Well, I've had a combination of a busy week, and a general malaise over current events. You probably can tell, if you scroll through my recent posts that there aren't very many. Sorry about that, I'll try to get inspired. In the meantime, here's a great piece on a subject I've written a lot about: Rich donors, and the difference between right and left wing versions of them.
[Excerpt]
What’s The Difference Between Wealthy (Koch) Republicans And (Soros) Democrats? The billionaire Koch brothers have been corrupting democracy for decades. Their labyrinthine web of front groups toil 24/7 to distort the facts on issues like climate change, voter suppression, gun control, and taxes. And if that collection of topics sounds familiar, it’s because the Kochs almost single-handedly created the Tea Party (with PR help from Fox News) to push their views on those subjects unto a gullible sector of the American populace. . .
Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to strike some campaign finance laws has me bugged. The 2010 Citizens United decision unleashed the floodgates of shady money, and we've seen the result in just crazy saturation of political ads. Money choses candidates. Even the GOP lost out last time, when Mitt Romney won the money wars then lost the election (yes, Karl Rove, he really did lose).
But SCOTUS wasn't done. It's still too restrictive for the poor rich donors. Money equals speech they say, and apparently, more money equals more speech. You aren't a gazillionaire? So sorry, your message will henceforth be drowned out! It sucks. It's sucks hard. And it's not over. Justice Clarence "Coke Can" Thomas thinks there should be no restrictions! So there's that to look forward to.
[Excerpt]
Supreme Court Decides Citizens United Part Two: The Dickening
. . .This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Why do you care? Because this sucker is this year’s Citizens United, and you can practically hear your right to free and fair elections tick tick ticking away, America. Where Citizens gave us those cool-ass SuperPACs so that people like Sheldon Adelson can throw $10 million at one candidate but it is totally not at one candidate because SuperPACs are magic. But wait! That didn’t really work out very well and those meddling Democrats STILL won things and we STILL haven’t broken the election system enough to completely exclude the blahs and the poors. . .
When the question of income inequality comes up, I don't know what to say about it. I mean, when you hear that the Walton family--who inherited their fortunes--combined are worth the same as the bottom forty-two percent of Americans, you know in your gut "that's f**ked up right there." But just the same, what in the world could be done about it? In a capitalist society, what in the world can you do? Of course, it's complicated by the fact that the Waltons didn't exactly follow old man Sam's example of "Made in America." And they fight organized labor and any effort their employees make to improve their own fortunes.
That's the hardest bit to swallow. America's richest people--mostly older, white folks--often spend their time and money squeezing even more money out of the system. Fighting minimum wage laws, angling for lower taxes, subsidies and governmental special treatment. Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers and others like them inject themselves into politics for the sole purpose of enriching themselves even further, usually at the expense of the poor, the working and the middle classes. What a person or people with billions of dollars needs with additional billions, I have no idea. It proves that greed is boundless.
And still, I don't know if there's any kind of answer to be had. It doesn't help that it's just been determined that eighty-five people on this Earth have the equivalent net worth of half the world. Other than a few noteworthy philanthropic billionaires like Bill Gates and William Buffett, you can bet most of them expend a lot of effort amassing yet more money.
[Excerpt]
There Are 85 People Who Are As Wealthy As Half The WORLD, Oxfam Reports
Here's my biggest stumbling block: the Koch brothers are already so ridiculously wealthy, they couldn't spend all of their money if the went on a Michael Jackson-sized shopping spree every day for the rest of their lives. And yet, they are on a mission, a constant battle to get more money, by getting the "right" kind of people elected, by influencing elections that result in policies that save them money, make them money, cut their taxes so that they can keep more of their money.
Good grief, what in the world for? These guys could earn an extra billion this year--or lose it--and they wouldn't feel a difference! At least Las Vegas' own trollgarden gnome billionaire Sheldon Adelson has Israel as a prime motivating factor behind his political maneuverings. What in the world motivates these guys? And does anyone for even a minute think that the Kochs have any idea what it's like to struggle? What it's like to try to exist on minimum wage? I'm an atheist, but sometimes I wish for a little karma, a little kismet to bite these guys on the ass.
[Excerpt]
Billionaire Koch Brother Says Eliminating The Minimum Wage Will Help The Poor
A conservative mogul worth $43 billion
says he knows the secret to helping poor people. According to Charles
Koch, the U.S. needs to get rid of the minimum wage, which he counts as a
major obstacle to economic growth. . .
Willard and Ann Romney have taken a lot of jabs for being seemingly elitist and out-of-touch. Other than Mitt's odd inability to act like a normal person, we've got his wife, who is prone to phrasings like, "you people," and "it's our turn" that kind of thing. She's a very pretty version of Lovey Howell without the charm, or at least that's the side of her we're seeing. Romney himself was caught on tape saying that they use Ann sparingly, so that we don't get tired of her.
Ann didn't help her husband's nor her own case in this clip (starts about 40 seconds in), defending Mitt and his campaign on the radio.
"Stop it. This is Hard. . ." The clip sounds like she's talking to America as though we're the help. But thanks to my addiction to The Stephanie Miller Show, where they played, "Stop it." over and over on Friday morning, it makes me laugh. And it makes me think of this clip from Will & Grace, .
Ordinarily, I try to avoid running two items in a row about Rachel Maddow. I like to try to make things a little more diverse. But this one tickled me, particularly since I've referred to Mitt Romney as Thurston Howell III in the past, for his curious rich-guy detachment. Besides, I think anyone watching this could be entertained by the string of other rich, detached people supporting Romney.
