Archive for the ‘United States Politics’ Category
July 2012 Odds and Ends
I’ve had a number of comments recently about various things, but none of them have reached the level of a full blog post. So here goes with the latest edition of Odds and Ends.
First, I’m taking the summer off from watching television. This is the main reason I haven’t written about the fourth season of “Drop Dead Diva,” despite all the hits I’ve had on my review of the season three finale. I do know that Fred the angel is off the show and there’s a new angel there instead — an impossibly gorgeous male who, sight unseen, bothers me. But that’s the only thing I’ve really gathered, aside from the fact that Kim Kardashian seems to have a recurring role this season.
Second, the Wisconsin GOP has, quite predictably, slammed the District 21 state Senate election, all because Democrat John Lehman won over R Van Wanggaard. Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) has led a number of prominent Rs in proclaiming that the Racine elections had “numerous errors” and that supposedly, Racine County must get its act together before the November elections — all because we had the temerity to throw out our one-year Senator when the rest of the state held the course.
I have no problem with former Senator Wanggaard saying “I shall return!” as if he’s a modern-day incarnation of General Douglas MacArthur, because he’s a politician and that’s what politicians of either party tend to say. (Maybe not quite so stridently as Wanggaard. But then again, as the only R to go down on June 5, 2012, I suppose he must feel terrible.) Nor am I upset with Wanggaard for asking for a recount, pointing out various issues he and his staff have been alerted to, etc. — he’s a politician, so he has to say those things. And considering he lost by less than 2% of the vote, I suppose that’s his right.
My problem remains with the Wisconsin GOP as a whole; they didn’t slam Waukesha County in 2011 when there were massive problems there — problems that make the City and County of Racine’s issues look extremely small in comparison — because those problems benefitted them.
So, if an election goes the Rs way, even if there are terrible and systemic problems with a County Clerk like Waukesha’s Kathy Nickolaus, the Rs are OK with it. But if the election goes the way of the Ds, the Rs aren’t standing for it, even though whatever problems Racine had were due to an overwhelmingly high turnout (the highest on record for any election, including Presidential elections), nothing more. That’s why the WI GOP’s stance regarding Racine County’s recall election smacks of sour grapes as well as political expediency; I remain unimpressed.
Third, what on Earth does the United States House of Representatives, led by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, think they’re doing taking vote after vote to repeal Obama’s national health care plan? (Especially as they know, just as the rest of us do, that the US Senate will never go along with them.) Here we are in a jobless recovery; the economy, overall, is terrible. We need jobs, we need more economic development, and we need it right now. Yet they’d rather waste our time, and our taxpayer dollars, by taking these unnecessary votes. This is political grandstanding and it should not be tolerated. Period!
Fourth, are the Milwaukee Brewers going to get any better this year? And will Zack Greinke stay a part of the team? Stay tuned.
Fifth, and finally, the summer is a bad time for me. It’s not just my asthma, or other associated summertime health woes, which have been exacerbated as we’re having one of the hottest, driest summers on record in SE Wisconsin. It’s that I have a number of important dates on the calendar that I observe — my wedding anniversary. My late husband’s birthday (even though he didn’t observe it). Etc. — and the fact that I must observe them alone, always alone, is a trial.
Look. I despise the fact that I’m a widow. (Very few people will come right out and say this, but I will.) If I had the power, my husband would be alive right now and I’d not be typing out these words. But I’m human, mortal, fallible, all that, and I don’t have that power.
What I do every day is to try to find some meaning, some purpose, in whatever remains of my life. I continue to write (as you see). I continue to edit. I play my instruments. I compose music when I have the time, energy, and ideas. I talk with my friends, as I’m able . . . all the things I have to do in order to continue to stay alive in any sense.
But of course it’s difficult to be without the love of my life. I’d be lying if I said anything else.
And that difficulty is made much worse because the person who understood me best since that time is also dead — my good friend Jeff, whom I’ve discussed many times on this blog. That I haven’t been able, as of yet, to go to Colorado and make any peace whatsoever with his passing has assuredly not helped.
