While enjoying Christmas Eve, I read a blatantly false advertisement. This wasn’t like most ads, this was a paid writer sent to steal more. What nerve! Now, what the very rich want you to believe they are a lot like sweet old Santa Claus.

How is the rich seeking to steal the spirit of Christmas? They send in right-wing apologist Deroy Murdock, who makes up numbers so you will agree with him that, The Wealthy Pay more than their fair share.  In his shameless article, Murdock claimed, “wealthy American’s are much less like Scrooge and much more like Santa.” Let’s look at verified facts, his misleading intentions and your money.

Between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service, amongst the richest one percent of Americans while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%. How is the disparity come about? In 1950 CEO pay compared to worker pay was 30:1, today its 427:1.

No other income group rose nearly as fast according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics. These facts are found in the Congressional Budget Office conclusions that the income level of the upper 1% of families has almost tripled and only the income levels of the top 20% of families have significantly increased in the past two decades.  Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000. The data demonstrates during the last ten years two-thirds of all profits went to the richest one percent of our population.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development notes that the U.S. has the most inequitable distribution of income of all the industrialized nations. The middle class is in serious decline; the international bankers are worried about social and economic problems in the U.S.  The Economist writes that since the 1970s, economic inequities have mushroomed. For example, data from tax returns show that the top 1% of households received 8.9% of all pre-tax income in 1976. In 2007, the top 1% share had more than doubled to 23.5%. The ratio of the compensation of CEOs to the average worker in 1974 was 35 to 1; now it is 150 to 1, according to the Council of Economic Advisors data.

The Federal Census Bureau uses a statistical measure known as the “Gini” index to measure income inequality. The index reflects the rather dramatic increase in the inequality during the past 25 years.  Visit the CIA.gov web site to see the following fact – in the last generation America has become the most unequal of any industrialized nation!  In 1980, the average income of the top 5% of families was 10.9 times as large as the average income of the bottom 20 percent, according to Census data. In 2008, the ratio was 20.6 times. In 1992 the top 400 households having 1124 times as much income, by 2007 they had 6,900 times as much.

The great middle class myth is that they are amongst the rich; just have a few less toys but those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000. The Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million. Very few of the wealthiest are affected by this tax.

What is truly remarkable is that this change has occurred at a time when overall economic growth has been unprecedented. In real dollars, the GDP has tripled since 1960 but wage increases have been stagnant. Tim Kane, an economist at the Heritage Foundation. “Lower taxes and lower marginal tax rates are leading to more growth. There’s an explosion of wealth. We are so wealthy in a world that is profoundly poor.”

The U.S. Council of Economic Advisors Report on Giving concluded that although the dollar amount of charitable contributions as risen, the total amount of philanthropy as a percentage of the GDP has actually decreased since the 1960′s. Of the religious contributions the bulk of the funds are used for facilities, operations and salaries. Today only a relatively small percentage of philanthropic organizations provide services that primarily benefit the poor individuals who have been most affected by income inequality.

So remember the facts before we allow the very rich to steal Santa?

In a compromise with Republican lawmakers, President Obama agreed to extend Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans for another two years—breaking his 2008 campaign promise to repeal them.

In return, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance, expand college tax credits, and reduce payroll taxes. Meanwhile, the continuation of tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year will cost an estimated $60 billion a year and $700 billion over the next decade—a terrible misallocation of resources.

Among those disappointed by President Obama’s decision are hundreds of wealthy Americans who will benefit directly from the continuation of the cuts—but who have spent months lobbying for them to be allowed to expire. They have signed public petitions, written op-eds, and called their representatives to explain their belief that top-earners have a responsibility to the common good.

Two organizations of wealthy individuals, Wealth for the Common Good and Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, have over 100 public signers with annual incomes of over $1 million and more than 500 public signers with household incomes over $250,000 who want to see tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010. They include a dozen Google execs, a Blackrock MD, Chairman Emeritus of the NY Mercantile Exchange, multiple Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, the founder of Ask.com, the CEO of Men’s Warehouse, the founder of the Princeton Review, and many others.

In their own words:

Warren Buffett, Nebraska: I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it. The rich are always going to say that, you know, “Just give us more money, and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.” But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

Aravinda Ananda, Massachusetts: Most people who earn over $235,000 per year do not earn all of that wealth by their own work. Often, a portion of it is extracted from other people’s work or the environment. I think it is fair for a portion of these earnings to be returned to the common good.

All of us in this income bracket can afford good food, a home, and numerous luxuries, and it is fine for us to contribute to the common good according to our abilities. I am happy to contribute my fair share to the well-being of our country, especially when it goes to things like education and health care.

Ken Lewis, Oregon: The federal tax rate for the wealthiest is at an historical low. Today, it is 35 percent, whereas between 1936 and 1980, it never went below 70 percent. Since then, the share of total personal income of the richest one percent more than doubled. As a successful business person, I have benefited from the current tax system, but considering the federal deficit, I want to blow the whistle on it. I believe we need to move toward having one tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

Elaine Attias, California: An essential human value is “fairness.” Without it, societies are unstable and unjust. Many of us have benefited financially from the “unfair” tax policies of the Bush Administration. This has produced social unrest and lost opportunities. Let us correct the past abuses and restore a sense of well-being and the good society.

