With Republicans in control of Congress and Donald Trump in the White House, we’re hearing a lot about repealing the “Death Tax,” better known as the Federal Estate Tax. But what IS the Death Tax, and who actually pays it? Once you know the truth, you may feel differently about repeal.
You can learn lots more about the Estate Tax, and other taxes, by visiting the Tax Policy Center.
John McCain gets his turn in the Republican super-hero persona Republi-Con. The Press is very impressed.
As the third and final debate of the 2016 Presidential Election concluded last night, it was clear to anyone that Donald Trump’s collapse was complete. After a performance in which he threatened to end 215 years of peaceful transition of Presidential power, vascilated between condemning and admiring Vladimir Putin, and lashed out at the last minute by labeling Hillary Clinton “such a nasty woman,” even the most die-hard conservative commentators had to admit that he’d lost.
Except, perhaps, Rudy Giuliani, who has transformed from America’s mayor to America’s greatest sycophant.
But Trump’s catastrophic collapse is not his alone. Certainly the election is far from over, but polling data shows that barring some unforeseen development, Hillary Clinton will win the election in a landslide so dramatic that the Democrats will likely take the Senate and possibly–even in spite of prohibitive gerrymandering–the House. As one could tell watching Bill Kristol practically collapse into tears on Morning Joe, the Republican Party is in dire straits, done in by an identity crisis and a fundamental sickness of which Donald Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
It didn’t have to be this way.
Only a scant 22 months ago, the Republicans were picking up massive gains in every body of government, from Congress to Gubernatorial mansions to state and local offices. As the 2014 election set records for low turnout, Tea Party Republicans seemed the only people motivated to go to the polls and signify their disapproval of President Obama and his policies.
But was it really ever about his policies? Trump’s rise provides evidence for something many on the left, myself included, have been saying since the earliest days of the Tea Party: That their energy and anger was never really about taxes or sovereignty or the Constitution, it was about race, white nationalism, and xenophobia. This was clear from the start to anyone who paid attention; people claiming to be driven by tax policy didn’t know anything about actual tax policy; what they “knew” was that President Obama was an African Muslim bent on taking their guns and destroying America.
This is the energy Donald Trump seized, and rode past 17 other candidates, all of them (arguably) more qualified than him, to the Republican nomination, despite the party establishment’s best efforts to stop him.
But why? Why couldn’t the Republicans trust their voters to choose policy and electability over racism and xenophobia, to save them from certain doom at the hands of Donald “The Groping Narcissist” Trump?
Simple. Because Republican policy has been broken for years, so broken that to get voters to support them, the GOP built a coalition of hate and fear. But as the population of people to be feared has grown, and more people added to the list, that coalition has found themselves outnumbered and incapable of winning the important elections.
Republicans knew as early as the 1960s that they could not win elections on the merits of their policies. The roots of Donald Trump’s rise are in Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which used coded rhetoric and stoked latent Confederate resentment after the Civil Rights Era to win white racists to the Republican Party. Nixon replaced Johnson’s War on Poverty with a War on Drugs, which was only ever really a war on black communities.
By the 1980s it was Ronald Reagan, telling the story of a fictional “inner-city welfare queen,” playing on racism to get poor whites to vote against welfare programs from which they benefitted; but racism alone was not enough to win every election, so in the late 1970s and early 1980s the Republicans formed a pact with the so-called “Moral Majority,” the American theocratic movement that feared gays, abortion, and atheists.
Muslims, who through the 70s and 80s took a back seat as villains to the Soviets, would have to wait until the end of the Cold War to be labeled as the greatest enemies of the state, and while murmurs of white anxiety about Mexican immigrants were heard, it would not be until the 1990s, when recession made the job-destroying consequences of Republican policy vividly apparent, that white conservatives began pointing fingers at Mexico and the need for southern border security.
But the predominantly white population on which these tactics worked was ever shrinking as a percent of voting population, and as culture shifted and LGBTQ Americans gained mainstream acceptance the GOP lost one of their wedge issues. Republicans had a wake-up call in 2012, and in the miniature identity crisis that followed considered the need to alter immigration and jobs policies to appeal to Latinx Americans, soften on anti-LGBTQ initiatives, and otherwise shift to invite a wider section of America’s increasingly diverse voting base.