I know it doesn’t matter — would never matter — to Jeff where I mourn. But it would help me to go there and visit the places he told me about. Which is why at some point I will go there; it’s just a matter of when. Let us hope that down the line, I will find enough work at a good rate of remuneration, so I can finally take that trip.
Limbaugh Issues Weak Apology; Blames Rhetoric on the Democrats
Folks, the Rush Limbaugh story continues to have legs; while Limbaugh has issued a rather weak apology, he also blamed the Democrats for making this a “political issue” last Friday (something I somehow missed in the ensuing firestorm)** and hasn’t backed down from that stance one iota even though advertisers are deserting Limbaugh en masse. (Tonight’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC show said that twelve different advertisers have now deserted Limbaugh, and the Rachel Maddow show said that two channels have said publicly they will drop Limbaugh due to this.)
The Los Angeles Times discusses Limbaugh’s written apology, which was originally issued on his Web site, here; a relevant quote from Limbaugh’s statement follows:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week,” Limbaugh wrote in a statement posted to his website. “In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Oh, would those wrong words be “slut” and “prostitute,” words that never needed to be said? Or are they the words you still haven’t explicitly taken back asking for pornographic videos of Ms. Fluke having sex? (Limbaugh said on his radio show Monday, March 5, 2012, that he’s sorry for calling her the former, but never mentioned the latter.)
Continuing on in Limbaugh’s written statement, he continued to mis-state the initial issue, saying that he personally believes no one should have to pay for anyone else’s sexual behavior. That was never at issue; what was at issue was whether or not insurers should cover contraception in the same way they cover, say, Viagra. (Speaking of that, why is it that women aren’t up in arms that their insurers are “forced” to include Viagra as an essential medication, considering it’s not something any woman will ever be able to use? Is it because we’re not stupid?)
Today on his radio show, Limbaugh explicitly apologized to Sandra Fluke, again, but still didn’t apologize for those terrible comments he made about wanting to watch videos of Ms. Fluke having sex with the contraception the insurer must now carry; to my mind, that makes Limbaugh’s apology extremely weak and unworthy at absolute best.
Ms. Fluke, after reading Limbaugh’s apology, said on ABC’s “The View” this morning that she does not accept Limbaugh’s apology; she believes that Limbaugh apologized only because his advertisers are angry with him, and due to the pressure being put on him by various groups. (A sensible reaction.)
However, many conservative groups are angry now and are striking at “liberals” — that is, anyone but them — who have made mistakes in the past. This mostly means they’re yelling at Ed Schultz, the MSNBC host who called Laura Ingraham a nasty name on his syndicated radio show last year (I wrote about that here); however, Schultz accepted a week-long unpaid suspension, apologized for nine minutes on the air, apologized directly to Laura Ingraham, and talked about how embarrassed he was, considering he’s a husband and a father, to have ever mischaracterized any woman in that way — which was the right reaction.
When you contrast Schultz’s behavior, which was genuinely repentant, with Limbaugh’s, there is no comparison.
As for the Republican Presidential nominees, their comments on Limbaugh’s bad behavior (last week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, he repeatedly attacked Sandra Fluke) leave much to be desired except for one man: Ron Paul. Paul is the only candidate to say flat-out that what Limbaugh said was wrong; he even called it “crude,” and intimated that no reasonable man would say such a thing. This makes sense to me; what doesn’t make sense is Mitt Romney’s reaction (accepting Limbaugh’s weak apology for the use of two words, “slut” and “prostitute,” to mischaracterize Sandra Fluke), or Rick Santorum’s reaction (trying to turn the issue to the Democrats’ supposed politicization of contraception, the same way Limbaugh is), or Newt Gingrich’s reaction, which more or less was to give Limbaugh an “attaboy.” (For such a smart man, Gingrich’s reactions are enough to perplex a saint.)
So there you have it; Limbaugh has apologized, but it’s weak. The R Presidential candidates, with the sole exception of Ron Paul, don’t seem to have enough sense to come in out of the rain (as women are half the electorate, don’t you think any male candidate would say, “While I applaud free speech, there are some things that shouldn’t be said by sane, smart people, and this was one of them,” rather than behave the way they are right now?). And Sandra Fluke, who two weeks ago was someone most of us wouldn’t have been able to pick out of a crowd if our lives depended on it, is our newest unwitting celebrity.
