That sounds like capitalism for those who can, and socialism for those who can’t.
8
I disagree that it is a threat to liberal prospects. Politicians, if they are good at what they do, talk the talk. It wasn't that Republicans of the recent past didn't talk about helping the poor. Reagan's famous pitch was that a rising tide would lift all boats. That analogy proved too apt, and the rising tide helped the boat-owners (which is to say those on the wealthier end of the spectrum). The rest of the people ended up forever treading water.
Republicans talk about helping the poor, but they back policies that help the rich. Until that changes, I have no fear of some large exodus from the democratic voting blocks, at least not for this reason.
BTW, ironically, "a rising tide lifts all boats" is also the GOP's slogan regarding climate change.
Republicans talk about helping the poor, but they back policies that help the rich. Until that changes, I have no fear of some large exodus from the democratic voting blocks, at least not for this reason.
BTW, ironically, "a rising tide lifts all boats" is also the GOP's slogan regarding climate change.
28
For entirely different reasons, Non-black poor people and adults under 30 historically do not vote. (Hence the Democratic posturing toward the middle class).
1
Blaming Obama for poverty is like blaming the fireman for the fire.
36
There is cause for optimism that the GOP finally gets it!
The super rich have to be shivering in their mansions at the prospect of inequality reform.
Could American politics actually be breaking the chains of the regressive right wing?
Now let's see if the voters who need reform the most can escape from their propagandized slumber.
The super rich have to be shivering in their mansions at the prospect of inequality reform.
Could American politics actually be breaking the chains of the regressive right wing?
Now let's see if the voters who need reform the most can escape from their propagandized slumber.
8
If the Republican Party really believes this, they have 2 years before the 2016 election to demonstrate their concern about the middle class by passing some meaningful legislation on tax reform, strengthening the new health care law, protecting the environment and supporting education (for example the proposal to make community college free). I'm not holding my breath.
37
The Republicans would love to reform education. Their idea of reform however is different than the Democrats. For democrats reform means spending more, per your comment above.
Obama has not changed anything in the way education is done in this country since becoming president. His biggest accomplishment is weakening the requirement that states test performance if they want federal funding.
Education in this country is very poor relative to other first world nations. The past 14 years clearly show that increases in funding are not producing better results.
The Republicans are honestly interested in reforming education and there are reasonable disagreements about what that would mean. To date, including the 2 years Obama had entire control of Washington, Obama failed to push any reform. Status quo is good for him (his kids are not in public school).
Obama has not changed anything in the way education is done in this country since becoming president. His biggest accomplishment is weakening the requirement that states test performance if they want federal funding.
Education in this country is very poor relative to other first world nations. The past 14 years clearly show that increases in funding are not producing better results.
The Republicans are honestly interested in reforming education and there are reasonable disagreements about what that would mean. To date, including the 2 years Obama had entire control of Washington, Obama failed to push any reform. Status quo is good for him (his kids are not in public school).
1
Why are we thinking like this?:
"The danger for Democrats is that they will lose ownership of the issues of stagnation, opportunity and fairness."
Why wouldn't we want EVERYONE on this issue? I'd be thrilled.
"The danger for Democrats is that they will lose ownership of the issues of stagnation, opportunity and fairness."
Why wouldn't we want EVERYONE on this issue? I'd be thrilled.
13
Edsall's non-discovery of data:
This article starts out interestingly but soon takes the typical failed turn of the last 30 years of reporting. The article presents minority economic reform movements within the Republican Party but fails to investigate, at all, whether those movements might help the U.S. and the majority of Americans, or whether the traditionalists in the GOP have better proposals.
I DO NOT CARE AT ALL about how each side is strategizing to strengthen their 2016 prospects. Before the massive media mergers of the 80s, we actually had news. Reporters recorded politician's statements, then actually worked hard enough to research what the impacts might mean if the particular proposals were approved. Today, we have more access to news media than ever before, and are less informed than Americans were 40 years ago. And Edsall's article - which apparently is written mainly to show how 'clever' he is - is a prime example of why. Stop trying to show your understanding of political strategy; I actually get that without a single word from you. Tell me the economic, social, etc. impact of enacting said proposals. Then you will be serving the common good.
This article starts out interestingly but soon takes the typical failed turn of the last 30 years of reporting. The article presents minority economic reform movements within the Republican Party but fails to investigate, at all, whether those movements might help the U.S. and the majority of Americans, or whether the traditionalists in the GOP have better proposals.
I DO NOT CARE AT ALL about how each side is strategizing to strengthen their 2016 prospects. Before the massive media mergers of the 80s, we actually had news. Reporters recorded politician's statements, then actually worked hard enough to research what the impacts might mean if the particular proposals were approved. Today, we have more access to news media than ever before, and are less informed than Americans were 40 years ago. And Edsall's article - which apparently is written mainly to show how 'clever' he is - is a prime example of why. Stop trying to show your understanding of political strategy; I actually get that without a single word from you. Tell me the economic, social, etc. impact of enacting said proposals. Then you will be serving the common good.
16
Edsal is a political commentator not a social scientist -economist or tax expert.
Maybe you are on the wrong page for completing your personal policy education?
Maybe you are on the wrong page for completing your personal policy education?
1
When the Republicans start talking about taxing wealth in addition to income then I'll start listening. Otherwise middle class America keep your hands on your wallets as the Republicans work towards stripping down your benefits (like Medicare and Social Security) while raising taxes (often in the name of "user fees"). These ersatz populists are wholly unbelievable indeed the Republican Party suffers from a poverty of the spirit.
37
It's pretty hard to miss the poor, Obama has created more of them than ever existed before
4
No, that was done by Bush before Obama ever took office.
34
"Pethokoukis contends that: fantasy tax-plan advocates have a big problem: Their math doesn’t work. First, the top tax rate has bounced up and down for more than 30 years, and growth has actually been faster when it’s been on the higher side."
Pethokoukis ought to know better than this.
Per capita GDP and income growth doubled during the Reagan Prosperity (1982-2007) after Reagan flattened and broadened the personal income tax code and then Clinton/Gingrich did the same for capital gains.
https://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/the-mythical-prog...
Mr. Obama made the income and capital gains tax codes more progressively punitive and the result to date has been an economic depression.
Pethokoukis ought to know better than this.
Per capita GDP and income growth doubled during the Reagan Prosperity (1982-2007) after Reagan flattened and broadened the personal income tax code and then Clinton/Gingrich did the same for capital gains.
https://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/the-mythical-prog...
Mr. Obama made the income and capital gains tax codes more progressively punitive and the result to date has been an economic depression.
2
The more I read these comments the more I think: "Hey Tea Party, meet Nelson Rockefeller" or perhaps Richard Nixon. So called Eastern Establishment or Rockefeller Republicans would, I think be a very good strain of growth in the Republican Party. These Republicans espoused government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare, and higher education as necessities for a better society and economic growth. They supported some regulation of business and many of the social safety net programs now roundly criticized by the conservative right . They favored spending on infrastructure. And, unlike many other current Republicans, they favored, indeed supported, labor unions. Sounds a lot like Obamas prescriptions for the next generation. Go figure.
18
What a bunch of nonsense. Just look up on any search directory who donates more to charity, Republicans or Democrats. A real good place to start is with Obama/Biden before they turned their sites towards national office. Kind of like LBJ's Civil Rights voting record before he decided to run for president.
Now we have Obama saying he is all for free college. That worked for a day until he found out what free meant. I guess all those Democratic college professors who are already swamped with their one class per week schedule will not be volunteering their time to teach for free and all the universities that are rolling in tax payer grants will not be donating any of their thousands of tax payer buildings and eqipment either. Now Obama has learned that lesson along with the other gem of no such thing as shovel ready jobs. His big federal government regs. took care of that back in FDR's time. Another history book Obama never got around to reading. Or this auther it seems.
Now we have Obama saying he is all for free college. That worked for a day until he found out what free meant. I guess all those Democratic college professors who are already swamped with their one class per week schedule will not be volunteering their time to teach for free and all the universities that are rolling in tax payer grants will not be donating any of their thousands of tax payer buildings and eqipment either. Now Obama has learned that lesson along with the other gem of no such thing as shovel ready jobs. His big federal government regs. took care of that back in FDR's time. Another history book Obama never got around to reading. Or this auther it seems.
5
Feel free to look up political contributions and who gives what to whom. But more importantly, investing in education is about the best one possible. Just look at the GI Bill's legacy if that's unclear. But I guess you reserve your respect and admiration for Wall Street and other "job creators".
13
FYI, a lot of us academics work all the time. I take a full day once a month a month. I usually do at least a couple hours even on Thanksgiving and Christmas. We're just only in the *classroom* a few hours a week. Imaging being asked to give an hour and a half-long public lecture on a difficult topic, as an expert, in front of a hundred people. Now imagine being asked to give for of them each week--on different topics. How much time would you spend preparing? And that doesn't count writing or grading papers and exams, meetings with students, supervising teaching assistants. And it certainly doesn't include our private research--which administrators want more and more of.
13
Aren't these the same people who call waging war things like The Peace Initiative, or laws that allow them to pollute the earth as much as they want Clear Skies proposals?
17
If Republicans are at least willing to pay lip service to poverty (and of course that's all it is), it is a victory of sort for the Democrats. Just as the Republicans managed to get everyone talking "deficit" (in the face of the frost recession in a long time) and controlled the conversation.
10
Better to have many little steps in going from 15% to 35% marginal tax rate to eliminate the disincentives from abruptly going from 15% to 35%. The number of steps in the progressive income tax do not add to complexity, deductions and credits in arriving at taxable income and tax paid do.
2
My guess is that economics was not your major. Multiple minor tax increase are far worse than one major one. People most create economic activity when there is an expectation that the tax rates and rules are stable and predictable.
When rates or rules are changed from year to year, it makes it very difficult to plan for, and as a result people are far more conservative and less investment, personal or business occurs.
When rates or rules are changed from year to year, it makes it very difficult to plan for, and as a result people are far more conservative and less investment, personal or business occurs.
5
Just pandering for votes. You know very well they don't mean a word of it.
29
When it comes to believing these "new" Republicans & their talking points of concern for the poor and middle class, we only have to go back to George Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" to see that this lip service does not lead to any reform or change in the same basic trickle down economics that Republicans have espoused since Ronald Reagan.
21
Mr. Lee strikes me as a reasonable man, a Republican with a heart, which for me to say, is out of character, since my experience with Republicans, in a general sense, is that they want it all, all the time, have little compassion, and no empathy whatsoever.
All there is to know, publicly anyway, can be accessed on Wikipedia, see the following excerpt and link -
"In February 2011, Lee was one of two Republicans, along with Rand Paul of Kentucky, to vote against extending the three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that deal with roving wiretaps, "lone wolf" terrorism suspects, and the government's ability to seize "any tangible items" in the course of surveillance.[14] He voted in the same manner in May 2011.
On December 1, 2011, Lee was one of only seven U.S. Senators, and one of only three Republicans, to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.[16] He opposed the bill because of concerns over Section 1021, the section of the bill that gives the Armed Forces the power to indefinitely detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lee_(U.S._politician)
All there is to know, publicly anyway, can be accessed on Wikipedia, see the following excerpt and link -
"In February 2011, Lee was one of two Republicans, along with Rand Paul of Kentucky, to vote against extending the three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that deal with roving wiretaps, "lone wolf" terrorism suspects, and the government's ability to seize "any tangible items" in the course of surveillance.[14] He voted in the same manner in May 2011.
On December 1, 2011, Lee was one of only seven U.S. Senators, and one of only three Republicans, to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.[16] He opposed the bill because of concerns over Section 1021, the section of the bill that gives the Armed Forces the power to indefinitely detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lee_(U.S._politician)
3
While this new rhetoric may seem like a good thing, the Tea Party and GOP will never win me over unless they start to respect other people's civil rights. When I hear them accepting women's, LGBT, and minorties' rights, then I will concede that they have improved for the better.
However, I don't want the perfect be the enemy of the good. If this is genuine, then it's at least a step in the right direction.
However, I don't want the perfect be the enemy of the good. If this is genuine, then it's at least a step in the right direction.
5
The notion that tax rates can be made simpler by having fewer rates as proposed by Lee and Rubio is silly. Taxes are not complex because of the rates. In fact, rates are one of the things that can be done robotically by computer software!
Make thousands of rates. 10% up to 50,000, 11% on 50-60, 12%on 60-70, etc. It makes no difference to a calculator.
Make thousands of rates. 10% up to 50,000, 11% on 50-60, 12%on 60-70, etc. It makes no difference to a calculator.
9
Nice to see you have a first grade understanding of the tax code!
2
Hillary Clinton is not an innocent bystander watching Wall Street and Main Street duke on each other for supremacy. That she's having trouble reconciling the two warring factions is a barefaced lie. A millionaire with a penchant for seeking approval of Big Banks can hardly be considered neutral. She stands chick and jowl with Wall Street financiers, very careful not to antagonize these movers and shakers who truly run America. She is one of them. The love between Wall Street and Hillary is not a secret. We, the people, know which side our bread is buttered and it's the height of elitism and arrogance to suggest otherwise. To the extent that Hillary is insuniating herself to the struggling masses, her sympathy is as fake and spiteful as that of the right wing Republican candidates.
5
Her performance is indeed fake, as is she, when it comes to anything to do with the poor and middle class.
Note the $81 million in donations from individuals / entities tied to the latest HSBC scandal - Guardian Excerpt and Link -
"The leaked files reveal the identities of donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation with HSBC accounts in the tax haven, including Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender.
The revelations have raised questions over the former secretary of state’s campaigning focus on wealth inequality in light of the close relationships she and her husband have nurtured with some of the world’s richest individuals.
Key article: Clinton foundation received up to $81m from clients of controversial HSBC bank"
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/11/the-hsbc-files-what-we-know-...
Note the $81 million in donations from individuals / entities tied to the latest HSBC scandal - Guardian Excerpt and Link -
"The leaked files reveal the identities of donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation with HSBC accounts in the tax haven, including Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender.
The revelations have raised questions over the former secretary of state’s campaigning focus on wealth inequality in light of the close relationships she and her husband have nurtured with some of the world’s richest individuals.
Key article: Clinton foundation received up to $81m from clients of controversial HSBC bank"
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/11/the-hsbc-files-what-we-know-...
3
Message to Edsall: The "reformicon" label has nothing to do with the "middle class" pandering addressed in this column. In fact, it generally refers to conservatives who have been willing to do the opposite -- tackle the hard problems that really need reform. That means addressing the pending insolvencies of Social Security and Medicare, injecting more free market principles into our healthcare system in an effort to lower costs, balancing the budget, lowering the debt, etc. Democrats and most Republicans consider many these issues to be third rails and so ignore them. A few Republicans (perhaps most notably, Paul Ryan) have actually proposed some solutions to these problems.
As for taxes, conservatives prefer less government and lower taxes overall. There is nothing new there. But there is a long, seedy tradition amongst both Democrats and Republicans to exempt certain favored businesses and industries from the full brunt of those taxes. If the "reformicons" stand for anything with regard to taxes, it is in their willingness to eliminate loopholes so that the government is less involved in picking winners and losers.
Lastly, I laughed at Edsall's attempt to lump in Bush's "compassionate conservatism" into the "reformicon" movement. As we all learned, "compassionate conservatism" meant spend like a Democrat and tax like a Republican. Indeed, it was that wildly irresponsible governance to which the "reformicon" movement responds.
As for taxes, conservatives prefer less government and lower taxes overall. There is nothing new there. But there is a long, seedy tradition amongst both Democrats and Republicans to exempt certain favored businesses and industries from the full brunt of those taxes. If the "reformicons" stand for anything with regard to taxes, it is in their willingness to eliminate loopholes so that the government is less involved in picking winners and losers.
Lastly, I laughed at Edsall's attempt to lump in Bush's "compassionate conservatism" into the "reformicon" movement. As we all learned, "compassionate conservatism" meant spend like a Democrat and tax like a Republican. Indeed, it was that wildly irresponsible governance to which the "reformicon" movement responds.
2
Let us simply reserve the wealth for the wealthy. Correct?
11
Edall has to tackle campaign finance along with the points in his columns.
We see the big donors vetting and choosing our candidates to get the best for their ROI. We will vote from their choices. Didn't Adelson frankly tell us how much return per a given amount of donations he expected?
Their hired consultants from advertising and PR will then groom the candidate, construct the party platform and design the messages to disseminate in media. They will manipulate social media, and they will cry victimhood at the opposition's attempt to tell the truth.
It would be interesting to compare our years' long corrupt process with other democracies' campaigns where they use public funds, strictly limit private donations, use free media time for all candidates, have multi parties offering to the voters a wider range of platforms. And where they lack a Supreme Court blessing big money as guaranteeing constitutional rights to billionaires.
Compare and contrast. One result is universal health care achieved generations ago. Maybe these other countries don't value 'freedom' the way we do, is what the gop rw would say. Ok, what's the argument? Mr. Edall, you're the political scientist--how about it?
We see the big donors vetting and choosing our candidates to get the best for their ROI. We will vote from their choices. Didn't Adelson frankly tell us how much return per a given amount of donations he expected?
Their hired consultants from advertising and PR will then groom the candidate, construct the party platform and design the messages to disseminate in media. They will manipulate social media, and they will cry victimhood at the opposition's attempt to tell the truth.
It would be interesting to compare our years' long corrupt process with other democracies' campaigns where they use public funds, strictly limit private donations, use free media time for all candidates, have multi parties offering to the voters a wider range of platforms. And where they lack a Supreme Court blessing big money as guaranteeing constitutional rights to billionaires.
Compare and contrast. One result is universal health care achieved generations ago. Maybe these other countries don't value 'freedom' the way we do, is what the gop rw would say. Ok, what's the argument? Mr. Edall, you're the political scientist--how about it?
4
I don't agree that "Lee’s commentary reflects a break with conservative orthodoxy by one faction on the right." I think Lee's commentary reflects an arsonist's concern that he's finally run out of buildings to burn down.
13
Government is in the job of protecting us from each other, not the downsides of economic reality. We can in private cooperation with others, handle our own economic problems.
1
In what alternate universe?
10
The business community has been deregulated for 35 years and they've failed to provide sufficient jobs for the population. This is Wall Street's dismal failure. They are either unwilling or unable to do the work to provide unemployment. Instead, they've shifted wealth from the working classes to the non-working investor classes. It is demonstrated that Wall Street can't run an economy. So we need to create make-work projects for the population, the most efficient way to do the primary job of an economy, which is to provide material needs for the population in the service of species survival and individual health.
8
Why don't you create a company and pay everyone twice what they are worth? I'm sure it'll work out great for you!
1
Well, if not now, when? Corporate profits and the stock market are at all time highs. Walmart's workers need food stamps to survive. Why are you and I subsidizing Walmart's workers when their profits are at all time highs?
There's more money in this country -- more raw wealth -- than any society in all recorded history. If the richest people in history can't give up enough to provide a decent little life for the citizenry, then the species is doomed.
There's more money in this country -- more raw wealth -- than any society in all recorded history. If the richest people in history can't give up enough to provide a decent little life for the citizenry, then the species is doomed.
10
Well I'm really hoping for "the entire conservative edifice" to implode. But before I get too hopeful, I keep remembering those wonderful 2012 GOP "debates" with everyone parroting the Koch brothers climate change talking points. There wasn't any wiggle room on that stage for all those afflicted with "severe conservatism" and when push comes to shove there won't be any room in 2016 for anything heretical like a living wage either.
9
Why don't you start a company and overpay everyone and see how that works out for you??!?!?
3
Liberals care so much about the poor that they created policies that created millions more living in poverty. Nice work!!!
2
Sounds like you're referring to trickle down economics, David.
7
@David:
You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
11
Sounds like I'm referring to liberal economic policies. Sorry you're so blind you can't see the actual destructive results of them.
1
The liberal solution to poverty: give the "poor" endless disincentives to self-sufficiency and industriousness. That way, liberals can convince themselves that they are so very compassionate and more importantly, they can bolster their endless supply of subjugated dependents to vote Democrat for time in memorial at the expense of the Country. I ask rhetorically, which Party has the incentive to keep the poor dependent on government benefits? Hint: It ain't the GOP.
2
What policies? Reagan decimated the poor and Clnton ended welfare as e knew it. Right wingers still vote on propaganda that's 30 years old.
13
If you are so envious of the poor, maybe you should trade places !
9
If this new 'branch' of the GOP wants to rejigger the way wealth is collected and redistributed and call it 'tax reform', they will make few friends in and gather little clout from the right.
Stop buying votes, reform the morass of IRS regulatory overreach and stop listening to folks whose only fiscal idea is that the federal government doesn't collect enough in taxes.
"The federal government collected a record amount of taxes in fiscal year 2014, topping $3 trillion in revenue for the first time in its history, according to Treasury Department numbers released Wednesday..."
Stop buying votes, reform the morass of IRS regulatory overreach and stop listening to folks whose only fiscal idea is that the federal government doesn't collect enough in taxes.
"The federal government collected a record amount of taxes in fiscal year 2014, topping $3 trillion in revenue for the first time in its history, according to Treasury Department numbers released Wednesday..."
2
Well, at least Hillary and Bubba aren't "dead broke" any more:
The Guardian: “The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank. Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva. They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation. Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over growing economic inequality in the US and is expected to make the issue a cornerstone of her widely anticipated presidential campaign in 2016.”
“The new allegations that HSBC colluded to help wealthy people and rich corporations hide money and avoid taxes are very serious. If true, the Justice Department should reconsider the earlier deferred prosecution agreement it entered into with HSBC and prosecute the new violations to the full extent of the law.” –Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in the Financial Times
The Guardian: “The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank. Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva. They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation. Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over growing economic inequality in the US and is expected to make the issue a cornerstone of her widely anticipated presidential campaign in 2016.”
“The new allegations that HSBC colluded to help wealthy people and rich corporations hide money and avoid taxes are very serious. If true, the Justice Department should reconsider the earlier deferred prosecution agreement it entered into with HSBC and prosecute the new violations to the full extent of the law.” –Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in the Financial Times
5
Beware of the crocodiles smile and its tears.
8
As long as we have a debt-driven, "free market" (i.e., under-regulated so that profit trumps social and ecological well-being) economy, our situation will only continue to worsen and threaten the future of this country.
One important first step towards restoring justice and ecological sustainability would be to drop the Federal Reserve Banks (which are privately owned) as the source of our money and instead do as Abraham Lincoln intended to do after the Civil War: Let the currency and fiat money needed for all public programs - education, eldercare, healthcare, infrastructure rebuilding and the development and implementation of green energy, etc. - come from a truly publicly owned national banking system. Abe Lincoln actually financed the Union cause by having the federal government issue as much "greenback" currency as needed - millions of dollars worth - thus avoiding imposing the huge debt on the people which would have occurred if he had followed tradition and borrowed the money instead from the private NY banks.
One important first step towards restoring justice and ecological sustainability would be to drop the Federal Reserve Banks (which are privately owned) as the source of our money and instead do as Abraham Lincoln intended to do after the Civil War: Let the currency and fiat money needed for all public programs - education, eldercare, healthcare, infrastructure rebuilding and the development and implementation of green energy, etc. - come from a truly publicly owned national banking system. Abe Lincoln actually financed the Union cause by having the federal government issue as much "greenback" currency as needed - millions of dollars worth - thus avoiding imposing the huge debt on the people which would have occurred if he had followed tradition and borrowed the money instead from the private NY banks.
1
It is a common republican strategy to pay lip service to grand plans for the lower and middle classes during the run up to elections. Compassionate conservatism was the last effort to delude the electorate.
Time after time, republicans pledge to help the middle class and the poor. Time after time, they pledge that they are anti-government and anti-deficit.
The truth is that once elected, republicans abandon the middle class and the poor for their wealthy donors. They spend tremendous amounts of money for causes and projects that benefit their benefactors. They fervently promote policies that involve government in the most intimate details of our lives (abortion).
This bait and switch game has been playing out for decades.
Today's reformicons are just the latest example of two-faced politicians that will say whatever they need to say to get elected. And once elected, they revert back to the classic republican model, harsh conservatism, no compassion.
Time after time, republicans pledge to help the middle class and the poor. Time after time, they pledge that they are anti-government and anti-deficit.
The truth is that once elected, republicans abandon the middle class and the poor for their wealthy donors. They spend tremendous amounts of money for causes and projects that benefit their benefactors. They fervently promote policies that involve government in the most intimate details of our lives (abortion).
This bait and switch game has been playing out for decades.
Today's reformicons are just the latest example of two-faced politicians that will say whatever they need to say to get elected. And once elected, they revert back to the classic republican model, harsh conservatism, no compassion.
6
Obama pledged to help the poor. All his policies have done is put millions more into poverty.
1
For Edsall to be correct on the republican strategy, he is counting on the public to be stupid and forget what the republicans have stood for in recent years. Who knows, unfortunately he may be right.
9
The NYT would perform a great public service by printing the complete text of FDR's "and I welcome their hatred speech," then convening a pubic forum with all prospective presidential candidates and having an articulate moderator press them for responses.
2
Of course Republicans will talk about caring about the poor and middle class. They have made similar noises before. But when the chips go down, the only real principle they have is a consuming drive to make the rich still richer. They've fooled people before. They will fool some people again. But anyone who makes less than $250,000 and voted for a Republican is a fool.
9
Leave it to conservatives to pose as champions of fairness and equality while raising federal tax rates on my small income from 10% to 15%. This would be consistent with what Republicans have done the last two decades - cut federal tax rates on top earners while increasing user fees, sales taxes and other levies that fall harder on lower income people.
14
Mr. Edsall's willingness to believe the word puffs of the republican candidates about economic inequality is downright silly. He should watch these candidates when they bend the knee to the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson, and thereby gain some knowledge of where they really stand.
12
Yes, because Obama and liberals care so much about the poor. That's why there are millions more on food stamps and living in poverty than when Obama was elected.
3
There are millions more on food stamps and living in poverty due to the cumulative effects over the past 35 years of 1) having a low minimum wage, and 2) of lowering the tax rates on the wealthy so that we "cannot afford" to have massive public works projects to develop and implement green energy which would employ millions of workers.
5
No, that's because of the Great Bush Recession.
6
I must be dreaming. The GOP has joined "Occupy Wall Street!"
Should I be surprised that the GOP's rediscovery of "Compassionate Conservatism?" occured after the 2014 mid term elections?
Or that now the GOP discovers "Socialism?" The party that predicted the most dire consequences if our country bailed out the auto industry? But even worse consequences if we didn't bail out the banks and A.I.G.? Or continue to give tax breaks to the 1%.
You know the Democratic Party is on to something when the GOP does a 180 degree turn around in it's priorities. After seven years of obstructing everything from the "Democrat" party that tried to address these issues. Issues that to the GOP, up until now, were non issues. Or worse. Government policies that take from the "Makers" and "Redistribute" to the 47%.
Perhaps I'm being cynical, but do you suppose this epiphany within the GOP has anything to do with the ability of the next President of the United States to appoint a number of new Supreme Court Justices. The real gate keepers of the 1%?
Should I be surprised that the GOP's rediscovery of "Compassionate Conservatism?" occured after the 2014 mid term elections?
Or that now the GOP discovers "Socialism?" The party that predicted the most dire consequences if our country bailed out the auto industry? But even worse consequences if we didn't bail out the banks and A.I.G.? Or continue to give tax breaks to the 1%.
You know the Democratic Party is on to something when the GOP does a 180 degree turn around in it's priorities. After seven years of obstructing everything from the "Democrat" party that tried to address these issues. Issues that to the GOP, up until now, were non issues. Or worse. Government policies that take from the "Makers" and "Redistribute" to the 47%.
Perhaps I'm being cynical, but do you suppose this epiphany within the GOP has anything to do with the ability of the next President of the United States to appoint a number of new Supreme Court Justices. The real gate keepers of the 1%?
8
This article is written as though there are 2 tribes and we should all pull for our tribe regardless of the policies they put in place. If Republicans have better policies to address inequality and Hillary is overly worried about not alienating the 1% then I guess I'll have to become a Republican. It's the policies and not the parties that matter.
4
I think you're already a Republican.
5
As they say the devil is in the details and it's also said that you can talk the talk but what about walking the walk?
Republicans are scrambling to address the elephant in the room which is the growing ranks of the impoverished and the weakening middle class. It couldn't be more obvious that for the Right to have any hope of winning in 2016 they would have to go down this road.
If I were Hillary Clinton I would highlight the pandering as empty promises not unlike what Republicans have offered up in the past which emphasize freedom and the power of the individual to harness the engines of capitalism, stirring rhetoric that has no practical meaning.
I would like her to bring back single payer health care as the only realistic solution to the crushing health care problem in America and stress the point that saddling businesses with the responsibility of providing health insurance is a job killer. I would like her to highlight the fact that Republicans favor sticking to the archaic fossil fuel model for energy and transportation and that atmospheric carbon dumping will immerse Jeb Bush's state of Florida under water in the coming decades. I would like her to highlight that Republicans never miss an opportunity to get into a war. I would like her to point out that even though Democrats must employ all the campaign finance tools available to be competitive they are the only party wanting strong limits to spending.
There are enormous differences that aren't going away.
Republicans are scrambling to address the elephant in the room which is the growing ranks of the impoverished and the weakening middle class. It couldn't be more obvious that for the Right to have any hope of winning in 2016 they would have to go down this road.
If I were Hillary Clinton I would highlight the pandering as empty promises not unlike what Republicans have offered up in the past which emphasize freedom and the power of the individual to harness the engines of capitalism, stirring rhetoric that has no practical meaning.
I would like her to bring back single payer health care as the only realistic solution to the crushing health care problem in America and stress the point that saddling businesses with the responsibility of providing health insurance is a job killer. I would like her to highlight the fact that Republicans favor sticking to the archaic fossil fuel model for energy and transportation and that atmospheric carbon dumping will immerse Jeb Bush's state of Florida under water in the coming decades. I would like her to highlight that Republicans never miss an opportunity to get into a war. I would like her to point out that even though Democrats must employ all the campaign finance tools available to be competitive they are the only party wanting strong limits to spending.
There are enormous differences that aren't going away.
4
Maybe the pressure of gop ‘leftism’, plus Sen Warren’s advocacy will push the Democratic candidates farther ‘left’, by our warped standards, so we can reach some parity with other democracies. We still don’t have health care for all while millions abroad have it for generations.
The Dems have let the gop define the terms---what is centrist policy in other countries be termed left wing, or at least liberal here. That means unions, keeping more manufacturing jobs at home, better min wage laws, paid sick leave, job apprenticeships, low college tuition.
While we pull the rug out from average earners, our more unequal wealth distribution is just defined as the inevitable result of capitalism (i.e. 'freedom), and/or of tech advance and globalization. The gop rw has engineered our transfer of wealth up to the few, and dragged the Dems with them.
The most important blame goes to our privately funded election campaign system, which is different from most democracies where they use public funds, free media time, and strict limits on private donations. Thus candidates are freed up to try to represent various economic levels. The rich don’t direct their lawmaking to the extent done here.
Edsell leaves out campaign financing. There’s little in the media about various states trying to reform campaign funding and repeal Citizens United. This should be one of the main topics in our daily news, since it affects all the other topics that pundits lament in our downward spiral.
The Dems have let the gop define the terms---what is centrist policy in other countries be termed left wing, or at least liberal here. That means unions, keeping more manufacturing jobs at home, better min wage laws, paid sick leave, job apprenticeships, low college tuition.
While we pull the rug out from average earners, our more unequal wealth distribution is just defined as the inevitable result of capitalism (i.e. 'freedom), and/or of tech advance and globalization. The gop rw has engineered our transfer of wealth up to the few, and dragged the Dems with them.
