Skip to main content

Wishful Thinking


They aren’t even pretending any more. Trump and his whole kleptocracy clearly intend to grift their way through this whole pandemic, damage be damned.

If he somehow wins re-election, the American Experiment will not be continued. We will face dark times, both as a nation and a species. The planet simply cannot sustain four more years of Trump.

So I need instead to engage in wishful thinking. I need to look past him.

I need to imagine, as I’ve done before, a Trump thrashing this November. And by thrashing I mean Democrats don’t just beat him, they overwhelm the Senate as they did the House in 2018. As I said, wishful thinking.

I will ignore the two months between election and inauguration, which could be the most dangerous two months in the history of the republic. If Trump loses, he knows he’ll be indicted on more counts than we can count. So he’ll spend that “transition” time trying anything and everything to save his own neck. As there is no bottom to his villainy, the question will be how deep a hole he digs us into by January.

But let’s wishfully think we can somehow get to January intact, with a wounded but still functional federal government. What then? What will be the agenda? How do we take yes for an answer?

We say yes to taxing and spending.

Spending? We all know there are massive needs, long-underfunded. The virus, and the depression it precipitates, will add a huge new layer of need, on top of the already urgent demands of infrastructure and environment. So yes, there will be spending. For a hole this deep, and needs this immediate, Democrats are surely looking north of $10 trillion over the next year.

How do we pay for that? Where will the money come from?

As always, it will come from three sources: taxes, borrowing, and cost cutting. How we get to any combination of these will be a battle royal in the first hundred days of the new administration.

Cost cutting will not be on the table, the inevitable Republican bloviation notwithstanding. Political deals will be made and resources will shift. Costs will be shuffled around to whack any moles that pop up. But an overall drop in government expenditures is unthinkable. We won’t be saving, we’ll be spending.

And we’ll be borrowing. On a colossal scale. For some reason, other countries are still willing to lend us money, even with interest rates close to zero. They still see the U.S. government as a safe place to park their money, and they are, in effect, paying us to let them keep it here. So unless they change their minds — and seeing our response to the pandemic, they might — they will keep buying billions and billions in T-bills, treasury notes, and other government-issued debt. 

This borrowing orgy will drive our deficit into the stratosphere. And strangely, we’re already seeing — wait for it — bipartisan support for deficit spending. Bipartisan. That’s not a typo. We’ll see what comes of it, but there is no doubt borrowing will be front and center.

But the real fight will be about taxation. Our revenue situation as a country was severely crippled before the pandemic. That $2 trillion tax scam Republicans rammed through in 2017 already meant we were deeply overdrawn, kicking the can down the road for no reason beyond simple greed.

Now the pandemic is running up a tab that we’ll need billionaires and large corporations to pick up. Both groups have had license to plunder for far too long. Even they should understand that the pandemic is an existential issue — that their own future solvency could depend on the survival of a working society. They should be kicking in voluntarily (and to be fair, some are). But we can’t rely on their good will.

There needs to be a major clawback of that $2 trillion tax scam, and it can’t stop there.

There must be higher tax brackets for higher incomes, and that includes corporations. Corporate taxation is a running joke. Too many companies play fast and loose with the tax laws. Too many end up paying nothing. Elizabeth Warren has been screaming about this for years. And she has the receipts. She knows exactly what they’ve been getting away with. Which is why she scares them so much.

Speaking of Warren, her wealth tax would come in handy right about now. Billionaires know as well as we do that their wealth is obscene. That they need to give back to the society that made their fortunes possible. The good ones should welcome this. The bad ones won't get a choice.

There are other forms of taxation we’ve yet to try. My favorite is the transaction tax, which takes less than a penny per dollar from the purchase of any stock or bond. It could raise many billions per year — which we can definitely use — and it would only be paid by investors. Who will surely howl in pain. Let them.

If any good is to come of this hideous crisis, we need to see an aggressive tax-and-spend agenda on all fronts — virus, healthcare, infrastructure, environment. It'll be the New Deal on steroids. Everybody’s in. Everybody puts up their fair share. At this point, anything less makes no sense. 

As I said, wishful thinking.


Berkley MI

Tuesday 5/19/20

 

 

Comments

  1. I wish it weren't true but you sure spelled it out correctly. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Tax and spend" is, of course, a Republican propaganda phrase meant to make Democrats appear wasteful. And your Rant is intended to desensitize the reader to the necessary "spending" in the future. I think another approach might be to challenge that frame by highlighting the difference between spending and investing: going to a movie is spending, putting money in a college account is investing. "Spending" on infrastructure, education, healthcare etc is investing, which pays a huge dividend. There is research which shows that every dollar from the 1944 GI Bill returned $7 to the economy (https://thehill.com/special-reports/defense-july-2009/51771-new-gi-bill-long-term-investment-in-veterans). Corporate tax breaks without requiring reinvestment in the company, which allow a CEO to buy a yacht or a private island, is spending. We will need massive tax investments, for sure.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling