Despite all of the excessively dramatized newscasts and hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding the debt talks, none of this is really news. The fact that Congress and the President cannot come to an agreement comes as no surprise. In fact, it would have been far more shocking if the Congress and President had come to a swift and amicable agreement over the national debt and budget months ago.
Why is this? Because after President Obama and the Democrats took the White House, Senate, and House in 2008, the tides changed and the GOP took the House in 2010, leaving the opposition party in charge of the lower house. In effect, the government is split, there is no ruling consensus, and the country is caught in a form of political gridlock.
Some see this as checks and balances at work; those individuals clearly fail to grasp the concept. Checks and balances are institutional - that is, they are the embedded in the mechanisms and laws which govern interactions between the three branches of government. Their role is not to ensure that a party, project, or policy is held back, but rather they are in place to ensure that no one branch - as an institution - oversteps its Constitutional bounds.
What we are now witnessing in these default crisis talks is a stalemate, not a check or a balance. What is more, the stalemate is largely unnecessary. It is simply there because we are now tolerating a government which is comprised of the outcomes of two separate elections trying to work together as one. Often this may work, provided there is no great shift in voter turnout such as was seen between 2008 and 2010. Here, however, the two adversarial parties are entrenched in two separate sides of one government, each attempting to lead as though they held a mandate from the people. Arguably, they both do, albeit from different moments in time.
There is a solution, and it sits before us like the great big elephant in the room: end the two-year election cycle for the House of Representatives.
That's right. There needs to be an end to the ridiculous gridlock, posturing, and business of politics, and by extending Representatives' terms and synchronizing their elections with those for the Presidency, all this and more could be achieved.
First, if Congressmen were up for election only at the same time as the President, there would be no confusion as to what the electorate is seeking. The government as it would be comprised at the outcome of that election would be the government the people voted into office. There would be no halfway turnarounds two years after the election, and there would be no confusion as to who holds the mandate of the people. Neither the legislature nor the executive could claim to be in the right, and all members of the House and the President would know with which other elected officials they would need to work for the accomplishment of their goals. The balance of power both within the legislative chambers and between Congress and the White House would be the balance voted for by the people. Leaders in Congress and the President could then effectively move forward on legislation based upon that sound premise.
Second, an extension of Representatives' terms would strike a massive blow at the business of electoral politics, ending much of the posturing demonstrated by members such as Boehner and Cantor today. In short, because Representatives would not always be in a perpetual election cycle as they are now, they would be able to actually sit down and develop policy to be shared with the Senate and to have signed by the President. They would be veritable legislators, debating and drafting policy, rather than our current campaigners who are most often seeking the most opportune sound bite or photo op.
Of course, all the officials involved in debates such as that surrounding the current default crisis would still be politicians, and would always be looking at re-election. That said, with longer terms and without the specter of mid-terms looming on the horizon, Representatives could focus their attention and energies on campaigning every one or two years out of four, rather than one or two years out of two.
It would be a bold move, but consider this in closing: 4 year House cycles, synchronized with Presidential elections, would simultaneously provide Representatives with more time to develop policy instead of campaign material, and eliminate the awkward mess of a potentially divided government after a mid-term election. Again, it would be a bold shift, and it would likely not occur any time in the near future. However, this reduction in election cycles is absolutely imperative for the development of a more efficient and effective government.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Elizabeth Drew: How Obama can end the agony
Amazing opinion piece by author Elizabeth Drew, which appeared today on politico.com. In it, she essentially develops a strategy for the President whereby he can stand his ground, present his case to the American people, and throw the proverbial ball into the GOP's court. She also demonstrates how Republicans would be largely ineffective in turning the issue back around on the President once he takes the case directly to the public in this evening's speech.
We can now only hope Mr. Obama takes Ms. Drew's advice at 9pm...
Full opinion here.
We can now only hope Mr. Obama takes Ms. Drew's advice at 9pm...
Full opinion here.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Washington Post: Iraq likely to miss deadline on US Troop decision
According to a Washington Post article published recently, Iraqi officials will likely miss the deadline to formally request continued US military presence, mostly because of the widespread disagreement between officials on how the US will stay involved, in what capacity, and for how long.
