Tweet
photo by Gage Skidmore
I really can’t believe I’m writing this, but Michael Gerson hits the nail on the head this morning. Stopped clock, blind squirrel, etc., etc.
All those few, however, seemed to be in attendance at CPAC, determined to sharpen an ideological debate. In the name of constitutional purity, they propose a great undoing. Not just the undoing of Obamaism. Undo Medicare and Social Security. Undo the expansive American global commitments that proceeded from World War II and the Cold War. Undo progressive-era economic regulations. Undo the executive power grab that preserved the union. Undo it all — until America is left with a government appropriate to an isolated, 18th-century farming republic.
This is a proposal for time travel, not a policy agenda. The federal government could not shed these accumulated responsibilities without massive suffering and global instability — a decidedly radical, unconservative approach to governing.
Exactly. They are radicals. But this is exactly where the right is today — and not just the CPAC teabaggers.
Look at Paul Ryan’s plan to scrap Social Security and Medicare. Listen to Jim DeMint at CPAC, suggesting that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Listen to Mike Huckabee, calling for the United States to withdraw from the UN. Look at Steve King’s efforts to repeal labor laws like Davis-Bacon. Consider the right’s decidedly unconstitutional zeal for torture. And remember, the John Birch Society was one of the sponsors of CPAC this year.
These aren’t fringe players in the Republican Party — they’re its leaders. And it’s a scandal that the national media still treat these people like they’re perfectly reasonable, responsible members of the opposition.
94 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Has everyone joined the coffee party on facebook? Live chat at the WaPo in 20 minutes.
People like Gerson and David Brooks will make little digs at the crazies here and there, but they’ll never admit that they control the Republican Party, and they’ll never leave the Republican Party no matter how bad it gets.
Part of this is because they’re ideologues, but another part of it is that they were hired as conservatives. If they gave up on the Republicans, they’d have to be fired, because their hiring was forced by outside pressure from conservative crazies. The crazies already are suspicious of Brooks anyway.
They’re really like political commissars installed at the Post. In the long run, they answer to the conservative movement, not to the Post (which seems to be going under anyway). Their job is to make the Republican / conservative line seem as appealing as possible to educated, civilized people. They aren’t expected to convince most of their readers, but just to shave off off a tiny percentage of the Democrats normal support from that demographic. (In the same way, Republican outreach to Jews or to black Americans isn’t intended to turn those groups around, but just to reduce the Democratic advantage with them.)
We don’t exactly have a state-controlled press, but the major media are powerfully influenced by unhealthy forces which aren’t really publicly known.
Also, look at Hutchison’s ads about fighting ‘government takeover of health care’ – the same health care she enjoys; then there’s Perry’s ads that advertise he ‘turned down’ government funds, yes, the same funds he’s using to rebuild the governor’s mansion.
Not quite accurate.
If the Republicans were willing to withdraw the US commitment to military bases ’round the world and a military budget bigger than the combined budgets of the rest of the world, Congress wouldn’t have passed a defense budget in a week.
Facebook coffee party.
That’s a pretty big mischaracterization to describe DeMint’s (accurate) statement that the original constitution did not allow a federal income tax (hence the need for the 16th amendment) as “suggest[ing]that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.”
If I say “we needed to pass the 19th amendment to give women the vote,” I’m not suggesting that women’s suffrage is unconstitutional.
Michael Gerson should be in prison.
The media aren’t calling them out because they see themselves as upper-class also, if not actually lords.
The GOoPers think that if we go back to the 18th century, they’ll be lords of their manors: counties with real counts, states with governors who are dukes and princes. THey have no idea how bad it was, how little most people had – a lot of the guys who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution were land-rich, not money-rich.
You’d prefer taxing everything else, the way they did then, including food and legal documents?
That’s why they wrote in the ability to amend. They knew things change.
Live Chat.
