I question your statement: “Most obviously, the Republican Party exists to serve the interests of the rich and tax cuts help the rich”. Certainly it is NOT obvious to most Republican voters because they are not rich & yet they swallow the GOP line of concern for “ working families” and “ small business”. The rugged individualism myth is BS! Just leave us alone ! When the hurricane passes the Redneck Rescue guys will save the day! When your uninsured neighbor gets cancer from the toxic water polluted by the refinery down the road , the church will have a spaghetti dinner to pay for her treatment. We’re a tight- knit community; we’ll rebuild. That’s pathetic.
Two more things come to mind. How much this is intertwined with the toxic individualism of Americans, the “give me my taxes back and then I don’t need anybody else, I can do it all on my own”. Also, the way this quite subversively gets people to deal legitimize the only tool they have to check the power and wealth of the few, which is democratic government. Getting people to see the government as the problematic concentration of power, instead of Capital.
I’m all for taxing the rich, but it’s important to understand, at least according to MMT, that doing so isn’t what funds social programs. If the US gov wants to pay for Medicare for all or infrastructure or affordable housing, it can! It is the sole issuer of its currency. No extra taxes needed from the rich or anyone else. That doesn’t mean that a society with billionaires isn’t criminal and a self-indictment, and that we don’t need to tax the rich heavily. We do! But not to pay for social programs, but rather to mitigate wealth disparity and political influence and other inherently nefarious aspects of allowing such extreme wealth accumulation. Just a thought to consider integrating into your next piece on the subject. This concept is critical because the general understanding is that in order to get something like Medicare for All, we need to tax the rich to fund it. We don’t. These are mutually exclusive concepts. Armed with that knowledge we won’t be fooled when politicians try to hide behind the ever common excuse: “sorry folks, we can only pass [social program] if we first are able to tax the rich to pay for it.”
Yes-- it's not that federal programs are directly funded by tax revenue (although at the state and local level they are) but rather that the overall worldview of government drawing away wealth from those who have it is a driving force of the Republican approach.
The “taxes pay for government” framing is not trivial. It is the biggest conceptual obstacle to citizens collectively demanding the government spend more to pay for things that benefit us collectively.
Making the leap to the MMT understanding is as important as the leap from divine right of kings to a republic, from slavery is natural to slavery is evil, from meekly accepting what the boss is willing to give to deciding to band together to use collective power.
Consider those MAGA voters who complain about billions of dollars going to Ukraine while there are needs in this country. I see them all the time on different YouTube channels. Their concern might sound insincere to a typical liberal, but those MAGAs are on the cusp of realizing the federal government–the Congress–has no budgetary constraint, only a material resources constraint. It can create and spend as much money as it wants.
On the other side of politics, broadly speaking, you find other people wondering why the U.S. can afford to spend billions for Israel but not for healthcare or college. They are also on the cusp of internalizing a different frame.
The point of my ramble is these conceptual limitations are not trivial. They are as consequential as the anti-union rhetorical frame of “right to work.” It reminds me of one of the stories in Nolan’s book, the one about the teacher in South Carolina who cannot imagine herself as a union member. Her concept of what a union and its members are, and what they do, is poisoned by more than a hundred and fifty years of anti–union viciousness.
Framing and rhetoric interact with the material world powerfully because framing and rhetoric affect people’s choices.
I found this to be concise and effective writing, and I appreciate the commentary Nolan brings to the discussion. I believe it to be important and vital.
Finally, i understand the scam. How to combat it is a harder thing to wrap my mind around as this scam is so ingrained in our politics that most of the people who depend on government programs always vote into office the very people who will take everything away from them, but promise them fairy dust! I hope a savior comes soon or all of "pie" will be sitting in the wealthy's plates.
I find that the old adage "you get what you pay for" applies very well to issues of taxation and government services. Sure, we could starve the government of funds via tax cuts, but we already seeing the results in terms of infrastructure, public education, and public health/the environment. The government we have now is what we've paid for because we weren't willing to pay a little more (and require the moneyed class to pay a bit more as well.)
It's also important to appreciate that if rich people think they can buy all of the benefits that governments provide with their own money on the private market, *they are wrong*.
Some merely redistributive functions of government are redundant for rich people, but regional planning and infrastructure construction aren't. A "rich person" can't realistically build themselves a road, or fix up a dilapidated road. Infrastructure projects inherently must be done collectively.
You're kinda thinking small about rich people. Kings used to do that kind of stuff all the time, and the whole way kings work is essentially "one guy controls all the money."
