pursuit of freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us.

  • The Liberal believes it is a nation’s job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical wellbeing, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free.
  • Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation.
  • Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime.
  • Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong.
  • And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it.

Liberalism is “Liberty.”

It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another’s rights. Liberalism established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted; where hard work is rewarded, not demanded; and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class.

  • Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression.
  • Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression.
  • Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression.
  • And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.

Liberalism is “The Pursuit of Happiness.”

It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures — it is “The American Dream,” and it’s alive and well in the heart of the Liberal.

  • Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means.
  • Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels.
  • Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status.
  • And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children.

Based on these tenets, Liberalism is not the monster it’s made out to be by the opposition.

  • It is pro individual and pro family.
  • It is pro community and pro country.
  • Liberalism is, by its very definition, the heart and soul of what it means to be an American.
  • It stands against tyranny of any kind, whether international or domestic.
  • It works to remove abuse and fight crime.
  • And it strives to eliminate the idea of a wasted life by not wasting resources and opportunities.