The bottom line is that the people proposing these ideas at places like CPAC don’t have any idea what they are talking about. It’s like me saying, “Let’s build space colonies” without any notion of how much it will cost or if it’s even possible. Pie in the sky thinking.
Except, it’s not a scandal. Who’s facing any kind of censure for it? Nobody. It is not a scandal. That’s a real problem.
How ironic for a group primarily self-characterized by their upright fiscal responsibility.
Funny how money tanks every single time Rs get the rein.
In a word: “Sedition.”
That’s not hyperbole. Look it up.
The Constitution provides for revision. Therefore revisions accomplished in accordance with revision provisions are Constitutional. Any other bullshit on that subject is just that. Bullshit.
What they really want to terminate is cooperation that leads to majority rule.
Yup!! This person needs to read the Constitution and see for it’s self how it has change mechanism built into it… Some people are sure ignorant of the Document we use to govern our country by… dumb fuck if ya ask me… Where the Fuck do they get their education from. Cracker Jacks Box?:? Just like their license to drive….sigh…
The thing about Gerson is that he, like most institutional Republicans, is totally on board with multinational corporatism, which is why the isolationist nature of the teabaggers scares him.
I wasn’t saying anything about the wisdom of a federal income tax, I was just noting that the original poster’s characterization of DeMint’s statement was way off the mark.
What Gerson failed to note is that all of the proposed occured, what would be left standing that was not there in the 18th century are the corporations. They, of course, would emerge as the new noble class and the rest of us serfs.
Time travel, huh? Well, some of the tea-partiers are dressed for the 18th Century already.
Neither I, nor DeMint, have been saying that the income tax is currently unconstitutional. The only point I was making was that the original post was completely mischaracterizing the linked quote, that’s it.
Given that there is, in fact, a pretty large loony conspiracy population out there that denies the validity of the 16th amendment, tarring DeMint with the tax-denier label was pretty reckless.
blue texan, that is one of the most cognisant observation of the current “republican party” I have seen to date
And when the time travel is back to the desired destination…well…
;>)
Nothing to see here, folks, move along now.
IMO this is just more of the same old Kabuki show. Some corporately paid mouthpiece stands up on his hind legs and brays out something that isn’t completely certifiably lunacy and/or ugly nasty racist hate speech, and we’re supposed to…. what? Applaud?
This kind of drivel makes me feel like I’m at some pre-school parent-teacher meeting, where the teacher shows me my kid’s drawing, and of course, I go: why, Johnnie, that’s fantastic! Look at what a good artist you are. Well done, son!
Needless to say, behaving this way with a child in pre-school is appropriate and hopefully builds the child’s self-esteem, etc.
But Gerson and the likes of Brooks are – wait for it – long past pre-school age, and the poopy crap that comes of their pie-holes is no longer worthy of any praise. In fact, it’s not really worthy of notice (not to diss the post, just saying…).
Eff Gerson and horse he rode in on. He’s a paid whore put out there to lull the masses into to buying horseshit as if was gold or something. Nothing he says has any value, worth or is deserving of notice or attention.
say illinois libertarian, I have a question for you;
why are the regulations libertarians think are valuable any more important then the regulations progressives think are valuable?
for instance, ownership, without regulations you can’t have ownership
or “sanctity of contract”, without regulations there is no such thing
or the court system, do you believe there should be no justice for people who can’t buy it?
or laws that protect property
even the concept of a monetary system is a set of regulations, without regulations there can only be a personal barter system and might is right
why are those regulations ok, but the regulations that force industry to pay their own bills, clean their cancer out of my moms water, their bronchitis out of my kids air, why are those regulations not ok?
just asking
I think i need to change my moniker, it attracts an unexpected amount of hostility, and prevents people from actually reading my posts.
I agree that it’s an accurate depiction of the current Republics. The so-called traditional media, as we know, is a wholelly owned subsidiary of Big Daddy WarkBuck$, Inc. So the corporate propoganda that passes for “media” in this country is never, ever gonna call these clowns out bc there just doing what their corporate lords & masters want.