The most important blame goes to our privately funded election campaign system, which is different from most democracies where they use public funds, free media time, and strict limits on private donations. Thus candidates are freed up to try to represent various economic levels. The rich don’t direct their lawmaking to the extent done here.
Edsell leaves out campaign financing. There’s little in the media about various states trying to reform campaign funding and repeal Citizens United. This should be one of the main topics in our daily news, since it affects all the other topics that pundits lament in our downward spiral.
11
Talk is cheap. I hope Americans don't fall for this.
13
Republicans control Congress. If they're serious about trying out some new policy ideas, propose legislation and let's have some votes ... before November 2016. Otherwise, it's just more bunk designed to mislead voters.
7
Good for them! Democrats know about poor people that's where they go for the past few decades to get votes. Republicans and democrats there is not much different in economic policies. Poor people don't save money because they don't think they can. The first person, Elizabeth Warren, who comes out and says it is time for us to fix the leeches that prey on the lower economic rungs of society will gain a groundswell of support.
2
After 40 years of policies that shift the wealth from the middle class to the 1%, the Republicans now want to kiss and make up. No deal. Actions speak louder than words.
Here's a way to begin:
1. reduce the discrepancy between CEO wages and the average worker from 350-to-1 to 100-to-1;
2. then see that profits made by corporations (including multinationals) are shared on a more equal basis with labor, which does the heavy lifting;
3. then start to follow a progressive tax code where the tax rate for the wealthiest individuals and corporations are once again higher than the tax rate for the average worker who makes $50,000 to $75,000;
4. then eliminate all tax loopholes and bring the foreign profits back to this country for immediate taxation. And if the multinationals don't agree, then raise the tariffs on the goods made by slave labor and then brought back to the US.
At this stage, words without actions have no meaning. Promises by the Republicans aren't acceptable without action to make the necessary changes.
Here's a way to begin:
1. reduce the discrepancy between CEO wages and the average worker from 350-to-1 to 100-to-1;
2. then see that profits made by corporations (including multinationals) are shared on a more equal basis with labor, which does the heavy lifting;
3. then start to follow a progressive tax code where the tax rate for the wealthiest individuals and corporations are once again higher than the tax rate for the average worker who makes $50,000 to $75,000;
4. then eliminate all tax loopholes and bring the foreign profits back to this country for immediate taxation. And if the multinationals don't agree, then raise the tariffs on the goods made by slave labor and then brought back to the US.
At this stage, words without actions have no meaning. Promises by the Republicans aren't acceptable without action to make the necessary changes.
11
Why don't Republicans just admit that they only want to help the rich and stop trying to fool people into believing tbey care about anyone else.
The Republican Party is a business, and getting control of the government is just a "Bain Capital" move to gut the country and leave an empty shell.
They should be proud of their business acumen in the same way Mitt was proud of his exploits.
The Republican Party is a business, and getting control of the government is just a "Bain Capital" move to gut the country and leave an empty shell.
They should be proud of their business acumen in the same way Mitt was proud of his exploits.
8
Because they finally realize they can't win a presidential election unless they stop their shameless pandering to the rich and at least occasionally acknowledge the 99% who their policies are pushing ever downward. This supposed concern for workers and the poor is a sham. But without it they have absolutely no shot at the White House in 2016.
9
I am part of an employee-owned company - a very successful one that rewards employees like the partners they are. Our local congressional representative, Peter Roskam, (Republican) is scheduling a visit to us to present an award. Never has a Democratic political figure even acknowledged that we exist.
Employee-owned companies ought to be part of the Democratic solution to this issue. Collectively, they are a bright example of the Democratic principle of equal opportunity and fair treatment throughout the ranks. But the party is too beholden to organized labor, who seem to oppose this business model. While it empowers employees, which unions should support, it alleviates the need for organized unions as a counterweight to oppressive owners. And that's the part that sticks in their craw. This leaves the door wide open for Republicans to co-opt this issue.
I think the Democratic party is being weighed down by organized labor, who fancy themselves as the ONLY answer to income inequality. Democrats and unions need to acknowledge that employee ownership is a viable option, and should be an ally in this fight for labor fairness.
Employee-owned companies ought to be part of the Democratic solution to this issue. Collectively, they are a bright example of the Democratic principle of equal opportunity and fair treatment throughout the ranks. But the party is too beholden to organized labor, who seem to oppose this business model. While it empowers employees, which unions should support, it alleviates the need for organized unions as a counterweight to oppressive owners. And that's the part that sticks in their craw. This leaves the door wide open for Republicans to co-opt this issue.
I think the Democratic party is being weighed down by organized labor, who fancy themselves as the ONLY answer to income inequality. Democrats and unions need to acknowledge that employee ownership is a viable option, and should be an ally in this fight for labor fairness.
6
I know this was just a small part of the piece, but I wish everyone would stop talking about over-the-counter contraceptives as if it is a great idea with no drawbacks. I currently get my contraceptives with no copay through my insurance (thanks Obamacare). Maybe this proposal wouldn't affect that. However, when allergy medicines went over-the-counter, I found that my doctor would no longer prescribe them to me, and the over-the-counter cost was much higher than my copay had been. Further, because my doctor won't write a prescription, I can't use my flexible spending account funds for the allergy medicine. I can see the exact same thing happening with over-the-counter contraceptives, and that concerns me.
5
The Republicans have a very difficult, probably impossible, task to maintain their coalition if they try to do anything that actually might benefit the great middle of America's economic strata.
The whole program of the Republican party is based on a promise to the upper 20% or so of wealth holders: we will limit, if not destroy, all of the programs of govt. you don't like and which represent a potential threat to your wealth. This promise must hold because, for the wealthy and the mega-rich, aside from death or natural disaster, govt. is the only serious challenge to the power that their money gives them. They are paying the Republican party to man the ramparts around their money. The promise to dismantle govt. is ultimately false, but its pursuit is never ending.
Below that group there is a larger cohort of small business owners and those who have clawed their way into professional level wages who believe they are climbing upward and want to be protected. The rest of the party consists of those, often in small town and rural areas, who feel intimidated, left out or threatened by social and other changes and are drawn to the party of "No!". Turn back the clock is another powerful, but false, promise.
Republicans can't succeed by throwing over the side those who pay their bills, the upper 20%. Once you've been bought, it is very difficult to be un-bought.
Doug Terry
The whole program of the Republican party is based on a promise to the upper 20% or so of wealth holders: we will limit, if not destroy, all of the programs of govt. you don't like and which represent a potential threat to your wealth. This promise must hold because, for the wealthy and the mega-rich, aside from death or natural disaster, govt. is the only serious challenge to the power that their money gives them. They are paying the Republican party to man the ramparts around their money. The promise to dismantle govt. is ultimately false, but its pursuit is never ending.
Below that group there is a larger cohort of small business owners and those who have clawed their way into professional level wages who believe they are climbing upward and want to be protected. The rest of the party consists of those, often in small town and rural areas, who feel intimidated, left out or threatened by social and other changes and are drawn to the party of "No!". Turn back the clock is another powerful, but false, promise.
Republicans can't succeed by throwing over the side those who pay their bills, the upper 20%. Once you've been bought, it is very difficult to be un-bought.
Doug Terry
10
The only thing I would change in your argument is "the upper 20%." My friend, it's the upper 1% or less who pay the bills. Think Koch, Adelson, et. al.
2
I don't have an economic breakdown of those of wealth who support the Republican party. I did have occasion to go to a number of their national conventions years ago as a reporter and the economic groupings they represent became blindingly obvious, even while they put on rather grotesque "diversity" shows on the stages. The 1% get so much attention because they represent such vastly concentrated wealth, but the minor wealthy, those with a net worth under 10 million dollars or so, put in a lot of money, too. The 1 percenters might well be the backbone of the Republican party, but the rest supply muscle, too.
2
Edsall: "Both parties have powerful constituencies that benefit not only from a reduced top rate, but from low capital gains rates, dividend breaks and cuts in the estate tax."
This is the problem: Money talks and politicians listen, giving more attention to the money than what is needed to advance the common/public good.
Is either party up to these tasks set forth in the Constitution's preamble: "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? Doubt it, at least as long as protecting and advancing the wealth of the well-heeled is the dominant consideration, and that has been the dominant consideration of both parties for way too long, unfortunately.
This is the problem: Money talks and politicians listen, giving more attention to the money than what is needed to advance the common/public good.
Is either party up to these tasks set forth in the Constitution's preamble: "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? Doubt it, at least as long as protecting and advancing the wealth of the well-heeled is the dominant consideration, and that has been the dominant consideration of both parties for way too long, unfortunately.
10
Yes, indeed. Democrats may finally be forced to confront the issue of free trade and its affects on both the middle class and climate, in the face of populist pressure from Tea Party conservatives. It is very hard to see a Clinton in that role.
4
Yes, good thinking. I suspect in fact that Hilary is in great pain wondering what to do; her and Bill haven't mentioned the words union, middle class or control climate change for many, many years. Bill of course is the Trade Organization guru and instigator and will not talk about the economic and global climate change disaster those have been; neither will he speak against so called free trade which needs to be controlled. World problems center around changing the key legs of the massive conservative movement: privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector and lower taxes and the matching cuts to public spending. (see Naomi Klein's book "This changes everything" who has stated this.
Hilary is shaking in some corner somewhere wondering what to do. Perhaps she will not run. Many of us hope she does not.
Hilary is shaking in some corner somewhere wondering what to do. Perhaps she will not run. Many of us hope she does not.
1
I think Rubio and Lee just startted with a goal in mind: expand the attractiveness of the Republican brand among lower and middle income people. With the goal set, thery simply crafted policy and marketing language to achieve the goal.
I do give them credit for stating the obvious. The GOP is not on a sustainable path. Eventually voters are going to wake up to the fact that they have been had. Rubio and Lee are at least acknowledging that something needs to change. Obviously a policy that cuts revenue by $2.4 trillion over 10 years is a non-starter. Not everybody can have tax cuts though it would be fun if we could.
I do give them credit for stating the obvious. The GOP is not on a sustainable path. Eventually voters are going to wake up to the fact that they have been had. Rubio and Lee are at least acknowledging that something needs to change. Obviously a policy that cuts revenue by $2.4 trillion over 10 years is a non-starter. Not everybody can have tax cuts though it would be fun if we could.
3
Cobra meets mongoose. Citizens United wins hands down. Republicans/Poor people is an oxymoron and anyone who believes differently is brain dead.
11
Now this is interesting, Republicans going along a continuum. 30 years ago they talked about "welfare queens" who are not held responsible for their choices. Today some are talking about the wealthy who are able to use the system and escape accountability as well. I wish these politicians wear as equally interested by the responsible middle who are more likely to be gored, ie. the recent proposal to penalize hardworking parents which save for their children's college. Somehow the old Obama mantra "you didn't earn that" was being applied to them, in my view. They didn't earn the fruits of their labor that enabled them to help their children, so tax the earnings on their 529 accounts. Evil politicians--monsters.
1
This is nothing more than a shift in rhetoric, not policy. Trim some loaded terms like "job creators" and the like from the speeches and decry the sad state of the middle class, but never, ever propose policies or draft legislation that will make a difference. None of these candidates will ever really break free of the notion that cutting taxes that enable trickle down prosperity is a sham. It's never worked and never happened. But, it's part of the modern Republican party creation mythology and it cannot be let go.
22
Others took it and have kept it, but they won't talk about that. Instead, they say something should be done to let the victims help themselves over time, over a long time, to repair what was done to them.
They say this to distract from keeping the benefits of what they've done, to avoid even considering what they've done.
They say this to distract from keeping the benefits of what they've done, to avoid even considering what they've done.
7
Semantics is semantics. No matter how the Conservatives spin their compassion for the poor, it still is all a façade. The only way to “revive the American dream is to bring a end to the vast income inequality in this country. The GOP along with the Tea Party can’t alienate main billionaire supporters, so their answer is raise taxes on the poor and take away major tax breaks for the middle class. So, how has their message changed? It hasn’t.
10
I will bet I can guess the Republican plan to help the poor:
- Cut medicare, Medicare, Food Stamps etc. to motivate the poor to try harder.
- more tax cuts for the rich to motivate the "job creators" and to increase the flow to an apparently constipated "trickle down" program.
The compassionate cons never run out of new ideas!!
- Cut medicare, Medicare, Food Stamps etc. to motivate the poor to try harder.
- more tax cuts for the rich to motivate the "job creators" and to increase the flow to an apparently constipated "trickle down" program.
The compassionate cons never run out of new ideas!!
15
Perhaps Mr. Edsall would be happier with a democratic party behaving like Tea Partisans refusing to pass any legislation designed to affect American prosperity because it wasn't sponsored by Democrats. Sometimes I wonder whether the bluster surrounding claims to be populist while doing everything possible to protect entrenched interests is merely a favorite ploy of totalitarian regimes or a defining aspect of conservatism. The posturings of Putin on the Ukraine are an examination of previous communist negotiating tactics learned from past tyrants. It appears current Republican statestmen follow suit breaking prodigious amounts of wind with no corresponding actions. The GOP will continue to fool the same people all the time regardless of what they say.
Democrats have been inconvenienced with actually producing legislative actions. Republicans have so far done little more than make noise. How will the GOP pay for all the tax breaks when Grover Norquist won't allow them to collect revenue? The hallmark of conservatism is not to have learned sharing during kindrgarten, how to set up a cool kids clique during pubescence and that math is only useful in counting the size of one's pile of loot as adults. Knowing right from wrong shouldn't be the delineation between political parties, nor should doing something about addressing bad policy promoting disopportunty. But the empirical evidence clearly shows otherwise. Why do Republicans hate America?
Democrats have been inconvenienced with actually producing legislative actions. Republicans have so far done little more than make noise. How will the GOP pay for all the tax breaks when Grover Norquist won't allow them to collect revenue? The hallmark of conservatism is not to have learned sharing during kindrgarten, how to set up a cool kids clique during pubescence and that math is only useful in counting the size of one's pile of loot as adults. Knowing right from wrong shouldn't be the delineation between political parties, nor should doing something about addressing bad policy promoting disopportunty. But the empirical evidence clearly shows otherwise. Why do Republicans hate America?
4
Is it a threat to Democrats if Republicans finally realize that inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed? Maybe. But it could be good for America, because it might mean we will finally be able to do something about it.
4
Could anyone believe that a reformicon president would veto the tax cuts for the rich and cuts to the safety net that would come out of a Republican congress after 2016? Not likely to happen.
The whole reformicon idea is about winning an election not governance, just as compassionate conservatism was.
The whole reformicon idea is about winning an election not governance, just as compassionate conservatism was.
10
Look out America... here come the "compassionate conservatives" again.
19
Are you SURE that Cruz proposes to increase the "child care credit" to $3,500? I thought that was the (profoundly misguided) Obama plan.
I thought that Cruz and other conservative proposed to increase the CHILD credit, which is a lot different, as it does not require a family to spend money on child care.
Perhaps I err...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/w-bradford-wilcox-obamas-middle-class-blind-...
I thought that Cruz and other conservative proposed to increase the CHILD credit, which is a lot different, as it does not require a family to spend money on child care.
Perhaps I err...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/w-bradford-wilcox-obamas-middle-class-blind-...
1
I think most people are smarter than you think. Unless the Republicans can demonstrate they care, most people will see through their new found discovery of compassion.
4
I'm not so sure about the intelligence of the American public. After all, about half of the country voted for GWB... twice in a row!
7
well, not really twice, none. The first time he was handed the office by SCOTUS. The second time, the rigged Diebold election machines were never investigated, costing Ohio, Florida and the country.
2
Funny- I have the same doubts about the intellect of the American people because they voted Obama in twice.
1
This should be a slam dunk for the Dems, but I'm afraid it won't. Too much waffling and "distancing" makes the Dems look inauthentic. Remember which party gave this country Social Security, Dems. The Lily Ledbetter Act was the first piece of legislation Obama signed. Helping the middle-class is your heritage! Don't let Republicans rewrite history (again).
10
Thoughts:
Any voter who actually believes the latest Republican populist rhetoric regarding economic equality and votes Republican will deserve the legislation that would follow.
Reform Conservatism, like Compassionate Conservatism before it, is an oxymoron.
Conservative reformers are the unicorns of politics: players in myths and fables but never seen or heard in real life.
The most recent Republican reformer died 95 years ago.
He is Theodore Roosevelt.
Any voter who actually believes the latest Republican populist rhetoric regarding economic equality and votes Republican will deserve the legislation that would follow.
Reform Conservatism, like Compassionate Conservatism before it, is an oxymoron.
Conservative reformers are the unicorns of politics: players in myths and fables but never seen or heard in real life.
The most recent Republican reformer died 95 years ago.
He is Theodore Roosevelt.
12
This divergent economic rhetoric is of course not morally bad reform as such. It's GOP politically designed to cut-off Democrat's appeal. And it would amount to bumpkis/nothing, given the know-nothing-much GOP Congress with a reducto ad absurdum Presidency. But what it could do is allow Democrats to discuss the continuing stifling American Dream of economic unfairness. The gross talk radio malefactors of nutism might allow that ..."Presidents Reagan/Kennedy and Jack Kemp said blah, blah, blah, so therefore it's not mere socialism parading as needed/decent reform. It is American to re-configure the pertaining laws. Mike and Mark are good guys. And, wink-wink, we realists, don't worry about campaign horse-applery, folks. The White House goes back into the Rosemary's Baby realm, because we will have cut-off the Democrats' testicles."
That Republican politicians and their base have possessed an inability to come up with an original idea or an interest in catching up to the progress seen in other developed countries. Our future seems bleak when those at the reins cannot think for themselves.
3
People have commented on Hillary Clinton's wariness of being tagged as a class warrior for vilifying the wealthy. One way to counter this is for her and others to explain how Karl Rove operates, because he is author of the ruling Republican strategy. Bill Israel's book A Nation Seized explains how Rove operates. Whenever there is a disagreement over a policy, his response is "you're a socialist!!!" Character assassination and the big lie are the keys to his technique of disarming opponents. All this and more has to be explained to the public, so that they can see how it happens. Knowledge is the solution. And Democratic leaders have to help the public know, first and foremost, through a public undressing of Karl Rove and his an-democratic, anti-Democratic political strategies.
5
Rove is guilty of several crimes, lying to investigators about the Plame scandal, using office hours campaigning for GOP, using his personal emails about sensitive policy issues that conveniently disappeared. He has yet to pay any price
3
Rubio's tax proposal is ridiculous. Jumping from a 15% tax rate up to $87,850 to a 35% tax rate for anything over is a tremendous disincentive to try and earn more. You would have to increase your annual income by 31% to $114,885 just to break even with your after tax income at $87,850. So if your boss offers you a 10%, 15% or even 25% raise, a lot of people would likely decline it because their net after tax income would actually go down. Who comes up with this stuff?
2
It applies marginally -- you pay the higher rate only on each dollar over 87,850.
6
I will believe that the Republicans are serious about addressing income inequality when their actions match their words. When they acknowledge that the investment income of the rentier class should be taxed at the same rate as wages and salaries earned with the sweat of one's brow. When they agree to abandon efforts to weaken Dodd-Frank and other related legislation and regulation intended to protect ordinary Americans from the predations of the financial industry and the overleveraging of our economy to benefit a privileged few. When they advocate economic policies which discourage the relentless pursuif of short-term "shareholder value" which has hollowed out our manufacturing base in favor of policies which promote long term invfestment in infrastructure and human capital. Until then it's just empty rhetoric.
6
Conservatives are the party of capital (the 1%), so expecting them to help labor (the 99%) is pretty ridiculous. Oh, they'll throw a bone to the middle class (a higher earned income tax credit) in exchange for cutting tax rates for the 1%.
Let's have a real debate. The top 1% now have 40% of the wealth, versus 25% in the 1960's. They get 20% of the income, vs. 10% from 1950-1980. We have the worst income inequality of any developed country.
So the questions are: 1) Just how much more will we tax the rich, not just income but wealth (e.g., estate tax)? and 2) What will we do to reduce the actual or post-subsidy costs of big-ticket items like a college education, child care, and healthcare?
Democrats/President Obama have actually subsidized healthcare further and provided more insurance coverage, while raising effective tax rates on the 1% for the first time since the 1990s. Republicans fought both measures.
Whichever party better answers these questions deserves political power, and the Democrats have put their policies where their rhetoric is.
Let's have a real debate. The top 1% now have 40% of the wealth, versus 25% in the 1960's. They get 20% of the income, vs. 10% from 1950-1980. We have the worst income inequality of any developed country.
So the questions are: 1) Just how much more will we tax the rich, not just income but wealth (e.g., estate tax)? and 2) What will we do to reduce the actual or post-subsidy costs of big-ticket items like a college education, child care, and healthcare?
Democrats/President Obama have actually subsidized healthcare further and provided more insurance coverage, while raising effective tax rates on the 1% for the first time since the 1990s. Republicans fought both measures.
Whichever party better answers these questions deserves political power, and the Democrats have put their policies where their rhetoric is.
9
People should be judged by their actions rather than their words — "Ye shall know them by their fruits". I was born in FDR's first term. During my lifetime the Republican party opposed Social Security, the Minimum Wage, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. If it had its way it would repeal all of the above and it would probably take a whack at the reforms of the progressive era, even if many of them were backed by Teddy Roosevelt. If the American public believes the faux compassion Edsall cites in this article, it deserves what it will get.
11
dont forget gop opposition to the FDIC, clean air and water acts, and anything that wont put a buck in their owner's pocket
2
Rather than pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans, Democrats need to embrace this new concern for the poor and middle class. Every prominent Democrat, starting with Obama, needs to applaud the Republicans--by name-- for their compassion, and pledge to work with them to implement their pro-poor plans.
This is a win-win strategy for the Democrats. If the Republicans actually follow through, real reform could occur. But if, as is more likely, they're just testing new campaign slogans, they will have to back quickly away. I can see the primary challenges now: "Obama loves Mike Lee's ideas. Vote for (fill-in-the-blank) instead."
This is a win-win strategy for the Democrats. If the Republicans actually follow through, real reform could occur. But if, as is more likely, they're just testing new campaign slogans, they will have to back quickly away. I can see the primary challenges now: "Obama loves Mike Lee's ideas. Vote for (fill-in-the-blank) instead."
5
Obama addressed this with his proposal of higher taxes for the wealthy, and redistribute to middle and those aspiring to be, middle class. If the Republican's stay true to form, they will do the usual three card monte: talk about compassion, while keeping the status quo, or even more obscene: talk compassion sluicing more cash to Thurston and Lovey Howell. If this is the case, and we, take the bait, we deserve what we get.
5
So you think republicans should offer over the counter birth control to "diffuse accusations" of being anti-women? The reason is actually to prevent pregnancy. Your entire piece is political strategy, and that's the type of discourse the American people are sick of. Let's hear some real policy, and let's hear the real reasons for it. Getting elected is not a policy goal.
4
Maybe Abe was wrong. The GOP is doing a pretty good job of fooling all the people all the time.
The electorate put the GOP back into power in 2012, even though it meant continuing political scorched-earth shenanigans and reckless brinkmanship. And again in 2014 the electorate established an even more powerful GOP presence. Obviously it´ll take a full return to debilitating GOP ideology to finally educate voters to the absurdity of what they are doing.
The electorate put the GOP back into power in 2012, even though it meant continuing political scorched-earth shenanigans and reckless brinkmanship. And again in 2014 the electorate established an even more powerful GOP presence. Obviously it´ll take a full return to debilitating GOP ideology to finally educate voters to the absurdity of what they are doing.
7
Thank gerrymandering, which our corrupt Supreme Court finds just dandy, and Citizens United which codifies buying politicians. There were more democratic votes cast than Republican, but because of our corrupt system, the losers won.
3
Senator Mark Lee or Marco Rubio of the Tea-Party for President 2016!! You can count on my vote!
1
I don't think there is anything to be gained by fretting over the impact of the GOP spin on economic unfairness. The GOP cannot redefine it's image successfully without a degree of genuine compassion. Unfortunately for the republic itself, the GOP doesn't have compassion in its corporate genes. The public in general, can be fooled by lies, but often recognizes lack of sincerity. The GOP simply doesn't have the authenticity to make the change. They will present the same old ideas, but package them with meaningless gift tags addressed to the poor.
5
Anyone who thinks the Republicans have really changed their spots is living on another planet. Republicans have become adept with their propaganda machine: making up stories about their concern for the poor, etc., when they really take their marching orders from the Koch brothers and their ilk. Republicans need to fool people into voting for them, and they do it with clever, slick advertising and a large dose of demonizing progressives as "socialists" who will take away our "freedom." But if you look behind the smoke and mirrors, you'll find that everything the Republicans do, not just talk about, is for the one percent and corporate America.
9
Mr. Edsall:
So glad to hear that the poor have been discovered by Republicans. They must have been looking in all the wrong places, until now. It would have been easier for them If they had a moral compass. Have they recently purchased one at Sharper Image?
It is laughable that you put forward the idea that conservatives care about anything but themselves and their wallets. Do you want us to believe
that they have just been awkened from an evil spell? It would make a great Disney movie (animated) and contains as much gravitas as one.
So glad to hear that the poor have been discovered by Republicans. They must have been looking in all the wrong places, until now. It would have been easier for them If they had a moral compass. Have they recently purchased one at Sharper Image?
It is laughable that you put forward the idea that conservatives care about anything but themselves and their wallets. Do you want us to believe
that they have just been awkened from an evil spell? It would make a great Disney movie (animated) and contains as much gravitas as one.
10
What a coincidence !!
There is a Preidential election coming up !!
There is a Preidential election coming up !!
3
I doubt the Dems have to be very scared... sure, the GOP might change its tone and it will fool some of the people. But while it will speak of the goal of helping the middle class, it will stay with generalities. There is no way it put forth an actual policy that could alleviate income or opportunity inequality without angering its core constituency - the plutocrats.
9
The Republicans, with their control of the Senate and House of Representatives, have a year and a half to put forth legislation that really helps the middle class and the poor. Let's see action rather than words.
The truth is that they have two directions they can take for the 2016 election: stick with trickle down economics or disguise their belief in it by pretending to care about 99% of us. I don't trust the so-called reformicons for one second. They are banking on gullible voters.
The truth is that they have two directions they can take for the 2016 election: stick with trickle down economics or disguise their belief in it by pretending to care about 99% of us. I don't trust the so-called reformicons for one second. They are banking on gullible voters.
8
Republicans are now concerned about the poor. That's rich. Farm bills that scrap food stamps but keep industrial farm subsidies in place; hundreds of billions for absurd defence projects while splitting hairs on education budgets; time and time again creating barriers to unions which in most cases are the last defence against wage stagnation for middle and lower income workers. Lip service if you ask me.
Fact is: if you redistribute 1000 dollars to a lower income family, they will spend it (with all of its derivative economic benefits). Give a 1 percenter the same 1000 dollars, he sacks it in a brokerage account which drives shares up and keeps interest rates low but does nothing to drive economic growth. No wonder their is no inflation despite record low interest rates. I would proclaim that we do the OPPOSITE of Reagonomics - raise rates up top, redistribute to down below and watch the economy sail as we free up billions stuck in savings accounts of the rich serving no other purpose than a means of keeping score amongst the rich as to who is "outperforming" whom. Makes me sick.
Fact is: if you redistribute 1000 dollars to a lower income family, they will spend it (with all of its derivative economic benefits). Give a 1 percenter the same 1000 dollars, he sacks it in a brokerage account which drives shares up and keeps interest rates low but does nothing to drive economic growth. No wonder their is no inflation despite record low interest rates. I would proclaim that we do the OPPOSITE of Reagonomics - raise rates up top, redistribute to down below and watch the economy sail as we free up billions stuck in savings accounts of the rich serving no other purpose than a means of keeping score amongst the rich as to who is "outperforming" whom. Makes me sick.
9
Republican rhetoric works because it sells to a large group of Americans who prefer what they perceive to be the security of belief about what will or won't work or what is or isn't happening to accepting other explanations. To overlook basic human psychology in all politics is to set oneself up for failure. Democrats, Progressives, and sincere Independents who ignore the effectiveness of "spinning" a reality do so at their own peril.
.
.
4
Personally, Republican spin mskes me dizzy.
4
Edsall alleges the Reformicons want to restore the "Compassionate-Conservatism" of Dubya's 2000 campaign. But what became apparent is that his conservatism wasn't at all compassionate, but merely stupid. It sound good in the same way that Barry Goldwater's campaign slogans about courage and conscience were simply covers for Republican arrogance. The Democrats may need to be concerned about some potential Republican opponents in 2016 but not Rubio and Bush. And Mike Lee sounds good in Edsall's selective quotes but his Tea Party loyalties can't be erased and his statements read more like pandering, in the Marie Antoinette style---just get the poor and middle class more ovens and then they can bake more cake! The Republicans most need to fear, and Edsall skirts this issue--wisely for his sycophants--are the evangelical, ultra-right Christian voters, especially in the primaries. They want staunch atavistic candidates, preserving status quo even if some Americans are denied equality and hence, the American Dream. When we hear Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore pontificate that "Now we see the federal courts moving to take institutions ordained of God, and recognized by the people for hundreds of years before this country came into being," while forgetting to acknowledge that slavery was also ordained of God that separation of church and state is essential and attacks on labor unions whose growth gave us the middle class. Sins of omission, Mr. Edsall?
7
The Demos by passively watching as income disparity worsened and not at least proposing some kind of major redistributive tax reform or other program to address it, are now seeing their territory poached by the right. With something like this the already existing tilt of the erstwhile Demo-voting white working class toward Republicanville could amount to a landslide. Proposing a tax reduction for all those with incomes with below 87K and tax increase for the rest could have a very populist almost demagogic appeal, and could even bring a massive number of non voters out of the woodwork. Reading the "small print" like loss of the mortgage deduction, drastic deregulation, further attacks on public workers, continued anti-union efforts not to mention the budget shortfall (does anyone remember the dreaded Deficit?) will be left to the Demos to "explain" which will only be seen as "partisan rhetoric." I hope the Demos take this "reformcon" thing seriously.
3
Warren Buffet said something to like "sure there's class warfare and my class is winning." This can be seen in the Hillary quote presented here "How can we talk about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy." Since when has paying taxes and living wages equated to vilification? Answer: since the recent victories by the wealthy in the class wars. It's uphill folks.
11
Based on past performance (GOP dominance in 2000 - 2008), I don't see any possibility of change in the Republican party beyond attempting to alter appearances in order to project an image of compassion to improve electability. They want to win and will jump through hoops to do it. Once in place, they will deliver a repeat performance of what they did after the election of 2000; that is remind the rest of us that they are in charge and the nation should get used to it. They exhibit an appalling lack in thoroughness in thinking things through. As soon as they reach a favorable conclusion they stop thinking and refuse to consider the consequences of their actions or the possibility that they may be wrong.
8
Case in point is the ratio of debt to GDP, which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes.
10
The current apparent recognization of the plight of the poor and middle class by the Republicans should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Republicans have been great at talking points that cover their nefarious actions. They can come out in favor of enviromental issues only to defund the government programs that are in charge if implementing the rules. They more recently have put up a smokescreen "healthcare reform proposals" so as to sooth the fears of the voters concerning the destruction of the benefits brought by Obamacare knowing full well that their proposal does nothing and millions of people will be harmed by their action. Until I see an actual meaningful action from them that recognizes and states that the "trickle down economic theory" of Regan has failed miserably for the majority of hard working Americans, I will never believe anything they say!! Remember, actions speak ouder than words even to the dull and ignorant!!