Bottom line is this: Limbaugh’s apology is not enough. He needs to be fired — since Don Imus was fired due to his inappropriate comments (which weren’t anywhere near as bad, or as lengthy — one occurrence versus several days worth of occurrences — as what Limbaugh had to say), Limbaugh should also be fired.
This story will not go away until he is.
————–
** Can we please, please, take it as read that this issue isn’t such a big deal because of the Democrats, the “liberals,” or anything other than Rush Limbaugh stirring up a hornet’s nest? Thank you.
Former Bush Advisor Ken Mehlman Now for Marriage Equality
Sometimes, life throws you a curveball.
This is the only way to possibly describe Ken Mehlman’s change of heart regarding marriage equality. Mehlman, as you may now, was a former advisor to President George W. Bush, and was instrumental in getting many “defense of marriage act” initiatives on the ballot in 2004. These initiatives, rather than defending marriage, were an attempt by the Right to shut gay people out of the process entirely; what they did was encourage many voters who felt scared of the possibility that gay people might want to get married to vote for these initiatives. Those people, perhaps not so incidentally, ended up voting for George W. Bush en masse.
Mehlman, who came out in 2010 as gay (something I somehow missed), now regrets what he’s done. Here’s a link to the story at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/ken-mehlman-i-am-sorry-fo_n_1316199.html
And here’s a relevant quote:
“At a personal level, I wish I had spoken out against the effort,” he told Salon in an interview published Friday, referring to the campaign’s attempt to draw out the conservative base by attacking same-sex marriage.
“As I’ve been involved in the fight for marriage equality, one of the things I’ve learned is how many people were harmed by the campaigns in which I was involved,” he continued. “I apologize to them and tell them I am sorry. While there have been recent victories, this could still be a long struggle in which there will be setbacks, and I’ll do my part to be helpful.”
You see, Mehlman’s role was far from incidental. He was a key advisor and helped Bush immensely. Eleven states passed the “defense of marriage acts” in 2004 (Wisconsin passed it in 2006), so this was not a minor thing. But the only thing Mehlman can do now to make up for the damage that his advice may have caused is to work on behalf of marriage equality — which, to his credit, he is now doing.
This past week, Maryland became the eighth state to legalize gay marriage in the United States; the law won’t take effect until January 1, 2013, but it’s still a major step forward. In New Jersey, both houses in the Legislature passed bills in 2012 legalizing gay marriage — making marriage equal for everyone, regardless of sexual preference — but Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill. Before that, New York legalized gay marriage in late 2011, which allowed my favorite figure skater, Johnny Weir, to legally marry his husband, Victor Voronov, this past New Year’s Eve.
In addition, the initiative that reversed California’s stance on gay marriage, Proposition 8, has been struck down by a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; gay activists have asked the Ninth Circuit not to take the case up again, because if the full Court declines to take it up, the hope is that marriages for everyone — including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people — will start to take place later this year. Of course, the people who put the initiative on the ballot in the first place — a number of conservative groups — want the Ninth Circuit Court to take it up, but even if the Ninth Circuit does take it up, that does not mean that they will allow Proposition 8 to stand. So there’s still hope that GLBT Californians, in the near future, will again be able to legally marry their partners.
Here’s the deal, folks: marriage should be legal for any two consenting adults over the age of eighteen who aren’t already married, or for two consenting adults who are adjudged to be legally adult (meaning emancipated minors should be allowed to contract marriages on the same basis as everyone else). It shouldn’t matter what your sexuality is, how it’s expressed, or anything other than the fact that two consenting adults who aren’t already married want to get married; the government should not interfere with anyone’s plans to marry.
I applaud Ken Mehlman for the reversal of his stance regarding marriage equality, and for making that reversal public. Better yet, he’s now working on behalf of marriage equality, which means he’s put his money where his mouth is; that’s an encouraging sign, and it’s one I hope long continues.
So hat’s off to Maryland for doing the right thing, and hat’s off to Mehlman, too. Now, let’s hope that New Jersey’s legislature somehow comes up with enough votes to override Christie’s veto, or that Christie decides to reverse himself; truly, it’s in the state’s best interest to stop discriminating against people merely because of their sexual preference.