Naomi Sobel, Massachusetts: Because my own family’s good fortune came out of a century of public investments, it makes sense to me that a substantial part of our wealth should be reinvested for the public good. Our family business relied on existing infrastructure like roads and bridges to transport materials. It benefited from government grants intended to spur additional development. We also benefited from our nation’s remarkable system of property laws, deeds, patents, and mortgage systems. Our business was built upon a commonwealth of public resources, scientific knowledge, and shared institutions. Those of us who have disproportionately benefited from these investments have a corresponding patriotic responsibility to reinvest in the common good.

Michael DeBell, Washington State: Progressive taxation is a recognition of collective responsibility, a means for improving the nation from which our wealth is derived and an investment in the human capital that will keep our economy competitive.

Rhoda Gordon, New Jersey: Fairness towards all is what this country stands for. Not survival of the richest.

Stanislav Fritz, Washington: As a percentage of GNP our tax burden right now is at historic lows. Those of us (and we are among those) that make significant money understand that we also benefit from a stable government and benefit the most from taxes. Quite frankly, it is in our enlightened best interest to reverse the cuts we received in the past.

Bryan Kirschner, Washington State: Recently, I took a new job as an executive in a consulting company. We compete for clients all over the world. To grow my business, I need new employees with great critical thinking and analytical skills. I want the United States to invest in education from making it possible for every child to receive quality early childhood education through ensuring the same federal financial aid that helped me is available to every family working hard and making sacrifices to pursue higher education.

As Congress begins debate over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy or let them expire at the end of the year, I hope our elected officials have the courage to let my tax cuts expire.

Gene Mulligan, Virginia: No one likes to talk about taxes in a positive light, but the truth is that our nation has built a remarkable marketplace for enterprise and wealth creation. Taxes paid for the public investments in research, education, infrastructure and technology that made this possible. They paid for law enforcement and orderly marketplaces. These public investments buoyed my personal opportunities and wealth. I am certain they have done the same for millions of other Americans.

Peter Heegaard, Minnesota: I’m a big believer in the importance of mentorship, of helping the next generation of business and community leaders find their way. But I also view efficient government and adequate tax revenue as essential ingredients in a fostering the fertile soil for business development and healthy communities. Just as a healthy farm or garden needs a balance of nutrients, our country needs a balanced and fair tax system.

Chris Wilhelmi, California: When did it become fashionable, for those of us who have benefited most from the resources this country has created, to decide we don’t need to pay it forward? Without higher taxes on the wealthy, we won’t have citizens with world-class educations, robust health, or the 21st Century infrastructure we need to be competitive. Our forefathers bequeathed to us a strong nation they helped pay for with their tax dollars. We the people, owe the future no less.

Chuck Collins wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Chuck is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good.

Lobbyists for banks, hedge funds and other firms have logged hundreds of meetings with federal regulators since the reform bill was signed into law July 21. The lobbyists are often pushing for exemptions to the bill’s key provisions, including measures that would limit risky Wall Street trading and shield consumers from excessive bank fees, records and interviews show.

In an Aug. 18 meeting with Federal Reserve officials, for instance, Citigroup lobbyists warned that new rules restricting trading by hedge funds “may have a significant impact on the competitiveness of U.S. firms,” according to a summary released by the Fed.

The incessant appeals — there were 18 separate meetings between lobbyists and government officials Sept. 28 alone — have become a sore spot with some regulators.

“I want to be professional and polite and courteous, and I’ll let them say their peace,” said Bart Chilton, a member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “But I don’t think it’s a very valuable use of their time or mine, because that is not the direction we were instructed to go by Congress.”

The meetings would normally be cloaked in secrecy. But in keeping with the spirit of financial reform, the Fed, the CFTC and two other agencies have begun disclosing their contacts with lobbyists on the new reform law, providing a rare glimpse behind the curtain.

That glimpse frequently shows companies arguing that their operations shouldn’t be covered by the new regulations, or that the regulations should be narrowly written, according to summaries posted by the federal agencies on their websites.

For example, lawyers for investment firm BlackRock met with CFTC officials Sept. 23 to seek an exemption from new restrictions on the trading of derivatives — or investments whose value is tied to an underlying asset. Otherwise, BlackRock warned, it would “be forced to curtail our client-service activities” according to a document posted in connection with the meeting.

Not all of the meetings involve Wall Street firms. Four executives of Ford’s consumer finance division met with Fed officials Aug. 14, asking that its vehicle loans “be exempt” from rules that are designed to rein in risky lending, according to documents released by the agency.

And the American Petroleum Institute met with Securities and Exchange Commission officials Sept. 27 to argue that new rules forcing oil and mining firms to report payments made to foreign governments “raises significant practicality and cost-benefit concerns by vastly increasing the amount of data that must be reported.”