Instead, the party went the other way, intensifying their rhetoric until they alienated even those relatively few diverse voters who still aligned with them. Rather than work to embrace minority populations (who, combined, now constitute a majority of Americans) the Republicans advanced new voting requirements to prevent those minorities from voting, a desperate and despicable ploy to preserve the power of their alliance just a little bit longer.
Many experts cited Republican fears about alienating their base, and the need to win local and primary elections dominated by Tea Party voters. The implied assumption there, however, and one that I believe is correct, is that softening would not successfully attract new voters because Republican policies are fundamentally flawed. This is why there are no more Rockefeller Republicans, and almost no more of Bush’s “compassionate conservatives.” The only way to get people other than the most wealthy corporate elite to vote against their own self-interest and to support the Republican party is to appeal to their hatred and bigotry.
And so the GOP candidates and party establishment finds themselves now, cursed with a candidate who cannot win–and whose catastrophic candidacy seems poised to drag the entire party down with it–as the inevitable product of a machine they created.
The only solution? If the Republican Party wants any chance at winning major elections in the future, it must evolve. The United States is never going back to the way things were in the 1950s, and it is past time that one of our two major parties stop pretending otherwise.
Our immigration system is antiquated and broken, and voters will embrace realistic, reasonable immigration reform. Closed borders and isolationism are neither practically feasible nor appealing to Americans who embrace our diversifying culture. No more mythology about immigrants bringing crime and drugs; reforming the way ICE approaches immigration enforcement and transforming it into something humane and decent would win a lot of votes.
No more “tough on crime” laws. Mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws are devastating to communities and carry a huge tax burden to enforce. In recent years, the curtain has been drawn back to reveal the ugly reality of American law enforcement. Modern policing is oppressive and incompatible with any party that claims to value a small government that doesn’t intrude in people’s lives. Put forward meaningful reforms on law enforcement, including community policing and sentencing guidelines.
While you’re at it, bring the War on Drugs to a definitive end. The idea is totally compatible with the core values of reducing regulation, shrinking government, and minimizing tax-funded public expense. The War on Drugs costs Americans billions every year, it destroys families and communities, and it doesn’t do anything to prevent drug abuse. Legalize drugs, tax their sales (Republicans prefer use taxes to income taxes, right?) and use the revenues to fund rehabilitation and education that might actually solve drug abuse problems–like the catastrophic opioid epidemic that generally already begins with the legal use of prescription drugs.
Abandon the anti-science stance that allows you to deny climate change is an existential crisis, and bring the same energy and enthusiasm to that problem that the GOP does to all other matters of national security. Stop allowing corporations to pretend carbon emissions aren’t the problem, and instead work with them to incentivize solutions.
It’s time to reevaluate all Republican policies, but especially the most hard-line, because the beliefs to which you cling hardest are the ones with the least rational justification. Trickle-down does not work, that’s a proven fact. Christianity has never been our official religion, and it never will be, so stop trying to force it on us. The Second Amendment affords Americans the right to self-defense, but right now Americans need defense from the Second Amendment.
All of these reforms would change the GOP from an out-of-touch relic that relies on trickery and manipulation to achieve any power, and provide a viable second party alternative to voters who feel frustrated by our broken political system. Would they alienate the racist white voters who have come to define the Republican Party? Abso-fucking-lately they would. The GOP would need to be prepared for a lot of angry phone calls, bigotry, and death threats of the variety those on the left currently receive on a daily basis. You’d probably also see a number of GOP politicians jump ship to become independents or join the Liberarian Party.
But that’s okay; embracing meaningful changes in policy would attract conservative-leaning voters who right now align as reluctant Democrats, or feel totally disenfranchised. In all likelihood, a GOP that kept to conservative principles while embracing science and realistic policy measures would lure bright centrist politicians away from the Democratic Party to replace fringe Tea Party extremists who jump ship.
And perhaps most importantly, such changes would again provide the American voter with two viable parties from which to choose. As a very left-leaning Democratic voter myself, I desperately want a reasonable and attractive Republican Party to force my politicians to work hard and put forward real solutions to our problems.
Will the Republican leadership see it this way? Almost certainly not. For one thing, appeals to racism have been so intrinsic to the party for so long that many of the officials themselves are racists. Others are corporate shills who aren’t interested in doing work that actually benefits the country, just the next rhetorical trick that will keep Americans voting against their own self-interest. My expectation is that the GOP will keep on the same path, maybe even further intensifying their rhetoric, until their victories are limited only to the whitest and most bigoted state and local offices, and congressional districts so gerrymandered they look like the letters of some alien language.
