Sunday, July 10, 2011


Definition of OBSESSION
: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation (online dictionary).

Does this not describe the Republican position when it comes to taxes? Republicans for a very long time seem to have been obsessed with taxes, specifically with not raising them no matter what. This is, in my opinion, obsessional in the extreme, especially when it comes to running the country. Raising and lowering taxes is an appropriate and integral part of governing; that is, if you seriously want police and fire protection, public education, postal service, Veterans care, highways and bridges, and etc. To take the position you will not under any circumstances raise taxes is not only absurd, it is childish. When it threatens the national and even international economy it is both irresponsible and even treasonous. But this is apparently the single-minded obsession of the Republican Party at the moment.

While it is true we have a “spending problem,” it is equally true we have a “revenue problem.” It would seem obvious that the solution to these problems would be to bring the two problems into balance. Yes, we should cut spending, but we should also increase revenue. Under the present circumstances this should not be difficult to do. But to insist, as Republicans are doing, that the only solution is to cut spending, and not increase revenue, is quite simply absurd. In other circumstances it might not be, but under our existing circumstances it is. That is, for Republicans to insist on continuing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, when their tax rates are very low, and to refuse to eliminate tax breaks and loopholes for corporations now making absolutely unprecedented profits is plain and simply ridiculous. If they are doing this because they have swallowed the anti-tax kool-aid it is worse than ridiculous, it is insane. If they are doing it because they believe it will work politically for them, it is bordering on treason:

Definition of TREASON
: the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Is it not the case that by being the party of “no,” and stating publicly their number one goal is to bring down Obama, is this not an attempt “by overt acts” to “overthrow the government of the state…” This is basically treasonous. Should it not be the case that Republicans have an obligation to work with the President to solve the nation’s currently very serious problems? Should they not be expected to cooperate? Since when has our “government” abandoned governing in favor of a deadly game of simply trying to destroy the opposite party by any means possible? This is apparently what we have come to, certainly since Bush/Cheney changed the Republican Party into little more than a criminal conspiracy.

A situation in which a two-party “democracy” is supposed to function as a governing body, but one party simply refuses to cooperate no longer functions as it should. The effect of this has been to change our society and political system from a legitimate two political party system, Democrat and Republican, into a system of opposing Classes. On the one side are the huge international corporations and the obscenely wealthy, and on the other side the “huddle masses” of serfs, peasants, wage slaves, and the “little people.” The current “battle” over the budget has little to do with anything other than determining the relative level of comfort the proletariat will be allowed. Someone once said Marx did not understand the proletariat could be bought off by a six pack of beer and a long-legged whore on Saturday night. I believe he was on to something significant.

If the current “negotiations” were to be taken seriously, and if the public interest had anything much to do with them, President Obama would have conceded nothing to Republicans, nothing at all. The issue of whether or not the U.S. is responsible for its debt is not something negotiable. It has nothing to do with Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, or even when the Cherry trees bloom in Washington, D.C. No serious elected public official would ever protect huge tax breaks for the one or two percent of the absolutely filthy rich, or gigantic corporations making record profits, and argue at the same time for further sacrifices from the poor and middle classes. This should not even be considered a serious proposal, these clowns should be laughed off the stage, but this is the U.S. of A., where we no longer care about our citizens, civil rights, our schools, infrastructure, illegal and unconstitutional “wars,” or even, it appears, human life and well-being. It’s like our wonderful ex-President George W. Bush said, “bring it on.”

No comments: