Healthcare isn’t the only social ill in the U.S. that needs a serious remedy. The list is long and growing: state budget crises, unemployment, infrastructure, education, housing, food assistance, etc. These are all things that must be paid for, but the money seems to be in short supply. When a country is in as much debt as the U.S., – $12 trillion and counting — the tasks at hand seem all but unachievable.

And this is exactly what many politicians would like you to believe.

Fortunately, the seriousness of the crisis is forcing a return to a forgotten, “radical” debate. For the first time in decades, some mainstream media and politicians are posing an extremely controversial question: should we increase taxes on the rich — and if so, how much?

The debate is being open to the public for lack of other options. The social inequality in the U.S. has been rising for decades, and has now reached the point where most of the population has zero disposable income; millions owe much more than they own. The only people who have money to spare are the wealthy. Another reason to tax the rich is that “…tax increases on high-income residents are less harmful than spending cuts; wealthier taxpayers tend to pay higher taxes from savings, not money they would otherwise spend.” (The New York Times, August 3, 2009).

Not pursuing higher taxes on the rich is resulting in social devastation. Look no farther than California, where Governor Schwarzenegger proudly declared that the state budget deficit was balanced “without raising taxes.” Instead, the budget was balanced at the expense of education, health care, welfare, etc. The working class and poor bore nearly the full extent of the burden. This dynamic is quickly turning the country backwards to a world that resembles the last depression.

Indeed, during the great depression tax rates for the wealthiest were raised significantly, from 24% in 1929, to 79% in 1936. Again, it was economic necessity — combined with a growing working class insurgency — that determined the tax increase.

Tax rates for the wealthy remained high for decades — 90% at times — until Regan “revolutionized” the system. The man Obama speaks so highly of lowered the national income dramatically: taxes for the wealthiest individuals fell from 70% to 33% with both Democrats and Republicans voting for the reduction.

In an attempt to partially fund some of his campaign promises, Obama plans to allow the Bush Jr. tax cuts for the rich to expire, which will raise taxes on the wealthiest a mere 3%. This insufficient amount has caused an uproar in some sections of the elite who use their control over media outlets to vent their frustration — branding Obama as a “socialist” (an insult to actual socialists). Their outrage is genuine, since they believe that giving up a little may cause people to then demand they give up much mor

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php