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

Iran Plays Rope-a-Dope, and Guess Who’s the Dope

     I n 1974, Muhammed Ali and George Foreman went to Africa to fight for the heavyweight championship of the boxing world. Billed as the “Rumble in the Jungle,” this was widely regarded as a mismatch — Ali was past his prime, while Foreman, the current champ, was seen as a violent force of nature. Ali won, through sheer brilliance. He spent most of the fight with his back against the ropes, arms in front of his face, calmly deflecting anything Foreman threw at his arms or body. Foreman, known for putting away opponents with one punch, spent most of the fight having his blows harmlessly absorbed by Ali’s arms. When Ali was able, when he saw an opening, he “stung like a bee,” taking Foreman by surprise with quick shots to the face. But rather than “float like a butterfly” — his trademark dance-like style — Ali decided instead to stand still, conserve energy, take the abuse, and hit back when he could. Foreman was not ready for this. This was surely...

Farmers are Being Seriously Messed With

L et me say, right up front, that my knowledge of agriculture is minimal. Food grows in supermarkets. But I have done some homework to back up a suspicion of mine, which is that in terms of existential peril wrought by the Trump regime, there is no single group — with the glaring exception of our immigrant population — being bludgeoned as cruelly as the nation's farmers. Yes, there is deep irony in knowing that farmers voted overwhelmingly for Trump, many of them three times. Yes, it’s another FAFO moment — one of many coming fast and furious now. The problem is that we’re talking about our food supply here. We need those farmers — dumbshit Trump voters or not — to keep growing stuff for us to eat too much of. So it is of some concern to all of us that farm bankruptcies are up 36% since Trump took office. Underlying that figure is the grim fact that the market prices of virtually every major crop grown in this country are lower than the costs required to gr...

The Streisand Effect Comes for CBS News

       In 2003, Barbra Streisand — an artist I have long admired — made a ridiculous mistake, one that has echoed through the years. Annoyed that her cliff-top mansion in Malibu had been photographed from the air, and that the resulting photo had been posted online, she decided her privacy had been invaded. So in a fit of pique that we mere mortals can never hope to comprehend, she sued the photographer for $50 million. Never mind that the photo was one of many in an arcane technical collection that was documenting the erosion of the Malibu cliffs. Never mind that if you look at that photo today you wonder how the mansion hasn’t collapsed into the Pacific by now. And never mind that the lawsuit was quickly thrown out of court by a judge who then dinged Streisand for $177,000 in attorney’s fees. Forget all that. What matters about this incident is that before she filed the lawsuit, the photo had been viewed exactly six times online. Once the l...