'Toontime: The 'Change' Mat

[credit:  Rex Babin]
Wackydoodle axes, "Did yo'all wipe your feets first?"

One Democratic House member called the tax deal a "king's ransom". Indeed. Their party leader appears all too ready to placate the plutocrats in the hope of renewing his lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. He gave up the 55% estate tax rate scheduled to take effect at the end of the year for a much more generous 35% when he could have settled for something more. Forty-four also agreed to drop the tax credit for the poorest workers (<$20,000 single, <$40,000 family) and replace it with a one year payroll tax holiday. But the New York Times said the effect will be a small tax increase for poor Americans attempting to earn their living. Wait, there is more good news for those unfortunates on Wall Street. The 15% capital gains tax cap remains in place. So if you earn money by stealing it with a laptop you only pay half of what you would pay in taxes had you earned it with the sweat of your brow. Sounds like your cow is mooing. What this bonanza for the rich will do for the current economic recession no one in official Washington has explained satisfactorily since the days of Ronald Reagan's trickled.

More: Here is a passage from Obamacon at his most disingenuous. It reminds US Person of Clintonesque triangulation, pitting the operative political factions against each other hoping you got the calculus right and you end up with a voting majority:

"Somehow this notion that we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate we had during health care," Obama said. "This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where I finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for for 100 years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. Now if that's the standard against which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about ourselves about how good our intentions are, how tough we are."

First off, it is the public option debate again because the problem is the same: when push comes to shove, Obamacon caves. The public option was the quid pro quo for progressives in the Democratic Party. The insurance industry was dead set against it because they knew the competition would act as a drag on profits. IF the President had fought harder for the crucial provision which he supported during his campaign, then we would now have a real "signature" victory not just a rhetorical one: low cost public health insurance in return for mandatory coverage. This is not about appearing tough, it is about basic social justice. Obama assumes that his "reform" is going to produce lower insurance premiums. But the actual experience in Massachusetts with a similar insurance scheme is that health insurance costs have gone up. Further, he assumes that only a few Americans would have opted for less expensive non-profit insurance. He must be using Goldbag's crystal ball for that conclusion posing as fact. His willingness to placate Washington's almighty business interests is a far cry from bringing change to our nation's politics. It is simply more of the same old politics, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Did he have to give away billions in future tax revenue to the hereditary wealthy to obtain a temporary economic stimulus?  He could have struck a blow for deficit reduction, and the equitable principal of progressive taxation by simply allowing the wealthy's tax holiday to end. But his heart is not in the right place, despite the assurance of Mrs. Obama to the contrary. Forty-four personally identifies* with the elitists whose interests he so clearly protects.

AP: Their royal highnesses react to protestors.

*Professor of Economics William Galbraith puts it succinctly: "His [Obama's] presidential campaign was, after all, from the beginning financed from Wall Street. He chose his team, knowing exactly who they were. And this tells us what we need to know, about who he really is."