That Tax Cut Talking Point

I don’t understand. That’s not meant as snark or criticism of this post –I don’t get it. Is the only point then to pass something that eliminates Obamacare even if it makes most people, including many of their own voters, miserable? How do they gain from this?

Oh, they’ll bemoaning alright – moaning in pain.

Karl Marx wrote in 1845:

Each new class which displaces the one previously dominant is forced, simply to be able to carry out its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society, that is, ideally expressed. It has to give its ideas the form of universality and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.

Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in 1932:

The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterised by universal self-deception and hypocrisy. The unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values, which we have noted in analysing national attitudes, is equally obvious in the attitude of classes. The reason why privileged classes are more hypocritical than underprivileged ones is that special privilege can be defended in terms of the rational ideal of equal justice only, by proving that it contributes something to the good of the whole. Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold.

Marx is talking about power and ideology while Niebuhr is talking about power and privilege. In both cases, the ruling classes equate their good with the good of society as a whole. Both explain why ruling classes often act contrary to reality and commonsense. You know those instances where we say, “If they had just done, this, a no-brainer really, they would have been so much more successful.” Our mistake is in not understanding that they think that their ideology is more important than reality (Marx) or that they simply come to believe their own propaganda (Niebuhr). I look upon both as exercises in bad faith because they place themselves, their propaganda, and ideologies above us the many who make up society and whom in theory, although almost never in practice, they are supposed to serve. But of course, it goes so much beyond all this because our ruling classes more and more are dropping their pretenses. They are out to loot us, plain and simple. Obamacare wanted to nudge us to go die in a ditch. Trumpcare uses a bulldozer. But either way, it is the same ditch, and that ditch, and not the differences in Democratic and Republican talking points is what we the many should keep our focus on.

Mandos: I’m sorry BW but the tax cuts are too small beans for that explanation to fly.

I have kinda gotten used to the fact that what you and I say to one another just goes right on by each of us. That seems to be your pattern with most commenters by the bye and results in a lot of commenter hostility.

Your explanation is that a de minimus tax cut is not enough to motivate “the base” of the Republican Members of Congress. So, you turn to the “sacrifice ritual” as an alternative. But, you don’t explain why a “sacrifice ritual” is valuable enough to “the base” (maybe a somewhat differently construed and populated base than the one posited for the materialistic explanation).

It seems to me that both explanations belong to the same basket of usual Republican motivations cum propagandistic explanations for what they are doing and why. Neither one really explains what they do. Both are part of the propaganda arsenal that they use to rationalize what they do (and what they attack the Dems for doing.)

It is a pretty rare policy that ever gets enacted by acclamation. (OK, surprise attack at Pearl Harbor might be in the class of exceptions.) Any policy has to have supporting propaganda and rationalizations that appeal to a variety of interests and personalities, so you get an array of arguments. Whatever.

My point is about the present context is 1) that the Republican Establishment generally, including the Members of Congress, respond almost exclusively on substance to the very, very rich and powerful. I think it would go without saying, but many of those people are fairly seriously pathological — they exercise little empathy in their daily lives, their greed knows no bounds, they want tax cuts ad infinitum even if they dodge taxes obsessively, and yes they enjoy spectacles of human sacrifice. Like Hillary Clinton, who could “earn” a $100,000 an hour for one of her scintillating little talks for the entertainment of banksters, they begrudge a fry cook or a janitor, $15 an hour.

And, 2) there’s no effective opposition to the Republicans.

It is number 2 that I think is the most important factor and that I think you unaccountably failed to acknowledge fully. Neither the tax cut nor the human sacrifice would be enough, if there was a credible opposition advocating effectively for single-payer socialism (and rallying erstwhile Fox News viewers instead of dismissing them as hopeless while watching Rachel Maddow, multimillionaire, melt down with Putin Derangement Syndrome).

The political ecology has failed and the political class has been reduced to a few varieties of noxious weeds.

The Republicans will do what Republicans always do, for the most minimal reasons, because there is no credible opposition to crowd them off the field for exposing what ought to be their terminal awfulness.

This has to be pointed out, because so many identified with the Democratic Party refuse to acknowledge just how they were conned by Obama and Clinton. If you think Clinton is “normal” politics and Obamacare was, taken as a whole, great policy and great politics, you are both useless and hopeless.

I am not saying Mandos has illusions about the goodness of Obamacare; I am sure Mandos recognizes it was very much a mixed-bag, directly affecting only a relatively small portion of actual voters, and many of those in a not-favorable way.

