Pete Peterson Is Dead-- Guest Post By Jonathan Tasini

Author and labor activist-- former president of the National Writers Union-- Jonathan Tasini has been doing a phenomenal series of informative candidate interviews on his podcast, The Working Life, like the one above with Kaniela Ing. He manages to get all the candidates with the cutting edge ideas. Today he did the definitive obituary for Pete Peterson, the billionaire Wall Street crook who died Tuesday, age 91.

The Pete Peterson myth the media ignores
-by Jonathan Tasini

Should I be surprised by a fawning, embarrassing obituary for Pete Peterson? No. But, it ignores some very important truths about Pete Peterson and it is instructive about how other elites are treated in the traditional press.

1- The man made his fortune from piling up DEBT (more on that in a moment) to realize profits from buying and selling companies-- which cost tens of thousands of people good-paying jobs. His fortune came at great cost and pain to a lot of people and communities. NO MENTION OF THIS IN THE Times OBIT. Instead, he's treated like some genius and great pillar of the community

2- Despite having made a massive fortune piling up DEBT, Peterson spent years running around screaming about government DEBTS, and funding and promoting the entirely false narrative of a deficit/debt "crisis." Which simply does not exist. Which I wrote a book about here. He was singularly responsible for managing to convince an uncritical media and way too many Democrats that a crisis existed, leading to, among other things, the dangerous/lunatic Obama-appointed deficit commission-- better remembered as the "Catfood Commission" because if its recommendations had been implemented, calling for cuts in Social Security and Medicare, millions of seniors and others would be eating just that for 3 meals a day. As an aside: one reason I am skeptical about the drumbeat to depose Nancy Pelosi is that she, opposing her own president (Obama), said, at the time, there would be no cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

3- But this is how elites are treated in this country-- with amnesia or blatant disregard/ignorance of the truth. We just marked the 15th anniversary of the Iraq War-- yet neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney have been held accountable for their war crimes and lies to the public. The man sitting in the Oval Office today benefitted from years of fawning media coverage about his business "acumen," despite years of cheating thousands of people and bankruptcies-- not to mention blatant bigotry and despicable behavior towards women…and, yet, little of that was covered regularly, and, thus, we live with the hand-held-to-the-mouth shock coverage about each day's tweets when the character, behavior and record of this lowlife was abundantly clear years ago. If only one could hope that reading Peterson's obit critically would change perspectives…but, alas…

Oh, Mike Pence Is Much Much Worse Than Tim Kaine-- No Comparison! So?

It's an extraordinarily low bar but Kaine is better than Penzzzzzzzzz

Someone on Twitter was trying to promote the idea that putting Tim Kaine first in the line to presidential succession was not just less terrible than putting Mike Pence there but actually a good thing... and used as evidence a link showing that Pete Peterson's Fix the Debt operation-- whose ultimate goal is the destruction of Social Security and Medicare-- named Kaine a Fiscal Hero, along with other such well-respected and beloved political figures of the American center-right as John Boehner (R-OH), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), Rob Portman (R-OH), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Steny Hoyer (D-K Street), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Dan Coats (R-IN), and Michael Bennet (D-CO). I had just cast the deciding vote on a committee discussing whether or not to endorse Bennet for re-election to his Colorado Senate seat-- another lesser-of-two-evils choice being forced on the voters. (Happy to report that, Bennet, easily the lesser evil, isn't being endorsed.)

Peterson's operation defines Fiscal heroes as having "distinguished themselves by taking fiscally responsible votes, pushing their party leaders to make debt a priority, leading bipartisan efforts to work through policy options to fix the debt, using their town hall meetings to engage and educate constituents, delivering floor speeches to raise awareness about the issue, advocating to keep tough choices on the table, and introducing legislation to improve the nation's fiscal position. These elected officials have recognized that we will need to take a comprehensive approach to address the core drivers of the debt, such as entitlement reform and tax reform, to put it on a downward path in the long-term and allow the economy to thrive. Given that there is much more to be done to confront the nation's debt challenges, it is important that the work of those who focus on these issues is recognized."

