Zcom_simple

68

How the Billionaires Broke the System




Change Text Size a- | A+


There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.

So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding.

Partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003 and 2005 (shamefully extended by Barack Obama), taxation of the wealthy, in Obama’s words, “is at its lowest level in half a century”(1). The consequence of such regressive policies is a level of inequality unknown in other developed nations. As the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, in the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue collar male workers has fallen by 12%(2).

The deal being thrashed out in Congress as this article goes to press seeks only to cut state spending. As the former Republican senator Alan Simpson says, “the little guy is going to be cremated.”(3) That, in turn, will mean further economic decline, which means a bigger deficit(4). It’s insane. But how did it happen?

The immediate reason is that Republican members of Congress supported by the Tea Party movement won’t budge. But this explains nothing. The Tea Party movement mostly consists of people who have been harmed by tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor and middle. Why would they mobilise against their own welfare? You can understand what is happening in Washington only if you remember what everyone seems to have forgotten: how this movement began.

On Sunday the Observer claimed that “the Tea Party rose out of anger over the scale of federal spending, and in particular in bailing out the banks”(5). This is what its members claim. It’s nonsense.

The movement started with Rick Santelli’s call on CNBC for a tea party of city traders to dump securities in Lake Michigan, in protest at Obama’s plan to “subsidise the losers”(6). In other words, it was a demand for a financiers’ mobilisation against the bail-out of their victims: people losing their homes. This is the opposite of the Observer’s story. On the same day, a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP) set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events(7). The movement, whose programme is still lavishly supported by AFP, took off from there.

So who or what is Americans for Prosperity? It was founded and is funded by Charles and David Koch(8). They run what they call “the biggest company you’ve never heard of”(9), and between them they are worth $43 billion(10).

Koch Industries is a massive oil, gas, minerals, timber and chemicals company. Over the past 15 years the brothers have poured at least $85m into lobby groups arguing for lower taxes for the rich and weaker regulations for industry(11). The groups and politicians the Kochs fund also lobby to destroy collective bargaining, to stop laws reducing carbon emissions, to stymie healthcare reform and to hobble attempts to control the banks. During the 2010 election cycle, Americans for Prosperity spent $45 million supporting its favoured candidates(12).

But the Kochs’ greatest political triumph is the creation of the Tea Party movement. Taki Oldham’s film AstroTurf Wars shows Tea Party organisers from all over the Union reporting back to David Koch at their 2009 Defending the Dream summit, explaining the events and protests they’ve started with AFP help. “Five years ago,” he tells them, “my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. It’s beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organisation.”(13)

AFP mobilised the anger of people who found their conditions of life declining, and channelled it into a campaign to make them worse. Tea Party campaigners appear to be unaware of the origins of their own movement. Like the guard in Geoffrey Household’s novel Rogue Male who has been conned into working for the enemy, they take to the streets to demand less tax for billionaires and worse health, education and social insurance for themselves.

Are they stupid? No. They have been systematically misled by another instrument of corporate power: the media. The Tea Party movement has been relentlessly promoted by Fox News, which belongs to a more familiar billionaire. Like the Kochs, Rupert Murdoch aims to misrepresent the democratic choices we face, in order to persuade us to vote against our own interests and in favour of his.

What’s taking place in Congress right now is a kind of political coup. A handful of billionaires has shoved a spanner into the legislative process. Through the candidates they’ve bought and the movement that supports them, they are now breaking and reshaping the system to serve their interests. We knew this once, but now we’ve forgotten. What hope do we have of resisting a force we won’t even see?

Follow George Monbiot on Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/remarks-president-fiscal-policy

2. http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/31/us-debt-crisis-washington-poverty

4. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html

5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/31/us-debt-congress-tea-party

6. http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701/Rick_Santelli_s_Shout_Heard_Round_the_World

7. http://astroturfwars.org/

8. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

9. http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/10/15/Profile-of-Billionaire-David-Koch/index3.html

10. http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400

11. Tony Carrk, April 2011. The Koch Brothers: What You Need to Know About the Financiers of the Radical Right. Center for American Progress Action Fund. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf

12. As above.

13. http://astroturfwars.org/ 

Person

You are correct.

By Shepherd, Lester at Aug 02, 2011 21:59 PM

You said," They have been systematically misled by another instrument of corporate power: the media. The Tea Party movement has been relentlessly promoted by Fox News, which belongs to a more familiar billionaire. Like the Kochs, Rupert Murdoch aims to misrepresent the democratic choices we face, in order to persuade us to vote against our own interests and in favour of his."

