cross posted from Acronym TV
Dear President Obama,
Congratulations on your electoral victory.
In defeating the grandfatherly Ken doll with the heart of a blood sucking vampire squid and his religiously radical running mate who claimed that a child conceived in the act of rape is a blessing from God, you might not want to gloat too much. To use a sports analogy, you did not so much win as the other guy lost. Even so, you never in your entire life have to run for public office again. What a weight off of your shoulders that must be!
So forgive me for being obtuse, but now that you have nothing to lose, why do you –- in the guise of this Grand Bargain you are talking about — want to author a plan that will gut social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits while simultaneously protecting corporate welfare? That hardly seems like a bargain; that seems more like theft.
If you ditch this grand bargain idea of yours and adopt some of the principles outlined in the extraordinary document entitled The 99%’s Deficit Proposal, you will expose just how little our elected officials serve our interests. You will enjoy a popular support like never before — and even if you make a few enemies with the Wall Street crowd, who cares? Remember, you never have to run for office again.
Ditch The Grand Bargain and commence with Operation Trojan Horse!
- On taxes: A tax of ½ percent on the sale of stocks bonds and derivate, is much less than the tax we pay on underwear, and yet this speculation tax would raise about $800 billion over the next decade. Want to add a trillion to that? Tax capitol gains at the same rates as income? Why should the profits from stocks that Mitt and Ann had to sell just to scrape by in college be taxed at a lower rate than the guy working construction to get himself through college?
- On Social Security: We can have a fully funded social security for its 75-year planning period if we removed the outdated cap on wages subject to the social security tax of $107,000. Tax all wages and social security is fully funded. No bargain. No debate. You’re welcome.
- On Medicare and Medicare: Dude, you don’t want to go down in history as undoing Medicare, do you? How about we cut the waste in Medicare and Medicaid. The for-profit middle man health insurance industry has created a pervasive culture of -– as Ralph Nader points out — over diagnosed, over-treated and erroneous or unnecessary procedures that come with a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
A single-payer, full Medicare for all system would cut present administrative costs in half. Canada’s system, which allows patients to freely choose their doctor and hospital, covers everyone for half of the $9000 per capita that Americans will pay this year. Our system leaves 50 million people uncovered of whom 45,000 will die this year alone due to lack of coverage, according to a peer-reviewed study by Harvard Medical School researchers.
You supported single-payer, President Obama, before your meteoric ride through the corrupted electoral process. But you’re done with that now. No more elections. So ditch your grand bargain and lead us to a grand new deal: one that reverses the decades long upward re-distribution of wealth. Don’t bargain with the elites who want to take away food stamps from 47 million Americans, and drive even more than the into poverty — a group that now numbers 30% of Americans now and yet shockingly, was not courted at all in the election cycle.
The effect of your Grand Austerity bargain will be this: more and more people will realize that graphs showing the wealth divide will continue to widen, their debt load will continue to grow and once the American Dream is revealed as a hoax, our streets will look like those of Spain, Greece, or worse. While I know you have a rainy day plan for this potential outcome in the form of a hyper-militarized police force and constitution busting laws like the NDAA in place, I don’t want to believe that that is part of your grand bargain.
There has been a class war going on in this country for decades, waged by the elite against the rest of us.
Now that you no longer have to raise money from those blood sucking vampire squids ever again, we are asking, President Obama, which side are you on?



7 Comments

Michael Moore, is that you?
I’m sorry if I’m the one being obtuse now, but I don’t ask rhetorical questions and I knew the answer to that one within days of the 2008 election.
rec’d anyway
Another benefit to taxing stock transactions is it will lessen the value of high-frequency trading and stabilize the markets by protecting them from runaway computer algorithms. And if someone’s algorithm DOES get out of hand then they’re going to be paying the government a lot of money.
I myself trade stocks and I would heartily support a stock transaction surtax to protect my own ass from all these micro trading wankers.
I commented on Kevin Zeese’s 99% proposal at his web site, but will repeat the comment here:
I still think the above comment applies. One of the biggest millstones progressives e.g. carry around is the idea that everything must be “paid for” by taxation eventually and that deficit reduction is necessary. We need a political game-changer for progressives. That’s here.
And here’s another comment I offered on Kevin’s post:
letsgetitdone, great comments!
I don’t think Dean Baker’s game is a ‘loser liberal’ one. He and his colleague Mark Weisbrot are strongly for economic expansion now, and taking care of deficits during times of strong economic growth. I don’t see what’s wrong with that right now as an economic position.
Hi fairleft, the problem with that position is that some nations may need to run deficits indefinitely because they always run trade deficits and their people want to have private savings. If that’s the situation they’ll need deficits to maintain full employment. If they have non-convertible fiat currency systems with floating exchange rates and no debts in currencies not their own, they can run deficits indefinitely and either run up public debt or not, as they please, without any danger of insolvency.
So, they don’t have get rid of deficits in good times. In fact, they shouldn’t try to get rid of them if they have trade deficits, because if the Government balances its budget, and there’s a trade deficit, then there has to be a non-Government savings deficit as a consequence of the sectoral financial balances model. Eventually, if this situation runs for a few years as it did under Clinton’s surpluses, the private sector won’t be able to sustain demand and a recession will ensue, as it did at the end of the Clinton Administration and the beginning of the Bush Administration.
Until we reach full employment the Government should deficit spend what’s necessary to create it, and even after that it should not be targeting surpluses for the sake of having them, but only tax increases and spending cuts sufficient to create price stability and counter demand-pull inflation.
Baker and Weisbrot aren’t there with that position yet. That’s why they still acknowledge that there is a long-term deficit problem. They’re different in that they say it’s about slowing the increases in Medical costs and favor Medicare for All to help with this. But even though it is very desirable to cut Medical costs because they’re consuming too much of the economy and fostering inequality, they are not causing a deficit problem, simply because there is no such problem. See here.