UXDE dot Net

Political Culture: Greetings, Fellow Hostages!

By -

For an unreconstructed liberal (now redefined as “socialist”) like myself, it’s been difficult watching the Republican bullshit machine steamroll once again into Washington, firing pistols into the ground like Yosemite Sam and making all kinds of noise about “listening to the American people” as they give away the store to millionaires and billionaires. It’s been even more difficult watching President Obama begin his makeover from “transformative figure” into Bill Clinton, capitulating quickly to GOP demands that those millionaires keep their tax cuts before they’ll even consider any other legislation during this lame-duck session – legislation they’re sure to filibuster in the Senate anyway.

At least Obama got in one nice shot as he bent over earlier this week. “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed; then people will question the wisdom of that strategy,” Obama said on Monday. “In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

Rough language – for a Democrat. It’s a nice metaphor, though, and it perfectly suits an opposition party that has the audacity to say, “Because we’re so concerned about the nation’s debts, we have no choice but to deny America’s millions of long-term unemployed their last scrap of subsistence-level aid … unless, of course, we’re allowed to bust the budget and keep the Bush tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year.”

Obama was right to make this shitty deal, as a matter of politics if not policy. I hate the fact that his cave-in might lend new credence to the already-discredited fallacy that trickle-down economics are a viable salve for tough times. But I believe in the art of compromise. And even though Republicans have spent two years pissing all over that art, if I can demand (pointlessly) that they do it, then I mustn’t complain (too much) when Obama does it as well. Moreover, Obama calculated, correctly, that the lackluster economy has robbed Democrats of the ability to compete intelligently with the streams of bluster and trickeration emanating from the GOP.

In the current climate, there’s no way Dems would win the argument that letting all the tax cuts expire, rather than continuing them for millionaires, would be better for the economy – even though they’d be correct. And there’s no way they’d convince Americans that Republicans, through their intransigence, were hurting the middle class by holding their tax cuts and unemployment insurance hostage to the conservative obsession with helping the wealthy. After all, if last month’s election proved anything, it’s that voters haven’t noticed the Teafoxlican knives in their backs; they’ve only noticed that they’re in pain, and that the Democrats haven’t done enough to make them feel better.

Of course, it’s not just right-wing politicians and talk-radio/TV blowhards who have been pushing the nation’s head under the water the past two years – though they’ve been doing an excellent job of it, whether it’s trashing the (insufficient) stimulus, fighting tooth and nail against health-care proposals that were once their own, dunderheadedly denying the expertise of economists and climate scientists, or portraying the pragmatic-to-a-fault Obama as a fascist/socialist/Kenyan/Muslim monster. These morality-free efforts have undermined public confidence and done much to keep the economy down – all in the name of achieving precisely the electoral outcome we got last month.

What concerns me, in the wake of the tax-cut compromise, is that other group of connivers who have swallowed the key to America’s economic handcuffs: the Chamber of Commerce set, and the corporate elites (both executives and shareholders). Over not just the last two years, but the last 10, they have dispensed with the indispensable bond that makes capitalism work – the balance between the people’s financial fortunes and their own. Throughout the 20th century, the status of workers (in terms of wages and standard of living) climbed and plunged in relative concert with the financial health of those for whom they worked. But that link has now been severed: Corporate profits and shareholder earnings have soared since the end of the 2000-01 recession, while workers’ wages have remained flat and barely more than a million jobs have been created (even as the working-age, products-and-services-consuming population has risen many times that number).

Much of that discrepancy, of course, is due to globalization and the advent of cheap, accessible foreign labor. But there’s no denying that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs have been eliminated to serve no higher purpose than the demands of executives and shareholders for ever-higher salaries, stock prices and dividends. One can argue that this is just another step in capitalism’s maturation – that as American companies learn how to maximize profits and maintain production with less manpower … manpower that is increasingly overworked and underpaid, or else outsourced … workers will just have to find another way to keep themselves afloat. One can also argue that there’s nothing government can or should do to intervene in that process.

