Un-freaking-believable GOP hypocrisy over taxes and debt. Bush tax cuts (over 90% of them benefit the wealthy) set to expire - hold the nation hostage until they're extended, even if it drastically increases the national debt. Payroll tax holiday set to expire (that mostly helps the working poor and middle class, and has a smaller impact on the debt since its tied to future Social Security benefits), no way Jose. But of course this in no way means that the GOP is complicit in a tax increase (they signed the Grover Norquist pledge and all), yet that is precisely what they called the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts. I think the problem is I'm not a multi-millionaire, otherwise this all would make perfect, consistent sense.
All we hear about from DC is "jobs, jobs, jobs," but nothing's happening. To be honest, neither the Bush nor payroll tax breaks can spur much job growth, but at least lower payroll tax on workers will give them more purchasing power at a time when consumer demand and our overall economy are wobbly. And their consumption will help preserve other jobs. Many companies are sitting on piles of cash but refusing to hire, and the long-term unemployed in America don't generally fit the profile that employers are seeking. It's always supply-side thinking with the GOP: cut business taxes and you magically get more jobs and prosperity. But firms have no obligation to use the tax rebates on hiring (unless Washington crafts the law as such, which they can do but won't), and frankly it may not be the wisest use of the money at this time for many firms. Remember that Paulson convinced Congress to give the big banks a huge cash infusion (the now famous 1-page bill with no strings attached) to spur consumer lending, but after that credit actually got tighter and the banks tended to use the money to snatch up other distressed banks at fire-sale prices. So if jobs are the ultimate goal of all this tax cut talk (and not simply profit-taking), they're going at it all wrong.
Observing the trends in 2011, I can't come up with a plausible explanation other than the Republicans are committed to blocking gov't progress and economic growth (for the bottom 95% of us), and any attempts by the president to encourage them, in order to make him look inept as the election approaches. And of course they'll blame him for the economic woes that they mostly created. Surely Obama is not helping his cause much, but from my perspective only one political party has shown that it is willing to sabotage this country (and the entire global economy by extension) simply to win some offices. I think we have a place for dangerous threats like that: Gitmo. The Tea Party freshmen are hurting this country more than Osama's driver ever did or could.
--------
And if you have time, try to check out "Inside Job" and "The Conspirator" recently out on DVD/on-demand. The former is an Oscar-winning documentary about the financial crisis. Most of the material is known to us by now, but the director also explores a different angle: how some top academic economists (funded by big banks and industry groups) promoted over-confidence in de-regulation and risky investment vehicles with their biased publications and lectures. This helped gov't to turn a blind eye, ratings agencies to inflate their scores, and investors to over-spend on risky securities. And the film also captures the Columbia Business School dean and other ex-Bushies looking really silly.
The latter is a Redford film about the outrageously inappropriate trial of Mary Surratt, an indirect acquaintance of J W Booth who was accused and eventually hung for conspiring to kill Lincoln. While not well received by the critics, it's an interesting examination of a dark chapter of US history that we don't learn about in school. Her trial demonstrated how war hysteria and political pressures will make even the highest offices in the land more than willing to trample on the Constitution and our most sacred values. A horrible crime was committed, and in order to "heal, move on, and maintain order and security", the guilty must be swiftly "brought to justice" (as in, whacked). And if no one fits the legal definition of guilty, then we'll manufacture someone and change the definition. Those who protest will have their reputations destroyed and patriotism questioned. This is especially pertinent as we're approaching the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
No comments:
Post a Comment