The most notable of all quotes from the article comes from Basra provincial governor Khalef Abdul Samed, who said “I need the Americans with civilian suits, not military uniforms,” expressing his views that the US should focus on investing economically in the country and rebuilding schools. He further state that continued US military presence should focus only on protectingIraq
The most notable of all quotes from the article comes from Basra provincial governor Khalef Abdul Samed, who said “I need the Americans with civilian suits, not military uniforms,” expressing his views that the US should focus on investing economically in the country and rebuilding schools. He further state that continued US military presence should focus only on protecting
Good news for Maryland: Gov. O'Malley lends name to marriage equality
Here is an exciting new post from Progressive Maryland: Governor O'Malley Stands for Marriage Equality. The Maryland Governor made the announcement yesterday only a few weeks after the landmark passage of marriage equality legislation in New York. Progressive Maryland's link also includes video of the Governor's original statement, so you can see and hear it all there.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Herb Kohl: voice of reason in the AT&T/T-Mobile proposal
Today Rep. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin has called on Attorney General Eric Holder and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. Though himself not responsible for deciding the outcomes of proposed mergers, Kohl is the Hill's top antitrust lawmaker, and his opinion will likely be considered at the Department of Justice, overseen by Holder, and at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications and broadcast media.
The trouble with the proposed merger is two-fold. First, it would lead to such a concentration in market share that Verizon and AT&T would control the wireless carrier market. Second, far too few people seem to be paying attention to the proposed merger and its outcome. Here is why they should.
If T-Mobile is absorbed into AT&T, a low-cost competitor will be eliminated, leaving Sprint to fend for itself on the national marketplace as the sole lower-cost alternative for consumers. That will not last, however. If that one competitor is left against two gargantuan national carriers, it will either be forced to raise prices to compete, or be forced out of the market altogether by the two giants.
This is not the problem. It is not the justice system or regulatory agencies' responsibility to keep a corporation afloat. Rather, the problem is that with the entire market split between two massive corporations, Verizon and AT&T can either work together to raise prices for all American consumers or simply have prices rise across the board on their own because of a lack of competition in the market.
Either alternative is unacceptable. It is both against public policy (keeping competition in the market to lower prices for consumers) and antitrust law, whose goal is to stop the creation of monopolies and the formation of conspiracies to raise prices.
Regardless of whether or not Sprint fails in this scenario, the proposed merger must not be permitted. Even if Sprint were to survive, prices for all American cell phone users would rise because two companies would posses so much of the market that they would control it. A negative ruling would stand out as regulation at its best; government would not be stymieing a capitalistic free market - it would be saving it.
The trouble with the proposed merger is two-fold. First, it would lead to such a concentration in market share that Verizon and AT&T would control the wireless carrier market. Second, far too few people seem to be paying attention to the proposed merger and its outcome. Here is why they should.
If T-Mobile is absorbed into AT&T, a low-cost competitor will be eliminated, leaving Sprint to fend for itself on the national marketplace as the sole lower-cost alternative for consumers. That will not last, however. If that one competitor is left against two gargantuan national carriers, it will either be forced to raise prices to compete, or be forced out of the market altogether by the two giants.
This is not the problem. It is not the justice system or regulatory agencies' responsibility to keep a corporation afloat. Rather, the problem is that with the entire market split between two massive corporations, Verizon and AT&T can either work together to raise prices for all American consumers or simply have prices rise across the board on their own because of a lack of competition in the market.
Either alternative is unacceptable. It is both against public policy (keeping competition in the market to lower prices for consumers) and antitrust law, whose goal is to stop the creation of monopolies and the formation of conspiracies to raise prices.
Regardless of whether or not Sprint fails in this scenario, the proposed merger must not be permitted. Even if Sprint were to survive, prices for all American cell phone users would rise because two companies would posses so much of the market that they would control it. A negative ruling would stand out as regulation at its best; government would not be stymieing a capitalistic free market - it would be saving it.
Ralph Nader: The corporate Supreme Court
Compelling op-ed piece by Ralph Nader available on opednews.com. Though trailing off into hyperbolic language at times, Nader presents a strong case for removing justices who politicize issues, elevate corporations to the level of "natural persons", and undercut the rights of individual American citizens. The full op-ed piece can be read here.