But those are ugly arguments to make, as far as I’m concerned – particularly when, even as the business elite are handing out pink slips and toasting their profits, they’re also pushing for tax breaks and spending cuts (like those pesky unemployment benefits) and fighting against universal health coverage that might make losing one’s job less catastrophic. I don’t know exactly what government might do to reverse the trend – perhaps lessening the general tax burden on businesses, but making it more costly to reap large profits or dividends without sufficiently re-investing in people and equipment.

Wherever you come down on these arguments, one fact is well-documented: Corporate America and some small businesses currently are sitting on (or distributing to those shareholders) billions of dollars in uninvested profits – and for months now, corporate leaders have been deflecting criticism of their stagnant ways by whining, “We just can’t purchase new equipment or hire new employees, because we don’t know what our tax rate is going to be next year.”

Well, now they know. And now maybe we’ll find out whether their whining was just a dodge, a smokescreen to hide the possibility that they never plan to restore that essential link between the fortunes of the ownership and working classes under capitalism. Unfortunately, because Obama and the Republicans decided to kick the tax can a couple years down the road, rather than deal with it conclusively, it would be no surprise at all to hear a Chamber of Commerce mouthpiece whine during the coming weeks – after it’s too late to undo the compromise, of course — “How can you expect us to spend the next two years adding payroll when we don’t know what our tax situation will be in 2013?”

Should that happen, you can bet that a GOP-led House of Representatives will refuse to lift a finger to force the hand of business leaders who funneled $800 million into last month’s Republican victory. And you can bet that Teafoxlicans, instead of helping to find ways to circumvent business’s obduracy and improve the economy, will spend the next two years insisting that the continued poor employment numbers are all Obama’s fault … in an effort to force a 2012 election result that builds on 2010’s.

“America Held Hostage.” Where’s Ted Koppel when we need him?

A year ago in this space, I spent a couple months fulminating my way through a reading of Ayn Rand’s steaming heap of Objectivist sludge, Atlas Shrugged. In her far-right fantasyland, the federal government’s efforts to regulate commerce creep inexorably (and ridiculously) toward Communism, leading the nation’s manufacturing giants – fed up with the notion that they should care about anyone or anything besides their own achievements and profits – to go on strike in protest. While the industrialists fiddle in their Shangri-la of selfishness, the nation burns, building to a denouement in which an airplane load of magnates look down as the lights go out all across Baghdad New York City. And they celebrate.

Astonishingly, that’s pretty much the situation in which we find ourselves now (minus the Communism — or a respectable John Galt type, for that matter). “See all this cash?” the corporate titans (and their Teafoxlican allies) tease. “Keep our taxes low, and give us everything else we could possibly want – deficits and debt be damned — or we’ll never spend a dime of this money to put Americans back to work.” Obama has already caved to the first demand, and the new Congress won’t even be sworn in for another month.

Watch carefully as the Teafoxlicans now begin pressuring Obama with demands that he act more like that great compromiser Clinton – the same guy they rewarded for his moderation by accusing him of rape and murder, then impeaching him for receiving blow jobs. It’ll be quite the spectacle. Meanwhile, We the Hostages will stay in the corner, angry and fearful, wondering whether we’ll ever find a way out of this predicament. Or at least get a bathroom break.

Jon Cummings

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    But now we have the Democrats abandoning Obama. So, what we have here is one wing that will do absolutely nothing unless the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are maintained, and another that will do nothing if those cuts aren’t axed, and the colon blockage will persist straight into the Christmas recess.

    And then, all those who aren’t returning will wipe the flop-sweat from their brow and say, “Whew, dodged a bullet there!” Then the Sarah Palestinians roll in for 2011, stonewall the whole bloody deal and that’s that.

    I am being sarcastic when I say the only thing that can move the legislative branch to action these days is an earthquake, but only partially. And on some days, I wish an earthquake would swallow them whole.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    A sad recap of where we were, and where we are today, Jon. One thing I find amusing is the fact that you mention Rand in a sentence or two, a Google alert buzzes in Objectivistnews’ IN box, and they quickly put it on their Twitter feed. Maybe we’ll see a rousing of the slumbering zombie Randroids very soon in the comment section.