The day after the debt bill passed, I met a friend for coffee.  He exclaimed, "Well, Obama got everything he wanted"  Guess where in the hell he got his news!  FAKE NEWS.  Everyone knows this is preposterous, except the American public.  So, we sink to the bottom of the cesspool, while the rich get richer...

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

583275

I think your friend is basically correct

By Emersberger, Joe at Aug 03, 2011 02:37 AM

Though I'm sure he doesn't understand it. I think your friend would be correct to conclude that Obama got MOST of what he wanted. Glen Greenwald succintly made the point well.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/08/email-to-john-cole.html

Greenwald wrote:

[QUOTE]
Obama himself SAID countless times over the last 3 years - including many times over the last 3 months - that he WANTS deep spending cuts, including to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

He DID NOT WANT a clean debt ceiling hike, with no cuts.  He said that clearly in his Press Conferences, including as recently as July 22 when he announced Boehner had walked away from the talks ("At minimum, we’ve got to increase the debt ceiling.  At minimum.  I think we need to do more than that. . . Well, I think I’ve been consistently saying here in this press room and everywhere that it is very important for us to raise the debt ceiling.  We don’t have an option on that.  So if that’s the best that Congress can do, then I will sign a extension of the debt ceiling that takes us through 2013.  I don’t think that’s enough.  I think we should do more.  That’s the bare minimum; that’s the floor of what the American people expect us to do.  So I’d like to see us do more").

Your question -- which assumes that he was forced into these cuts and/or that he wanted a clean debt ceiling increase - is thus totally flawed.  He's been very candid that he wants to cut entitlement programs and other domestic programs for the poor - happy to send you all the links if you need them, but I know you know this, and even wrote about it once when he said it in his Press Conference (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/07/12/bad-politics/).  Here are a few to start:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/very-serious-complicity.html

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002846.html

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5D876B1F-18FE-70B2-A8D7E6CD29DF7FFF

Once that FACT is accepted -- that Obama wasn't trying to avoid linking massive cuts to the ceiling hike: he wanted these and MORE -- everything else makes more sense.

That said, he did want taxes to be included, and there was a lot he could have done to get a better deal or no deal:

(1) He could have supported McConnell's proposal from 3 weeks ago that provided for a CLEAN debt ceiling increase (McConnell did offer a clean debt ceiling hike, which is why Ezra Klein, among others, liked it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/in-praise-of-mcconnells-plan/2011/07/11/gIQAoiHHBI_blog.html) - but Obama didn't want that deal because it would harm him politically by making him raise the debt ceiling 3 times between now and the election.  So he avoided a clean debt ceiling hike out of political concerns for his re-election and because he WANTED to link it to cuts..

(2) He could have threatened to use leverage - like the 14th Amendment option, the coinage option, or other legal maneuvering - even if he didn't intend to use it - as a way of telling the Republicans:  I CAN RAISE THE DEBT WITHOUT YOU (see Krugman's column on this today, where he lays out those options).

To use your metaphor, it's a way of threatening to rescue the hostage without giving in to the kidnappers ("if I need to, I'll use the powers of this office to avoid default without you, and let the courts and the voters judge"). 

Anyone who wanted leverage would have done some or all of that. 

(3) He could have refrained from publicly affirming the GOP's bullshit economic arguments at every corner -- that spending cuts are necessary to help the economy via increased confidence -- in order to strengthen his hand with public opinion while weakening the GOP's - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/barack-herbert-hoover-obama/.

Instead, eager to depict himself as a spending-cutter, he sounded like Larry Kudlow.

(4) He could have raised the debt ceiling in the 2009 lame-duck Congress and avoided this whole thing (see Krugman today).

[He even could have accepted Boehner's plan from last week, which at least included $800 billion in revenues; instead, he got a deal with NO revenue]

Why didn't he do any of that?  Because - as he's told you repeatedly - he WANTS to use the debt ceiling debate to slash spending.  He wants that because he's so eager to run as a trans-partisan, compromising spending-cutter, and because -- I think - he actually now believes the right-wing economic theory that spending cuts help the economy (on that last point, see Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/the-obama-keynes-mystery/)..  

[UNQUOTE]

Liberal politittians - and liberl media outlets like the Guardian, NYT etc..- are as much part of the billionaires coup as FOX News and the Tea party. They squabble over details and try to pass it off as deep philosophical differences.




 

Reply this comment

Loading_border