Return on Investment

The latest polls I could find on the tax bill the Republicans rammed through the Senate in the dead of night are running about 32 percent in favor, 46 percent against.

The analysis released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the bill will add $1.4 trillion to our deficit.

History informs us that in every tax cut over the past 50 years has resulted in the richest of the rich getting ever richer and the wages of pretty much everyone reading this remaining stagnant.

Like-minded friends are wondering, `Why are they screwing us again? How do they think they can get away with it?’

The answer folks is as obvious as the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac’s face.

They’re doing it because they were ordered to do it. They were directed to do it by the richest of the rich of our society, the Charles and David Kochs, the Sheldon Adelsons, the Bob and Rebekah Mercers.

They were required to do it by the fattest of the fat cats demanding a return on their investment.

When congressman Chris Collins called them donors, it’s pretty obvious who he meant.

“My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’ ’’ Collins said in the most impressive lapse of honesty I’ve ever known to come out of Washington.

There have to be Republicans who know there will be a political price for passing the bill – especially in the manner in which they did, cobbling together cutouts and loopholes and exceptions hastily scrawled in the margins of the text. And they have to know how hypocritical they look railing against deficits whenever a Democrat is living in the White House, and then reaching ever deeper into the pockets of our children and grandchildren as soon as a Republican is elected president.

But their calculation is that as bad as they get hurt by voters, they still need the money from the richest of the rich to get re-elected. That’s just the way the game is played today in America’s Age of Plutocracy.

Every independent look at the bill has deemed it another redistribution of wealth from the middle-class (again, you and me) to the richest of the rich among us.

In this case, however, the Republicans who voted for the bill had no choice.

They did only what they were ordered to do.

They’re doing it not for you and me or for the good of the country.

They’re doing it for one reason and one reason only.

They’re doing it for political survival.

The shame of doing it will not be easily erased. It’s up to you and me to make sure it’s not forgotten.

4 thoughts on “Return on Investment

  1. Stick to basketball Dan! Might wanna check ur history on that “last 50 years” statement.

    If it were Jack Kennedy pushing the tax relief bill, feverish Dems like u wud be hailing it as a brilliant populist strategy to afford his denizens the chance to spend more of their own money.

    But always enjoy ur take on hoops!


    1. Glad you found me Teddy and appreciate your comment. In reply to your suggestion I stay in my lane, so to speak, your answer came in one of my first posts titled Why I Bother. And as for your assertion about feverish Dems, Jack Kennedy would never propose a tax bill that took so much money out of the pockets of the working class and gave it to the GOP’s rich donors. And I love that line about “Their own money.” I make money too and pay taxes on it, and if you take into account state taxes, sales taxes and payroll taxes you would know the middle class pays as much or more than the upper crust. You’ve just bought the argument that’s it’s all about income tax, and that’s a shame. But thanks for reading.


  2. Ya, once again, might wanna brush up on your history.

    “The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.”

    The numbers are different, but the concepts are the same. Of course, folks like you probably refuse to accept the premise, which is really closer to a fundamental principle of economics, that higher taxes just get passed through to the consumer. If you have more money in your pocket, it doesn’t go as far when prices rise to account for those higher taxes and greater pressure on profit margins. Oh wait, you probably don’t think Corporations should actually get to make a profit eh?

    So in your world Dan, do you think the rich should fork over 65-91% of their earnings for the general good of the population? How much is enough for you?


    1. The defenders of our nation’s slide into plutocracy, such as you Teddy, always mention the tax burden on the rich. The problem is you only mention the federal tax burden. Americans pay more than income taxes. They pay state taxes, sales taxes and payroll taxes. Studies show that in total they do not pay more taxes than others. Listen, I have no trouble with fabulous wealth. It proves our country is great. My problem is with those who take their fabulous wealth and plow in back into our political system to rig the gears in a way they will always get what they want when they want it. The gap between the richest of the rich and everyone else has climbed steadily over the past 50 years and the middle class is cradering into the abyss. You’re apparently OK with that. I’m not. But thanks for reading.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s