    Re: Obama’s willingness to cut a deal with Reps…

    I remember back in the Clinton days, there were some in my political circle of friends who said that every politician has issue they would die for — except Bill Clinton. Seems we’re seeing a lot of that with Obama, too. These next two year will test Obama to see if he’s an adept politician with some core principles he’s willing to die for, or just an adept politician.

  • http://mostlymodernmedia.wordpress.com Beau

    Here’s the thing about Clinton, though — if you played around with the NYT’s nifty budget deficit-solving calculator, you found that the budget would STILL be in good shape if we just re-imposed the same tax structure and spending we had under Clinton.

    But all that peace and prosperity really sucked, didn’t it? Who’d want that?

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    You never could get it implemented now. Even with Newt and the Republican Revolution (featuring Mark Lindsay), there always seemed to be wiggle room. That may be why they collapsed eventually, and why now both sides of “the aisle” (barf.) are so inflexible. They want what they want, how they want it, and there will be zero tolerance applied to anyone suggesting compromise.

    I wanted to see that sort of fight from the Democrats when they had a leg to stand on a couple years ago. Now they’re willing to stand up and fight, but a lot of them are on the way out, so they’re at it not on principle, but because they’ve nothing to lose now. It’s cowardly and I’m embarrassed by it.

    And the American public is being held hostage, by both sides now (hello, Judy Collins), and all it does is flare up the deep disdain for our system. History tells us, again and again, that a public controlled by a larger body that grows farther and farther away from their needs eventually fights back, not with a vote but with more visceral means. We have a situation where people see their jobs depart due to policies created by the government, then their lifelines are jeopardized by that same government, and soon they will be expected to buy health insurance without unemployment benefits and without prospects for jobs.

    It doesn’t matter at this point which party they belong to. Sure, you can affix the “party of NO” tag to the Republicans; they’ve been doing that so well these past two years. Yet we find the Democrats are equally negative, but can only break from passive-aggressive slapfights into something with a discernible spine when their own jobs are no longer at risk. Does that mean they’re only tough when they’re a lame duck? I see the whole thing as class warfare, the rich and powerful versus everyone else, and the pretense of “doing the people’s business” has melted into as much foie gras on their chateaubriand.

    Only when government becomes a volunteer, non-profit service, and the act of receiving a profit from said service, be it through lobbyists or through a backdoor suitcase full of cash, becomes an act of treason, will we see anything resembling the kind of governance we expect – which obviously can never, and will never, happen.

  • JonCummings

    The roots of the ’90s boom were actually pre-Newt: the technology revolution surrounding the internet, of course, but also the tax-hike compromise of 1990-91 that eventually helped cost Bush 41 his job, and the budget that passed the Senate at the end of ’93 by a 51-50 vote, with Gore casting the tie-breaker. For all the GOP bluster of ’95, including even the shutdown — and even including the balanced-budget agreement of ’96 — after ’93 the Republican Revolution was just picking around the edges, and the boom would have happened anyway.

    The biggest problem today is the abuse of the filibuster, and the chilling effect it had on legislation even when Dems had 60 votes. They couldn’t lose even one moderate — and they had a couple who were basically Republicans. Back in the ’90s, even as Newt was in the House leading his band of rabble, the Senate was still a relatively serene, let’s-work-this-out kind of place where the leading Republicans (Dole especially) were steeped in congenial traditional. It’s when the Newt-revolution guys began rising to the Senate, and then began working with Karl Rove to make things really nasty, that the Senate curdled into the stinkfest it is today.

    The sad thing about the last two years, and what history probably will forget, is that the House Democrats actually did some amazing and brave stuff, and passed the vast majority of what they and Obama promised they would do. It all just died or got bowdlerized in the Senate, and then the moderate Dems in the House had to walk the plank for the Senate’s failures and cynicism. (Of course, it didn’t help that the Dems saw their 60-vote majority in the Senate sucked up by the health care debate, then ended by the voters of Massachusetts in an event they’ll probably regret forever.) To an extent, this is how the two chambers have always worked — the Senate “cooling the tea” of House passions and all that — but now it’s ridiculous, and the filibuster has to be blown up.

