How to secure SS for over 75 years & partially fix our regressive tax structure........ in 25 words:

[Faryn Balyncd]

A simple, 25 word proposal to:

(1.) ensure Social Security solvency beyond 75 years, and,

(2.) simultaneously (if only partially) remediate our regressive tax system that favors the wealthy with LOWER total federal marginal tax rates than middle income Americans earning under $106,800:

"Be it hereby enacted that FICA taxes apply to all regular income. The exemption of regular income over $106,800 to FICA tax is hereby removed."

1........The 2010 Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees reports that solvency can be extended from 2037 (current prediction with no changes) through 75 years (the longest period for which they forecast) by increasing FICA tax revenues by 14.8% (such as by increasing the FICA tax from 12.4% to 14.24% (combined employer and employee contributions).

2........On page 46 of the Simpson-Bowles Co-Chair's Report it is revealed that "almost 86%" of "earnings" (that is, regular income} is non-exempt to FICA tax (that is to say, that the amount of regular earnings over the cap (currently at $106,800, is between 14 and 15%). Interestingly, removing the cap increases the taxable base by 16.2%.





Removing the cap will not only increase the tax base by more than enough to provide continued SS solvency through 75 years, it will also (partially) correct the current perverse system in which the highest total federal marginal tax rate is born, not by the most wealthy, but by the middle class.

That the highest federal marginal tax rates are paid, NOT by the wealthiest Americans, but by middle class Americans making under the FICA cap (currently at $106,800 IN 2011), is elegantly and decisively demonstrated by Allen, Vaidyanathan & Sarbaum in "Introducing the Effective Marginal Tax Rate in Introductory Macroeconomics", Journal of Economics & Finance Education, Volume 6, Number 1, Summer, 2007.

Interestingly, Allen, Vaidyanathan & Sarbaum demonstrated the regressive nature of our combined income and payroll tax even if it were assumed that all income of the wealthiest Americans were taxes as regular income, ignoring the reduced rates for capital gains, and the exemptions of capital gains, interest and dividends from FICA taxes.

Consequently, removing the FICA cap, while making the system as a whole less regressive, would be only a partial remediation, as the overall tax code would still favor the wealthy with lower tax rates than most middle class Americans once capital gains and other "non-earned income" are considered. An alternative approach would be to create a donut hole in which FICA tax would stop above $106,800, but taper in stepwise above a higher level.





The Simpson-Bowles Commission not only ignores this most simple and obvious of plans, but slashes Social Security benefits to the middle class, the very same demographic group that is currently taxed at the highest total marginal rate.

It would seem that rather than crush the middle class in order that the uber-rich can continue to be favored with lower combined marginal tax rates than the middle class, that a far more sensible approach would be to simply remove the FICA cap, which would enlarge the tax base slightly more than enough to ensure solvency beyond 75 years, while partially addressing our current inverted tax rate structure.







:kick:

[snot]

1. K&R'd

[Sherman A1]

2. I completely agree with you

My only change would be to look (and I do only mean look at these as I haven't done any numbers) at doing the following.

exempt the first $10,000.00 or so of income as it would cover everyone and be of great benefit to those of lower income.

lower the retirement ages to early at 55 and full at 60 to help provide jobs openings, advancement opportunities for younger workers.

[grahamhgreen]

3. Obama campaigned on this - it's a no-brainer.

[kath]

38. He campaigned on a lot of things.

'nuff said. :banghead:

[Hannah Bell]

44. he campaigned on assessing SS on all income? i didn't hear that.

[datan]

4. questions

1. since benefits are sort of tied to contributions, should benefits be increased as well if the cap is raised?

2. regarding the regressiveness of the FICA tax, don't forget also that each recipent does receive their taxes back later in the form of benefits. In fact if I'm not wrong, the poorer would receive more as a proportion of what they pay into the system compared to the rich as benefits don't scale linearly with pay (but the FICA tax percentage remains the same).

3. if we think of social security like insurance, the tax that is paid out of payroll is like the premium paid while the benefits you get after retirement is like the payout you get. The premium you pay on car/house insurance depends on the value of the item you are insuring and not whether you're rich or poor. So not sure if we can extend it to social security if we think of it as an insurance scheme, but you're paying premiums (against your salary) to get benefits after retirement (that is indirectly linked to salary)? Should the % depend on whether you're rich or poor?

