EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Taxes the Rich for the Wrong Reasons
President Obama may have opened Pandora's box with his latest tax-the-rich rhetoric, but he'll try to keep the lid half-shut. Truly informing the public about just how rich the rich are — and just how much their taxes have been lowered over the decades — would certainly cause working people to demand much more from the wealthy than Obama is. Equally important to what is being demanded is where the new tax money is to go. Working people would prefer that Obama put the deficit on the back burner and use the new revenue to create jobs and to save Medicare and Medicaid, both of which the President plans to cut substantially. The deficit does not represent a social crisis the way that massive unemployment does; the President is thus proposing to tax the rich at too low a rate and for the wrong reasons.
Obama's tax ideas must first be put in their proper context. The Bush tax cuts— that Obama plans to end — and the inheritance tax — which he plans to restore — would not be issues needing to be fixed were it not for Obama himself, who allowed the inheritance tax to expire and allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue (Bush had planned for the tax cuts to expire last year). The new "Buffet rule" tax for capital gains is a long overdue idea that will not be used to save social programs, but lower the deficit.
In response to Obama's tax plans, progressive groups cheered and Republicans snarled; both reactions were consciously exaggerated. Lost in the progressive jubilation over Obama's supposed "toughness" were his plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid, a long-time goal of Republicans. The New York Times reports:
"The White House said Mr. Obama’s proposals would cut $248 billion from the projected growth of Medicare in the next 10 years, while shaving $72 billion from Medicaid and other health programs." (09/20/11)
The Medicare cuts come in the form of higher deductibles, lower payments to nursing homes and other facilities, higher costs for home health care, and other fee changes that will negatively impact the overall health of the elderly, sick, and poor.
The President also said that raising the Medicare beneficiary age — from 65 to 67 — is not "off the table,” which virtually assures that such a measure will be pursued by Obama's Super Congress.
This attack on Medicare is on top of Obama's previous Medicare slashing; the hundreds of billions of dollars he took from Medicare as part of his now-infamous health care reform — one of the many aspects of the reform that Republicans loved. In fact, Obama is achieving the destruction of Medicare like no Republican before him. In defense, Obama claims that the majority of his cuts fall on Medicare providers, dishonestly implying that beneficiaries will be unaffected by massive cuts to doctors and hospitals; of course the patients suffer in the end with less access to doctors, less ability to stay in hospitals, less procedures being performed, and less adequate overall care.
Also, if these additional cuts to Medicare are pushed through, the program will be further undermined, opening itself up to new attacks. Medicare will appear less functional as its funding is stripped, and the right wing will then say, "Medicare doesn't work, let's cut it.” And they will be half-right, since no under-funded program works as it should.
Obama also announced that he would like to lower the corporate tax rate, which in effect would funnel more money to the rich through the back door.
For labor and progressive groups to applaud Obama's plan without criticism is a stunning example of how the Democrats have intellectually handicapped the U.S. liberal left: an independent voice has been stifled so that Obama can speak unchallenged; progressive demands have been limited so that Obama's agenda may be fulfilled. Consequently, working people's livelihoods are being squandered so that the corporate establishment may live in peace. As the social crisis in the U.S. deepens, these political "mistakes" of the liberal left are becoming unpardonable crimes.
Take for example the AFL-CIO, which has traditionally offered a strong defense of Medicare. After Obama's tax announcement, the AFL-CIO blog wrote a positive response, which included:
"Obama also vowed to veto any bill that cut Medicare benefits without raising revenue."
What?! So it's suddenly OK to cut Medicare? So long as revenue is raised too? Luckily, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka did come out with a statement rejecting Medicare cuts, but the above-quoted line appeared on several liberal left websites, implying that a "practical solution" to the deficit problem would include massive cuts to social programs. This willful acceptance of Obama's "great compromiser" role must end for working people to make progress.
