As an amazing turn of events unfolds — a Democratic president, with a congress with big Democratic majorities in each house, passing a huge giveaway to the most wealthy — we should take the time to be shocked. This tax agreement outcome is amazing because it is the opposite of what voters who elected Barrack Obama in 2008 would have ever predicted would happen. Let that sink in. The opposite. Amazing. (See what Robert Reich says: The New Tax Deal: Reaganomics Redux.)
Amazing outcomes are seldom accidental. It’s like watching the final moves of a chess game where the player with the weakest pieces and positions suddenly wins — you can’t help but wonder if the stronger player engineered the whole scenario. What is unfolding in Washington, I’ve got to think, has been well planned and well choreographed for some time. I’ve got to think things in Washington are unfolding according to the wishes of the party in power — the Party of Money. I’ve always liked that speech Dennis Kucinich gave that ended: “Wake up America. Wake up America. Wake up America.” (The video is posted below and is well worth watching.)
The following is from a post I noted over three years ago: “The Money Party,” by Michael Collins as it appeared Scoop in September, 2007:
The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us. As 2008 approaches, The Money Party is working hard to maintain its perfect record.
It is not about Republicans versus Democrats. Right now, the Republicans do a better job taking money than the Democrats. But The Money Party is an equal opportunity employer. They have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. Democrats are as welcome as Republicans to this party. It’s all good when you’re on the take and the take is legal.
This is not a conspiracy theory. There are no secret societies or sinister operators. This party is up front and in your face. Just follow the money. One percent of Americans hold 33% of the nation’s wealth. The top 10% hold 72% of the total wealth. The bottom 40% of Americans control only 0.3% (three tenths of one percent). And that was before “pay day loans.”
The story is as old as civilization but the stakes have never been higher than they are right now.
In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal. Those elected get luxury trips, sweet jobs for family members, and more campaign contributions for the next round of elections. What they do is perfectly legal even though it looks like bribery.
In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. Lower taxes, highly favorable business regulations, laws that shield their businesses from real competition all start with the nonstop flow of Money Party funds. Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars.
The Money Party gets no-bid contracts as well as the ability to lay off their employees and dump their pension plans just about any time they want. It doesn’t get much better than that. It’s welfare for big money and survival of the fittest for the rest of us.
We are nothing to them.
When the White House and Congress ignore the health care crisis year after year, why be surprised? They’re not in office to serve you. The drug companies and hospitals had their bid in first.
When our public servants fail to get us out of Iraq, don’t take it personally. That will happen when The Money Party says so.
When citizens suffer and starve for days after a hurricane, we’re told they should have been better prepared. When levees and bridges collapse, it’s an act of God. But when the fat no-bid contracts show up, The Money Party takes it all.
Unreliable election systems, citizens excluded from the vote on the basis of race and class, and questionable results don’t matter as long as the right candidates get in. We pretend to vote, they pretend to get elected, but there’s no doubt who is in charge – The Money Party.
It’s nothing personal. The party is just doing its job. Why be surprised or disappointed? It’s been happening for centuries. The more some have, the more they want, the harder they fight to keep it. Spread some around so they can get even more. It’s a rigged game from top to bottom.
We let this happen. We can change it. The first step is to name it, and we just did.
The Irish fought for 800 years to win their independence from the world’s most powerful empire. Generations came and went before the goal even seemed possible. They never gave up.
Now it’s our turn.
The Money Party: The Essence of our Political Troubles
Michael Collins “Scoop” Independent News: Washington, D.C.
Mike,
I too was a very disgruntled Progressive after learning about the President’s compromise with the GOP. After firing off a respectful, but to the point email to the White House, and allowing the Holliday Season to “mellow” my angst, I’ve come to the conclusion that the President did the right thing.
Ben Franklin said, “Politics is the art of the possible,” and I think his quote is germane to the tax-cut compromise. The President was left in a situation with two options (Not considering Democratic incompetence over the course of the year in getting progressive tax policies in place): we could pass a lot of good progressive tax policies, along with a few bad conservative ones, or get nothing in about 30 days.
During the tax policy debate too much attention was given to the top 2 percent, or wealthiest Americans. The group of Americans I think the President had in mind was the bottom 10 percent, or the working poor Americans in the 10 percent tax bracket. If the President did not compromise with the GOP starting January 1, 2011, working poor Americans would have had their taxes go up by 50 percent (from 10 to 15 percent). As disconcerting as it is to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh get an extra $200,000 a month, it is worth it because it means a single mother with three kids in the 10 percent bracket gets to keep an extra $100 a month. The long list of things this women would do with that $100, utility bills, child care, food etc…, are so important that it’s worth allowing Rush to have his money as well. Should we progressives be in a situation that allowed each group’s tax cuts to be linked? The answer to this question is obviously no, but those were the circumstances confronting the President.
I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but due to the last election’s results we are going to have to get accustom to more compromise like the President’s with the GOP over tax cuts. Mr. Franklin was right. Politics is the art of the possible and we must adjust our thinking to focus on pragmatism in order to move our country forward over the next two years.
Vic, good to hear from you. I write a rambling response, of sorts, here. Happy new year.
Gentlemen, approximately 50% of wage earners pay no income tax. Does that bother you? It bothers me. At some point we will have a dictatorship of the proletariat which will live off the work of the taxpayers. If those taxpayers leave, then the income will dry up. This, in part, is what happened to California. Your thoughts?
Mike, you ask:
Many progressives today are feeling used. Many progressives today are disappointed with Obama and are bemoaning the energy and effort they gave to the Obama campaign in 2008. They ask: Why did we not support a candidate of greater courage, vision needed to advance progressive principles?
The reason is that such a candidate would be a blatant socialist, full of class envy and hatred of the successful. No matter how disgruntled, the American voters as a whole would not support such a candidate.
Rick, Thanks for your comments. I make a response here.
I disagree with your notion that a candidate with more progressive emphasis than Obama’s necessarily would come across as “a blatant socialist, full of class envy and hatred of the successful.”
Envy and hatred, of course, are not appealing characteristics and I agree that American voters would be wise to reject a candidate who would project such negativity. But voters would be wise to encourage a fair discussion of the issue. Charges of envy or class hatred are a diversion to change the topic. Progressive thinking is motivated by a sense of fairness, not a sense of envy or hatred.
The issue, the question, that transcends any motive of hatred or envy is one that deserves a wide and in-depth discussion: How as a representative democracy do we organize our society so that every citizen has his or her best chance for “liberty and justice”?