———–
To my conservative friends: you don’t have to like it that GLBT individuals want to marry, but you need to respect it. Some of you may have brothers, sisters, or good friends who are GLBT, and they should have the same rights and responsibilities that I have as a straight American, including the right to marry the partner of their choice. Anything less is plain, flat wrong.
US Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Approves of Racist, Polarizing Ad
Pity former United States Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). He recently approved of an ad that, to put it charitably, is both racist and xenophobic. This ad aired on his campaign’s behalf in the state of Michigan during the Super Bowl, which just goes to show that there’s no accounting for taste.
The ad, featuring an Asian-American girl speaking broken English while biking through a bunch of rice paddies, is an extremely tone-deaf way to say that current US Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) spends too much money (as the Chinese girl says, “Thank you Debbie SpendItNow” and there’s an associated Web site, to boot). Here’s the text of what this young woman actually says in the ad:
“Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie’s spent so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.” (Transcribed this evening while listening/watching to it on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” and Current TV’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”)
Do I even need to start in on how wrong this ad is? (Or will you just go look at it for yourself in order to see how a candidate for the high office of US Senator can waste his money while offending nearly everyone in the process?)
Please see this link from Real Clear Politics, which has an embedded link to the commercial in question:
As the Detroit News put it, “Hoekstra Super Bowl ad Raises Sensitivity Question:”
GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.
“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.”
Good for De Leeuw. I’m glad he stood up and called this ad exactly what it is: racist and xenophobic.
Going on (still from the Detroit News article sourced above):
A media consultant who has advised Democrats also thought it could prove problematic.
“Some Asian-Americans may be offended by the stereotype that is portrayed in the spot,” said Robert Kolt, who teaches advertising part-time at Michigan State University and had previewed a number of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads. “Pete seems like a nice guy in the ad, but I think he is wasting a lot of money now. … It’s just not Super Bowl-worthy. It’s not cute, it’s not funny and it’s not memorable.”
Ah, but I beg to differ — it’s memorable for all the wrong reasons, which is far worse for Rep. Hoekstra than if it were simply a mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy ad of the type we’ve all seen many times before. (And if you think “some Asian-Americans” only “may be offended,” I have some prime real estate in Antarctica for sale.)
Hoekstra is not the only one running against Stabenow, mind you; Gary Glenn, of Midland, MI, is also vying to become the Republican general election candidate for the US Senate Seat. And according to the same article sourced above from the Detroit News, Glenn is most unamused:
“Saving America from the Washington, D.C., politicians who gave us this crippling debt and deficit crisis, Republican and Democrat alike, means Hoekstra and Stabenow should both get benched,” Glenn said in a release.
And Michigan Democratic Party Chairman was equally unamused (quoted again from the Detroit News article):
“Hoekstra’s ad is nothing more than a hypocritical attempt at a Hollywood-style makeover because the fact is, Pete spends a lot,” Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said. “Hoekstra voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and voted for trillions more in deficit spending before quitting Congress to get rich at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Hoekstra is using the big game to play games with Michigan voters.”
So let me get this straight. We have an ad that some members of the GOP have condemned roundly, along with some members of the Democratic party. We have an ad that’s meant to “make a big splash” (why else be so offensive?). And we have an ad that, on the offensiveness meter, is totally off the charts.
And, of course, it’s an ad that Hoekstra and his campaign defends; they call it “satirical” (they must not be using the word the same way I would, then), and say that their real meaning is that Stabenow simply spends too much money, that’s all. (Any racism that might be present — pshaw! How can we think it? We’re all Americans here, right? Or so Hoekstra and his campaign prays.)
About the only good thing I can say for this ad is that it has brought disparate segments of the population together — the Ds and the Rs — who normally wouldn’t touch each other with a ten-foot pole. But that’s the only silver lining in an otherwise dark and offensive cloud.
——————-
Further thoughts . . . otherwise known as, “After further review:”
As for what I’d do, were I Hoekstra? (Inquiring minds wanted to know.) If for some reason I’d been stupid enough to make this ad in the first place, then have been even more stupid in putting it on the air to cause big-time trouble, I’d first apologize. Then I’d pull the ad. And finally, I’d do whatever I could to put this behind me as quickly as humanly possible.