Here, for example is wealthy, spoiled young Patrick Murphy, right after he was elected to Congress pretending to be a Democrat-- who didn't make the grade then but will soon, no doubt, going on TV and when asked what he would cut, twice volunteering Social Security and Medicare:



You know, one of the things that's wrong with settling for lesser-of-two evils candidates all the time-- we discussed it at greater length yesterday-- is that it means we have the wrong people making countless behind the scenes decisions daily. Tim Kaine is a shitty VP choice, not nearly as terrible as Pence, obviously, but certainly one I would ever want to see ascending to the presidency. His reasonable defenders-- not the ones bragging about how he's great for Wall Street and knows how to cut Social Security and Medicare-- point out that Planned Parenthood and NARAL have endorsed him (although he's "personally" anti-Choice), the Sierra Club supports him because he opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline, the AFL-CIO has given him a 98% lifetime rating, and that he stood up to the tobacco lobby and the gun manufacturers lobby while he was governor of Virginia. In fact, Kaine has a "F" from the NRA. That's all good... and I want to share something former Congressman Brad Miller of North Carolina sent me today, which he already published at HuffPo. Remember, someone appoints all these decision-making bureaucrats:

These are words that I have never written-- or thought-- before and expect never to again: House Republicans are right.

On July 11, House Republicans issued a report on an investigation into the Department of Justice’s 2012 settlement with HSBC, the British megabank, for laundering $900 million for the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels and for regimes under international sanctions for nuclear proliferation, genocide and support for terrorism. The DOJ touted the $2 billion civil penalty as a “record,” but the penalty amounted to five weeks of profits for the bank taken from shareholder funds. There were no criminal charges.

Lanny Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and Eric Holder, the Attorney General, both argued that the DOJ could not bring criminal charges because convictions might jeopardize the bank and the stability of the world’s financial system. But then Holder said his statement had been “misconstrued.”

Holder said “there are a number of factors that we have to take into consideration....Innocent people can be impacted by a prosecution....But let me be very, very, very clear. Banks are not too big to jail.” The DOJ would bring criminal charges where there was enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The congressional report concluded there was ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision not to pursue criminal charges was entirely because HSBC was “too big to jail.”

Executive branch cooperation in congressional investigations is seldom cheerful, but the DOJ flatly refused to produce any subpoenaed documents. The Department of Treasury grudgingly produced some documents redacted at DOJ’s request. The stated reason was that the withheld information pertained to “prosecutorial decisions.”

The courts have never precisely defined “executive privilege,” the protection of the confidentiality of some discussions about some decisions between some executive branch officials to encourage uninhibited debate. But this much is clear: there is no blanket protection for “prosecutorial deliberations.”

There is no government power more susceptible to dangerous abuse or more in need of constant independent scrutiny than the power to bring, or not to bring, criminal charges.

An aggressive Senate investigation exposed the Teapot Dome scandal almost a century ago. The Secretary of the Interior went to prison for taking bribes for no-bid petroleum leases on federal lands. The Senate also examined the Justice Department’s failure to investigate and prosecute the people involved.

The Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s authority to hold a subpoenaed witness in contempt for refusing to testify on the Justice Department’s conduct. The Court said the question whether the Justice Department’s “functions were being properly discharged or being neglected or misdirected...concerned a subject on which legislation could be had and would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.”

A decade ago the Bush Administration fired federal prosecutors who had brought prosecutions that hurt Republicans or failed to bring flimsy prosecutions that would hurt Democrats. Administration officials refused to comply with House subpoenas and the House went to court. The court rejected the Administration’s argument that the decision to fire prosecutors was entirely up to the President and none of Congress’s business. Congress had a “unique ability to address improper partisan influence in the prosecutorial process,” the court said, and “[n]o other institution will fill the vacuum if Congress is unable to investigate and respond to this evil.”