14
Republicans may have finally discovered the poor, but Democrats continue to just ignore them. Mr. Edsall, denial is more than a river in Egypt. And Hillary Clinton could be the poster child for the intellectual bankruptcy in her party. She's been busy beating her little tin drum to curry favor with hawks in both parties as she did during her shameless interview in The Atlantic with Jeffrey Goldberg even after she had made a really lame and weak apology voting for the Iraq War. So one can reasonably assume she still supports the corporate welfare program at the DoD for companies listed on the Fortune 500 and could care less about Americans struggling economically while they also get struck with the bill for that war - trillions of dollars of debt and interest on that debt. Sure, I understand. Bill and she were almost broke when they left the White House. They probably had to nearly apply for food stamps.
5
Ask the millions of poor who now have health insurance thanks to the Dems whether they feel they've been ignored...
4
Ask them about their doubling of deductibles, out of pocket expenses and shrinking pool of networks to join. Single payer was the way to go, or Medicare for all. There is nothing affordable in the ACA
1
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio can say anything they want on the campaign trail. Even if they do make it to the White House, they still have a little problem called the Republican Congress, which at least at present seems to think the country's biggest priorities should be taking health insurance away from 10 million people who couldn't afford it before and authorizing a pipeline that is projected to support a few dozen permanent jobs. And who, if they have a Republican president to work with after 2016, will be falling all over themselves to ban abortion, gut the EPA, roll back banking regulations, eliminate estate taxes, and pursue every other pet conservative project they couldn't while that Kenyan socialist Barack Obama was in office. They're going to have very little patience for dubious projects like strengthening the middle class.
15
Republicans would not be able to make economic appeals if the 2009-2010 Democratic Congress had not shown what an utter fraud the Democratic Party is: handing hundreds of $billions out the back door of the US Treasury while stabbing the average worker in the back with falling incomes and massive unemployment. I despise the Republican leadership --but at least they are honest enemies who attack you from the front. Whereas Democratic politicans claim to be on your side just so that they can stab you in the back at the opportune moment for their Rich masters.
19
Don, not doubting your word but a couple of questions please:
Re.
1. the "$billions out the back door" – what is that specifically and to whom?
2. "stabbing the average worker in the back with falling incomes" How,
what measures did this? I know Dems favor increasing Minimum wages.
What else are you referring to?
3. "massive unemployment." I know Dems (Obama) wanted more
stimulus, Amer. Jobs Act etc. To what do you refer? What did Dems
do to cause massive unemployment
Replies anyone?
Re.
1. the "$billions out the back door" – what is that specifically and to whom?
2. "stabbing the average worker in the back with falling incomes" How,
what measures did this? I know Dems favor increasing Minimum wages.
What else are you referring to?
3. "massive unemployment." I know Dems (Obama) wanted more
stimulus, Amer. Jobs Act etc. To what do you refer? What did Dems
do to cause massive unemployment
Replies anyone?
2
This article gives the opinions of Republican political candidates, but who cares what they say? They don't and won't run the country - the plutocratic, militaristic oligarchy does. What THEY say goes. Edsall should tell us what the Koch brothers and other oligarchs think. The Republican candidates are just a front to give the oligarchs more power. They'll say anything to get votes. GW Bush pushed "compassionate conservatism" to get elected and then started two trillion tax dollar wars (one completely unnecessary) while giving war-time tax breaks to the rich.
9
The gullible electorate falling for this kind of nonsense again! Republicans have and will be in bed with the one percent in the foreseeable future.
5
It all has to do with connotation and revision of definition. The Brown Shirts have discovered that Americans think well of certain words and catch phrases. So they (R's) have kidnapped those words and phrases, and manipulated them to hide their real meaning from the voting public. The Brown Shirts know the code, but the public does not.
4
I really do not want to critique the messenger here. Articles like this inform the general Public who need a lot of information to understand and be able to vote smartly for the candidate of their choice. The voting public is not only decreasing but it is becoming less knowledgeable. We need to improve the number and the knowledge of the voter, and good press can do just that. Do you want the voters to get all their information from Murdoch & Ailes, and the talking heads who lie for them?
3
It's remarkable how this "discovery" was made just as an election cycle is starting up.
11
Clearly it is all misleading rhetoric, especially obvious when you read their simplistic ideas on fiscal (tax) policy. If their intent is sincere and not just deliberate misdirection, then they are economic illiterates, take your pick.
7
When will a Democrat stand up in a public setting and ask repeatedly of each of these Reformicons: "Are you saying that the Republican policy of Trickle Down economics that has been promoted since Ronald Reagan has not worked?"
9
The GOP has has a deplorable value deficit. What else can be expected with the following talking faces overwhelming the media with vitriol, hatred, disgust, and deliberate mis-information -- Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Armey, David Keene, Jim DeMint, Ralph Reed, Limbaugh, conservative talk-radio and TV-show hosts, Hannity and O'Reilly evening diatribes, Palin, Paul, Rubio, Coulter, Bachmann, Cruz, Rand, Norquist, Bopp, and the great dark prince Newt Gingrich.
Collectively these people have built a conservative alternate universe that their acolytes live within. It has been done with persistence, intent, drive and precision. It is a dark force.
They operate by appealing to reactionary gut emotions, gullibleness, and abject ignorance, repeatedly stoking the embers of simmering discontent. It's a complex enterprise that is now a propaganda effort greater than what happened in Germany between 1933 and 1945. It began with Nixon.
It's the only way the GOP knows how to operate. Its leaders ignore the pre-dominant political center and as a deliberate tactic they seek to create a divisiveness in the nation and drive the GOP propaganda machine to do this. .
Collectively these people have built a conservative alternate universe that their acolytes live within. It has been done with persistence, intent, drive and precision. It is a dark force.
They operate by appealing to reactionary gut emotions, gullibleness, and abject ignorance, repeatedly stoking the embers of simmering discontent. It's a complex enterprise that is now a propaganda effort greater than what happened in Germany between 1933 and 1945. It began with Nixon.
It's the only way the GOP knows how to operate. Its leaders ignore the pre-dominant political center and as a deliberate tactic they seek to create a divisiveness in the nation and drive the GOP propaganda machine to do this. .
13
But the electorate keeps voting GOP against their own benefit. Alas, this is how democracy works in america where the people presumably know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Afterall the electorate put the GOP back into power in 2012, even though it meant continuing political scorched-earth shenanigans and reckless brinkmanship. And incredibly they did it again in the 2014 mid-terms. Maybe it´ll take a full return to debilitating GOP ideology to educate voters with this simple lesson.
8
There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon: the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which together with Bush v. Gore pulled back the curtain on the Supreme Court and revealed once and for all the political beast that the Supreme Court has become.
4
Let's not forget gerrymandering, which they think is perfectly legal
2
Democrats are not offering any solutions, either. Paying more benefits to low-income people does not necessarily translate to a desire to get ahead. Too many people on the low end are happy to just get by with government handouts.
14
You obviously have no idea what life is like "on the low end." You think they are happy? Get a life! And remember, the EITC refund to the low end is promptly spent, unlike the income of the One Percent at the top -- or even those of us who can scrape some savings together.
3
And you know this from personal experience, right?
3
M. Can you back that up? that too many people on the low end are happy to just get by? the facts that I'm aware of indicate that many people receiving government "handout" are children, the elderly, and people that work full time but are still living in poverty.
6
The ball is in the Democrats' court. They should be picking up on the fresh rhetoric and tentative proposals of the Republican ambitious and press for legislation. It is put up or shut up time. Why let their airy fantasies persist, let's get a little reality going. If they want to burnish their new populist cred, let see some action.
46
The rhetoric is not fresh and the legislation is there and has been dismissed for the last 6 years. The ball is in the Republicans court. Let's see if they care this time around about our Vets, healthcare and the middle-class.
1
Any time in the past when those of us to-the-left-of-center mentioned "income inequality," wealthy conservatives and their Republican shills shouted back at us: "Class Warfare!"
Now, the Republicans have nothing, and I mean NOTHING, on which to mount a presidential campaign in 2016. The “Obama recovery,” from which they all profited, came at an awful price for working people, and wealthy conservatives truly believe this is in fact the natural order of the world. Why shouldn’t they have all the wealth? But, with the looming presidential election, they can no longer be so honest and open about their princely prerogatives. Instead, they have begun to kiss up the "middle class" in hopes of gaining votes. They are gross in their insincerity.
However, as we get closer to election time, they will no doubt be able to convince large numbers of US citizens that they really are on our side. Should they succeed, they will happily continue to reap all the financial rewards. The rest of us will receive a bill.
Now, the Republicans have nothing, and I mean NOTHING, on which to mount a presidential campaign in 2016. The “Obama recovery,” from which they all profited, came at an awful price for working people, and wealthy conservatives truly believe this is in fact the natural order of the world. Why shouldn’t they have all the wealth? But, with the looming presidential election, they can no longer be so honest and open about their princely prerogatives. Instead, they have begun to kiss up the "middle class" in hopes of gaining votes. They are gross in their insincerity.
However, as we get closer to election time, they will no doubt be able to convince large numbers of US citizens that they really are on our side. Should they succeed, they will happily continue to reap all the financial rewards. The rest of us will receive a bill.
5
Can we expect the Republican Party to declare an end to their long sought after goal of, " The End Of Social Security " ? Now that would be a radical change. What about affordable health care ? Do Republicans still want to put millions back without any access to health insurance they can afford ? Dare I say SURRENDER to Obamacare ?
I think after that we might 'Buy' the idea that there are some who don't think Mitt Romney's 47% remark characterized Republicans in the right light to try and elect the third Bush.
I know that I'M Not Convinced. It's all just another Republican election year Lie to win at any cost.
Same-Old, Same-Old !
I think after that we might 'Buy' the idea that there are some who don't think Mitt Romney's 47% remark characterized Republicans in the right light to try and elect the third Bush.
I know that I'M Not Convinced. It's all just another Republican election year Lie to win at any cost.
Same-Old, Same-Old !
4
It's a funny (or maybe no-so-funny) headline: the Republican Discovery of the Poor.
But it is inaccurate. George W. Bush discovered poverty after Katrina. This was after he, Michael Chertoff (Director of Homeland Security), and Good ol' Brownie (FEMA Director, doing a heckuva job) learned that the affected persons could not simply hop their SUV and drive to a hotel.
Bush vowed to eradicate poverty. Then, probably after learning it is a difficult thing to do, he forgot about it. So did everybody else. They'll forget about it this time, too.
But it is inaccurate. George W. Bush discovered poverty after Katrina. This was after he, Michael Chertoff (Director of Homeland Security), and Good ol' Brownie (FEMA Director, doing a heckuva job) learned that the affected persons could not simply hop their SUV and drive to a hotel.
Bush vowed to eradicate poverty. Then, probably after learning it is a difficult thing to do, he forgot about it. So did everybody else. They'll forget about it this time, too.
7
Once again Edsall nails it. Democrats promised working Americans for the last 30 years a “steak and baked potato dinner” and then after the election delivered broccoli and cheese. When working Americans complained, DC types responded with “Shut up, the Republicans were offering bread and water.” Perhaps, Republicans are getting smarter and will come up with at least hot dogs and beans.
2
These crooks will say anything to get elected. Its all about packaging. Their real agenda always prevails.
6
Anything. Fool me once, won't get fooled again.
3
This Utah Democrat read the comments of Republican Mike Lee twice, and I still got political whip-lash.
6
Anyone who believes this nonsense has to be out of his mind. Uh oh, this is America.
4
If Democrats want to see just how sincere these newly 'enlightened' Republicans are, how about approaching them on some issues that have really been clobbering American workers and hollowing out our economy? Such as outsourcing (partially, and incredibly, subsidised by our own taxpayers), lack of guaranteed vacation and sick leave, and the need for serious privacy protections? There's only one little problem here - THEIR records are, to put it kindly, a bit short of stellar in these matters. Which brings us to the real T. rex in the room ('Elephants' are already overused as a metaphor here; besides, they're much nicer creatures, and they DO have a key role in today's ecology): Just who the REAL masters of our 'leaders' are, and who they've really been obeying. For further information, look it up under 'Citizens United' in the Twilight Zone.
3
With apologies to Winston Churchill: "You can always count on [Republicans] to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
What hypocrisy! The same party who's policies put us in this mess, and has obstinately clung to a cynical agenda that has purposely tried to thwart the current administration's efforts to lift us out of this hole, now wants us to trust them to get us out?
I'll take a pass, thanks.
What hypocrisy! The same party who's policies put us in this mess, and has obstinately clung to a cynical agenda that has purposely tried to thwart the current administration's efforts to lift us out of this hole, now wants us to trust them to get us out?
I'll take a pass, thanks.
9
Senator Lee's plan should go over very well in Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn where 10 or 12 children households are not that unusual. Who is going to pay for his generosity with other people's money? The country is going to have a very difficult time just keeping its existing commitments to the growing number of Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Young people with good job skills and no plans to breed a dozen children should give serious consideration to moving abroad. The financial outlook for the US in the next few decades is not very good.
Young people with good job skills and no plans to breed a dozen children should give serious consideration to moving abroad. The financial outlook for the US in the next few decades is not very good.
3
This incessant GOP harping on spending for so-called "entitlements" is frankly misguided. There is indeed an entitlement problem, but its not the one the GOP radicals love to talk about. The real entitlement problem is that of our entitled rich, who have been rigging the economy, and particularly the tax laws, to their advantage for more than thirty years. Here are a few suggestions for the two self-styled musketeers of the GOP, Boehmer and McConnell bent on wrecking what's left of our shredded safety net. Want to " fix" Social Security? Forget about benefit cuts, just eliminate the caps. Problem solved. Budget deficits? Return to the Clinton rates which produced surpluses, and eliminate outrages like the "carried interest" tax preference that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay taxes at rates half that of the middle class, and oil companies to pay nothing. And why exactly should dividends, or capital gains income which require no work have preferred tax treatment over wages and salaries? How about going back to policies that reward work, not Wall Street casino speculators?
3
The GOP now controls both Houses of Congress. There is nothing to prevent them from acting now to reform their approaches to restoring greater opportunity to all. If they don't do something now why should anyone believe they will pivot in 2016?
128
populist is as populist does. What is their plan? It was republicans who started that geyser gushing money aimed at the tip top of wealthy Americans, all the while making noises about how everyone would do better etc. It was morning in America, a rising tide lifts all boats no matter how pathetic etc etc etc. But now the middle class is feeling a bit like lobsters in a pot-- by now it's gotten much too hot to live comfortably. Someone needs to turn down the heat, and all these nice noises won't do a thing.
35
Sort of like Columbus "discovering" the New World and the native-Americans. I wonder if this one will turn out any better?
26
Will the electorate be fooled again? Probably. Listen people, don't you know they'll say anything to get elected? But watch what they do when they get into office. Saint Ronald taught us that you don't have to fool all of the people all of the time, you just have to fool an active minority all of the time. And, of course, you need a small core of fabulously wealthy elites, worried enough that their well-deserved privileges may be at risk, to fund the whole enterprise.
4
The only syllable in the following word that is real is the last: reformicons.
Pay attention, kids, this will be on the test!
Pay attention, kids, this will be on the test!
3
"Fantasy economic plans based on ideological aspiration and Reagan-era nostalgia may be fun to talk about. But Republicans like to consider themselves hard-nosed realists who understand life is about trade-offs. They need to check their math."
truth, finally. but don't stop with "fantasy economic plans"...... take out the word "economic" and insert "foreign policy"( aka war); or perhaps climate change or healthcare?
truth, finally. but don't stop with "fantasy economic plans"...... take out the word "economic" and insert "foreign policy"( aka war); or perhaps climate change or healthcare?
4
Soon after the Republicans "discover the poor" they will push to privatize social "services" to the poor. Who better to control the outcome and oversee the distribution of monies than a privately operated scheme. Yes, there is money to be made, just get a GOP president elected.
2
Ha! Seems the GOP has finally noticed the 47%. I knew Mitt Romney's foresight, wisdom, and compassion would bear fruit someday. All you naysayers out there, shame on you. OK now that I've gotten the satire and cynicism off my chest, let me just say that this newfound 'concern' the GOP is feigning regarding inequality is the biggest, most insulting blast of partisan political hot air they have produced since Saint Reagan floated thru the annals of the White House. What a steaming pile of political chutzpah.
1
The Republicans understand that their base has very short memories and little grasp of the issues. They also understand that if you repeat a lie over and over again, it becomes true- to some gullible people at least.
The GOP under Rove has taken over this income inequality issue just for the elections- and of course, will immediately forget they ever mentioned it the day after the election whether they win or loose. They're so ridiculous- but of course, they're successful with their base who continue their willful ignorance of the facts and history- the base who wants the government to stay out of Medicare while vilifying the ACA- which about sums up their level of awareness of how anything works in this world.
The GOP under Rove has taken over this income inequality issue just for the elections- and of course, will immediately forget they ever mentioned it the day after the election whether they win or loose. They're so ridiculous- but of course, they're successful with their base who continue their willful ignorance of the facts and history- the base who wants the government to stay out of Medicare while vilifying the ACA- which about sums up their level of awareness of how anything works in this world.
3
The dissent within the republican party, regarding the need to accommodate their rigid ideology to reality -and not the other way around- seems a step in the right direction. Now that Congress is dominated by the G.O.P., all this talk about reform (for the better) awaits the truth serum, what are they going to do, how are they going to walk the talk. We must see to believe!
1
"How do you speak for the economically insecure without offending the very secure?"
I say offend the very secure. Those of us who work hard for a living are ready for someone to DEFEND us. I could care less if the moneyed interests are offended, and I want a presidential candidate that feels the seems way!
I say offend the very secure. Those of us who work hard for a living are ready for someone to DEFEND us. I could care less if the moneyed interests are offended, and I want a presidential candidate that feels the seems way!
2
But as usual, it's all about Republican "messenging". It remains to be seen if they will go so far as to enact any actual "reform".
1
It's tragic that this discussion is all about what these politicians SAY, not what they would DO. It's astonishing that they're wondering out loud how they should lie to us.
1
I hope no voters are foolish enough to fall for these bogus promises. Even if thes politicans were being truthul about the issue [which i seriously doubt] their wealthy donors would never allow them to implement any of it.
3
When electioneering begins, it seems all the parties want to be seen as the ones who hand out the benefits (remember how Hamas insisted on handing out U.N. aid in Gaza? Same thing here). The Republican obstructionism of the last 6 years was aimed at preventing the vote-gaining spectacle of Democratic wealth re-distribution. Now, they are bringing in the neo-cons to provide justification for handing out goodies to the people who must be courted if they are to complete the master plan--control both houses of Congress, control the Executive, and control the judicial. Too bad--the constitutional framers tried so hard.
I think the real test for Republicans-- and Democrats have their own though not identical test-- is whether the reformicons in Congress, particularly Lee and Rubio, are wiling to begin advancing their principle and policies now, showing courage by taking on a legislature as frozen as the Great Lakes at this time of year. Otherwise it's seen for what it is-- a political feint intended to advance the goal of securing the White House. Kudos to those in power who understand the matter of income inequality and its consequences as fundamentally a human problem, not a political or economic one. Yet how many politicians in either party are we convinced really care for a single person outside their family and friends? And here I'm not talking about the appearance of care for politically expedient purposes. This is not so much an indictment of politicians as it is of us who keep electing them as if there is no alternative. While there may not be now a fresh crop of truly humanitarian politicians as an alternative-- after all they don't appear just because we want them to-- our own individual commitment to transforming our lives into more compassionate ones assiduously on a day-to-day basis within our family, communities, work places and with our friends will build the hope and then steadily ascending confidence in motivating the same spirit in those we had the unexpected joy to embrace. This foundation of indefatigable compassion is the foundation and the source of our future leaders.
Based on what is happening in Wisconsin, it is highly likely that this strategy will succeed for the Republicans. This "opportunity for all argument" will not be just about changing the tax code to something "fairer", this will be used to dismantle many safety net programs and many regulatory programs put in place during the progressive era. This can be seen in the union busting (limited wage increases to cost of living, no bargaining on benefits, yearly re-certification elections), mining regulations (t aconite is good for the environment if it creates jobs), child labor law changes (high school students working 40 hours is good for the economy), and a host of proposed changes in the latest Walker budget ( weakening of the Department of Natural Resources, severe cuts to the U. Wisconsin budget, declaring the mission of the university is work for training and not seeking the truth). The end result of all these changes has not been a significant difference in job or wage increases compared to nearby states (some would argue Wisconsin is doing worse), but great support from working class individuals for Gov. Walker.
4
The dominant view inside the right-wing bubble is that a large and ever-growing proportion of americans (Ryan asserts 60%) won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy where:
- rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs;
- rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.
Accordingly, the GOP sees it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich, slash support programs for the needy and unfortunate while making everyone else pay more.
- rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs;
- rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.
Accordingly, the GOP sees it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich, slash support programs for the needy and unfortunate while making everyone else pay more.
10
Your contention is that the reactionary mess that is today's GOP can suddenly throw up a little window dressing and confuse the voters sufficiently to sneak into the White House in 2016. That is unlikely for several reasons. One is the deeply unrealistic GOP primary electorate. Another is that dealing with inequality will require some hardnosed policy-making that is squarely at odds with the conservative story book. At this point, Republicans have shown themselves completely unable to come to terms with fundamental problems such as healthcare. Now you're going to trust them with the tax code? It may be making some "leftist" noises, but the GOP's continued irresponsibility and lack of pragmatism in so many areas of our national life hardly inspires much confidence.
10
Will it work? You bet!
Every major crash or panic since the civil war has come under a GOP regime. Americans still vote for GOP candidates to "help the economy". Stupidity on the hoof.
The american voter is not well informed and those in the rank and file section inside the GOP bubble are convinced that obama caused a recession that began in december of 2007, just as they are certain it was obama who dropped the ball after katrina in 2005
Good luck to us all
Every major crash or panic since the civil war has come under a GOP regime. Americans still vote for GOP candidates to "help the economy". Stupidity on the hoof.
The american voter is not well informed and those in the rank and file section inside the GOP bubble are convinced that obama caused a recession that began in december of 2007, just as they are certain it was obama who dropped the ball after katrina in 2005
Good luck to us all
2
I want to praise Sen. Rubio's federal income tax proposal. His proposal to decrease the marginal tax rate for the one percent to 35 percent and increase the marginal tax rate on the middle class (individuals earning 85 thousand or more) from 25 percent to 35 percent will bring more fairness to our tyrannical tax system which has been burdening the one percent with crippling tax rates, while giving a free ride to the middle class. The middle class has been coddled for much too long. It is time for them to pay there fair share. His proposal will also increase taxes on the undeserving poor who up till now pay only 10 percent of their $10,000 yearly income toward taxes. Increasing their taxes, fifty percent, to 15 percent will discourage their continued slothfulness and motivate them to seek more profitable work.
2
The middle class will just have to have more children to qualify for those child tax credits and get themselves removed from the income tax rolls. Be fruitful and multiply. One wonders whether Senator Lee has done the math.
It seems the ideal strategy. Coopt Democratic populist rhetoric in public, making extravagant promises of saving the middle class and fixing the unsustainable income inequality. Simultaneously, the reassure donors that merely the latest ploy to hoodwink voters, and that their commitment to giving wealthy donors the best return on investment remains unwavering.
Then, when they control all branches of federal government, they'll announce the details of their plan to save the middle class and reduce income inequality: Repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, eliminate job-killing regulation, eliminate government handouts that create dependency, and balance the budget by shrinking government to something that can be drowned in the bathtub. Wealth and prosperity will trickle down at first to raise the middle class, and then become a torrent that washes away income inequality.
Then, when they control all branches of federal government, they'll announce the details of their plan to save the middle class and reduce income inequality: Repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, eliminate job-killing regulation, eliminate government handouts that create dependency, and balance the budget by shrinking government to something that can be drowned in the bathtub. Wealth and prosperity will trickle down at first to raise the middle class, and then become a torrent that washes away income inequality.
3
The GOP is beginning to see the writing on the wall that they can't win without making up to their moocher opinion of the poor. It will remain just political rhetoric designed to get votes, until they have any deeds or actions they can point too. Ironically, Obama has been the president with most the peoples best interest in mind, but because the GOP and FOX news has got all their bigoted minions to think he's not, these folks will have to wait, until their children read about all his accomplishments for the people.
7
What a joke the Republicans have become! They have said "NO" for 6 years to everything that President Obama has proposed that would have helped to even out the inequality among Americans. And now the media has also become the joke as they hop on the rhetoric band wagon by allowing the Republicans to claim to care about the middle class when it was the Republicans who denied the middle class any opportunities to improve their lives. Disgusting! The media should also be suspended for 6 months without pay for their incompetence in reporting the whole truth.
15
A typical response from the left.
They scream to the heavens about the right not getting the plight of the middle class, the lower class, and, when they start to see what's needed to be done for us, the left cries about it, also.
The party of no and the party of division is all the left has.
They scream to the heavens about the right not getting the plight of the middle class, the lower class, and, when they start to see what's needed to be done for us, the left cries about it, also.
The party of no and the party of division is all the left has.
2
Republican candidates better check with the money men before they go talking about 35% tax rates for the 1%. The guys with the paychecks always win, so Bush and the others can say anything they want, but when the guys with the checkbooks start telling them to tone it down, you better believe they will. No matter what, Republicans are determined to protect the rich. I wouldn't believe any baloney they spout about helping out the middle class. It just isn't true, no matter what candidate says it.
10
Democrats should indeed be wary. Republicans definitely have a knack for writing a message and getting the message out - while Democrats dither.
10
Democrats have a message....it changes each time they start to see their rhetoric means nothing.
1
In other news, the Iranian leaders expressed their concern about the impact of too much religious involvement in Iranian society. Also, Vladimir Putin warned about the unstable effect of the "cult of the leader" in Russia.
Republicans worried about the distribution economic gains in the US? Seriously? Sending the gains of the US economy to the .01% has been THE Republican economic policy for 40 years. It hasn't changed, and until I see the Republican controlled Senate and House propose something to share our economy's gains, I don't believe it.
Maybe they can scam some gullible journalists with titles like "Reformicons" or "Young Guns" (all over age 45), but the rest of us know that this is as big of a scam as W. Bush's unleashing of polluters called the "Clear Skies Act".
Republicans worried about the distribution economic gains in the US? Seriously? Sending the gains of the US economy to the .01% has been THE Republican economic policy for 40 years. It hasn't changed, and until I see the Republican controlled Senate and House propose something to share our economy's gains, I don't believe it.
Maybe they can scam some gullible journalists with titles like "Reformicons" or "Young Guns" (all over age 45), but the rest of us know that this is as big of a scam as W. Bush's unleashing of polluters called the "Clear Skies Act".
18
The sons of the 1% need more opportunity to serve in the military.
31
Completely agree. The ability to serve with and get to know how the rest of the country lives and thinks would be a blessing. I never thought that I would say, "reinstate the draft - NOW". It is the only way I can think to have our citizens gets some skin in the game. The all volunteer / professional army has been a success at it's job unfortunately it has become an all too easy tool to use by our politicians both democratic and republican. In fact the tool is so good we use it everyday.
2
What is winning elections for the Constitution-lovers is that the Right is the only voice for the worker any more.
When authoritarian central-government liberals sign up with all the ersatz fringe groups like the 2% for gay this and the frienge for environmental that, they leave the worker behind because serving one negates your representing the other.
All the Right has to do is free up the workplace enough so that employers will risk money out of the bank to hire people and the newly empowered workers will vote GOP every time. And NO Democrat has an answer to that.
When authoritarian central-government liberals sign up with all the ersatz fringe groups like the 2% for gay this and the frienge for environmental that, they leave the worker behind because serving one negates your representing the other.
All the Right has to do is free up the workplace enough so that employers will risk money out of the bank to hire people and the newly empowered workers will vote GOP every time. And NO Democrat has an answer to that.
2
Nothing new here; they will lie, plain and simple. They have done it before and it worked so they are doing it again. The GOP, "We are the good guys," Of course the press will never ask/demand that they point to something good they have done. The press will just play stenographer for Mcconnell and the rest, recording each word of falsity unchallenged.
With people like Edsall recklessly blurring the facts and the American voter being recklessly blurry anything could happen. Actually will happen because the press has assisted the right in moving the definitions of the left and right to the point where a right of center Clinton and Obama have somehow become the left. I'de say the press is the number one perpetrator in moving the goalpost and pretty much all meaningful markers. So that now we have the center and the dystopian insane zombie right hell bent on destroying us in the name of their assorted brands of mental illness. Mainly an inability in sober perception and judgement.
Did not Mitt Romney make some kind noises re the income gap just the other day until he realized the Koch brothers were going to oppose him. Point being Mitt will never trade places with the middle class when it comes to tax reform or anything else, so get real Edsall.
So now we have to stomach the press in all its faded glory presenting stenography, false equivalency, fake balance, and deliberate under reporting for the next almost two years, retch.
With people like Edsall recklessly blurring the facts and the American voter being recklessly blurry anything could happen. Actually will happen because the press has assisted the right in moving the definitions of the left and right to the point where a right of center Clinton and Obama have somehow become the left. I'de say the press is the number one perpetrator in moving the goalpost and pretty much all meaningful markers. So that now we have the center and the dystopian insane zombie right hell bent on destroying us in the name of their assorted brands of mental illness. Mainly an inability in sober perception and judgement.
Did not Mitt Romney make some kind noises re the income gap just the other day until he realized the Koch brothers were going to oppose him. Point being Mitt will never trade places with the middle class when it comes to tax reform or anything else, so get real Edsall.
So now we have to stomach the press in all its faded glory presenting stenography, false equivalency, fake balance, and deliberate under reporting for the next almost two years, retch.
7
It is clear from the comments that talking about the poor, but not really doing anything about the poor, is the accepted political strategy. After all it has been working for the Left for decades.
Why wouldn't the Right adopt this strategy? There's no real downside...
Why wouldn't the Right adopt this strategy? There's no real downside...
2
Unless you count food stamps, head start, medicaid, free lunch, medicare, and guaranteed access to healthcare as nothing. Which apparently the GOP doesn't as it's always trying to slash away at them.
1
A pathetic, cynical ploy whose only chance of success is a benighted, gullible electorate. Uh oh.
5
If any supposed "liberals" fall for this line of nonsense from the Republicans, more fool them. They have a crystal clear agenda, enacted over decades, of helping the rich, gutting the middle class, and punishing the poor. It doesn't matter what they say. It's what they do.
Candidate GWB talked about being a "compassionate conservative" and not getting involved in foreign adventures -- look how that worked out.
We know the GOP base don't do a lot thinking. If liberals fall for this garbage, it will show that the Democratic base doesn't either.
And now we have to face the horrors of the 2016 campaign without Jon Stewart. How will we survive it?
Candidate GWB talked about being a "compassionate conservative" and not getting involved in foreign adventures -- look how that worked out.
We know the GOP base don't do a lot thinking. If liberals fall for this garbage, it will show that the Democratic base doesn't either.
And now we have to face the horrors of the 2016 campaign without Jon Stewart. How will we survive it?
6
"The obligation to counter the Republicans falls on Hillary Clinton." Some of the obligation to our democracy's success falls on our vaunted 4th estate.
Mr. Edsall posits that republicans are going to take another crack at changing their messaging to appeal more to populism, middle class style. Well republicans have been lying out of both sides of their faces for 35 years and reporters like Edsall have let them get away with it.
Anytime they begin to talk like Mike Lee we see the top tax rates go down and another middle class squeeze under the guise of family values.