If they sound certifiably looney? Oh well… as long as it distracts the masses from getting out their pitchforks and revolting, who cares who says what ridiculous babble?
quite the contrary;
the original constitution DID allow a federal income tax THROUGH the amendment process, you ansewred your own question
unless you are trying to say the amendment process is unconstitutional
there are many things that were once illegal that were made legal and vice versa
So why did DeMint say, “that sounds like a good way to limit the size of the federal government to me”?
good point, I do hate the propaganda economic libertarians make believe they believe, they don’t believe in deregulation they believe in takcing away the laws that have them paying their own bills but keeping the laws that protect a proffit they should not enjoy without paying those bills
I agree with social libertarians, not economic libertarians
could you answer my question though?
sorry hit the wrong key.
Michael Gerson is scared SHRTless of the Tea Partiers. And so are the centrists, the fake progressives and the corporatists. And the military-industrial complex. It would be sad to see this blog coming down on that side. Very sad.
The Tea Partiers will not end Social Security OR Medicare. The elderly will never let them, especially being republicans. But Obama’s health plan comes closes to doing just that by draining it and installing “Health Coordinators”. Closer than anything else.
But what they COULD do is get us out of our ridiculous and deadly worldwide commitments. They are going to implode anyway because there is no more money for them and we do not wish to support them anymore. It COULD end the oppressive tax system and get rid of the FED and get us out of the UN. And HALF THE Tea Party MOVEMENT IS AGAINST TORTURE AND WAR, even though Rush, Beck, and the idiot mentioned here, and apparently this blog, hope and pray that it is not so. But that is what really scares them most of all.
THIS TREND IS ALREADY HAPPENING IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE WORLD, some of it gradual, some of it violently. Its not going back the other way. World governments have completely lost the public trust in every way. So has the corporate community.
What most people believe now is that we have a rogue government, and a rogue world “government” that has to be stopped. Anyone watching the clown show in Washington that can’t understand why it is happening needs to realize the truth. Its rogue. Its totally corrupt at its core. Duh.
The days of progressivism ended when JFK’s head was exploded in Dallas. When progressivism was high, people had hopes in what the government could do. We are now looking backwards at what actually happened…
We now live in a post-progressive world. A post-modern world where the hope of machines ended up in slave factories and war machines. Social programs ended up slush funds. Military interventions went from defending the world against fascism to defending fascism. Our taxing authority, once used to run the government, now hands our money over to Wall Street and other crooks, and defends it before our very eyes. In our post-modern world we saw our government incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a horrific bomb, and then defended it. That was when progressivism started to die. Dallas finished it.
I went to Goodwill today looking for something for my yard. I saw so many people just sitting in chairs, not shopping. It dawned on me that they had no place to go. And I realized that the Obama government probably wont be helping the situation anytime soon. I left very upset. Gd dam america.
These people fail to realize that in there quest for the days of yore, the rest of the world will make us eat their dust.
Give me a break. How was this post in any way ‘applauding’? If Gerson wrote that water freezes at 32 degrees, are we supposed to disagree with him because he’s Michael Gerson?
From my standpoint, it’s quite useful to have a former Bushie call the CPAC/GOP/Teabaggers radicals. If you don’t see the utility of that, I’m afraid I can’t help you.
You cannot be serious. When people say something is unconstitutional, they mean “currently unconstitutional.” It would be absurd to append “unless an amendment is passed” every time you state that something is prohibited by the constitution. The way you are speaking, absolutely nothing is unconstitutional; slavery is constitutional, denying women the vote is constitutional, making all abortions illegal is constitutional, at least in the sense that all of the foregoing could be made constitutional through amendment.
Looks to me like Blue Texan has it right. Not that he needs me to defend him.
