Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the environment

MotherJones.com: How has the U.S. government historically changed its approach to public "commons" such as the air and water?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: One of the successes of the right-wing propaganda campaign has been to convince the American people that the environmental laws were new innovations passed after Earth Day. But in fact, it’s always been illegal to pollute. The pollution was restricted by two ancient doctrines. One’s called the Public Trust Doctrine, which says that those assets that are by their nature shared assets -- the commonwealth, the air and water, the wildlife, public lands -- are owned by the public. Everybody has a right to use them, and nobody has a right to treat them in a way that will diminish their use and enjoyment by others. The other law is Nuisance Law, which protects private property from intrusion by polluters. Nuisance law has been turned on its head by the right wing, who claim to be on the side of property rights, but really only favor property rights when they’re talking about the right of a polluter to use his property to destroy his neighbor’s property or the public property. The law in the United States, in every jurisdiction until about 1876, was that if a factory put smoke into the air, even one day a year, and it got onto a neighbor’s property, the neighbor had the right to enjoin to close down the factory, and the courts had no choice but to do that.

Those strong, ancient laws were dismantled through corruption and the political power of industry, as well as a general recognition that industrialization would be beneficial to the American public. But the pendulum swung too far, and by the early 1960s the polluters had basically displaced the public out of public trust assets. Then you had the reaction; you had Rachel Carson’s book "Silent Spring," which was the clarion call, and then you had Earth Day, 1970, when 20 million Americans came out onto the street to demand the return of their ancient environmental rights. The result of that was the passage of 28 major environmental laws over the next decade that made an effort to restore those rights to the public.

MJ.com: From there, what tactics did industry use to regain its position?

RFK: The "Gang of Five" foundations that are huge repositories of industrial polluter money [the John.M Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Bradley Foundation] have been used to create think tanks, to recruit phony scientists that we call “biostitutes” and to fund politicians in order to undermine and subvert those environmental laws that were passed after Earth Day: the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act. Industry was kind of caught off-guard by Earth Day and the legislative barrage that followed. But since then, they’ve mobilized to regain control of the public trust assets. And really, the best measure of how a democracy is functioning is how it allocates the goods of the land, the public trust assets. Does it maintain the air and water under control of the people for the benefit of the public, or does it allow those assets to be privatized by politically powerful entities?

MJ.com: How surprising has George Bush’s environmental policy been in light of his track record as governor?

RFK: We weren’t surprised by the federal environmental record, because we saw that he’d been the worst environmental governor in America. Under his leadership, Texas became the most polluted state in the country, with the highest levels of air pollution, the highest levels of water pollution, and the highest level of toxic waste and toxic releases. And it was 49th among 50 states in per-capita environmental spending. He was only worsted by Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah, who he has named his EPA administrator and who is now in charge of stewarding all of America’s environmental assets.

MJ.com: And yet, as a candidate in 2000, he talked about regulating emissions and combating global warming.

RFK: The problem for the president is that the environment and our environmental laws are very popular with both Republicans and Democrats among the rank-and-file. So, from the beginning, he’s had to conceal his radical anti-environmental agenda from the American public. He did it on the campaign trail by simply saying that he was going to support initiatives to control global warming. But once he got into office, he immediately reversed that and abandoned that promise, and began dismantling our environmental infrastructure.

In keeping with that, his attack has been a stealth attack. They use Orwellian rhetoric to conceal this extreme agenda from the public. When they want to destroy the forests, they call it the Healthy Forest Act; when they want to destroy the air, they call it the Clear Skies bill. Most insidiously, as part of this stealth attack, they’ve put polluters in charge of the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The head of the Forest Service is Mark Rey, probably the most rapacious timber industry lobbyist in American history. The head of public lands is Steven Griles, a mining industry lobbyist who believes public lands are unconstitutional. The head of the air division of the EPA was Marianne Horinko, whose former job had been advising corporate polluters on how to evade Superfund. The second in command of EPA was a Monsanto lobbyist. If you look at virtually all of the sub-secretariats and agency heads in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Interior and EPA, the same pattern holds. Polluters have been put in charge of the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. As I show in my book, these individuals have not entered government service for the public interest, but rather to subvert the very laws they’re now charged with enforcing.