But if we don't think of social security as insurance, but as a transfer of wealth scheme from the rich to the poor, then we would have broken down the link between benefits and contributions. Is this part of the social contract?

[CTyankee]

11. You are taking a republican talking point I have heard many times over the years.

I think the social contract must be that without the well being of the middle class, we have no real democracy. If we regard living in a constitutional democracy as something of "value" that benefits the rich as well as the middle class and the poor. An ever increasing amount of money going to the very top of the income levels, while the middle class falls further and further behind, is not a good thing in what we would say is a fair social contract.

[datan]

15. ok

let's say you want to address the growing income and wealth disparity issue. Is Social Security, which is meant to be a social insurance scheme, meant to be the best avenue to address this?

Social Security is meant to ensure the people who pay into the system have "sufficient" to live on in their old age. It was not set up as a wealth transfer mechanism.

[CTyankee]

17. What I am trying to say is that the concept that I am arguing is a "wealth transfer"

implies that the rich are giving up some of their wealth to give to the less wealthy. But there is value in preserving democracy for the wealthy because they have (obviously) benefitted greatly by its preservation. It is the same argument for the re-imposition of the estate tax as well.

[Recursion]

53. How was it not "set up as a wealth transfer mechanism"?

It certainly was, though not in the way you're thinking: it was "set up" as a transfer mechanism from the working-age to the elderly.

[Hannah Bell]

45. The reason SS has such strong support (even despite 30 years+ of anti-SS propaganda)

is that it is perceived as fair: workers pay & workers receive.

I don't support taxing all income to pay for SS. Those who pay the piper call the tune.

[Fuddnik]

13. It's not "if we think of Social Security as insurance".

IT IS INSURANCE!

As for a wealth transfer scheme, I'm personally getting a little pissed at transferring all of my wealth up the food chain to the wealthy.

[datan]

16. so

if it is insurance then do you agree that:

(1) People should not get exempted from paying vehicle insurance just 'coz they are poor? Rich people don't pay extra just 'coz they are rich?
(2) Insurance plans have a link between premiums and benefits. If you increase the cap on social security, would it make sense to increase benefits as well?

[cate94]

27. It is insurance.

Period. No "ifs".

However, let us follow through with your flawed logic:

Since the rich are likely to have security at retirement -without receiving checks from the government- why should they receive any benefits at all? Just because I have paid premiums for years on car insurance, doesn't mean I will ever need to use it, no matter what my payment might be.

[datan]

43. then

if we follow the insurance model (which charges higher premiums for those more likely to need the benefits), then the rich as you pointed out are more likely to have security at retirement and thus should not be paying higher premiums. In fact those who need benefits the most should be paying the most premiums according to the insurance model.

[DesertFlower]

30. i've been collecting for 20 years. started with SSDI

and turned to regular SS when i reached full retirement age. i've collected approximately $275,000 -- much more than i paid in. on the other hand hubby has been paying the max for 41 years. i doubt whether he'll live long enough to collect what he paid.

it is insurance.

K&R

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. You raise good questions...

A problem that I see with the various plans that the right wing propose, including Simpson-Bowles, is that (if one judges them by the effect they are designed to produce) they have this in common: Rather than simply extend solvency beyond 2037, they are designed to create an ever-expanding trust fund surplus, which, since it is required by law to be invested in Treasury securities, results in an ever-expanding permanent loan to the Treasury. In other words, general revenue expenditures are paid with deficit financing rather than by the general revenue tax base (primarily income taxes). Thus payroll taxes which exempt regular income over $106,800 (as well as all interest, dividend and capital gains) is used (via a permanent, expanding "loan", to subsidize general revenues. Without this subsidy from payroll taxes, the artificial, non-sustainable tax cuts to the most wealthy would never have happened.

Those who favor this inequitable situation are addicted to raiding payroll taxes, and are proposing changes to SS that are much harsher than would be needed to simply extend "solvency". They obscure the reality of what they are doing by means of obscure accounting manipulations. For example, the Simpson-Bowles Co-Chair's Report does not even define the terms "solvency" and "sustainable solvency", but appears to use them interchangably. In fact, their definitions (found elsewhere) show the truth that "sustainable solvency" involves slashing benefits much more than would be required if the Trust Fund would be used for the purpose it was designed (in the long term this would require maintaining "solvency"), whereas "sustainable solvency" requires measures that would result in "stable or increasing trust fund ratios", which would also result in a ever-growing surplus on permanent loan to the Treasury to artificially subsidize low income tax rates for the very wealthy.

A second example of obfuscation is the fraudulent re-rigging of CPI calculation, so that draconian cuts can be achieved in SS without even calling these "cuts" at all.

As a carrot to make this rape of SS a little more palatable to Democrats, Simpson-Bowles, and other plans, propose a few crumbs in the form of slightly increased benefits for the very poorest. Such measures, which to a degree transform SS into somewhat more of a welfare system rather than the purely insurance system that it was designed to be, are admirable. However, to the extent that increased help to the poorest is extended, should not this function be done with taxes that do not exempt the very wealthy?

The Simpson-Bowles Commission and other plans do everything possible to maintain the diversion of payroll taxes to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, and plan to finance this with fraudulent re-rigging of the (already rigged by the Boskin Commission) CPI, and by slashing the SS benefits of the endangered middle class, who have already paid higher marginal tax rates than the wealthy, and who already receive proportionately less SS benefits that lower income workers.

To the extent that SS is transformed into a welfare system (rather than the insurance that it is designed to be) Simpson-Bowles & similar plans are designed for the burden to be born by the MIDDLE CLASS, and spare the wealthy.

This does not bode well for our democracy, or our culture.

I don't have all the answers. I think your question has value, but it seems that removing the cap would be a more just solution that fraudulently re-rigging CPI, and in other ways slashing the benefits of the vanishing middle class.

What are your thoughts?

[datan]

49. ok

(1) Could you provide some neutral links to show that they are *designed* to create an ever-expanding trust fund surplus rather than simply solving the solvency issue?

(2) Is it true that under this plan, benefits for the wealthy would be slashed? Is it true that under this plan, the cap would be raised to 90% of wages? Yes I agree that the rich probably don't really need social security insofar as it was designed to provide (some) security after retirement. But it seems that under this plan the rich would be paying more and getting less. So I'm not sure about your comment about "spare the wealthy".

(3) I like the lockbox model where the social security surpluses invest in treasury special issues. The funds would be kept out of the general budget (and maybe invested separately if possible?). Ideally all the money that has already been raided from Social Security would be returned to this lockbox over time. Other countries have national pension funds where the money cannot be diverted for general expenditures.

[jeaps]

63. I've thought this made sense for so long

One of arguments used to "change" SS is that we are living longer, collecting longer and therefore we MUST raise the retirement age. However as has been demonstrated, the higher salary, white collar individuals are the ones living the longest. Since they live longer and will collect longer, they should pay in more by lifting the cap. The retirement age could then remain the same or maybe even be lowered.

[rhett o rick]

64. Interesting that you are concerned with the "transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor"

When since Reagan, your god, the opposite has occurred. Do you believe the rich deserve their wealth because god wants it that way.

[Tunkamerica]

66. So, cuts are breaking the social contract.

And we don't think of SS as insurance we think of it as money to keep our elderly from dying of starvation. By defunding it and transferring the monies paid into it to other segments of the population you/we are assuring that people will starve despite having worked their whole lives. We don't like that. But, I guess it's easier if you never see yourself in that position. It also helps if you just talk in numbers and concepts not consequences to real people.

[liberal N proud]

5. We know this is not what they will do

The rich will get away unscathed again while the rest of us have to "live with-in our means" :nuke:

[old mark]

6. K&R- Of course that would work, but it won't be done. It amazes me that there have been

so many articles on us boomers all retiring and going on SS...I have seen them for decades!
Yet this all seems to be taking the politicians by surprise...
Hard for me to understand.


mark

[dotymed]

7. American Peaceful Revolution,

just like in Egypt, and spreading across the M.E., is our ONLY solution. The ruling elite will only make concessions if they are forced to.
It takes a coward to consistently be robbed (by the same people) and not "stand- up" for themselves.

[Vinca]

8. It's not rocket science, but our leaders go where the winds blow.

The winds that blow big checks into their campaign coffers.

[ladjf]

9. Yes. Do that! We've got to start electing sane politicians who

aren't crooks and are courageous.

