Ralph welcomes Ben Cohen (anti-war activist and ice cream entrepreneur) to discuss his new campaign, "Up in Arms," which advocates for a common-sense Pentagon budget.
Wealthier individuals should pay more taxes for defense spending because they tend to benefit disproportionately from the protection of wealth and economic stability that defense provides. Unfortunately, our current federal tax system does not tax wealth. The most effective way to tax wealth is to tax capital whenever there is a change in the ownership of property. For example, a transfer of property to a trust would result in recognition and realization of income if there is a capital gain.
One way to increase revenues on capital are to eliminate the preferential capital gains tax held on assets owned for at least a year. The preferential rates are now 0%, 15% and 20% based on taxable income. Sweden has no estate tax, but taxes capital gains at a flat rate of 30%. Another way to increase revenue from capital is to limit the value of assets that can be held in tax-free savings accounts like the Roth IRA
Richard, what's with the obsession with raising revenue? You do realize the US federal government is a currency issuing entity which can spend whatever they wish into existence, right?
While raising revenues would be of relevance to state and local governments, putting effort into raising revenues on the federal side is wasted effort better served advocating for fiscal policy which serves the needs of the citizens such as healthcare reform, regulation, and, as it pertains to this episode of the RNRH, nationalizing the military industry.
Perhaps a conversation with Al glatkowski who has a presence on Facebook along with S Brian Willson of Concord California naval weapons station who is living in Nicaragua would make for an interesting show. Al got arrested like Ben for speaking truth to power at som congressional hearing and Brian lay across tracks that were known to ship weapons of mass destruction to Central American countries in the eighties as American interests trumped human rights and sensibilities interests. Brian was run over by a sped up train because he didn’t remove himself quickly like his fellow protesters along with the reality of a sped up train during a peaceful protest…
Al lives in a red state and Brian is being cared for in a country that adores him for all the good he has brought to this world of chaos.
I’m a member of Veterans for Peace and Move to Amend. Just joined Up In Arms. Looking for that pen. Happy to donate for it. (Thanks, Ben, Ralph, Feldmans, and teams.)
Excellent interview - thank you, and thank you Ben Cohen and Ralph Nader for all you are doing for peace in the world! We need it now more than ever, but the weapons keep being bought by our government and sent overseas to kill people. The U.S. government budget is indeed a moral document, showing what our government values (defense contractors) and what it does not (peace, helping the homeless, etc.) Your efforts are important. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
I am sure Ben is a nice guy anyone that can turn a $1.50 ice cream cone into a $8.75 lick with sprinkles has got to be good ,, especially if he sells out to the hedge fund boys and makes millions. The Ben I am up in arms about is that Ben guy in Israel, the one that is killing thousands of kids and leaving them starving to death each day. What can we do ? i think when you don't buy or sell something to people or countries it gets their attention and it will put them out of business.Hamas will give up or leave they have been living off the dole to long ,,Big or small they all go under. Can you imagine if everyone that met with the Donald last week decided not to do 'any" business with Russia or Israel.. no guns, no ammo, no food, no butter ,no water, no tourism, no return phone calls, no email, no TV time, no oil ,no gas ,no lumber , no paper , no steel ,no technology ,no money exchanged, no bank transactions ,, . No "phoney" government sanctions 00000 and if any country were not in agreement they get the same treatment.
That would take a lot of leadership and fortitude by all ,,food only to the starving. Not endless gassing about what to do next ..
Is this an idea worth trying,, what do you got to lose.?
Wow thank you for this “conversation” Gaza death toll.
Anyone have death tolls for “U.S. Declares Genocide in Sudan”? In Somalia, drought crisis has taken the lives of 71,100, 41% children younger than 5. Haiti death tolls are impossible to calculate due to the ongoing violence. Congo? Rwanda? Any data on the Yemen death tolls? Syria, Lebanon- anyone? When was the last, more recent, Armenian genocide?
Has the Trump administration declared war on Venezuela? April 2024 Biden reinstates sanctions on Venezuela. Who was his “Don’t come” VP?
Anyone read *One Nation Under Blackmail Volume 1, followed by Volume 2? Author Whitney Webb. Purchased copies on ThriftBooks.com
the obvious reason for the defense procurement of costly, needless, escalatory weapons including grossly excessive nukes is people profit from it all: lobbyists and politicians profit by making and taking "donations", the supply chain profiteering has many thousands that earn livings and more from paying a part in the production, sales and maintenance of threats and the weapons that back threats up to the DOD.