MJ.com: One lesser-known example of that pattern is John Graham at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. What role does he play?

RFK: He’s been an anti-environmental activist for many, many years. He founded an anti-environmental think tank at Harvard, which is funded by polluting industries that pay Graham to produce reports [essentially] defending their corporate profits. He’s developed these phony algorithms that always end in the same result, which is that industry wins and the public loses.

He runs the most powerful agency in the government today, which is the OIRA, part of the Office of Management and Budget. It’s a secretive agency inside the White House that is not subject to many of the laws that require open government. The other agencies that are charged with protecting the American environment from time to time develop new regulations in keeping with that mission. Usually it takes about eight years for a regulation to go through the regulatory process, which involves a lot of public debate, public notice and comment, hearings and review by attorneys and scientists. At the end of this painstaking and extremely democratic process, those regulations now disappear into a black hole at OIRA, which is supposed to review the regulations prior to passage. And at OIRA, the industry meets privately with John Graham and rewrites the regulations in private. When the regulations come out of his office, generally they are no longer designed to protect the public, but rather to protect industry prerogatives and profits.

MJ.com: What's the worst example of how that collaboration between industry and government has played out?

RFK: One of the worst examples is the rewriting of New Source Review. I have three sons with asthma; one out of every four black kids in New York City now has asthma. Asthma attacks are triggered primarily by ozone and particulates, and the major sources of those materials in our atmosphere are 1,100 coal-burning power plants that are burning coal illegally. The Clinton administration had initiated investigations and prosecutions against 70 of the worst of those. But this is an industry that donated $48 million to President Bush and the Republican Party in the 2000 cycle and has given $58 million since. One of the first things that Bush did when he came into office was to order the Justice Department to drop those lawsuits. The Justice Department lawyer said that this had never happened before in American history, where a president accepts money from industries targeted for investigation and prosecution, and then orders the Justice Department to drop those investigations once he gets into office. There were 70 utilities involved here and, according to EPA, just the criminal exceedences from those 70 plants killed 5,500 Americans every year. Then the administration went and rewrote the Clean Air Act, gutting the New Source rule, which means those plants will be able to discharge ozone and particulates forever.

MJ.com: How has the situation changed now that Michael O. Leavitt has replaced Christine Todd Whitman at the EPA?

RFK: It went from bad to worse. Leavitt has giant social skills and charm, but his record is one of the most anti-environmental of any governor except for George W. Bush. The first thing that he did when he came into office was to dismantle President Clinton’s mercury rule. The same utilities that are discharging ozone and particulates, those same coal-burning power plants are also discharging huge amounts of mercury into our air, and the mercury ends up in the fish. Just a few weeks ago, the EPA announced its decision that, as a result of that, all fish in 19 states are now unsafe to eat because of mercury contamination. At least some of the fish in 48 states are now unsafe to eat. In fact, the only two states where they’re “safe” are Alaska and Wyoming, where the Republican-controlled legislatures refused to allocate the funds for their agencies to test the fish.

Today, one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease. My own levels of mercury are so high -- I had them tested recently -- that a woman with the same levels would have a child with cognitive impairment. The Clinton administration had classified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which triggered a requirement that those utilities remove 90 percent of the mercury within three and a half years. It would have cost less than 1 percent of plant revenue, and the great thing about it is that it works; we now know that when the utilities stop discharging mercury, that the fish downstream clean up almost immediately.

