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

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I