Cut Social Security, Soak the Middle-Class, and Keep Taxes Low For the Rich
I don’t know about you but I think that the November elections results were akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The Republicans got us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and they are acting as if nothing happened. Unfortunately, so did a lot of the gullible voters who seem to have a terminal case of mass amnesia.
For the life of me I can’t understand why people who don’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of would defend tax cuts and all the perks like subsidies for the very rich who are not paying their fair share. What is disturbing is that these very tax cuts are making a significant dent on our debt and how do these Republican-Teahadist want to reduce spending and the size of government? Well, by sticking it to the poor and the middle class…those very people who went out in November and voted for them.
As we all know, the first order of business for The House of Representatives is to repeal the Health Care that we so laboriously fought for; albeit it didn’t have a PUBLIC OPTION. We can see where they are going with this and the sons of bitches will not stop there. They intend to dismantle Medicare, reduce or even do away with Social Security and make very deep cuts in the salaries and pensions of Public Service unionized employees in their perennial quest to eliminate LABOR UNIONS altogether…something Reagan started and has, for the most part seen the decline of unions in America.
By making Firefighters, Teachers, Public Servants the escape goat and demons they accomplish two things: first they give unions the coup de grace and second they distract the American people from the real important issues like tax cuts for the rich.
On October 31, 2010 John Morgan wrote:
“Yesterday the Deficit Commission used the New York Times as a messenger service to tell politicians - and you - exactly what they intend to do if the election goes as expected. It's all laid out in black and white: They'll cut benefits, increase the financial burden on the middle class, and make sure that wealthy Americans aren't troubled by the kind of sacrifices everyone else will be expected to make.
This isn't guesswork or speculation. The Commissioners just told us. It's all there. In fact, the only thing that isn't there is any mention of Alan Simpson, the many-million-tit man who co-chairs the Committee. If you needed any proof that this article is just a PR blast from the Commission, that's it. Even they know that Simpson has become a public embarrassment.
Why did the Commission use the Times article to send this little memo, which the paper then dutifully distributed? Probably to lay out the political groundwork for making sure their proposal gets passed by the next Congress. The only thing they haven't spelled out yet is how they'll soak the middle class, although they've made it clear it will be one of several Draconian options. Waiting to see which one they choose is like watching a horror movie to find out which medieval torture instrument will deliver the next gruesome death.
Will they abolish the tax deduction for employer health plans? That would result in a massive new regressive tax that could cost working families $3,000 or $4,000 right away, and would also lead to major cutbacks in health coverage.(1)
Or will they take away the deduction for mortgage interest, leaving strapped homeowners even more financially desperate than they already are? Homeowners have seen their assets evaporate as the result of bank speculation. Now that the banks have been rescued with their money, will those same homeowners bear the cost of paying for the rescue?(2)
The Commission may also remove the deduction for charitable giving, which would raise taxes and hurt those who depend on philanthropic organizations. Or it may hit Americans with a "backdoor tax increase" by taking away deductions for state and local taxes.
All of these ideas are being considered, and any combination of them may be recommended. But here's what the Commission will not consider: Raising income taxes for the wealthy. Oh, they pretend otherwise, but it's clear that any tax increase gesture they make would be strictly symbolic.
The article begins: "(P)eople in both parties say they have been surprised that the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform reached an early consensus to put all three major budget parts on the table: taxes, annual spending for domestic and military programs, and the entitlement benefit programs Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."
That's spin, plain and simple. In fact, the Commission's done little more than pay lip service to cutting military programs. That idea won't fly with Republicans, and the Commission's internal stonewalling on the subject has already been reported. (One report says they'd rather cut military pay that reduce waste and overruns!) And taxes aren't really on the table, just tax breaks, especially those that help the middle class or create jobs. Commission co-chair Erskine Bowles explains why:
"The panel is not considering higher income tax rates given Republicans' resistance. It is exploring ways to shave the roughly $1.2 trillion annual cost of 'tax expenditures,' the tax breaks for individuals and businesses."
That means the wealthy can breathe a sigh of relief. Their tax rates won't go up, because the Republicans won't stand for it. And "tax expenditures" is a Republican euphemism for any effort to use taxation in support of public policy. Examples include incentives that encourage businesses to hire people, be more environment-friendly, or stop outsourcing overseas.
Whenever a Republican call any tax break an "expenditure" it means they want to get rid of it. (That's why they'll never call the capital gains tax an "expenditure.") But the word can also be used to mean anything that relieves the middle class tax burden, and which therefore might be sacrificed to protect low tax rates for the wealthy. And sure enough, we're told that unnamed "supporters" told the Times (3) that it would be wise to "reduce" or "phase out" major "expenditures" such as "deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable giving and the exclusion from income taxes of the cost of employer-provided health insurance." The message is clear: The Commission wants to go after these "tax expenditures," which disproportionately affect the middle class, so they don't have to affect the wealthy by "raising the income tax."
The Times reporter, Jackie Calmes, is reliably stenographic when it comes to repeating misleading Commission statements. "Spending for the entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security," she types, "is nearly half the federal budget and increasing." Social Security is self-funded, however, and has a $2.6 trillion surplus, facts that Calmes dutifully fails to note (that omission is vital to the Commission's propaganda spin). As for Medicare and Medicaid, Calmes writes:
"While the health programs are growing fastest, the dozen members of Congress on the commission do not want to reopen debate on them so soon after the battle over Mr. Obama's health insurance overhaul. 'There is health care fatigue,' said Alice M. Rivlin."
Well, we wouldn't want our Commissioners to get fatigued, would we? This paragraph is the Commission's way of letting you know that a) health care spending is out of control, but b) we don't want to consider the kinds of reforms that would control it, and c) that leaves us with just your Social Security check to carve up. And carve it up they will.(4)
In other words: The Commissioners plan to stick it to the middle class and small business so the wealthy can get a free ride, and it's going to cut Social Security benefits (even though Social Security is an enormously popular, self-sustaining program with a multitrillion-dollar surplus that only needs a minor long term revenue tweak). No wonder they hate the democratic process. The group, reports Calmes, has "purposely has done little to date ... and it has decided nothing lest any decisions leak and blow up in the flammable mix of a campaign year with control of Congress in the balance."
The way the Republican-Teahadists are talking one of the priorities to reduce the debt is to cut Social Security; they are making it sound like the fund is bankrupt and there is no money and it is contributing to our national debt.
Please, people, give me a fucking break..Social Security's fully funded through 2037, and then 75% funded after that. Lifting the cap on the payroll (FICA) tax would fix it forever. But Republicans will resist that, so your benefits are going to be cut instead. How? By raising the retirement age and altering the price index and cost-of-living formulas. That would come to an estimated 16.5% across-the-board cut in benefits - all because Republicans have drawn a line in the sand.
But they insisted in extending those Bush tax cuts for the rich, and that is something that does add to the deficit…at the tune of $700 billion; why can’t people see this? Where are they hiding, under a rock? The voters in November forgot who caused their misery and suffering…and are still buying into the Republican lies.
The next two years are going to be disastrous for America with Boehner at the helm of the House and people who apologize for the BP Oil disaster and others like Issa who write letters asking big business which regulation they want to see eliminated…it takes balls!
The Republicans have been waging CLASS WARFARE…it got started by Reagan and his askew ideology and so far they are winning. The Tehadist-Republicans are hell bent on destroying the middle class. We have seen a decline in their incomes and more and more of them falling into poverty in the last ten years. That is not a coincidence, that is a deliberate plan to make America into an OLIGARCHY where there are only two classes: The very rich and the poor…but with that premise, there goes DEMOCRACY as we know it. Republican-
Teahadists are not going to be happy until they see 98% of Americans living in cardboard boxes under the freeway. And that is all I am going to say about this.