If republicans want to get out in front on this issue they could easily work with Obama to get some big infrastructure spending going these next two years. Then we would see some action to back up all of these pretty words.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Mr. Edsall posits that republicans are going to take another crack at changing their messaging to appeal more to populism, middle class style. Well republicans have been lying out of both sides of their faces for 35 years and reporters like Edsall have let them get away with it.
Anytime they begin to talk like Mike Lee we see the top tax rates go down and another middle class squeeze under the guise of family values.
If republicans want to get out in front on this issue they could easily work with Obama to get some big infrastructure spending going these next two years. Then we would see some action to back up all of these pretty words.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
6
I think someone reading Edsall for the first time might think, well, here is something new and different. Alas, anyone familiar with the Edsell treatment of any political issue (assemble a bunch of quotes, including a generous sprinkling of academics or academic wannabees) and then conclude that there is a resurgence underway among the Republicans and that the Democrats need to be very afraid. It is a formula he repeats almost invariably. Unlike other rightwing, conservative columnists at the Times, Edsall rarely explicitly states his views. He hides them behind a facade of "research" and the opinion of others. So, we're now told that the Republicans have discovered the poor? And the inspiration for this new sympathy for the "47 percent" (unlike the contempt shown them by the Republicans during the last presidential election) is Bush II's infamous "compassionate conservatism" gambit from his first campaign? We all know how that charade worked out. It's the same old ploy rolled out again by Republican operatives, and touted by their allies in the media. I don't think the Democrats have much to be worried about.
5
I think you are making a mistake, you are shooting the messenger. Mr. Edsall is just pointing out the Republicans changing lines and how they make their campaign message sound so "palatable" to the average voter.
2
He is much more than a "messenger", and if you have read the now rather long series of his cols. I think you can easily see from where he comes politically. Invoking Bush's "compassionate conservatism" as a legitimate source of the concern that some Republicans claim to have discovered suddenly for the "poor" is risible. Perhaps it is part of the "message", which is intended as you suggest to be "palatable" to voters. It is certainly little more than that.
The issue is that when one look at actual Republican policies, they do the opposite of reducing income inequality or increasing equality of opportunity. It is obvious that one of the best ways to rise from poverty is good education. Yet, Republican governors do their utmost to cut funds for education. Take Wisconsin and Louisiana: cut to the state universities by 13% and 40%. How does that increase opportunity?
3
Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congressional Republicans are looking at ways to cut payments to people who are disabled. Looks like "compassionate conservatism" is simply a euphemism for more reverse Robin Hood economics.
95
"How do you speak for the economically insecure without offending the very secure?"
That strange questions is quite offensive to me by itself. Why should the very secure, emphasis on very, be 'offended' when speaking for the economically insecure. As someone being a member of the economically secure, I would like daily constant discussion on how this country lost its moral compass.
When compared to all other OECD nations - nations with truly progressive tax rates - the USA, still the richest country in the world, is also the one with the highest inequality of all. Now that is truly offensive.
As to Bush's 'compassionate conservatism, we know how well that worked out, don't we.
Arguing that same compassionate conservatism will broaden the base of their party is obviously wishful thinking by Mr. Edsall. It will hardly win over voters who are independent and/or just a tad left of the political center in this country, a center that has moved at breathtaking speeds more and more to the right since the first election of President Obama.
It is my firm belief that should the eventual nominees be Clinton and Bush, Hillary will tear apart the once more rehashed compassionate conservatism, by proving that conservatives only have compassion for their own goals and ideologies, not for the country as a whole.
That strange questions is quite offensive to me by itself. Why should the very secure, emphasis on very, be 'offended' when speaking for the economically insecure. As someone being a member of the economically secure, I would like daily constant discussion on how this country lost its moral compass.
When compared to all other OECD nations - nations with truly progressive tax rates - the USA, still the richest country in the world, is also the one with the highest inequality of all. Now that is truly offensive.
As to Bush's 'compassionate conservatism, we know how well that worked out, don't we.
Arguing that same compassionate conservatism will broaden the base of their party is obviously wishful thinking by Mr. Edsall. It will hardly win over voters who are independent and/or just a tad left of the political center in this country, a center that has moved at breathtaking speeds more and more to the right since the first election of President Obama.
It is my firm belief that should the eventual nominees be Clinton and Bush, Hillary will tear apart the once more rehashed compassionate conservatism, by proving that conservatives only have compassion for their own goals and ideologies, not for the country as a whole.
4
The right-leaning folks in America have always supported the poor via charity, primarily through the churches. It is not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth by force. The "war on poverty" has wasted trillions just to make the problem worse (don't get me started on the war on "terror" wasted money either). Secular society has done everything to ruin the American family and middle class.
3
The wealthy gather wealth by methods close to criminal. After all, the wealthy try to influence laws through contributions to legislators. So the workers should rely on the charity of the wealthy? It sounds like scenes from Dickens
10
http://wordofawoman.com/2014/01/17/the-myth-that-the-church-alone-can-an...
Here's a nice article which explains, with numbers and all, why a governmental social safety net is necessary and why churches can't do the job alone.
Here's a nice article which explains, with numbers and all, why a governmental social safety net is necessary and why churches can't do the job alone.
The Dem should not be afraid, they should take it to the Repbulicans and call their bluff. Let's shine a spot light on Lee, Rubio and the like on how they respond to President Obama's curent budget. Let's write new legislations implementing policies to peel off the "insulation" that the 1% enjoy and policies to even playing field for the workers. Let's start with legislations that recognize the money elites as moochers by repealing their undeserve subsidy; and recognize workers as wealth makers by giving them equitable pay.
This is a golden opportunity for the poor, Edsall. That is if the Dem can be smart and strategic and if they genuinely do care about the poor and the working middle class more than they care about their reelection.
This is a golden opportunity for the poor, Edsall. That is if the Dem can be smart and strategic and if they genuinely do care about the poor and the working middle class more than they care about their reelection.
10
I believe the American voting public is extremely gullible, but have a hard time thinking they can convince the current Democratic voters into buying this line of bull. For my lifetime, anyone paying any attention to political events must understand that the Republican Party's prime interest has been furthering the status of the already wealthy and connected. The fact that they have co-opted so many voters who's primary interests are God, guns, or abortion and seem otherwise unaware that they are voting against their own economic interests has been the tragedy. To think they can possibly convince the lower or middle classes otherwise is unthinkable.
8
Talk is cheap and Republicans talk a lot. Yet they abandon their pre-election talking points the minute they are elected. In the run-up to the 2014 mid-term elections they talked a good game of addressing the economic issues of working Americans. Now, after six weeks of a Republican controlled Congress the issues that have been addressed by the majority focus on the same old issues of the past: abortion restrictions; construction of the XL/Koch pipeline; defunding or elimination of ACA/Obamacare and; their displeasure with the President’s executive actions regarding immigration (which they have the power to reform through legislation but, their rant is that they do not want any changes to our broken immigration system). I am not inclined to believe anything that Republicans say before an election as there is never any follow up once they get elected.
10
Lets see the money Repubs.
!- Redo Tax code and remove most loopholes
2-Cut defense by 20%
3-Promote infrastructure to stimulate jibs
3-Reasonable minimum wage at 10-15 per hour.
4-Restore overtime and equal pay for women.
5-Promote Consumer protection and enforce and beef up Dodd-Franks
6- Stop Corporate welfare
7 - Lower education costs
8- Accept and improve the ACA
9- Let Unions do their protection of the workers
10- Stop all the stupid laws that encourage businesses to go overseas.
11- Most important- A national childcare for working mothers.
OK, there it is repubs -You could win with this
!- Redo Tax code and remove most loopholes
2-Cut defense by 20%
3-Promote infrastructure to stimulate jibs
3-Reasonable minimum wage at 10-15 per hour.
4-Restore overtime and equal pay for women.
5-Promote Consumer protection and enforce and beef up Dodd-Franks
6- Stop Corporate welfare
7 - Lower education costs
8- Accept and improve the ACA
9- Let Unions do their protection of the workers
10- Stop all the stupid laws that encourage businesses to go overseas.
11- Most important- A national childcare for working mothers.
OK, there it is repubs -You could win with this
6
I'd be interested in seeing where there isn't equal pay for women, when adjusted for hours, time away (including maternity leave), etc. I believe you'll find that equal jobs with equal performance and seniority, the pay is equal.
1
The GOP could do all this NOW. What's stopping them?
1
The proof is in the pudding. For over 30 years, Republicans have shored up and consolidated economic policies that only benefited large corporations and the ultra-rich. Real wages have declined for working people and middle class professionals, as job benefits like health insurance have dried up and the costs of (once subsidized) education sky-rocket. According to Republicans, the national debt requires austerity measures for social security and any social benefits, even as they sign off on spending billions of dollars on useless "bio-preparedness" programs and other military boondoggles. How can anyone take this new-found concern for the poor seriously, when for decades right-wingers have called poor people "takers," "lazy,"and "parasites"? This so-called Republican concern for income equality will, like George Bush's compassionate conservatism, vanish after the election.
8
Sorry, there will be no proof found in the pudding.
1
Beware the Trojan horse, because the "right to rise", is just that, along with the other Reaganesque economic policies being proposed. The same people who are at the heart of causing the decline in the Middle Class are the same ones who now want to be its saviors? These are the same people who held hostage extending jobless benefits to keeping a tax break for the wealthy. These are the same people who want to gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are the same people who have tried everything in their power to overturn the Affordable Health Care Act. So now we are to believe they are somehow "reformed"? That they really are on the side of all us "little people"? Forgive me for being skeptical and cynical. These are the people who just want to retake the Presidency and will say whatever it takes to do so.
12
The writer says "The Republican appropriation of leftist populist rhetoric (and even policies) poses a significant threat to liberal prospects in 2016," and then goes on to explain how it is a threat to Democrat prospects in 2016. I'm doubtful that their new rhetoric will be backed up with policies, but if one of the two major parties becomes significantly more liberal, I think that's good for liberal prospects.
2
Talk about the leopard changing its spots, what a joke but it may work when you consider the ill informed & more than willing to vote against their best interests Republican and Independent voter. Here is the party that slashes taxes for the wealthy and opposes any increase in the minimum wage and is taking away union protection across the country but now all of a sudden with a presidential election looming are concerned about the middle class.
9
Republicans are trying to weave two mutually exclusive principles into a campaign strategy.
One theme is that economic competition makes America great. According to this theme, we should celebrate our victors, lavish as much wealth and power on them as possible, because it is only through their striving that we can remain the greatest nation. The greater the prizes, the harder the winners strive. The losers in this competition deserve to be ground under the carriage wheels of the winners, because, well, they lost. This is the Ayn Rand, Nietzsche world view a central tenet of conservatism.
The other theme is that we are all in this together. We are all equal, never mind that some of us are more equal than others. We celebrate the "Middle Class" a vast miasma where people on the way up and the way down reside.
The Republicans attempt to reconcile the two themes this way: Losers should actually starve or be ground under the carriage wheels of the winners. So Republicans would throw a half-eaten sandwich out of the carriage window to the losers from time to time in the interest of "compassion".
Let's see if the voters buy it again in 2016.
One theme is that economic competition makes America great. According to this theme, we should celebrate our victors, lavish as much wealth and power on them as possible, because it is only through their striving that we can remain the greatest nation. The greater the prizes, the harder the winners strive. The losers in this competition deserve to be ground under the carriage wheels of the winners, because, well, they lost. This is the Ayn Rand, Nietzsche world view a central tenet of conservatism.
The other theme is that we are all in this together. We are all equal, never mind that some of us are more equal than others. We celebrate the "Middle Class" a vast miasma where people on the way up and the way down reside.
The Republicans attempt to reconcile the two themes this way: Losers should actually starve or be ground under the carriage wheels of the winners. So Republicans would throw a half-eaten sandwich out of the carriage window to the losers from time to time in the interest of "compassion".
Let's see if the voters buy it again in 2016.
9
The GOP has one agenda even if they try to disguise it at several agendas. They want to get rid of the government and any government programs that benefit the majority of Americans who are not the ultra rich. The rest is window decoration. They do not care about health care, education (unless it's for their children), food, housing, the infrastructure, how many wars we have, how many people cannot find jobs or are not making enough to keep body and soul together. They want power and they want to be rich or be around the rich.
9
In the words of Deng Xiaoping, it doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice. I don't think Democrats should "worry" about Republicans' purported leftward turn. On the contrary, we should welcome it, assuming it actually exists. I support the Democratic Party because of its policies, not because of some hazy affinity for the label. One day a Republican will win the presidency again; when that happens, considering that this is currently a party of the far right, the further left he or she is, the better.
We, the professedly educated public, should actively participate in an attempt to push both parties into substantive debates over ideas, rather than allowing them to remain satisfied with their vassalage and regurgitate platitudes, which has become a hallmark especially of the so-called conservative movement. However one feels about that, one thing I think is indisputable, and that is that far too few interest groups have much too much sway over both parties.
We, the professedly educated public, should actively participate in an attempt to push both parties into substantive debates over ideas, rather than allowing them to remain satisfied with their vassalage and regurgitate platitudes, which has become a hallmark especially of the so-called conservative movement. However one feels about that, one thing I think is indisputable, and that is that far too few interest groups have much too much sway over both parties.
7
"Democrats counter this emerging Republican populism with the argument that Republicans have failed to follow up with legislation that would actually do something about the problem of inequality."
As if the Democrats have any substantive liberal legislation to point to in the past 40 years. In 2009-10 they had the White House and both chambers - an excellent opportunity to pass the Employee Free Choice Act which would have given a much needed shot-in-the-arm to labor but they were too consumed with ACA.
The Dem's rhetoric would have you believe that ACA is populist legislation, and there are some laudable elements to it: an end to some of the more egregious private insurance practices, the patient protections etc.
But it has only covered a quarter of the 40-some million uninsured and the surge in profits it has provided the private insurers - at a time when we should have been questioning why we are preserving this parasitic sector which siphons off` a chunk of our health care premiums and drives increased health care costs - makes the liberal veneer of ACA quite thin.
I don't find the Democrat's liberalism rhetoric credible these days - it's easy to promise the moon and the stars when you know the Republicans will not let anything pass through the House that doesn't harken back to pre-Enlightenment days.
As to the new populism of the Republicans, let's all remind ourselves that this is election rhetoric which is never taken seriously, except by the most naive.
As if the Democrats have any substantive liberal legislation to point to in the past 40 years. In 2009-10 they had the White House and both chambers - an excellent opportunity to pass the Employee Free Choice Act which would have given a much needed shot-in-the-arm to labor but they were too consumed with ACA.
The Dem's rhetoric would have you believe that ACA is populist legislation, and there are some laudable elements to it: an end to some of the more egregious private insurance practices, the patient protections etc.
But it has only covered a quarter of the 40-some million uninsured and the surge in profits it has provided the private insurers - at a time when we should have been questioning why we are preserving this parasitic sector which siphons off` a chunk of our health care premiums and drives increased health care costs - makes the liberal veneer of ACA quite thin.
I don't find the Democrat's liberalism rhetoric credible these days - it's easy to promise the moon and the stars when you know the Republicans will not let anything pass through the House that doesn't harken back to pre-Enlightenment days.
As to the new populism of the Republicans, let's all remind ourselves that this is election rhetoric which is never taken seriously, except by the most naive.
4
In reality, Obama did not have both houses for two years. Remember Al Franken was not seated for months, Senators Byrd and Kennedy were sick. Do some research. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-oba....
1
Democrats Nelson, Specter, Lincoln, Carper, Feinstein and McCaskill defected and the bill languished. Is this really the party you really want to try and defend?
This is Republicans doing what they always do; talk about supporting an issue that people have come more and more to understand and care about, and then propose the same policy prescription as ever, trickle-down tax cuts for their rich contributors, as the best solution. The only question is whether the electorate will buy it or see through it for the smoke and mirrors it is.
2
If Republicans want to cut taxes on the poor, they could do it today. They won't. Not today or ever. Nor will they ever raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Although with Koch's billion dollars they can, as Edsall predicts, produce a loads of 'rhetoric' on the issue.
6
You can see how wages for the different brackets have grown under the leadership of each party here- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/income-republican-democrat
If the Republicans want to make addressing inequality and the lack of intergenerational income mobility a part of their platform, that is excellent news. But, if they just want to make it a part of their rhetoric while continuing to pursue the policies that cause those problems, which is what they appear to be planning on doing currently, that is despicable and the voters should profoundly reject them for that.
If the Republicans want to make addressing inequality and the lack of intergenerational income mobility a part of their platform, that is excellent news. But, if they just want to make it a part of their rhetoric while continuing to pursue the policies that cause those problems, which is what they appear to be planning on doing currently, that is despicable and the voters should profoundly reject them for that.
4
If they were able to take over the House and Senate while basically obstructing any meaningful proposals to benefit the working class, brought forward by our President who truly cares about the people, then it is quite obvious that the voting public will believe anything they are fed.
9
If this article was intended to scare us ole lefties it really didn't work out so well and here is why. The Republicans can talk a good talk about change, poor folk, etc., but they really don't walk the walk. The one running for President usually opens mouth, inserts foot, and then reveals the true nature of the Republican party which me, mine,me, me, me.
6
So, "high-quality public services are essential parts of making entrepreneurial capitalism work." And the Lee-Rubio approach is fund this with a 2.4 billion dollar tax cut. Sounds a lot like every Ryan budget ever.
We could probably save money, or at least improve outcomes a lot, with a through rethinking of every kind of "welfare" type program. A complete rethinking of all of it - vastly counterproductive public housing policies in particular, and programs having to spend high amounts on administration and social workers while harassing and demeaning lower income people etc. wouldn't be a bad idea. Republicans just want to eliminate all of it and Democrats are afraid to go anywhere near the issue for fear of opening up a Pandora's box, mainly full of Republicans.
But no one is talking about any real systemic changes, just tax changes no one, particularly those in lower incomes, will notice.
A real world example of real world Republican thinking can be seen in Kansas, where taxes on higher incomes were slashed, universities and schools and infrastructure spending slashed, pensions raided, and now gay rights eliminated.
We could probably save money, or at least improve outcomes a lot, with a through rethinking of every kind of "welfare" type program. A complete rethinking of all of it - vastly counterproductive public housing policies in particular, and programs having to spend high amounts on administration and social workers while harassing and demeaning lower income people etc. wouldn't be a bad idea. Republicans just want to eliminate all of it and Democrats are afraid to go anywhere near the issue for fear of opening up a Pandora's box, mainly full of Republicans.
But no one is talking about any real systemic changes, just tax changes no one, particularly those in lower incomes, will notice.
A real world example of real world Republican thinking can be seen in Kansas, where taxes on higher incomes were slashed, universities and schools and infrastructure spending slashed, pensions raided, and now gay rights eliminated.
5
What Republicans will say to get elected! Our brand spanking new Senator Corey Gardner (R-CO), ran on an enlightened agenda that had him posing proudly in front of a wind turbine farm.
First chance he got, he voted to end all subsidies for renewable energy.
First chance he got, he voted to end all subsidies for renewable energy.
23
By their actions you shall know them
Soon the "reformicons" will be touting the environmental advantages of offshoring, that working as stock clerk in a big box store is the surest way to display patriotism & save the planet. Let the Chinese despoil their nation just like we did when GE was dumping PCBs into the Housatonic. We know better now & we've got the ancillary foreign corps. to prove it! And we've got Bill Gates to cross the seas & dump a few billion to make things right! And that's the best argument for not lowering top tax rates!
3
What I see are attempts at spin to gain more power and, in the end, when it's Republicans in power, it's springtime for the very rich and the Christian right.
8
Sorry, I believe my lying eyes.
I am not fooled by the stuff they say. I pay attention to what they do.
The GOP believes the Poor have too much money and the Rich don't have enough.
I am not fooled by the stuff they say. I pay attention to what they do.
The GOP believes the Poor have too much money and the Rich don't have enough.
21
The Republicans discovered in 1964 that by talking about race that they could divide and conquer the White poor by severing them from the Black poor. And the South slowly turned Republican as the Republican Party turned away from the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.
About 57% of whites voted Republican McCain/Palin in 2008 and 59% voted Republican Romney/Ryan in 2012. While 90+% of Blacks voted Democrat Obama/Biden in both elections as they have in every election since 1964.
On the eve of his murder in Memphis on April 4, 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was planning his Poor People's Campaign in Washington D.C. where he hoped to unite people on the basis of socioeconomics, education and politics along class lines instead of racially colored caste lines.
But that goal died beneath the rhetoric of "state's rights", "crime in the streets", "welfare queens", "big bucks", "busing" and "affirmative action."
About 57% of whites voted Republican McCain/Palin in 2008 and 59% voted Republican Romney/Ryan in 2012. While 90+% of Blacks voted Democrat Obama/Biden in both elections as they have in every election since 1964.
On the eve of his murder in Memphis on April 4, 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was planning his Poor People's Campaign in Washington D.C. where he hoped to unite people on the basis of socioeconomics, education and politics along class lines instead of racially colored caste lines.
But that goal died beneath the rhetoric of "state's rights", "crime in the streets", "welfare queens", "big bucks", "busing" and "affirmative action."
7
Er...I know y'all don't know many actual poor people, but a 15% marginal rate up to $87K actually raises taxes (currently 10%) on the poorest. Essentially it claws back part of the EITC and/or refundable child benefit.
Modern journalism really would benefit from hiring actual poor people.
Modern journalism really would benefit from hiring actual poor people.
7
Modern journalism would benefit from hiring actual reporters.
Democrats don't believe in truth. For them, truth is a purely artificial construct.
They believe in one narrative. Theirs.
They believe in one narrative. Theirs.
1
DUDE--a lot of unsubstantiated claims. No references, no arguments. One can only ignore this.
2
The wholly inadequate characterization of the having opportunity inequality is part of the Republicans to triangulation of the issue of wealth mal-distribution in the country. This isn't to say the Democrats have been very helpful either. Higher taxes on wealth and distribution to the rest of society through gov't support of education, higher wages, infrastructure improvements and the like are not what Mike Lee is talking about. The 2016 electorate will be considerably harder on Republicans than the 2014 one was. Ultimately the white male patriarchal Republican Party will face the fact that the rainbow coalition is not some pejorative term to throw at Democrats but the coalition that will radically change politics in this country.
3
To see the real GOP agenda, look no further than Alabama, Kansas and Capitol Hill. Diminution of minorities, fear of same sex marriage. Reduction in all manner of regulation; return to the same loose financial rules that led to the 2008 recession. A strong call for yet another war in the Middle East. And now in the Ukraine.
This flirtation with populism will last only until the primaries start. Then we'll see the real GOP.
This flirtation with populism will last only until the primaries start. Then we'll see the real GOP.
7
Mr. Lee's suggestions for income tax rates of 15% and 35% are hard to comprehend. Of course, the summary omits the 15.3% payroll income tax paid by workers and fails to disclose which, if any, of the annual $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures (credits, deductions, special rates, exemptions and deferrals) will be eliminated. In general, Republicans seem to expect workers to pay 30% (payroll and income) and investors to pay no more than 20% on investment income not subject to payroll taxes. Tax reformers can be like snake oil salesmen when it comes to the details.
With tax expenditures and high rates there are many ways to pretend to have a progressive tax code but family wealth has always been distributed in a very regressive way. For 20 years the wealthiest 10% have captured all increases in wealth and now have a 75% share of the $83 trillion in individual net assets. The next 40% (the middle class) lost 8% of their share but still have a respectable and enviable (by global standards) 24% share of wealth. It is the poorer half of the population that has been reduced to a meager 1% share (down 70%). While tax credits have been used to offset over taxation this has resulted in a large expansion of low paying jobs designed to maximize tax credits for the workers and help low wage businesses.
Only a replacement of the payroll taxes will encourage job creation and let market forces increase salaries. Neither party seems to have a plan for the poorer 62 million families.
With tax expenditures and high rates there are many ways to pretend to have a progressive tax code but family wealth has always been distributed in a very regressive way. For 20 years the wealthiest 10% have captured all increases in wealth and now have a 75% share of the $83 trillion in individual net assets. The next 40% (the middle class) lost 8% of their share but still have a respectable and enviable (by global standards) 24% share of wealth. It is the poorer half of the population that has been reduced to a meager 1% share (down 70%). While tax credits have been used to offset over taxation this has resulted in a large expansion of low paying jobs designed to maximize tax credits for the workers and help low wage businesses.
Only a replacement of the payroll taxes will encourage job creation and let market forces increase salaries. Neither party seems to have a plan for the poorer 62 million families.
3
It will be fascinating to see if Republicans can actually stop being toadies to the rich and corporate power while racking up the votes of the "uneducated" white lower and middle classes by appealing to the fears of those voters.
Given the level of "un-education" and the reliability of fear-mongering in rallying voters (frankly, of almost all stripes), I'll believe it when I see it in action when it really counts --- in passing legislation and in how they run campaigns in a tough fight.
Given the level of "un-education" and the reliability of fear-mongering in rallying voters (frankly, of almost all stripes), I'll believe it when I see it in action when it really counts --- in passing legislation and in how they run campaigns in a tough fight.
2
The Achilles heel of this argument is how to, in the words of Republicans, open up more opportunity for the middle class. They would have us believe that supply side/trickle down economics is the key --- allow Wall Street to go wild, and millions of jobs will bloom. At this point in time the public has grown tired of drinking this Kool aid message. What Republicans are ideologically unable to say, and which is the answer to jobs and wages, is some form of redistribution of wealth---that is where the opportunity lies and no Republican can go there.
90
I am an inveterate Democrat, but this article is a major eye-opener. Although I follow national politics closely, I had never heard of the Reformicons, nor did I realize that Marco Rubio and Mike Lee espoused such non-mainstream Republican ideas. Since modern presidential campaigns depend critically on the inflow of contributions, I am wondering if major Republican donors such as the Koch brothers' organization and Sheldon Adelson have any interest in Reformicon ideas - frankly I doubt it, and consequently, these ideas are likely to be stillborn.
3
You're a Democrat and you're buying this?
2
The unfairness of our tax code, with its highly unequal treatment various forms of earnings, deductions and targeted taxes is a great disservice to our nation, especially in its unfair targeting of the politically invisible middle class. Just take the Alternative Minimum Tax, which mandates those within a certain income range, and not a very high one, are mandated to pay a minimum tax, while those earning more are exempt. Even the rich, depending on how they earn their fortunes are treated unequally, so a hedge fund manager pays a much smaller percent of his earnings in taxes than a superstar athlete or highly salaried employee, and up till now nobody seems interested in correcting this discriminatory behavior. You may say its only a problem of the wealthier classes, but many of these people are angered by what they consider to be unfair treatment. To hear republicans talking in such a way as mentioned in the editorial is a breathe of fresh air. Sadly I think they are not sincere, or for that matter nor are the democrats when they talk about tax reform. It looks like the middle class will just continue to quietly pay an unfair part of our nation's bills, because that's where the "easy" money is.
1
Notice the root of the word "reformicon" It's "Con" and once again the repubs are out to "Con" the American public. Their policies caused the problem, they perpetuate it, and now they're going to run on fixing it. Absolutely amazing! I'll give them credit, the republican propaganda machine is pretty near perfected.
I'm so tired of being "conned" by both parties. The Dems aren't that much better, but at least they are for raising the minimum wage and a few other helpful policies.
I'm so tired of being "conned" by both parties. The Dems aren't that much better, but at least they are for raising the minimum wage and a few other helpful policies.
2
Maybe the GOP will actually do something to relieve the situation for poor Americans and the growing underclass - unlike the Democrats. Since 2009, 60% of jobs created have been low-wage. All the "good" economic news has passed by at least half of U.S. citizens. The Obama-Thon talks pretty, but it seldom produces.
2
More self-delusional Republican thinking.
1
It's not "self-delusional", they know exactly what they are doing.
1
“For Clinton, figuring out how to maintain peace between the Wall Street wing of her party and its Elizabeth Warren wing…” Wait until people figure out just how connected to / dependent on Wall Street Warren is.
1
Innuendo is great, pal. A favorite tool of many, and goodness knows I have slung some in my life. But, as my sainted mother used to say, "Let's get down to brass tacks buster . . . " Tell us how Senator Warren is "dependent" on Wall Street. Just the facts.
1
Don't believe a word of it. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Republicans (Mike Lee!) could care less about the working poor.
6
If the republicans want to come on board with programs for the poor, great. But this issue is not a "demo" or "repub" issue to own, this is an issue for our country. It really doesn't matter which party, just fix it as our "elected officials" and stop trying to get the trophy for doing it. It is your job, plain and simple, to fix these issues, no matter the party. Everybody doesn't get a trophy in real life just for doing their job.
1
I am sure the GOP will tolerate and mildly support the reformicons as they blow smoke at the public about a Republican president. And this compassionate conservatism mask? I will never forget W Bush smiling at a dinner of the uber-wealthy as he referred to them as "My base" - there is your compassionate conservatism. Romney's 47% remark is their core belief - the leopard isn't changing its spots.
4
The Republican attitude toward the poor seems to be, 'if you can't keep them from voting, then pander to them.'
1
Just like Obama's discovery of same-sex marriage. Whatever works in politics or how to get the most votes.
1
Whatever Republicans promise, they govern like religious monarchs with "political capital" to spend: Tax cuts for the rich, anti-choice laws, immigrant-bashing policies, union-busting right to work legislation, deregulation of business and the gross transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the private sector.
11
The problem is not that one party has a corner on demagoguery although clearly Dems have spent a lot of time on the income inequality topic.
The issue is not even income inequality per se. Despite the umpteen efforts to rile up the population, voters generally know whats working for them or not, if their own situation is good or not, who is in sync with their values, and vote accordingly. There is this well entrenched view in Dem circles, from Obama's clinging to x and y speech, to the comments full of pity around here that poor Whites don't know whats good for them, but democracy works, people know whats in their interest, and do so. (certainly, if you take the argument of these elitist Dems - that people don't know whats good for them - to its logical conclusion, you need to anoint a group of wise knowledgeable elders to decide whats good for each group, and that was tried and called despotism/communism/monarchy whatever else.
In general, most people want their living standards improved, not to make more "relative dollars" than their neighbors. What good is it if everyone becomes poorer, and I do too, but less than they do?
And that can be achieved by growth and growth alone. But Dem base detests capital, capitalism, corporations, moneyed people, investors, wall street, less taxes, and less red tape or bureaucracy. Their chosen system never leads to enough growth, and the solutions they tried like quant easing led to huge asset bubbles and drove up inequality not down
The issue is not even income inequality per se. Despite the umpteen efforts to rile up the population, voters generally know whats working for them or not, if their own situation is good or not, who is in sync with their values, and vote accordingly. There is this well entrenched view in Dem circles, from Obama's clinging to x and y speech, to the comments full of pity around here that poor Whites don't know whats good for them, but democracy works, people know whats in their interest, and do so. (certainly, if you take the argument of these elitist Dems - that people don't know whats good for them - to its logical conclusion, you need to anoint a group of wise knowledgeable elders to decide whats good for each group, and that was tried and called despotism/communism/monarchy whatever else.
In general, most people want their living standards improved, not to make more "relative dollars" than their neighbors. What good is it if everyone becomes poorer, and I do too, but less than they do?
And that can be achieved by growth and growth alone. But Dem base detests capital, capitalism, corporations, moneyed people, investors, wall street, less taxes, and less red tape or bureaucracy. Their chosen system never leads to enough growth, and the solutions they tried like quant easing led to huge asset bubbles and drove up inequality not down
This new found discovery of the poor is merely another round of decisive politics designed to further polarize the electorate. If the Republicans are truly concerned about the welfare of the poor, they can pursue another strategy that would be much more beneficial: simply reach across the isle and actively engage those Democrats who have already been concerned about the plight of the poor for many decades, and stop actively undermining them.