Let's tell our President its time for shared sacrifice
Now you can go to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's site and add your name to this important campaign. Check out their page, look at their incredible stats, and see what you can do to help. This is not about soaking the rich. It is about all taxpayers pitching in a fair amount, relative to their income, to pay for all of the things we take for granted as Americans.
GOP defies basic math
Here is an interesting opinion piece by Matt Miller in today's Washington Post. While a few side notes on corporate taxes and payroll taxes are a bit unpalatable, Miller's thesis is sound: Republicans are denying reality and basic math in order to preserve their own political brand in the eyes of the electorate. His counter to the GOP is equally sound: regardless of spending, it is impossible to keep revenue at sub-Reagan-era levels while baby boomers continue to age and retire by the tens of millions.
The stark reality of an aging population has already proven itself to be problematic in Europe, where baby boomers and the elderly will soon economically outweigh the young and employed. Across the Atlantic, however, officials, economists, and voters all realized years ago that this is a simple reality which cannot be avoided by skewing the numbers or re-framing the issue. The danger in the United States is if the GOP - the party of "no" - continues to play ostrich, bury its head in the sand, and not face facts. If they think $14tr in debt is a fiscal crisis, they have seen nothing yet.
The stark reality of an aging population has already proven itself to be problematic in Europe, where baby boomers and the elderly will soon economically outweigh the young and employed. Across the Atlantic, however, officials, economists, and voters all realized years ago that this is a simple reality which cannot be avoided by skewing the numbers or re-framing the issue. The danger in the United States is if the GOP - the party of "no" - continues to play ostrich, bury its head in the sand, and not face facts. If they think $14tr in debt is a fiscal crisis, they have seen nothing yet.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Human Rights Watch demands torture investigation for Bush admin
After the 2008 election, many groups and individuals demanded Bush officials be investigated over allegations of torture in the so-called war on terror. News agencies carried stories of demands, letters, and legal opinions. Then on to the next news cycle.
The problem is that the allegations never went away, America's reputation has suffered irreparable harm, and instances of waterboarding - a certified, verified torture technique - have been confirmed by U.S. agents. This is a legal question, not a simple passing news story.
If indeed officials have broken the law, they must be investigated and tried in a court of law. The United States, being a nation of laws and not men, has no exception for criminals who hold government titles. That is the very definition of the rule of law: men, no matter how powerful or high-ranking, can never supersede the laws to which all citizens must submit. Nixon's adage that if the President does it, it is not illegal, has long been shunned and discredited. Now is not the time to give it credence.
Human Rights Watch, one of the most reputable, far-reaching, and well-published non-profits in the world is now calling on the Obama administration to investigate top Bush administration officials for suspected torture and mistreatment of detainees. They have now published a new report entitled Getting Away with Torture, which was recently reported upon by BBC World News.
While it would be unfair at this time to condemn as guilty top Bush administration officials, the allegations have been put forth and substantiated. What is more, former officials have admitted ad nauseum to U.S. forces' use of waterboarding on foreign detainees. Still, no action has been taken to rectify the situation, which is precisely why the country now needs to investigate officials and try them before a court of law, should investigations yield strong enough evidence. Until that time, the public will not have the truth, those harmed will go without vindication, and justice will not be served. America's name will remain tarnished.
Good news: 71% Shun House GOP's tactics
Unfortunately for Republicans, a new CBS poll finds that 71% disapprove of their handling of the debt crisis. Equality stark is their approval rating on the question of the national debt, which has stooped to a low 21%
Granted, House Democrats also face a high level of disapproval, but they do have 10% greater support than their GOP counterparts. Perhaps the best news in all of this is that while all parties involved have high disapproval numbers, the President's approval rating is more than double that of House Republicans, and is nearly as high as his disapproval rating.
For the country as a whole, the debt discussion gridlock is a negative without question. That said, the President standing out so far ahead of his Republican opposition speaks volumes about his tact and conciliatory approach, and certainly bodes well for 2012.
Full story here
Granted, House Democrats also face a high level of disapproval, but they do have 10% greater support than their GOP counterparts. Perhaps the best news in all of this is that while all parties involved have high disapproval numbers, the President's approval rating is more than double that of House Republicans, and is nearly as high as his disapproval rating.
