Standing Tall For Working Families? The Democrats? Come On...

Thursday evening Vermont's Independent Senator Bernie Sanders told Al Sharpton that his hope is that "the Democrats this time stand tall and that they defend working families in this country and that they say 'sorry, enough is enough; the wealthy are going to have to pay more in taxes and if you guys are not prepared to do that, we're going to go to the American people and expose you for what you are'." The Democrats? The conflicted paralyzed party filled with nearly as many corporate shills and whores as the GOP? The Democratic Party that elects Steny Hoyer, John Kerry, and Max Baucus to leadership positions and spends all its campaign money trying to reelect arch conservatives like Ben Nelson to the Senate and Jim Matheson to the House? That Democratic Party? Good luck, Bernie. My guess is that the only reason some of these clowns haven't just joined the GOP outright is because their corporate masters want them in the Democratic Party so they have a foot in that door too! "Democratic Party stand tall for working families?" Ha, ha, ha. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison may be able to get the Progressive Caucus to stand tall for working families-- unless Steny puts his foot down-- but the Democratic Party? I don't think so.

Friday's Wall Street Journal sketched out the problem in terms of the Bush tax cuts for the very rich, the economy-wrecking, job-destroying tax cuts Obama and the Democrats-- with Hamlet-like reluctance-- agreed to extend once already. They're due to expire and the Republicans' number one goal is to "force" the Democrats to agree to extend them again. Many Democrats, of course, are happy to do so-- more than happy-- but THE Democrats have to make it appear that they're against extending them.

Days away from a deadline, Congress's deficit-reduction supercommittee is stymied, stumped in large part by one of Washington's seemingly unsolvable problems: What to do with the Bush-era tax cuts?

Republicans are digging in against any agreement that does not extend current income-tax rates, which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Democrats want them extended only for lower- and middle-income Americans, holding out for higher rates on families with taxable income over $250,000 a year. If any agreement is to be reached on cutting the deficit by next Wednesday's deadline, this impasse must be resolved.

At least publicly, ...

And Bernie even went to Politico to pen an OpEd yesterday making his case about the tax cuts for the rich. He pointed out that there is "surprisingly broad consensus among Americans-- except inside the corporate-dominated D.C. Beltway-- on what to do about deficits" which he explains are "caused mainly by big tax cuts for the wealthy, two unpaid-for wars, a horrible recession caused by Wall Street greed and an expensive prescription drug program rigged to favor pharmaceutical companies." And he points out that most non-Beltwayites, Americans who exist in the real world and who don't have their career paths financed by corporate lobbyists, do not want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cut.

OK, so a threat to expose the Republicans is going to change something? They expose themselves and they have no shame. Neither do the Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats. They don't even seem to care that much if they lose elections since their corporate sugar daddies set them up handsomely as lobbyists after their loyal service to the 1% in Congress.

As the powerful supercommittee nears its Thanksgiving deadline, I hope (but doubt) that Republicans will listen to the American people and support deficit reduction in a fair and responsible way. I hope (but doubt) that Democrats will not again capitulate just for the sake of an agreement-- but that’s been the pattern.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and independents. A majority of Republicans and people in the tea party movement also support taxing millionaires to help bring down deficits. Even many millionaires say they should be paying higher taxes.

At a time when many successful corporations pay nothing in federal income taxes, there is also widespread support for closing corporate tax loopholes. Taking a hard look at mushrooming defense spending also enjoys widespread support.

For much too long, the Washington agenda has been set by powerful corporate interests and a right wing that do not represent the needs and aspirations of most Americans. For too long, Democrats have gone along with Republican demands and caved in to these powerful special interests.

The American people have had it. The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing. A virtual popular uprising forced Bank of America to drop an unpopular $5 monthly debit-card fee. On Election Day this month, in Ohio and many other states, voters said no to right-wing extremism and corporate greed.

The American people are clear. They do not want Democrats to reach another “grand bargain” with representatives of the rich and powerful that eviscerates the most successful and popular social programs in the history of this country. They want Democrats to stand up for the 99 percent, not the 1 percent.

There is reason for concern. In December-- when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House-- Congress and President Barack Obama not only extended Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy but gave new breaks to heirs of the super-rich.

In April-- with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats still in the majority in the Senate-- Republicans threatened to shut down the government and delay the processing of new Social Security benefits unless their demands were met. Democrats went along with $78 billion in cuts from the president’s budget request.

In August, in an outrageous display of unprincipled gamesmanship, Republicans put the United States on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead of invoking clear 14th Amendment powers to honor our nation’s debts, the president and most Democrats agreed to a $2.5 trillion deficit-reduction package.

That’s how we got to where we are today.

This time, if the president and Democrats on the supercommittee go along with cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the three pillars of the New Deal and the Great Society, and permanently extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent, voters will shake their heads in disbelief. They will arrive at the reasonably valid conclusion that there are no significant differences between the two parties controlled by corporate interests.

This is a pivotal moment in U.S. history. The rich and large corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. Now is the time to answer the question that Woody Guthrie poignantly asked: “Which side are you on?”

The Democrats must answer boldly that they are on the side of working families and the middle class and that they will fight to protect their interests.

What if the supercommittee ends in stalemate? Across-the-board, automatic cuts are set to kick in. That so-called sequestration wouldn’t start, however, until 2013. That would make 2012 one of the most important election years in modern U.S. history.

If Democrats stand with ordinary Americans and make it clear that they are prepared to take on the wealthy and the powerful, they could win both houses of Congress. They could give Obama a fresh infusion of boldness as he enters a second term in the White House.

That's a pretty big "if" and Bernie is more aware than most that "the Democrats" inside the Beltway are hopelessly conflicted and part of a many-headed entity working, as often as not, at cross purposes. Just look how many voted for the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment yesterday. It didn't pass because it needed a two-thirds vote but more than two-dozen Democrats voted for it. I've completely given up on the concept of "more Democrats." That's the DCCC's and DSCC's jobs and they do it really, really badly. I'm only concerned with better Democrats. You can find them here and you can help them there. And for the Senate, there are three, Bernie himself, plus two intrepid challengers, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).