[Poboy]

10. Recommend.

[TahitiNut]

12. Nonsense.

At the heart of the problem with FICA revenues is the decimation of the middle class. For three decades, the class warfare against the working class by the investment class and the management class, treating human labor as a commmodity and imposing corporate colonialism on the economic system CANNOT be "cured" by such simplistic proposals. The long-term viability of our system of social security rests upon fair and equitable participation in our economic system, which begins with equitible compensation for labor, from which ALL wealth is created.

Always remember, as both the number of jobs AND the compensation for such jobs declines, the tax base for OASDI/HI declines. OASDI/HI actuarial projections could be regarded as 'canaries in the coal mine,' highlighting the inequities in income distribution. Our Gini Index is fast approaching that of a banana republic ... a far cry from that of Japan and Western European countries.

[TBF]

14. It would be a start -

but I don't expect them to be so sensible. There was a very easy fix on health care too - just remove the age restrictions and let anyone buy in. They don't tend to go for sensible solutions. Rather, they go for the solutions that rip off the poor (99% of us) in order to fund incredibly lush lifestyles for the top 1%.

[Khellendross]

18. If only...

[Angry Dragon]

19. K&R

[xchrom]

20. recommend

[Uncle Joe]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Faryn Balyncd.

[avaistheone1]

22. Makes sense.

A great fix.




:kick:

[cate94]

23. K & R

Agree 100%.

[Yo_Mama]

24. The problem with doing this is lost income tax

I've written about this before on this site.

I am in favor of eliminating the cap for the employee half of the contribution up to about 150K. However it doesn't fully cover the gap (you are going to get 1/2 the amount for those employees in excess of the current cap).

If you impose extra taxes on the employer, you are going to get the employer reducing those wages probably in the form of lower raises, etc.

And if the employer reduces wages, that's going to be a net loss. Because the marginal tax rate on a single person with an income of 200K is 33%. Therefore, for each dollar in wages the employer does not pay, you lose 35.9% (33% income tax rate plus 2.9% Medicare tax).

So if you remove the rate cap:

Employer's extra cost would be $5,778.40 = (200,000 - 106,800) * .062.

If the employer recovered $4,000 of that by not giving a wage increase (pretty well doomed to happen over a few years) then the net outcome is (for the last 24K of income)

Income + SS & Medicare tax old scenario:
24,000 * (.33 + 0.0 + .029) = $8,616.

Removing SS cap:
20,000 * (.33 + .124 + .029) = $9,660.

Removing cap from employee only:
24,000 * (.33 + .062 + .029) = $10,104.

Basically, the math works out so that if the marginal income tax rate for the extra salary is much higher than the SS tax you go negative after about a decade with the employer side tax. When employers budget for salaries they include the taxes as part of the salary.

If we raise income tax rates for higher earners, as we must, the effect is much stronger than shown above.

Also, there is an additional negative effect from income substitution. The effective federal rate for a person earning 200K, given just the employee side raise, is now 42.1%, but the employee is likely paying over 7% in state tax, so now we are close to the 50/50 split. At that point, employees often substitute other types of income, such as pension or other benefits, for wage and salary income. So in fact you would raise even less than the 6.2%.

It's not publicized, but each year SS does compile a table of wages paid. They are always out of date, of course.

Here's the latest from 2009:
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2009

Slide down to the bottom of the page and look at the table there, especially concentrating on "Aggregate Amount" of wages in each bracket. There are three humps. The first is around 35K-40K. We can't raise taxes much there. The next is around 200-250K of salary. There we could raise a lot. The third is at 500K-1 million. Each hump gets smaller in amount:
35-40K 309 billion
200-250K 158 billion
500K-1 mil 149 billion.

It's pretty obvious that we will need to raise income taxes on the higher levels, and you have to try to ensure that you don't make changes that will cut net income to the Treasury.

[alfredo]

25. Send those 25 words to your lawmaker

[Amonester]

26. Send those 25 words to your lawmaker, AND join in a BIG check...

because... with no BIG check, it's headin' straight into the recycle bin.

You know how 'it' works, do you?

[CLANG]

28. K&R and NOBRAINER, except for the GOPerverts.

:rofl:

[DesertFlower]

29. the answer is so simple. K&R.

[fasttense]

31. A simple solution for a simple problem.

But since when do politicians care about the majority of Americans?