For the country as a whole, the debt discussion gridlock is a negative without question. That said, the President standing out so far ahead of his Republican opposition speaks volumes about his tact and conciliatory approach, and certainly bodes well for 2012.
Full story here
Video: If GOP ignores economists, perhaps they will listen to Reagan
Though grave in its message, the video is somewhat humorous in that it consists of the idol of the present-day GOP attacking said party's debt strategy. One can only hope that if ideologues refuse to listen to numbers and reason, they will at least consider the words of their muse himself.
Bachmann in favor of subsidies - for the "right" people
Take a look at this Plum Line piece from the Washington Post. In it, you will find how Michele Bachmann, whose family farm has pulled in $260,000 in federal farm subsidies over the years, finds the dividing line between deserving recipients and leaches on the system. That line, apparently, is the color line.
Full story here
Full story here
Monday, July 18, 2011
O'Malley's interview with Chuck Todd
Watch Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's interview with Chuck Todd. At at time when other executives across this country are degrading teachers, firefighters, and police officers, O'Malley talks compromise. He realizes it is about shared sacrifice.
This may not be of great interest to those who are not residents of Maryland, but it should be. This man is quickly rising to national prominence and will be a household name outside of his home state by the time his tenure as governor is up.
This may not be of great interest to those who are not residents of Maryland, but it should be. This man is quickly rising to national prominence and will be a household name outside of his home state by the time his tenure as governor is up.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
What if Rupert Murdoch hadn't been born?
Hilarious video starring Hugh Laurie that dares to ask the question "what would the world be like if Rupert Murdoch hadn't been born?" Admittedly, it takes a little knowledge of the British media and infrastructure to get all the jokes, but a very good American version could easily be made based off this one.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Telling Obama to stand his ground
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has circulated a petition calling on President Obama to stand up and fight for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. While too harsh in its wording - the petition reads as an ultimatum to the President - it attempts to fill a vacuum in this country's political arena and national discourse. Progressives, perhaps because of their great diversity and peaceable nature, are not as organized as their conservative counterparts and are less likely to take a demanding stance. As such, conservatives tend to be more effective in achieving their goals and drowning out dissenting voices in any national debate. Hopefully, groups and petitions such as this will succeed in creating a cohesive and demanding progressive agenda behind which millions can rally and effectively push for positive change in the country. Next time, however, it would be best if the phrasing were slightly more refined.
To read the petition, click here.
As predicted...
Well, it is Monday morning, and the predictable happened over the weekend. Debt talks reached an impasse, and Republicans held their shameful line, insisting on cuts to the poor, sick, and elderly, and refusing to even talk about serious cuts to the crushing military budget.
Read more from Politico here.
Perhaps the most startling line from the article: Core Pentagon spending would grow by $17 billion in 2012, even as the 11 remaining annual bills would be reduced about $45 billion altogether.
Read more from Politico here.
Perhaps the most startling line from the article: Core Pentagon spending would grow by $17 billion in 2012, even as the 11 remaining annual bills would be reduced about $45 billion altogether.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Unconstitutional Unconservative
Here is Michele Bachmann's official sales pitch to the country. In this clip, she talks about bringing "our" voice to the White House after years of bringing "our" voice to Congress. Well, it is still unclear how Bachmann has done that when she hasn't championed any legislation during her tenure.
Perhaps the funniest thing to notice here is that her campaign has disabled user comments on the video's youtube page. Correct. An individual running for the White House has disabled feedback from voters.
Enough of the anecdotal and on to the truly disturbing: the closing frame. Bachmann here is marketing herself as a "constitutional conservative".
This term is thrown around frequently these days, but not by journalists or pols describing others. Rather, we see pols proclaiming themselves "constitutional conservatives". The trouble is that these folks do not have a working knowledge of constitutional law, and they are very hard to consider conservative.
Take Bachmann as an example. For a former lawyer, she has shockingly poor knowledge of the workings of American society and its history. Her repeated gaffes on slavery in the US reveal a sobering ignorance not just of US history, but of constitutional law as well. How so? Well, a lawyer should be able to point to the Reconstruction amendments, written nearly a century after the Revolution, and explain how they worked to abolish slavery and establish personhood and citizenship for formerly enslaved persons of African descent in the United States. These are not history factoids for Jeopardy; they are part of the US Constitution. As in "constitutional". As in "constitutional conservative."