But this is an industry that gave all that money, over $100 million, to the president. A few months ago, the Bush administration announced that it was scrapping the Clinton-era regulations and substituting instead regulations that were written by utility lawyers, from the law firm of Latham and Watkins. Under the new rules, the utilities will effectively never have to clean up their mercury. And the chief lobbyist for Latham and Watkins was Jeffrey Holmstead, who is now the head of the air division of EPA. This is an example of how corporations have infiltrated our government and are dismantling it in order to privatize the commons.

MJ.com: In "Crimes Against Nature" you explain how the administration has cut funding to laws already on the books, such as Superfund cleanup.

RFK: Superfund has gone bankrupt. The Superfund itself, which was raised through a small tax on the chemical and oil industry, was used to clean up orphaned sites -- sites where the responsible party could not be found. But more importantly, it was used to leverage recalcitrant polluters to clean up their own sites, because Superfund includes a triple-damages provision. That gives the EPA power, when a polluter drags its feet, to say to the polluter, “Okay, we’re going to clean up the site ourselves, and then we’re going to charge you triple.” And 90 percent of the Superfund sites that have been cleaned up in America have been cleaned up as a result of that threat. Without that threat, Superfund just becomes a welfare program for corporate lawyers, who can argue forever and ever about who’s responsible and what kind of cleanup should result. So today, with Superfund bankrupt, you’re not going to see many Superfund sites really cleaned up. And if they are cleaned up, it’ll be with taxpayer money, which is absurdly unjust.

MJ.com: If John Kerry wins the election, to what extent can he undo the environmental damage this administration has done?

RFK: Some of the damage can be patched up. Some of it is going to be irreparable, but for the rest it will need congressional help and cooperation. So a lot would depend on who controls Congress. At this point, Congress is controlled by anti-environmental Republicans like Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay is a former Houston bug killer who entered politics because he was angry that his extermination business had been impacted by the ban on DDT and other pesticides, and he’s out to destroy America’s environmental laws.

MJ.com: What consequences do you see for the environment if Bush is re-elected?

RFK: I can’t imagine! What he’s done already would have been unimaginable five years ago. He is the number-one threat to the global environment. And the disastrous impacts of this administration don’t just go to the environment, but also to our democracy. My book is really not just about the environment, but more about the excess of corporate power and the corrosive impacts of excessive corporate power on our democracy.

Christian Coalition tax facts

Christian Coalition of Alabama tax facts

-What does the Bible say about taxes?

There is no scriptural mandate that Christians should simply yield to any level of taxation or that we should not protest when tax dollars are used to fund un-godly purposes (example - public funding of abortions, obscene art, etc.).

---

-Why does the Christian Coalition of Alabama support low taxes?

We believe that when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual, not the government. From a biblical perspective, we owe our first fruits to God. When taxes are low, this benefits families. How do families and poor children do under Reagan or Bush43? child poverty? abortions? infant mortality? health care?

-What is a "fair" tax system?

According to Webster's dictionary, fair means: "Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial. Or Just to all parties; equitable."

Many today, seem to define fair in a Marxian sense: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Regardless of the tax system, taxing some individuals at higher rates than others is "unfair" in the strictest sense of the word. The debate often centers on perceived inequity. The basic argument goes: "The more you make the more you should pay." The idea of taxing the rich is gratifying to many, but "rich" is a term rarely defined as well. According to the IRS, individuals making more than about $28,000 are included in the top 50% of taxpayers. Taxing the rich actually means taxing those in middle-income brackets as well. A second flaw in this reasoning is that it results in punishing success. The higher one moves in income the higher their tax burden should be, or so the argument goes.

Imposing greater tax burdens on families takes much needed resources from those who can least afford it. Creating a truly fair tax system is the subject of much discussion, with ideas including a national sales tax (consumption tax), reforming the current IRS code, a flat tax on income

"You cannot reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Increasing taxes only results in more spending, leaving the deficit at the highest level conceivably accepted by the public. Political Rule No. 1 is: Government spends what government receives plus as much more as it can get away with." -- Milton Friedman

Some state governments are concerned that the recently enacted economic stimulus package, that allows businesses to reduce their taxes by accelerating some of their depreciation, will cut deeply into state revenues. This concern is misplaced. Rather than hurt state revenues, lower business taxes leads to greater prosperity, which ultimately means stronger state revenues. States that pass legislation that counters the federal stimulus package will only delay their economic recovery and job creation.

