As The GOP Gets Ready to Reveal its Contract With America 2.0 Tomorrow, Let Us Now Pause to Get Real...

Tomorrow, House Republicans are threatening to reveal their senses-shattering agenda for life after the midterms when, there but for the grace of a Mark Foley-style scandal, they will control at least the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate. And quite possibly a couple of public-access cable stations and used-car lots and a couple of Dunkin' Donuts franchises.

Some things to keep in mind before the policy Ambien kicks in during the presser about the New, Improved Contract With America:

1. For much of, oh, the past decade, the GOP has been staggeringly incompetent in defining themselves as the party of small government. Their standard-bearer, George W. Bush, managed to jack up total federal outlays 104 percent over his predecessor in eight short years, and he either signed off on or strong-armed all sorts of big-government projects through both Republican and Democratic majorities (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drugs, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, endless war supplemental spending bills, TARP, auto bailouts, etc.).

2. The GOP leadership, with incredibly few exceptions, has never offered up a serious alternative to Obama's spend-spend-spend agenda. Earlier this year, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virg.), one of the self-styled "Young Guns," debuted a YouCut website, where bored prisoners and shut-ins with Internet access could vote on various ways to cut the federal budget. The average annual price tag of each possible reduction came to a whopping $638 million, or about 0.02 of a $3.7 trillion budget. If that's what these Young Guns are slinging, I'm sticking with Lou Diamond Phillips and Casey Siezmasko. Paul Ryan's much-ballyhooed "Roadmap to America's Future" is a serious stab at bringing revenue and outlays into some vague approximation of one another. Yet it only balances the budget in 2063, which might as well be a Zager and Evans song. Dr. Newt Gingrich, who is to the Republicans what Dr. X is to Queensryche's Operation: Mindcrime, is on the recent record as holding Medicare and Social Security spending even holier than the Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory (It's not just coats!).

3. The original Contract With America had about zero impact on the election of 1994. Somewhere around 70 percent of voters told exit pollsters that they had never heard of the CWA before casting their ballots. Of those who had heard of it, equal tiny amounts (around 7 percent) said that it was as likely to tip them toward the Republicans or the Democrats. The GOP scored huge wins because everybody hated Clinton at that point (libs as well as cons) and political grotesques such as Dan Rostenkowski personified a Congress gone mad. Let's be bold and say that given Obama's growing lack of popularity, even the GOP can't fuck this midterm up. But it will be fun to watch them try.

4. Most of the Contract With America had nothing to do with limiting government or spending. Sure, there was the sure-to-fail balanced budget language and the glimmering of what became welfare reform. And there was not-taken-seriously term-limit talk too. But there was also a bunch of junk about jacking military spending (then in decline due to the end of the Cold War) and building more prisons and putting more people in jail for longer terms (mission accomplished!). And while Tim Cavanaugh is right to rhapsodize about the good old days when pols were willing to put their names to something/anything, the major programs ostensibly covered by the contract grew and grew and grew.

What will tomorrow bring? A realization that you can beat something with nothing, I suspect. The smart money is on a When All the Laughter Turned to Sorrow scenario, this time without the soulful stylings of triple threat Joey Heatherton. The only thing we know for sure is that John Boehner, the man who would be Speaker and the last living Republican leadership holdover from 1994, will be tanned, rested, and ready to admit that "smoking is probably not good for my health."

Update: ABC News' Jonathan Karl has an anonymously sourced preview of "The Pledge to America" (ain't no contract!), which reportedly includes extending the Bush tax rates permanently, capping discretionary spending, ending the stimulus, keeping Gitmo open (?), bashing Iran and spending more money on missile defense. Vague details here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    If the Republicans can't take at least a chamber back this November, they should just start some kind of culling program within their own ranks and at least try for some kind of Darwinian effect. Maybe some kind of lottery where the two winners have to hunt each other until only one is left, and then a new lottery is run, etc.

    Not only would it thin their ranks of the weak, they could televise it and gain a sort of Running Man celebrity from it as well. Then they could crush the Dems eventually by running Buzzsaw or Sub Zero (now, plain zero) as candidates. But Captain Freedom is strictly an independent.

  • ||

    Shit, the Nazis could win the House right now. The Democrats are that unpopular. And, despite all the punditry to the contrary, the Senate could be won by the Fascists.