Obama's role as a "pragmatist" — as opposed to the Republican's radical agenda — is too often praised by liberals, but the plight of working people demands a less moderate President. Pragmatism would not be so bad were not society so ravaged by poverty, unemployment, declining wages, and a horrific lack of health care. Ignoring these problems — or indeed making them worse —in the name of "realism" merely means that the President lacks imagination and the ability to inspire, not to mention the ability to instill any "hope.” Making bargains with Republicans is simply shifting society rightward faster than the typical pace of the last 30 plus years.
It's nice that Richard Trumka and some others continue to reject any cuts to Medicare, but words aren't enough. Massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs are in the works via Obama's Super Congress that is slated with the mandate to reduce the deficit. Working people have the power to stop these cuts if massive street demonstrations, combined with other actions, are held that demand hands off this social safety net. But by half-attaching themselves to Obama's tax plans, labor and progressive leaders are half-draining any enthusiasm that could be created by putting forth independent demands. Working people are demanding good jobs and that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security be saved. Taxing the rich to pre-Reagan levels can achieve this; the deficit can wait.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


30 Comments so far
Show AllI agree, Big Brother; however, don't forget this tidbit:
"but the above-quoted line appeared on several liberal left websites, implying that a "practical solution" to the deficit problem would include massive cuts to social programs."
Just as THIS site has right wing frauds MASQUERADING as progressives (or pretending to be in favor of Left leaning programs and policies), as they PUSH Ron Paul, it's time we all looked more closely at the whole Trojan Horse Phenomena. It's given (often far) right of center policies, and those who advocate on behalf of them, the COVER of being Left, Liberal, Progressive, or even Socialist. The labels are getting in the way of what's ACTUALLY going on.
A referendum or vote that listed the 10 key issues of our times, and had a series of boxes where voters could state whether they agreed, strongly agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed, would probably expose HIGH percentages who align with Progressive interests.
Just as mainstream media features no true LEFT voices, and almost never departs from packaging policies via right wing talking points or frames favorable to the corporate masters' caste, these groups that POSE as left or left leaning also appear to serve the purpose (and are likely funded in order to do this) of assuring RIGHT of center policies.
Few things ARE what they seem to be today, with war made to look like peace-keeping, and justice an absolute travesty in a post-law nation, with a state burning as its own governor denies global warming... heck, most food isn't even FOOD! It's all coloring agents, false fillers, and corn syrup!
In this era of Rule by Deception, with Truth the item feared (and in some cases, despised) most, the title of a thing ought not be confused with the essence (or purpose) of the thing, itself.
I agree with you that its hard to see through the extreme levels of bullshit. But..
SR, this is Common Dreams. Not Democrat's Common Dreams, not Liberal's Common Dreams, not Progressive's Common Dreams. Its Common Dreams.
I (think) its relatively safe to assume that the name, as well as the people behind it, implies that we all want to live in peace and harmony, with some basic law and order in our justice and financial systems. That everyone is equal and treated (and taxed) fairly. Everyone, including the rich. (Personally I think we should all pay the same percentage.)
I can't speak for anyone else here, but living in peace, reaching out to the world with a helping hand instead of the butt of a gun is what I'm interested in. This especially goes for reigning in the War Machine and the Federal Reserve and other scammers like them and rolling back the Police State (if that's even possible now).
You know, I've read Paul's columns for well over 15+ years and quite frankly don't see a reason for your hysteria.
I'm sick of war. I'm sick of the People being lied to and shaken down by all of these assholes in Washington. Paul is the only candidate that will most likely put an end to most of this shit. At least get a foothold.
Scream and pitch all the fits you like. But this voter wants and end to the killing and destruction. That is the only way it will be stopped. And that is just a stone-cold fact.
Ron Paul is the only option. The only Peace Candidate.
Think of it this way: He's the lesser evil.
We rolled the dice on Obama and he was a biggest dud in American history. Its time to roll 'em again. Besides, he's Toast.
As soon as you equate my response to Paul with hysteria, you show your TRUE colors.
I'm sure there were people in Hitler's times who assured fellow citizens that Hitler wanted peace, was a good Christian, and was aiming at a prosperous society.
The word hysterical is linked to hysterectomy, in case you didn't know, and it's rooted in deeply sexist rhetoric.