[Tanelorn]

32. Well that was easy

[BrklynLiberal]

33. BINGO! So simple. So straightforward! So effective!!!!

..and that is why the so-called "FICA holiday" was such a horrific idea!!! The few bucks it puts into our pockets immediately will never offset the devastating losses down the road.

The repukes will call the reinstatement of that "holiday" a tax raise, and campaign against it.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. The FICA holiday reduces the amount of money entering the system

And it makes the employer responsible for paying more than the employee. I'm not really crazy about setting a precedent where future lawmakers can boost FICA revenue by jacking up the employer portion and passing it off as just another tax on business.

[librechik]

34. The Rich rule us as if Democracy doesn't exist

That's why doing this will be harder than peeling the bark off a rock.

[UrbScotty]

36. K&R. Been pushing this for a long time. (nt)

[benld74]

37. BOO-YA!!!!!

[Enthusiast]

39. K&R If they won't do this

can we really still believe they represent us? Come on! If they would cut social security just to please their corporate overlords, when there is an easy fix available, they are traitors.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Another "Must Read", cross-posted again at handsoffsocialsecurity.us

http://www.handsoffsocialsecurity.us/?q=node/41

With full credit to you and a link to the full post here...


Peace,

Ghost

[Tripod]

42. K&R

[customerserviceguy]

46. It's an intriguing idea, but I have questions

Pardon me for asking them, but as a former tax accountant (enrolled to practice before the IRS from 1981 to 1990, when I gave up doing taxes) things occur to me.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the term "regular income". That concept doesn't appear anywhere in the tax code, because there is no such thing. All forms of income have been distinguished into the fully taxable, the partly taxable, and the untaxable, in varying degrees. We might not want to futz with that. For instance, would you apply FICA tax to welfare benefits? How about Social Security benefits? Worker's comp? You see how taxing unemployment comp (it used to be 100% tax free) has made the tax system so much more oppressive on the poorest people.

Here's another problem along that line: Do you tax gross income from an activity or investment, or net income? If I invest $1,000 in a stock, then sell it for $1,500 several years later, do you tax me on the receipt of the $500 profit, or the $1,500 that I got to put in my pocket? What about my business, if I pay my employees and suppliers a total of $1 million in wages and supply costs, do you tax me on the $1.2 million my business takes in, or just the $200K profit I made?

Here's another thing: How do the additional taxes paid affect the benefit calculation for the payers? Does the fatcat who makes $10 million a year start to get $2 million a year for his Social Security benefit?

Why not just fold the FICA tax into the ordinary income tax, dump a load of exclusions and other breaks, and then pay for Social Security benefits right out of the general fund?

[grahamhgreen]

48. The same way the rest of us are taxed. It's not rocket science.

[Recursion]

54. No; rocket science has hard answers that can be definitively found

Tax accountancy is a through-the-looking-glass world.

[customerserviceguy]

60. While it does indeed resemble such every once in awhile

there are long-settled principles on determining taxable income, partly taxable income, and exempt income. Each one of the reasons that the flows of income are treated has a solid public policy reason behind it, even if it often looks like a bogus reason to someone who doesn't get a particular tax 'break' that is afforded. Sometimes, it's just plain political payoff, but that's unfortunately how laws get made.

Don't think that any possible serious endeavor to implement the OP's proposal wouldn't be subject to the same political forces that have shaped the tax code so far. It's such a radical idea that I don't think more than ten percent of Congress would ever support it.

[customerserviceguy]

59. The rest of us are taxed differently on our different incomes

If you've got wage income, you pay FICA, Medicare, and income tax on the portion not covered by your personal exemption and standard or itemized deductions. If you get interest income, it's income tax (above that base of exempt income) only. If it's dividends, and you're in the lower two tax brackets, not at all.

There's a massive body of law, regulations, and court cases covering every possible way there is to get income that has been building for almost a century now. To think that it's simple to define "income" means that you really don't understand the various nuances of it, and the policy implications of those differences.

No, it's not rocket science. It's quite a bit harder.

