Party of the Rich-- Isn't Just One Enough For Them?

One of the buzz stories of the week is in the new Rolling Stone, How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich. Where I grew up, they were always the Party of the Rich. Alas, in recent decades the Democrats have made a concerted effort to given them-- literally-- a run for the money. After Tuesday's election-- a victory, at least in Ohio and Maine, not for the conflicted and often useless Third Way Democratic Party but for the awakening, angered and revitalized 99%-- Democrats ought to start rethinking that. Perhaps Obama demoting lifelong corporate whore William Daley was a sign of that... but I doubt it. As a friend pointed out hours after the votes were counted, "It seems like last night's election gives the clearest indication to the Democratic Party that when it decides to define the problem, the culprit who is responsible for the problem, and draw clear discernible lines around it (on behalf of the 99 percent of the electorate, which is essentially the party of the 'little guys' is supposed to represent)-- WE WIN. It's not just about 'fighting,' it is about fighting with a clear cause and not catering to the middle."

Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone:

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad-- one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million-- while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes-- five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

The GOP campaign to aid the wealthy has left America unable to raise the money needed to pay its bills. "The Republican Party went on a tax-cutting rampage and a spending spree," says Rhode Island governor and former GOP senator Lincoln Chafee, pointing to two deficit-financed wars and an unpaid-for prescription-drug entitlement. "It tanked the economy." Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the fucking growth?"

Republicans talk about job creation, about preserving family farms and defending small businesses, and reforming Medicare and Social Security. But almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans. And most of their plans, which are presented as common-sense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor. With 14 million Americans out of work, and with one in seven families turning to food stamps simply to feed their children, Republicans have responded to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression by slashing inheritance taxes, extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and endorsing a tax amnesty for big corporations that have hidden billions in profits in offshore tax havens. They also wrecked the nation's credit rating by rejecting a debt-ceiling deal that would have slashed future deficits by $4 trillion-- simply because one-quarter of the money would have come from closing tax loopholes on the rich.

Yet John Boehner's political machine never stops insisting-- day in and day out (do NOT follow this freak show on Twitter)-- that the very economic and fiscal policies that drove the country into the worst domestic calamity since the Great Depression is exactly what we need to... pull us out of it? These people aren't drunk-- well, in his case they are, but that's not what I mean-- they are just ruthless and assume the rest of us aren't paying any attention at all. And his "economists," the ones who back up all this rubbish he pukes out with a straight face? Yesterday Steve Benen took a little look behind the closed doors at what Boehner is trying to pass off as legitimate economists worth taking seriously.

In recent months, economists have been offered two competing approaches to job creation in the U.S. President Obama’s agenda, which is popular in national public-opinion polls, enjoys considerable support among independent economists. The Republican alternative, such as it is, has been largely rejected-- one independent economist took a look at the GOP plan and concluded that it would fail to help the economy in the short term, and might even “push the economy back into recession.”

And that leaves Republicans in a bit of a bind. How can they claim the policy high ground on jobs when annoying experts, relying on pesky facts, keep reporting that the GOP approach wouldn’t help the economy?

Yesterday, Republican leaders came up with a scheme to cloud the debate. If USA Today’s headline is any indication, the scheme worked like a charm. The paper told readers: “Economists: GOP jobs plan better than Obama’s.”

...The Republican “list stunts” never go well. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for example, will occasionally claim to have a list of 700 “prominent scientists” who agree with him that all climate data is a communist conspiracy. When one looks a little closer at the list, we find that it features economists, some weathermen, some scientists on ExxonMobil’s payroll, and a few qualified experts who disagree with Inhofe and who’ve asked that their names be removed from his list. (He’s refused.)

The Speaker’s new list isn’t much better. One of the “economists” listed bills himself as an “anarcho-libertarian philosopher.” Another is an AEI activist who condemned First Lady Michelle Obama as “the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling.” Another is a FreedomWorks staffer. Several were champions of the Bush/Cheney economic plan.

One is Art Laffer. Seriously.

The difference in approaches couldn’t be more different. On the one hand, we have the White House, which produced a credible plan, invited independent scrutiny, and found support from independent economists. On the other, we have congressional Republicans, who found some like-minded ideologues to tell them how right they are.

Real economics professors would give grades of F to Econ 101 students who came in with proposals like Paul Ryan's, Eric Cantor's, John Boehner's and the clowncar that is the GOP field of presidential contenders-- no really, F's.

Stephen Golub, who is teaching Econ 101 at Swarthmore College this semester, said some of the ideas floated by Presidential candidates would earn a failing grade in his class.

“I think it’s grossly irresponsible what they are saying,” Golub said. “It’s not about economics. It’s about getting elected. They are promising things that are impossible to deliver or make little sense.” [...]

Another professor who teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Michael Salemi, was able to identify statements from six candidates that “would earn failing grades in my Econ 101 class.” [...]

Bernard Salanie, an economics professor at Columbia University, said Perry’s simplified tax form just won’t cut it.

“It is a bit depressing to again hear the argument that we will be well on the road to recovery once our tax returns fit on a postcard,” Salanie said.

It's important to remember, this is the only thing the Republican Party cares about, aside from their own careerist ambitions-- these people: