Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Speaking Wealth to Power



"Mr. Paul you've just been elected United States Senator, what are you going to do?" "Well, Wolf, I'm going to stop this God awful war that's being waged against America's wealthiest citizens." We'll find out later this week he misspoke, I'm sure. American conservatives have been waging a philosophical war in this country since Ronald Reagan became president that is focused on letting the rich man run free and giving him a chance to spread his beautiful wealthy wings. Central to this war is the belief that government is smothering the invisible hand of the free market, capitalism, freedom of choice, I support the troops, God bless America, blah blah blah. ..The central philosophical strategy employed in this philosophical war were elegant terms developed in the Reagan administration such as "trickle down economics" and "starve the beast." Which in practice simply means cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, allow the money of the wealthy to slowly trickle down to middle America and starve the federal government of money, forcing it to shrink in size. In practice none of this works. The government has at no point since and including Reagan shrunk in size, however conservatives have been masters at bankrupting the country. Reagan and Bush I quadrupled the debt, and we all know how W. Bush faired. Starving the beast amounts to nothing more than a magnificent way to make the government financially insolvent. The trickle down part? I'll let you figure out for yourself why rich people don't start "makin' it rain" on the rest us.  

What Rand Paul says is deplorable. Not really because he's publicly stating with a straight face that the average American is entirely dependent on the wealthy for their livelihood and that protecting the rich really just equates to protecting us all. Most American's probably assume corporate titans and figureheads make similar comments all the time—behind closed doors in some wood paneled room filled with cigar smoke at an exclusive social club. It's deplorable because he's actually advocating that social and public policy be based upon the idea that there are no rich or poor. He and many conservatives are arguing that the taxes of the rich never be raised again because Americans who have thought about it realize that there is no rich, middle class, or poor. Let's starve the beast. We're all interconnected. Their taxes are your taxes. How will it trickle down if their taxes go up? Don't you want to see those beautiful wealthy wings spread wide open in all their majestic glory? Make it rain!!!

Rand Paul isn't alone though. He's just been elected United States Senator and has the backing of the Tea Party which helped conservatives win elections from coast to coast last Tuesday. Americans across the country agree with Rand Paul—philosophically at least. Philosophically Tea Partiers want the government smaller and out of the way and they've simply voted to elect people who feel the same way. Let's starve the beast. Back in the real world, we're having a comical debate about raising taxes 3% on those who make over $250,000. Taxes for the rich are at their lowest point since prior to the Great Depression…What Rand Paul's supporters and the millions across the country backing this nonsense don't realize is they'll win the philosophical argument and get nothing  in return in the reality based world. These are the famous Bush tax cuts Rand Paul is debating after all, which were philosophically supposed to unleash those majestic wealthy wings 8 years ago. Rub your eyes and watch the video again, thinking about the people in the background. Is the working man really getting upset because the wealthy man's taxes might go up by 3%? Yes…yes, I guess some are. Conservatives keep winning this ridiculous philosophical argument, and regular America is losing the philosophical battle and the reality based war. They've yet to start makin' it rain, but there's a distinct poor all across the country.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I know generally that they don't view a family with combined income of 250K a year as wealthy (though the family may feel that way).

That aside, he does seem a little sleazy on this issue. I'd like to think being related means they have similar views -being corporate oligarchies are not libertarianism.

But man, this sure looks nice and sleazy.

We too will be waiting for a retraction, or clarification, but, let's not hold our breath, yes?