MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell catches the dishonest bait and switch that Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell tried to pawn off on Sunday’s Meet the Press. *
On MTP, McConnell repeatedly dodged and weaved to avoid answering a simple question from host David Gregory, which boils down to this: if you Republicans are so hysterical about the size of US budget deficits and cumulative debt, how do you avoid increasing them by a cumulative $3.2 trillion if you extend all of the Bush era tax cuts?
McConnell’s evasion was to argue the question shouldn’t even be asked because (1) we don’t have to offset costs from already “existing” programs and (2) you should never raise taxes in a recession.
Lawrence debunked the first dodge: the Republican tax cut legislation expires this year, as Republicans planned, precisely to avoid facing the deficit issue. Extending the cuts requires new legislation, so the question is relevant if you contend new costs must be offset to avoid adding to the deficit.
On the second part of the evasion, Lawrence notes McConnell, John Boehner and other Republicans have already signaled that Social Security and Medicare should be on the block to satisfy the deficit reduction hysteria they and foolish Democrats have fostered.
But the full response to this second McConnell evasion comes in the followup interview with David Cay Johnston. You can’t view the tax cut extension issue in isolation. Reducing government revenues while pushing deficit hysteria are not inconsistent in the Republican framework.
No, it’s the core of the Republican governing philosophy to strangle government revenues, so as to starve public interest government that serves the middle class. Drown a minimalist government in a bathtub — but this time, it’s not welfare recipients who take the bath but seniors.
That leaves only McConnell’s argument about not raising taxes during a recession, to which Lawrence and too many Democrats only weakly respond. Putting aside the irony that McConnell is making an essentially Keynesian argument for fiscal stimulus after his party almost unanimously opposed the concept that tax cuts will help boost aggregate demand and spending — he’s wrong on that too.
As most macro economists have noted before, if you’re worried about the effect of taxes on aggregate demand during a recession, it matters where the money goes. (E.g., see comparative multipliers) Who gets the tax cut? And what would they do with it?
Giving nearly $700 billion over ten years to the richest people in America is probably the worst form of economic stimulus; less will be spent to boost the economy, and more will be gambled on Wall Street. It’s just another form of Wall Street bailout, but without even the presumed justification of saving the financial sector.
Reallocating that $700 billion, and especially the next two years’ worth of $70 billion or so, to those much more likely to spend it, would provide 5 times or more economic stimulus. So a policy concerned about the recession would redirect money from the rich to those less well off. For example, Jamie Galbraith and friends have suggested we should augment Social Security payments until we’re closer to full employment.
McConnell and Republicans are thus advocating economic policies that are up-side-down, that would hurt the economy. Instead of protecting the economy in a downturn, their policies would make the economy worse, because the tax cut “stimulus” would be extracted by cutting payments to seniors who spend proportionally more and be given to rich people who spend proportionally less. (That’s part of what David Johnston means when he says McConnell’s ideas would hurt small businesses.) And stealing from seniors to make the rich richer would exacerbate income disparity in the US, which has been getting worse for decades and which some economists suspect may enable financial instability.
So the choice is clear: If you don’t want to worsen the economy, fatten Wall Street, worsen income disparity, make the rich richer and seniors poorer, then for heaven’s sake, don’t vote Republican. And if any Democrat proposes the same Republican agenda, don’t vote for them either.
_________
* The MTP clip O’Donnell used edits out much of McConnell’s non-response. See the rest here. The missing parts are mostly ad hominen attacks on Obama and stonewalling that doesn’t respond to David Gregory’s repeated question.



22 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Good morning, pups. It’s Brooks and Herbert today. In “A Case of Mental Courage” Bobo babbles that the novelist Fanny Burney stared pain in the face, teaching a lesson in character we would do well to recover. It’s typical Bobo crap. Mr. Herbert, in “A Hero Named Bobby,” says the death of Bobby Thomson triggers memories from a lifetime ago.
Here they are.
The coffee and tea are ready, and the cold drinks are in the fridge. I’ve got a variety of bagels and cream cheese today. Lunar calendar? I don’t need a lunar calendar to tell me when it’s a full moon. I’ve got cats… Lunatics. Have a great day.
The Right in America can be profitably analyzed as merchants gone bad. They are apologists for the business class who think merchants are the super-race.
This hypothesis explains almost everything wingnuts believe. The idea that business needs no regulation but government has to be watched constantly, for example. Or the belief that free enterprise is the perfect system (the fact that the free enterprise system just happens to be their system is just a happy coincidence).
In any society, the merchant class and the governing class are natural antagonists. After all, government sometimes prevents the business types from robbing the rest of us blind. When these folks philosophize, government naturally turns out to be the bad guy, twirling its moustache.
Seen in this light. the Republican Revolution was the process of turning the country over to the Merchant class. When these people plan an economy, it’s no surprise that the Merchant class make out like bandits while everyone else starves. This is our situation.
Welcome to the Dome
The essential talking point that Democrats should have adopted months ago is that Reaganism itself is on trial. Barry Goldwater introduced this toxic strand of Republican philosophy and Ronald Reagan put it into practice. Republicans know full well that Americans are sick and tired of the whole Republican experiment and want to see it come to an end and to have America resume a Franklin D. Roosevelt policy with some pre-Vietnam Quagmire Lyndon Johnson tossed in.