[airplaneman]

65. You have questions

I like your questions and as a liberal I have thought about
them and have some answers.  I think taxes would be more fair
if they were broad-based and reasonable.  Don't tax gross
income or what a business takes in unless the tax is very low.
 Tax any form of wealth creation and tax wages as weath
creation.  By this I mean the $500.00 profit you mention and
the $200K in the business example and tax them both the same
at about 15%.  I would not tax those living below the poverty
level and have a half tax bracket up to 2X the poverty level. 
Social security taxes wages or self employment net income (not
self employment gross receipts).  I believe you should lift
the cap on Social Security and not increase benefits.  Let the
rich collect the current maximum amounts.  To the argument
they put in a lot more than they will get they should be proud
they were fortunate enough to have a lot of money and help
others besides themselves.  Its not fair that I pay 6.2% and
someone very wealth does not pay anything close to the same
amount.  This fixation on wages and ignoring interest,
dividends, royalties, capital gains, and even the inheritance
tax or any other form of wealth creation is why the difference
between the rich and poor has grown so much in the last 30
years in favor of the rich. If all forms of wealth creation
were taxed at say 15% the treasury would be full and we would
not be taking about balancing the budget. Paying SS out of the
general fund would work only if we fix the tax system as I
have suggested or something similar.  The current system where
50% don't pay income tax.  57% of INC's don't pay income tax. 
And the wealty pay a much smaller percent of their wealth
creation than employed people. The wealthy don't go and get a
job if they want more money,  they use their existing wealth
to create more wealth.  To the argument that the death tax is
like taxing twice, I don't see it as they get out of paying
the capital gains that they never paid and the recipient has
done nothing to acquire all the wealth.  Pardon me for
answering but I did enjoy your post.  With kind regards, 
-Airplaneman

[LuckyLib]

47. Might I add my own 25 --

Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce our military budget, make all Americans pay their share of taxes by removing loopholes for the rich.

[yurbud]

50. does regular income include investment and capital gains? If so, I'm for it.

[midnight]

51. I don't remember the details, but what is the problem of lifting the cap?

When Kennedy was president I believe he did so too....

[Recursion]

55. The argument against it is essentially dead, but just to wax nostalgic

The argument was that if we took away the tax cap we would have to keep the benefit cap (else we aren't really accomplishing anything) which turns SS into a "welfare" program and makes it much easier to cut.

But, the alleged third rail is looking easier to cut than we ever thought it was, so I think that argument might be dying.

[Hannah Bell]

58. i didn't realize you were in charge of deciding what's "dead".

[Recursion]

67. Um... whatever

Way to address what I said.

[BrklynLiberal]

70. The rich do not want to do it.

[emsimon33]

52. Another bonus would be that companies

might not be so generous in their salaries and bonuses to their best paid people if they had to pay FICA on it. The result could be to decrease the gap between the wealthiest and all the rest of us.

[RoccoR5955]

56. K & R n/t

[lonestarnot]

57. That would work.

[Gman]

61. Bingo. done

[OwnedByFerrets]

62. Hartmann has been saying it for years

[blackspade]

68. Totally agree.

But it will never happen while the rich hold the rest of us hostage.

[BrklynLiberal]

69. Another well-deserved kick

[sam sarrha]

71. the richest 1% hold 42% of Americas Financial Wealth, 6 times what the Bottom 80% hold at 7%.. >Link

so the richest 20% hold 93% of financial wealth.

there is a recession because the mentally ill OCD wealth/power hoarding rich have looted 93% of the money out of the economy using Wall street scams and tricks only they can win to screw us.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10016

As Canadian (University of Calgary) political science professor Shadia B. Drury notes in her brilliant critique of Strauss, his work, and his students' influence:

"Strauss's students and their students have occupied important positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations and continue to play a significant role within the Republican party. Prominent figures on the American political scene include Reagan's ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Wolfowitz; Caspar Weinberger's former speechwriter, Seth Cropsey; National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman, John T. Agresto; National Security Council advisor Carnes Lord; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Alan Keyes; legal scholar and judge Robert Bork...; Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; former Education Department Chief of Staff, William Kristol (later former vice-president Dan Quayle's chief of staff and then the chief pundit and policy maker of the Republican party). Journalists have been fully cognizant of this influx of Straussians into Washington and of the power they have within the Republican party. So much so that the New York Times has dubbed Leo Strauss the godfather of the Republican party's 1994 Contract With America."


http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/abraham-vereide-doug-coe-the-family

[Mimosa]

72. FDR taxed the rich.

After all they have gotten 3 times richer since 1980.