‘Class Warfare’ Rears Its Ugly Head
I’m fascinated by this relatively new Republican assumption that any political speech that can be interpreted as touching on “class warfare” is somehow unmannerly. Not done. Tacky. Rude.
The egregious John McLaughlin pounces upon erring members of “The McLaughlin Group”: “Now wouldn’t you say that rhetoric smacks of class warfare?” he demands, outraged as a prim maiden aunt with whom one has just brought up boogers. Mercy, what an offense against standards! How dare we bitch about the rich getting ever richer? Quel nerve, as we say in Lubbock, to suggest that a capital-gains tax cut disproportionately benefits the very wealthy.
Of course, a capital-gains tax cut does disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, no matter how many Republicans sit there on chat shows calling it “a middle-class tax cut” with straight faces.
Of course, when Republicans carry on about “welfare queens” and people who use food stamps to buy vodka, that’s not class warfare. Heavens, no - only a limousine liberal would think that.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on class warfare is that the Democrats sometimes talk about it but never do anything about it, while the Republicans conduct extraordinarily effective class warfare - in which the rich gain at everyone else’s expense - but never (horrors!) actually speak of it. It’s rather like the matter of Joycelyn Elders daring to speak of masturbation - it’s certainly happening, but God forbid that it should ever be talked about. A firing offense.
On the very first day of their new ascendancy to power in the House, Republicans engaged in their secret vice, the one that dare not speak its name. Right out of the chute, bingo, a three-fifths majority of the House is now required to pass any increase in the income tax. It’s the only thing they did that will ever matter dog to you.
As Michael Kramer writes in Time, “A great idea - if you’re rich. The change applies only to the most progressive form of taxation, the one that forces the well-off to pay more than others. All the government’s other revenue raisers - from national-park admission fees to gas and cigarette taxes - can still be hiked by majority vote. Those levies, which will probably rise if Newt’s other taxcutting schemes become law, are the regressive ones, which hit the middle class and poor hardest. Make no mistake. Upward income redistribution - leaving the less fortunate less protected - is part of what Newt’s revolution is about.”
In the current Newsweek, Jonathan Alter writes: “If upheld by the courts, this little procedural change - debated for all of 20 minutes - would have the perverse effect of eventually squeezing Middle Americans. With income tax increases - which hit the rich hardest - made nearly impossible for the foreseeable future, the burden will fall on state and local taxes that nail the middle class.
“The three-fifths rule is probably unconstitutional, and it’s surely irresponsible. If it had been in effect during the vote on tax increases in 1990 and 1993, those tax increases on the wealthy would have failed, and the deficit would be 50 percent higher today. By endorsing (without really knowing it) the Republican plan to never raise taxes on the rich, the middle class will now have to pay for ‘The Contract’ either by cutting entitlements to themselves or borrowing even more from their children and grandchildren.”
I adore hearing Republicans rail against government as a means for “redistribution of wealth.” Between 1980 and 1992, those suckers effected the most dramatic redistribution of wealth in this history of this country. My God, look at the numbers - and let me add that the Resolution Trust Corp. played no small part in this redistribution of money to the very wealthy: The pre-tax income of the richest 1 percent of Americans increased by 77 percent (after taxes, 60 percent) and that of the top fifth by 29 percent (after taxes, 20 percent). That of the bottom fifth fell by 9 percent. The bottom 80 percent of the populace shared 6 percent of the increase in wealth after taxes.
To help you visualize what non-class nonwarfare looks like, you should see the charts produced by Social Graphics Inc. If we visualize the class structure at all in this country, we tend to think it looks like a fat jar with a small base (poor folks) and a small lid (rich folks) with a huge bulge in the middle (middle-class folks). Actually, what it looks like is the profile of a fireplace with an immensely tall chimney. There’s this big huddle of folks at the bottom and along the ledge of the fireplace; then it slopes back into this chimney that goes up, up, up, up, so that if you have it as a chart on your wall, the chimney hits your ceiling long before it even gets near the truly rich.
But I probably shouldn’t have mentioned this; it’s in such poor taste. Forgive me.
xxxx