    Dw., I sympathize with your lack of hope a lot more than I used to. The workings of Congress were bad enough before November — they’ll probably be much worse now. The only glimmer of possibility I see is that Republicans DID agree to a few things they didn’t want in this tax-cuts compromise, and that a number of them are on board (at least for now) with the deficit-commission report.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I don’t associate any growth with Newt’s bunch, but even at their most obstructionist, I had the impression that if it mattered most, and there was a clear need for bipartisanship, they would try. I see little to no “try” now, and know in my bones there will be none in the future. It also disturbs me greatly that, from what I’ve seen, every inch of this stalemate, from Inauguration Day onward, has been less about making Obama fail than making sure the Bush cuts for the wealthiest succeed. I said it before somewhere (because I’ve been doing an awful lot of talking about this) that this is like Die Hard. You think it’s about Hans Gruber’s political agenda, but it’s really about the cash in the vault.

    Yippie-ki-yay.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    As an unreconstructed “hate-filled conservative” (aka Teafoxlican), I just want to say that I reject Obama’s compromise as well. On this one, I’m on the side of all you socialists (aka commies). Actually, the cavalry has not yet arrived in Washington. The GOP is still saddled with its old guard, wheeling and dealing and lying and stealing. What the Republicans have agreed to with Obama (whether the other Dems will go along is an open question) is a mixture of fiscal irresponsibility mixed and more fiscal irresponsibility: tax cuts (the income taxes remain the same, but now a FICA tax cut has been thrown into the pork barrel) traded for spending increases (mainly the extension of unemployment benefits).

    Obama told the truth when he said that if taxes were raised, we could go into another recession. With 9.8% headline unemployment, one wonders by what measure he thinks we have come out of the first one. The Bankers’ bonus index? But with this new bipartisan “kick the can down the road” strategery, we can count on other nasty side effects, even as the economy limps along in neutral (if we’re lucky). We edge closer and closer to a bond market crisis where interest rates rise and the deficit skyrockets from its current nosebleed zone. Print money, and the dollar tanks, making most of what we buy more expensive. All the while, the banking/Wall Street fraud machine rolls along, racking up more profits from speculating on the taxpayers’ bailout money.

    What’s wrong with this picture? Everything. I hope this deal fails. Obama has already failed. There is no Plan B, and Obama doesn’t understand how wealth is created. Therefore, the future holds only wealth destruction, until we finally put some adults in charge. Believe me, fiscal conservatives feel as much a hostage as any of the rest of you. We are hostage to idiots on both sides of the aisle who can’t bring themselves to balance the national checkbook, or even make a feeble move in that direction. It will end in tears.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    As an unreconstructed “hate-filled conservative” (aka Teafoxlican), I just want to say that I reject Obama’s compromise as well. On this one, I’m on the side of all you socialists (aka commies). Actually, the cavalry has not yet arrived in Washington. The GOP is still saddled with its old guard, wheeling and dealing and lying and stealing. What the Republicans have agreed to with Obama (whether the other Dems will go along is an open question) is a mixture of fiscal irresponsibility mixed and more fiscal irresponsibility: tax cuts (the income taxes remain the same, but now a FICA tax cut has been thrown into the pork barrel) traded for spending increases (mainly the extension of unemployment benefits).

    Obama told the truth when he said that if taxes were raised, we could go into another recession. With 9.8% headline unemployment, one wonders by what measure he thinks we have come out of the first one. The Bankers’ bonus index? But with this new bipartisan “kick the can down the road” strategery, we can count on other nasty side effects, even as the economy limps along in neutral (if we’re lucky). We edge closer and closer to a bond market crisis where interest rates rise and the deficit skyrockets from its current nosebleed zone. Print money, and the dollar tanks, making most of what we buy more expensive. All the while, the banking/Wall Street fraud machine rolls along, racking up more profits from speculating on the taxpayers’ bailout money.