2
Republicans "discover" the poor, blame the increase in income inequality on Obama, and propose what? Why, a marginal change in the marginal tax rate, of course. Ground-breaking! Electrifying! Brilliant! Revolutionary!
And then they quibble over whether their proposals maybe go bit too far.
And then they quibble over whether their proposals maybe go bit too far.
97
I don't agree that the Republican's new-found concern about inequality is a "significant threat to liberal prospects in 2016," presumably referring to the presidential election.
Any Republican presidential candidate who runs in 2016 on a platform of combating inequality will have to answer for his or her record - what have you done about inequality so far? That means that any Republican presidential candidate who is now in Congress will have to start now, not in 2016, pushing proposals to address inequality.
Most likely, those proposals will not seriously address inequality, and the failure will be transparent. Those proposals will gain no Democratic support, and in any event would be vetoed by President Obama. And failed proposals that gained no Democratic support will threaten no liberals in 2016.
It is possible, however unlikely, that one of these would-be Republican presidential candidates will formulate proposals that will actually address inequality and thereby gain Democratic support. Democrats, especially in the Senate, will push the proposal to the left with amendments. If such a proposal passes, with Democratic support and President Obama's signature, it will improve our country, but it will hardly persuade moderate or liberal voters that a Republican president will more effectively address inequality than a Democratic president.
Democrats are the party of liberalism, and liberalism is the barracks of anti-inequality warriors.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Any Republican presidential candidate who runs in 2016 on a platform of combating inequality will have to answer for his or her record - what have you done about inequality so far? That means that any Republican presidential candidate who is now in Congress will have to start now, not in 2016, pushing proposals to address inequality.
Most likely, those proposals will not seriously address inequality, and the failure will be transparent. Those proposals will gain no Democratic support, and in any event would be vetoed by President Obama. And failed proposals that gained no Democratic support will threaten no liberals in 2016.
It is possible, however unlikely, that one of these would-be Republican presidential candidates will formulate proposals that will actually address inequality and thereby gain Democratic support. Democrats, especially in the Senate, will push the proposal to the left with amendments. If such a proposal passes, with Democratic support and President Obama's signature, it will improve our country, but it will hardly persuade moderate or liberal voters that a Republican president will more effectively address inequality than a Democratic president.
Democrats are the party of liberalism, and liberalism is the barracks of anti-inequality warriors.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
5
You might want to ask the same questions to the Democrats. Did Obama's increase of the inheritance tax exemption to $5 million plus increase or decrease inequality?
Did Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagell increase or decrease inequality? How about his support for NAFTA and CAFTA? Clinton's decimation of the already meager welfare system?
You are mistaking this new breed of centrist Democrats with the proud tradition of a liberal Democratic party that the centrists have snuffed out.
Did Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagell increase or decrease inequality? How about his support for NAFTA and CAFTA? Clinton's decimation of the already meager welfare system?
You are mistaking this new breed of centrist Democrats with the proud tradition of a liberal Democratic party that the centrists have snuffed out.
1
While Edsall's comments focus primarily on the GOP's newly discovered concern for the poor, the truth is that neither major party could survive or function without money and policies that serve the wealthy rather than help the poor in America. Our tax policies and regulations are completely skewed in favor of those who can organize corporate and offshore shells to hide money and profits. Both parties favor supporting the war profiteers with trillions of off-budget dollars while our critical infrastructure is falling apart. The Supreme Court institutionalized this behavior when corporations were given the same rights as individual voters-----making money's influence in both parties greater than ever before. Both parties are full of nice rhetoric, but everybody knows that the words do not result in any real policy differences----the policies are sold to the highest bidders, who always get what they want and need, regardless of how those policies serve working people. If the 2016 election becomes a choice between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Bush, the results will be known in advance: The rich will be served well, and normal everyday working Americans will have to suffer further----regardless of which of these two plutocrats wins the election.
6
Republicans adhere to trickle,
Thus lputting poor folk in a pickle,
Entitlement cutting
Plus wage hike door shutting,
Shows concern for poor folk is fickle.
Thus lputting poor folk in a pickle,
Entitlement cutting
Plus wage hike door shutting,
Shows concern for poor folk is fickle.
8
Wall street in particular and businesses in general benefit from a strong economy and the best way to ensure this is wide-spread income growth. For example, retailers have had a bumpy ride recently due to lack of consumer spending. Many pro-democratic Wall streeters have already spoken out publically about the inconsistency of the tax system and this implicitly supports mild redistribution. If addressing inequality is sold this way I see no problem with maintaining the support of Wall street Democrats.
On the other hand, people like the Kochs and Adelson are 100% tax cuts and shrinking government. Therefore defusing the Republicans on this is straightforward -- put up or shut ip. What explicitly would they change? It is one thing to float reformacon ideas in a vacuum. It is another to push those ideas against real resistance from the backers.
Whether Clinton is aware of it or not -- she needs something bold to inspire people. She is old guard right now -- muddling along middle of the road and a track record in foreign policy. A younger Republican opponent will hopefully force her to offer something fresh.
On the other hand, people like the Kochs and Adelson are 100% tax cuts and shrinking government. Therefore defusing the Republicans on this is straightforward -- put up or shut ip. What explicitly would they change? It is one thing to float reformacon ideas in a vacuum. It is another to push those ideas against real resistance from the backers.
Whether Clinton is aware of it or not -- she needs something bold to inspire people. She is old guard right now -- muddling along middle of the road and a track record in foreign policy. A younger Republican opponent will hopefully force her to offer something fresh.
2
" cost-free proposals like making over-the-counter contraceptives available — could help Republican candidates defuse the accusation that their party is out of touch on issues of importance to women"
Making contraceptives available over the counter is not "cost-free", as women would have to purchase them, rather then get them truly free, through health care. Yet another cynical Republican ploy to pretend to help women. Moreover, it's irresponsible to suggest that drugs with potentially significant side effects should be available without medical oversight.
Making contraceptives available over the counter is not "cost-free", as women would have to purchase them, rather then get them truly free, through health care. Yet another cynical Republican ploy to pretend to help women. Moreover, it's irresponsible to suggest that drugs with potentially significant side effects should be available without medical oversight.
3
Exactly, Suzanne! How do you suppose Republicans would react if Democrats proposed a "cost-free" proposal? The howling would start on Fox News and go from there.
1
This is simply more GOP propaganda. The proverbial lipstick on the pig. They have zero chance of pushing real solutions through a republican congress. The entire purpose of this is to deceive the ignorant. I wonder how the Koch brothers will like tax increases on their ilk when they just gave repblicans a commitment for nearly $1 billion to serve their interests.
17
Precisely - judge Republicans by their deeds, not by their words. For example, smart money says that the Republican solution to income disparity will be tax cuts for the rich, elimination of the estate tax, elimination of the capital gains tax, and all their other programs designed to redistribute income from the rest of us to the 0.1%
5
How can this be viewed in any light other than positive? republicans are now considering that the playing field is not level. Isn't that the whole problem with our politics, that the wealthy who control most of the argument (and for too long have claimed that success is available to anyone who works as hard as they did) have now either lost that power or begun to agree that it is in even their interests to keep the whole of society engaged? Its not really about which party wins, its about the type of problems that are addressed and how they are handled.
good for mr lee for his words, hopefully they aren't hollow. and if that creates a problem for hillary, then let her appeal to the voters instead of the donors.
good for mr lee for his words, hopefully they aren't hollow. and if that creates a problem for hillary, then let her appeal to the voters instead of the donors.
2
The reason this is bad - is that these aren't merely hollow promises - they are flat-out lies. Look at the Republican Party's proposed solutions to income inequality, and you'll see the failed "trickle-down" programs that caused today's growing income inequality: tax cuts for "job creators" who don't create jobs, elimination of the estate tax (the Save the Trust Fund Children initiative), etc.
Republican claims to be addressing income inequality are like the labels on supplement bottles - nice labeling covering up the garbage inside.
Republican claims to be addressing income inequality are like the labels on supplement bottles - nice labeling covering up the garbage inside.
1
Please. Do you really expect the Republican establishment to move from paternalistic reproach to empathy? How many moons on your planet? When you have the true-believer fever, it's only a matter of degrees between the Tea Party and other dictatorial life forms. And dictators don't give up their power.
Whom should we believe, Democratic politicians who have for over 30 years talked about the growing inequality of wealth (bolstered by Republican pro-corporate, pro-rich policies) in America and have supported policies to counter the economic stagnation of the middle class? Or the Republicans who just yesterday took of the cry of growing inequality but only offer more of the same policies that got us where we are? Isn't the answer crystal clear?
15
The old political saying certainly applies here...."don't listen to what they say, watch what they do". Do not forget what the power of that party has done at every opportunity for the last 30 plus years! And what it has done to all middle class values in that period of time. The Constitution calls for a government that governs "for the common good", and they have not DONE that in all this time!
1
The biggest factor in helping people do better and making the country more competitive internationally is the quality, availability and affordability of education through at least the bachelors degree level. When Republicans start helping to restore the economic support to schools and colleges they reduced, and to remove the politically-inspired testing and other meddling with curricula they imposed, they will begin to be credible on dealing with the problem of gross income disparity.
7
They may have discovered the poor, but that doesn't mean they'll do anything.
The Kochs oppose it, and so do the preachers, who want their cut out of the collection tray.
The Kochs oppose it, and so do the preachers, who want their cut out of the collection tray.
18
It is disappointing that the Soros hate-blogs have turned against the religious heritage that held America together - especially the poor and black family - for so many generations.
What is surprising, however, is that so many supposedly educated hate-trainees are actually buying it and bringing it here with their daily book reports. This is just really sad.
What is surprising, however, is that so many supposedly educated hate-trainees are actually buying it and bringing it here with their daily book reports. This is just really sad.
How depressing that the next election is already cast in terms of Bush vs Clinton. That is another symptom of a broken system.
Now the Republicans have discovered that after 35 years of trickle down policies that resulted in trickle up (well, flood up, really), the mass of people are upset about being left behind. Their response is to launch another misinformation (read that as propaganda) campaign, and count on the American people not to be able to do the math correctly either. After decades of weakening our public education system it isn't too hard to believe that they will succeed.
Now the Republicans have discovered that after 35 years of trickle down policies that resulted in trickle up (well, flood up, really), the mass of people are upset about being left behind. Their response is to launch another misinformation (read that as propaganda) campaign, and count on the American people not to be able to do the math correctly either. After decades of weakening our public education system it isn't too hard to believe that they will succeed.
15
Those quotes from Mike Lee could have been written by Obama or Hilary. That's the standard Democratic line and they haven't really deviated from it for years. The true problem here is that much of the poor and middle class in this country, particularly the white ones, won't hear that message coming from Democrats. They've been voting against their own economic self interest for a long time and no amount of factual reflection will change that.
It's galling to see the Tea Party - the loudest party of no government, anytime - take on this type of populism. It remains to be seen whether they're actually interested in making those changes or just see it as a convenient way to get elected.
I've often thought instead of voting for a party or a person, we should vote for policy statements. The team sports mentality that courses through out political process is ruining our country.
It's galling to see the Tea Party - the loudest party of no government, anytime - take on this type of populism. It remains to be seen whether they're actually interested in making those changes or just see it as a convenient way to get elected.
I've often thought instead of voting for a party or a person, we should vote for policy statements. The team sports mentality that courses through out political process is ruining our country.
8
So Republicans want a safety net but have spent six years fighting the only actual attempt to expand health care, most recently with a trumped-up bogus case. Tax credits and tax cuts at this point will do little for people who already have very little income. This column simply seems to take it as a given that Repbulicas have actua proposals to address inequality.
10
If this is the fight the Republicans want, go for it. Bring on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They don't just talk the talk, they walk it with the passion of deeply held conviction. No "give a tiny bit to win" Republican will be able to match the sincerity of that conviction. It comes through loud and clear to anyone with ears to hear. Elizabeth and Bernie in 2016!
18
This was interesting but leaves out one important thing: Just because Republicans have become better at describing inequality, does not mean they have good, or politically feasible, solutions.
I strongly disagree with Mike Lee on one of his major premises:
" It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity." To which, Mr. Lee, I say you have it backwards. Unequal opportunity stems directly from today's overwhelming inequality in wealth or income.
Because those with wealth and high income have a far greater voice at the table of economic decision making. Just look at who funds our political campaigns. Look at who is sitting right beside Congressmen, writing banking laws. Look who has the clout to extract campaign debts from "leaders" as they discuss oil and gas regulation.
The name of the game is access and power, which flows freely to those of wealth. How can you provide equality of opportunity when only high income individuals are dictating the rules? Nobody says it better than Warren:" the big guys play by a totally different set of rules."
So Lee, and Rubio, and Bush can pontificate all they want in their desire to show "empathy" towards the struggling middle class. But what are the specifics of how they plan to address that?
I strongly disagree with Mike Lee on one of his major premises:
" It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity." To which, Mr. Lee, I say you have it backwards. Unequal opportunity stems directly from today's overwhelming inequality in wealth or income.
Because those with wealth and high income have a far greater voice at the table of economic decision making. Just look at who funds our political campaigns. Look at who is sitting right beside Congressmen, writing banking laws. Look who has the clout to extract campaign debts from "leaders" as they discuss oil and gas regulation.
The name of the game is access and power, which flows freely to those of wealth. How can you provide equality of opportunity when only high income individuals are dictating the rules? Nobody says it better than Warren:" the big guys play by a totally different set of rules."
So Lee, and Rubio, and Bush can pontificate all they want in their desire to show "empathy" towards the struggling middle class. But what are the specifics of how they plan to address that?
28
The opportunity inequality is a result of enslavement of segments of the population to a government handout with the sole purpose of buying their vote. This has been going on under the banner of "inequality" or "compassion" or "war on poverty" and all it has done is insure that people stay poor and can be controlled. It is time to state the truth and the truth is that Democrats have used this mantra of "helping the poor" as an excuse to pass entitlements and use welfare payments of a variety of types to buy votes and power. It is a truly evil plan that does nothing less than enslave people and their descendants to poverty. After all, if poor folks got ahead in life and began paying taxes, they too would start asking why we are spending so much money with abysmal results and Democrats just couldn't have that.
1
Yes, and Democrats and "Big Government" have been doing such a good job of currying favor with and empowering the poor that 0.1% of the highest-earning component of the population now controls some 90-odd percent of the national wealth. James's argument resembles the "big, bold idea" thinking of Scott Walker, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. Enslavement is afoot, but it is a slavery of the middle and working classes and the poor dictated by outrageously unfair Republican-sponsored tax and fiscal policies originating in the 1980's together with the effects of globalization of the economy, the outsourcing of jobs, the decline of employee labor organizations, and the resultant rising economic divide between haves and have-nots. This is all in addition to massive cuts in public education funding and an abysmal job market created by a staggeringly destructive recession created by the moneyed classes' relentless greed. Our economy has been "Wal-Martinized" with low-paying service jobs replacing the good-paying jobs that allowed the American middle class to thrive in the years following WWII. Meanwhile, the GOP fights increasing the minimum wage, allows profits derived from dividends to be taxed at a fraction of wages derived from salaries, and supports the privatization of public sector jobs that still pay middle-class wages, and James demands to know why the poor do not "get ahead in life and begin paying taxes"?
4
Government handouts? Like the subsidies given to the gas and oil industries?
only tiny operators receive oil depletion allowances. So exactly what subsidies are you talking about?
The TEA Party and populist progressives have always been on the same side. At least they have a shared enemy. The financial elites who have allowed laissez-faire capitalism to ruin our economy.
Capitalism is a system where capital begets capital. If there are no ameliorating forces to intervene capital continues to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. This is Piketty's observation and is obvious to anyone who has observed what has happened in the United States over the past four decades.
Anyone, and everyone, who wants to see Capitalism survive realizes we must tax away accumulated wealth and use it for public goods and services (the safety net and investments in opportunities) or capitalism itself will collapse of it's own weight.
It isn't envy of the wealthy, it is cold the cold and hard reality of capitalism. Liberals want capitalism to work and to work for all Americans. Once upon a time that is what conservatives wanted as well.
Capitalism is a system where capital begets capital. If there are no ameliorating forces to intervene capital continues to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. This is Piketty's observation and is obvious to anyone who has observed what has happened in the United States over the past four decades.
Anyone, and everyone, who wants to see Capitalism survive realizes we must tax away accumulated wealth and use it for public goods and services (the safety net and investments in opportunities) or capitalism itself will collapse of it's own weight.
It isn't envy of the wealthy, it is cold the cold and hard reality of capitalism. Liberals want capitalism to work and to work for all Americans. Once upon a time that is what conservatives wanted as well.
10
I doubt that either the Democrats or the Republican candidates have anything to worry about if the Republicans move slightly to the left.
As the last election revealed, the average voter has no idea of what he is voting for. The average voter will cast his ballot for the person who is recommended by 'fox news.'
As the last election revealed, the average voter has no idea of what he is voting for. The average voter will cast his ballot for the person who is recommended by 'fox news.'
12
The Democrats plan for income inequality is education and higher taxes on the rich. With the tax revenues, the Democrats can offer education grants, infrastructure improvements, more health insurance subsidies all of which help the middle class. Many in the middle class don't want such direct assistance. They would rather have higher paying jobs. Unfortunately the government can't offer them jobs and lower tax rates have not encouraged employers to pay their employees more.
3
The corporations are reporting near record profit margins, near record cash on hand, near record Upper Management compensation, very high stock prices as measured by Price to Earnings ratio.
And a RECORD LOW wage to revenue ratio. They pay out in wages a record low amount when measured against how much they take in.
So.. why should a few extra bucks of tax breaks cause them to hire more people or pay their current workers more?
And a RECORD LOW wage to revenue ratio. They pay out in wages a record low amount when measured against how much they take in.
So.. why should a few extra bucks of tax breaks cause them to hire more people or pay their current workers more?
The labor market sets wages as low as possible. The consumer market sets prices as high as possible. Tax cuts just increase profits for owners.
Tax increases on the rich spent employing American workers at livable wages would increase the demand for workers driving up wages in the private sector. Government can create jobs and increase incomes using market principles.
Tax increases on the rich spent employing American workers at livable wages would increase the demand for workers driving up wages in the private sector. Government can create jobs and increase incomes using market principles.
The President is focused on income inequality, and the House and Senate are in the control of the Republicans. Thus, if they seriously wanted to address the issue of income inequality, they should do it now. Even if it were to disrupt the liberal coalition, most Democrats would vote for real measures to improve the plight of the middle class.
Given that I am not inclined to hold my breath until this happens, we can drop the charade. The discovery of the poor will just be one more reason to advocate for trickle down economics, and to satisfy the Kochs, another justification for getting rid of environmental protections. That way we can be poor, and live in a polluted environment, and if we are lucky, we can die younger.
Given that I am not inclined to hold my breath until this happens, we can drop the charade. The discovery of the poor will just be one more reason to advocate for trickle down economics, and to satisfy the Kochs, another justification for getting rid of environmental protections. That way we can be poor, and live in a polluted environment, and if we are lucky, we can die younger.
10
After 50 years of Democrat poverty programs, the results are more folks than every addicted to a handout, voting Democrat. This is the true basis of Democrat programs: Keep them in poverty forever and we will have their vote. Never let them get ahead because they might vote Republican. Never give them a fishing pole when we can give them a fish. What an evil ideology supported with tax payer money.
If the GOP wanted to do something about jobs, they would have brought proposals for jobs that would have passed the Congressional vote up for a vote.
They did not.
And Mike Lee in the leadership that stopped those bills from reaching the floor for a vote.
They did not.
And Mike Lee in the leadership that stopped those bills from reaching the floor for a vote.
A "Come to Jesus" meeting in the GOP is nothing short of shocking. They own the label of pharasees: it's not going to be easy.
The Florida politics is certainly as juicy as their famed oranges -- we all know it is a key state in the electoral college count, along with those fical Buckeyes.
Sincerity counts: do they have it? It's more than show and tell time when one engages in the persuason game. I suggest they begin by showing up for compromise conversation in the House. Being absent and tardy is hardly a genuine profile for reform.
Nonetheless, you can expect a vice-presidential candidate with roots in either Ohio or Florida in the next national election.
The Florida politics is certainly as juicy as their famed oranges -- we all know it is a key state in the electoral college count, along with those fical Buckeyes.
Sincerity counts: do they have it? It's more than show and tell time when one engages in the persuason game. I suggest they begin by showing up for compromise conversation in the House. Being absent and tardy is hardly a genuine profile for reform.
Nonetheless, you can expect a vice-presidential candidate with roots in either Ohio or Florida in the next national election.
Prone as I am to disagree with Mr. Edsall's writings there is nothing to disagree with here. As someone who thinks of myself as a fiscal conservative I certainly believe the Republican party has to look at the facts and adjust to current realities. And I don't mean just the realities of how to get elected but, more importantly, the realities of our economy. I'm also not sure the entire Republican party sees lower tax rates for those at the top of the income distribution as a "pillar of conservative ideology". What is a pillar is bringing spending more in line with receipts. And as this opinion piece points out there are many, and I would argue too many, ideas about how to do that. Our tax code is very complicated with many ways to skin the cat as the saying goes. So many ways in fact that I don't think we will ever have the courage to start over with a blank sheet of paper and make it all a lot simpler with a lot fewer ways to avert paying one's fair share. We can't even figure out or agree on what one's fair share should be.
So the Republicans are now concerned with poverty and economic inequity. As the President said about Mitt's conversion recently, great! Bring it on. Let's hear their ideas for addressing campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, minimum wage reforms, healthcare reform, prison and drug law reform, and appropriately funding the social security trust fund, all economic related areas that need attention, all contributing to poverty and inequity in America. This I can’t wait to hear.
23
This is an opinion piece, but has anyone noticed that the media almost never quote Democrats in response to anything offered or suggested by Republicans? Where are the Democratic voices? Where is the "contest of ideas?" Of course the Republican language switcheroo is nonsense and empty of content! All subject headings and no policy to attack the problem they have newly defined except the same ones they've promoted for thirty years that got us where we are. So why have the media not given the public any authoritative responses? I suggest that media, like much else, is corporate run with corporate think and corporate propaganda running silently close behind Republican "ideas." The absence of alternative perspectives says a lot about the entire democratic project we have called the "United States."
6
"so that deductibility applied only to the interest paid on the first $300,000 of a mortgage. It’s hard to imagine a Republican plan punishing professionals in expensive cities more." I fail to see how this would be so painful. Further, clustering together in economically gated communities does nothing to spread opportunity. (for domestics maybe). Here in Trenton or in Newark or in Camden or E.StLouis, or Gary, or....one can get a fixer-upper for way under $300,000, and be just an hour from an expensive center city. Leave Manhattan for the uberrich and live where you can actually do some good.
2
What a bunch of hooey.
The GOP has to prove it is willing to backup such new-found concern for the poor and middle class with actual policies, not just soundbites, Mr. Edsall. And aside from the handful of tax restructures you mentioned, I can't see the GOP philosophy changing anytime soon--as long as they refuse to raise the minimum wage and insist on repealing the ACA. The proposals they finally outlined last week to replace the ACA with will most certainly NOT help the middle or upper middle classes.
So, I don't think the Democrats should be scared, thus far at least; I think the Democrats should be ready to pounce.
The GOP has to prove it is willing to backup such new-found concern for the poor and middle class with actual policies, not just soundbites, Mr. Edsall. And aside from the handful of tax restructures you mentioned, I can't see the GOP philosophy changing anytime soon--as long as they refuse to raise the minimum wage and insist on repealing the ACA. The proposals they finally outlined last week to replace the ACA with will most certainly NOT help the middle or upper middle classes.
So, I don't think the Democrats should be scared, thus far at least; I think the Democrats should be ready to pounce.
6
After all, Mom, your Democrat liberals did so VERY well last November 4th, no?
What a bang-up job! I know that you're still beaming at that.
What a bang-up job! I know that you're still beaming at that.
Given the general amnesia of far too many voters, a feckless media that will once again provide zero historical perspective, and their own unbounded hypocrisy, Republicants can count on being able to "'etch-a-sketch" and present themselves as opposite of what they actually are - tools of the 0.01%.
With their unbroken legislative history of economic malfeasance and opposition, they are the single largest reason that the current recovery is not lifting more boats. Dems have the fantastic opportunity now to call out the charade by loudly demanding increased EITC, the closing of the carried interest loophole, etc.
With their unbroken legislative history of economic malfeasance and opposition, they are the single largest reason that the current recovery is not lifting more boats. Dems have the fantastic opportunity now to call out the charade by loudly demanding increased EITC, the closing of the carried interest loophole, etc.
5
Sorry but we seem to have become a zombie nation. Most Americans seem to be quite content to allow our political and economic realms to stagnate and then regress to levels unbecoming a great nation. We have become so partisan that we cannot agree on the depths of our problems or the means to address them. A zombie nation indeed.
2
just like 'compassionate conservatism' or the 'education president' this is another hoax to get votes. it's very smart, and many will buy it. it's a nicely packaged, bright, shiny empty box of fluff. I hope I'm wrong.
there has been a definite trend towards turning things around on their head. for instance, accusing progressives of being responsible for violence and as supporting evidence, citing the Nazi party as an example of the damage that progressives do.
there has been a definite trend towards turning things around on their head. for instance, accusing progressives of being responsible for violence and as supporting evidence, citing the Nazi party as an example of the damage that progressives do.
2
It is not credible that the zealous Republican base will accept such a radical (in all senses) change of direction. I suggest that Mr. Edsall sample the comment sections of the National Review, RedState, or any number of more neutral websites to see how the gallery reacts to such talk. I am particularly thinking of the Washington Post, which displays far more diversity of viewpoints than does the NYT. It provides a sobering, indeed frightening glimpse into the perspective of people whose main if not sole source of information is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
The divide in the perception of reality between the liberal and so-called conservative (really reactionary) minds makes this reader despair that there will ever be any rapprochement over the future of this nation, short of a violent upheaval.
In any case, should this actually move votes in the GOP direction, there is very little in the past actions of that party to ;lead one to expect that they will do more than talk the talk while the rest of us walk the plank.
The divide in the perception of reality between the liberal and so-called conservative (really reactionary) minds makes this reader despair that there will ever be any rapprochement over the future of this nation, short of a violent upheaval.
In any case, should this actually move votes in the GOP direction, there is very little in the past actions of that party to ;lead one to expect that they will do more than talk the talk while the rest of us walk the plank.
11
"(T)he Washington Post... provides a sobering, indeed frightening glimpse into the perspective of people whose main if not sole source of information is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh."
I faithfully read the not-so-illustrious Wall Street Journal, which keeps a stable of opinion writers who makes no bones about their disdain of anyone not Republican and how all things wrong with America are laid at the feet of either the idiotic Democrats, the hated liberals, or preferably both. And the Party Faithful gobble it down and want more.
I faithfully read the not-so-illustrious Wall Street Journal, which keeps a stable of opinion writers who makes no bones about their disdain of anyone not Republican and how all things wrong with America are laid at the feet of either the idiotic Democrats, the hated liberals, or preferably both. And the Party Faithful gobble it down and want more.
So, your conclusion is that the Republicans are better than the Democrats when it comes to lying about they really intend to do and as long as they seem sincere enough for television sound bites and can stifle the real loonies in their party, our foolish electorate will give them another chance for Bush redux. Sadly, it sounds like a real possibility.
7
What this really boils down to is that Republican lip service to the middle class threatens the Democrats long held monopoly on . . . lip service to the middle class.
Ms. Clinton is now faced with the awful prospect that merely SAYING she doesn't support policies that blatantly favor Wall Street won't be enough, she'll actually have to find some eensy-weensy-teeny-tiny bone she can throw to the majority of Americans and hope that doesn't cause her paymasters to abandon her.
Ms. Clinton is now faced with the awful prospect that merely SAYING she doesn't support policies that blatantly favor Wall Street won't be enough, she'll actually have to find some eensy-weensy-teeny-tiny bone she can throw to the majority of Americans and hope that doesn't cause her paymasters to abandon her.
5
During the last Congress, Republicans used their control of the House to pass measures overruling Obamacare 47 times.
Do you think Republicans now in control of the House and Senate will use their control to pass just one piece of legislation to address income inequality?
Do you think Republicans now in control of the House and Senate will use their control to pass just one piece of legislation to address income inequality?
24
"[T]]he Wall Street wing of her party"? You're aware that Wall Street is far more invested in the GOP, right? So why are you playing along with the Republican meme that Wall Street is a hotbed of Democratic fellow travelers?
8
From the tone of this op-ed I am beginning to think that you do not feel that the Great Society and the War on Poverty have removed the poor from our midst.
That is shocking.
That is shocking.
2
The War on Poverty was very short and fought with one hand tied behind our back. Nixon started to dismantled it when he took office removing any hint of "fat", and St. Ronnie damaged it as much as possible. The meat was all gone when Clinton got in to office and signed off on splitting the bones to suck out the marrow.
As a professor of mine used to say, We had a War on Poverty and poverty won. All we brought to fight it was a pop gun. Too bad we didn't resource it the way we resourced the Republican War on Drug(users).
As a professor of mine used to say, We had a War on Poverty and poverty won. All we brought to fight it was a pop gun. Too bad we didn't resource it the way we resourced the Republican War on Drug(users).
1
From the tone of your comment, I am beginning to think you would support an end to government programs to help the disabled, poor children, elderly, or just about any program that wouldn't directly benefit you, Jimmy. Unless you're a privileged member of the 1%, you should be glad for a safety net that, heaven forfend, even you might have to use someday.
2
As long as both parties are ought and paid for by Wall Street all of these social issues will remain a sideshow. To borrow a phrase from your column, it is naive to believe the plutocrats funding the elections will allow marginal tax rates to increase or the estate taxes to increase. If the choice is between Bush and Clinton expect a rearrangement of chairs on the IRS deck and some spiffy new "reform" that will be market-based if Bush wins and something with "opportunity" in the legislation if Clinton wins…
2
The Reformocons will have a future when and if Rupert Murdock signs on.
1
Come on, Murdock can lie with the best of them. His "news" teams are very creative. They have to be because everything they say is pure fabrication, even their rage.
Wow, politicians figured out out that helping our citizens is their job. Unheard of.
2
News flash: Republicans discover the poor as they realize that they cannot win elections with the votes of only the super rich whom they serve. Will they concede that government has the ability and duty to change the private sector in a way that enhances opportunity for the poor? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW! More at 10pm.
2
Clever ol' Republicans. We'll adopt a bunch of liberal policies. That will sure fix the liberals wagons. The logic kind of escapes me.
1
This is Karl Rove's playbook: find your biggest weakness and use bold-faced lies to diffuse it. Because Republicans will say anything and, as usual, Democrats will say nothing.
11
To socialist Democrats, like this one, if you believe in balancing the budget, but still providing a safety net, you don't care about the poor.
Unfortunately for him and other Utopian socialists, you need only look at where the majority of the money is spent at the state level and you'll find it's it's fairly evenly divided between "free" public education, roads and bridges and (GASP!!) Medicaid and Medicare and other programs for the poor.
Who'd a thunk it!!
Unfortunately for him and other Utopian socialists, you need only look at where the majority of the money is spent at the state level and you'll find it's it's fairly evenly divided between "free" public education, roads and bridges and (GASP!!) Medicaid and Medicare and other programs for the poor.
Who'd a thunk it!!