Oh, it is not your name that gets you what you percieve as hostilty, it is your comments.
illinoislibertarian
you missed my point entirely
we are talking about an amendment that was passed not one that is yet to be passed
you are insinuating the federal income tax IS unconstitutional, I am saying it IS constitutional
with this
the way you are posting makes it look like you are saying it is not constitutional when clearly it is (there is an amendment after all)
what you meant to say is that it WASN’T unconstitutional but now it is
am I right about that?
“I am saying the law IS constitutional, you are saying it is not”
No, everyone involved, you, me, and DeMint, have been saying that a federal income tax is constitutional. If you look at DeMint’s actual quote “We call that contract the Constitution and, when it was signed, it didn’t even allow a federal income tax — that sounds like a good way to limit the size of the federal government to me.” It is obvious that he was only commenting on the fact that original consitution required an amendment to allow a federal income tax.
As for his comment “that sounds like a good way to limit the size of the federal government to me,” it looks to me like he would support doing away with the federal income tax, which could be done either by repealing the federal law, or passing an amendment. Even if he supports this (admittedly radical) idea, it doesn’t mean he is denying the current constitutionality of the federal income tax.
Are we in agreement?
And here’s DeMint also suggesting Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019922.php
Do you have any links in which he is suggesting that federal income tax is currently prohibited by the constitution? If so, you might want to swap out the original link.
then I misunderstood your writing or you wrote something you didn’t know you wrote;
too late you to edit that but I see you didn’t mean to post it that way you meant to say, [suggesting the federal income tax was not constitutional before the amendment]
to which I would obviously agree
as far as the federal income tax, for the first years of our country we funded everything through tariff
I have no problem funding our government through tariff, in fact the boston tea party was a demonstration AGAINST removing tariff
now, in a democracy, when we vote for projects we are also voting to fund them, the government grows at the request of “the people”
this is a government “by the people, for the people”
there is nothing wrong with the people growing the government if that’s what they want, that is the way our government was created after all
as a matter of fact, the governemt has to grow with the gnp, there is no choice there
in the end, if the people want federal programs they are going to hav to pay for them
those doing business in the country don’t have to pay for these projects, they can go to a milton friedman country and not pay for anything
You’re obviously not too familiar with DeMint. Of course he wants to abolish the federal income tax. Did you not see my question above?
Here’s what he says about the 16th amendment.
Do you think DeMint believes the constitution is “comprehensively hostile to economic freedom”?
Republicans are not the “loyal” opposition but rather a treasonous 5th column that would destroy the nation and it’s people in their insatiable lust for power and money. That the corporate media, the Katie Courics, Bryan Williams, Mara Liassons, Charlie Gibsons, ad infinitum would treat these barbaric reactionaries as “legitimate” alternatives makes them accomplices to these criminals.
My post at 6 was quoting from Blue Texan’s original post. I have never questioned the constitutionality of the federal income tax. The only point I have been trying to make is that DeMint never questioned the constitutionality of the federal income tax either. He made an accurate historical statement, and he was wildly mischaracterized in the linked text.
if a Republican doesn’t like a program , it must be unconstitutional
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post available: Obama To Use Federal Procurement To Encourage Pro-Worker Policies
He obviously thinks that at least one amendment to the constitution is comprehensively hostile to economic freedom.
You do see that it’s a little ridiculous to quote DeMint speaking about the passage of the 16th amendment, and then say that he is suggesting that the income tax is unconstitutional.
He obviously acknowledges the validity of the 16th amendment; he isn’t happy with it, but he isn’t pretending it doesn’t exist.
I think you were confusing someone thinking that the income tax is bad policy with thinking that the income tax is unconstitutional.
by definition
Most libertarians I’m acquainted with will argue that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional, regardless of the text of the 16th Amendment:
These same people advocate a return to the gold standard, abolishment of the Fed, etc.
Radicals on the right… no shit. How bout you radicals on the left – you all do realize you’re radicals too, correct?
I’m a radical on the left. You got a problem with that?
