I pointed out
last year that Ronald Reagan's budget director said that the tax cuts
for the wealthy were "the biggest fiscal mistake in history".
I noted yesterday:
stopping bailouts and giveaways for the top .1% of the richest elite
(which weaken rather than strengthen the economy, as shown here, here and here) and slashing spending on unnecessary imperial wars (which reduce rather than increase our national security, as demonstrated here and here) is what the budget really needs.
As I wrote last year:
Why aren't our government "leaders" talking about slashing the military-industrial complex, which is ruining our economy with unnecessary imperial adventures?
And why aren't they taking away the power to create credit from the private banking giants - which is costing our economy trillions of dollars (and is leading to a decrease in loans to the little guy) - and give it back to the states?
If we did these things, we wouldn't have to raise taxes or cut core services to the American people.
I pointed out the next month:
Dennis Kucinich wrote in a post entitled "Debt Political Theater Diverts Attention While Americans’ Wealth is Stolen":
rancorous debate over the debt belies a fundamental truth of our
economy -- that it is run for the few at the expense of the many, that
our entire government has been turned into a machine which takes the
wealth of a mass of Americans and accelerates it into the hands of the
We have to realize what this country's economy has
become. Our monetary policy, through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,
privatized the money supply, gathers the wealth, puts it in the hands
of the few while the Federal Reserve can create money out of nothing,
give it to banks to park at the Fed while our small businesses are
starving for capital.
Mark my words -- Wall Street cashes in
whether we have a default or not. And the same type of thinking that
created billions in bailouts for Wall Street and more than $1 trillion
in giveaways by the Federal Reserve today leaves 26 million Americans
either underemployed or unemployed. And nine out of ten Americans
over the age of 65 are facing cuts in their Social Security in order
to pay for a debt which grew from tax cuts for the rich and for
There is a massive transfer of wealth from the
American people to the hands of a few and it's going on right now as
America’s eyes are misdirected to the political theater of these
histrionic debt negotiations, threats to shut down the government, and
willingness to make the most Americans pay dearly for debts they did
These are symptoms of a government which has lost its way, and they are a challenge to the legitimacy of the two-party system.
And Michael Hudson - who is as far from a knee-jerk conservative as possible - hits the same theme with both barrels blazing:
So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt
struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt
ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?
I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between
paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it.
What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying
Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street
for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the
last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then,
in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the
It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about
making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember
what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too
important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram
through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid,
anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the
normal course of things.
They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to
cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re
going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into
acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to
the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay
the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.
Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an
alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number
two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military
spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow
more money, aren’t there?
HUDSON: Of course.
course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is
change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax
cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago
was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing
as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax
cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of
their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed
at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of
the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.
has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political
campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he
promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he
delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...