1
Mr. Edsall seems to glide over the basic problem with his argument. What rational person, having watched U.S. politics for the past three decades, believes anything any of these candidates says? Bill Clinton, Bush II, Obama? Look at the lying Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was going to respect precedent. How did that turn out? Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lee, and all of these so-called reformicons will govern as pro-business puppets if they are elected. Unfortunately, the same is likely true of Hillary Clinton. Casting these candidates as being seriously interested in the middle class and impoverished might make a good column, but it has no basis in reality or history at all. Before anyone thinks of voting for a "reformicon", think hard about what a completely Republican government, including the Supreme Court, would look like, with no checks or balances. If you believe that the middle class is in bad shape now, just watch. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
7
I agree in principle, but you overlook the fact that there are very few rational people in this country.
The Democrats have set themselves up for this. They have a great job of talking, but have provided very little serious effort to change anything for decades. Clinton turned them into "centrists", advocates for Wall Street. They have not fought for much of anything for years. They have very little to brag about and the poor have given up. They accept that they're on their own and that is the biggest reason they do not turn out to vote. The African-American community did for Obama, not the Democrats. Does anyone truly believe they will for another Clinton? The problem is the Democrats have already decided that Hilary is the candidate. "Centrist" again? If the Republicans use their "religious faith", they will have to explain why their so-called love for Jesus has been to ignore His words about the "least of our brothers and sisters." The Democrats may have an advantage with the middle class. I don't know. Their focus on the immigration bill has angered a great number of them. How can they change any of this so quickly? I don't know if they can. The inner-cities don't believe them anymore. The rural poor is mostly Republican. The Democrats have hung out with the rich for way too long. And they still don't understand how much despair and hopelessness have turned those they take for granted away. When we lost the like Senator Wellstone, we lost a very loud voice. There are a few back now. Just a few. Is that enough to turn out the voters they take for granted?
2
Unfortunately all of this "new" talk by the Republicans is just that--talk. Mr. Pethokoukis's math actually adds up--and refutes Reaganomics as fantasy-based. So is the new clarion call of opportunity inequality and tax-rate "reform"--it's supposed to be catnip for idiots who do NOT know how our very complicated tax code taxes ordinary income. The "reformers" also do not take into account corporate taxes on overseas income--never paid--corporate and individual write-offs, and how the percentage tax brackets work in the first place.
I used to work for my accountant during college and grad school intersession in pre-computer days. Before Reagan, most people were able to understand that percentages of income taxed were not a straight line, but worked on steps, with the maximum percentage on the top dollars over a certain amount. g "new" proposals obfuscate this, to put it mildly.
I believe all of this talk about "compassionate conservatism" is window dressing, much like the "big tent" talk about getting Hispanic-Americans to join the GOP.
At one time REAL reform was what the GOP was about--but that was over 100 years ago under Teddy Roosevelt, and again under Eisenhower and (God forbid!) Nixon. Republicans were even more likely to support birth control--and Planned Parenthood--in the 1950s!
As we've seen from Congressional Republicans in the last 20-30 years, "reform" is a debased word in the Party of No--just to get the yokels--while they front for looters.
I used to work for my accountant during college and grad school intersession in pre-computer days. Before Reagan, most people were able to understand that percentages of income taxed were not a straight line, but worked on steps, with the maximum percentage on the top dollars over a certain amount. g "new" proposals obfuscate this, to put it mildly.
I believe all of this talk about "compassionate conservatism" is window dressing, much like the "big tent" talk about getting Hispanic-Americans to join the GOP.
At one time REAL reform was what the GOP was about--but that was over 100 years ago under Teddy Roosevelt, and again under Eisenhower and (God forbid!) Nixon. Republicans were even more likely to support birth control--and Planned Parenthood--in the 1950s!
As we've seen from Congressional Republicans in the last 20-30 years, "reform" is a debased word in the Party of No--just to get the yokels--while they front for looters.
6
The Republicans who supported birth control and other socially progressive issues in the era before Reagan were the dead breed called New England conservatives. They are no more. Conservatism died with them. What remains is a reactionary libertarian party that purchased the Republican franchise.
One more thought which should have closed my earlier comment. It seems that from a strategic point of view, the DNC should be planning for candidates like E. Warren or B. Sanders to out-yodel the yodelers. Hillary to already too tainted to provide a clear contrast against a "progressive" Republican like M. Lee.
3
Boehner also talked about low wages and lackof of jobs. seeing as how he's in charge of the House and the GOP is in charge of Congress what legislation has Beohner propose to alleviate those situations considering the current stuff isn't working? The trade treaty the GOP wants will only off shore more jobs. The Keystone pipeline will bring in Canadian oil to compete with our putting thousands of US oil workers out of their jobs. And, as far as legislation all I've seen is anti-abortion, anti-immigrant and anti_ACA stuff being proposed and passed. Strenghthening unions, raising the minimum wage and making it harder to off shore US jobs is what's called for. Not to mention putting people to work rebuilding our infrastructure.
6
All this compassionate conservatism is just window dressing, designed to fool Joe Dinnerpail into voting against his own self interest.
6
It's all politics - winning an election. There's one more leg to put on the three-legged Republican stool - the Presidency. In my opinion (and I value my opinion!), that's all that this is about. Lee, Rubio, and any other aspiring somebody will toss out stuff like this, see how it plays, modify it if it has a breath of life left, and hold it up as the stuff of great statesmanship, which they hope will garner them victory in their next bid for re-election (or election, in Rubio's case).
4
Why is it that the child credit - instead of being reduced or eliminated in this proposal - is being tripled?
Statistics show that larger segments of the population are childless. Why is it that those who use more resources actually get tax breaks for doing so? The majority of property taxes also support schools. Republicans talk about personal responsibility so why not end this tax credit entirely?
Statistics show that larger segments of the population are childless. Why is it that those who use more resources actually get tax breaks for doing so? The majority of property taxes also support schools. Republicans talk about personal responsibility so why not end this tax credit entirely?
3
There is still some societal assumption that children represent out future and that therefore all of society has a stake in the health and well being of families and children. The childless will be dependent on these children to run the world and provide the labor force as they grow older just as much as their parents will. Children may be reviled by many as sticky annoying brats but they are in fact a natural resource. You are depending on other people to keep the population stable. To present them as "takers" is a selfish and short sighted view of what they provide,
4
So we should only have shakers, the religion that forbid children? We need to support people who are willing to raise the next generation. And we need to educate these children to meet the challenges of the future.
2
Karen, if you want children by all means do so - but provide for them yourself. It's telling that you resort to labeling the "taken from" as selfish. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who have weak arguments.
1
Obscene wealth controls the Republican party, including its candidate for president. The Koch brothers contributed a total of over $900 million to reactionary political candidates and causes in 2014. Anyone who believes that the Republicans--or any candidate running for president on Republican money--will of anything to help the middle class is delusional. In fact, the Koch brothers and their ilk would really like to see the middle class simply disappear. Until it becomes apparent to wealthy Americans that a healthy middle class is in their best interest---which may take a severe upheaval of our economy and society--the wealthiest Americans will continue to promote Dickensian unfairness. In other words, Mike Lee's olive branch is really a bunch of boloney.
5
It would seem that if the economy and government were in such poor shape that the Koch boys need to spend hundreds of millions attacking them I wonder where they are getting the money.
1
I don't believe this Republican 'Compassionate Conservatism' stuff for a second, but I think it might have its roots in the realization that most of its base is composed of old white people which means people on Social Security/Medicare/public pensions which means in conservative parlance Welfare Queens. This translates to welfare for corporations and old white people good; welfare for young nonwhite people bad. If the GOP keeps up with these privatization schemes for Social Security and voucherization scams for Medicare, the GOP base will eventually catch on and Republican hopes will implode. Just enough 'compassion' for old (i.e. white) people to keep voting 'R', but no compassion for anyone else not likely to vote for them.
8
Housing - decent, safe and affordable housing, wheather owned or rented - is by far the single largest expense that confronts lower middle class and poor Americans. Millions pay more than 50% of income for housing, leaving little for food, child care, education and health care costs. Our economy and our tax structure both create incentives that only exacerbate this "affordability gap" between income and housing costs. Reforms - including lowering the mortgage interest deduction, mortgage credits for lower income homeowners, and more money for the National Housing Trust Fund to create more affordable rentals - can solve this problem. Politicians worried about inequality would benefit from learning more about this extremely logical solution based on simple math.
3
All I mostly hear from the very little man in the very good but very empty suit as he preaches class division is "middle class, middle class, middle class" ad infinitum. The poor-not so much.
And he of the good speech writers and teleprompter knowing full well that couples making well over $100,000 consider themselves middle class. Particularly those who live in rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments in Manhattan. Viscerally as a member of the- relatively-undeserving rich i.e. self defined middle class particularly compared to world population- I love it. Spend other peoples money to benefit me and mine! Intellectually and morally I find it contemptible as as read this opinion.
As a PS most conservatives recognize or implicitly accept the moral imperative to help the truly needy even at the risk of some abuse and waste at the margin. They just do not accept the idea that the central government run by left ideologues with statist instincts can do it all with wrong headed policies.
And he of the good speech writers and teleprompter knowing full well that couples making well over $100,000 consider themselves middle class. Particularly those who live in rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments in Manhattan. Viscerally as a member of the- relatively-undeserving rich i.e. self defined middle class particularly compared to world population- I love it. Spend other peoples money to benefit me and mine! Intellectually and morally I find it contemptible as as read this opinion.
As a PS most conservatives recognize or implicitly accept the moral imperative to help the truly needy even at the risk of some abuse and waste at the margin. They just do not accept the idea that the central government run by left ideologues with statist instincts can do it all with wrong headed policies.
1
You are right. of course. We want rightwing ideologues in power who will build up our defenses and send our boys and girls, and our money, to attack all those foreign lands that hate us. The Syrians, Iranians, Palestinians, Pakistanis and others are in their landing crafts now. These are right headed policies don't cha know.
2
It's of course welcome news that Republicans are engaging in a serious debate over how to tackle inequality and middle class stagnation. I'll remain skeptical, however, until I see the eventual GOP presidential candidate emerge with a set of policy proposals that are not predicated on cutting top and capital gain tax rates.
George W Bush may have been a precursor to the reformicon movement with his "compassionate conservatism," but let's not forget that even W's brand of conservatism was based first and foremost on top rate/capital gains tax cuts. Until conservatives cease to base their policies on trickle-down economics, I will continue to be skeptical.
George W Bush may have been a precursor to the reformicon movement with his "compassionate conservatism," but let's not forget that even W's brand of conservatism was based first and foremost on top rate/capital gains tax cuts. Until conservatives cease to base their policies on trickle-down economics, I will continue to be skeptical.
3
It seems that the overwhelming evidence of the most extreme inequality in 100 years is finally taking hold among the electorate. The GOP, in a come-to-Jesus moment, is trying to catch up.
Although still something of a forlorn hope, if the Democrats can get their act together and subjugate identity politics below it's-the-economy-stupid, they have a decent chance of winning something next year. It should not be that difficult to factually portray its opposition as the party of Saks Fifth Avenue in Wal-Mart clothing.
Although still something of a forlorn hope, if the Democrats can get their act together and subjugate identity politics below it's-the-economy-stupid, they have a decent chance of winning something next year. It should not be that difficult to factually portray its opposition as the party of Saks Fifth Avenue in Wal-Mart clothing.
5
My view is that it is President Obama who took the fight about wage inequality onto Republican turf, not the other way around. You would not be hearing populist rhetoric from Republicans had they not been forced to address the issue exposed so well by the President. Inequality is the product of failed Republican trickle down economics and Republican failures to understand what a minimum, living wage is, and Republican tax breaks for supposed "jobs creators" who used the money instead for fourth and fifth vacation homes, and maybe some of that super-luxury Manhattan real estate so much in the news, self-aggrandizement par excellence. But no matter how populist any particular Republican now starts to sound, the Republican Party cannot be trusted. Their words are nothing but the strategy-of-the-day for the White House, from which, once in, they will continue running roughshod over the American Dream they already have done so much to eviscerate. The best counter-strategy is to debunk trickle down once and for all and to expose the past six years of their multifarious obstruction to the kind of progressive policies they will now don as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
7
This could be very entertaining - a Clinton the victim of triangulation. The way to avoid it? Warren, '16.
The reference to "compassionate conservatism" is important - most likely all of this current talk is similarly empty rhetoric, designed by public relations people to win campaigns. The Republicans know that their actual policies are unpopular, and they can't keep repeating that "trickle down economics" will work, after so many years of failure. So their writers have come up with some new things to say.
If there was any reality behind it, and they were willing to actually implement realistic and decent policies, that would be wonderful. Once (before Goldwater, as an arbitrary landmark) the Republican Party was actually pretty good in many ways, and there is no logical reason why they couldn't be again. Especially since the Democrats have moved so far to the right that they are barely recognizable as the party of labor. And the old living-wage industrial labor that they were the party of is probably a thing of the past, for better or for worse. Theoretically, the Republicans could be the party of the new semi-employed uber-drivers - or something.
But we shouldn't lose sight sight of the largest probability, that it is all just phoney Romney-style rhetorical re-invention.
If there was any reality behind it, and they were willing to actually implement realistic and decent policies, that would be wonderful. Once (before Goldwater, as an arbitrary landmark) the Republican Party was actually pretty good in many ways, and there is no logical reason why they couldn't be again. Especially since the Democrats have moved so far to the right that they are barely recognizable as the party of labor. And the old living-wage industrial labor that they were the party of is probably a thing of the past, for better or for worse. Theoretically, the Republicans could be the party of the new semi-employed uber-drivers - or something.
But we shouldn't lose sight sight of the largest probability, that it is all just phoney Romney-style rhetorical re-invention.
8
The Republicans have not discovered the poor. A few of them have discovered a new way to spout empty words and platitudes that have no force in action.
For the past six years they have done nothing but trash a moderate democratic president who has been more than willing to create solid legislation benefitting the poor and middle class. Now that he is leaving the scene and a new presidential election looms is soon to occur and knowing that they can not win it without a kinder image they take on the mantle of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
But watching the behavior of our benighted electorate the tactic might just fool enough people and that wolf will eat granny in her sleep.
For the past six years they have done nothing but trash a moderate democratic president who has been more than willing to create solid legislation benefitting the poor and middle class. Now that he is leaving the scene and a new presidential election looms is soon to occur and knowing that they can not win it without a kinder image they take on the mantle of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
But watching the behavior of our benighted electorate the tactic might just fool enough people and that wolf will eat granny in her sleep.
11
Republicans can talk about middle and lower class issues all they want, it's their policies that have kept their opportunity low. Tax breaks are not the answer, it will certainly not do anything for the debt they are so worried about. The increase in opportunity means housing needs to be affordable, college needs to be affordable, incomes need to increase, childcare needs to be available, health care needs to be accessible and affordable, all things that the GOP has traditionally been against. They don't fool me for a minute.
14
I believe that Mr. Obama, with a stroke of political genious, has set the agenda for the 2016 presidential election, which he is not contesting. By putting income inequality as the defining issue for the next election, he is forcing Republicans to begin talking about middle class issues and raise expectations of the electorate. While Hillary Clinton is MIA, she will not be able to ignore this issue, because if she does, she will come across as a crony of Wall Streeters. So, she will need to take this head on, too.
When both parties start talking about the same issues, it is good for the country because whoever wins the election will be forced to walk the middle path or their party would risk losing big in the mid-term election in 2018 and the incumbent president would run a very high risk of losin the reelection in 2020.
To me that is the genious of Mr. Obama. With a single speech he has forced republicans to address the "elephant" in the room.
Bravo!
When both parties start talking about the same issues, it is good for the country because whoever wins the election will be forced to walk the middle path or their party would risk losing big in the mid-term election in 2018 and the incumbent president would run a very high risk of losin the reelection in 2020.
To me that is the genious of Mr. Obama. With a single speech he has forced republicans to address the "elephant" in the room.
Bravo!
14
He is good to make a speech.
But he had 8 years. For 6 of those he also had the Dem senate. And House for a few years too. What did he do, or accomplish? The very thing he rails against, the income inequality, or worse yet the wealth inequality, has become much worse under him than most prior presidents.
If you structure all your policies to address a specific problem, and at the end of it, the outcomes go in the exact opposite way, then either (a) you identified and diagnosed the problem wrong, or (b) your policies are wrong headed, and you need to try the exact opposite things.
The solution is to grow the economy. To inspire the people, to work, to be more productive. To focus on supply.
Instead, all this excessive obsession with redistribution, with punishment of the rich or successful, demonization of various professions, bad mouthing of business, and punitive tax policies are leading them to the wrong results and bad outcomes for the nation.
But he had 8 years. For 6 of those he also had the Dem senate. And House for a few years too. What did he do, or accomplish? The very thing he rails against, the income inequality, or worse yet the wealth inequality, has become much worse under him than most prior presidents.
If you structure all your policies to address a specific problem, and at the end of it, the outcomes go in the exact opposite way, then either (a) you identified and diagnosed the problem wrong, or (b) your policies are wrong headed, and you need to try the exact opposite things.
The solution is to grow the economy. To inspire the people, to work, to be more productive. To focus on supply.
Instead, all this excessive obsession with redistribution, with punishment of the rich or successful, demonization of various professions, bad mouthing of business, and punitive tax policies are leading them to the wrong results and bad outcomes for the nation.
1
Midtown Desi:
The solution is to grow the economy.
****
This involves "sleeping with the enemy" -- that is, making deals with large corporations to get them to hire American workers and encouraging business activity. This has always seemed to be anathema to this president. (Didn't he actually call his brief stint in private industry going behind enemy lines?)
Instead, Obama and democrats chose to saddle the economy with the Affordable Care Act, essentially disrupting millions of already insured and their employment situation so he could add several million to the Medicaid rolls. And in doing so, divided our nation to the point where nothing more would get done.
Democrats made a choice. A poorly enacted health insurance focus versus jobs.
The solution is to grow the economy.
****
This involves "sleeping with the enemy" -- that is, making deals with large corporations to get them to hire American workers and encouraging business activity. This has always seemed to be anathema to this president. (Didn't he actually call his brief stint in private industry going behind enemy lines?)
Instead, Obama and democrats chose to saddle the economy with the Affordable Care Act, essentially disrupting millions of already insured and their employment situation so he could add several million to the Medicaid rolls. And in doing so, divided our nation to the point where nothing more would get done.
Democrats made a choice. A poorly enacted health insurance focus versus jobs.
2
AACNY:
And there we have the theme for the speeches in 2016: Democrats made a choice. The wrong choice. Let's not do it again.
And there we have the theme for the speeches in 2016: Democrats made a choice. The wrong choice. Let's not do it again.
The obscenity here is that Mike Lee and his fellow elephantines are entirely correct in their analysis, albeit shallow. It is obscene because it is such a cynically transparent political ploy to play to the national angst-du-jour with no intention doing anything to address it.
If voters believe for a nano-moment that the GOP has suddenly been gripped by the light of a damascene moment, that this Party which a few short weeks ago was unapologetically expressing contempt for all but the over-pampered and over-privileged would lift so much as a pinkie to help anyone else, then they deserve what they elect, just as in 2014.
In the real world where ordinary people struggle and survive, both parties hew to the whims of their pay masters. The Democratic Party could have a role to play in merclessly hammering at the truth about the GOP. Neither 2014 nor Hillary Clinton's misguided, selfish role in that electoral debacle offers evidence of much hope.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
If voters believe for a nano-moment that the GOP has suddenly been gripped by the light of a damascene moment, that this Party which a few short weeks ago was unapologetically expressing contempt for all but the over-pampered and over-privileged would lift so much as a pinkie to help anyone else, then they deserve what they elect, just as in 2014.
In the real world where ordinary people struggle and survive, both parties hew to the whims of their pay masters. The Democratic Party could have a role to play in merclessly hammering at the truth about the GOP. Neither 2014 nor Hillary Clinton's misguided, selfish role in that electoral debacle offers evidence of much hope.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
7
The plantation owners have suddenly found compassion for their slaves. And their solution for the problem of unhappy slaves? Why an bigger, more efficient more prosperous plantation, with a bigger house on the hill, more cotton to pick, and fewer taxes to pay. Yes, when life is good for the owners, then life is better for the slaves.
Problem is, no one, including Clinton, is talking about ending slavery.
Problem is, no one, including Clinton, is talking about ending slavery.
71
I'm to cynical to think that this obviously cynical appropriation of what has been and should be core Democratic platform planks will fail. It will probably work, and some other Republican saint will afflict us for at least four years. But after being elected "at large" he will find his hands tied by the Congressional Red State wackos who will make sure nothing really progressive gets done and we will see more of the same ole same ole.
10
First, how can the democrats claim anything on income inequality as an issue. The last six years have been very bad. Secondly, you miss-state what Reagan actually did. He reduced the marginal tax rate on everybody, not just the wealthy. He also reduced tax loopholes. We had people investing in things like quarter horse farms because of favorable tax treatment instead of things that would increase wealth. The government was regulating a lot of stuff and Reagan reduced that. What good does tinkering with marginal tax rates if the DOI and EPA won't let you get a building permit anyways? Or, you can't get a building permit from almost any city in California unless you pay a lot of money. We have created all these barriers to growth and we are surprized that there is no growth?
3
Reagan increased the taxes on self-employed people, ie, those who dared to go into business for themselves. He also increased payroll taxes.
5
Yes, it's all those mean ol' Democrats' fault. The Republican party has absolutely NO culpability in bringing this country to its knees, does it. Yeah, right.
4
One person's "barrier to growth" is another's livable planet with breathable air and drinkable water.
4
Only one tax policy need be changed in order to salvage the US economy. End the tax incentives to multi-nationals for off-shoring manufacturing and services.
7
Or create tax incentives to hire American workers and manufacture here. All those trillions waiting to be returned to the US are a good place to start. Cut the tax rate on them and tie the cut to a massive hiring of US workers.
Republicans will have to be careful with this talk of promoting economic fairness and equality. It is likely to compromise their 'divide and conquer' strategy that has been working fairly well, catering as it does to base instincts. They may lose the white voters that see themselves as a class separate and apart from others and deserving of special privileges.
7
Mr. Edsall sees a renewed Republican interest in economic fairness as a threat to Democratic hopes in 2016. I see that as wishful thinking.
More likely this is a splintering of the Republican coalition. The party that has depended on a highly motivated conservative base, regularly inflamed by Fox News, will struggle to move that base away from its core belief that the poor have caused their own poverty.
Gerrymandered congressional districts help this conservative base return Republican majorities to Congress, despite the fact that the party endorses policies opposed by most Americans and opposes policies supported by most Americans. This same base has used Republican primaries to push their candidates ever rightward. They will fight just as hard to produce extreme candidates in 2016. Any candidate with less extreme positions will either have to modify his/her positions or will lose in the primaries dominated by this conservative base.
If the Republicans currently expressing concern over issues of inequality are sincere about addressing these issues, they will become less and less comfortable in a party dedicated to providing more tax breaks to the rich and removing health insurance from the poor. This is a recipe for a third party or for defecting to a party more likely to address their concerns. We saw in such a defection in Mississippi this week, where a former Republican state senator announced his intention to run for lieutenant governor as a democrat.
More likely this is a splintering of the Republican coalition. The party that has depended on a highly motivated conservative base, regularly inflamed by Fox News, will struggle to move that base away from its core belief that the poor have caused their own poverty.
Gerrymandered congressional districts help this conservative base return Republican majorities to Congress, despite the fact that the party endorses policies opposed by most Americans and opposes policies supported by most Americans. This same base has used Republican primaries to push their candidates ever rightward. They will fight just as hard to produce extreme candidates in 2016. Any candidate with less extreme positions will either have to modify his/her positions or will lose in the primaries dominated by this conservative base.
If the Republicans currently expressing concern over issues of inequality are sincere about addressing these issues, they will become less and less comfortable in a party dedicated to providing more tax breaks to the rich and removing health insurance from the poor. This is a recipe for a third party or for defecting to a party more likely to address their concerns. We saw in such a defection in Mississippi this week, where a former Republican state senator announced his intention to run for lieutenant governor as a democrat.
10
you keep believing that it is all about Gerrymandering. I hope all democrats think that way.
1
If and I say if they are so concerned for the poor why the heck aren't they coming up with policy solutions NOW. They control BOTH the Senate and the House. Where are the proposals? What does the Repub party propose to do to help the poor and middle class and reduce income disparity? Can one Repub give me an answer?
5
While Gerrymandering is part of it tell us how unfair it is for Wyoming to have two senators, with more sheep and cows than people, and California with almost 40 million also having two senators. Think that might have anything to do with it?
It takes a lot of poor and middle class people to support one rich person. And it takes a lot of fearful and low information voters to elect a Tea Party politician and maybe that constituency is finally catching on.
23
I can just see the Koch brothers handing out their $889 billion campaign treasury to Mike Lee ... in fact, they might even give it to Warren, right?
2
If it's the Republicans who pull Hillary to the left, I'll just sit back and appreciate the irony.
8
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I think “reformicons” will turn out to have more than just phonetic similarity with "decepticons" - the evil transformers.
Then again, the good transformers also hide behind false fronts - we just hope their intent is better.
Then again, the good transformers also hide behind false fronts - we just hope their intent is better.
6
It's too bad Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show. The Republican talking point "conservative reform agenda" is a treasure trove of comic material.
66
Liberals love to say that tax cuts cost the government.....In reality, taxes cost the American people.
For liberals, government is mommy and daddy. For conservatives, government is an institution created by and for - and can be dissolved by - the people.
For liberals, government is mommy and daddy. For conservatives, government is an institution created by and for - and can be dissolved by - the people.
5
Anarchy sounds like a great alternative. As for the debt that is always driven up by tax cuts (the evidence is so overwhelming that even Bush's top economists admitted it) that debt, along with our government, belongs to we the people.
32
Ah, but yet another Democrat myth.
"Reaganomics" led to the fastest increase in federal revenue in the history of the nation. Only deception by our American Democrat media (Brian Williams for one) and the Democrat Party has kept that simple but true fact well hidden.
Socialism and a high tax rate, on the other hand, has this country mired is the longest Recession in the nation's history.
"Reaganomics" led to the fastest increase in federal revenue in the history of the nation. Only deception by our American Democrat media (Brian Williams for one) and the Democrat Party has kept that simple but true fact well hidden.
Socialism and a high tax rate, on the other hand, has this country mired is the longest Recession in the nation's history.
1
for liberals, the United States government is of the people, by the people, for the people. other governments may not be like this, but this is our government.
for conservatives, government anywhere is a feed pen that they can wallow in and get fat.
for conservatives, government anywhere is a feed pen that they can wallow in and get fat.
2
Such a shock! Republicans don't actually fit the Democrat narrative. Very disturbing!!!
3
Yes, and the Tea Party no less. There's been so much media coverage of republicans doing things that run counter to the media's expectations.
It's going to be a long, confusing campaign season for them.
It's going to be a long, confusing campaign season for them.
2
Hi Beetle: If it's all just phoney rhetoric, that fits the narrative pretty well - remember, just recently even Romney was trying to portray himself as seeing inequality as a problem. That was laughable, but others will try using the same rhetoric. If there turns out to be anything real behind it, that will be interesting indeed.
3
Give a man a fish... and he will vote for you. Ancient Democrat Party proverb.
3
Give a billionaire tax cuts and he will vote for you. Ancient Republican party proverb.
6
Give a billionaire tax cuts and he will vote for you. Ancient Republican party proverb.
2
If, as Edsall notes, the Republican platform moves beyond the simple minded "cut-taxes-to-help-grow-the-economy" notion, it bodes well for all Americans because this will lead to a serious debate on how to grow the economy and help the middle class.
However, the proof of any pudding is in the eating. And so far, there is much talk with little to show for it. Moreover, there are many plutocrats waiting on the sidelines to fund the next Republican nominee. I am afraid that the Republican candidate, whoever he be, will have to walk back from these ideas in return for the support of those plutocrats.
However, the proof of any pudding is in the eating. And so far, there is much talk with little to show for it. Moreover, there are many plutocrats waiting on the sidelines to fund the next Republican nominee. I am afraid that the Republican candidate, whoever he be, will have to walk back from these ideas in return for the support of those plutocrats.
12
The "Party of Math" - that's rich. What's next, the "Party of Science"?
64
New GOP concern for struggling Americans as in fifty four votes to repeal the ACA, tears over mere $600B DOD budget, no to gas tax increase and road repair employment, celebration of tax dodger "job creators", and refusal to raise federal minimum wage.
33
You forgot they also need to destroy the last remaining union movement in the U.S. Once that's done we'll live in paradise
4
Mr. Carey, your comment should be adopted by every Democrat running for office in 2016. It describes the GOP to a Tea.
1
If this was a plan, you'd have to say it's been brilliant. Republicans terrify the country and Democrats with words like "redistribution," "socialism," and "class warfare," then jump in with deep concern for the poor which Democrats have been trying to keep secret due to their lack of courage. It's enough to make one loss faith. Even Elizabeth Warren might be talkin' trash. They say what they have to, then do what they're told. I think they have just noticed the glint of the torches on the tines of the pitch forks.
10
I agree that it's early in the race, although Jeb Bush seems to already be a couple of squares ahead on the Dem vs. Repub. chessboard. I would dismiss the Koch Industries $890 million dollar backed, Marco Rubio, in short order, as well as the Koch Ind. funded American Enterprise think tank of having any policies worth supporting since its function will be solely to create new "thought leader" ideas that will just be the same old corporate friendly hidden agenda wrapped up in a new and shiny "populist" jingle. After all, Koch Industries created the idea of the Tea Party, gave it talking points & then marketed the new "anti-government" agenda to angry Republicans.
The issue with Marco Rubio's new attention to the poor & stressing the need for a safety net, is that it is redundant. All that Mr. Rubio is doing is stating what government's role is for the underclass since F. D. R.'s New Deal after the great Depression. What does Mr. Rubio think about the Affordable Health Care Act that provides free health care to the poor & unemployed? How would Mr. Rubio address free universal pre-K education for all? What does he think about tax deductions for elite private schools? Why would he propose elimination of the home mortgage deduction up to $300k when this is the one tax deduction that the middle class cling to? Does he disagree w/ Common Core testing & what would he propose in its place? Hillary Clinton needs to start speaking out before Jeb Bush wins the race in her absentia.
The issue with Marco Rubio's new attention to the poor & stressing the need for a safety net, is that it is redundant. All that Mr. Rubio is doing is stating what government's role is for the underclass since F. D. R.'s New Deal after the great Depression. What does Mr. Rubio think about the Affordable Health Care Act that provides free health care to the poor & unemployed? How would Mr. Rubio address free universal pre-K education for all? What does he think about tax deductions for elite private schools? Why would he propose elimination of the home mortgage deduction up to $300k when this is the one tax deduction that the middle class cling to? Does he disagree w/ Common Core testing & what would he propose in its place? Hillary Clinton needs to start speaking out before Jeb Bush wins the race in her absentia.
6
The good news is that there is an actual debate going on within the Republican Party. The opposition is disappointingly, stagnant and uninspiring.
4
"The danger for Democrats is that they will lose ownership of the issues of stagnation, opportunity and fairness."
Oh really? And the republicans will step in with an economic plan to assist the middle and lower class? Whose producing that script, Hollywood ?
The republicans are genetically and congenitally incapable of producing such a plan by definition. They are too self absorbed in acquiring their next dollar and "sharing" is not part of "acquiring".
The Dems have hardly to fear any rational people in the country will develop Any association with economic assistance and republican, unless of course, its to give a hand to their Employers, the bankers, corporations etc.
They are the same people who would drive their BMW over their mother to pick up a dollar on the other side of the street.
Oh really? And the republicans will step in with an economic plan to assist the middle and lower class? Whose producing that script, Hollywood ?
The republicans are genetically and congenitally incapable of producing such a plan by definition. They are too self absorbed in acquiring their next dollar and "sharing" is not part of "acquiring".
