Skip to main content

View Diary: Can someone explain to me why no one is asking this question? (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  First of all, the executive branch does not write (0+ / 0-)

    tax legislation, or any legislation for that matter.  So, Willard and Pauli are promising something they cannot as a practical matter do. Of course, if something can't be done, then no blame will attach to not doing it. Some thing with promising to cut out abortions. That can't be done either, which, in that case, makes it a nice perennial issue, obviating discussing all the things that could be done, but aren't.

    Secondly, the tax cut agenda has, in fact, been used by Congress for decades and accounts for why we have all those favorable provisions in the tax code that advatage first one, then another employer who controls large numbers of votes.
    So, what's happened this time is that the candidate for the executive are using the legislative campaign handbook, because, being instinct-driven people, they naturally ape what they see other people do; besides it's worked so well for Congress. Frustrated legislators like Ryan often think if they just had an executive position, they could get their way.
    Lust is one of the seven deadly sins and R&R have it in spades -- not a lust for sex, but for power.

    Tax cuts are a faux issue.  Why does Obama talk about them, as well? On the one hand, since Congress holds the purse strings, he has to placate them to a certain extent.  Also, Democrats have been responsible for keeping the budget front and center for a long time. Even though we've now been operating without one for two years, the budget process allows legislators to spend other people's money on projects they can brag about and get themselves reelected on -- their major priority. Also, the artificial scarcity makes it possible to argue that some things should not be done, without having to go into great length.  It's the mom at the candy counter routine. "No, we don't have enough money for gum (guns)."

    The real question is why authoritarians want to privatize public functions.  And the answer is because American enterprise has always been suckled at the public teat (that's how wealth got to the 1%) and universal suffrage, FOIA and accounting standards have made public service a PITA, especially for members of Congress who want to be poobahs not servants.  If they send contracts and dollars to their friends in the private sector, then, like the unjust steward in the Bible, they can feather their nest.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:55:14 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (60)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (27)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Politics (16)
  • Environment (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site