There is no evidence that DOJ’s decision to settle with HSBC was criminally corrupt or the product of improper partisan influence. Wall Street critics hotly dispute that criminal prosecution of HSBC executives would have threatened the financial system, but DOJ’s decision to settle was likely based on that concern, as Breuer and Holder first said. The obvious injustice is deeply offensive to most Americans.

Savvy Washington insiders avoid public debate with Wall Street critics, so some political functionary told Holder that he was off message.

House Republicans’ concern for the injustice of the settlement is patently insincere. House Republicans’ only motive is to embarrass the Obama Administration, not to side with Wall Street critics.

Certainly the investigation could inform legislation. Most obviously, any institution that seeks the special treatment that HSBC received should immediately be broken into small-enough-to-jail pieces. That is legislation House Republicans will never enact.

But political embarrassment punishes misconduct, including the misconduct of staying on a message that deviates from the unvarnished truth. Americans are entitled to know how the power they confer by their ballots is used. And Americans are entitled to know if some powerful financial institutions receive special treatment in the criminal justice system.

A great American political scientist, Woodrow Wilson, wrote in 1885 that the “proper duty of a representative body [is] to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees...The informing function of Congress is to be preferred even to its legislative function.”

If congressional oversight causes political functionaries to hesitate to tell presidential appointees to stay on messages that are varnished versions of the truth out of fear of embarrassment, then that would be a wholesome result.

Can you keep this tucked away in the back of your mind? Some day we will will prevail on Miller to jump back into electoral politics-- so far we've come up short-- and at that time, we'll need to fight really hard for him. There aren't many Democrats willing to advance this kind of embarrassing narrative about the kind of corruption that has no place in democratic governance. Meanwhile, though, please consider helping get Alan Grayson into the U.S. Senate instead of either of the 2 Wall Street lackeys, Patrick Murphy and Marco Rubio, opposing him.

Does Hillary Clinton Support Cuts to Social Security?

Hillary Clinton explains her Social Security ideas to the Politics and Eggs Event in New Hampshire (source) 

by Gaius Publius

Sure seems like it, but judge for yourself. Watch the above video starting at about 28:50 (if all is well in HTML land, I've queued it up for you). In case you haven't thought it through, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut. There's no other way to say it.

From a transcript (paragraphing and emphasis mine):

Clinton: Yes you know, I think there are three parts to what we have to do with Social Security and the first is we really do have to defend Social Security from the continuing efforts by some to privatize it, which I have been studying and opposing for a long time because the numbers just don’t work out [!]. And in the Bush administration when I was in the Senate I was one of the leaders in the fight against the Bush plan to privatize and it is something that I number one, we’ll focus on: we are not going to privatize Social Security.

Secondly, I am concerned about those people on Social Security who are most vulnerable in terms of what their monthly payout is. That is primarily divorced, widowed, single women who either never worked themselves or worked only a little bit so they have either just their own earnings to depend on or they had a spouse who also was a low wage worker and the first and most important task I think is to make sure that we get the monthly payment for the poorest Social Security recipients up. So that would be the first thing I would look at.

Thirdly, we do have to consider ways to make sure that the funding of Social Security does maintain the system. I think we have a number of options, this would be something that I would look at, I do not favor raising the retirement age. And I don’t favor it because it might be fine for somebody like me, but the vast majority of working people who have worked hard and have had a difficult, maybe last couple of decades trying to continue to work, it would be very challenging for them.

[But] If there were a way to do it that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it — but I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable.

And I want to look at raising the cap, I think that’s something we should look at how we do it, because I don’t want it to be an extra burden on middle class families and in some parts of the country, you know, there’s a different level of income that defines middle class. So what do we skip and what level do we start at? And we have to consider that. So those are my three priorities in looking at Social Security.

So she's not in favor of privatizing Social Security because the numbers don't work out. She wouldn't raising the retirement age if it hurt or punished low-wage workers, but she would consider raising it if low-wage workers could somehow be protected.