The Dems have hardly to fear any rational people in the country will develop Any association with economic assistance and republican, unless of course, its to give a hand to their Employers, the bankers, corporations etc.
They are the same people who would drive their BMW over their mother to pick up a dollar on the other side of the street.
7
The Republicans control both houses of Congress. They have the power right now to institute the elements of reform Bush III is talking about. The next ice age will arrive first.
30
Exactly!!!!! But you and I both know that they won't do a darn thing...heck they won't even propose a solution now. It'll be " just elect us and we'll fix it for you"
1
The "discovery" of the poor by Republicans is a discovery that they can't win the White House in 2016 without making noises about concern for the middle class and the poor. If there was ever an "emperor has no clothes" moment for the Republicans, it was when they started parroting some stuff they heard somewhere about income inequality.
26
As the famous ad said: "Where's the beef?" What has the Republican Congress actually voted on, as opposed to what some Senator says in a speech? Let's see: abortion, an oil pipeline, repeal of health care for 10 million poor and middle class. Those will fix inequality?
If we want to talk facts, Piketty laid them out-over 2 centuries of data in multiple countries. The returns on capital exceed those on labor, generating rising inequality. Only 2 World Wars were powerful enough to disrupt that trend. Some tinkering with the tax code may help, but won't solve the problem. I'm not sure even Piketty's proposal, a global wealth tax, which would be difficult to implement. would truly fix the problem, but it could be a start. Either way, those on all sides should be honest about the difficulty.
If we want to talk facts, Piketty laid them out-over 2 centuries of data in multiple countries. The returns on capital exceed those on labor, generating rising inequality. Only 2 World Wars were powerful enough to disrupt that trend. Some tinkering with the tax code may help, but won't solve the problem. I'm not sure even Piketty's proposal, a global wealth tax, which would be difficult to implement. would truly fix the problem, but it could be a start. Either way, those on all sides should be honest about the difficulty.
9
Senator Lee is correct but the actions of Republican dominated state legislatures and those that voted for them are the exact opposite. Republican actions have tried their darndest to pull up the ladder behind them and reduce equal opportunity and the voters that vote for Republicans appear to heartily approve of the effort. My own legislators demonstrated the classic Republican two step of moving to the center just enough for attract independents and since the legislature convened in January, have done everything they can to reduce equal opportunity just hoping the voter won't remember two years from now. Beware the Republican preaching equal opportunity. They just want your vote.
18
There is no such thing as "reform conservatism"; this is a movement and a political party which opposed every social and economic reform from Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting Progressive Era, through the New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, the Civil Rights Era, right through the present day. This is a movement which, for over a century, has attempted to reverse and prevent reform, in order to advance the economic interests of the wealthy. It will never change. Its core value is reaction to reform, and preservation of privilege for a tiny economic elite.
Those individuals with any reformist inclinations abandoned the Republican Party long ago. Re-branding reactionary politics is just the latest deceitful ploy, one more attempt to make fools of the gullible, by those with a hundred years of experience.
Those individuals with any reformist inclinations abandoned the Republican Party long ago. Re-branding reactionary politics is just the latest deceitful ploy, one more attempt to make fools of the gullible, by those with a hundred years of experience.
58
You are forgetting "compassionate conservatism". I remember the slogan. I also remember the entire thing disappearing after the election. Hmm, history doesn't actually repeat itself, does it?
2
Thank you, Reality Based, for a clear and concise 100 year history of Republican opposition to reform. The "reformicon" movement is aptly named, for like "supply side...trickle down" economics, it is just that, a big con. The perfect sting requires that the mark never realize that he has been conned. You have to give them this, they've been pulling it off for the last three decades or so. Maybe this latest display of bold faced cynicism will finally tip their hand. I live in hope.
1
The Republicans are very good at hiding their real intent. Any apparent shift to the left, especially by the tea party, is a subterfuge. They still hate government and love the wealthy.
64
It's a good thing that Republicans have discovered poverty, since for fifty years those who have talked almost exclusively about it, Democrats, have consumed many trillions to end it that we might have used instead to cure cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, only to find that they've failed dismally. Perhaps with Republicans finally paying attention to a societal problem that they'd largely considered an individual problem for decades, we might actually succeed at putting a dent in poverty and inequality. Certainly, the biggest mistake would be to let Democrats again within galaxies of the power to spend public money on it.
The people seem to understand this, as evidenced by electoral trends that favor Republicans.
The difficulty Tom describes in Hillary's approach to balancing interests on the left will make her very easy to attack from the right in 2016. But any adoption of the more leftish screed will cause her to fall right into the trap of being associated with programs that have failed so dismally at securing the objectives they were originally sold to secure.
The people seem to understand this, as evidenced by electoral trends that favor Republicans.
The difficulty Tom describes in Hillary's approach to balancing interests on the left will make her very easy to attack from the right in 2016. But any adoption of the more leftish screed will cause her to fall right into the trap of being associated with programs that have failed so dismally at securing the objectives they were originally sold to secure.
3
Nice to see Richard taking a liberal position, even if he might pen a few dozen nonsequitors to deny it.
4
Hillary does seem many steps behind, still consumed with the messaging of her campaign. She's thorough and plodding, which are not good traits when up against these guys, who are the real deal when it comes to change.
If she's not careful, she may be outdone before she even gets started. Of course, she's got the media to help her. It will cover ever republican burp as it though it's a big hurl and fixate on every misstep, so there is that.
If she's not careful, she may be outdone before she even gets started. Of course, she's got the media to help her. It will cover ever republican burp as it though it's a big hurl and fixate on every misstep, so there is that.
1
The "failures" of intention that you speak of have little to do with political party affiliation, but rather they are failures of dysfunctional government, manipulation, greed, special interests--common to ALL who are beholden to politics. The consumption of "many trillions to end poverty that might have been used to cure cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's"???? What planet are you living on? So we should give up on feeding children (something we can actually do) to find "magical cures" for diseases that mainly affect the elderly, thereby prolonging the already prolonged life of non-productive seniors who live off the government in programs known as Medicare and Social Security? Do you know ANYTHING about the profit hungry, fear-mongering Medical-Industrial Complex? Please, stop drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid and you may even prolong your life.
5
Forget about fairness or morality. Let's just look at economics to see why inequality is bad.
Experiments are hard to come by in economics, but we have a couple in the US to look at since WWI. There have been two medium long periods of very high inequality (Gini about 0.5), the 1920's and the 2000's. Both led to periods of disastrous economics, On the other hand, there was the long period of 1946 - 1973 (Gini about 0.25) which was a period of great prosperity. Since I do not place much faith in any economic theory, this evidence makes me believe that high inequality is very bad for the country.
But I know people like explanations. They want to know why. So I'll give it a shot.
1. Inequality depresses demand. A non-rich person must spend a greater percentage of his income to live than a Rich one. When many people are out of work, or are underpaid, when inequality is high, the non-rich do not have enough money to buy the stuff they need or want. They may want a new car, but they cannot afford it. This means businesses are not expanding because they do not have enough customers. You cannot create demand out of thin air. It requires getting money to people to spend it.
2. Inequality encourages financial speculation. What do the Rich do when they have so much money they cannot remember how many houses they own? They speculate with it. There is a definite correlation.. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661746
What does wild speculation do? See 1929 & 2008
Experiments are hard to come by in economics, but we have a couple in the US to look at since WWI. There have been two medium long periods of very high inequality (Gini about 0.5), the 1920's and the 2000's. Both led to periods of disastrous economics, On the other hand, there was the long period of 1946 - 1973 (Gini about 0.25) which was a period of great prosperity. Since I do not place much faith in any economic theory, this evidence makes me believe that high inequality is very bad for the country.
But I know people like explanations. They want to know why. So I'll give it a shot.
1. Inequality depresses demand. A non-rich person must spend a greater percentage of his income to live than a Rich one. When many people are out of work, or are underpaid, when inequality is high, the non-rich do not have enough money to buy the stuff they need or want. They may want a new car, but they cannot afford it. This means businesses are not expanding because they do not have enough customers. You cannot create demand out of thin air. It requires getting money to people to spend it.
2. Inequality encourages financial speculation. What do the Rich do when they have so much money they cannot remember how many houses they own? They speculate with it. There is a definite correlation.. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661746
What does wild speculation do? See 1929 & 2008
21
Oh Len, what business is it of yours or of society's what the wealthy do with their disposable income? It would matter if one accepted that this wealth were a public asset and that the wealthy, by merely speculating with it, were in some way robbing the people of their due. But nobody real believes that: those assets belong to any but those earned them.
Tell Bill Clinton your absurd notion that you can't "create demand". You create products and services that people want badly enough to incur personal (and manageable) debt, and they'll buy them, and THAT will spark demand. Of course, everything government has done for over six years has had the effect of retarding the creation of products and services that people want more than they want to personally deleverage.
Tell Bill Clinton your absurd notion that you can't "create demand". You create products and services that people want badly enough to incur personal (and manageable) debt, and they'll buy them, and THAT will spark demand. Of course, everything government has done for over six years has had the effect of retarding the creation of products and services that people want more than they want to personally deleverage.
2
Richard Luettgen:
But nobody real believes that: those assets belong to any but those earned them.
***
On the contrary, there are people who actually believe those assets were somehow "stolen" from and belong to poor Americans. Corporations have robbed Americans by keeping their profits overseas and not bringing them home to be taxed *again*.
The solution is to take that money back at gunpoint, one presumes.
But nobody real believes that: those assets belong to any but those earned them.
***
On the contrary, there are people who actually believe those assets were somehow "stolen" from and belong to poor Americans. Corporations have robbed Americans by keeping their profits overseas and not bringing them home to be taxed *again*.
The solution is to take that money back at gunpoint, one presumes.
1
Actually the problem started with Clinton. Look at the first graph at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
or
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
During the '90's, federal spending was cut culminating with actual surpluses at the end of Clinton;s terms. The private sector was starved of real money. So it turned to funny money, money created by banks lending more than they had, by subprime mortgages et al. See how private debt exploded after the Clinton surpluses.
The Bush deficits put some real money back in the private sector, but it went to the wrong place, to people who used it to speculate, and as you can see from the chart, was swamped by the huge trade deficit.
As usual, funny money disappears at inconvenient times, is swallowed up by the debt, anti-money, created at the same time the funny money was created.
Thus 2008.
We must get more real money back into the private sector, and this time get it to those who need it and will spend it. The way to do this is with well-paying federal jobs doing stuff like fixing roads and bridges, designing and building a new power grid, hiring back, teachers, firemen, police and yes, bureaucrats in the DMV's, the IRS, etc.
We know how to do this. We have done it before in 1946 - 1973 when we built the interstates, started up Medicare, etc., and increased the federal debt by 75% while household income surged 74%.
or
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
During the '90's, federal spending was cut culminating with actual surpluses at the end of Clinton;s terms. The private sector was starved of real money. So it turned to funny money, money created by banks lending more than they had, by subprime mortgages et al. See how private debt exploded after the Clinton surpluses.
The Bush deficits put some real money back in the private sector, but it went to the wrong place, to people who used it to speculate, and as you can see from the chart, was swamped by the huge trade deficit.
As usual, funny money disappears at inconvenient times, is swallowed up by the debt, anti-money, created at the same time the funny money was created.
Thus 2008.
We must get more real money back into the private sector, and this time get it to those who need it and will spend it. The way to do this is with well-paying federal jobs doing stuff like fixing roads and bridges, designing and building a new power grid, hiring back, teachers, firemen, police and yes, bureaucrats in the DMV's, the IRS, etc.
We know how to do this. We have done it before in 1946 - 1973 when we built the interstates, started up Medicare, etc., and increased the federal debt by 75% while household income surged 74%.
1
We should look at history to see whether high or low tax rates on the Rich are good for the economy.
In 1946 the public debt was 109% of the GDP (it is about 65% today), It went straight down to about 24% in 1973. During this period 1946 - 1973 tax rates on the Rich were much higher. Marginal rates were between 70%; and 93%. We had increased spending and deficits almost every year. The debt in dollars almost doubled. We never paid off the debt from WWII,
Median real household income went up 74%; since 1973, it has stagnated. CEO's earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today. (And please don't tell me these CEO's were more enlightened because Europe was devastated. They took less because of a very high marginal rate.) Since 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an increasing rate.
On the flip side, since 1900 the periods with the lowest marginal rates were the years leading up to 1929 and 2008. These were also the periods when economic inequality and speculation were the greatest and they led to disaster. When their tax rates are high, since rich people hate to pay taxes, they leave their profits in their companies and pay their workers more,, but when rates are low, they take them out and ... speculate!
We should raise tax rates on the Rich, not because it is fairer, not because of the increased revenue, but because it is better for the economy.
In 1946 the public debt was 109% of the GDP (it is about 65% today), It went straight down to about 24% in 1973. During this period 1946 - 1973 tax rates on the Rich were much higher. Marginal rates were between 70%; and 93%. We had increased spending and deficits almost every year. The debt in dollars almost doubled. We never paid off the debt from WWII,
Median real household income went up 74%; since 1973, it has stagnated. CEO's earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today. (And please don't tell me these CEO's were more enlightened because Europe was devastated. They took less because of a very high marginal rate.) Since 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an increasing rate.
On the flip side, since 1900 the periods with the lowest marginal rates were the years leading up to 1929 and 2008. These were also the periods when economic inequality and speculation were the greatest and they led to disaster. When their tax rates are high, since rich people hate to pay taxes, they leave their profits in their companies and pay their workers more,, but when rates are low, they take them out and ... speculate!
We should raise tax rates on the Rich, not because it is fairer, not because of the increased revenue, but because it is better for the economy.
23
In 1946, we had implemented a plan to stop deficit spending. The cost of the federal government to the average citizen was dropping very quickly. WW2 was over.
Democrats nor Obama have a plan to stop the deficit spending or adding to the national debt. Obama has doubled the national debt and the interest payments are now more than six percent of the national debt. Money that cannot be used on discretionary spending.
Democrats nor Obama have a plan to stop the deficit spending or adding to the national debt. Obama has doubled the national debt and the interest payments are now more than six percent of the national debt. Money that cannot be used on discretionary spending.
1
In 1946, we had implemented a plan to stop deficit spending. The cost of the federal government to the average citizen was dropping very quickly. WW2 was over.
Democrats nor Obama have a plan to stop the deficit spending or adding to the national debt. Obama has doubled the national debt and the interest payments are now more than six percent of the national debt. Money that cannot be used on discretionary spending.
Democrats nor Obama have a plan to stop the deficit spending or adding to the national debt. Obama has doubled the national debt and the interest payments are now more than six percent of the national debt. Money that cannot be used on discretionary spending.
3
So in 1946, Truman was cutting the federal spending like crazy. Deficit spending was quickly coming to and end. What caused this? The End of WW2. Where is the plan to stop adding to the debt? So 2015 is not comparable to 1946.
Interest payments alone are 6% of the total budget and climbing quickly. Obama had doubled the national debt and he complains that Republicans have restrained him.
Interest payments alone are 6% of the total budget and climbing quickly. Obama had doubled the national debt and he complains that Republicans have restrained him.
2
Reformocons have a new pitch but a much stronger theme in Republican/conservative dialogue is that the poor are responsible for their own plight. They portray the biggest threat to the working class as the underserving poor, aided by pandering liberals with tax and spend policies. This theme is too strong to be broken by 2016.
12
It is hard to argue that Democrats represent the poor or the middle class. Of the ten richest districts in the U.S. Democrats represent seven and Republican are not even in the top 5. The 1% is the democrat party!
2
Beetle:
By now most democratic voters should have figured out that their party has been hijacked by its own brand of "elites", who profess to know better than the poor and working class and haven't experienced anything closer to a "need" than for a Whole Foods' parking spot.
By now most democratic voters should have figured out that their party has been hijacked by its own brand of "elites", who profess to know better than the poor and working class and haven't experienced anything closer to a "need" than for a Whole Foods' parking spot.
If "Reformicons" are really serious about changing policy, as opposed to just changing the rhetoric until after the election, they have a golden opportunity to demonstrate that ernest desire, before the election, with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Let the reformers propose real, detailed legislation right now to address the issues being raised in OpEd pieces and think-tank policy essays. Let those who wish to lead their party demonstrate that leadership, as well as presidential courage and integrity, right now, before the caucuses and primaries, before the election, (when those congressional majorities might well evaporate.)
Now that would take the wind out of Democratic sails as well as reducing another kind of wind emanating from many Republicans at the moment.
I won't hold my breath.
Now that would take the wind out of Democratic sails as well as reducing another kind of wind emanating from many Republicans at the moment.
I won't hold my breath.
7
There's a lot of heavy breathing by both parties over the tax code, as if fudging some parts of it will lead to a more glorious future for everyone. Over the last 30 or so years, there's been a vast restructuring of the economy that is only tangentially related to the tax code, as Mr. Pethokoukis suggests.
In 2016, the election outcome will be - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You heard it here first.
In 2016, the election outcome will be - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You heard it here first.
4
Elizabeth Warren ' s critique of Wall Street has earned her both admiration and scorn. The Clinton family seems to love money and have ties to Wall Street.
Republicans are showing their play book, and it would be foolish not to exploit this. Hillary has no dog in this fight only Elizabeth Warren does. It's time to focus on Warren and leave the Clinton's alone so they can pursue their love of money.
Republicans are showing their play book, and it would be foolish not to exploit this. Hillary has no dog in this fight only Elizabeth Warren does. It's time to focus on Warren and leave the Clinton's alone so they can pursue their love of money.
10
"It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity"
Huh? How can you have a "crisis of unequal opportunity" without it resulting in unequal wealth and income?
Oh, the pretzel logic of those serving the 1% as they shamelessly attempt to market a new strategy but certainly not a new policy regarding the poor.
Spoiler alert: The GOP solution to poverty is, you guessed it: more tax cuts for those "job creating" wealthy folks and deeper budget cuts to the social safety net -in order to "motivate" the poor to take whatever "opportunity" presents itself- in the form of a minimum, subsistence wage dead end service industry job.
As chief 1% water carrier and math free GOP budget guru, Paul Ryan says the already slashed- to- the -marrow social safety net must be cut further still in order to "prevent the social safety net from becoming a hammock".
Same old Draconian GOP social policies but "new and improved" packaging!
Huh? How can you have a "crisis of unequal opportunity" without it resulting in unequal wealth and income?
Oh, the pretzel logic of those serving the 1% as they shamelessly attempt to market a new strategy but certainly not a new policy regarding the poor.
Spoiler alert: The GOP solution to poverty is, you guessed it: more tax cuts for those "job creating" wealthy folks and deeper budget cuts to the social safety net -in order to "motivate" the poor to take whatever "opportunity" presents itself- in the form of a minimum, subsistence wage dead end service industry job.
As chief 1% water carrier and math free GOP budget guru, Paul Ryan says the already slashed- to- the -marrow social safety net must be cut further still in order to "prevent the social safety net from becoming a hammock".
Same old Draconian GOP social policies but "new and improved" packaging!
126
I'm with you and Edsall could be wrong. the Republicans may be about to place themselves in the same box the democrats couldn't get out of in 2014. People will be asked to vote for a real democrat or a phony baloney talks like a democrat (well, almost) but has an R after the name. That didn't work out too well for the Dems I recall.
1
As a card carrying non-rich guy, I'd be satisfied with a little bit of fairness. So maybe we can change the tax laws so that if a guy like me is limited to putting $6,500 a year in his IRA, a rich guy can't get away with putting in $25,000,000. Maybe when I contribute to social security on the full amount of my income, a rich guy can do the same. Or maybe we can go the other way as say that I should pay the capital gains rate on my income, because clearly somebody else did make an investment in me - sort of the argument that hedge fund managers make.
Somehow I doubt that Republicans will do much on inequality because issues like these have them boxed in. They do not want to redistribute wealth by taxing the economic elite at even the same rate as regular people, much less by instituting progressive tax rates. They are opposed to raising taxes and budget deficits as well. So it is really hard to see how they can propose any solution to a problem that can best be described as "a small percentage of the people have most of the wealth and we need to spread it around".
Somehow I doubt that Republicans will do much on inequality because issues like these have them boxed in. They do not want to redistribute wealth by taxing the economic elite at even the same rate as regular people, much less by instituting progressive tax rates. They are opposed to raising taxes and budget deficits as well. So it is really hard to see how they can propose any solution to a problem that can best be described as "a small percentage of the people have most of the wealth and we need to spread it around".
68
Democrats control 8 of 10 of the richest states in in the Union. The remaining two are split. You can tax your citizens to your hearts' content. Quit whining and call your politicians. Tell them you want your taxes raised. Make it fair in your state.
2
I actually live in FL. Republican Governor and Republican Legislator.
Beyond that though, the article wasn't about my state, it was about Republicans at a national level.
I will grant you this though, when the rubber meets the road, many Democrats are just as unlikely to make taxes fair as Republicans. That fact doesn't make it right.
Beyond that though, the article wasn't about my state, it was about Republicans at a national level.
I will grant you this though, when the rubber meets the road, many Democrats are just as unlikely to make taxes fair as Republicans. That fact doesn't make it right.
I believe this when I see it.
Honestly, if you're willing to authentically address the issues driving income inequality, I don't care what party you call your home. All I care about is what you do once elected.
Thing is, income inequality begins with jobs and wages - with formerly high paying manufacturing and service jobs getting outsourced to low wage nations and replaced by menial jobs that pay our pathetic minimum wage. You can cut taxes on working Americans to 0% and it will not matter one iota unless you insure that they remain employed while significantly boosting their wages.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" isn't just the lyrics of a song, but also the inescapable legacy of 35 years of economic libertarianism.
Everything the Republicans have done since Reagan has only made the intervention of government more necessary, not less.
Honestly, if you're willing to authentically address the issues driving income inequality, I don't care what party you call your home. All I care about is what you do once elected.
Thing is, income inequality begins with jobs and wages - with formerly high paying manufacturing and service jobs getting outsourced to low wage nations and replaced by menial jobs that pay our pathetic minimum wage. You can cut taxes on working Americans to 0% and it will not matter one iota unless you insure that they remain employed while significantly boosting their wages.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" isn't just the lyrics of a song, but also the inescapable legacy of 35 years of economic libertarianism.
Everything the Republicans have done since Reagan has only made the intervention of government more necessary, not less.
30
So the Party that has represented large corporations and the wealthy since Reagan has been reading polling data and now will overnight become the Party of the people. This is both laughable and preposterous. When the Republicans start passing tax reform that incraeses taxes on the wealthy and removes the many loopholes for this group they have created over the years perhaps they will gain some credibility. Until then no one who is sane should fall for this false transformation.
74
Check your numbers...wall street supported democrats in the last two presidential cycles and democrats represent the seven of the top 10 wealthiest congressional districts in the country. No republican even in the top 5.
Seven of the top 10 richest people in the House and Senate are democrats, 13 of 20 of the least wealth congressmen are Republicans.
The pattern seems clear to me.
You have a right to your own opinion, just not your own facts.
Seven of the top 10 richest people in the House and Senate are democrats, 13 of 20 of the least wealth congressmen are Republicans.
The pattern seems clear to me.
You have a right to your own opinion, just not your own facts.
2
Beetle: Many people who vote Republican are not wealthy, I grant you. But why do they continue to vote for people who seem to advocate purely for the well off? Perhaps a change could be in the works when the Kochs release their $900 million in a heroic attempt to level the playing field!
tliberal:
Because republicans don't advocate "purely" for the well off. What a ridiculous idea. Reagan's policies didn't just help the well off. They made sense to many working people, who themselves benefited.
The claim that republicans are only "for the rich" is about as realistic as the claim that democrats are all "socialists".
Because republicans don't advocate "purely" for the well off. What a ridiculous idea. Reagan's policies didn't just help the well off. They made sense to many working people, who themselves benefited.
The claim that republicans are only "for the rich" is about as realistic as the claim that democrats are all "socialists".
1
The political parties like sound bites, and the sound bite du jour is "middle class."
But until they are able to address the business reasons for our failing middle class - that we have no incentives to have the people who are stripping wealth out of the economy to invest it back in as jobs and opportunities - it is lip service.
They can try a few tax changes. Skip sending me a check for $300. Instead, change the tax code so that massive financial trades made by computers, and held for ten seconds, to strip out value from momentary price differences, are taxed at 90%. Tax short term capital gains at a high rate, so that investors don't benefit from stripping short term value out of a company by splitting or selling divisions, but leaving both parts so weakened that they fail.
Consider changes in tax law so that underpaying workers and stripping value out of the economy to maximize stock price and banking the gain in the Caymans rather than investing in new jobs isn't a good way to make profit.
Give tax breaks to ventures that return manufacturing jobs to the US, and create new ventures with new jobs.
I won't be holding my breath.
But until they are able to address the business reasons for our failing middle class - that we have no incentives to have the people who are stripping wealth out of the economy to invest it back in as jobs and opportunities - it is lip service.
They can try a few tax changes. Skip sending me a check for $300. Instead, change the tax code so that massive financial trades made by computers, and held for ten seconds, to strip out value from momentary price differences, are taxed at 90%. Tax short term capital gains at a high rate, so that investors don't benefit from stripping short term value out of a company by splitting or selling divisions, but leaving both parts so weakened that they fail.
Consider changes in tax law so that underpaying workers and stripping value out of the economy to maximize stock price and banking the gain in the Caymans rather than investing in new jobs isn't a good way to make profit.
Give tax breaks to ventures that return manufacturing jobs to the US, and create new ventures with new jobs.
I won't be holding my breath.
50
Well, that all would be a start. Plenty more where that came from.
I can't quite understand why the small step towards a progressive tax code where in investment income is taxed at the same rates as income can't be sold as a measure of basic fairness.
9
Not at all a small step. Capital investment involves risk, and risky returns deserve a more favorable tax treatment. Too much tax and capital has the ability to move elsewhere, and new capital formation doesn't happen. That's the reason that when capital gains tax rates were reduced tax revenues increased.
1
I don't want to jump the gun, but my guess this whole concern for the poor will eventually turn toward helping them through more tax cuts - especially for their handlers.
7
The problem? Conservative became the misnomer for greedy during the reign of Reagan and has stayed with the greedy GOP/Tea parties ever since. They can talk around the issue but not with any credibility or experience. They can propose as campaign fodder the talk about how to make wealth accessible and capable of being earned but those who actually work for a living know better. The GOP did not discover the poor; they discovered a campaign issue and are learning how to talk around it.
8
Deeds not words says Scripture. This is all a crock, designed to gull
the MSM to flaim the GOP cares about inequality, when most of it
has been caused by their policies and ideology. Nothing new here.
the GOP pretended to care in 1948, but Truman would have none
of it and took it too them.
This is all tactics. It will only work if the MSM true to form
enables it.
Won't get fooled again.
The Who
the MSM to flaim the GOP cares about inequality, when most of it
has been caused by their policies and ideology. Nothing new here.
the GOP pretended to care in 1948, but Truman would have none
of it and took it too them.
This is all tactics. It will only work if the MSM true to form
enables it.
Won't get fooled again.
The Who
7
Having worked for decades to suppress the value of labor and promote the interests of billionaires the Republican Party is suddenly concerned about income inequality in America? Or they're terrified of being held responsible for it in a Presidential election year and view faux concern as a low cost strategy to immunize themselves against the charge?
87
President Obama and Ms. Clinton suffer from the same syndrome: they are weak on defense, clueless about national security, disconnected from the police, military, union, and working middleclass rank and file, and threatening the financial security of families with a home and an income >$150K a year.
Their constituencies, then, are a fraction of Mitt Romney's famous forty-nine percent, primarily voting on the basis of race and boutique issues. For success, what the Democrats don't need isn't Hillary or Senator Warren. What they do need is another Jack Kennedy, but the pickings are slim.
Their constituencies, then, are a fraction of Mitt Romney's famous forty-nine percent, primarily voting on the basis of race and boutique issues. For success, what the Democrats don't need isn't Hillary or Senator Warren. What they do need is another Jack Kennedy, but the pickings are slim.
1
No one should be surprised, this is pure classic right wing strategy: when something the other side is doing becomes popular, steal it and take ownership.
The Democrats have always been absolutely terrible at messaging (e.g., Affordable Care Act; jobs; benefits of government; etc.) and the right wing owns the airwaves and knows how to turn an issue into a simple 10 word sentence to sell to dumb American rubes.
By the way, this also shows how bankrupt the republicans really are for ideas, they're taking a "socialist" concept and making it their own. Once again, pathetic.
The Democrats have always been absolutely terrible at messaging (e.g., Affordable Care Act; jobs; benefits of government; etc.) and the right wing owns the airwaves and knows how to turn an issue into a simple 10 word sentence to sell to dumb American rubes.
By the way, this also shows how bankrupt the republicans really are for ideas, they're taking a "socialist" concept and making it their own. Once again, pathetic.
169
Yes the repubs are great at messaging their slogans--they've become like a party in a dictatorship, behind a facade of phony democracy. They succeed because they are ruthless liars, not worried about truth or ethics, so they can so easily pull the strings behind a propaganda machine.
It's all for show, using their media empire clout. The gop rw has in effect taken over most media, but not with a coup, instead using our laws and financial power to build monopolies.
Thus the liberals are marginalized and the centrists pulled along. The main media just reports on which candidate is raising the most money, which itself pushes the candidate's popularity, leaving out that this is just what is stealing our democracy.
It's all for show, using their media empire clout. The gop rw has in effect taken over most media, but not with a coup, instead using our laws and financial power to build monopolies.
Thus the liberals are marginalized and the centrists pulled along. The main media just reports on which candidate is raising the most money, which itself pushes the candidate's popularity, leaving out that this is just what is stealing our democracy.
Democratic vilification of entire segments of population has been beyond any boundaries of responsibility. The name calling of entire professions is excessive and smacks of vindictiveness. Very thing that comes from Warren is pandering to her base and not something that even a modestly controlled person would say in public. She is the David duke of the left
3
It is all lip service.
21
Thank you for an interesting column. The GOP has no where to go except left. This is a challenge for the Democrats. For them to go further left is dangerous as it would require a population that understands more than the current majority of the country currently does about economics, justice, and social cohesion. And there is no reason to hope they are going to turn off the 4-hour, one hour long football game to think about what is right. (David Brooks should worry more about this Colosseum than the chorus of boob-tubers chiding Brian Williams) But it is good that the GOP may move left. Maybe it will put a stake into the heart of social conservativism that denies science, punishes people for their sexual preferences, and holds millions in a lawless slavery for seeking a better life in the United States. Yet I won't hold my breath.
3
Of course this strategy will work. The fox prepares for another raid on the henhouse. Many of the hens will unlock the door for them....
13
I take exception with how ideas are formed and "packaged" in this article that itself are prime examples of why we have a problem. First, why must it be that republicans are challenging democratic turf? Why can't it be that the pendulum is starting to swing back from more polarized positions? The way it's put here, even gathering consensus is oppositional, combative. This is ridiculous!!!!
And Hillary's dilemma that is not one: "how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.” Why address the anger? Why not address the inequality. Doing so does not necessarily vilifying the wealth. Rebalancing and returning to an equalibrium does not have to turn the wealthy into the vilitied and the poor into pitch fork thrusting mob. This is ridiculous!!!!
That republicans are discovering the poor it itself an insult and ridiculous as well. It's not all republicans. It's the moneyed interests that have hijacked the party that is more receptive to their goals. That a party has to have an across the board policy is ridiculous. Taking measures to diminish poverty will discourage anti-choice? This is Ridiculous!!!