    What’s wrong with this picture? Everything. I hope this deal fails. Obama has already failed. There is no Plan B, and Obama doesn’t understand how wealth is created. Therefore, the future holds only wealth destruction, until we finally put some adults in charge. Believe me, fiscal conservatives feel as much a hostage as any of the rest of you. We are hostage to idiots on both sides of the aisle who can’t bring themselves to balance the national checkbook, or even make a feeble move in that direction. It will end in tears.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    The roots of the 1990s boom were the expansion of credit (debt) at a much greater rate than GDP. The credit was spent on consumption and speculation. Feels great, but it is phony prosperity.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    That “who benefits?” bar graph is pretty funny. Here’s one that is decidedly not funny at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

    Receipts versus expenditures for the recent federal budget. As you can see, taxes and other revenues will pay for entitlements, interest on the debt, and a little bit of defense spending. The rest of defense spending and every other function of government is now being funded with BORROWED money.

    This is the only truth that matters.

  • JonCummings

    Maybe that had something to do with it, but it’s not like it started in the ’90s or ended in 2000. The trend continued well into the last decade, without the attendant boom-like growth in employment, incomes or standard of living.

    Your attitude seems to be that the nation will survive long-term only if the government and all the people — except the top 1 percent, of course — live like ascetics. Not gonna happen. With the horrendous (and growing faster, with the continuation of the tax cuts) wealth disparity in this country, and the continued pinching of the middle class via high unemployment and stagnant wages, the American standard of living now practically requires extensive use of credit.

    Consumer expectations (in the private sector) and demand for government services (i.e., spending) are partially at fault — but so are the out-of-control desire for ever-higher profits (among the executive and shareholder classes) and the irresponsible anti-tax fervor the right wing has promulgated amongst the populace. Yes, the balance of credit needs to be restored to a large extent, but it can’t all come from self-denial among the rabble.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    I guess you don’t know how frugal you can be, until you try. My dad never earned more than $38K a year. My mother did not work. The only use of credit our family had was to assume a loan on a very modest (less than 1000 square foot) home at 7% interest. (This was the 1970s.) This was paid off early. We continued to accumulate savings, even though Dad was only able to work part time. We paid taxes, and a full tithe to our church (pre tax) on earned income.

    Save, invest, do without. One can do this if the central bank is not frakking the currency. Fed Clown Ben Bernanke must go. Paul Volker was USED by this administration for his gravitas, his image, but they ignored his advice.

    I’ve heard this argument before. “The people of this country can’t deny themselves.” I’m sorry, but the rich have their escape plan, their special legal loopholes. And if you could confiscate all their wealth, it would not do much more than pay for a few more years of excess consumption. Run the numbers yourself. Show me how wealth confiscation is going to help us in the long run. It really isn’t a matter of whether or not we want to deny ourselves. You can print dollars, but you cannot print value. You cannot print real wealth. I say this not because I love the rich. I say it because taxing them more does not offer a long term solution. Look at states which have raised taxes on the rich. Did they get as much revenue as projected? No. Look at New Jersey. The millionaires fled, taking jobs and capital with them. Rich can also flee to other nations. Google paid a 2% tax rate on their foreign profits last year. They could easily pack up and move their HQ elsewhere, wherever tax advantages are greatest.

    Conservative, liberal, it doesn’t matter. The disparity between production and consumption cannot continue. Senator Tom Coburn recently stated that in the next two or three years the borrowing requirements of various governments around the world to maintain current levels of spending exceed the total amount of free capital in the world! I look at this train wreck coming, and I don’t know how any sane, aware person cannot admit that government spending must decline. Throughout history, the same things have happened to various empires, or even to individual city-states. There are economic laws that we cannot violate through some sort of fiscal magic.

    I think voluntary frugality will be less destructive than involuntary frugality brought on by continuing to spend until we reach a debt crisis. But hey, take your pick, my friend. Prepare to lower your standard of living, unless you are very, very lucky.