[Excerpt]
Maddow befuddled by snooty Romney donors: These must be leftist protesters
Noting that Romney’s donors at recent fundraiser in New York seemed more like fictional caricatures of the rich and affluent, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow wondered if the Republican presidential candidate had been “punked. . .”
Well, this is interesting. Not only is John Kerry a great choice as a Mitt Romney stand-in in debate practice, he's a great analogue to the candidate himself.
Do you remember the criticism of Kerry? I'm referring to when they weren't criticizing his looks or his wife. Yes, it was his elitism. This wealthy, out-of-touch, upper-crust, elitist. Forget that he was a war hero, he was not a guy you could sit down and have a beer with. Forget that George W. Bush was an alcoholic. Curious how that stuff isn't coming up this time, isn't it?
[Excerpt]
Obama picks John Kerry to play Romney in mock debate rehearsals
President Obama has tapped Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, to play Republican Mitt Romney in mock debate rehearsals, Obama campaign officials and the senator’s office confirmed Monday. . . Read more at: Washington Post
Actually, that would be the rich tax. Image from ThinkProgress.
Why oh why do they keep doing this? Over and over again, Republicans propose or enact policies that sting the poor, sick, elderly and infirm, while giving massive breaks to the richest. Why? The very rich in this country are actually very, very, very rich (and I'm probably missing a few verys). They don't need more money. They don't need more breaks.
I was thinking about this the other day. You've got your Foster Friess, your Sheldon Adelson, your Koch Brothers, all obscenely rich. I will not begrudge them their money, they earned it (one way or the other). But these guys have millions just to piss away on quixotic candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. They fund think tanks and lobbyists, and cabals like ALEC, which ghost-writes legislation enacted later by Republicans. All of this money is spent with the prospect of making even more money. Much more money then they have to spend buying politicians. All of the guys above are in their seventies. What the frack are these guys saving up for? Are they buying a country (besides the one they're currently buying) to while away their eighties? Why do billionaires need to work so hard to make even more billions? For what?
But I digress. [Excerpt]
CHART: House GOP Budget Cuts Taxes For The Rich, Raises Taxes On The Poor
As ThinkProgress has detailed, the House Republican budget, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), pays for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by cutting spending from programs that primarily benefit lower-income Americans. While giving an average of $187,000 to each millionaire, the budget finds 62 percent of its cuts from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, kicking millions off of food stamps, gutting Pell Grants, and slashing Medicare and Medicaid. . .
And as Raw Story said on their Facebook page: "Boom."
[Excerpt]
Romney’s released tax return reveals 13.9% rate, holdings in foreign ‘tax havens’
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on
Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of
$45.2 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about
his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax
returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of
13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they
file their returns for 2011. . .
I think a President should be--or at least have once been--a man (or woman) of the people. He should at least have some idea of what the average, American experience is. Our previous President, The Decider, was a rich boy with something of a free ride, but he did at least associate with the little guy sometimes. One thing about Dubya, the people who liked him, really liked him. They wanted to sit down and have a beer with him, even though he is an alcoholic. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton came from more humble beginnings, and only later in life became wealthy and powerful. Whatever you think of them, putting the title of "elitist" on them is an empty insult. But Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney has been rich since day one, and super-rich almost as long. [Story continues below]
Is that a bad thing? No, in-and-of itself, I suppose not. But every "human" moment that Romney has attempted on the campaign trail (which dates back years) has come off stiff, forced and odd. He doesn't ad lib well with ordinary Joes. No, something about Romney sets him apart from we ordinary mortals. And lately, he's been making an effort to seem like he's not a 1%-er. His speaking fees of nearly $400K in a year were "not much." His tax rate of 15% was on money he made from investments, not from working. This doesn't mean he's bad, it just means he's different. Different from the people he wants to vote for him, and different from the man he is (badly) attempting to portray on the campaign trail.
Now, this.
[Excerpt]
Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands
Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven. A spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based. . .
I know that Herman Cain's pronouncement that "if you're not rich, or you don't have a job, blame yourself" is popular amongst arch-conservatives. And I get it, with the rich ones. They have no foundation upon which to base their conclusion. They figure, "hey, I'm rich, I've got a job," and they think that it is all due to their hard work, smarts, and good ol' American know how! But the fact of the matter is, a lot of jobs were sent overseas by some of those "job creators." The fact is, there are many more unemployed people than there are available jobs. The fact is, that everyone can't be rich. Economies don't work that way. And the wider the income disparity gets, the worse off rich people will be. Do they want an America, where they have to drive armored vehicles, hire bodyguards, and live under the threat of constant crime? Because that would be the end game.
But Herman Cain is all about the sound bite. And the current GOP/Tea Party crowd is anxious to lap it up. Like a crowd in the Roman Arena, they'll viscerally cheer whatever satisfies their id. When will the Tea Party--which is not for the most part made up of the 1%, or even the 10%--realize that the Republican party doesn't care about them, except for their vote, and maybe will throw a bone to their abortion/gays/guns/god agenda?
Not his exact words, but that's what it boils down to. If you're not rich, or if you don't have a job, blame yourself. Which is a gross generalization if I've ever heard one.
It still amazes me that the Republicans somehow seem to manage to have the edge on this one. Taxing the rich seems like a winner of an issue (and I think even the polls bear me out on this). But politically, it seems that Democrats can't get traction on the idea. Here is Rachel Maddow and the host of UP with Chris Hayes putting up a good argument for it.