The lack of emotions, starting with empathy, is one reason why citizens lose sight of what their government does in their name.
There is something very fishy about a LEGION of people showing up on CD to push Ron Paul. The John Birch society is racist, sexist, and anti-semitic. Paul has been linked with that group, and he's also a capitalist ALL the way. Since he sees everything through the libertarian lens of anti-regulatory action, he would probably have no problem with private armies doing the killing. Peace is NOT synonymous with Ron Paul. HIs god is mammon... his focus is where the $ gets spent.
I've made clear in other threads that Paul's disgust for regulatory agencies like the EPA would see wide scale ECOCIDE on his watch. If you don't think the ruination of the natural world constitutes a DEATH sentence, then you can return to your right wing programming, and pleasure yourself to the false notion that global warming is a liberal hoax.
Until you got to the halfway point of your post, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt... I'm sure there are plenty of people on a DOD paycheck who think they want peace, too. I don't trust you or your motives. And except for Randy G & Karlof1, whose posts are too intelligent to discredit, just about anyone else in these threads PIMPING for Ron Paul warrants suspicion.
And Obama didn't "allow the Bush tax cuts to be extended" as the author alleges. Rather than passively "allowing" the Bush tax cuts to expire, Obama actively extended the cuts AND forced Social Security to borrow money ($113 billion in 2011, more in each subsequent year) for the first time ever with his "payroll tax holiday".
Obama keeps bragging about the "tax holiday" and urging the GOP to let him extend it, which the GOP are anxious to do, but only after they extract more concessions from Obama while they pretend that they don't like the "tax holiday" even though many Republicans have tried and failed to put Social Security in debt during the past half century.
Ron Paul is a fool and he has nothing to offer this country other than more harm. He is old and he will never get the approval of the right wing. We should all be supporting President Obama who is standing for the middle class and is fighting against the cut, cut and cut more while refusing the tax the wealthy ever.
Well said. I think it is republicans constantly on here pretending they are Democrats when they hate Democrats are against everything we stand for.
President Obama has done nothing to Medicare. He has done nothing to Social Security. It is the GOP who want to see our social programs harmed, ended or privatized. Democrats will fight for all these programs and will not be open to anyone ruining Medicare.
Nonsense. The GOP are all over the social programs to end them and privatize them. Don't pay attention to that huh? How stupid are you people? It is the GOP who wants to cut all programs and harm what Americans have paid for during their working lives. Republicans push the cut, cut and more cuts. But won't agree to bring in revenue which is just hypocritical wealthy GOP for themselves and not for our country.
"massive street demonstrations, combined with other actions ... that demand hands off this social safety net" -- It's those "other actions" that I'd be interested in hearing about. Massive street demonstrations haven't accomplished anything since the Civil Rights era. Contrary to mythologized history, they did not end the Vietnam war. The demonstrations had pretty much petered out when Nixon expanded the war to Laos and Cambodia, They certainly didn't end the first Iraq war. Events on Wall Street right now show that general knowledge about demonstrations, unless they could be done by many millions of people, can be kept from mainstream discussion.
"Obama is achieving the destruction of Medicare like no Republican before him..." That's part of what he was put there to do. He's just following orders.
"political 'mistakes' of the liberal left are becoming unpardonable crimes...." Not being able to come up with a non-ineffectual course against an establishment as rich and entrenched and technologically sophisticated as the one of today isn't a crime, it's a sad indication how nearly hopeless the situation is. Once again we have a sneering criticism of "the liberal left" for not being able to accomplish change. The left needs more creative thinking and less haughty guilt-tripping.
Cooke sez: "Lost in the progressive jubilation over Obama's supposed "toughness" were his plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid ..."
***
You've misspelled "gut" in this sentence. It seems to have a 'c' by mistake.
Obama is not taxing the rich yet. And there is no historical evidence to support anyone thinking that he ever will. He's the master of talking the talk but not walking the walk.