But because Hoekstra apparently isn’t very smart, he’s standing by his “I didn’t mean any harm!” and “It’s satire!” defenses.
Nothing says Hoekstra must be intelligent, now, is there? (But if he has even two brain cells together, he really should pull this ad because it is beyond offensive. It is disgusting.)
Politics, Money, and Super Pacs — the Road to South Carolina
New Hampshire’s primary election results both confused and baffled me. How could the Republican Party electorate be so fragmented that not one, not two, but five Presidential candidates drew 10% or more of the vote?
And the putative winner, Willard “Mitt” Romney, didn’t exactly impress anyone even though he took 39% of the vote due to how close, geographically, New Hampshire is to Romney’s home state of Massachusetts. While he gained seven delegates, Ron Paul did quite well in gaining 23% of the vote and garnering three delegates, while Jon Huntsman came in a strong third with 17% of the vote and gained two delegates.
But I’d rather talk about something else aside from the bare results today; to wit, it’s time to talk money. Namely, Super PAC money.
Where is all this money coming from? Most of it is coming from a handful of individuals, supremely wealthy sorts who can spend millions like it’s going out of style, which allows the various candidate-affiliated Super PACs to run all sorts of negative ads. Some of which actually have some resemblance to the truth.
Now, are the candidates supposed to be affiliated with the Super PACs that are helping them? Of course not. But it’s hard to believe that Jon Huntsman’s father, Jon Huntsman, Sr., isn’t talking to his son about the ads he’s running on his son’s behalf; it’s really difficult to believe that the folks backing Romney haven’t talked with him about the ads they’ve aired on his behalf, either.
As most long-time political watchers are aware, the best-funded candidate often wins rather than the best-qualified candidate, mostly because he or she can take command of the narrative in a way that it can become tough to rebut if there’s enough money to throw at an election.
But if you read that as, “if there’s enough money to throw an election,” you might not be too far wrong, either.
So here’s the deal, folks; we have way, way too much money in politics, something MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan often discusses during his afternoon show. We have Super PACs who can raise unlimited amounts of money and who don’t, necessarily, have to disclose who’s funding what with whose money due to the controversial Supreme Court of the United States’ “Citizens United” decision. And we have a completely broken, fraudulent system that’s become more like an oligarchy than the putative democracy most of us grew up to know, study and love.
So the road to South Carolina is littered with all of that, which is why this is such a mess.
What I see is this: we have Romney, who a whole lot of Republicans and right-leaning Independents don’t like. We have Rick Santorum, who is a Christian conservative — he’s a kind-hearted and well-meaning man by all accounts, but some of his public statements (especially regarding GLBT Americans) are, to be charitable, questionable at best. There’s Newt Gingrich, who is a smart, wily politician — I don’t agree with many of his stances, but I’ll never deny that he has skills and smarts — but who has a great deal of ground to make up if he intends to win the Republican nomination for President. There’s Rick Perry, who can’t seem to get over his disastrous debate performances to gain any traction. There’s Ron Paul, who has become attractive to many people, mostly because he speaks his mind and isn’t anywhere near as “packaged” as the rest of the folks running for President. And there’s Jon Huntsman, who really looks like he’d be a great President down the road — but not this year, methinks.
All of these candidates, were there some semblance of a level financial playing field, would be far better served than they are right now. Gingrich has said so, and so has Perry to a degree; I applaud them both for their stances, even though what they’d do to fix this mess as conservative Republicans is to make every candidate have to fully and freely declare who’s funding whom and why. (To my mind, that’s a good start. But it’s only a start.)
As I see it, the road to South Carolina is filled with all sorts of potholes, unintended sinkholes, and way too much money to be borne. So the media will clean up, the populace of South Carolina will largely tune out, and it’ll be much harder for any candidate to gain any sort of legitimate traction than it would’ve been with a more level playing field.
