A Most Revealing Week for Republicans
The McCutcheon decision, Paul Ryan?s budget, and Obamacare deniers all say what the GOP can?t: We protect the well-off from redistribution of their wealth to those who don?t deserve it.

If you haven?t done so yet, I urge you to take three minutes here with me to reflect on this unusually revealing week. Three big developments?the Obamacare enrollment deadline, the Paul Ryan budget, and the Supreme Court?s McCutcheon decision?return us to first principles, so to speak; remind us of what our two parties (and the philosophical positions behind them) are really and truly about. And they remind me, at least, of why the Republican Party, on a very basic level, can?t ever be truthful with the American people about what matters to it most at the end of the day.

So what is it that matters most to the Republican Party? A lot of things do, and for different Republicans, the answer will be different: abhorrence of abortion, disgust at social relativism, hatred of big government. These things matter. But they don?t, in my view, matter most. What matters most, especially to elected Republicans in Washington (that is, more so than the rank-and-file), is this: Protect the well-off from redistribution of their wealth to those who don?t deserve it.

On what basis do I make this claim? Well, I?ve been watching Republicans on Capitol Hill pretty closely for many years now. There are, Lord knows, a number of topics on which they are not exactly what you?d call amenable to compromise. The climate-change denialism, the constant attempts to chop away at reproductive rights (which are constitutional rights), et cetera.

But I think it?s fair and accurate to say that, especially in the Obama era, two issues have obsessed the party more than all the others: opposition to tax increases, especially on the wealthy; and a zeal for cutting the budget, which really means cutting domestic spending programs.

In other words?protect the rich, and injure the poor. These are the points on which they?ve fought tooth and nail. After all, think about this: They could have had a major concession from Obama on entitlements (chained CPI) if they?d been willing to allow an income-tax increase on dollars earned above $250,000. But even that couldn?t reel them in. It?s true they did allow an increase on dollars earned above $450,000 (for families) in the fiscal-cliff deal, but their backs were really against the wall on that one: They relented to that small increase only because the country was hours away from a major tax increase (the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and it was clear to everyone that the Republicans were going to shoulder most of the blame.

As for cutting the federal budget, downsizing government?and we all know doing that hurts poor and working-class families most directly?well, wasn?t that the chief impetus behind the creation of the Tea Party? Remember Rick Santelli?s creation-myth rant, about the anger at the people who took mortgages they couldn?t afford. (Classic liberal-conservative divide, rooted almost entirely in psychological outlook: Liberals tended to blame the banks that hornswoggled people, while conservatives tended to blame the people who let themselves be hornswoggled.)

That?s the game. Redistribution, as in loathing of. That?s the glue of the Washington Republican Party. And it?s wrong to think of it as just an ?economic? issue. It is, to them, a moral one. Don?t believe me? Take it from Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise Institute, who wrote a famous Wall Street Journal column back in April 2009 headlined ?The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism.? Reread that. Money, a cultural issue. Defenders of free enterprise, he wrote, ?have to declare that it is a moral issue to confiscate more income from the minority simply because the government can.? He also charged these same defenders with the task of defining true ?fairness? as ?protecting merit and freedom.? I shouldn?t have to decode those two words for you, I shouldn?t think.

Roberts?s opinion says: ?It is not an acceptable governmental objective to ?level the playing field.?? You can?t ask for it to be put more plainly than that.

But here?s the thing: Brooks?s candor was and is rare. It wasn?t a risk of any kind for him to express those views to the readers of the Journal?s Op-Ed page, who would strongly agree. But most Americans don?t agree. Most Americans support redistribution to one degree or another. They support progressive taxation, they support many or even most categories of government spending, and so on. We?liberal Democrats, centrist Democrats, and moderate Republicans, to the extent that they exist?argue about how much spending, but not about the very notion of spending. Real conservatives stand outside this conversation: They believe that virtually no redistributive spending is justified. But they know that?s a highly unpopular position, so most of the time, they can?t say that. They have to say other things.

Now let?s circle back to this week. What Republicans really think about Obamacare, as E.J. Dionne put it in The Washington Post yesterday, is that ?they don?t want the federal government to spend the significant sums of money needed to get everyone covered.? But they know that sounds cruel, so they can?t say that. So instead of inveighing against redistribution directly, they?ve spent months talking about its unworkability. Well, that?s been proven wrong (so far), and so now they?ll just say, as they have been this week, that they don?t believe the numbers. Then they?ll fish out more alleged horror stories that don?t check out. But they won?t say what they actually think.

In the same way, Paul Ryan puts out a budget document that makes dramatic cuts on programs for poor and working people, which makes four domestic promises in the summary??Expand Opportunity,? ?Strengthen the Safety Net,? ?Secure Seniors? Retirement,? and ?Restore Fairness??but in its numbers does the opposite. Ryan?s budgets have always been first and foremost about attacking redistribution aggressively. But he can?t say that. So he just says the opposite.

And what does the McCutcheon decision have to do with all this? Very simple. Redistribution happens because redistributionist politicians have the nasty habit of getting elected. They get elected, in part, because of campaign-finance laws that limit wealthy conservatives? ability to influence outcomes. In this sense the campaign-finance reform laws of the 1970s are themselves redistributionist?they were explicitly designed to level the playing field, which is a hoary cliché but expresses a proper goal, i.e., not letting the wealthy own Congress lock, stock, and barrel.

McCutcheon tells us, to an extent that even Citizens United hadn?t quite, that Chief Justice John Roberts detests this electoral redistributionism, and as Jeffrey Toobin wrote this week, has as his goal ?the deregulation of American political campaigns.? Roberts?s opinion says: ?It is not an acceptable governmental objective to ?level the playing field.?? You can?t ask for it to be put more plainly than that. (Roberts doesn?t face voters and has a job for life and can speak with more candor than senators.)

