politics

The most interesting and neglected revolutionary, Aaron Burr. For someone who was involved in so many important American institutions, and the first and so far only vice-president in US history to shoot and kill a Secretary of the Treasury (Paul O'Neill better not attend any pheasant trips with Dick Cheney!), it's a shame I didn't know more about him until now.

Chris Matthews is Alan Partridge.

The FAT Squad!

Tondee's Tavern, a good source of Georgia political news and opinion on the Democratic side of the aisle, is reporting that Vernon Jones, Democratic candidate for the US Senate in Georgia in 2008, is now in support of the Fair Tax. Dale Cardwell, who is also a candidate for Senate in the Democratic primary, has already decleared his support of abolishing the IRS. That just leaves Rand Knight to play the moderate Democrat among the conservative Democrats in the Senate primary.

To put it simply, and I say this from my perspective or understanding of the Fair Tax proposal, is that it is income regressive. The Fair Tax seeks to eliminate all income taxes, as well as other taxes such as estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, etc. and replace these taxes with a national sales tax. What makes this tax regressive is that it places a greater burden of taxation as a percent of income for the poor and middle class than it does on the rich. This is because it is a tax on consumption, and as we move further up the income ladder, we spend less on goods, and save and invest more. While the price of goods we buy increases as income increases, at some point it hits a ceiling. So for example, a poor family making $450 a week may consume about $300 a week in food, gas, and other living expenses, whereas a family making $2000 a week may consume about $1000 a week in living expenses. The proportion of income spent on living expenses is greater for the lower income brackets than it is for the higher brackets. Therefore, more of a lower income brackets income is taxed by the fair tax than the higher income bracket.

Pardon the long explanation but it brings me to this point. The prime creators and supporters of the Fair Tax are Republicans. The plan was pitched by Neal Boortz and John Linder (along with undoubtedly some fellows at an anti-tax think tank), and has been pushed through Republican channels as an alternative to our current progressive tax system.

Please tell me why self-proclaimed Democrats in a Democratic primary actively supporting a Republican plan? I say in sarcasm that surely the lessons of 2006 would have taught Democratic candidates that becoming Republican-Lite is not the way to win elections.

Direct mail pioneer (and one of the modern conservative godfathers) Richard Viguerie attacks defenders of Fred Thompson.

~Fred Thompson is in the race largely due to conservative projections of their own insecurities on some manly father figure. Too bad that person is an effete Hollywood actor who failed to champion conservative causes during his legislative tenure (or any cause during his tenure as is becoming more apparent). Fred Thompson is a notoriously lazy man, and the conservative "movement" are in for quite a hard time getting anything done with him. They won't care of course, as long as they have someone to project onto.

-The  new most craven line from the right is that Bush strayed from conservatism.

Communism cannot fail, it can only be failed. 

Arlen Specter delivers another empty threat. No surprise here. The senior senator from Pennsylvania, as Democrats must remember, will always pledge fealty to the Republican party. Republican uber alles! (via crooks and liars)

Iraqi PM wants Petraeus out. Iraqi people want us to leave. Iraqi lawmakers back withdrawal.

Wayback Machine:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a
sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a
constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say,
leave, we would leave." ~ President Bush, May 24th 2007

    Matt Yglesias lays out the right wing blogosphere game plan when it comes ot media that forces dobule-thought/creates cognitive dissonance/short-circuits their schematic reasoning. One of the difficulties of being on the reality-based side of things is the pressure to create a leakproof case for any argument or assertion of fact. While we do have the facts on our side, we are only human, and we do make mistakes. These mistakes are in turn used to discredit a whole organization, party, etc. What is worse is the tendency to lump in well-meaning progressives who make unconvincing arguments with those that make better arguments. Of course, I would much rather have these people rather than loose cannon conservatives on my side, but I do still lament the right-wing echo machine's role in trying to destroy the credibility of hard-working reality-based professionals and academics.

     What also frustrates me is that right wing pundits and bloggers can assert whatever they want. If they are right, they heap accolades upon themselves. When they are wrong, they get promoted and become part of the right-wing welfare system. Carry the party line, right or wrong, if you want to survive in the twisted world of the American Republican right.

    I mean, what would Bill Kristol have to say to get fired from anything? Would the "free market" really support a prognosticator who is always wrong? 

With the appearance of Cheney in this particularly sordid episode of the NSA wiretapping scandal, I can safely say that the Grand Unified Theory of the Bush Administration.

Would it be too much trouble to ask our elected officials to read the Constitution? It's really not that hard. I bet someone can make a little Schoolhouse Rock out of it.

Digby at Hullabaloo raises a number of good points about the nature of the democracy and the subversion of democratic principles by the Republican Party.

I'd like to add that the "34 Senators" problem may very well be considered an indictment against the pluralist nature of liberal democracy. Theodore Lowi, author of the End of Liberalism, has argued for years that in a democracy, the interests of the people are derogated due to the ability of any plurality of peoples or interests to direct the actions of government. In this case, the fact that ~70% of the American public as well as 52-56 senators are calling for withdrawal and a timetable is not enough to overcome the small group of Republican holdouts in the Senate. While the founding fathers clearly saw the Senate as a body far less responsive to the mood of the American public than the House, there was still no account made in the constitution for a situation such as this where it is not necessarily the interests of the minority being protected (although in this case they are the same thing, albeit the interests of a very small minority), nor is it the individual interests of the Senators being protected, but rather the interests of the party. Republican uber alles I suppose. Ultimately, the Republican party behaves as a single party controlled by a minority radical interest group. The Democratic party is a collection of interests which by principle sees no impoetus to unite under authoritarian rule As a result, the Republican party has wedged itself into the government, allowing the imposition of minority rule over a fractious majority.

Another point I would like to make is that impeachment is all well and good, but what must truly happen is that there must be an indictment on the part of the American people of the unitary executive and other theories that have been put into execution over the past 6 years. Bushism may prove further detrimental to this nation long after Bush and his ilk have left the White House.