Case in point…
Those would be stupid libertarians. You can hate the federal income tax and think it is horrible policy while still acknowledging that the 16th amendment exists and was ratified.
They’re also really into a fully-automated everything about the society’s systems as it makes fascism by a few for the many sooooo easy. This includes the erection of a real-time, biometric police state like the UK.
Here’s an excellent article on that point: “Can DNA Falsely Convict You? The Chances Are Higher Than You Think” (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/26/840574/-Can-DNA-Falsely-Convict-You-The-Chances-Are-Higher-Than-You-Think).
This is just another attempt to usurp the Constitution and American Justice System with its centuries-old, redundant procedures run by thinking, feeling human beings for protecting and enforcing “innocent until proven guilty.” Technology is no substitute for human oversight, judgment and accountability EVER.
Actually no… it balances the loons on the right and gives us a center.
Stupid is a condition.
Ignorance is a choice.
Define leftist radical.
perris, we went back and forth the other day on your contention that the Boston Tea Party was a demonstration against the removal of the tea tax, and then you bailed out, and apparently did not read my last comment on the point.
There was a lot of history leading up to that moment, but the last step was when Parliament ordered its creature, the East India Company, to sell tea at an artificially reduced price, well below the prior price including an overt tax. It was a ploy, because the real dynamic was that Parliament was trying to assert its right to tax the colonists AT ALL. Parliament was gambling that, since the new price was below the prior price, the colonists would not object to the fact that the tea tax was still embedded in that price, and thus the principle of Parliament’s right to tax would be affirmed. But the colonists saw through this ruse, focused on the tax that was still part of the reduced price, and thus the Boston Tea Part was their rejection of the principle that Parliament could tax them at all. No sane person would rebel against a true removal of tax.
the colonists not only saw the “ruse”, they refused the tea because the tax was removed, claiming it was becuase they “saw through the king’s ruse” is self serving, the fact remains, they refused entry of the product because the king removed taxes
they had NO problem with taxes if they were represented before they were passed, to which you already know, and already know they were not represented
we on the other hand are reprented, we are the very people who elect those that pass the taxes
there is no similarity to the points you tried to make the other day
in case you didn’t know it, the federal government was funded with tariffs for the birth of this nation, the founders clearly liked the idea of taxes, so long as those being taxed had a say in the affairs
for instance, even in a tariff, the company doesn’t have to pay those taxes, they can do business else where
Then obviously we need MORE radicals on the left to balance/cancel you guys out, because obviously the balance is now tilted to the right.
You’ve got the house, senate and presidency… how much more do you need? If you can’t get it done with that then you don’t deserve to do so.
No, keep it. It is a good message.
At the turn of the 20th century women’s sufferage was considered radical.
In the first decade of the 21st century Medicare-for-all is considered radical.
For me the MFA is common sense, not radical at all, and in keeping with “…the general welfare…” of Americans.
The right wants to go back to the days when they could beat women and children with impunity.
if you mean “radical” the way fox means radical, yes, that’s us
if you mean “radical” by “outside the norm”, no, we are main stream here, the things we beleive and fight for the vast majority of people also believe
but again, corporate media has defined the majority as “far left” or “radical left” and if that’s the way you mean it then yes
I give up. I suggest you Google it, like I did, and read the references you find. In any event, my point the other day was not reliant upon the details of the history, but on the over-arching principle that the people can rebel against an unresponsive government, a la the Declaration of Independence. I would certainly hope that we would not really disagree as to that point.
You really don’t see the game DeMint is playing here?
No hard and fast definition, but simply just about everything I see championed on this site. Radical right would be just about everything I see Limbaugh and Beck espousing.
We don’t have shit. We have a government of neoliberals who believe that elites should own and control everything. We, the public, are thrown a bone now and then and participate in sham elections so as to lend some legitimacy to the idea of democracy.