I am saying that if you want to understand the otherwise unaccountable craziness of the Republican repeal campaign and its seemingly minimal motivators, you have to turn for an explanation to “the dog that didn’t bark” — what is missing from the picture. And, for those identified with the Democratic Party, that means recognizing just how horrible the Democratic Party has been for a generation.

Besides the other reasons above

They do it because they can, to show that they can. It is a demonstration of power, an exercise of power, and I’m sure it feels freakinggood to confound and demoralize their enemies. Politics is a competition, the policies, programs and ideologies are only tools. I can’t think of a historical analogy, but the tax cut is like a monument, a statue, a Roman triumph, a victory parade.

The emotional content of the “ideological” battle is maybe interesting, with Repubs standing for “Greed Rules. Life is Hard.” Lemieux has a picture of Ryan at a whiteboard “More for us. Fuck you.” And don’t we all prioritize our own over strangers? At what point does compassion begin, when do we make our kid wear old sport shoes so the kid in Bangladesh gets a meal?

Clinton and Obama and Democrats say “Compassion and service rule, concern for the least of us, justice and fairness rule. Now let me count my millions.” Democrats are outraged by the dangerous and gauche lack of hypocrisy in Republican rule.

I wrote a little play this summer: Clinton and Trump are sharing a telethon. Clinton is sitting on the floor, looks at us with tearful eyes:”Look at this cute kitten. If you don’t send the Democratic Party lots of money right now, this kitten will be killed on stage by Donald Trump. Only you can save this kitten, its life is in your hands. Don’t you care? At all?”

Trump: “Shit, after that lugubrious blackmail, c’mon, fess up. You want the kitten to die, just to shut the guilt-tripping bitch up. Send your money to Republicans, the kitten will die, and you will show that you are free.”

It ain’t about the fucking kitten.

Some good points, Mandos. I see the Republicans to be in full flower of their ideology which is simply that money is power and when not interrupted (by laws & such), it comes to those who deserve it. They have both money and power right now, and intend to wield both as far as it’ll take them. Sure, the people behind Repub politicians won’t get much from this proposed set of tax breaks, but they spy more business on the horizon, filling the few gaps left by taking out the remaining government programs. That a lot of people will die doesn’t matter because they think there’s enough money to be made even if only half survive. They are without empathy and also operate from a peculiar religion, Evangelicalism.

That religion revolves around authoritarianism and the Protestant Work-Ethic. It includes the belief that the US is a soft weak society, and needs toughening up. Evangelicals may not believe in evolution but are just fine with ‘survival of the fittest’. God will sort it out, see, and most people are going to hell, anyway, and they deserve it because they refuse to obey God (damn useless eaters, lazy heathen). It’s a circle!

I suspect there’s also an element of payback for no longer being a “Christian nation”, which they truly think we were at some point. Some among them secretly long to install a fundamentalist Christian gov’t (a lot like that of Muslim fundamentalists), but most don’t hold much hope for that. More of them, although still not many, think we’re approaching Armageddon.

But most of them, particularly the politicians, are simply personally greedy and self-righteous. Their ideology allows them to go full blast forward, even encourages sociopathic behavior “out in the world”.

The Dem polticians are hardly different, veneered in culture rather than religion. But Clinton is a pious Methodist, and I think for her, at least, there’s not even that nuance to plead.

As I see it, anyway.

You’ve missed the most important things, one of which is the destruction of Medicaid. See Robert Reich’s recent piece.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/24/secret-republican-plan-unravel-medicaid

Tax cut or “tax reform?” The ideological issue being pushed by the Donor Class (both Rs and Ds, though the Rs push it harder) is “tax reform” and that always, always, always involves “lowering the rates and broadening the base.”

Always. Without exception.

That’s basically the underlying approach to what to do with the health insurance law.

The “tax cut for the wealthy” is real enough, and for some, it’s hardly small at all. The increase in costs for ever crappier insurance/health care for the masses is real, too. But you see, that’s what “tax reform” and nearly all of neoLiberal “reform” actions are all about.

They enhance the wealth of the already rich partly by reducing the burden of taxation upon them, while simultaneously costing the middle and lower classes more for less by increasing the burden of taxation on them and reducing amount, kind, and quality of benefits and services they receive for what they pay.

It’s been going on for decades, mostly unopposed by the so-called “left” whose interest in mitigating the bad effects of this “reform” seems to diminish year by year.

