Tag Archives: taxes

Political Rants

Lemmington D.C.

My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, “But, dad… all my friends are going. Why can’t I?” And dad (or whoever) would say, “Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” It’s such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I’m not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants – I’ve only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)

There’s nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I’m going to do what people who say “having said that” inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it’s very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It’s very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So …. over the cliff we go!

I’ve gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter – very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:

I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President’s request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.

Okay, so he’s another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it “will eventually be necessary,” he hopes it will be accompanied by “spending cuts or budgetary reforms”. He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference’s game of chicken – which he apparently supports – is threatening to blow to smithereens.

This isn’t the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Fighting ground.

Okay, let’s get one thing out of the way at the start: very few people enjoy paying taxes. To that I can only add my own personal observation that the people who seem to complain the loudest about taxes are the ones who can most afford to pay them. They have an excellent means of making their complaints heard, too – it’s called the Republican Party. In fact, in service to those who would pay not a single dime more than the historic low rates they’re paying today, the G.O.P. is creating a default crisis out of whole cloth by linking the authorization of additional borrowing to the conclusion of a draconian budget agreement that will gut the essential social programs they have always sought to defund, privatize, etc.

The two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another in the real world. Raising the debt ceiling is merely addressing financial commitments that have already been agreed upon. It is something the Republicans have gladly passed many times before under their own presidents, as well as under Democrats. They have seized upon it because it offers an opportunity to, in effect, put the entire nation up against a wall until we give up on the idea of not spending our elderly years in penury. (That’s sooooo 1960’s of us.) The Republicans see an opportunity here to realize what they could never accomplish during George W. Bush’s tenure – privatization of Medicare, pirating Social Security, and locking in massive tax cuts from now until perdition. And they sense, perhaps correctly, that the Democrats don’t have enough fight in them to stop it.

I will gladly crib Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Dean Baker on this – Social Security is not – repeat, not – part of any budgetary problem. It is fully self-funding for the next 25 years with no changes whatsoever. How many programs can make that claim? The G.O.P. and spineless Democrats merely want to pirate the fund to pay for extending Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, they are single-payer systems dedicated to the elderly, poor, disabled, and stricken amongst us. The rest of us – those who are relatively young, fit, and almost never need a doctor – are reserved for the profit of private insurers. Single payers systems only pay for themselves when everyone – sick and well, old and young, rich and poor – participates in them. If we want to solve the funding problem, we need to decide whether we can continue to afford contriving a profitable market for companies like BlueCross.

In short, the deficit hawks in the Republican caucuses are blackmailing us into funding tax breaks for wealthy people – including the fuckers who caused the financial crisis – by crippling our already inadequate social safety net.  I say, call their bluff. This is ground worth fighting for.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Debatable.

I didn’t watch the whole cattle-call Republican presidential debate, but I have seen and heard some extended excerpts. So without too much fanfare, here are some random thoughts from a worker bee whose hive is quite a bit smaller than Mitt Romney’s son’s basement.

Santorum (a.k.a. Mr. Google):
“The reason we’re seeing this second dip is because of energy prices, and this president has put a stop sign … against oil drilling, against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska, and that is depressing. We need to drill. We need to create energy jobs, just like we’re doing, by the way, in Pennsylvania, where we’re drilling 3,000 wells this year for gas, and … natural gas prices are down as a result.”

Not a surprise that he’s a big fan of hydrofracking. What he’s got wrong is the part about Obama stopping off-shore drilling – That’s beyond ludicrous. (God knows, I wish it were true after that BP spill. )

Pawlenty:
“We’re proposing to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up this pace of government, and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda.”

First of all, what’s this “we” about? Got a mouse in your pocket? Second… cut taxes? Again? So much for fiscal responsibility. These guys have exactly one idea. No, wait – two: Reduce regulation. (See BP, above.) That will “speed up this pace of government” as we approach the cliff.

Guy Smiley (Romney):
“This president has failed. And he’s failed at a time when the American people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing. And instead of doing that, he delegated the stimulus to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and then he did what he wanted to do: card-check, cap-and-trade, Obamacare, reregulation.”

As an expert on outsourcing, one would think he’d get this one right. Actually, Obama outsourced about a third of the stimulus to Romney’s party, in the form of tax cuts. That’s why it’s gone flat in two years. Oh, and… Obama didn’t get card check or cap and trade, mostly because he didn’t fight for them.

Gingrich:
“The Reagan recovery, which I participated in passing, in seven years created for this current economy the equivalent of 25 million new jobs, raised federal revenue by $800 billion a year in terms of the current economy, and clearly it worked. It’s a historic fact.”

Nice try, Newt, but as usual your history is full of holes. Reagan ran massive deficits every year, dropped billions on military Keynesianism (a.k.a. stimulus), raised taxes several times, and maintained a high degree of protectionism despite his free trade rhetoric. Are you sure you were awake during the eighties? I sure as hell was. (Didn’t sleep a wink with that freak at the helm.)

Bachmann:
“I just want to make an announcement here for you, John, on CNN tonight. I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today. And I’ll very soon be making my formal announcement.”

I think it’s entirely plausible that Bachmann didn’t know she was at a presidential debate. She might have thought it was a clambake.

Cain:
“First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration…. When I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us.”

Look, godfather – when you’re on that stage full of white folks, you don’t have to resort to racism simply to compete. There are more dignified ways.

Paul:
“I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.”

Quote of the night. This just makes way too much sense for a Republican debate.

luv u,

jp