Trickle Down – By Any Other Name, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #283 | @MDWorld
July 16, 2012 Mike Gold 8 Comments
Well, you can’t say the Republicans are incapable of learning. For example, they learned the true meaning of “tea bagging.” And they learned the true meaning of “trickle down.”
Last week President Obama offered an extension of the tax cut to the lower and middle classes, cutting off the extension to those families earning more than a quarter million dollars. This caused a bit of consternation among Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, who believe that “rich” starts at one million dollars.
Democrats often get hung up on trivia. Republicans are absolutists. “No, no,” they shout as they stomp their little feet. “Tax cuts for all! Tax cuts for all!” Yes, the Republican Party is the 21st century voice of egalitarianism. Who’da thunk it?
They claim – like a broken record, for those old enough to remember broken records – that if you don’t give rich people huge tax breaks they won’t hire anybody and our high unemployment will continue. At no time do they use the phrase “trickle down.” That didn’t work before, it won’t work now. Voodoo economics, the more intelligent of the Presidents Bush said.
You might ask, “Well, what does this mean, Mike?” (Usually after “Did you take your meds, Mike?”) I’m glad you asked. It means two things.
1) According to the Republican Party, rich people are fully capable of reducing unemployment levels down to reasonable levels but they refuse to do so unless the middle class pays them an astonishing shitload of bribe money.
2) President Obama’s tax-cut for the non-rich bill is Dead On Arrival. It has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing the Republican Congress. It’s a goner. Kaputski.
Sure, Obama knows that but this but he’s not playing a game of political brinksmanship. It has been clear that he wants the rich to pay their fair share of the tax burden. He’d love to see this pass. And all he wants the rich to do is to resume paying at the tax rate they enjoyed during the economic heydays of Democratic President Bill Clinton. Not, say, Republican Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan. Those were higher. In Eisenhower’s case, the top tax rate was over 90%.
Instead of “trickle down,” the Republicans prefer to say that ending the bribes to the wealthy punishes success. Not so; usually it punishes inheritance. But there are other great benefits to success: you get to keep the rest. It’s just a couple extra points. You still have the millions and millions of dollars you’ve already made, largely by screwing the middle class anyway.
We’ve been through all this before. Many times. We will be through all this again. Many times. Meanwhile, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to get poorer, and the middle class will continue to disappear off the face of America. In my frustration, I am reminded of a lyric written 44 years ago that truly expresses my feelings:
River of shit, River of shit
Flow on, flow on, river of shit
Right from my toes, on up to my nose
Flow on, flow on, river of shit
I’ve been swimming in this river of shit
More than 20 years and I’m getting tired of it
Don’t like swimming, hope it’ll run dry
Got to go on swimming, ‘cause I don’t want to die
– Wide, Wide River • The Fugs, written by Ken Weaver • © 1968
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place, so listen to it already! He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rick Oliver
July 16, 2012 - 1:31 pm
The top marginal tax rates have done nothing but go down for over 30 years, and no one has been able to demonstrate ANY relationship between economic growth and the top marginal rates. Even if you believe in the Laffer curve, we’re no where near the kind of tax rates that the curve predicts will result in diminishing economic returns. But today’s Republicans have embraced the Austrian school of faith-based economics.
Mike Gold
July 16, 2012 - 1:42 pm
Taxes are bad because every penny goes to lazy minorities and honest white American men have to work hard to pay for their free ride.
There. I said it.
Neil C.
July 16, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Damn it, Mike, you know common sense doesn’t fly with the GOP anymore! Like my economic policy: if you give people jobs, they will have money to buy to crap you produce.
Mike Gold
July 16, 2012 - 2:42 pm
Ah, Neil. That’s old school. Now it’s “if you can get two people to do the work of eight and not take all their vacation and not worry about unions or health insurance, and you can get your product manufactured by child slave labor overseas or by illegal immigrants who will settle for one-quarter of minimum wage if you don’t rat them out to the feds, then you can make an extra two hundred million a year which your kid is going to shove up his nose until his heart explodes.”
And that’s why the Republicans are doomed. They’ll have no next of kin.
mike weber
July 17, 2012 - 5:33 am
Of course the Republicans ain’t gonna use the term “trickle down” – i don’t think they actually ever did; it was the media who hung the label on Reagan’s writers’ policies – it was Harry Truman who coined the phrase in (i think) the 1948 campaign as a scornful description of what the GOP was advocating then.
Mike Gold
July 17, 2012 - 7:41 am
That was one of the most fascinating elections in our history. A four-way, with three Democrats running against one Republican. First post-war, post-FDR campaign. First campaign with radio coverage from the streets (as opposed to prearranged live feeds; street reporters carried recording machines that used glass record plates). The conventional wisdom of the day told us everybody had made up their minds three weeks before the election and GOP Dewey would win. The last election before television became an advertising force. Major typesetters strike moved up deadlines for early editions (hence the “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline that briefly appeared on the home and train-delivery editions of the Chicago Tribune) … it was a hell of a time.
mike weber
July 20, 2012 - 12:20 am
Now that i think – it may have been the 1952 mid-terms; i was about three weeks old when Truman was elected; i know about “trickle-down” from reading Give ‘Em Hell, Harry.
Anyone who wants a fascinating insight into a bygone era of USAian politics should read that… (There is apparently a second book with the same title – this one is the one i mean…)
Vinnie Bartilucci
July 23, 2012 - 2:02 pm
Why should inheritance be “punished”?
Tax it like income. That’s not punishing, it’s taxing money when it moves from one person to another.
I’m in favor of the rich paying the same percentage of their income as the not-rich. I’ve still not heard a solid argument as to why they should pay a HIGHER percentage, that doesn’t fall back on “They can afford it”.
Strip away a lot of the deductions and structures that only the rich can take advantage of. Make it difficult, bordering on illegal, to “offshore” pre-tax money.
The emphasis on “punishing” is what makes it easy to wave off attempts to level the tax playing field.