"Tax reform" in Obamaspeak means 1) reducing tax rates for corporations that currently make tens of billions in profits each year and get a tax credit, thereby paying a tax rate ranging from negative 2% to negative 4%, and 2) eliminating the few deductions working folks didn't lose in Ronny Raygun's 1986 "tax reform".
Generally a good article. I disagree on a few points.
The Bush tax cuts are not longer the Bush tax cuts. It took new legislation for the tax cuts to continue so they are now Obama's tax cuts. And on top of it, the tax cuts aren't all the same. Obama expanded the tax cuts while at the same time undermining Social Security with the new payroll tax cut.
I would not give credit for Obama planning on ending the Obama tax cuts when Obama knew he'd have a Republican House for the next two years at the time he signed the legislation. His legislation passed the buck until right after the next 2012 elections (Nov/Dec) when the Republicans will still control the House.
Cooke states that progressive groups applaud Obama's new plan, but doesn't name the groups. I'd like Cooke to name the groups because I don't know too many true progressives that like Obama's plan. I hope Cooke isn't referring to either Move-on, Rebuild the Dream, or the Congressional Progressive Caucus because none of those are progressive groups.
If Cooke names those groups I will offer them a special deal on the oceanfront property in Phoenix AZ that I am selling. If they don't take the bait I will know they are Obama collaborators.
They are still the Bush tax cuts and everyone knows they are. It was the GOP that fought to keep the Bush tax cuts. They are all Norquist anti-tax signers but they would never vote their own taxes raised or their own salaries cut. Most of the GOP in Congress are millionaires.
The GOP didn't have the power to force the Democrats to extend the tax cuts. If Obama and the Democrats simply did nothing (no pass anything), the tax cuts wouldn't have been passed. Do you even realize that the Democrats in the Senate gave Bush the majority needed to pass his tax cuts, just like the Democrats supported the war in Iraq which Democrats blame Bush for both?
Don't re elect Obama. He is a shill of the ruler elite.
Vote for President Obama because he is a president being treated just as hatefully and just as disrespectfully as President Clinton was. Vote for this fine leader who is smart and who has been opposed and obstructed by the most vile and wicked GOP. It is the GOP that needs to be sent packing because they represent only the super wealthy and the greediest corporations. Republicans are elite and they only serve the elite.
Is this a parody?
Why would people be so completely against Democrats who are working for the middle class and for the working poor? Why would anyone trust the constant lies of the republican party and the most hateful people saying they are Christians. They show no signs at all of being Christians. If they were they would be honest, would care about our environment, would care about the less fortunate and would want to raise taxes so that the country will have the revenue to fund jobs and get this country back to work.
_______________________________________
No offense, but both Democrats and Republicans SUCK.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about the environment.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about creating good jobs for all the people that want one.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about the poor and middle class.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about spending too much on the military industrial security complex.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about taking part in a bought and paid for political system.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about income/wealth inequality.
Neither party "really" gives a shit about concentrated corporate control of the media, which they're both happy to use to lie to us on a daily basis.
In reality, both parties are no good lying sacks of shit that are laughing their asses off as they push us all toward the edge of a cliff.
Voting for either major party is utterly masochistic for at least 80% of the population, and it is unequivocally bad for 100% of the 200 species going extinct everyday.
leftirite, you need to wake the hell up. And I mean that very sincerely. I'm really not trying to offend.
I am forever entertained by the predictable, knee-jerk, broad-brush nihilism that tries to pass for some sort of meaningful political analysis on this site.
OK, so both national parties are corrupt. I agree with you. But does that mean that EVERYBODY in both those parties is corrupt? Does this apply at the state and local level as well as the national level? Does this mean there is no possibility for change? (The Tea Partiers sure changed the Republican Party -- in a bad way). Does this mean that the political appointee in the Department of Interior or the EPA that I happen to admire and who is trying to effect positive change from within is actually worthless and corrupt? What about the state representative that I know personally, with whom I work, and whose efforts I admire? If they have a (D) after their name, does that automatically mean that they don't give a shit about the environment or the working class? If I agree with their politics 80% of the time, but disagree with it otherwise, should I tell them to go fuck off? 70% of the time? 60% of the time?
