Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/29/2008 10:35 am

Is Congress Forcing CEOs to 'Fire U.S. Workers As Fast As They Can?'

© Shutterstock

Editor’s note: When people say it isn’t rocket science, ever wonder what it is that makes rocket science so darn hard? In our Decoder series, Whoopi Goldberg seeks out experts across a wide spectrum of fields to find out how things work, from the encryption on your iPod to the fine print on your tax bill. So next time you see a rocket, don’t be surprised if it’s one Whoopi built herself.

David Cay Johnston is a former writer for The New York Times and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Free Lunch.

WHOOPI: I keep saying, "I don’t mind paying the taxes. I mind that none of them seem to be going towards anything." Where does our tax money go?

DAVID: Well here’s where most of the money is going – a handful of places. Medicare and Social Security are the two biggest expenditures of the federal government, but they’re not funded by income tax; they’re funded by special taxes – the payroll tax that stops at around $100,000 and the Medicare tax. The other two big areas of spending are interest on the national debt, which we already covered. And the other is the military. We still have people collecting pensions and medical benefits from WWII.

WHOOPI: Right.

Click here to see just the numbers, crunched.

Click here to read part one of the Whoopi Decoder series: Whoopi the Decoder Finds Out Why We Get ‘Taxed up the Behind’

DAVID: My dad was a 100 percent disabled veteran of WWII. So I got G.I. Bill benefits up until 1975, to go to college – because I’m treated, technically, as a war orphan. We have an economy that’s over $13 trillion – that’s total output for the year. Take the Pentagon budget, and the interest on the national debt due to wars, past and present, and the Veterans Administration and the Department of Energy, which is mostly bomb making and war, and all the other things that are associated with the military and you’re looking at well north of $1 trillion a year. That’s a big drain on the economy. Roughly, that’s taking a dime out of every dollar of productivity in the system. You know, when Jesse Jackson ran for president back in ‘88, he went around to the Iowa caucuses — where he came in fourth — and he would say to the mostly farmers, "Alright, I want every one of you who owns a VCR put your hand up." And they all put their hand up. And then he said, "Alright, and now every one of you who owns an MX Missile …" and everyone put their hand down. And he pointed out that we make the MX Missile in America but we import the VCRs from Korea and Taiwan.

One of the phrases that I use, Whoopi, is this: Under the rules Congress has set up, if you’re the CEO of a multinational company, then you should be firing American workers as fast as you can and moving your assets and intellectual property out of the United States. And it’s because – and this is the reason for your upset – the whole focus of federal policy is on capital. It’s not on people. Even Andrew Mellon, not exactly a darling of progressives or moderates, said this was wrong. Let me read you something from my current book that he said in 1924. This is when he was Treasury Secretary:

"The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it. In the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mental and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end."

