How to Get to One Party Rule

I have documents, incontrovertible proof, that there is a systematic, decades-old project to move the country to One Party Rule. It's been engineered by concentrated wealth and single-minded pursuit of the goal to funnel all public money into private hands under the mantle of "one hand washes the other".

In 2001, at the time Congress passed the Bush tax cuts (estimated cost $1.3 trillion and there was no talk of "pay as you go"), Grover Norquist, he of the "No Tax Increase" loyalty oath, famously crowed, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

The plan is not to get rid of all government institutions and civil servants: the EPA, the NLRB (well, maybe that one), the Department of Education (that one, too), the Post Office (that one, too), teachers, firemen, policemen, sanitation workers, transportation workers, infrastructure programs, etc.

The idea is to defund these government institutions and civil servants so that government cannot work effectively; thereby demonstrating that government fails so we should sell off public space/assets to private entities. The Republicans don’t have to shut down government, they just have to starve it to get everyone to agree that it doesn’t function.

The next post will illustrate what lessons the Republicans learned and their resulting tactics.

With Politics, There's Always Nasty Compromise

According to today's Wall Street Journal, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel for the middle class even in the midst of the unhappy compromising on the Bush tax cuts:

Th deal includes a 13-month extension of lapsed federal jobless benefits and a temporary cut in the worker's shaer of the Social Security payroll tax. It would extend a raft of other tax cuts aimed at middle-class tax payers, including a two-year program to shield most Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

The price to be paid is huge: $700 billion in unfunded mandates for extending the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. The prospect of passage has already pushed up U.S.borrowing costs which will greatly increase the budget deficit. A standard in credit determination, the yield on the 10-year treasury bond, has gone to 3.22%, the highest level since June 2010.

The Democrats are rightfully angry.

[They] want an extension of the Build America infrastructure bond program, but many lawmakers concede it might die due to Republican opposition. The bond program, set to expire at the same time as the Bush tax cuts, provides subsidies for taxable bonds issued by state and local government.

Who Has to Pay: Millionaires or the Unemployed?

Very interesting. Just read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal articles on Washington's big pow wow this weekend, which basically covered two fronts: 1) Extending the $700 billion tax cuts for all Americans, including the top 1% who are millionaires/billionaires; and 2) extending unemployment benefits for the rest of us.

Curiously, the Republicans insist that the $700 billion bite taken out of our Treasury doesn't need offsetting spending cuts (read: schools, highways, libraries, police, firemen, etc.) while unemployment benefits do need offsetting spending cuts.

Quoting the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, on "Meet the Press" yesterday:

[And] Mr. McConnell acknowledged that there would be a continuation of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, though he reiterated the Republican contention that the cost should be offset with reductions in spending elsewhere.

"I think we will extend unemployment compensation," he said. "We've had some very vigorous debates in the Senate. Not about whether to do it but whether to pay for it as opposed to adding it to the deficit. All of those discussions are still under way."

My question to Mr. McConnell is, do you only care about the deficit in terms of the lower 99%? Who pays for the $700 billion? What offsets the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts?

Do Politicians Stand With Us or Against Us?

The top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower years was 90%. No one can argue there wasn't prosperity then. But in the 1980s, President Reagan cut taxes to 25% and thus began the largest income inequality in American history, which persists to this day. In the face of crumbling cities and vanishing services, the Republicans want to continue this failed, destructive policy by extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Reagan and his henchmen referred to the theory of giving the rich tax cuts as "trickle down" economics, also known as "piss on us" economics, which was discredited by none other than David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Chief at the time. The rich do not spend to create jobs. They invest and manage to pay 15% tax on their capital gains. Ordinary earned income is taxed at 35%.

It's simple in terms of numbers. The most stimulative program that puts money directly into the economy is unemployment insurance. Ordinary people must go out to buy food, shelter and other taxed consumables. In essence, the lower 99% often pay tax twice, on their income and on the products they purchase.

I see more jobs disappearing every day. In my neighborhood, there is a drug store chain that has replaced humans with "self check out" machines. This is the finest example of corporate thinking, to commodify everything and everyone.

Rachel Tells It Like It Is

Sorry for the quick study, but it's time to pay attention!

#1: Bush Tax Cut Love: Republicans want to add $700 bn to the budget deficit without figuring out how to pay for it by continuing the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% (millionaires and billionaires: read "Politicians and friends thereof").
#2: They don't care about middle class (or working class, or any other class) concerns, including health care, unemployment insurance, jobs or eating.
#3: They are not in the majority even though the Beltway media encourages that belief.
#4: The filibuster is anti-democratic and will erode the ability of the government to function, except to cut themselves and their friends paychecks.