Find Insurance Online

I think it is because income/wealth/profits is valued so much in the US that there is such selfishness recoiling from Obama’s desire for universal health coverage. Also, the republican argument that the Bush tax cuts on incomes above $200,000 should be continued attests to the value. The fact that the argument is being made at all is unbelievable.  Data shows that the rich save the extra money saved from taxes, but that isn’t stopping the Republicans and some House democrats from arguing that the rich would spend the money to hire (i.e., lowering unemployment).  Incroyable, je crois.  The income taxed of small business people is on the income they take out…which would otherwise be saved or spent on themselves…not on their business.  The argument doesn’t make sense and yet it is made as if it does!  Incredibly, some democrats are beginning to buy it.  It is incredible that tax cuts are being talked about at all, given the $13 tillion US govt debt. I understand that raising tax has a contraction effect on the GNP, but how much?  The rich avoiding some additional taxes: would that really mean such a contraction?  Even if it does, the increase to the debt would tend to increase interest rates as well as the amount that the US Government will have to pay on interest. Moreover, an unsustainable public debt makes the US itself ultimately unsustainable. It seems small to worry about a slight contraction (if any) from the restoration of tax rates on those people who have the means to pay higher taxes. I suspect that the underlying reason for the argument is the hypertropic value put on wealth in the US.

Republican outside groups are outspending democrats by eight to one in the 2010 election cycle.  Citizens United, the court case allowing unlimited (and anonymous) corporate political spending (as if spending were speech!), is benefiting the republicans. The republican party advocates policies that are more in the financial interest of the wealthy (e.g., cutting entitlements and extending the Bush tax cuts for those over $200,000). In my view, the case opens up the dichotomy between a plutocracy (rule by wealth) and a representative democracy (rule by the people through their representatives). Although the latter is not perfect (esp when most of the people are idiots), it is better than rule by the moneyed interests (i.e., the status quo).  It is ironic that after electing real change, the forces of the status quo would gain the upper hand. Since the vast majority of American voters are not wealthy, the question is perhaps whether we can be effectively manipulated by political ads into voting for the interests of the wealthy. For example, one outside group had an ad complaining about the U.S. government’s debt and urging less spending on entitlements.  No mention is made of the roughly $1 trillion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As another example, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is put in terms of the latter using the savings to hire workers, even though studies show that such tax savings are typically saved. An educated electorate seems to me the best means of resisting such manipulation. Essentially, the distinction can be said to be between the vested interests of the status quo and those of real change.  Too much power going to the wealthy can stultify the political system, such that we do not adapt.  An organism that does not adapt to a changing environment does not tend to survive.

The debate on whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended for the wealthy pits the interests of the rich against the need to bring down the over $1 trillion 2010 deficit of the U.S. Government. The inconsistency in the position is transparent in Sen. Jim DeMint’s call for smaller deficits and for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all earners. Deciding whether the rich should get a tax cut presupposes tax cuts for other earners, and thus does not question whether there should be any extention. Fareed Zakaria argues that “no matter how many programs you cut, you will need more tax revenue.”  Debating about who should contribute less tax revenue implicitly rejects the “more tax revenue” point. Taking it for granted that the Bush tax cuts will be extended regardless, Zakaria suggests that certain deductions could be ended. The deduction for interest on mortgages, for example, costs the U.S. Government $130 billion a year (while the tax cuts for the rich costs $700 billion). The interest deduction, Zakaria maintains, does not make sense in the context of the spurious sub-prime mortgages in which people were put in houses they could not afford. The deduction “encourages people to take on too much debt, inflates the housing market and has no real effect on homeownership.” In 1986, I watched in the Senate gallery as that august body unraveled its attempt to eliminate that deduction in the face of industry opposition.  The vested interests of the status quo had spoken and the senators fell like dominoes.  Given the power of business in Congress, it is unlikely that many significant deductions will be challenged.  So the debate is on how many people should get a tax cut rather than on how much the rates must increase for the U.S. Government to reduce (not even eliminate!) its deficit—to say nothing of reducing the debt from prior years. The debate, in other words, can not get beyond its own presuppositions, and the small rule. The debate on whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended for the wealthy pits the interests of the rich against the need to bring down the over $1 trillion 2010 deficit of the U.S. Government. The inconsistency in the position is transparent in Sen. Jim DeMint’s call for smaller deficits and for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all earners. Deciding whether the rich should get a tax cut presupposes tax cuts for other earners, and thus does not question whether there should be any extention. Fareed Zakaria argues that “no matter how many programs you cut, you will need more tax revenue.”  Debating about who should contribute less tax revenue implicitly rejects the “more tax revenue” point. Taking it for granted that the Bush tax cuts will be extended regardless, Zakaria suggests that certain deductions could be ended. The deduction for interest on mortgages, for example, costs the U.S. Government $130 billion a year (while the tax cuts for the rich costs $700 billion). The interest deduction, Zakaria maintains, does not make sense in the context of the spurious sub-prime mortgages in which people were put in houses they could not afford. The deduction “encourages people to take on too much debt, inflates the housing market and has no real effect on homeownership.” In 1986, I watched in the Senate gallery as that august body unraveled its attempt to eliminate that deduction in the face of industry opposition.  The vested interests of the status quo had spoken and the senators fell like dominoes.  Given the power of business in Congress, it is unlikely that many significant deductions will be challenged.  So the debate is on how many people should get a tax cut rather than on how much the rates must increase for the U.S. Government to reduce (not even eliminate!) its deficit—to say nothing of reducing the debt from prior years. The debate, in other words, can not get beyond its own presuppositions, and the small rule.

I've been following politics less now that Obama has caved on his campaign pledge (or promise) not to extend the bush tax cuts for the rich.  The added growth expected in 2011 from ALL of the cuts is just a half of a percent of GNP growth.  I have read that the rich save their tax cuts rather than use them in ways that stimuate the economy.  As for savings, banks have enough capital to lend (this isn't why they are still skittish in 2010).  That the vacuous argument that tax cuts for the rich will somehow create lots of jobs and save the economy from another recession has had <em>any</em> weight or credance really discourages me about American political discourse.  That Obama didn't "just say no" is also discouraging. On December 14, 2010, Pat O'Reilly said on his Foxs News show that the "far left" is in retreat because Ameriicans have rejected it.  He said even Obama has rejected the left. I think the left has vanquished itself.  Perhaps it could be said that the left is willingly impotent. Where is Al Gore?  Ralph Nadar?  Micheal Moore?  silence.  Only the sound of Obama caving. He should have refused to sign a tax cut continuation for the rich and said the Repubs could refuse to extend the cut for lower and middle income people--it would be the Repubs provoking the resumption of higher taxes for everyone rather than just on those who can afford them.  We need a Teddy Roosevelt or an Andrew Jackson. Teddy stood up to Standard Oil, and Jackson stood up to the Second Bank of the United States. By contrast, Obama has operated largely in line with Wall Street (e.g., the bailout for the banks rather than foreclosed homeowners) and the health insurance industry (e.g. not even a public option, which was odious to the industry).  Barak Obama does not want to displease the powers that be; I suspect reelection has a lot to do with this state of affairs.  This raises the question: is there a counter in American politics to the selfishness of property?