The ultimate goal is clear enough: eliminate the tax burden on the wealthy altogether (they will of course volunteer to pay for selected charitable endeavors that serve to enhance their wealth further). All taxes, therefore, should be paid by the Lower Orders (as once was the case, after all), and a portion of those taxes should by right accrue to the benefit of the wealthy, in fact should be paid directly to them as a kind of tribute.

Obamacare is a step toward the kind of “reform” the Donor Class has wanted for many years; for example, it requires payment from the masses and it assures profits for insurance companies, among other features. The benefits and services provided to those paying the charges have been slowly (in some markets quickly) declining, to the point where some people simply can’t use the benefits they supposedly have. Doing nothing at all to Obamacare ensures that trend continues.

The Rs seek to accelerate the trendline exponentially. Not to do the right thing or correct the injustices. No. Not at all. Rather they seek to do the wrong thing, always, and enhance inhumanity and injustice.

It’s an identity thing with them.

The Republicans now apparently want to replace the Obamacare penalty for not getting coverage with a restriction from buying insurance for six months if you fail to maintain continuous coverage.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-healthcare-bill-trumpcare-ahca-details-changes-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

This is presumably “better” than the Obamacare tax penalty because it is not a “tax”. Yay! Thing called tax removed! Ritual proceeds apace.

Like I said before, saying is doing. It’s commutative. Doing is saying. The Republicans are doing something, and they are doing that first and foremost to say something.

According to the CBO scoring of the Senate healthcare bill, the repeal of the Net Investment Tax would cost $172.2 billion over the next ten years (2017-2026) [from Table 2, Sec. 119 of the CBO report, page 44 of the PDF]. Total noncoverage provisions (the non-healthcare aspects of the bill) are estimated at $563.1 billion over ten years [from Table 1, page 41 of the PDF]. In my world, that’s real money. So I don’t get the argument that it is inconsequential.

In other news, Medicaid spending would be cut by $772 billion over the ten year time period and other subsidies would be reduced by $408 billion [from Figure 1, page 5 of the PDF] and 22 million extra people would be left without healthcare insurance coverage. That is Obamacare would leave 28 million without insurance in 2026 and Trumpcare would increase that to 49 million.

Now consider that what they are doing with this is increasing the relative incidence of uninsurance approximately 1.5x-2x. Tens of millions more without insurance than Obamacare. For what? To ask that question is to answer it. The purpose *is* the uninsurance.

@ Mandos

Exactly. If the Rabble want insurance, let them buy it without pesky gov’t interference, preferably the kind that covers nothing and is pure profit for the issuers.

That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

@CP

You seem to be overacting with this rant when you must know that insurers are required by law to pay out 80% of what they take in for medical services. The remaining 20% is divided between administration costs and profit. Insurance moguls are greedy bastards, just look at Warren Buffet, but they are limited in their theft.

I’m surprised how meek the republicans have become, I expected them to kill Obamacare and not replace it. They’re hardly even trying to kill many poor people anymore.

Only in Mandosland is $17 billion a year considered peanuts.

If you had taken my comment in good faith, you would have taken account of the context. From the perspective of the good that the total amount could do, $17billion a year is an enormous amount of money. From the perspective of the US federal budget, it’s large but not huge. From the perspective of dividing it up to give 1%ers a tax cut, it is indeed peanuts.

If that tax cut had been targeted at ordinary wage-earners instead, it could have been something, because it would have been spent and represent some form of economic stimulus. In this form, it is nothing of the kind.

@Mandos

I read a while ago that what growth there is in consumption in the US was driven by the wealthy’s conspicuous consumption. Any relief directed at the wage-earner would go to pay down debt or into savings so no stimulus would result.

Aren’t these tax breaks actually a rolling back of new taxes recently imposed to pay for Obamacare?

By Peter’s logic we should be happy to give the rich more money and forget about bailing out indebted ordinary people. LOLity LOL.

Cutting public health insurance expenditures and letting private insurance throw more people off their plans will free up a lot more money at the top of the economy. Mandos, I think you’re right that the tax cut is small potatoes to its intended recipients, but I also think this amendment puts a lot more money into play than just the tax cuts alone.

Robotpliers: that is a much better point. Everything I’ve read suggests that the oddness and uncertainty of the health care system is an overall economic drag on most other sectors. It’s possible that there is something at the top end of this that is worth it to someone more powerful than everyone else, including most other industries.