And do note the language. The word you're not hearing in either the question or the answer is "expanding" Social Security. Clinton talks about "enhancing" it, and that's the word the questioner picked up.

So am I confused? Maybe not. I think she'd put the squeeze on the system so long as her changes don't hurt people defined as "middle class" or the "most vulnerable." The comment about raising the cap but not on the "middle class" means this — you pay Social Security tax on the first $118,500 of income (not capital gains, mind you, just income); then no tax on the next, say, $100,000 or $200,000 or so; then taxes start again on the rest, a plan generally called a "doughnut hole."

The "doughnut hole" in Sanders' SS tax plan is between $118,500–250,000. How big would that hole be under a Clinton plan? We don't know. Is $400,000 a "middle class income" in communities like midtown Manhattan? What are her thoughts on that?

And I'm very nervous about her interest in raising the retirement age for the wealthy. If you haven't thought it through, means-testing Social Security changes an insurance program into welfare, and you know how we treat welfare these days. Cut-cut-cut unless you're among the "deserving" — a constantly moving, shrinking target.

The Neoliberal Approach to "Strengthening" Social Security

I take her interest in protecting the vulnerable as sincere. But for the rest, does Hillary Clinton share her husband's (and Barack Obama's) interest in a so-called "grand bargain" along Simpson-Bowles lines, one that makes Social Security less of an insurance program and more of a welfare program? That's Clinton below, by the way, talking up entitlement "reform" at an annual Pete Peterson "summit."

“Our party’s problem is, we are always reluctant to give up the gains of the past to create the future,” Bill Clinton told the audience at the Pete Peterson’s fiscal summit. “Democrats are reluctant to commit to longer-term health-care savings; they don’t want to touch Social Security.” (source)

Two thoughts. One, this is something she needs to say clearly, her plans for Social Security. Two, Barack Obama said his Social Security plans clearly in 2008, then in 2009 he reverted from his 2008 populist self to his 2006 austerity-loving neoliberal self. That makes me very nervous.

(If you like, you can help Bernie Sanders here; adjust the split any way you wish at the link. Bernie Sanders has been pretty clear about actually expanding Social Security and Medicare.)

GP

Pennsylvania's Had Some Pretty Crappy Governors In Recent Years-- Backed By Even Worse Money Men

Republican ex-Senator Judd Gregg and Rendell are co-chairs of Pete Peterson's slimy anti-Social Security Campaign-- Fix the Debt. Other members: Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank; Erskine Bowles; Dave Cote, CEO of Honeywell; Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; Pete Peterson, founder and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; Steven Rattner, chairman of Willett Advisors; Alice Rivlin; and Paul Stebbins, CEO of World Fuel Services

I wonder if anyone has told the MSNBC hosts and producers that for more and more progressive viewers, a guest appearance by Pennsylvania ConservaDem Ed Rendell is a bathroom break signal-- if not an opportunity to throw something at the TV screen. Having lived in Monroe County for a while when Rendell was governor, I never thought Rendell was even a Democrat, at least not by principles, values and convictions. I most remember him as the guy who lowered property taxes by legalizing slot machines, a very regressive form of taxation, and backing Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. He seemed to always be looking for issues he could back the GOP on and stab his own base in the back. Then, last April, when Blue America was doing all we could to replace corrupt, right-wing corporate shill Tim Holden with a good-government reformer, Matt Cartwright, Rendell came barrelling into the race endorsing Blue Dog Holden.

I remember getting all these calls from people telling me Blue America should cut its losses and bow to the inevitable that Holden would never be beaten because Rendell was so respected by Democratic voters. That didn't exactly turn out to be what happened. Blue America just redoubled our efforts and Cartwright ignored the endorsements from Rendell and other conservatives. Cartwright clobbered the 10-term Rendell-endorsed incumbent-- and particularly clobbered him in the bluest precincts. The only areas where Holden did well were in Republican areas or the district where his record and Rendell's endorsement meant something.