But wouldn’t it be nice if Trump were the last of the racist Republians? If Nixon’s Southern Strategy was finally laid on the ash-heap of history, as they say, and America entered 2017 with two rival political parties ready to face the realities of the 21st century instead of trying to turn back the clock?
Human progress moves slowly; that’s a fact. In government, in the United States, it is almost incentivized to move slower still. But Donald Trump and his catastrophic, embarassing bid for the Presidency is a death knell for the Republican Party. The question is whether it can reinvent itself and rise, or be itself consigned to the ashes.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
It was clear from the very first question at the Republican Primary Debate on Thursday night that Donald Trump was going to win. When the candidates were asked as a group, in the very first question in the very first debate, whether they would swear to support the eventual nominee and promise not to run as independent, only Trump refused. Twitter pundits immediately labeled it a mistake, but once again they missed Trump’s savvy: On a stage with ten would-be Presidents, Trump raised his hand and bought himself extra time in the spotlight.
What’s surprising about Trump is not that he remains the front-runner after that debate; what’s surprising is how many pundits and analysts didn’t expect him to be. Long-time political experts are baffled by Trump, wrongly predicting his demise with each breaking mini-scandal; but they misunderstand Trump and his success, because they misunderstand Republican voters.
Trump’s second question was even more revealing. Challenged by Megyn Kelly about the demeaning way he treats women, Trump didn’t back down. He responded with a dig at old foe Rosie O’Donnell, and then unflinchingly defended his conduct. “The big problem this country has is being politically correct,” he said . The audience laughed, and then cheered, and the camera cut back to Megyn Kelly’s bemused expression. That happened several times during the debate: A Trump answer, an audience cheer, and a shot of a moderator barely concealing their frustration. Continue Reading
As Senator Ted Cruz took the podium on Monday morning to announce his candidacy for President, rivals and critics were buying up the URLs he and his team failed to acquire in advance–a pretty basic and rudimentary first step in announcing a 21st century candidacy.
TedCruz.com, the most famous instance, is a black box that says “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” ReadyForCruz.com forwards to a mocking petition from activist group Left Action, and CruzForAmerica.com is parked and points to a blank page. Cruz’s team owns TedCruz.org as well as TedCruz2016.com, but failing to register prominent variations will cost the candidate in both traffic and embarrassment. Continue Reading
Today, if all the predictions are correct, Senator Ted Cruz will officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Here’s my favorite thing about Cruz for President: He wasn’t born in the United States, but in Canada.
Now, you might be wondering: Doesn’t that mean he’s ineligible to be President? While the answer isn’t entirely clear (meaning the Supreme Court has never ruled) the consensus is that Cruz is eligible. His mother was a U.S. citizen, which experts say makes him a “natural born citizen,” the requirement laid out in the Constitution.
But if you’ve been paying attention for the last eight years, you might be asking yourself another question: Isn’t this exactly what the birthers accused President Obama of? Wasn’t there a three-year, Trump-funded hunt to find “the real birth certificate” because the birthers believed Obama was born in Kenya to a mother who as a U.S. citizen? Continue Reading
On Thursday’s Outnumbered, a panel of five Fox News personalities debated whether public school is something that should even still exist in the United States. The discussion, which has generated a fair amount of controversy, was prompted by a bill from Oklahoma lawmaker Dan Fisher, who wants to ban AP History because it teaches too much actual history, and not enough propaganda.
(Okay, as Fisher phrases it, the course “emphasizes what is bad about America,” and doesn’t teach American exceptionalism.)
Now, Fox generates business by manufacturing controversy and liberal outrage, and I try not to support them too much here, but this time the hypocrisy was just too much for me to resist. Why? Because every single person on the panel debating the merits of public education got there by attending public schools. Two (arguably three) of them attended public high school and public university. Continue Reading
So Chris Christie, potential next President of the United States, says vaccinating children against deadly diseases is a matter of parental choice. One wonders if Christie feels similarly about parents “choosing” not to feed their children, or “choosing” not to buckle their children into a seatbelt or car seat.
I’m all for parental choice, but putting a child in direct mortal danger is not an option that should be available to parents–especially when that choice jeopardizes not just their own child, but the rest of the American population. Continue Reading