Thursday, September 23, 2010

Republicans pledge to hasten the consolidation of wealth. Democrats pledge to help them.

By failing to address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic Party is all but ensuring the extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the nation, and at least an additional 3.7 trillion dollars of budget shortfall for the foreseeable future.

If this is true – and it appears to be – then this will go down as one of the stupidest moves by the spineless weasels on the Hill – and that’s saying a lot for this crop of morons.   This was a win-win for the party – offer a needed tax break to 98% of the population, and force the Republicans to defend giving a break to the most privileged class in the nation..

It’s sickening, frustrating, depressing, and makes it nearly impossible to staunchly support the party.

Why?  Why would they make such an idiotic decision? 

Does the leadership of the party think that after the election they will be in a stronger position to stop $700 billion dollars from flowing back into the hands of the wealthy? 

Every single day it looks more and more like the government is simply an arm of the wealthy, working at their behest to protect their interests only.  As long as Republicans and Democrats alike are beholden to wealthy donors, there will no representation for the other 98% of the nation.

Citizen’s United was quite possibly the final nail in the coffin.  If there is no major campaign finance reform, we’re finished. 

I’m positively sick over it. 


Alan said...

The other possibility is they just let them expire.

And as for campaign finance reform, the only thing that will make a difference is full-on public campaign financing with no private money involved.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

MSNY said...

Alan - Someone made a point on TPM that Josh highlighted.

"So Democrats think they are better off facing Republican ads saying that Dems are going to increase taxes on all Americans by $3.9 trillion than Republican ads saying that Dems are going to increase taxes on the wealthiest 2% by $700 billion."

Plus, my fear is that should this Congress let the tax break expire and the GOP take control, they will attempt to re-authorize them and include even bigger breaks for the wealthy. That would put the President in an ugly position having to veto tax cuts.

Alan said...

Even if the Republicans take the House (a suddenly dimming prospect, BTW, according to what I'm seeing - looks like we may have a very slim Dem majority when things are done) they will not take the Senate.

Much as I hate to fight rearguard actions in the Senate with a small majority, that may be what happens.

In either case, it won't make it to Obama's desk for a veto.

MSNY said...

I hope you are right.

It just seems like this was a potent weapon in the Democrats ever shrinking arsenal. Why couldn't they force the GOP to defend giving 700 billion to the wealthy? Why couldn't they force their hand and see if they GOP had the fortitude to hold the middle class hostage to the demands of the rich?

There is no fight in the Congressional Democrats. Its very disheartening.


See, and people wonder why I call myself a Fabian Socialist.

Damn, people will continue to buy this capitalist bullshit. It is incredible to me sometimes.

If you and your wife and two kids are bringing in 50 grand a year, you are screwed.

And yet you are mad at minorities, you are mad at welfare queens (who dont exist), you are mad at international corporations, you are mad at everything, so you vote in international corporations.

I dunno!!

Amike said...

I'm not sure but what letting them expire might be the best course of action in the near term--and maybe in the long term as well. No matter what happens in November the Republicans aren't going to have a filibuster-proof majority, and a more equitable tax-cut may very well be guaranteed. Suppose the Democrats introduce legislation authorizing tax cuts on middle incomes only, and define middle income generously enough so that it would be incredibly difficult to call them penalizing the middle class.. Ceiling 250,000? 300,000? That would just about cover most two-income professional families (MD's, Lawyers). If the Republicans vote it down, or filibuster it, who gets the blame for refusing middle class tax cuts? Republicans. If they insist on restoring tax cuts to the top 5% who gets blame for being the party of the rich? Republicans. Just a thought. In the meantime, the budget deficit goes down, and the Democrats can claim to be the true believers in balanced budgets.

As an aside, does anyone know why Elizabeth Warren's nomination is being greeted with such dead silence on TPM? I'm rather surprised.