You’ve got the corporations, the corporate media, the Supreme Court, the military/industrial complex, and the opportunity/willingness to abuse the filibuster rule. And renewed ability to buy politicians of both parties. Clearly, we need a lot more.
We have no disagreement. Personally, I could live with true centrism. But I’m perfectly willing to fight radical right fascism with anything I’ve got.
very surprised you would say that, most people enjoy their federal projects and want them funded, roads, clean air, electricity, parks, water to the house
most sane people do indeed rebel against the removal of beneficiary taxes, those that pave our roads, clean our air, fund our research
as far as the tea party, you should read a first hand account;
thom harmann goes on, have a read I think you’ll enjoy
Like I said, Medicare-for-all is considered to be radical today. If you believe everything championed here is radical I don’t think I’d want to live anywhere governed by your ideas.
great point and in fact, medicare at , even the elderly was considered radical back then and fought tooth and nail
I wonder how many people would of the wealthy would have those riches today if they or their parents had to care for their respective parents and grandparents in their old age
“Look at Paul Ryan’s plan to scrap Social Security and Medicare. Listen to Jim DeMint at CPAC, suggesting that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Listen to Mike Huckabee, calling for the United States to withdraw from the UN. Look at Steve King’s efforts to repeal labor laws…”
…and now look at Obama run into their arms with Simpson and Alice Rivlin mixing it up in favor of SS and Medicare cuts.
OK, you’ve succeeded in raising a doubt in my mind. I’ll have to look into it further, but I see what you’re saying now, and will concede the historical point conditionally. Speed reading has its limitations lol.
But, as I said, my real argument was on the principle of rebelling against an unresponsive government, as we are faced with today, and I stand by that agument. Do we agree on that? If not, please re-read the Declaration of Independence and tell me why.
Meanwhile the majority of Americans, who support the PO, are ‘radical lefties’. Psht.
I don’t think he’s being cagey, I think he’s pretty explicitly calling for less (ideally zero?) federal income taxation.
What I don’t think he’s doing is pandering to the conspiracy theorists who maintain that the 16th amendment is invalid. Based on the two quotes you have cited, I don’t see much room for speculation as to the validity of the amendment or its ratification.
Is that what you thought he was doing, using buzzwords to pander to conspiracy theorists; something similar to those who provide aid and comfort to the birthers without explicitly endorsing them? I honestly just see someone who is bemoaning an amendment he disagrees with, and who wishes that the law would be changed.
How many times do I get to vote on this?
Colour me gone.
Namaste
Re the taxes you cite, they are not levied by an external entity, so they would not apply to our discussion.
exactly. If it is so radical to oppose social security, why do many democrats oppose it with their actions and not just words like the republicans. The republicans being owned by the insurance companies post was similarly absurdists, since the democrats are too.
but but of course!! they know best… like that show
FatherRepublikins know Best!!hey bb are in the rain or the snow??
Well, in fact the 16′th amendment was not required to legalize income tax, so he’s just plain wrong. The 16′th amendment was required to tax unearned income in the way it was being taxed. That is a long haul from saying that income tax is unconstitutional
“Those would be stupid libertarians. You can hate the federal income tax and think it is horrible policy while still acknowledging that the 16th amendment exists and was ratified.”
What sort of libertarian are you? It is unfortunate that the progressives do not know what libertarianism is.. it is down right intellectually criminal that folks who label themselves libertarians don’t know what libertarianism is.
Being libertarian and acknowledging the existence of the 16th amendment is no more controversial than being a libertarian and acknowledging the existence of the IRS. I don’t think a person’s view on the current constitutionality of federal income taxation says anything about their ideology or political affiliation, I think it says much about their connection to reality.
Actually, no. Michael Gerson committed war crimes, developing propaganda that was used by the Bush/Cheney cabal to lie us into war. Unless you want to overturn Nuremberg, Gerson is a war criminal who should be in prison for his crimes.
Nothing whatsoever radical about that. In fact, the contrary view is downright un-American.