Savagely fighting the delivery of health care to financially struggling people; slashing the federal programs that help these people get by; rigging elections so that rich conservatives (who outnumber rich liberals substantially) have more control over who wins them. These may seem disparate battles, especially the third one, but the motivation in each case is the same: Protect the well-off from redistribution of their wealth to those who don?t deserve it.

You?ll rarely hear an elected Republican admit this. But it?s usually the motivation. And we saw it this week in starker relief than we usually do. But don?t despair too much: They may yet prevail on campaign spending, but Ryan is going to lose, and Obamacare is going to win. So maybe, even though they won?t talk about it openly, people are onto them anyway.


Link To article 

Interesting concept. Probably true in some respects. This position will motivate the wealthiest to make an investment in the Republican Party. Probably has a very good ROI. 

Probably however completely false.

Seems most big dollar donors give to the Democrat party.

But hey, don't let facts confuse a good talking point. 

Probably true but different motivations.

Dem vs Pub 

Interesting concept. Probably true in some respects. This position will motivate the wealthiest to make an investment in the Republican Party. Probably has a very good ROI.?





Hey -- look who has the afternoon off from HEB! 

But hey, don't let facts confuse a good talking point.

BINGO! 

RWK..... You're link only proves what Perfection said.

Nice job. 

Hey -- look who has the afternoon off from HEB!

Actually currently working and making money. But losing a bunch in the stock market today. That's OK it has been good for the past week.

Been busy haven't had much time for this crap.

RWK..... You're link only proves what Perfection said.

I have no problem with that. Research showed that the premise maybe correct. 

Hey -- look who has the afternoon off from HEB!

Too much effort. The consensus at work is Walmart Greeter.

"Hello. Welcome to Walmart." or "How may I help you?"

That sounds like a very non stressful position. But I wouldn't want to take Snake Pees future job from him.

Snake Pee looks like he has way to much time on his hands. 

anyone who believes that the current status quo of spending WAY more than you take in year after year will not have dire consequences for this country is an idiot..it's unsustainable...

one mans "social program" is another mans "waste and pork"...and vice versa..bottom line is we CAN'T AFFORD IT 

But it hurts my chance at getting that Walmart Greeter position.

Walmart Hurt by SNAP Cuts:

The company didn?t specify how much sales were lost from the SNAP reductions, although it certainly knows the answer. But based on Walmart stores? U.S. sales of $74.64 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, it seems that the chain lost out on about $300 million of sales tied to the food stamp program. 

What a huge load of crap:

"protect the rich, and injure the poor" 

Same old AynRandian BS





If you are poor, you don't deserve to live. Just die quickly. 

More baseless, factless drivel from the left.

The left would rather we continue to pile on trillions more in debt to support the entitlement state they've created to garner votes.

That right there is truly pathetic. 

If you are poor, you don't deserve to live. Just die quickly.

Clovis now I know you are smarter than leaving me this opening.

Shall we talk about President Obama's first choice to be head of HHS - you remember Sen Tom Daschle, he of the infamous healthcare reform book that states old people and the ill, including children, need to learn to die and not try to extend their lives through medication.

oh my 

?. . . The elderly have a responsibility to die, knowing that they are not going to survive their chronic illnesses, so that society can save money and pump funds into care for the younger, more worthy recipients.?
?Tom Daschle, former U.S. senator, current White House adviser 

What's wrong with Ayn Rand? 

When I hear my liberal friends talk, all I can think of is their jealousy of the successful people in the world. What is wrong with letting the people who earn the money keep it. 

to SnakeP: Do you want an honest answer to that? 

The liberals prefer Margaret Sanger. 

What is wrong with letting the people who earn the money keep it.?

Easy. Corruption. 

Sure, an honest answer. Not one filled with emotion. 

Corruption 

Easy. Corruption.


There's no corruption in a Communist countries? 

Easy. Corruption.

So being successful is corrupt?

You live in a strange world.

Do you teach this to your kids as well? 

Sure, an honest answer. Not one filled with emotion.?

What's wrong with Ayn Rand's philosophy is lack of humanity. That's as simple as I can say it.

She also was a hypocrite, but that's just an extra. 

There's no corruption in a Communist countries??

Yes there is. The US does not have a corner on that market. 

She also was a hypocrite, but that's just an extra.

So is Barrack Obama, but that hasn't kept you from cheerleading for him. 

What's wrong with Ayn Rand's philosophy is lack of humanity. That's as simple as I can say it.

She also was a hypocrite, but that's just an extra.



I asked for no emotion, and you complain about her not being emotional? 

What's wrong with Ayn Rand's philosophy is lack of humanity. That's as simple as I can say it.

I asked for no emotion, and you complain about her not being emotional??

lol. That's true! But I was thinking that what you meant by an unemotional response was one that did not contain attacks against a poster.

You are right. Humanity is about emotion. 

Do you want a legal system dictated by emotion? 

Do you want a legal system dictated by emotion??

I want a legal system that is just. 

Do you use emotion to determine how you spend your money? 

I want a legal system that is just.


I hope that doesn't include lynch mobs. 

I hope that doesn't include lynch mobs.?

Of course not. 

Do you use emotion to determine how you spend your money??

I am a human being. I would guess that emotions enter into most of my decisions to some degree. 

I want a legal system that is just.?

I suspect your definition of justice is taking wealth from people who have more than you - no objectivity there... 

Social justice!!!! 

I suspect your definition of justice is taking wealth from people who have more than you - no objectivity there..

My definition of social justice is as old as the bible, maybe older.

Acts 11
27And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. 28And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. 29Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: 30Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. 

Then walk the walk and pay up. You are highly under taxed

Do you have any idea the income level to be in the top 1%?