Last updated on 2013.02.17
Friends, I try to keep the Jon Stewart posts to a minimum. But when our man Thune makes the show, how can I resist?
On Monday, Senator John Thune rose with his Republican colleagues in opposition to the Buffett Rule, President Obama's proposal to set a minimum federal income tax rate of 30% for folks making over two million dollars a year.
Senator Thune said the Buffett Rule is unworthy of the Senate's attention because (0:45 in the Stewart clip below) it would only generate revenue equivalent to "half of one day's worth of federal spending." Thune and his colleagues pegged that additional revenue at $47 billion over ten years; advocates estimate slightly larger potatoes of $160 billion over ten years.
So why does this statement from Senator Thune get Jon Stewart's attention?
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, April 17, 2012
...because a year and a week ago, Senator Thune spoke from the Senate floor (1:50 in the Stewart clip) to support the House GOP budget that would have eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood:
I think most of these—a lot of legislative things, a lot of things that get funded in government are an expression of someone's ideology. Now, there are some of us who happen to believe the taxpayers in this country should not be supporting abortion; that taxpayer funds should not be going to support abortions.
The broader debate about funding for Planned Parenthood is not just ideological, it is a funding issue because they have received somewhere on the order of over $300 million a year in taxpayer funds. So when you are looking at ways to trim government, you are looking at every area of the government. You are by definition making decisions that in some cases may be based on someone's ideology [Senator John Thune, remarks from the Senate floor, Congressional Record, April 8, 2011, p. S2293].
Senator Thune finds savings of $300 million a year worth mentioning in Senate debate when it serves his ideology and backs fellow Senator Jon Kyl's blatant lie about Planned Parenthood. But reducing the debt by $4.7 billion a year (that's more than 15 times as much) is peanut shells, not worthy of his support.
In other words, Thune will happily squeeze every penny of debt reduction he can from women who need health care, but he'll balk at debt reduction that cuts into purchases of champagne and summer homes.
The Buffet Rule fiasco was a brilliantly played strategy on the part of President Obama. He knows that most people would support it; if it went to a public referendum it would probably win by a 70-30 margin. Yet almost every Republican opposed it, as Mr. Obama knew they would; so, in quite predictable fashion, the Republicans have administered one more dose of poison to themselves.
That said, in my opinion, it does not matter much who we elect to the Presidency in November. It matters more who we elect in Congress. But either way, in the end, the little people are the ones who will get clobbered. Trust me on this one. Throughout history, it's always worked out that way.
Within ten years, and possibly even within five years, every single one of us will be paying a 10-, 15-, or even 20-percent value added tax on every month's rent, every gallon of gas, every utility bill, every steak dinner, every bowl of cereal, every visit to the doctor, every bill from our attorney, every loaf of bread, every potato, every apple, every raisin, every last grain of salt that we consume.
The Republicans will learn to love that tax because it's regressive.
The Democrats will learn to love it because it's an engine for government growth.
Every last one of us will hate it.
But it will be too late.
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding it not mattering who we elect to office, but my opinion is more of a "Democrats are too similar to Republicans" kind of thing. I really wish good ol' Nader would run again..
I would be in favor of a tax increase if the money actually went to deficit reduction.
I am also totally willing to spend money on womens health care but I do not want to give that money to a clinic that provides abortion. I'm sure there are many other good organizations who perform mamograms etc without also giving an abortion.
Let's make planned paretnhood choose between abortion and federal dollars. I hope they choose real womens health care rather than abortion.
To support Stan's thesis about the importance of whom we elect to Congress, consider the last 3.5 years: when President Obama had a Democratic Congress, we saw Congress pass a huge number of reforms. Since the Tea Party victories and switch of the House to GOP, progress has ground to a halt.
Mike, there is no reason to make Planned Parenthood choose between receiving federal funding and providing a legal procedure that is part of basic health care.
Carter, I still love Nader. Many Dems demonize him, but I enjoy seeing himn run a strong campaign to hold President Obama's feet to the fire on his conservative leanings.
Cory, you have lost it. reducing government and attacking the debt means less spending. More taxes mean more government, and more subsidies for the corporate socialists. The Tea Party is saying the government needs to live within its means. If you want the governemnt to kill children who are committing crimes against their mothers, then that needs to be done in the Justice Department, not Planned Parenthood under the banne of "Parenthhod" or healthcare. And Obama's "conservative leanings"? If you are using Romney and the corporate socialists as your yardstick, then you have no clue what conservative means.
Where's Ken? All these Democrats, oh wait Republicans, not caring about the deficit. How do these guys look at themselves in the mirror? Why are they voted in? We would be better off if Congress was selected at random like the draft.
I know you're going for the local angle, Cory, but the best part of the clip is discovery that Republicans are experiencing existential angst. I would suggest they beging to make authentic choices: "To act in bad faith is to turn away from the authentic choosing of oneself and to act in conformity with a stereotype or role" (Sartre).
I can't think of a group of people acting more like a stereotypes than the current Republican leadership in Congress.
Cory, I think I would turn your comment on Obama on it's head. I'm more inclined to call him a conservative with progressive leanings. He's smart enough to help out the economy, but I personally hesitate to call him a liberal.
Steve, Obama isn't an extremist lunatic conservative. His social ideas are rather liberal. But fiscally, he is far more conservative than we need, not to mention that he's not much less of a war monger than Bush. He's just less direct about it.
Saying the Tea Party just wants the government to live within its means is leaving out basically everything people dislike about the Tea Party. Republicans pandering to Tea Partiers and ultra-conservative Christians is at worst setting our country back 100 years, and at best completely stagnating our government in move entirely centered on personal greed.
How do we close a big deficit? $4.7 billion here, $4.7 billion there. Pretty soon we're talking real money.
This GOP argument that $4.7 billion per year is chicken feed is ridiculous on its face - as evidenced by Sen. Thune's own claim a year ago that $300 million/year is significant.
Fortunately, the public by wide margins rejects the GOP's blatant shilling for rich people to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. They're going to ride that horse right off a cliff with Romney as their posterboy for the undertaxed Wall Street super wealthy.
Carter, yours and my characterizations should put the lie to another Tea Party fantasy, that Barack Obama is a raving liberal. I'm a raving liberal. I know raving liberals. At no point as Barack Obama behaved like a raving liberal.
R, indeed! Especially from a deficit-hawk perspective, the perspective John Thune wants us to believe the GOP embodies and Dems do not, every penny counts!
Jon Stewart's War On Women clip is also worth watching: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/catholic-league-threatens-jon-stewart-boycott-over-vagina-135012202.html