Hannah astutely alluded to this, but I am up in arms about Up in Arms’ policy agenda. I understand and agree with Ben Cohen’s commentary about a bloated, unaccountable military budget, but significantly cutting the military budget will not lead to more money for public education, healthcare, and so forth. At the very least, the increased unemployment from cutting the military Keynesian paradigm of today will require an budget offset merely to avoid a recession. Furthermore, destabilization of military industrial corporations on Wall Street will only lead to further job losses and questions about the readiness of the US defense system if military contractors are on the verge of bankruptcy. This will only lead to the US having to prop up the military contractors. At that point, how is this any different than the status quo? And, of course, no Congressman is going to vote away jobs in their districts, so Up in Arms’ goal is entirely self-defeating and unrealistic.
The good news is that it is possible to curb the military industrial excesses while maintaining employment and creating a landscape which is pro-labor such that the public feels far less threatened by military industrial reform. In order to achieve this, the first thing which must be dispelled is Ben Cohen’s notion that the federal budget is like Cohen’s business budget when he ran his ice cream business. The federal budget is not like a household or business budget. A currency issuing government is never money constrained. Funding public education and healthcare, thus, is mostly independent of military industrial reform. There is some overlap in terms of appropriation of labor, but it is not a matter of running out of money or borrowing money.
My proposal for military industrial reform is to nationalize the military industry. Under the current paradigm, the one which Eisenhower warned the public about in his farewell address, military suppliers are essentially required by government to be profitable and, as such, they have to receive a certain amount of business to satisfy their shareholders or else these firms, and thus the defense system, face the risk of insolvency. There is no reason for government to maintain this broken system when they can just nationalize the military industrial sector just as the military labor sector, such as the Army and Navy, are nationalized and any notion of privatizing the Army and Navy would be laughed at by all but the most ardent neoliberals.
With a nationalized military industrial sector, the government can guarantee labor their current jobs at their current locations and at their current wages. Necessary military equipment will continue to be manufactured and can always be scaled up if a need arises. The rest of the military industrial labor force can work on non-military public needs such as infrastructure. Over time, young people entering the workforce can be steered into more needed parts of the private and public sectors, such as healthcare and engineering, and the military industrial sector can truly become right-sized without anyone fearing their jobs.
Of course, such nationalization requires significant investment, but again, this is not a problem once it is understood that a currency-issuing government is not money constrained. The actual constraints are real resource constraints such as labor. As things are, we might be seeing the result of that with the bloated military budget. Companies like Boeing struggle to produce things such as commercial airplanes for the private sector since they have focused so much of their efforts on military projects. Just imagine how much more painless the 737MAX project might have been if Boeing’s best engineers and project managers were working on it rather than on military projects. Maybe there wouldn’t have even been a 737MAX and, instead, Boeing could have designed a clean-sheet narrowbody airliner which could have had far superior economics and safety than the dated 737 design. And, of course, companies like Lockheed long ago abandoned private sector business interests and almost solely became government suppliers.
While I respect what Ben Cohen’s passion and what he is trying to achieve, Up in Arms is a failed project because it is not built on an empirical understanding of macroeconomics. Up in Arms is also not consistent with the aims of a proper labor movement. Up in Arms certainly isn’t producing viable political proposals if it requires Congress to vote in favor of job losses. My suggestion to Ben Cohen is to focus his passion on empiricism on these matters. This will ultimately lead to much more viable policy suggestions.
If Trump or Macron convinced the Egyptians to give up 10% of the Suez canal they stole, so that either the USA or France could provide security and maintenance in exchange for their 10% of revenues, then the rest of the Western world would no longer worry about the super important canal being closed off for political reasons.
Then the Ben-Gurion canal would not be built, or if completed would be a financial failure. Problem solved.
Hope y’all are going to talk about the Israeli nuclear arsenal, how they refuse to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and have threatened to drop one to keep everyone and every nation in fear.
Excellent broadcast and news. As always, thank you Ralph & Co. for your continued service to all of us. It matters so much.
Wealthier individuals should pay more taxes for defense spending because they tend to benefit disproportionately from the protection of wealth and economic stability that defense provides. Unfortunately, our current federal tax system does not tax wealth. The most effective way to tax wealth is to tax capital whenever there is a change in the ownership of property. For example, a transfer of property to a trust would result in recognition and realization of income if there is a capital gain.