So it should have come as no surprise to anyone this week when porcine Philadelphia power broker and Rendell fundraiser, David Cohen came out of the shoot favoring Pennsylvania's worst governor in modern times, Tom Corbett. Corbett, steeped in the corruption and elitism that a slimy character like Cohen thrives in, will be up against New Dem Allyson Schwartz. In the past, Cohen and his wife have contributed thousands of dollars towards Schwartz's political career. Although usually identified as a Democratic fundraiser, Cohen, an executive vice president at Comcast, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in thinly veiled bribes to politicians on both sides of the aisle-- though he seems to prefer conservative Democrats--whether Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) or Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA). He's considered a key player in Rendell's miserable career.

Now, just as the 2014 governor's race is beginning to heat up, Cohen says he will likely back Republican Gov. Corbett's reelection campaign.

"I expect to support Gov Corbett," Cohen said in an e-mail, without elaborating on his rationale for doing so.

Last month, he and his wife, Rhonda, held a small fund-raiser at their Mount Airy home for Corbett that drew about 30 people, mainly Republicans, but also a few Democrats, and raised about $200,000.

Cohen praised Corbett that evening as a friend, a "man of integrity," and a "good public servant," one attendee said.

Only 19 months earlier, the Cohen residence was the scene of an event that raised $1.2 million for Obama's reelection.

At the time, Obama thanked the Cohens for having been supportive for so many years.

Few who attended the most recent event were surprised that Cohen is now using his clout for Corbett.

They said that as the leader of the nation's biggest cable company, Cohen is a businessman first who recognizes that history has demonstrated that Pennsylvania's incumbent governors do not often lose reelection.

"He's a partisan but pragmatic Democrat," said one corporate executive in Philadelphia, who attended the fund-raiser but would not speak for attribution.

A prominent Philadelphia Republican, who also did not speak for attribution, said Cohen is well aware that the cable industry is regulated by state boards whose members are appointed by the governor.

"Cohen is an extremely loyal guy," he said. "His first client is Comcast, and that does require him to cross the aisle.

Meanwhile a poll by Beneson for the Democratic Governors Association last month indicates Cohen may have made a very bad business decision, since Corbett's policies are so unpopular and disliked in the state that Schwartz, who hasn't even declared she's running yet, is already ahead of him by 8 points, 50-42%. The polling indicates that Schwartz's margin will more than double once she starts campaigning.

In 2013, we can look forward to even savvy economic players like Starbucks' CEO paying heed to self-interested thugs and predators

When I wrote about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz in March, I included this clip from the company's annual shareholders' meeting.

"How could someone as well connected as Mr. Schultz get such a basic point [about debt reduction and the economy] wrong? By talking to the wrong people -- in particular, the people at Fix the Debt, who've been doing their best to muddle the issue. . . .

"What's happening now is that all the ["deficit scold" Peter] Peterson-funded groups are trying to exploit the fiscal cliff to push a benefit-cutting agenda that has nothing to do with the current crisis, using artfully deceptive language -- as in [a fund-raising letter by Fix the Debt's Maya] MacGuineas -- to hide the bait and switch. . . . Mr. Schultz apparently fell for the con. But the rest of us shouldn't."

-- Paul Krugman, in his NYT column today,
"Brewing Up Confusion"

by Ken

Whew, talk about cutting it close! A NYT pop-up informed me that my summons of Paul Krugman's column today is no. 9 of my allotted "10 free articles this month." However, I can choose to look at this from "a glass half full" (or should I say "a glass  one-tenth full"?) kind of revelation, announcing that between now and the midnight farewell to 2012, I still have one free NYT click to use at will!

But I digress.

It's hardly a new theme for Paul K that there's an anointed group of so-called "serious" people who are all but universally listened to by people who fancy themselves serious people, both in government and in the media, and in the economic matters that are his professional purview, the so-called "serious" people don't know what they're talking about -- or perhaps do know and have a vested interest in, shall we say, misleading the people who unaccountably listen to them. (Note how adroitly I avoided use of loaded terms like "fib" and "lie their fool heads off.")