Uh, the colonies were applying the tea tax to themselves too, so doesn’t your parallelism fall there?
I did not ask you what is controversial.. I wanted to know – what sort of libertarian are you? I want to understand what sort of libertarian clings to the constitution – and has a frame of ethics subservient to whatever is written in the constitution?
(If you did not know this already, not all libertarians are constitutionalists, so you could be a constitutionalist-libertarian)
Is it possible that you are not a libertarian at all.. I suggest calling yourself constitutionalist (which is quite different than libertarian). Especially if you do not know the two absolute founding principles of libertarianism and if you disagree with either of them – for sake of intellectual honesty, please stop calling yourself libertarian.
I’m a “I took a few philosophy classes in undergrad and thought John Mills was cool” libertarian.
As far as being a constitutionalist goes, whatever have I written that would lead you believe I am anything of the sort? I haven’t said a single normative thing in this entire thread.
Regardless of whether you view the constitution as valid or binding, it is objectively true that the current federal income tax would not have been permitted by its original terms, and that the current federal income tax is permitted by the 16th amendment.
Nothing in there speaks to any policy views, or any general views on the role of the constiution or taxation in society.
Michael Gerson’s piece in the Washington post is entirely motivated by Ron Paul’s win in the CPAC straw polls.
This isn’t a Ron Paul rah rah rant so please be patient.
First, if CPAC is looking for a return to the Gilded Age then they can calm down because we are already there:
1920′s: Top 1% earned 70% of national income, Bottom 90% earned 16%
1960′s: Top 1% earned 11% of national income, Bottom 90% earned 64%
2000′s: Top 1% earned 65% of national income, Bottom 90% earned 12%
Source: “Wealth Disparities in U.S. Approaching 1920s Levels” on seekingalpha
Now, given that the rich pretty much own everything again, there’s very little left to steal from the poor. Sure, they are targeting Social Security, pensions and 401K plans but after that there’s just not much bang for the buck in screwing over the poor.
So what are rich folks going to do? Steal from each other.
As for Ron Paul, his views step on 2 establishment pillars: he wants to end the FED and he wants to stop wasting money on overseas bases and imperial wars.
The MIC and FED both redistribute a ton of money, and certainly not in any sort of equal manner. Thus the FED and MIC now have some powerful enemys coming out of the woodwork. Enter Ron Paul, the Birchers and others.
So Michael Gerson’s article just represents one group of rich elite name calling on another group of rich elite. And neither group in any way represents the interests of the middle class or the poor. Neither group is progressive. One group only wants to take away half of your Social Security and the other group wants to take it all…. to hell with all of them.
Then you are not a libertarian. John S. Mills barely qualifies as a libertarian himself.. don’t understand why you thought he was one. He is more of a contemporary liberal.
You want to read a libertarian philosopher.. try reading Lysander Spooner, Murray N. Rothbard, Herbert Spencer, Leo Tolstoy and Robert Leferve.
Well, your both wrong. There was never a SCOTUS ruling that income tax was unconstitutional. There was a ruling that some provisions of a specific income tax law were unconstitutional and the 16′th amendment changed that. However, that is very different from the factually wrong, rhetorical comments of DeMint and so your critique of this post is misplaced. Get your facts straight before you try to sound smart.
Sorry, BT, I wasn’t dismissing your post or saying you shouldn’t discuss stuff like this. I liked your post. I was being cynical about pundits like Gerson & Brooks. I enjoy your insights; just find that most of what any pundits say anymore is just plain worthless in the ongoing kabuki show that passes for “government.”
Thanks, Teddy. Your clarity is brilliant.
Nuremburg is “settled law” isn’t it.
Propagandizing the American public is supposed to be illegal. And yet that’s what BushCo SET OUT TO DO and did. When it all started and I was without FDL I was yelling at my tv thinking I had lost my mind.
None of this is radical.
All of this is patriotic.
The opposite view is un-American.
Why do all these Americans hate America?