We wouldn’t be tipping our hand to the Republicans, they already know their Grover Norquistian ideas are on life support, we’d be giving the base a reason to get out and GOTV.
If you are worried about the deficit, and you should be, tax the rich and cut war spending. 100% of informed, rational non-billionaires will agree with this.
If you are filthy rich or a war profiteer you will prefer to steal working people’s pensions and implement a value added tax.
The same big-business entities and Wall Street billionaires that are piously intoning fellow billionaire Pete Peterson’s calls to cut social spending so that the Evil Deficit may be vanquished are now lobbying Congress to do the one thing that would made the deficit zoom upwards faster than any million welfare moms or anchor babies could, and that’s to keep Bush’s tax cuts for the rich in place:
This proves, as if anyone had any doubt, that big-business “concerns” about the deficit are bullshit.
ANOTHER terrific read scarecrow
one point that needs to be made, the bush “tax cuts” were marketed as an investment that was supposed to yield positive return
that investment failed miserably (as predicted)
to continue an investment that demonstrates such epic negative return is breathtaking incompetence
having someone who claims they are proposing this as some kind of economic fix is astounding
I love your analogies and will co-opt something you wrote and use it often;
“this time it’s not the middle and lower class the republicans are going after, it’s our senior citizens, our parents, our grandparents who’s assets they want”
brilliant framing which I will use quite a bit me thinks
If the same people who have for decades been yammering about the deficit really believed their own propaganda, they wouldn’t be lobbying Congress to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich. End of story.
“And stealing from seniors to make the rich richer would exacerbate income disparity in the US, which has been getting worse for decades.”
Bring on the Dearth Panels.
And I refuse to cut a deal (as is rumored) to get the rich to accept some tax cuts to expire in exchange for some benefit cuts to Social Security. No deal. That is giving away our Social Security without a fight.
Yes, it all became clear in that segment.
My big question is how and why Obama managed to not only agree to this travesty, putting that trust fund at risk, but why he chose to keep it as secret as he did.
I know he’s a backroom deal kind of guy, but people are aware of this mostly thru word of mouth.
I will say, however, that when I call my Rep, they act like they know nothing about this, which gives me paws and a tail.
We’ve stood still and drooling while the elites have taken everything else away from US. Are we going to sit still for THIS too? because I think Obama is all for it or why keep it so secret? Why have Pelosi bring to the house AFTER the elections in an up or down vote?
There’s a simple explanation; the government and MOTU don’t WANT America to recover.
Saint Reagan said “deficits don’t matter”. I guess they changed their so-called minds as long as it’s the people taking it on the chin
Rumored here=
http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks
My gut-level instincts tell me that when Obama is finished with both issues, Social Security will be cut and the wealthy will still retain at least some of the Bush tax breaks. Boehner is probably just giving a preview of the already decided upon script.
If the small people don’t end up taking it where the sun don’t shine (aka bring on the death panels), I will be amazed. Some form of bipartisany “compromise” will happen, and Obummer will throw out his arms saying: gee, what could I do?? I tried and tried to compromise, but this is what those mean, mean Rethugs made me do… not my fault, folks.
Yeah, it is already a done deal.
These f*cker are stealing everything and don’t even bother to try to hind it anymore.
I hope Obama knows historians will judge him as an evil pawn of the Republicans.
I want to know why so many Democrats refuse to acknowledge that Obama is a blue-dog Democrat or, worse, a Republican wannabe who identifies with the rich? It was Obama who very deliberately chose to set up the deficit commission after it was defeated in Congress. It was Obama who appointed ignorant, right-wing politicians as commissioners and put Social Security (all of it) on the table. Very coyly and quietly. It is Obama and other know-nothings who link the deficit to Social Security (which is funded separately). It has been Obama who consistently favors Wall Street, the Healthcare industry, the wealthy, etc. in his policies and actions. I see no evidence that Obama is interested in the problems of ordinary Americans or that he has been “forced” by circumstances to do what he is doing. My Rep is a “progressive” Democrat in NYC who parrots the White House line on just about everything. Ditto the local Democrats. Is there something in the water or the air? How do we fight this?
You may be correct – seems the decision makers are not even considering a replacement of the 10% bracket by a tax credit that has the same effect as the 10% bracket, but which is phased out for those with higher income.
So keeping the Bush “under 250,000″ changes means the rich benefit from those changes for the first 250,000 of their income.
Obama is such a progressive – /s
In other words, don’t vote. Or if you do, vote 3rd party and if you don’t have any 3rd party candidates, write in Elizabeth Warren.
They’re sure trying to hide this one until it’s too late. It’s not being reported or even mentioned until now. I don’t know what we could do anyway since The Corporation is in complete control now.
Obomber says it’s to give credibilty for the markets; everythign’s for “the markets” today. We’ve been attacked and taken over from within; the only way Churchill said America could be taken down.
Bunch of Gods damned traitors.
I’m really starting to consider not voting, but I can’t stand the thought of a Republican corporatist as the governor of my state, even tho the democrat was/is a corporatist too. the Dem candidate isn’t half as corrupt as he was…yet.
“McConnell and Republicans…” can get a twofer by pulling this off: Hurting the economy hurts the Democrats and Obama, and helping the haves and the have-mores helps and encourages their moneyed and contributing base.
Pretty transparent.
How do we fight this indeed when our votes don’t even count anymore?