One of the richest men in the country, ranking in the 0.006 percent of Americans, likes to accuse the President of creating an “entitlement society.” Mitt Romney, the heir apparent, next in line GOP nominee … is against entitlement.

When I hear “entitlement society” I think, “country club.” But When Mitt uses that phrase he doesn’t mean rich guys like him, given all the advantages of wealth, who are now enjoying its comforts – he means the rest of us. Yes, Mitt is against an “entitlement society” because that involves too many people and not just him and his ilk. It’s not the “entitlement” he contests – it’s the entire “society” part.

At the Monday Florida debate last week Mitt noted that under Gingrich’s tax plan Mitt would pay no taxes at all. Gingrich responded with, “Well, if that -- and if you created enough jobs doing that -- it was Alan Greenspan who first said the best rate, if you want to create jobs for capital gains, is zero.”

So rich people whose money makes their money (it’s literally capital gaining) are so fortunate they get to hire other people to pay taxes for them? Rich people with their alleged mythical power to create jobs even get to outsource their tax obligations to poor saps working for a living?

This is the prosperity gospel as a Super PAC-funded marketing blitz. Money is next to godliness and poverty is the fault of the poor for not being better people.

It’s as if Jesus were a CEO and the Romans job-killing communists.

“Contrary to the President's constant disparagement of people in business,” former George W. Bush budget director Gov. Mitch Daniels said in his State of the Union response last week, “It's one of the noblest of human pursuits.” This is one of those phrases you (usually) will only hear in business school (funnier if it was one of those rip-off for-profit colleges). Business is one of the noblest of human pursuits? Noble as in aristocratic? That phrase, “noble pursuits,” is usually applied to an avocation not paying much but rewarding in other ways: teachers; firefighters; nurses; foster parents; soldiers; community leaders; social workers; mentors; rescue workers; care givers; farmers. Or to anyone who’s honest, shows up every day and works hard. That’s a noble pursuit.

Are the wealthy really so sensitive they need Mitch Daniels to make them feel better about themselves in a spiritual sense? What they’re doing not only pays off with privilege and cash – it also has to be venerable from a moral perspective? How much reward does one group need? They own everything and they also need to be thanked?!

The rich are not just over-paid – they’re over valued. And generous welfare recipients.

As Senator Tom Coburn points out in his damning Nov. 2011 report, “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,” we are a wealthfare state. It reads, “This reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit.” In other words: We subsidize the rich by telling the poor to pay their fair share.

It’s been a strange three years under the Obama administration. First the GOP was against empathy. Yes, the party had to vehemently opposed seeing the plight of your fellow human beings because Obama was for it. Now their new hot button word? Fairness. Obama used the word fairness in his third State of the Union. And now the GOP has decided to be against fairness and celebrate inequality as being the thing that makes America great.

It’s as if Jesus were a CEO and the three wise men were shareholders.

The prosperity gospel is not America. It’s not democratic. It’s not even Christian. It’s greed warped into being a virtue by the greedy.

The rich aren’t better, they’re just richer.

DOWNLOADS: (375)

PLAYS: (1431)

Embed

Before I could get the bad taste out of my mouth over seeing John Boehner and the TeaBirchers playing chicken with women's health, this segment came up with David Gergen, who has the ability to say the most odious things at the worst possible time.

The panel on AC360 was predictably hard-core Villager. Earlier, Gergen had worried over the fact that Harry Reid didn't thank the President on the Senate floor, but remembered to thank Boehner's staff. Um, really, I think it's just fine not to thank the President or give him a helluva lot of credit for this round, to be honest. He came in at the 11th hour, and worked behind the scenes, but ultimately it came to what Boehner and Reid could put together and keep their respective caucuses happy. Oh, and the US Chamber of Commerce, who Reid was quick to thank at the top of his speech with a special hat tip to Tom Donohue. No, really. He did.

Then we get to the segment at the top, where Anderson Cooper asks David Gergen about Paul Ryan's not-so-serious budget proposal for 2012. This is where I started shouting something like "Jeebus, are you really defending that Paul Ryan thing? REALLY?"

This is why we can't have nice things. When the opinionators -- not reporters, but opinionators -- go on cable TV on a night where people who don't usually watch cable TV probably will be watching (especially if their job hinges on the budget deal), and extol an insane proposal like Ryan's, they legitimize it. And Gergen goes beyond even legitimizing it. He extols it. Not only does he extol the 'seriousness', he scolds Ryan for not "addressing other entitlements" like Social Security.

He actually says it's a "serious proposal" and is more than the Democrats have offered to deal with the very serious crisis that will befall our very serious country. Says that Ryan has "showed their hand" and now it's the President's turn. Oh, really? Ok, let's have some fun with that, David.

Let's start by taking back our tax cuts early. For entitlement reform, we'll end the payroll tax holiday six months early and get that money back into the Social Security trust fund. And just for more fun, let's put a proposal on the table to allow every person in the country to be covered by Medicare. Also, we're going to demand an end to the wars. Bring the troops home or else we'll make Republican Rabbit scream. What else can we do? Oh yes. Oil and farm subsidies, bye-bye. Betcha our budget can cut SIX trillion off the deficit to Paul Ryan's puny four trillion or whatever it is.

Now what, Republican Rabbit Ryan? When Republicans start squealing like piggy boys and crying that Democrats are being unserious, we'll just remind them that we have a damned budget crisis to deal with. A really. big. serious. Crisis. With a capital C, even.

I think that would be a good starting point. Extreme? Radical? How is it any more extreme or radical than saying Medicare should be abolished in favor of vouchers?

We're not going to get any attention by the Villagers for maintaining the status quo. Ryan understands that, and don't forget, he's got the force of his money guys behind him. Will it work? Of course it won't work. But it's time for some of OUR proposals to be treated as very-serious-everyone-must-pay-attention proposals.

My only comfort in the whole hour was Paul Begala's smackdown of Gergen. Here it is, for your viewing pleasure. Try not to inhale the silly smoke during Gergen's first segment.

DOWNLOADS: (392)

PLAYS: (2563)

Embed

(Image courtesy of Danziger cartoons)

There's rumblings afoot over the deficit, "entitlements" (a term I take exception to), and how best to cut spending and debt in as painless a fashion as possible.

This is where we all get to grow up a little, because both sides are right. The debt is too high. Certainly wars and defense budgets are part of it, but there's also the pesky little fact that for far too long, high wage earners paid far too little in taxes. Two years ago I wrote a post warning that taxes need to go up. That was before the recession, the stimulus package, the health care reform package and the newest natural disaster in Louisiana.

The problem isn't taxes. The problem is the tendency of politicians to slam those who can least afford the increase while claiming they're doing it to preserve our "benefits". Whether it's a power pander or just the mistaken belief that the middle class will suck up whatever it's handed without a peep, this time it needs to be different.

Check out this New York Times debate about increasing the Social Security retirement age. There isn't anything I can think of that would be more ill-advised than that, especially now. It's a cheap money grab that looks pretty on paper but carries far too high an economic and political price. Yet, look how it's being framed:

Continue reading »