One way to increase revenues on capital are to eliminate the preferential capital gains tax held on assets owned for at least a year. The preferential rates are now 0%, 15% and 20% based on taxable income. Sweden has no estate tax, but taxes capital gains at a flat rate of 30%. Another way to increase revenue from capital is to limit the value of assets that can be held in tax-free savings accounts like the Roth IRA
Richard, what's with the obsession with raising revenue? You do realize the US federal government is a currency issuing entity which can spend whatever they wish into existence, right?
While raising revenues would be of relevance to state and local governments, putting effort into raising revenues on the federal side is wasted effort better served advocating for fiscal policy which serves the needs of the citizens such as healthcare reform, regulation, and, as it pertains to this episode of the RNRH, nationalizing the military industry.
Perhaps a conversation with Al glatkowski who has a presence on Facebook along with S Brian Willson of Concord California naval weapons station who is living in Nicaragua would make for an interesting show. Al got arrested like Ben for speaking truth to power at som congressional hearing and Brian lay across tracks that were known to ship weapons of mass destruction to Central American countries in the eighties as American interests trumped human rights and sensibilities interests. Brian was run over by a sped up train because he didn’t remove himself quickly like his fellow protesters along with the reality of a sped up train during a peaceful protest…
Al lives in a red state and Brian is being cared for in a country that adores him for all the good he has brought to this world of chaos.
Brian is very close to the Ortega Murillo administration, which is problematic.
I’m a member of Veterans for Peace and Move to Amend. Just joined Up In Arms. Looking for that pen. Happy to donate for it. (Thanks, Ben, Ralph, Feldmans, and teams.)
Thank you Ralph. It's Capitalism and it is Not compatible with Democracy or Peace.
Unlike Communism and socialism?
Excellent interview - thank you, and thank you Ben Cohen and Ralph Nader for all you are doing for peace in the world! We need it now more than ever, but the weapons keep being bought by our government and sent overseas to kill people. The U.S. government budget is indeed a moral document, showing what our government values (defense contractors) and what it does not (peace, helping the homeless, etc.) Your efforts are important. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for ALL of this. Whew. Is it a good idea for Gavin Newsom to Gerrymander? *And would the voters agree. ?
It's a good idea to permit California voters to agree or disagree. Texas voters were summarily herded by the mad would-be king.
I am sure Ben is a nice guy anyone that can turn a $1.50 ice cream cone into a $8.75 lick with sprinkles has got to be good ,, especially if he sells out to the hedge fund boys and makes millions. The Ben I am up in arms about is that Ben guy in Israel, the one that is killing thousands of kids and leaving them starving to death each day. What can we do ? i think when you don't buy or sell something to people or countries it gets their attention and it will put them out of business.Hamas will give up or leave they have been living off the dole to long ,,Big or small they all go under. Can you imagine if everyone that met with the Donald last week decided not to do 'any" business with Russia or Israel.. no guns, no ammo, no food, no butter ,no water, no tourism, no return phone calls, no email, no TV time, no oil ,no gas ,no lumber , no paper , no steel ,no technology ,no money exchanged, no bank transactions ,, . No "phoney" government sanctions 00000 and if any country were not in agreement they get the same treatment.
That would take a lot of leadership and fortitude by all ,,food only to the starving. Not endless gassing about what to do next ..
Is this an idea worth trying,, what do you got to lose.?
Good luck America have a great day my friends
Wow thank you for this “conversation” Gaza death toll.
Anyone have death tolls for “U.S. Declares Genocide in Sudan”? In Somalia, drought crisis has taken the lives of 71,100, 41% children younger than 5. Haiti death tolls are impossible to calculate due to the ongoing violence. Congo? Rwanda? Any data on the Yemen death tolls? Syria, Lebanon- anyone? When was the last, more recent, Armenian genocide?
Has the Trump administration declared war on Venezuela? April 2024 Biden reinstates sanctions on Venezuela. Who was his “Don’t come” VP?