"Indeed, Congress's recently enacted economic stimulus legislation will lead to thousands of new jobs all across the country," writes Heritage's Bill Beach in Depreciation Tax Breaks for Business Means Stronger Revenues for State Governments. "Additional job growth means stronger sales and state income tax revenues, more income from property tax levies, and healthier revenues from business profits and franchise taxes."

Historically state business communities become the cash cow of first resort and are seen as a piggy bank that can be tapped to make up for revenue shortfalls.

As Fred Anton, chairman of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, writes in the most recent Lincoln Institute Journal, "Lost is the message that "business don't pay taxes, people pay taxes."

Business tax increase are funded through work force reduction, higher consumer prices, reduced shareholder dividends, reduced salaries for employees, moratoriums on growth plans or some combination thereof.

Ultimately, business look to locate another area of the nation, or the world, which will enable them to remain competitive and profitable. ....

Our state lost 51,000 manufacturing jobs in 2001 alone -- about on-half the total of the prior decade. We have the second oldest state in the nation. Minimally qualified workers are difficult to find. Our largest out-migration is in the 21-29 years of age group.

Below is a primer on taxes and how states can make the most of their policies.

1) Tax increases are one of the worst steps that can be taken to make up revenue shortfalls. This specifically includes taxes on capital and businesses.

2) Tax cuts and keeping tax rates low lead to greater economic growth and more jobs for a state.

More jobs for a state means a higher income base that can be taxed.

The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare

by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D

President George W. Bush, holding firmly to his campaign commitment, has proposed a tax reform package that will strengthen America's economy. The across-the-board reductions in personal income tax rates he is seeking will increase incentives to work, save, and invest; and repealing the death tax will eliminate a pernicious form of double taxation while encouraging entrepreneurs and small-business owners to make decisions based on economic value instead of tax considerations.

These commonsense tax reforms are being criticized, however, by opponents of tax relief who claim that "only the rich" will benefit. Policymakers should ignore this class-warfare rhetoric. Unlike European welfare states crippled by redistributionist policies, the United States has prospered because success is admired rather than envied. But more needs to be done to redesign America's tax code so that barriers to upward mobility that remain are reduced. In other words, cutting taxes is not a policy for the rich, but a strategy that will help everyone else become rich or at least rise as far and as fast as their talent, ability, and willingness to work will take them.

The debate over tax "fairness" is not just an ethical battle between those who support a free-market economy and those who desire a welfare state. It is also an empirical battle based on numbers that often can be verified or disqualified. Not surprisingly, it turns out that many of the claims made by opponents of tax cuts do not withstand close scrutiny. For instance:

Myth: The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes and therefore should not get a significant share of a tax cut.

Reality: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, ¹ the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes. By definition, then, it is impossible to cut taxes without the so-called rich receiving a share of the benefits. Suppose consumption or payroll taxes are cut?

Myth: Lower tax rates will mean that the rich pay less.

Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. ² In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more taxes if rates are lowered. How does this apply to the Clinton years and deficits? The reason? There is less incentive to hide, shelter, or underreport income.

Consider what happened in the years following each of the three times Americans enjoyed significant tax rate reductions.

· The 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, individuals earning $50,000 or more) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. ³ what happened after this wonderful move?

· The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. ⁴

• The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. ⁵ Why do “Christians” refer to only one tax as if it is the entire “burden”? Why do “Christians” never mention payroll taxes and who pays most?

