Tag Archives: democrats

Political Rants

Money wins.

So Scott Walker held on to his job in Wisconsin. Not a huge surprise. The polling has been in his favor for weeks. Plus the recall effort has kind of had the stench of failure about it as we approached the actual vote; people hedging and putting on the brave face. Sorry to see so many working people disappointed in that way. I’ve never been a big fan of the recall concept, personally, but I understand how they came to that point. If nothing else, the effort did give them motivation to do what actually needs to be done in Wisconsin and elsewhere – organize. It’s not just about voting. It’s more about standing up for your rights and fighting back against the torrent of corporate money swamping our politics.

John Dewey had it about right when he said that politics is the shadow cast on society by big business. I suppose in his day it wasn’t very different – the wealthy have always pressed their advantage. Perhaps the period from World War II through the 1970s will be seen as unique in American history in the sense that workers had some influence on the economic life of the nation. There was a social contract between the rich and the not-rich that provided the latter with a modest share of the wealth they themselves were creating through their labor. That model has been under attack for decades now, and it is crumbling.

Now we are in a small-d depression, limping along in a globalized economy in which the American worker/consumer is no longer the primary focus of business. (India’s middle class is now larger than the entire population of the U.S.) The rampant financial speculation spawned by deregulatory legislation over the past two decades (most notably Graham-Leech-Bliley in 1999, which overturned Glass-Steagall) drove us into the 2008 financial crisis, prompting a massive bailout of the enormous financial institutions that were themselves the product of deregulation. So naturally, now, when it comes time to pay the bills, it’s workers who are being told to eat it, to sacrifice their pensions, to do without health benefits, etc. Similar deal in Europe. The people who benefited massively from wild derivative trading and mortgage-backed securities are not the same people being asked to sacrifice.

Money may have won in Wisconsin this week. But that’s no reason to stop fighting. Elections aren’t the only means of effecting change. Passive resistance is another – let’s exercise it.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

To the bottom.

Through the course of the average day during this politically charged season (and, as you know, we are in the midst of a permanent campaign, no end in sight), you are likely to hear all kinds of wild economic claims and predictions. Among the most impressive, in my humble opinion, is Gingrich’s $2.50-a-gallon gas promise. We expect no less from the once and future King of the Moon People. A big idea man. The thing about big ideas is that they can also be bad ideas. In the case of the $2.50 gas, though, we’re talking more about excessive blowhardism and the usual type of empty pandering you see from seasoned politicians like Gingrich. Last presidential election, it was drill, baby, drill! This time, it’s pappy cheap-gas. Also, pappy tax cut, as always – that one never gets old.

This is where the faulty economic theory part comes in. Take pretty much any one of the Republican candidates’ tax plans, to the extent that they’ve been articulated thus far. Romney, for instance, is touting a 20% across-the-board tax cut. What he’s actually talking about is raising taxes on the bottom third of wage earners, which the G.O.P. field has for several months been describing as woefully undertaxed. Meanwhile, at the top end, the richest of the rich (i.e. the parents of kids too rich to want to hang around with Richy Rich), folks will be seeing an extra $400K or so in their yearly income. All well and good, right? These are the “job creators”, right? The folks who fired your ass so they could afford a second Bentley. They were the ones paying too much, as George W. Bush lamented back in 2000 (which he later fixed with his massive tax cuts).

All right, except that at the same time they argue for a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, etc. – a trope that has grown more insistent by half since the White House changed hands in 2009. Bush’s tax cuts blew a hole in the federal budget you could drive the Nimitz through; in fact, they planned for it to expire after a decade and put a lot of the cost in the out years so as to bring down the impact. But they – meaning Bush, Cheney, budget director Mitch Daniels, and others – certainly knew that the sunset provision would be meaningless, simply because of the politics of “raising” taxes (e.g. letting cuts expire). Romney’s plan would add to that deficit in spades, prompting massive cuts in social services, infrastructure spending, aid to states, you name it. That would put us in a Greece-like downward spiral – cuts that lead to economic contraction, which negatively affects tax revenues, opening a wider budget gap, which brings on more cuts, etc. Rinse and repeat.

The best they can offer is a race to the bottom. That’s why we have to push back. If they gain control of the budget process again, Greece is the word, my friends.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

The elect.

All that run up, and such an unsatisfying result. What a pity the election process never takes a break here in the U.S. of A. We’ve been in a near-constant cycle of electing people since 2008, with whole cable networks devoting resources to consideration of the various candidates ad infinitum. Still, here we are with two primary G.O.P. challengers who appear to disagree on very little … and who mutually argue that we should go straight back to the same policies that landed us in the hole and the end of the Bush administration. It’s a wealth-protection strategy, to be sure – wealth as concentrated in the hands of the extremely well-to-do. There really isn’t anything else on offer by either Romney or Santorum, except an early commitment to war against Iran. (That should be good for the economy.)

We have reached a point where the Republican party is inhabiting an entirely separate reality from the rest of us. In their world, there is no global warming, no inequality, no corporate dominance, no limits to American military might. They mark the beginning of the recession in the Obama administration, not the Bush administration. They see the national debt as the cause of unemployment. On their planet, the only problem with our electoral system is fraudulent voting – i.e. people (perhaps “illegal” immigrants) breaking federal law to usurp a franchise very few Americans are inclined to exercise legitimately. All domestically produced fossil fuel, in their tiny minds, is somehow reserved for use by Americans alone, not simply dumped into the global market and snapped up by whoever pays for it (i.e. how it actually works).

This being the case, their standard bearer could be pretty much anybody. No specialized knowledge required – sorry, Jon Huntsman – just a willingness to carry water for the richest people in America and a corporate culture that is not only making more profits than it has since the great recession hit but is also paying less in taxes than it was in 2008. Mitt fits the bill; so does Rick “man-on-dog” Santorum. Both potentially good stewards of our national top-down economy. In fact, any one of them, all the way down to cousin Rick Perry, would be acceptable to the moneyed overlords, though I think it’s clear that the preference of the institutional elite is Mitt Romney.

Still, with such flaccid support, they must wonder if the right-wing rabble might be getting out of hand. Mitt’s pathetic victory demonstrates that winning this year is what losing was four years ago.

luv u,

jp