This argument, while common, is based on historical ignorance. It assumes that presidents have always found a way to leverage their political connections post-presidency to make money from interest groups and wealthy political actors.The Intercept
But that isn’t the case....
Barack Obama Is Using His Presidency to Cash In, But Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter Refused
Zaid Jilani
Making big bucks post presidency is a feature, not a bug of the system. The scam has been normalized, though I have also looked at this proportion wise too and noticed in a relative sense, there has been even worse.
ReplyDeleteBernie's million dollar house and the $400k from that Obama speech seem like a lot, but then you look at say Trump's cabinet filled with YUGE billionaires and people like Wilbur Ross, it looks kinda like chump change, but it's still a sign of the times. Obama just has an appearance of being much more likable, so this stuff falls under the radar more. I just don't know what else to say.
The other question is how do you motivate future presidents to do the right thing as this WaPo (as much as I don't read such a rag), did make some points in this article I found:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/19/trump-rich-cabinet/?utm_term=.6ae4ff04f898
"The same was true of his cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was labeled a traitor to his class for introducing ambitious policies to tax the rich and redistribute the gains to the poorest Americans. Although FDR, a Democrat, inherited a relatively modest fortune — $60 million in today’s dollars, which barely allows him to crack the top 10 wealthiest presidents in history — it was enough to give him the independence to act in the country’s best interests. He could afford to impose a top marginal tax rate of 94 percent because he didn’t need the backing of his elite peers, who were among those most affected by the policy.
Although Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was from a more modest background, his Cabinet picks were roundly mocked as “eight millionaires and a plumber.” Yet they managed to serve their country well and selflessly, acting against their own economic interests by maintaining a top marginal income tax rate of 91 percent throughout Eisenhower’s eight years in office. The revenue helped build our interstate highways and create NASA, among other achievements. That was not entirely surprising, given that the Cabinet was composed of people like John Foster Dulles and Sinclair Weeks, who had decades of public service behind them. Of course, Eisenhower himself devoted his life to defending the United States as a member of the armed forces before becoming president."
The revenue helped build our interstate highways. No it didn't. They understood that the federal government created dollars then. And no one paid 90% in taxes, even though it was the top rate. The taxes were put in there to create and protect the middle-class after WWII when the 9 million returning soldiers and factory workers had nothing but savings in their bank accounts. They couldn't spend it during the war; all commodities and resources went to service the war; there was nothing they could buy. All of this was discussed in hearings, and Marriner Eccles and others made passionate pleas to protect the workers and stave off inflation.
ReplyDeleteMRW - do you have a link to the Eccles hearings, where he said that?
ReplyDelete"The revenue helped build our interstate highways. No it didn't. They understood that the federal government created dollars then. And no one paid 90% in taxes, even though it was the top rate. The taxes were put in there to create and protect the middle-class after WWII when the 9 million returning soldiers and factory workers had nothing but savings in their bank accounts. They couldn't spend it during the war; all commodities and resources went to service the war; there was nothing they could buy. All of this was discussed in hearings, and Marriner Eccles and others made passionate pleas to protect the workers and stave off inflation."
ReplyDeleteI didn't catch this, but that is a blatantly stupid error on WaoPo's part. I skimmed over to try to find the stuff they said about the other presidents and didn't realize this part was here. Good points, MRW. That would also hold for World War II. I know that we had already gone off the domestic gold standard, so this was all possible then too. Beardsley Ruml discussed some of this in his 1946 paper as well.
I'm also interested in finding those Eccles hearings. Really want to educate myself more on this part.
ReplyDeleteIn 1945 debt to GDP was 120%. Between 1945 and 1979, with top tax rates between 70 and 92%, the US built a nationwide infrastructure of transportation, power, and telecommunications; built the world's largest military and a global nuclear arsenal; waged near-continuous wars around the world; put men on the moon; had a large thriving middle class; and reduced the debt to 30% of GDP.
ReplyDeleteAll facts.
This is one of them. Dont know if it's the final Act. DIRECT PURCHASES OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BY
ReplyDeleteFEDERAL RESERVE BANKS. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=723&filepath=/files/docs/historical/house/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/house/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf
ReplyDeleteThere's another one, but I can't find it. Must be on another drive. I’e read these things from cover to cover.
ReplyDeleteUnknown said...
ReplyDeleteMRW - do you have a link to the Eccles hearings, where he said that?
Unknown, there is also another document from 1944—can’t find it, but if you go to the St. Louis Fed, and search for: Eccles 1944 taxes congress testimony, you might find it. That’s how I did.
Statements and Speeches of Marriner S. Eccles 1934-1951 at FRASER
ReplyDeleteSee also
ReplyDeleteDirect Purchases of U.S. Treasury Securities by Federal Reserve Banks
Kenneth D. Garbade
FRBNY Staff Report