Now let's look at the "conservative" title. Small government, economic conservatism can be disregarded off the bat: Bachmann has long made her money from the federal government, working as a tax attorney and a congresswoman, and taking farm subsidies from Washington for her family's lands. Conservative with regards to the Constitution? Well, if conservative means adhering to traditional values, and adherence to those mores requires a knowledge of them, then one can hardly be called conservative if that person does not even know the tradition and values of the matter at hand. How could some one call themselves traditional if they do not know the traditions? Simply put, if one does not know constitutional law, one absolutely cannot be a constitutional conservative.
This is not a question of semantics. It is a question of issue framing. When fragments of the Republican Party branch off and proclaim themselves to be "constitutional conservatives", they are giving themselves a false position of authority in a larger national debate on values. They can hide behind the weight of the Constitution to frame a hotly-debated topic in terms of us vs. them, wrong vs. right, constitutional vs. unconstitutional. They essentially take the cultural importance and weight of the Constitution to bolster a stance that is not rooted in the Constitution itself. Rather than using the Constitution as law, they use the idea of it as a way of making the playing field uneven so that the "conservative" side has an unearned higher ground above an "unconstitutional" and "liberal" opponent. Above and beyond politically dirty issue framing, it is a twisted way of politicizing the legal principals upon which this country was founded.
If ever confronted by a self-proclaimed constitutional conservative, seize the high ground and do so fast. The title is untrue, unearned, and unconstitutional. It should always be revealed as such.
Perhaps the funniest thing to notice here is that her campaign has disabled user comments on the video's youtube page. Correct. An individual running for the White House has disabled feedback from voters.
Enough of the anecdotal and on to the truly disturbing: the closing frame. Bachmann here is marketing herself as a "constitutional conservative".
This term is thrown around frequently these days, but not by journalists or pols describing others. Rather, we see pols proclaiming themselves "constitutional conservatives". The trouble is that these folks do not have a working knowledge of constitutional law, and they are very hard to consider conservative.
Take Bachmann as an example. For a former lawyer, she has shockingly poor knowledge of the workings of American society and its history. Her repeated gaffes on slavery in the US reveal a sobering ignorance not just of US history, but of constitutional law as well. How so? Well, a lawyer should be able to point to the Reconstruction amendments, written nearly a century after the Revolution, and explain how they worked to abolish slavery and establish personhood and citizenship for formerly enslaved persons of African descent in the United States. These are not history factoids for Jeopardy; they are part of the US Constitution. As in "constitutional". As in "constitutional conservative."
Now let's look at the "conservative" title. Small government, economic conservatism can be disregarded off the bat: Bachmann has long made her money from the federal government, working as a tax attorney and a congresswoman, and taking farm subsidies from Washington for her family's lands. Conservative with regards to the Constitution? Well, if conservative means adhering to traditional values, and adherence to those mores requires a knowledge of them, then one can hardly be called conservative if that person does not even know the tradition and values of the matter at hand. How could some one call themselves traditional if they do not know the traditions? Simply put, if one does not know constitutional law, one absolutely cannot be a constitutional conservative.
This is not a question of semantics. It is a question of issue framing. When fragments of the Republican Party branch off and proclaim themselves to be "constitutional conservatives", they are giving themselves a false position of authority in a larger national debate on values. They can hide behind the weight of the Constitution to frame a hotly-debated topic in terms of us vs. them, wrong vs. right, constitutional vs. unconstitutional. They essentially take the cultural importance and weight of the Constitution to bolster a stance that is not rooted in the Constitution itself. Rather than using the Constitution as law, they use the idea of it as a way of making the playing field uneven so that the "conservative" side has an unearned higher ground above an "unconstitutional" and "liberal" opponent. Above and beyond politically dirty issue framing, it is a twisted way of politicizing the legal principals upon which this country was founded.
If ever confronted by a self-proclaimed constitutional conservative, seize the high ground and do so fast. The title is untrue, unearned, and unconstitutional. It should always be revealed as such.
How is this news?
Who doesn't love Larry David? Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Whatever Works - all great. He is the somehow like-able misanthrope. But when it comes to a relatively polite off-hand comment on his dislike for Virginia's Eric Cantor, it is hard to characterize that as solid David wit, never mind a serious news story for Politico.
