Cartoon: Les Beastiables -- Carly Ferretina, Presidential Candidate!
Today's Beastiable is Carly Fiorina. In a recent interview, she talked about paid family leave as a competitive benefit for companies, not a right for women. I thought this was one of the things she has said that was beastly enough that she has earned her turn as one of Les Beastiables.
NOTE FOR NEW READERS: This series features a new Les Beastiables cartoon every Friday afternoon/evening here at caucus99%. We indulge in a little Franglish because the French are tres classy. But I digresse.
For serious information and discussion, please join me below the break. Then you'll be able to "cleanse your palate" with a cute photo before you leave.
I was appalled when I saw this video:
It's all well and good to want some benefits left to the discretion of companies so that they can distinguish themselves from the competition. But there should be a good baseline. We don't want employees to be miserable except for the elite few. Well, most of us don't want that.
Where are all those family values? "Exceptional" America is the only industrialized country that does not pay for parental leave:
And really, who needs paid leave more? Carly Fiorina and her ilk, who make scads of money and can afford to take unpaid leave? CF and her ilk, who can afford the best daycare and nannies? Or the struggling Mom, working hard yet poor to middle class, living paycheck to paycheck? If she can't take parental leave, how is she supposed to afford to have someone else watch her child?
They want to force us to have the babies. But they don't want us to be able to take care of the babies. I suppose I'm not really surprised. We now have equality of opportunity to spout the talking points of the corporate overlords. But I sure wish some Republican would come along who would be a progressive breath of fresh air over there in their stale world.
Please join me in my mission to expose the stupid and ugly in our public figures. Beastliness remembered is beastliness held accountable. We will never forget. But we will have some laughs along the way. You may find other sayings by the same public figures equally as bad or worse compared to the beastly sayings I've chosen. In other words, your cringeage may vary. Please feel free to discuss.
As promised, just for fun is a photo of ferrets!
Please support our cartooning and lampooning by recommending, republishing, tipping, commenting, and spreading the word about Les Beastiables via social media. Also visit the Les Beastiables Amis page and consider joining the Cercle d'Amitie!
See previous cartoons at Les Beastiables Cartoons.
And please check out our swag at the Les Beastiables Gift Shop! Thank you for your support!
Comments
Thanks for the post, and adorable ferret photo, EC. What we
need is not a benefit like the one proposed by Blue Dog/New Dem Gillibrand, but a leave benefit which imposes a mandate for ALL employer's to furnish ALL of their employees with a paid and comprehensive--meaning for at least six months--maternal/sick leave benefit.
This could be used for personal illness (to recouperate from an illness, and to seek medical care), for maternity leave, for 'new baby' leave (for the parent other than the Mother), for leave to care for an ill family member in one's immediate family, etc.
IOW, the only thing the government would do is to pass the legislation to make this a requirement for ALL businesses--large and small--to offer and fully fund the benefit.
A 'like system' could be setup for self-employed persons, with the federal government matching their contribution--to be paid out of general tax revenues. (or better yet, maybe a 'dedicated funding stream')
Otherwise, we'll likely see more "Grand Bargain" gimmicks, and/or more legislation that is primarily written by revolving door politicians, and by lobbyists.
Does the name 'Liz Fowler' ring a bell?
Mollie
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Indeed, I think the easiest way to have benefits that we
decide are our rights, is to have the government decree it and fund it. And then raise taxes to pay for it so that those who can afford to pay in, pay more; while small businesses and others who cannot afford it, don't bear the full burden.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Update: EC, stay tuned for the upcoming budget negotiations--
taxes are slated to be slashed for both corporations and 'the wealthy.'
That's the reason for the 'Grand Bargain'--the fact that wealthy Americans feel no compunction about not carrying their weight when it comes to paying federal taxes. (In comparison to the era when the top rate was over 90 percent.)
Indeed, they are insisting that their taxes be slashed in the future, while eliminating tax 'loopholes' which greatly benefit the broader American populace (150 million of whom are enrolled in Group Health Insurance, for instance).
[BTW, I am in no way opposed to helping folks by subsidizing their premiums. If anything, the eligibility criteria for income was set too low for singles and couple. After all, less than approximately $65,000 household income isn't even middle-class, today. So the cut-off for singles and couples, which was in the $30,000's and $40,000's respectively, was rather ridiculous. But, again, the ACA was mostly drafted/written by former WellPoint executive/VP, Liz Fowler. Clearly, her mission was to look out for the insurance industry, not the citizenry.]
Dem US Rep Jan Schakowsky (IL) references this in her Reutuers Op-Ed, "The Sham of Simpson-Bowles." See below.
