Making politicians and media accountable to ordinary citizens since 2000.

Home | Unconservative Listening | Links | Contribute | About

Join the Mailing List | Contact Caro




By David Podvin

On May 23, the Bush tax plan was passed with the support of twelve Democratic Senators.

The major point of contention during the last campaign was how the surplus would be used. Al Gore wanted it to go for a middle class tax cut, a reduction in the six trillion dollar national debt, and increases in vile socialistic programs to improve education, fight crime, and clean the environment. George W. Bush proposed, although not forthrightly, that the surplus be used to rectify America’s most urgent problem as he saw it: that the richest one percent of Americans owned only forty two percent of the nation’s wealth.

This issue defines who is actually a Democrat, regardless of what they call themselves. Democrats can disagree with each other about virtually anything, with one exception. There really is a litmus test of whether someone is a Democrat: If someone believes that the primary role of government is to benefit “the deserving”, as Alexander Hamilton put it, or “people of accomplishment ”, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, then they are not a Democrat. The Democratic Party either stands for the principle that the government exists “in order to benefit the average citizen”, according to Thomas Jefferson, or it stands for nothing that isn’t already being represented by the other side.

The Bush tax cut scheme redistributes money to upper income Americans who overwhelmingly vote Republican. It does so under the guise of “returning the surplus to the taxpayer”. The biggest losers in this fraud are working class and lower income Americans who do not share in the tax cut windfall but who will get to pay off the national debt. That is the unspoken obscenity of this farce; a projected one and a half trillion dollar “surplus” will go primarily to the wealthy “because its their money!” Meanwhile, the six trillion dollar debt now officially belongs to the middle class and the poor.

The 62-38 Senate vote that made all of this possible comes as a blow to those who continue to believe in the fantasy that there are fifty Democrats in the Senate. There are actually thirty eight Democrats. There are also twelve political transvestites who dress up to look like Democrats when it’s time to run for office, but who act to serve the interests of those who vote Republican. These twelve faux Democrats, or Pseudocrats, voted to hurt their own supporters in order to benefit people who back the G.O.P. It was a vote for supply side economics. The last time the trickle down theory was tried, also with the support of “moderate Democrats”, the result was a disaster for America. The Reagan plan to “return tax money to those who paid it” resulted in the rich getting richer and everyone else getting a recession that was followed by a tripling of the national debt.

This is what was just supported by “Democratic” Senators Baucus, Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson, and Torricelli.

Et tu, Brute?

The most agonizing question in life is “why”? It is an agony that the Democratic rank and file gets to experience with great regularity. Why would twelve Democratic Senators take the seemingly irrational step of hurting their own supporters in order to benefit people who vote against them? Why didn’t the Senate Democrats publicly support Al Gore during the Florida recount? Or support the Congressional Black Caucus when they challenged the theft of the election? Why didn’t they filibuster Ashcroft? Or Olson? Why are there no demands for investigations of the blatant corruption of the Bush regime regarding everything from influence peddling on energy policy to falsely accusing Democrats of committing felonies as they were leaving the White House?

Here’s a golden oldie – the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate, why did they allow Anita Hill to be slandered and Clarence Thomas to be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Why should we have any confidence that it will be different this time?

There are several explanations for the support of the tax swindle by the untrustworthy twelve. The first is that some of the Senators who label themselves Democrats are in politics because it provides them with a career that they like, as opposed to them having a burning desire to make things better, or to help people. For them, being praised as “bipartisan statesmen” is more important than any principle. And it is easier for Senators from poor, rural states to parrot the Bush mantra than it is to take the time that is necessary to explain the more complicated consequences of irresponsible tax policy. It is also easier to conform to the desires of Corporate America and its propaganda machine, the mainstream media.

There are personal considerations.

Zell Miller is a Democrat only because he is too conservative to join the American Nazi Party.

John Breaux and Dianne Feinstein desperately want to be viewed as “moderate swing votes”. In other words, they each need to be a “player”, the center of attention. They would sell their firstborn to the carnival if it meant getting five minutes on Meet The Press. Robert Torricelli supported Bush during the Florida recount and congratulated Scalia on his decision to steal the election, so he had already proven that his lust for stabbing Democrats in the back is not a sometimes thing.

Max Baucus likes to say, “the people of Montana really don’t care what the Democrats think”. This would explain why the people of Montana elected a senator who is a Democrat in name only.

Herb Kohl never hesitates to put the interests of Herb Kohl first. Herb Kohl is really, really rich.

The others come from states that voted for Bush, and it’s always safer to follow than it is to lead.

Put it all together and you have twelve disciples of Satanic tax policy.

Most of the thirty eight real Democratic Senators are, by temperament, green leafy vegetables. They are admirable, to the extent that they are admirable, because they are not Orrin Hatch. They lack passion when it comes to looking out for the interests of their voters. So, while their supporters were outraged that the election had been stolen, they swooned when Bush gave them nicknames (“Hi, Chump! Great to see you, Sucker!”).

The Republican Senators might be evil, but they really believe passionately in being evil. All fifty of them supported redistributing middle class money to the rich. They rushed down to Florida to declare that Gore and Lieberman were unpatriotic criminals for wanting all the votes to be counted. The Republicans care about winning, and they play to win. Charles Colson once said that he would run over his own grandmother for Richard Nixon. It is not hard to visualize Trent Lott motoring onto the sidewalk as Granny frantically dives under the porch.

With Jim Jeffords reregistering as an Independent, there are now forty nine Republican Senators. Forty seven of them are determined hardcore right-wingers whose goal is to Reaganize every aspect of American life. They sincerely believe that the middle class has too much money and the rich don’t have enough.

There are, technically, fifty Democrats. Thirty eight of them believe in representing the interests of the average American. Unfortunately, they are unwilling to fight for their beliefs, so in practical political terms, they believe in nothing.

And there are twelve political transvestites. They masqueraded as Democrats in order to get grass roots support. They raised money by pledging to look out for the interests of Democratic voters. They were nominated with the consent of Democrats who took them at their word. They won elections with the support of Democrats who depended on them to keep their promises. Then they went to Washington, wiped off the make-up, and betrayed the vital interests of the people who made their political careers possible.

The Democrats now have technical control of the Senate and the committee chairmanships that go with it. However, the real divide is not between Democratic Senators and Republican Senators. It is between Senators who govern in order to benefit Democratic voters and Senators who govern in order to benefit Republican voters. In that decisive category, Republican voters have sixty two Senators who are willing to fight for their financial interests, and Democratic voters have thirty eight Senators who have not shown that they are willing to fight for anything.  

More David Podvin

Podvin, the Series


Last changed: December 13, 2009