The last time I wrote about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, in March of this year that's about to give up its ghost, I wrote in unblinking admiration: "Starbucks' CEO makes such a standup case for its corporate governance, I may have to start spending more money in their stores." And Paul K starts his column today from a similar vantage point:

Howard Schultz, the C.E.O. of Starbucks, has a reputation as a good guy, a man who supports worthy causes. And he presumably thought he would add to that reputation when he posted an open letter urging his employees to promote fiscal bipartisanship by writing "Come together" on coffee cups.

In reality, however, all he did was make himself part of the problem. And his letter was actually a very good illustration of the forces that created the current mess.

Paul K cites CEO Schultz's warning in the letter "that elected officials 'have been unable to come together and compromise to solve the tremendously important, time-sensitive issue to fix the national debt,' and suggested that readers further inform themselves at the Web site of the organization Fix the Debt." And he thinks we ought to "parse that."

He concedes the time-sensitiveness of the issue, and the distinct possibility that the fiscal cliff's "combination of tax increases and spending cuts . . . might push the nation back into recession." But he insists, sounding a theme that will certainly be familiar to DWT readers: that "that prospect doesn't reflect a failure to 'fix the debt' by reducing the budget deficit -- on the contrary, the danger is that we'll cut the deficit too fast."

More importantly, Paul K wonders, "How could someone as well connected as Mr. Schultz get such a basic point wrong?" And he answers without delay: "By talking to the wrong people -- in particular, the people at Fix the Debt, who've been doing their best to muddle the issue."

For example, in a new fund-raising letter Maya MacGuineas, the organization's public face, writes of the need to "make hard decisions when it comes to averting the 'fiscal cliff' and stabilizing our national debt" -- even though the problem with the fiscal cliff is precisely that it stabilizes the debt too soon. Clearly, Ms. MacGuineas was trying to confuse readers on that point, and she apparently confused Mr. Schultz too.

Our Paul thinks it important, before proceeding with the economics of the issue, to address Schultz's "misdiagnosis of the political problem we face."

Look, it's true that elected politicians have been unable to "come together and compromise." But saying that in generic form, and implying a symmetry between Republicans and Democrats, isn't just misleading, it's actively harmful.

The reality is that President Obama has made huge concessions. He has already cut spending sharply, and has now offered additional big spending cuts, including a cut in Social Security benefits, while signaling his willingness to retain many of the Bush tax cuts, even for people with very high incomes. Taken as a whole, the president's proposals are arguably to the right of those made by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairmen of his deficit commission, in 2010.

In return, the Republicans have offered essentially nothing. Oh, they say they're willing to increase revenue by closing loopholes -- but they've refused to specify a single loophole they're willing to close. So if there's a breakdown in negotiations, the blame rests entirely with one side of the political divide.

Given that reality, think about the effect when people like Mr. Schultz respond by blaming both sides equally. They may sound virtuously nonpartisan, but what they're actually doing is rewarding intransigence and extremism -- which, in the current context, means siding with the G.O.P.

And while Paul is "willing to believe that Mr. Schultz doesn't know what he's doing,"

The same can't be said, however, about Fix the Debt.

You might not know it reading some credulous reporting, but Fix the Debt isn't some kind of new gathering of concerned citizens. On the contrary, it's just the latest addition to a group of deficit-scold shops supported by billionaire Peter Peterson, a group ranging from think tanks like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget to the newspaper The Fiscal Times. The main difference seems to be that this gathering of the usual suspects is backed by an impressive amount of corporate cash.

Like all the Peterson-funded groups, Fix the Debt seems much more concerned with cutting Social Security and Medicare than with fighting deficits in general -- and also not nearly as nonpartisan as it pretends to be. In its list of "core principles," it actually calls for lower tax rates -- a very peculiar position for people supposedly horrified by the budget deficit. True, the group calls for revenue increases via unspecified base broadening, that is, closing loopholes. But that's unrealistic. And it's also, as you may have noticed, the Republican position.