The names listed most frequently in the logs are Goldman Sachs, with 21 meetings with regulators, and JPMorgan Chase, with 23. Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan, was among those in attendance when a bank contingent met Oct. 8 with Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair, records show.

In all, regulators have had at least 510 meetings with lobbyists representing 325 organizations since July, according to a Times analysis of meeting logs. That’s when the Fed, the SEC, the FDIC and the CFTC first began keeping the logs on their websites, in the spirit of transparency that was a driving factor for the financial reform law.

Despite taking up 2,319 pages, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act left key details to regulatory agencies. Consumer groups applauded the decision to release details of the meetings, saying it provides a rare window into the rule-making process.

“It helps to alleviate the sense that all the important decisions are being made behind closed doors,” said Barbara Roper, the director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America.

Regulators, lobbyists and consumer groups could not recall another instance of government agencies listing such meetings. But the lists appear to have attracted scant public notice — and do not appear to have influenced the rule-making process.

“The meetings recently have been like the meetings we have always had,” said Elisse Walter, a member of the SEC.

At the same time, the logs show that consumer interests are heavily outnumbered by Wall Street.

More than 90% of the groups that appear in the meeting logs are banks, hedge funds and other big companies that rely on the financial industry, according to The Times’ analysis. Some worry that the imbalance could affect the rules regulators are drafting to implement the law.

“Clearly the big banks have a ton of money to put toward this battle, and the people who are fighting for reform just don’t have the resources or the people,” said Heather Slavkin, a policy advisor for theAFL-CIO who has attended several meetings with regulators.

Many of the meetings involve arcane facets of the reform law, such as the structure of new trading exchanges that are designed to bring greater transparency to the market for complex securities such as credit default swaps.

Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, is concerned that Wall Street’s voice will be especially powerful in discussions on implementing these measures.

“As you get into the nitty-gritty details there aren’t a lot of people who can give a countervailing argument,” she said.

But what’s hammered out in the meetings probably will affect Main Street as well as Wall Street. The recent financial crisis underscored how even obscure activities can have a momentous effect on the pensions and pocketbooks of all Americans. The unregulated investments that banks made in complex, mortgage-based securities, for instance, eventually vaporized billions of dollars in retirement savings.

In addition, the regulators and lobbyists are discussing a wide variety of consumer-related topics such as debit card fees and retail investment brokers.

Industry officials declined to comment on specific meetings. But in general, finance executives say they are trying to educate regulators about the market segments that will be affected by the law, and they note that several of the meetings were convened at the request of regulators.

“The sheer volume of the number of rules that they need to write here is so much greater than in the past that you’ll see a lot more outreach — and lot more of these meetings and efforts to lobby,” said Robert Pickel, executive vice chairman of the International Swaps and Derivatives Assn.

Wall Street representatives say the risk is that financial reform will put the brakes on the financial recovery.

“The worst-case scenario for the banks is that … we end up with rules that constrain markets, which then impact the economy,” said Tim Ryan, CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Assn. “There is a big risk here of overshooting the mark.”

The SEC’s Walter said she was bothered by the fact that regulators were not usually good hosts, so she bought a coffee machine for her office for visitors.

“I grew up in a nice Jewish home in New York and if you don’t offer someone a cup of coffee you are kind of a jerk,” Walter said.

Chilton said he is not always so gracious. In one instance he grew frustrated after seeing the same law firm three times in two weeks — representing three different financial companies but making the same case each time.

“I have to say, the third time I had the meeting my attention span was dwindling,” Chilton said. “I want to know how to make this work, and get useful information about how to go forward — not fight battles that they’ve already lost on Capitol Hill.”

nathaniel.popper@latimes.com

• A U.S. Appeals ruled the prisoners in Cuba – are not U.S. citizens and, technically, not imprisoned in the U.S. — were not legally “persons” and, therefore, had no rights to violate.
• April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro engaged in a different form of judicial activism — granting human rights to corporations

• 2010 Corporate Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark First Amendment case overturning decades of overly-restrictive campaign finance law on the grounds it is prejudice against corporations and in America, prejudice is illegal.

30 REASONS CORPORATIONS SHOULD VOTE

1. Decisions are organized
2. Decisions seek input
3. Decisions consider financing
4. Decisions made by professionals
5. Decisions are well-organized
6. Corporations replace senile thinkers
7. Corporations hide political spending
8. Corporations are educated
9. Corporations are answerable
10. Corporations are born qualified
11. Corporations have more experience
12. Corporations are eternal
13. Corporations receive tax advantages
14. Corporations receive more write offs
15. Corporations sustain our economy
16. Corporations never get sick
17. Corporations don’t take vacations
18. Corporations do not kill people; people do
19. Corporations spin; people lie
20. Corporations can be a charity
21. Corporations do not war; people do
22. Corporations are the entire media
23. Corporations make all voting machines
24. Corporations are more socially responsible
25.  Corporations must prove themselves
26. Corporate ethics are developed
27. Corporations must balance their books
28. Corporations can grow
29. Corporations can be multinational
30. Corporations must be rational