Myth: Reducing income tax rates will not help the poor. Reality: It is true that the poor will not receive a tax cut when tax rates are reduced, but the reason is that they do not pay income taxes. This does not mean, however, that they will receive no benefits from a tax cut. Indeed, because they are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, they will be the biggest beneficiaries of the faster growth that follows a tax cut. Christians have a rule against lying? Millions of children into poverty means “beneficiaries”? hmmmmm

Myth: The payroll tax is the biggest imposition on low-income workers, so reducing income taxes will have little effect on their tax burden. Reality: This actually is true, but it is not an argument against reducing income tax rates. Instead, it is a reason to reform the Social Security system so that lower-income workers can build wealth and enjoy a more comfortable retirement.

Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Reality: President Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats. Census Bureau data show that earnings for all income classes tend to rise and fall in unison. ⁶ In other words, economic policy either generates positive results, in which case all income classes benefit, or causes stagnation and decline, in which case all groups suffer. As Chart 3 illustrates, the high tax policies of the late 1970s and early 1990s are associated with weak economic performance, while the low tax rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles. Likewise, all income groups enjoyed increases in income after the 1997 capital gains tax cut. The poor did grow after 1997 because of a wide range of Clinton policies – including Earned income tax credit - not because of cap gains cuts.

Myth: Lower tax rates will lead to a repeat of the failed policies of the 1980s.

Reality: In the 1980s, tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent, much faster than was needed to keep pace with inflation. More important, the economy rebounded from the malaise of the 1970s. Indeed, the prosperity Americans enjoy today is a continuing legacy of the economic renaissance triggered by President Reagan's tax rate reductions. ⁷ You’re going to pay for the Reagan debt for the rest of your life – and 3 million kids into poverty and the bottom 60% losing ground is not my kind of “renaissance”.

Myth: Eliminating capital gains taxes, death taxes, the double taxation of dividends, or the double taxation of savings will merely create loopholes for the rich to exploit.

Reality: Existing provisions of the tax code dealing with capital have the effect of taxing income more than once. More specifically, they impose multiple layers of taxation on savings and investment. Defenders of the status quo can argue that these provisions are desirable. They can claim that the goal of income redistribution necessitates double taxation. They can even say that there is nothing morally wrong or economically destructive about discriminating against taxpayers who save and invest. They cannot argue legitimately, however, that elimination of double taxation
creates loopholes. Double taxation is a bias; adopting policies that tax income only once will institute fairness in the code. The working class pay payroll, income, excise, consumption etc. Elimination estate tax means trust fund kids could pay never.

Myth: Lower taxes on capital--savings and investment--represent "trickle down" economics.

Reality: Every economic theory, including Marxism, agrees that capital formation is the key to faster growth and higher standards of living. Increases in real wages over time are closely correlated with the average amount of capital available per worker. (See Chart 4.) In other words, if workers are paid on the basis of what they produce, it makes sense to adopt tax policies that encourage investment in the tools, equipment, machinery, and technology that help them produce more. How about during capital bubbles?

Myth: The death tax affects only the very rich. Reality: Only 2 percent of deaths may result in an estate tax liability, but many more families are forced to engage in costly and inefficient tax planning in order to avoid the tax. The burden of the tax, however, extends beyond those who either face the tax or take steps to avoid it. The death tax affects every family that lives in a community where a family-owned business must be liquidated to pay the tax. The death tax affects every worker when investments are sent offshore as families seek to protect their assets from this unfair form of double taxation. And the death tax affects everyone who loses income because a significant amount of money is invested for tax-minimization and tax-avoidance purposes instead of wealth-creation purposes.

CONCLUSION When politicians pit one group against another, the only winners are those who believe that more power should be concentrated in the federal government. The economic evidence clearly demonstrates that the U.S. economy will produce significant income gains for all Americans as long as appropriate policies are followed.

Marginal tax rate reductions and death tax repeal are examples of those policies. Yes, taxpayers will benefit, including some upper-income taxpayers, but the real winners will be Americans on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., is McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.