Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:02 PM
babylonsister (146,874 posts)
Why No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal
Why No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal
By Charles P. Pierce
Because I misplaced the remote in the hotel this morning, and because throwing a shoe through the TV is frowned upon by most of our major hotel chains, I accidentally stumbled into Morning Joe just in time to hear "Willie" Geist and the crew make funny-ha-ha about Mike Barnicle's having interviewed George Washington. (Actually, what happened was that Mike Royko actually did the interview, but it wound up in Barnicle's column.) Anyway, all of them were quite exercised that "both sides" couldn't reach a deal on the upcoming Gentle Fiscal Incline. Parson Jon Meacham even summoned up the great god Simpson-Bowles as a template, and everybody got naked, draped themselves in garlands,and danced around the fire in worship. No, that really didn't happen.
Nothing has so illustrated the distance between the courtier press, and the elites that they have come to serve, then the ongoing mock-horror from both camps that politics can be messy and angry and frustrating. I've come to the conclusion that most of the mock-horror has its roots in the acceptance of the lunatic notion that government should be run "more like a business." You would think that, with the resounding defeat handed to an MBA automaton last month, this argument would go into eclipse for a while. But it is the clear basis for almost all of the anguish and garment-rending inside the Beltway.
There may not be a "deal." Smart people have speculated that we may not need a "deal" and, in any case, a "deal" is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of "governing." I have said more than once that it is not the president's job to tame John Boehner's crazy-ass caucus for him. The president was re-elected on a slate of policies that the country wanted. He has no affirmative obligation to water these down just to "get a deal done" for the sake of appearances, just as he is under no affirmative action to offer up Medicare and Social Security as blood sacrifices just so that John Boehner and his crazy caucus will be placated. The country must be governed, It does not necessarily have to be governed efficiently, as long as the manifest will of the people is somehow expressed through it. Perhaps the people would like it to run more smoothly, but they want most for it to run in such a way that it responds to their expressed wishes. For example, there is not clamoring in the country — or any real need — for the kind of austerity agenda to which all the fiscal cliffies seem to be trying to accustom us. If inefficiency is all that saves us from a damaging set of policies, then god bless inefficiency. (And remember old Dan Webster's warning that the simplest governments in the world are despotisms.) If that inconveniences the mandarin class, well, that's just going to have to be too bad.
5 replies, 466 views
Why No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal (Original post)
|Egalitarian Thug||Dec 2012||#4|
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:48 PM
Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)
4. The real reason for the bipartisan charade of "The Fiscal Cliff" and "Sequestration"!
On January 1st, 2013 income taxes will rise modestly for everyone, the Social Security contributions will return to the level they have been at for 30 years (and created the $3T surplus), there will be an across-the-board 10% reduction in scheduled increases in the federal budget, and the capital gains tax will rise 5% to its former measly 20% along with a return of the 55% inheritance tax above $1M.
Now, put yourself in the place of a ruling class parasite, which of these changes would you find so dreadful?
Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #4)
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:35 AM
ProSense (115,094 posts)
5. "Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income"
G.O.P. Balks at White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis
But the details show how far the president is ready to push House Republicans. The upfront tax increases in the proposal go beyond what Senate Democrats were able to pass earlier this year. Tax rates would go up for higher-income earners, as in the Senate bill, but Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income, something the Senate did not approve. He also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent. On Jan. 1, the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million.
On the estate tax, Republicans are dreading going over the cliff.