The Rubio Tax proposal's math not working is a measure of how ridiculous our polarization where there need be none. It shows just how many there are and how low they're being compensated. Bottom line, take measures to compensate better so they won't need a tax break. What's needed is discussion of profit that is anything but.
And Hillary's dilemma that is not one: "how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.” Why address the anger? Why not address the inequality. Doing so does not necessarily vilifying the wealth. Rebalancing and returning to an equalibrium does not have to turn the wealthy into the vilitied and the poor into pitch fork thrusting mob. This is ridiculous!!!!
That republicans are discovering the poor it itself an insult and ridiculous as well. It's not all republicans. It's the moneyed interests that have hijacked the party that is more receptive to their goals. That a party has to have an across the board policy is ridiculous. Taking measures to diminish poverty will discourage anti-choice? This is Ridiculous!!!
The Rubio Tax proposal's math not working is a measure of how ridiculous our polarization where there need be none. It shows just how many there are and how low they're being compensated. Bottom line, take measures to compensate better so they won't need a tax break. What's needed is discussion of profit that is anything but.
I take exception with how ideas are formed and "packaged" in this article that itself are prime examples of why we have a problem. First, why must it be that republicans are challenging democratic turf? Why can't it be that the pendulum is starting to swing back from more polarized positions? The way it's put here, even gathering consensus is oppositional, combative. This is ridiculous!!!!
And Hillary's dilemma that is not one: "how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.” Why address the anger? Why not address the inequality. Doing so does not necessarily vilifying the wealth. Rebalancing and returning to an equalibrium does not have to turn the wealthy into the vilitied and the poor into pitch fork thrusting mob. This is ridiculous!!!!
That republicans are discovering the poor it itself an insult and ridiculous as well. It's not all republicans. It's the moneyed interests that have hijacked the party that is more receptive to their goals. That a party has to have an across the board policy is ridiculous. Taking measures to diminish poverty will discourage anti-choice? This is Ridiculous!!!
The Rubio Tax proposal's math not working is a measure of how ridiculous our polarization where there need be none. It shows just how many there are and how low they're being compensated. Bottom line, take measures to compensate better so they won't need a tax break. What's needed is discussion of profit that is anything but.
And Hillary's dilemma that is not one: "how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.” Why address the anger? Why not address the inequality. Doing so does not necessarily vilifying the wealth. Rebalancing and returning to an equalibrium does not have to turn the wealthy into the vilitied and the poor into pitch fork thrusting mob. This is ridiculous!!!!
That republicans are discovering the poor it itself an insult and ridiculous as well. It's not all republicans. It's the moneyed interests that have hijacked the party that is more receptive to their goals. That a party has to have an across the board policy is ridiculous. Taking measures to diminish poverty will discourage anti-choice? This is Ridiculous!!!
The Rubio Tax proposal's math not working is a measure of how ridiculous our polarization where there need be none. It shows just how many there are and how low they're being compensated. Bottom line, take measures to compensate better so they won't need a tax break. What's needed is discussion of profit that is anything but.
1
This off-year soul-searching by prominent Republicans is touching. I will be shocked, however, if any of this subtle approach to governing is trotted out before Primary audiences that are looking for candidates who can best make the unworthy suffer.
Republicans already support a program designed to help the poor make a living wage. It's called the Army. You can be sure that had either McCain or Romney been elected he would not be asking Congress for permission to send troops to Iraq. They'd be there, for better or worse. While there, they would enjoy meals provided at a premium by Halliburton or some other private contractor, for why should the government be trusted to do anything that a private contractor can do worse and more expensively?
I really like Reihan Salam. I really do. However, it bothers me that he provides an intellectual veneer for a party full of white, anti-intellectual zealots who would sooner banish his kind to the West Village or at least Brooklyn Heights than treat anything he says seriously.
Any attempt to reform market capitalism distorts it. According to conservative ideology, any such distortion truncates future growth, thus trading future success for present comfort. However, as dynamic as capitalism can be, we have seen the baleful results when government, who represents those of us who can only stand and watch when Wall Street gambles our future, declines to fulfill its regulatory role.
Let's see someone explain all this to the Primary crowds.
Republicans already support a program designed to help the poor make a living wage. It's called the Army. You can be sure that had either McCain or Romney been elected he would not be asking Congress for permission to send troops to Iraq. They'd be there, for better or worse. While there, they would enjoy meals provided at a premium by Halliburton or some other private contractor, for why should the government be trusted to do anything that a private contractor can do worse and more expensively?
I really like Reihan Salam. I really do. However, it bothers me that he provides an intellectual veneer for a party full of white, anti-intellectual zealots who would sooner banish his kind to the West Village or at least Brooklyn Heights than treat anything he says seriously.
Any attempt to reform market capitalism distorts it. According to conservative ideology, any such distortion truncates future growth, thus trading future success for present comfort. However, as dynamic as capitalism can be, we have seen the baleful results when government, who represents those of us who can only stand and watch when Wall Street gambles our future, declines to fulfill its regulatory role.
Let's see someone explain all this to the Primary crowds.
71
and once again
capitalism is the fire for life
an excellent servant
a terrible Master
capitalism is the fire for life
an excellent servant
a terrible Master
1
GOP is discovering the poor just now? How does that explain most of the $200K plus salaried people voting for Obama, or a lot of poor and lower income whites voting GOP
What GOP has not discovered yet is an effective way to play the politics of the poor. Like faking a care for them, and pushing for policies which optically look like helping the poor but don't. Such as minimum wage. Such as quantitative easing, which pushed up asset prices out of reach of poor.
Minorities have been voting Dems en masse for 50 years. What did that get them? Broken families, broken financiers, broken promises?
What GOP has not discovered yet is an effective way to play the politics of the poor. Like faking a care for them, and pushing for policies which optically look like helping the poor but don't. Such as minimum wage. Such as quantitative easing, which pushed up asset prices out of reach of poor.
Minorities have been voting Dems en masse for 50 years. What did that get them? Broken families, broken financiers, broken promises?
2
The title of this piece is typically confused. Republicans have always appealed to working people who just want to support their families, earn their way up, make a better life for their kids, and, most importantly, who don't want to rely on government entirely for their livelihood.
Democrats only see "the rich" in the GOP and miss everyone else. Theirs is a caricature of the GOP. Rich fat cats, etc.
Don't expect democrats to know what to make of republicans like Lee. They never did get the Tea Party. Lee's absolutely right about the "business elite". Their interest is not the working person's. The old republicans are not the future. These conservatives are. Democrats are fixated with the Koch Bros. so they'll completely miss it all.
Democrats only see "the rich" in the GOP and miss everyone else. Theirs is a caricature of the GOP. Rich fat cats, etc.
Don't expect democrats to know what to make of republicans like Lee. They never did get the Tea Party. Lee's absolutely right about the "business elite". Their interest is not the working person's. The old republicans are not the future. These conservatives are. Democrats are fixated with the Koch Bros. so they'll completely miss it all.
1
Appropriation of "leftist" inequality concerns is clarified by Lee:" It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity. " Yup! It ain't unequal wealth, it's unequal opportunity! Except it is unequal wealth that deprives the majority, the 99% of opportunity(expletive deleted).
Sucking up to the top 5% of the 99% won't work. Nope. How about raising minimum wages? That might work. Not if you answer to Wal-Mart it won't. But won't Democrats scream about all those retailers who pay sub-living minimum wages are starving, qualify for food stamps and Medicaid? The Republicans don't think that they will. Why they all ran scared in 2015 from Obama.
Trickle down a thousand points with compassionate conservatives to new levels of inequality? Not likely.
Sucking up to the top 5% of the 99% won't work. Nope. How about raising minimum wages? That might work. Not if you answer to Wal-Mart it won't. But won't Democrats scream about all those retailers who pay sub-living minimum wages are starving, qualify for food stamps and Medicaid? The Republicans don't think that they will. Why they all ran scared in 2015 from Obama.
Trickle down a thousand points with compassionate conservatives to new levels of inequality? Not likely.
2
They take wealth and give words- what a deal!
8
President Reagan's Vice President George H.W. Bush called it voodoo economics; Bush's son President George Bush called it compassionate conservatism; and now another son Jeb Bush has re-branded it reform conservatism
But by any other name it's still voodoo.
Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware!
But by any other name it's still voodoo.
Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware!
20
Whether it's coming from Bush or Rubio or whoever, it is the same talking point, almost verbatim. I wonder who wrote it? It sounds good, like a liberal may have written it. But it's a lie. People should watch what they do and what they have done, not what they say.
5
This reminds me of W's all-out effort to cater to the Christian right, winning their votes, and then promptly ignoring them once he took office. I expect this phony GOP populism will have a similar outcome.
7
Wait till the White muddled class hears about this! Lee and Rubio would have to walk the plank if they tried on this "socialist nonsense."
2
"Reformocons" are a joke. These are Dem-lite. They are Big Government Republicans...like Jeb. Oh, by the way, that "populist" Jeb Bush is going to Pethakoukas' Wall Street cronies for a $100K a plate fundraiser. That's right, $100,0000 a plate.
If the GOP doesn't nominate a new Reagan, an articulate conservative communicator who will lead us here and abroad, they are once again doomed. Jeb, Christie and anyone favoured by Wall Street will never win.
If the GOP doesn't nominate a new Reagan, an articulate conservative communicator who will lead us here and abroad, they are once again doomed. Jeb, Christie and anyone favoured by Wall Street will never win.
3
The Democrats need a candidate who can confront inequality without worrying about hurting the feelings of the rich - a candidate like FDR who said, "I welcome their hatred", referring to "the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering."
In any case, if Republicans want to help the poor and the middle class, Democrats need to work with them to do that. I personally don't care what letter a Congressman or Senator has after her name, I want her to help the American people, for a change, rather than fawn over the rich.
In any case, if Republicans want to help the poor and the middle class, Democrats need to work with them to do that. I personally don't care what letter a Congressman or Senator has after her name, I want her to help the American people, for a change, rather than fawn over the rich.
20
Hopefully, there are many Americans like yourself.
It's bad enough there's a wide strata of politicians and elites at the top of both parties disinterested in the middle class and poor (despite their claims).
Blindly following party line is not in their best interests either.
Every politician should be assessed individually and with fresh eyes.
It's bad enough there's a wide strata of politicians and elites at the top of both parties disinterested in the middle class and poor (despite their claims).
Blindly following party line is not in their best interests either.
Every politician should be assessed individually and with fresh eyes.
2
Smoke, mirrors, window dressing. Republicans desperate to cloak their actual anti-American philosophy in euphemism.
Lee: "It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity. "
As if more competitiveness were an answer to anything. Utter rubbish. He and his ilk abet and perpetuate the inequality and see the bandwagon leaving town.
Lee: "It’s not a crisis of unequal wealth or income, exactly – it’s a crisis of unequal opportunity. "
As if more competitiveness were an answer to anything. Utter rubbish. He and his ilk abet and perpetuate the inequality and see the bandwagon leaving town.
21
The "discovery" of the poor by Republicans will last until November 8, 2016 and not one day more.
310
Third Bush needs one thing to win:
Mass amnesia.
Americans must forget that he corrupted the 2000 election while Governor, disenfranchising legitimate Florida voters and interfered in the vote count.
Those criminal actions allowed Bush family retainers on the Supremes to appoint his dimwitted, supremely unqualified brother as the worst President in US history and the most disastrous Commander in Chief ever.
But for Jeb's actions there would never have been The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, no Abu Ghraib, no torture as USG policy, no Roberts, Alito, no Citizens United. Captain Dimwit would not have been fiddling while Wall Street burned 40% of US household wealth.
Mass amnesia.
Americans must forget that he corrupted the 2000 election while Governor, disenfranchising legitimate Florida voters and interfered in the vote count.
Those criminal actions allowed Bush family retainers on the Supremes to appoint his dimwitted, supremely unqualified brother as the worst President in US history and the most disastrous Commander in Chief ever.
But for Jeb's actions there would never have been The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, no Abu Ghraib, no torture as USG policy, no Roberts, Alito, no Citizens United. Captain Dimwit would not have been fiddling while Wall Street burned 40% of US household wealth.
165
And least we forget, Craig, outrageous interference in life-giving and life-taking moments in such a private and sensitive matters for the husband of Terry Schiavo. And to think that this country may have to tolerate more of the above in 2016. Ultimately, you get what you settle for .... and if that is what the uneducated and ignorant voter wants, that is what the uneducated and ignorant voter will get, with Faux News backing all the way.
1
What was one of the loudest complaints that Republicans had about President Obama? That he would be a wealth redistributionist. And over his time so far, wealth has been redistributed...exclusively to the wealthiest. Jobs are scarce and pay but a fraction of what they did before, Republican governors across the country refuse to raise the minimum wage (or fight to eliminate it altogether) and kill Medicaid expansions offered by the Affordable Care Act and give yet more tax breaks to the wealthiest. Our neoliberal governor Cuomo has been doing the same. President Obama has his flaws but where we are is not his fault. The obstruction of any kind of jobs program in the legislature, the practical elimination of any oversight on the same kind of financial shenanigans that torpedoed our economy in 2008 and distraction with the usual issues of birth control, abortion and gay marriage and, now, vaccines, have led us down the garden path towards a feudal state. The people allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the trickle-down narrative. Well, we've had a six-year experiment in trickle-down economics. Income is flat or down, employment is mostly part-time, temp or independent contractor work and the rich have never been richer. Can we now finally, publicly declare the whole Milton Friedman theory failed?
11
The GOP always counts on dim memories.
It seems like only yesterday when it fought shamelessly for more tax breaks for billionaires, while cutting unemployment benefits for the desperate.
Come to think of it, it was yesterday.
It seems like only yesterday when it fought shamelessly for more tax breaks for billionaires, while cutting unemployment benefits for the desperate.
Come to think of it, it was yesterday.
344
"Come to think of it, it was yesterday. " Made me smile.
1
Not just yesterday; even today.
2
John Edwards cared about the poor and look where it landed him.
The only way government can reduce the plight of the poor is for a poor person to land a cushy government job.
The only way government can reduce the plight of the poor is for a poor person to land a cushy government job.
3
>
The GOP is not the answer to poverty and inequality; it is the major cause of them, which is well documented. Though you have to admire or detest their shamelessness.
The GOP is not the answer to poverty and inequality; it is the major cause of them, which is well documented. Though you have to admire or detest their shamelessness.
116
Prometheus, this is a reply to a previous reply you made to one of my comments. Think about it.
While "correlation does not mean causation" is logically true, it is useless in the real world because one can NEVER prove causation. Just ask the physicists who thought they had proved Newtonian mechanics. All we have is correlation. What's the definition of insanity?
While "correlation does not mean causation" is logically true, it is useless in the real world because one can NEVER prove causation. Just ask the physicists who thought they had proved Newtonian mechanics. All we have is correlation. What's the definition of insanity?
Compassionate Conservatism was nothing more than lip service to the poor, homeless and those in desperate need of government help and intervention. Mind you, it is better than what Paul Ryan and company serves up but nonetheless it aided only the top one percent of earners. Republicans will not consider any legislation that actually does something to address income inequality or opportunity. Savagely slashing Government services , the Department of Education and the safety net are the realities of the politics of people like Senator Lee . Like the Who sang long ago ( Won't get fooled again"!
13
Karl Rove is back in the game, now that he has another Bush to partner with. The signature policy of Karl Rove is to attack the opponent where he or she is strongest. Make it impossible for the opponent to utilize his or her advantage. That is the origin and underlying strategy of the Bush-Romney speeches decrying economic inequality.
This strategy is the strategy of the big lie. it makes Republican policies out to be the solutions to economic inequality when in fact they caused economic inequality. It makes Democratic policies to be the causes of economic inequality when in fact they are the solution to economic inequality.
Republican policies--no public option in health care, termination of the capital gains tax, flattening tax rates, tax rebates for the rich mainly you'll get the crumbs, restricting unemployment insurance, and vehement opposition to all policies like raising the minimum wage that would have lowered economic inequality, like ending private sector unions--this what gave economic inequality the enormous governmental boost ever since 1980 when Republican ideology began its 45 year hegemony over the United States.
For the Republicans, who have substantially caused the unusually high rates of economic inequality, to make out like Obama caused this, shows that American "democratic" processes no longer are in operation, because it is a lie so big that a normal democracy would have shredded Republican claims in this regard, unmasked them.
This strategy is the strategy of the big lie. it makes Republican policies out to be the solutions to economic inequality when in fact they caused economic inequality. It makes Democratic policies to be the causes of economic inequality when in fact they are the solution to economic inequality.
Republican policies--no public option in health care, termination of the capital gains tax, flattening tax rates, tax rebates for the rich mainly you'll get the crumbs, restricting unemployment insurance, and vehement opposition to all policies like raising the minimum wage that would have lowered economic inequality, like ending private sector unions--this what gave economic inequality the enormous governmental boost ever since 1980 when Republican ideology began its 45 year hegemony over the United States.
For the Republicans, who have substantially caused the unusually high rates of economic inequality, to make out like Obama caused this, shows that American "democratic" processes no longer are in operation, because it is a lie so big that a normal democracy would have shredded Republican claims in this regard, unmasked them.
220
iced - exactly true; the GOP'er make-believe prattling about inequality also keeps them from having to talk about immigration (third-rail for their party) and subtly creates economic un-ease/fear as the Obama economy gets better and better and better, which GOP'ers can no longer deny.
The tried and true GOP'er tactic of just ' moving on ' to other tear-down talking points, abandoning their past talking points that they pretended were actual core beliefs.
GOPers' core beliefs are summed in the Koch Bros. $900 million$ campaign war-chest.
The tried and true GOP'er tactic of just ' moving on ' to other tear-down talking points, abandoning their past talking points that they pretended were actual core beliefs.
GOPers' core beliefs are summed in the Koch Bros. $900 million$ campaign war-chest.
4
@Iced Teaparty: Well said. We need the Fourth Estate (news organizations - newpapers, television, internet) to stop giving politicians "free" speech without calling them out on baseless lies and distortions. Make them support their political positions with facts.
3
Yes R.Law.
Koch Brothers 900million on 2016 election is the devil in our democracy.
Koch Brothers 900million on 2016 election is the devil in our democracy.
1
All true, if one can believe the "reformacons" will follow through on their promises. In my opinion it is doubtful. Trickle down/supply side/voodoo economics is still the clarion call of the "conservative" (whatever that means) voter. Just yesterday I heard a perceived smart guy on Bloomberg 'say that as a "conservative" I would like to know if supply side ideas had been considered.' Clearly those who call themsevles "conservatives" still don't get it, despite the evidence since Raygun first started hocking his fantasy. So yeah, these breakaway candidates present themselves as different, much like Shrub did in 2000. But after all was said and done we got the same ole stuff, warmed over Ronnie Raygun supplyside alchemy. Yuck.
125
The new Republican populism is similar to compassionate conservatism in one key respect. It's a campaign theme, nothing more, not an organizing principle for policy.
266
Do they still favor privatization of Social Security and Medicare?
7
Once elected, the "compassion" went missing in W.'s administration. I think it was cowering in fear in the back of a closet, its little tiny heart pumping rapidly whenever Cheney came looking to squash it under his heel.
4
Of course they do!
Since no Republican policies with this possible exception of tax cuts have been on the table for years, no one can believe the Republicans at this point. The Kochs plan to give almost $1 billion; Adelson is still courted before Republican candidates actually even speak to ordinary Americans. Every policy that would help the middle class from Pell Grants to raising the minimum wage and fair pay and addressing healthcare issues is always blocked by the Republicans.
Truman's famous quotation about Republicans is still true: "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. ...They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
Truman's famous quotation about Republicans is still true: "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. ...They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
625
Thank you for that quote, SMB. I have saved it and will use it along with other arguments against Republican policies and Republican candidates
6
I think the Kochs and friends have just about succeeded at buying the government. They won't retreat with victory in sight. 'Nuff said.
3
My favorite Truman quote is the one where he spoke to farmers on top of a manure spreader: "I'm speaking to you today from a Republican platform."
8
"The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that the Lee-Rubio proposal would cost the government $2.4 trillion in revenue over 10 years."
The key sentence in this entire column to me; "a rose by any other name..."
Republicans championing the middle class is as antiquated and stale as all of their talking points. The fact that they are constructing a shiny new Trojan horse to hide their true aims within is also nothing new.
Beyond the necessary reduction of $2.4 trillion in spending over 10 years, we also know what strident deficit shames they are so simply offsetting the lost revenue is not going to be enough for them. And where would all of this reduced spending come from? Programs benefiting the most vulnerable among us of course!
If the democrats once again cower in front of the wealthy instead of being true to their expressed policy beliefs this election cycle, we will be in for an acceleration of the transfer of wealth the likes of which we have yet to see. Through benefit cuts coupled with an explosive, pent up, desire for energy, financial and agricultural subsidy increases and regulatory rollbacks, we will truly be on our way to Rand/Ryan fantasy land.
I am hoping we get the same surprise, repeat, challenge to Ms. Clinton that we had in '08; only this time with M. Warren playing the role of President Obama.
The key sentence in this entire column to me; "a rose by any other name..."
Republicans championing the middle class is as antiquated and stale as all of their talking points. The fact that they are constructing a shiny new Trojan horse to hide their true aims within is also nothing new.
Beyond the necessary reduction of $2.4 trillion in spending over 10 years, we also know what strident deficit shames they are so simply offsetting the lost revenue is not going to be enough for them. And where would all of this reduced spending come from? Programs benefiting the most vulnerable among us of course!
If the democrats once again cower in front of the wealthy instead of being true to their expressed policy beliefs this election cycle, we will be in for an acceleration of the transfer of wealth the likes of which we have yet to see. Through benefit cuts coupled with an explosive, pent up, desire for energy, financial and agricultural subsidy increases and regulatory rollbacks, we will truly be on our way to Rand/Ryan fantasy land.
I am hoping we get the same surprise, repeat, challenge to Ms. Clinton that we had in '08; only this time with M. Warren playing the role of President Obama.
38
Republicans have already demonstrated that they are willing to shake things up, take on their own party elites and take risks to do what they believe has to be done for the middle class.
What have democrats done? Moved one of their elites to the front of the pack and cut off the path of anyone else.
Both parties are led by a powerful, top heavy entrenched class that cares little for anyone outside it. If I had to take bets on which party is better positioned to wrestle free of it, I'd say it's republicans at this point.
What have democrats done? Moved one of their elites to the front of the pack and cut off the path of anyone else.
Both parties are led by a powerful, top heavy entrenched class that cares little for anyone outside it. If I had to take bets on which party is better positioned to wrestle free of it, I'd say it's republicans at this point.
8
"What have democrats done? Moved one of their elites to the front of the pack and cut off the path of anyone else."
As opposed to Republicans, whose wealthy donors are in the process of anointing Jeb Bush as the GOP nominee. Witness the swift and brutal ejection of Mitt Romney from the 2016 field. It wasn't exactly a grass-roots movement that made Mr. Romney go away.
As opposed to Republicans, whose wealthy donors are in the process of anointing Jeb Bush as the GOP nominee. Witness the swift and brutal ejection of Mitt Romney from the 2016 field. It wasn't exactly a grass-roots movement that made Mr. Romney go away.
90
The problem is that the political environment is so compromised that no decent person would take the job. It's as if all good candidates have taken a step back by default leaving only those who are already compromised by obligations to moneyed interests and existing power concentrations. In this light, by definition, a viable candidate isn't anyone whom everyone would want.
4
NA:
How many challengers does Hillary have? There is simply no comparison between the number of candidates in the GOP and in the democratic party.
While the left is having their fun with their clown jokes, they cannot even get a candidate to run against their heir to the thrown.
How many challengers does Hillary have? There is simply no comparison between the number of candidates in the GOP and in the democratic party.
While the left is having their fun with their clown jokes, they cannot even get a candidate to run against their heir to the thrown.
3
Right at this moment, the one thing I envy about the Republican party is that they are going to have enough people running for president with various points of view. Democrats who are not hysterical about our apparently only choice have only one at the present time who even remotely appears to be capable of winning.
I've often wondered what would be the state of the country at this point in time had Clinton won in 2008. Would the Republican party have been so determined to almost destroy the country as they have because of their intense dislike of Obama or would there have been some cooperation between the WH and congress that we haven't seen?
Now that they see some light at the end of the tunnel, is this why they have suddenly found that the American middle class and working poor have had such a rotten deal for so very, very long? Where have they been during all this time when we were sinking further and further into personal debt and job losses while they encouraged wars that were to be fought on the cheap?
There are more questions to ask about the supposed change of Republican heart than there will be answers, but one thing remains to ask: IF Bush or someone like him wins the WH, will they renege on any of their concerns for us over concerns for those whose money pays their campaign coffers.
I've often wondered what would be the state of the country at this point in time had Clinton won in 2008. Would the Republican party have been so determined to almost destroy the country as they have because of their intense dislike of Obama or would there have been some cooperation between the WH and congress that we haven't seen?
Now that they see some light at the end of the tunnel, is this why they have suddenly found that the American middle class and working poor have had such a rotten deal for so very, very long? Where have they been during all this time when we were sinking further and further into personal debt and job losses while they encouraged wars that were to be fought on the cheap?
There are more questions to ask about the supposed change of Republican heart than there will be answers, but one thing remains to ask: IF Bush or someone like him wins the WH, will they renege on any of their concerns for us over concerns for those whose money pays their campaign coffers.
24
Democrats need to counter this so-called populism not just by pointing out that "Republicans have failed to follow up with legislation that would actually do something about the problem of inequality" but by pointing out. loudly and often, that the problem of inequality is the inevitable result of thirty-plus years of supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo Reaganomics so loved by the Republicans. And Democrats are not without guilt -- they are going to have to admit their own complicity in things like trumpeting growth over widespread prosperity, not actively supporting unions, and supporting "free trade" bills that have had a net negative effect on American workers.
I'm one of those people who believes that the American dream is dead for anyone not born with the proverbial silver spoon. It's going to take a lot of work for either party to change my mind about that. But it will be nearly impossible for Republicans to change my mind -- I've been around long enough to remember what the country was like before the Powell memo and Reagan. And I've been around long enough to realize that, while Democrats haven't done much for me lately, I can count on Republicans to actively work against my best interests pretty much 100% of the time. For Republicans, inequality isn't a problem, it's a goal.
Perhaps the Democrats would be better off if they didn't consider those of us who support Elizabeth Warren as a "wing."
I'm one of those people who believes that the American dream is dead for anyone not born with the proverbial silver spoon. It's going to take a lot of work for either party to change my mind about that. But it will be nearly impossible for Republicans to change my mind -- I've been around long enough to remember what the country was like before the Powell memo and Reagan. And I've been around long enough to realize that, while Democrats haven't done much for me lately, I can count on Republicans to actively work against my best interests pretty much 100% of the time. For Republicans, inequality isn't a problem, it's a goal.
Perhaps the Democrats would be better off if they didn't consider those of us who support Elizabeth Warren as a "wing."
402
I agree with almost everything you say, pedigrees, but I ultimately blame the Democrats for this. They claim to be liberal and represent the middle and lower class. But telling us how "bad" or "scary" the Republicans are is not representation.
Democrats pointing out that "Republicans have failed to follow up with legislation that would actually do something about the problem of inequality" is laughable. What have the Democrats actually done? This article demonstrates that if the Democrats actually care about the less fortunate, there are some Republicans that they can work with to craft legislation on the issue.
But what the Democrats actually care about (just like the Republicans) is getting re-elected. They have only one strategy for that. Vilify the Republicans and don't do anything that might offend (or help) anyone.
Elizabeth Warren is inspiring because she actually cares about the people and issues. She is able to speak effectively and passionately about the issues because she really believes what she is saying. The rest of the Democrats are terrible communicators because they don't believe any of the things they say. They are just talking points designed to get them re-elected.
Democrats pointing out that "Republicans have failed to follow up with legislation that would actually do something about the problem of inequality" is laughable. What have the Democrats actually done? This article demonstrates that if the Democrats actually care about the less fortunate, there are some Republicans that they can work with to craft legislation on the issue.
But what the Democrats actually care about (just like the Republicans) is getting re-elected. They have only one strategy for that. Vilify the Republicans and don't do anything that might offend (or help) anyone.
Elizabeth Warren is inspiring because she actually cares about the people and issues. She is able to speak effectively and passionately about the issues because she really believes what she is saying. The rest of the Democrats are terrible communicators because they don't believe any of the things they say. They are just talking points designed to get them re-elected.
14
Mike: Democrats are mostly in favor of environmental protections, overturning Citizens United, universal health care, bank regulation, protecting the social safety net and raising the minimum wage, among other issues Republicans have largely obstructed. There are unfortunate similarities but there are also glaring differences.
12
Yes, for a great explanation of how the Powell Memo started the takeover by conservatives, read Hedrick Smith's Who Stole the American Dream. It lays it out clearly step by step how the memo alerted big business to threats from too much democracy---civil rights, consumer rights, unions, etc.
Powell was a corporate lawyer who then got on the supreme court. A systematic program was planned and implemented by the chamber of commerce and other rw elements to start the big wealth/power transfer up to the few. They devised the message to the masses to wait for trickle down, and accept Reagonomics.
This then became plausible to many voters after our media became monopolies, and the 'fairness doctrine' of reporting both sides was repealed. It became ok to send millions of jobs off shore, without public protest. By Clinton's term, it was also easy to repeal regulation of the financial industry, which had prevented crashes for generations. This was all sold as aiding competitive advantage---but it was only for the top few. Millions of voters still don't realize what hit them.
Powell was a corporate lawyer who then got on the supreme court. A systematic program was planned and implemented by the chamber of commerce and other rw elements to start the big wealth/power transfer up to the few. They devised the message to the masses to wait for trickle down, and accept Reagonomics.
This then became plausible to many voters after our media became monopolies, and the 'fairness doctrine' of reporting both sides was repealed. It became ok to send millions of jobs off shore, without public protest. By Clinton's term, it was also easy to repeal regulation of the financial industry, which had prevented crashes for generations. This was all sold as aiding competitive advantage---but it was only for the top few. Millions of voters still don't realize what hit them.
5
The party that doesn't believe in science, facts, or reality is now going to be the party that believes in math? That's a joke, right? The only math they might ever really be interested in is how many votes they need to win an election; how much money they need to spend; and what story they need to invent to get those votes.
Like "Compassionate Conservatism" before, any concern for the poor or middleclass by the rightwing is pure vaporware. Its a campaign strategy that disappears the instant they are elected.
And like the draft dodging chicken-hawks they are who never saw a war they did not want to send other people's children to fight, the rightwing also never saw a solution to any problem that did not involve giving a tax cut to the rich cutting regulation of business, and cutting benefits or opportunity to everyone else while undermining the effectiveness of government in every way they can.
There is only one value they stand for and that is the right to exploit anyone in the name of money.
Like "Compassionate Conservatism" before, any concern for the poor or middleclass by the rightwing is pure vaporware. Its a campaign strategy that disappears the instant they are elected.
And like the draft dodging chicken-hawks they are who never saw a war they did not want to send other people's children to fight, the rightwing also never saw a solution to any problem that did not involve giving a tax cut to the rich cutting regulation of business, and cutting benefits or opportunity to everyone else while undermining the effectiveness of government in every way they can.
There is only one value they stand for and that is the right to exploit anyone in the name of money.
412
They are also good at math when it comes to voter suppression and gerrymandering.
11
The GOP denies physics (global warming), biology (evolution), and math (who created the deficit mess we are in). And it pushes for cuts in education spending and expends more political energy on anti-abortion measures than anything else by far. This is the Party of Stupid. It isn't the message, or the messenger or how it is pitched. It's simply ludicrous wrong headed policy that marks the decadent and decaying GOP, no question.
6