Bain Capital & the Supply-Side Faith

The Republicans don’t really realize how much of a problem they have on their hands with Mitt Romney, income inequality, the rise of the superwealthy at the expense of the middle class, and other consequences of its Reaganite trickle-down, supply-side voodoo economic religion.

This article detailing Bain Capital’s business dealings under Mitt Romney makes for interesting reading, and goes to the heart of how Bain gamed the system for its own gain in an arguably unethical manner.

One of the most fascinating things about the Bush v. Gore decision was that the conservatives on the Supreme Court aren’t known to be big fans of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but in that particular case, they were. Similarly, this New York Times editorial explains that the Republicans are most interested in citing “One nation, under God” when the socio-economic cleave being exploited is one of income inequality and class. When it comes to race, religion, and when the poor are the class being demonized, they are massively in favor of division and disharmony.

And yet if Democrats dare to point out that the income gains of the top 1 percent have dwarfed everyone else’s in the last few decades, they are accused of whipping up class envy. Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, noted in a speech on Thursday that the median income in the United States had actually declined since 1999, shrinking the middle class while the income of the top 1 percent soared. Such inequality is corrosive. And pointing it out has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with pressing for policies to help America’s struggling middle class.

Anyone who criticizes Mr. Romney’s business practices now faces the absurd charge of putting free-market capitalism on trial.

Yet capitalism isn’t supposed to just further enrich the wealthy. It’s also supposed to lift everyone up – the middle class and also the poor. But that’s not what the Republican supply-side faith has done.

What they don’t realize is that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital was not just a corporate raider that cost many people their jobs, but it is the very embodiment of the Republican ideal, where money and profit are more important than a strong economy and society. It’s why they can’t say “middle class”, it’s why they continue to demonize the poor, it’s why they throw out “socialist” and “class warfare” when they’re the biggest class warriors of them all.

Bain Capital & the Supply-Side Faith

The Republicans don’t really realize how much of a problem they have on their hands with Mitt Romney, income inequality, the rise of the superwealthy at the expense of the middle class, and other consequences of its Reaganite trickle-down, supply-side voodoo economic religion.

This article detailing Bain Capital’s business dealings under Mitt Romney makes for interesting reading, and goes to the heart of how Bain gamed the system for its own gain in an arguably unethical manner.

One of the most fascinating things about the Bush v. Gore decision was that the conservatives on the Supreme Court aren’t known to be big fans of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but in that particular case, they were. Similarly, this New York Times editorial explains that the Republicans are most interested in citing “One nation, under God” when the socio-economic cleave being exploited is one of income inequality and class. When it comes to race, religion, and when the poor are the class being demonized, they are massively in favor of division and disharmony.

And yet if Democrats dare to point out that the income gains of the top 1 percent have dwarfed everyone else’s in the last few decades, they are accused of whipping up class envy. Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, noted in a speech on Thursday that the median income in the United States had actually declined since 1999, shrinking the middle class while the income of the top 1 percent soared. Such inequality is corrosive. And pointing it out has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with pressing for policies to help America’s struggling middle class.

Anyone who criticizes Mr. Romney’s business practices now faces the absurd charge of putting free-market capitalism on trial.

Yet capitalism isn’t supposed to just further enrich the wealthy. It’s also supposed to lift everyone up – the middle class and also the poor. But that’s not what the Republican supply-side faith has done.

What they don’t realize is that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital was not just a corporate raider that cost many people their jobs, but it is the very embodiment of the Republican ideal, where money and profit are more important than a strong economy and society. It’s why they can’t say “middle class”, it’s why they continue to demonize the poor, it’s why they throw out “socialist” and “class warfare” when they’re the biggest class warriors of them all.

Rom-nomi-nee

After yesterday’s New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney is all but guaranteed to be the Republican presidential nominee.

The parallels to 1996 here are hard to ignore; a somewhat weakened chief executive, reeling from bad poll numbers and movement conservatives in the ascendency, a deeply flawed Republican nominee, and a short Texan with a loud, unconventional, populist platform running a likely third party bid, siphoning off conservative votes.

It looks good for President Obama, who has his own problems with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (Yes, this puts the lie to the whole notion of Obama’s “radical socialism” – a charge none of the Republican candidates would dare repeat to his face).

Gingrich and Santorum went nowhere in New Hampshire, for various reasons. Gingrich is too broken a human, and Santorum is out in left field on social issues. Huntsman’s best chance was in New Hampshire, and he blew it – he’s done. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum’s last chance is South Carolina; if they can’t convince Bible-belt social conservatives to come out for them over Paul or Romney, it’s over. The analysis from Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight was, as always, most informative.

In his second out of 50 likely victory speeches, Romney assailed President Obama for “apologizing” for America. This is, of course, patently false, and a lie that will come back to haunt Romney. Was Obama apologizing for America when he ordered that Osama bin Laden be shot through the head? Was he apologizing for America when he refused to aid North Africa’s dictators against popular uprising? Was he apologizing for America when he passed the Affordable Care Act, with the promise of affordable health insurance for all? Here’s a list of Obama’s accomplishments, wherein he apologized for no one.

The “apologizing for America” crack is popular with ignorants and cretins, and is code for “socialist“, “Kenyan/Indonesian”, “where’s the birth certificate”, and “black guy”. Romney, whose religious views are sometimes fodder for mocking and dismissal, especially from the evangelicals he so needs, is treading on thin ice. Criticizing Obama for his policies is one thing, but this “apologizing” crack is a racist, xenophobic dog whistle.

Romney also made the choice quite clear – do you vote for the President who wants to create jobs, or the candidate who likes to fire people?

1 2 3