Last summer, none other than Dem Sen Ron Wyden admitted to Reporter Gerald Seib, at a WSJ Conference, that he had negotiated a cut in the highest individual marginal tax rates--to 25 percent. Same for corps.
IOW, instead of raising taxes on those "who can afford to pay," the top marginal tax rate will be dropped from (technically) 39.6 to 25.0, sometime in the future.
To be clear--this is the reason for the proposed Grand Bargain, which has been passed and implemented in increments since its proposal in 2010.
And, according to Repub Senator Rob Portman on C-Span (about one year ago, BEFORE the 'Doc Fix'), approximately "85 percent" of the cuts proposed by the President's Fiscal Commission (Bowles-Simpson) have already been achieved.
Not sure how many folks are aware, but there is a push among corporatist politicians and policy shills to replace the FICA tax, with a VAT tax--to fund Social Security. This, of course, would also severe the tie between earnings and benefits received. Al From addressed this on December 26, 2013 on C-Span.
The reason for this reform is to alleviate 'business' of any responsibility for their employees' retirement security.
IOW, more 'trickle down' economics.
(I will try to "clip" the part of the interview on this. I've intended to do so, for months now, because I want the Dem Party candidates to address this policy proposal.)
Anyhoo, since our "entitlement programs"--which presently do not include any type of sick/maternity/vacation leave, etc.--have been/are being cut piecemeal in practically every piece of major budget legislation, I believe that the only wise way to go about expanding benefits, is to do so with an 'employer mandate.'
Especially, since progressive think tankers have long been pushing for privatized Unemployment Insurance--making the employee pay a premium for a 'policy,' via their workplace payroll system.
Also, a Panel working with this Administration has recommended that LTC (long term care) insurance coverage for poor, disabled, and elderly Americans be scrubbed from the Medicaid program--to be replaced with a 'mandate' to carry private LTC insurance, for all Americans. In the end, the Commission/Panel couldn't come to agreement on the finer details of a proposal, so it's been put to the side, for now. But I can't imagine that there won't be another stab at this 'reform.'
Everything that our legislators are currently proposing, would only further "shift the cost" onto the American People--not the other way around.
I'm watching to see what happens to civilian and military retirements/benefits, what "fix" will be negotiated for SSDI (which stands to be cut approximately 19%--if the shortfall is not addressed by transferring funds from the "Old Age" Fund), and, most of all, what tax and entitlement reform will occur by the end of the year.
I have a very queasy feeling that whatever happens--"it ain't gonna be pretty."
Mollie
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
It is not just the wealthiest individual taxpayers
who are not paying their fair share. It is also corporations. Through all the loop holes, lowering of the top marginal rates, etc. US corporation taxes accounted for 33% of the total US government revenue in 1952, in 2013, that percentage had dropped to 10%. Now some of that is due to changes in our tax code as explained below.
But breaking this down, this is how it appears to me. Most of corporate income is now being taxed through the individual income taxes and most of these corporate profits are going to the wealthiest among us as unearned income. Since unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income and the wealthy have far more ways to shelter all their income, it appears that significant revenue is being lost here. If I am wrong, I really want someone to set this straight like maybe gjohnsit.
I do not pretend to understand how all this works, but it still seems as though the burden on middle income taxpayers is expanding. Here is another article that talks about that.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Agree, Nancy, that corps should pay more taxes,
but they are slated to be cut, not hiked (per Wyden)
In my comment a while ago, I mostly emphasized the "individual" tax rates, because the President already assured Republicans (per The Financial Times) in Spring of 2013, that any so-called corporate "tax reform" would be revenue neutral.
IOW, there will only be the closing of so-called 'loopholes,' in order to offset the slashing of corporate tax rates.
This is what the 'Grand Bargain' is all about--it's been proposed to 'offset' tax cuts for corporations and 'the wealthy.' If you read the Fiscal Commissions' proposal, and/or white papers on Bowles-Simpsom, it's clear that the main 'offset' is the 'savings' from entitlement reform ('savings' being the neoliberal word for cuts).
At least, that was the initial route that neoliberals were taking.
Now, in addition, they are using 'the Sequester' as a cash cow. IOW, Dems are open to trading entitlement cuts, for "discretionary" spending/monies, by lifting some of the Sequester cap. Including increasing defense spending--to appease conservatives, and war hawks in both parties.
There will be plenty of 'window dressing,' and propaganda, for the purpose of making the American People believe that business, and/or the wealthy, will be "pitching in their fair share."
But, that's about all that it will amount to.
I'm considering re-subscribing to The Financial Times, for this election cycle. If I do so, I'll look in the archives, and re-post the piece here.
Mollie
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Clever
Carly Ferretina! Thanks, Elena Carlena.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy