Conservative’s tax folly (Its redistribution- not retribution)

Posted on September 27, 2010 by


As this election season reaches its theatrical peak, we must think about the events that have and will continue to present themselves. We have seen the rise of a movement that is vague and misguided about what the consequences of the positions that hold as their platform. As the tea party continues their takeover of the GOP, we have seen the first cases of “buyer’s remorse” leaving many GOP regulars to question “who are these people” and how has this insurgency taken over the party.

I believe that this mass “movement” is an expression of the corporate ruling class’ desire to manipulate the masses in an effort to shut down government by eliminating social spending, increase military spending and fundamentally change the American political system to one more congenial to their aims. The members of the TEA party are often portrayed, in my estimation, as little more than just stooges, social misfits, Kool-Aid drinking “true believers”, and bigots.  

The funding sources of these different organizations are not often traceable and the public  should be able to know who is bankrolling these purported  grassroots organizations. The Koch brothers who rank among the richest persons in the nation have spent untold millions in an effort to reduce the tax “burden” that they are required to pay for the privileged opportunity to increase the net worth of their inherited family fortune. Taxes should not be viewed as a punishment, taxes are the price of admission to a civil society. If someone wants to pay no tax and then live with the consequences, I recently heard of this little tax haven called Somalia. When no one pays taxes  the results may appear similar to this. Without funding,  government cannot continue to provide the collective services that people aren’t able to as individuals.

I heard a recording of an interview with Ben Stein complaining about how he felt he was being punished for being successful. The man actual states that his money should not have to be  so “heavily” taxed to support government and that the less fortunate have  not earned the right to his money.

The recent example of  judicial activism  on behalf of  corporations, the Citizens United case, by the Conservative Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (makes it sound like a close baseball game, it was not ever close) has given a voice to corporate persons who have for so long been forced to suffer in silence. The significance of the ruling is that corporations to express their vote will do so by spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns (bribes) and political action committees also known as PACs. Corporations understand very well that advertising is a powerful tool. They spend a large percentage of their budgets in pursuing a marketing strategy that they believe will increase the profit margin, why wouldn’t they do the same in the political environment if it was believed it would bring a return.  This torturing of the fourteenth amendment is a travesty. We cannot pass the ERA amendment, guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens but corporations will have a special right carved out for itself. In reality the corporate board receives many votes; everytime you purchase a product, you vote with the purse. And do not forget it only took less than 29,000 votes out of over a  1/4 million possible to be the GOP senate nominee in Delaware. 

During congressional debates, Democratic party members, such as Senator Schumer, have tried to introduce legislation in an effort to provide disclosure of how these new mega-citizens (multinational corporations) donate money to politicians and PACs, and more importantly the anonymous funded mouthpiece foundations (the 527) that have flourished recently.  Corporations have decided this anonymous route is the safer way, which is ironic if you think about it. They wish to express its new voice from the safety of anonymity. Remember what happened to Target. The Republicans have used the filibuster to halt these attempts, in accordance with their corporate master’s wishes, and in fear of how the American public may react if they realized that by giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires it simply adds to the deficit, so the middle class is being taxed to give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut. Talk about ideology not being a good idea. It all seems a little confusing because it was meant to be confounding. Because corporations cannot act out on their own, they require a movement that appears at first glance to be an independent movement and the Taxed Enough Already party seems to fit the bill. Emotions are running high individuals that personally identify with this movement. The herd mentality of this self-identifying “individualist” has easily been manipulated by well-placed spokespeople to plant the message the corporatist wish vocalized “independently”.

I see this expression as the first real tangible evidence that our democracy has died. The system that remains is oligarchic in nature and more than likely the true beginnings of fascism of a corporate nature. Instead of a charismatic personality as the leader we are seeing the multinational corporation image making machine developing a branded corporate persona, i.e Naomi Klein. Our two-party system will be slighted and replaced with a multiparty system of Nike Party, Apple party, etc. Our new CEO Senators will decide policy not based on the human element, but rather what does it for the bottom line. This will become more evident as we see politicians who are former CEOs making decisions that favor business, especially their industries, and not concerning themselves with harm done to the citizen. This transition from democracy to oligarchy to fascism will not happen overnight; it will manifest itself in fits and pauses over the coming decade as corporations exert a newly purchased and enlarging “voice”.

The real irony of the tea party is the name that they have chosen, the believe that the are modeling themselves after the Boston Tea Party. Rather they do not understand the impetus of the historical event that occurred in the early founding of the country.  The leaders of the Boston tea party were protesting the monopoly imposed on them by the legal government of America, located in Britain, through the East Indian Tea Company, one of the first corporations. It wasn’t about taxes; it was about corporate dominance of the economy.  The Tea party movement will be short-lived, once the political realities of being leaderless sets in, the movement will go one of two ways: they will find enough organization to appoint a leader or possibly one will find them, or two they will devolve into a “We the People” type-party drawing fewer and fewer votes. I believe it will be the latter. But compromise will be a part of their new vocabulary.

But for now it is an avenue for pumping obscene copious amounts of money into an already polluted system of campaign finance. They will also have to develop willingness to compromise and negotiate to achieve the ends that they are pursuing

Good governance requires a balance and the “keep your hand out of my pocket” crowd do not care about the welfare of others. How can you govern if what you want is to shrink government to a small enough size to drown it in the bathtub, to paraphrased the words of Grover Norquist.