I question your statement: “Most obviously, the Republican Party exists to serve the interests of the rich and tax cuts help the rich”. Certainly it is NOT obvious to most Republican voters because they are not rich & yet they swallow the GOP line of concern for “ working families” and “ small business”. The rugged individualism myth is BS! Just leave us alone ! When the hurricane passes the Redneck Rescue guys will save the day! When your uninsured neighbor gets cancer from the toxic water polluted by the refinery down the road , the church will have a spaghetti dinner to pay for her treatment. We’re a tight- knit community; we’ll rebuild. That’s pathetic.
Two more things come to mind. How much this is intertwined with the toxic individualism of Americans, the “give me my taxes back and then I don’t need anybody else, I can do it all on my own”. Also, the way this quite subversively gets people to deal legitimize the only tool they have to check the power and wealth of the few, which is democratic government. Getting people to see the government as the problematic concentration of power, instead of Capital.
I’m all for taxing the rich, but it’s important to understand, at least according to MMT, that doing so isn’t what funds social programs. If the US gov wants to pay for Medicare for all or infrastructure or affordable housing, it can! It is the sole issuer of its currency. No extra taxes needed from the rich or anyone else. That doesn’t mean that a society with billionaires isn’t criminal and a self-indictment, and that we don’t need to tax the rich heavily. We do! But not to pay for social programs, but rather to mitigate wealth disparity and political influence and other inherently nefarious aspects of allowing such extreme wealth accumulation. Just a thought to consider integrating into your next piece on the subject. This concept is critical because the general understanding is that in order to get something like Medicare for All, we need to tax the rich to fund it. We don’t. These are mutually exclusive concepts. Armed with that knowledge we won’t be fooled when politicians try to hide behind the ever common excuse: “sorry folks, we can only pass [social program] if we first are able to tax the rich to pay for it.”
Yes-- it's not that federal programs are directly funded by tax revenue (although at the state and local level they are) but rather that the overall worldview of government drawing away wealth from those who have it is a driving force of the Republican approach.
The “taxes pay for government” framing is not trivial. It is the biggest conceptual obstacle to citizens collectively demanding the government spend more to pay for things that benefit us collectively.
Making the leap to the MMT understanding is as important as the leap from divine right of kings to a republic, from slavery is natural to slavery is evil, from meekly accepting what the boss is willing to give to deciding to band together to use collective power.
Consider those MAGA voters who complain about billions of dollars going to Ukraine while there are needs in this country. I see them all the time on different YouTube channels. Their concern might sound insincere to a typical liberal, but those MAGAs are on the cusp of realizing the federal government–the Congress–has no budgetary constraint, only a material resources constraint. It can create and spend as much money as it wants.
On the other side of politics, broadly speaking, you find other people wondering why the U.S. can afford to spend billions for Israel but not for healthcare or college. They are also on the cusp of internalizing a different frame.
The point of my ramble is these conceptual limitations are not trivial. They are as consequential as the anti-union rhetorical frame of “right to work.” It reminds me of one of the stories in Nolan’s book, the one about the teacher in South Carolina who cannot imagine herself as a union member. Her concept of what a union and its members are, and what they do, is poisoned by more than a hundred and fifty years of anti–union viciousness.
Framing and rhetoric interact with the material world powerfully because framing and rhetoric affect people’s choices.
I found this to be concise and effective writing, and I appreciate the commentary Nolan brings to the discussion. I believe it to be important and vital.
Finally, i understand the scam. How to combat it is a harder thing to wrap my mind around as this scam is so ingrained in our politics that most of the people who depend on government programs always vote into office the very people who will take everything away from them, but promise them fairy dust! I hope a savior comes soon or all of "pie" will be sitting in the wealthy's plates.
I find that the old adage "you get what you pay for" applies very well to issues of taxation and government services. Sure, we could starve the government of funds via tax cuts, but we already seeing the results in terms of infrastructure, public education, and public health/the environment. The government we have now is what we've paid for because we weren't willing to pay a little more (and require the moneyed class to pay a bit more as well.)
Also I love cherries.
Actually part of a cycle, at least in theory:
Cut taxes;
Reduce revenue;
Shrink budgets;
More tax cuts.
Probably the fly in the ointment there is that substituting debt for revenue brings other riches to Wall Street.
But, by and by, that’s the deal.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.”
Haha!! Nice. I hadn't heard that one yet.
Inow if only we really had that stark choice you suggest ...
What we have is two heads of one beast
It's also important to appreciate that if rich people think they can buy all of the benefits that governments provide with their own money on the private market, *they are wrong*.
Some merely redistributive functions of government are redundant for rich people, but regional planning and infrastructure construction aren't. A "rich person" can't realistically build themselves a road, or fix up a dilapidated road. Infrastructure projects inherently must be done collectively.
You're kinda thinking small about rich people. Kings used to do that kind of stuff all the time, and the whole way kings work is essentially "one guy controls all the money."
well done! In your description of the orange head, I'm catching whiffs of Hunter S Thompson...