So, at what point can you live with a less-than-perfect public representative? Because, Dude, I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a perfect public representative. Life is tough, dude.
Maybe voting for Ralph Nader once every four years, and then going home to log-on and bitch about the system, is one option for "political engagement". But it's never worked very well for me.
No, "EVERYBODY in both those parties" is not necessarily evil. Nor were all slave owners evil. So what? Were all slave owners part of an evil system? Yes. Are all politicians part of and corrupted by the system today? Yes. Does this apply to all levels of government? Yes. How could it be otherwise?
Does that mean there is no possibility for change? No. It means there is no possibility for change using the same failed methods over and over again.
So, "dude," you need to think a little more critically about all of this. None of this has anything to do with good and bad people, nor with "perfect." Whatever that means - it is like saying that no slave owner will ever be perfect, as though the Abolitionists were talking about bad people when they spoke of examples of particularly cruel conditions on various plantations. You are creating straw men to knock down with your snide lecturing of others.
"Voting for Ralph Nader once every four years, and then going home to log-on and bitch about the system" is not the only imaginable alternative to apologizing for and defending those in power and the system that benefits the wealthy and powerful, as you do, Again, you set up a straw man, knock it down, and then try to pass that off as a convincing argument.
OK. So please tell us, specifically, what leaders or what organizations you have supported in the past, or currently support. Names, please. (That way, others here can launch in with gusto and rip your favorites to shreds -- this is clearly the favorite passtime on this website).
Which will only underscore my point: the left is so busy forming circular firing squads that it doesn't seem to notice the troubling fact that it is going absolutely nowhere. Someday it may become an influential force in U.S. politics, but I see no sign of it happening in my lifetime. As long as the self-righteous left goes out of its way to scorn any possible alliances with the Democratic Party, at The Nation Magazine, moveon.org, or any other organization that doesn't fit its vision of the Socialist Truth, the left is doomed to wander in the wilderness of American politics, raving like a madman, and probably spouting a lot of important truths, but being politely ignored by mainstream society, kind of like that weird guy who stands on the streetcorner and pees on himself.
____________________________________
Donny-Don
____________________________________
"But does that mean that EVERYBODY in both those parties is corrupt?"
Of course not, but the GREAT MAJORITY are. So how relevant is it that not "everybody" is? Not relevant at all.
"Does this apply at the state and local level as well as the national level?"
Yes, though to a lesser degree, but the extent of the problem is still significant, particularly at the state level.
"Does this mean there is no possibility for change? (The Tea Partiers sure changed the Republican Party -- in a bad way)."
Not without building, over many years, a mass and serious grassroots, nonviolent resistance movement that employs numerous and highly tactical forms of direct action campaigns, which should be designed to significantly disrupt major aspects of the elite-dominated system that fosters political corruption, economic injustice, and ecological destruction.
And the tea party is merely a right-wing, well-funded operation designed to exploit the frustrations of the libertarian/conservative middle class/niche, and in the process, co-opt the republican party to the greatest extent possible. They've had some success because of Koch-brother's-type money, support from the conservative owners of "big" media, a ripe republican party increasingly in disarray, and an unusually precipitous decline in national civil culture over the past 10-15 years.
"Does this mean that the political appointee in the Department of Interior or the EPA that I happen to admire and who is trying to effect positive change from within is actually worthless and corrupt?"
Lisa Jackson does not appear to be corrupt, but the fact is she does not hold much power or influence. See the following article:
http://atlantapost.com/2011/09/19/epa-head-contemplates-quitting-decides-to-stay/
The same goes for Interior Head, Ken Salazar.
"What about the state representative that I know personally, with whom I work, and whose efforts I admire? If they have a (D) after their name, does that automatically mean that they don't give a shit about the environment or the working class?"
As I said above, the venality, narcissism, selfishness, and lack of compassion does not include EVERY representative at either the local, state, or federal level. However, the relative plurality of such characteristics becomes more pronounced the higher the level of elected office (i.e., the higher the power).