Take a look for yourself. It is mildly amusing, but not news. Honestly, anyone who has ever engaged in a political debate with a friend or relative has heard stronger language. It is G-rated at best.
It really is high time news outlets dig deeper into stories and regain their journalistic integrity. Trying to fill websites and papers with as much gossip as possible rather than with longer, more researched stories degrades once reputable sources and places them on a level much more comparable to that of a tabloid. Research and writing make a paper, not spewing of content.
Take a look for yourself. It is mildly amusing, but not news. Honestly, anyone who has ever engaged in a political debate with a friend or relative has heard stronger language. It is G-rated at best.
It really is high time news outlets dig deeper into stories and regain their journalistic integrity. Trying to fill websites and papers with as much gossip as possible rather than with longer, more researched stories degrades once reputable sources and places them on a level much more comparable to that of a tabloid. Research and writing make a paper, not spewing of content.
Finding a middle ground by combining the extremes
Today President Obama is talking deep cuts to entitlements with Republicans in an effort to bring down the national debt. At the same time, Republicans are mixed on their message on levying taxes. While some say they are willing to meet the President half way, others continue their hard line opposition to taxes.
The problem is that before they even develop a cohesive stance on their party's side of a debt compromise, Republicans already have President Obama giving concessions. The President is entering negotiations already willing to sacrifice the millions of Americans dependent upon the very programs Republicans would cut, while Republicans are still not showing how much they are willing to compromise. In this all-important game, the GOP is using dissension within its ranks as a kind of poker face, hiding their hand by giving conflicting stories on their willingness to negotiate. On the other side of the table, the President has already laid out his cards. If he has already conceded this much, it would be quite unpleasant to think of how much more Republicans can now squeeze out of him now knowing how much he will give.
Equally disappointing is the choice of cuts. Rather than taking a scalpel to the disgustingly overfunded Pentagon, Obama is willing to take a hatchet to entitlements. Rather than ending giant agriculture or petroleum subsidies, the parties are talking taxing more income from the poorest of Americans. It is this sort of insanity that infuriates Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. And for what? Bipartisanship?
The central problem here is that rather than finding a middle ground, the two sides are uniting the extremes. Instead of cutting into several different programs - including subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and major corporations - the talks are centered around cuts to entitlements. While the parties could talk tax hikes, they will certainly not even make a dent in the excessive lifestyles of the rich and famous. Potential tax hikes will also likely not even likely be directed at those who can more than afford them. Whatever compromise is made, it will not be a true middle ground. It is bound instead to be a hodgepodge of extreme points on revenue and cuts, harming the middle and working classes while bolstering the very wealthy. For those who were hoping for an end to business as usual, welcome to Washington.
The problem is that before they even develop a cohesive stance on their party's side of a debt compromise, Republicans already have President Obama giving concessions. The President is entering negotiations already willing to sacrifice the millions of Americans dependent upon the very programs Republicans would cut, while Republicans are still not showing how much they are willing to compromise. In this all-important game, the GOP is using dissension within its ranks as a kind of poker face, hiding their hand by giving conflicting stories on their willingness to negotiate. On the other side of the table, the President has already laid out his cards. If he has already conceded this much, it would be quite unpleasant to think of how much more Republicans can now squeeze out of him now knowing how much he will give.
Equally disappointing is the choice of cuts. Rather than taking a scalpel to the disgustingly overfunded Pentagon, Obama is willing to take a hatchet to entitlements. Rather than ending giant agriculture or petroleum subsidies, the parties are talking taxing more income from the poorest of Americans. It is this sort of insanity that infuriates Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. And for what? Bipartisanship?
The central problem here is that rather than finding a middle ground, the two sides are uniting the extremes. Instead of cutting into several different programs - including subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and major corporations - the talks are centered around cuts to entitlements. While the parties could talk tax hikes, they will certainly not even make a dent in the excessive lifestyles of the rich and famous. Potential tax hikes will also likely not even likely be directed at those who can more than afford them. Whatever compromise is made, it will not be a true middle ground. It is bound instead to be a hodgepodge of extreme points on revenue and cuts, harming the middle and working classes while bolstering the very wealthy. For those who were hoping for an end to business as usual, welcome to Washington.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)