Anyone read *One Nation Under Blackmail Volume 1, followed by Volume 2? Author Whitney Webb. Purchased copies on ThriftBooks.com
Post discussion with Ben Cohen, cannot find a way to request a pen online on his Up in Arms website. Please pass this along
Will do.
the obvious reason for the defense procurement of costly, needless, escalatory weapons including grossly excessive nukes is people profit from it all: lobbyists and politicians profit by making and taking "donations", the supply chain profiteering has many thousands that earn livings and more from paying a part in the production, sales and maintenance of threats and the weapons that back threats up to the DOD.
Hannah astutely alluded to this, but I am up in arms about Up in Arms’ policy agenda. I understand and agree with Ben Cohen’s commentary about a bloated, unaccountable military budget, but significantly cutting the military budget will not lead to more money for public education, healthcare, and so forth. At the very least, the increased unemployment from cutting the military Keynesian paradigm of today will require an budget offset merely to avoid a recession. Furthermore, destabilization of military industrial corporations on Wall Street will only lead to further job losses and questions about the readiness of the US defense system if military contractors are on the verge of bankruptcy. This will only lead to the US having to prop up the military contractors. At that point, how is this any different than the status quo? And, of course, no Congressman is going to vote away jobs in their districts, so Up in Arms’ goal is entirely self-defeating and unrealistic.
The good news is that it is possible to curb the military industrial excesses while maintaining employment and creating a landscape which is pro-labor such that the public feels far less threatened by military industrial reform. In order to achieve this, the first thing which must be dispelled is Ben Cohen’s notion that the federal budget is like Cohen’s business budget when he ran his ice cream business. The federal budget is not like a household or business budget. A currency issuing government is never money constrained. Funding public education and healthcare, thus, is mostly independent of military industrial reform. There is some overlap in terms of appropriation of labor, but it is not a matter of running out of money or borrowing money.
My proposal for military industrial reform is to nationalize the military industry. Under the current paradigm, the one which Eisenhower warned the public about in his farewell address, military suppliers are essentially required by government to be profitable and, as such, they have to receive a certain amount of business to satisfy their shareholders or else these firms, and thus the defense system, face the risk of insolvency. There is no reason for government to maintain this broken system when they can just nationalize the military industrial sector just as the military labor sector, such as the Army and Navy, are nationalized and any notion of privatizing the Army and Navy would be laughed at by all but the most ardent neoliberals.
With a nationalized military industrial sector, the government can guarantee labor their current jobs at their current locations and at their current wages. Necessary military equipment will continue to be manufactured and can always be scaled up if a need arises. The rest of the military industrial labor force can work on non-military public needs such as infrastructure. Over time, young people entering the workforce can be steered into more needed parts of the private and public sectors, such as healthcare and engineering, and the military industrial sector can truly become right-sized without anyone fearing their jobs.
Of course, such nationalization requires significant investment, but again, this is not a problem once it is understood that a currency-issuing government is not money constrained. The actual constraints are real resource constraints such as labor. As things are, we might be seeing the result of that with the bloated military budget. Companies like Boeing struggle to produce things such as commercial airplanes for the private sector since they have focused so much of their efforts on military projects. Just imagine how much more painless the 737MAX project might have been if Boeing’s best engineers and project managers were working on it rather than on military projects. Maybe there wouldn’t have even been a 737MAX and, instead, Boeing could have designed a clean-sheet narrowbody airliner which could have had far superior economics and safety than the dated 737 design. And, of course, companies like Lockheed long ago abandoned private sector business interests and almost solely became government suppliers.
While I respect what Ben Cohen’s passion and what he is trying to achieve, Up in Arms is a failed project because it is not built on an empirical understanding of macroeconomics. Up in Arms is also not consistent with the aims of a proper labor movement. Up in Arms certainly isn’t producing viable political proposals if it requires Congress to vote in favor of job losses. My suggestion to Ben Cohen is to focus his passion on empiricism on these matters. This will ultimately lead to much more viable policy suggestions.
I went to the Up in Arms to write to get a pen. But there’s no way to contact them. If you fill out the form it goes to some website.
Would love to get a pen.
If Trump or Macron convinced the Egyptians to give up 10% of the Suez canal they stole, so that either the USA or France could provide security and maintenance in exchange for their 10% of revenues, then the rest of the Western world would no longer worry about the super important canal being closed off for political reasons.
Then the Ben-Gurion canal would not be built, or if completed would be a financial failure. Problem solved.
ZsZ
Hope y’all are going to talk about the Israeli nuclear arsenal, how they refuse to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and have threatened to drop one to keep everyone and every nation in fear.