What's happening now is that all the Peterson-funded groups are trying to exploit the fiscal cliff to push a benefit-cutting agenda that has nothing to do with the current crisis, using artfully deceptive language -- as in that MacGuineas letter -- to hide the bait and switch.

Mr. Schultz apparently fell for the con. But the rest of us shouldn't.

I imagine our Paul must get tired of hearing the sound of his unheeded voice, but thank goodness he hasn't let that deter him from making the point over and over and over and over and . . . . Whether through lack of information or gullibility to misinformation or just plain being in on the con, the so-called "serious" people in and out of government continue to listen only to people who are pulling a massive con job on them. And, alas, on us.

#

Americans Spoke Back To Pete Peterson's America Speaks Farce

I don't want to see a real class war in America, where millions and millions of ordinary Americans get pushed so far up against the wall and just get so fed up with being cheated that they finally rise up and start hunting the plutocrats and their whores in the streets and chop them into pieces and feed them to dogs. That can still be averted-- though not by slick plutocratic ploys like Pete Peterson's Austerity Pimp Revue that Digby live-blogged so eloquently this weekend-- at those two links and here.

I'm not suggesting anyone chop up any plutocrats or Wall Street brokers; that's not why I'm suggesting you read the Pete Peterson crap, even if that would be the normal reaction of many people to seeing it. I like this woman's reaction more; she participated in southeast Pennsylvania and she was smart enough to think outside of the Peterson Box, a box designed to give the political elite-- a useless segment of society installed to serve the interest of the plutocrats-- the excuse they would prefer to cut Social Security and Medicare and to push even further the redistribution of wealth away from working people and more towards social parasites.



Yesterday Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign For America's Future, pointed out, as Robin in the video above did, and as Digby did, over the course of the weekend did, that ordinary Americans who attended the sessions were not buying into the reactionary premises and the stacked deck the political elites were offering. Hickey's point, something many participants noticed, was that the whole process was flawed because the slickly presented background material was so flawed. "Peterson," he wrote, "cannot be pleased with the participants' mainly progressive policy choices, which will be presented on June 30 to the Deficit Commission that Peterson encouraged President Obama to create. According to America Speaks' own press release, when a scientifically selected group of participants picked up their electronic voting devices, they overwhelmingly supported proposals to:

• Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million.

• Reduce military spending by 10 to 15 percent,

• Create a carbon tax and a securities-transaction tax.

That's not what the elites want to hear from us. Remember, we're supposed to pay, through crushing "austerity" programs, the mistakes in handling the economy since 1981 when Reagan kicked into gear an uninterrupted corporatist takeover of the country. It continues today; keep in mind the current stooge's Chief of Staff is a Wall Street puppet who shoved NAFTA down Congress' throat.

I have a modest proposal. How about if we hold off on all this stuff for a minute? Just stop everything for one minute here, and let's try something that makes sense. Everybody pays-- through withholding-- a small payroll tax (FICA) to fund Social Security, providing benefits for retirees, the disabled, and minor children of deceased workers. This is the major portion of income tax for most Americans-- like over 75% of us. But this tax is not paid on any income over $106,800 (gross) and not paid on any income from stocks or bonds. If someone makes $20,000,000 a year they pay the same percentage as someone who makes $20,000 a year: 6.2% on $106,800-- $6,621.60. If a more typical American family with two incomes-- a husband making $53,000 and a wife making $53,000, say-- they pay the same thing as the guy making $20,000,000 a year. If Rchie Rich were paying his fair share ($1,240,000) there would be no crisis, That's why rich people hire lobbyists and buy corrupt politicians-- whether we're talking about virtually the entire GOP, but especially the wheeler-dealers like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Raul Ryan, and Joe Barton, or Democrats like Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Blue Dogs and Steny Hoyer who operate just like them-- and whose careers they finance. Let's end the $106,800 cut off on taxes and let the wealthy pay their fair share, see if that works out and then talk about austerity and budget deficits after that.