Because of that, my best guess is that if there is an upset here, it’s going to come from Newt Gingrich. I think Paul will once again be a factor and gain delegates. I think Romney will draw at least 25%, and I think if Huntsman continues to represent himself well, he’ll get at least 9% or 10%, a respectable showing. But it’s also possible that Rick Santorum will do well in South Carolina; because Santorum and Gingrich both are trying to take Romney down, that might split the “anti-Romney” vote between them which allows Romney to eke out another narrow win.
And I do think, for whatever it’s worth, that South Carolina is Rick Perry’s final stop on the 2012 Presidential merry-go-round.
One final thought: I’d really love to find out how much money Romney’s five sons are earning as “campaign aides.” I believe the only person, by law, a Presidential candidate can “shield,” financially, is his spouse — that’s because a married couple is counted as one, legally. And I’m fine with that; I don’t really need to know how much money Ann Romney needs at this point, nor Callista Gingrich, nor any of the other candidates’ wives, either.
But Romney’s five strapping adult sons are another matter. They are all listed as “campaign aides,” which means they’re drawing a salary. I think it’s time we know how much Romney’s paying his five sons to do a bunch of make-work on the campaign trail, don’t you?
Patriotic Millionaires Ask for Congress to Raise Their Taxes
There’s a new group in town, and they want the Congress to raise taxes — on themselves.
Never heard of them? Well, they call themselves the Patriotic Millionaires, and they even have their very own Web site.
Here’s a lengthy excerpt from their original letter to Congress (from patrioticmillionaires.org):
We are writing to urge you to put our country ahead of politics.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.
Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.
Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.
There are a good many statistics on the side of their Web page, including the following facts:
- Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000.
- Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%.
- During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%.
- Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%.
- Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
- 44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. (emphasis added)
- Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years.
The Patriotic Millionaires number two hundred strong, and are growing daily. They believe that it’s plain, flat wrong for millionaires to be taxed at a lower effective level than people in the middle class. And they’ve put their money where their mouths are by going to Washington on November 16, 2011, in order to lobby Congress, influential anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist, and others for a higher tax rate for themselves. (Here’s a link to the story from the Los Angeles Times if you don’t believe me.)
The Patriotic Millionaires only want taxes raised on people who make one million dollars ($1,000,000) a year and above; they want no other taxes raised. As several members of the group said (from a tape played on tonight’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell program), they want their taxes raised because they feel it is wrong that everyone else is suffering, while they, themselves, have gotten much richer over the course of the recession.
I’m glad the Patriotic Millionaires group exists, and I’m very glad they’re getting some airplay. They need a whole lot more, because they’re the “job creators” the Congressional Republicans keep touting as “needing” this big tax break. Yet this is a spurious argument, as the millionaires kept pointing out on tonight’s Last Word (link to that is here), and as quoted in this article from Yahoo News:
Patriotic Millionaire Robert Johnson, former chief economist of the U.S Senate banking committee, said that the current economic system is not broken, but it is “working on behalf of those who designed it in their favor.”
“America is no longer based on markets and capitalism, instead our economy is designed as ‘socialism for the rich’ – it is designed to ensure that the wealthiest people take all of the gains, while regular Americans cover any losses,” he said at a press conference this afternoon in Washington, D.C.
“It’s a Las Vegas economy where regular Americans put their money on the table and the richest 1 percent own the house,” he said. “And if the 1 percent happen to lose money, the 99 percent bails them out – covers their losses and then stands by watching while the house does it all over again.”
Note how well Mr. Johnson put that? Well, he should know, being an economist — one who worked for the United States Senate Banking Committee, at that. Yet the Congressional “Supercommittee,” which is made up of twelve members (six Rs and six Ds), is once again stalled out with regards to any tax increases because the Rs, quite predictably, are refusing.
So as you see, it doesn’t seem to matter what these millionaires say; the Congress (44% of its members being millionaires) keeps saying “no.” And the only reason I can come up with for that is this: Congress doesn’t want to raise taxes on millionaires because such a tax increase will hurt some of its own members. (I’d say, “Poor babies,” but I don’t even think that highly of them.)
It’s up to Congress to stop playing games and raise taxes on millionaires because it’s the only ethical, honest thing to do. Period.
And if it hurts them, personally . . . well, that’s just too bad now, isn’t it?
Barb Caffrey's Blog 