25 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Brooklyn Gal
I would like to know if cutting corporate taxes, not to be confused with capital gains, (but also getting rid of any corporation tax loopholes) would improve our economy? Has anyone studied this?
By Brooklyn Gal on 05/29/2008 9:58 pm
K O
Hi Carol, Liz Peek touched upon this answer in her column this week. She feels that we should not raise US corporate taxes since only Japan’s are higher. I somewhat agree; although, I feel that they should be lowered to make us more competitive in the global markets. With stricter environmental, employee benefits and working condition laws here as compared with many other countries, lower corporate taxes would result, in my opinion, in leveling the global business playing field somewhat.
By K O on 06/09/2008 11:19 am
Chrome Toe
I love the way this guy explains things. I can get it! And i’m a psych major. I suck at math. I’m going to peruse his book this weekend. Interesting stuff. I want to understand this stuff. I figure if I understand it I might be able to see how to affect it.
By Chrome Toe on 05/29/2008 10:38 pm
Arlye MacLeod
What may be missing from discussions about the economy is that every penny spent or paid is someones income. Money does not ‘disappear’ down some hole. It continually moves .. and it really does not matter who has it at any given point. All that matters is what they do with it. The question about corporate taxes … It would be interesting to get rid of all corporate taxes. Corporations could, then, focus on making money rather than having to look for their special loop-holes which the governing body can manipulate … That manipulation is called ‘fiscal policy’. Since all the money ends up as someones income (from a small supplier to a stockholder’s dividends), the income tax would still capture that money. Now … can we get rid of ‘fiscal policy’ from the income tax? Hmm … a ‘flat tax’ would do it instantly if all income was counted the same. I have never understood why capital income is treated as more ‘sacred’ than wage income … but, wow … we are captialists! Of course that income is more ‘sacred’. If one knew how to use an abaccus many centuries ago, anything you did with it was ‘sacred’. Times and what is worthy change … A flat tax with a single, poverty level for size of household, standard deduction would be the fairest form of tax. Loopholes could not exist if all income was treated the same … including the incomes for the FICA tax. Heck, that would solve the Social Security problem forever if the FICA tax only covered what was needed to pay the benefits … Hmm … but we are still leaving out all the income in the ‘black market’ or underground economic ventures … Ah … a national sales tax, rather than a legally made income tax, would solve that problem … Dr. Milton Friedman advocated that … if a tax must exist … but was fearful of what all the government would do with that explosion of funds !!! But … there is no Law that the government must use the money unwisely or harmfully. Government can use money for the benefit of all … some do … and money in the government’s hands is, still, someones income they will spend. Money has what is called ‘velocity’ … the number of times a dollar changes hands. The history of knowing this suggests the velocity plays a part in actual growth of an economy … without the problem of inflation since the amount of money does not change. But then … what is benefit? Socialist economies, as did slave and serf economies, had to wrestle with that question. Economics is the most confusing of all subjects …There are answers, but they all raise more questions.
By Arlye MacLeod on 05/30/2008 4:20 am
Arlye MacLeod
Oh … I forgot to answer the question of the day … Is the government using fiscal policy (and the current financial problem) to make business fire workers? Ah … not exactly … An Economy is the production and distribution of goods and services to a (the) population. Well, using capital means to produce the goods, rather than labor, is the future … Good ol’ Karl Marx would be laughing at our convolutions, the rhetoric we are using, to try to hold on to the past. He might, also, be shaking his head at the fall of the Soviets who tried their best to keep Labor as the means to produce the goods. We do not want to repeat that mistake … Tehnology is the future of production and it is the distribution we must tackle. When Sen. McCain made the totally truthful, yet totally ill-advised, remark ‘the jobs are not comming back’, I chuckled. No one wants to hear that … because we have no idea what to do about it … Just imagine, eons ago, when a party of hunters came back from a wild and dangerous hunt for meat … to find their wives had captured some young pigs they were going to raise in their house for meat. I do not doubt those men felt a moment of terror to know their activity was no longer the most valued. The same is true for Labor these days. From the advent of the steam engine to now, Labor is less necessary. Everyone gets all excited about ‘more productivity’ in our economy … that only means fewer workers are needed to do the same amount of work. The falling interest rate by the FED is going to make an impact. To put in technology for greater production, one must borrow capital (money) to buy the tech. The price of the money must be less than the price of Labor for this to be a rational choice. Now it is … Congress is not ‘forcing business to fire U.S. workers’. It is just making replacing workers cost effective to bring production back to this nation where we can keep an eye on it better.
By Arlye MacLeod on 05/30/2008 5:04 am
Kay Sara
Unfortunately this country has failed gravely at “keeping an eye” on businesses. Look at the airlines, banking, housing, consumer products, food safety….
By Kay Sara on 05/31/2008 5:15 am
Bonnie Oliver
Very interesting question and I have found it informative to read through all the comments.
By Bonnie Oliver on 05/30/2008 10:13 am
Pamela Munro
Unalloyed capitalism soon veers off into economic ruthlessness. It cares only for figures & spreadsheets & f#**k the rest! That’s why it needs to be constrained for the general good! That’s why the Pure Food & Drug Act was created - to save us from dangerous and adulterated food & drugs. (They are cheaper!) And similarly other government brakes on the beastliness of untrammeled capitalism that were introduced in the Progressive Era. That was after the golden age of 90’s and the robber barons - and we have our own breed of robber barons now - If they want to live in Dubai, go let them. But don’t let them get any advantages of doing so and claiming U.S. Citizenship at the same time! We have to police and rein in the wild horses of capital. And the time is NOW. We need another injection of the old Progressive spirit.
By Pamela Munro on 05/30/2008 1:07 pm
Kay Sara
This is an excellent article. Very true. More than race- we have “class” issues and they are intensifying. As for tax loopholes- Outrageous! Companies are building plants in other countries to exploit cheap labor and no “safety” laws or benefits for injuries. Then they create phoney- paper companies in Luxenbourg for example to sell the cheap products to at marked up U.S. prices so that when they then sell the products to the intended U.S. customer(s) it is at the marked up price and the company then shows - NO PROFIT! Which means the U.S. gets no tax revenue from this scheme. Brilliant Congress!!! I have written to everyone to try and close this loophole. It is all legal and my company is doing this. How much tax revenue does the U.S. lose by this scam?
By Kay Sara on 05/31/2008 5:12 am
Rebecca B
WOW! I’m surprised by how many people think trickle down economics works after having watched it in action. Rich people can only spend so much of their money money and therefore don’t stimulate production, though they may stimulate banking services. Poor people spend all their money and if given more would spend that too just to cover the necessities. That would increase demand for goods resulting in more jobs (manufacturing, sales, and service though ideally those jobs would be in this country). I’m not an economist, but it seems to me like a production economy would be better for us than one that either spends or invests in the economies of other countries. Financial wellness, in my opinion, would be better measured by modal indicators (money in the hands of many) than means or medians. Dunno. Maybe I’m off on this and rich people should be given tax breaks to buy two Hummers while poor people should pay to ride the bus. It just seems to me that money has an intrinsic value too. If you earn $10 an hour, after an hour of work you are maxed out buying milk, bread, and peanut butter whereas if you make $100 an hour you have $90 leftover - plenty enough for jelly. Whose pennies are more vital to daily living? So, are people more important than capital? Nah, not in this country if our behaviors tell us anything. And as a side note, people with no kids or whose kids have already graduated, pay for public education because you can only build a security wall so tall. That and you want educated masses to vote. It’s a vital cost. Also, voters have a lot of say in those taxes. They can vote for or against bonds. They can increase or not their millages. They can also save money by getting rid of NCLB.
By Rebecca B on 06/01/2008 12:52 am