"Cruelty to the 98%ers" should be the GOP motto for 2012 election, since so much of their economic gadgetry is aimed at only helping the richest of the rich, and taking as much away from working people and the poor as they possibly can. Paul Ryan's Randian budget is a nightmare and Americans are rejecting it as fast as they can, but someone might have topped him:
Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent.
In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent. Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor:
“In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.” [...]
Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.”
Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion.)...read on
These ideas are insane and I'm not sure why they believe seniors and the elderly will nod their heads in approval, though of course they can always count on the most vicious right wing ideologues. Her ideas as well as many other conservatives these says draw up the battle lines of direct class warfare. I look at her proposals and I say, WTF will happen to me if they have their way in the near future? It's getting scarier each and every day, people.
Matt Yglesias writes:
If you’re old, then Bachmann thinks there’s an “obligation” for you to keep your health care and pension benefits. But not only do those of us born later than 1956 have no right to decent health care and pension when we are old, but if we’re right now relying on student loans to make college affordable, that’s going to be cut. If you’re a parent relying on Medicaid to cover your autistic child’s treatment, you’re out of luck. If commute to work and are hoping America continues to have a viable transportation infrastructure, you’re out of luck. Absolutely everyone born after 1956 is going to be subject to immediate draconian cuts in the programs we benefit from, while we’re supposed to believe that nobody born earlier than that will suffer even the slightest bit.
Earlier in the interview she’s going on about Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, but the actual economic agenda here is rather different from small government as such. It’s all about who’s the right kind of people and who’s not.
Almost all of America is not the right kind of people. Do they really believe claiming that everyone over 55 will be A-OK is of any comfort?
There seems to be a common idea among these fiscal extremists that if they can only convince the old folks that they won't be hurt, then they'll have no problem selling this dystopian future to the country. I don't know why they think that. The over 55ers don't trust them to keep their word (after all, they're prepared to tell people 54 and under that all the money they've put in was for nothing) and they also tend to love their kids and grandkids enough not to want to consign them to a Death Race 2000 kind of existence. And I think they might need some other people to vote for them so blatantly screwing them probably isn't going to be a huge selling point.
More like this
- Pushing Back Against Sheldon Adelson Flood Of Slime
- Why We "Are Voting For the Other" ...Susan Collins Hasn't Earned 6 More Years
- Steve Israel's Ignored WA-08, so Jason Richie Will Use Own Strategy to Beat Loathsome Dave Reichert
- Alan Grayson-- Progressives' Cosmic Thing
- Hold? Let’s Upgrade the Senate.