The main point is that the "system" itself is corrupt beyond repair without a manifestation of significant revolutionary events over the next few decades. Indeed, a major "sweeping out" and a rebuild of fundamental institutions is required to ultimately bring in a more stable form of political integrity, economic/social justice, and ecological sustainability. Otherwise, as a nation we are headed straight for collapse, probably at some point within 3 decades.
"If I agree with their politics 80% of the time, but disagree with it otherwise, should I tell them to go fuck off? 70% of the time? 60% of the time?"
Generally yes, but it definitely depends on "what politics" comprises the 80%, 70%, 60%, and "what politics" comprises the 20%, 30%, and 40%. But again, the main point is that ALL representatives that work within the duopoly, particularly at the federal level (and often at he state level), operate within a fundamentally corrupt "system". Otherwise, the other option would be to join a party that embeds more morality and sanity at the heart of their platform.
"So, at what point can you live with a less-than-perfect public representative? Because, Dude, I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a perfect public representative."
Nobody's asking for perfect; just that they begin to take more radical steps to at least, from their positions within the "swamp", make an impassioned effort to usher into the political system a basic level of MORALITY & SANITY about the "great" issues of the day.
"Maybe voting for Ralph Nader once every four years, and then going home to log-on and bitch about the system, is one option for "political engagement". But it's never worked very well for me."
Why don't you try working with volunteers organizing in your community to talk about ways to make our institutions more moral and sane, and then begin to reach out to others to work on a set of strategies and tactics for taking action on what you truly and fundamentally believe in.
If Ralph Nader and his policy positions are something you, or anyone else believes, than they should vote for him. The idea of voting is not to secure a guarantee that one's candidate will/can "win"; it is to vote for the best candidate that one feels can best lead the nation.
Thank you for taking these questions seriously, and for trying to formulate some sensible steps forward. I respect your input.
I simply tire of the tendencies toward nihilistic pessimism on this website. If, in 1960, African-Americans had so readily thrown in the towel in the face of a system so clearly stacked against them, we'd still have segregated drinking fountains and segregated lunch counters. Thank god they weren't as wimpy as most self-styled "leftists" are today. Really.
Of course the irony (tragedy?) of all this, is that you and me and most people posting here basically have similar progressive goals and dreams for this country, we're just going about trying to achieve that in different ways ... and that's where the sniping arises. 90% of the energy on this site seems to be directed against other CD posters, arguing differences the "correct" strategies for getting there.
Sheesh. Fuck all that. The posters on this website should direct more of their hostility to the freaky, scary, proto-fascists on freerepublic.com, or on other websites where they won't already be preaching to the choir. The hostility shouldn't be directed at fellow leftists; the hostility should be directed at the right-wing bastards that are enabling and supporting the fascism that is gradually taking control of this country.
Again, just my honest opinion.
Over and out. I've decided to abandon Common Dreams for awhile. The energy wasted here on useless arguments here is too depressing. But hey, knock yourselves out arguing among yourselves, I hope you find that entertaining.
_____________________________
"The hostility shouldn't be directed at fellow leftists; the hostility should be directed at the right-wing bastards that are enabling and supporting the fascism that is gradually taking control of this country."
Yes, but I would say it's the the Plutocrats and their top-level worker bees that should be the central focus of our attacks. A majority of them probably are "right wing", but there's plenty of so-called "moderates" and "liberals" in that group of wealthy elitists as well.
But you're right, people left of center are famous for bickering and creating divisions among themselves. It is a cultural weakness that is played out all too often on this website comment section, along with others, and I certainly understand your frustration with it. I often feel the same way.
What nobody seems to be telling those with means is that they are actually limiting their own wealth by their stranglehold. Money is not wealth. It is merely math. It is merely a placeholder, an IOU, a gambling chip. The wealth is in the actual trade, the actual value-adding of labor, the actual lives made better by goods and services. The more there is at the bottom, the more is available all the way up.
The problem is not lack of money to invest. The problem is lack of investment. If the private sector won't do it, and if we are to grow as an economy it needs to be done, that is the province of government -- to promote the general welfare.