    Naturally, the GOP is so screwed up these days that it'll mess things up, one way or the other, win or lose.

  • ||

    But could Dynamo win?

  • ||

    Only with a name change to Newcular Titties.

  • Geotpf||

    I don't think the Democrats, per se, are unpopular right now. Incumbents are unpopular right now. This is definitely a throw-the-bums-out election. And, this will include many Republican incumbents as well as Democrats, possibly muting the size of the switch.

    And the root of the unpopularity is the fact that the economy sucks. It's unclear that anybody has any idea what the Republicans would do that would actually fix the economy-nobody cares about that, really-they only are voting for them because they aren't in power right now.

  • ||

    Let's do the math. Congress is polling at 11% approval. Congress is controlled by the Democrats.

    The GOP took its licks in the primaries as far as getting rid of some incumbents. But nothing is going to change the fact that this Congress is one of the worst ever. And the party in control of it will pay the piper.

    Isn't all this self-evident? Didn't a very similar thing happen in 2006? Except that I think the Democrats are even more despised than the GOP was then.

  • ||

    ""Congress is polling at 11% approval.""

    And at least 85% of the incumbents will get re-elected. During the last Presidental election, Congress had a 20 something % yet Obama, Biden, and McCain were on the ticket.

    Congress approval rating is a lousy indicator of who will win becuase people can hate Congress but like their Senators and Rep.

  • ||

    Wishful thinking. How cute.

  • LOL||

    Better than the delusion you and pro are sucking on. At least you're moving up from one sentence to two, good job. But Pro though, worst congress ever, seriously? How soon until the words, Kenyon, secret muslim, and oh no, he said something critical about corporation. Oh wait, you guys are crying because he said something critical about corporate actions and influence, and we have to protect them because they're oh so fragile and sensitive, you guys really are pathetic.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Hit a nerve? Once again we see how unbelievably stupid Obama and Dem partisans are; they can't distinguish between predicting that the GOP will take over and cheering for the GOP to take over.

    But you're just a simple partisan, so we can't expect too much from you, little buddy. If the GOP takes over, we can go get some ice cream, OK, big guy? Would you like that?

  • ||

    Wow, that's a really stupid comment. I may have it framed.

    If Congress was any better when it was last controlled by the Republicans, it may have only been because they weren't responding to a deep recession. Not really sure. But it was very bad then, too.

  • Jason||

    Shit, the Nazis could win the House right now. The Democrats are that unpopular. And, despite all the punditry to the contrary, the Senate could be won by the Fascists.

    After reading what Fascists actually believed, I agree absolutely.

    And it would be the Democrats voting for them.

  • ||

    The saddest part of all of this is that they're the only real* alternative to the D's Earth-scorching ineptitude.

    *Electable this year.

  • Newt Gingrich||

    Here's a gun. Take it home, and wait by the phone.

  • ||

    Is your first name short for something? Because if it isn't that is real fucked up.

  • ||

    Newcular Titties.

  • ||

    And yes, I mean newcular. Not newclear.

  • ||

    I had to look this up, and according to wikipedia, his name is Newton Leroy Gingrich.

    Which is no way near as cool as Newcular Titties. I'd probably have to like Mr. Gingrich if his name was Dr. Newcular Titties Gingrich, but it ain't so fuck him and the dick he rode in on.

  • ||

    Still time for a legal name change! He can't help it if his parents lacked foresight, but it's his fault if he doesn't correct their failure now.

  • ||

    I have sent an email:

    Mr. Gingrich, I know that this is highly unorthodox, but I have been considering supporting your agenda for America.

    I am a libertarian and lean heavily towards anarcho-capitalism so for me to support your cause I would need something in return.

    That something is so simple and would not compromise the integrity of you operation. It is:

    Would you please change your name to Newcular Titties Gingrich?

    After I sent it, they said a staff member will be contacting me.I will keep h&r abreast of any developments.

  • ||

    I'd accept him doing it on the sly. In other words, he'd still go by Newt, but it would be short for Newcular Titties, not Newton.

    In fact, I'd be okay if he just lied and told us that he was changing his full name to Newcular Titties.

  • ||

    If he did even that, then I'd vote for him.

    I mean, who else am I going to vote for; Wayne Allen Root, Obama...

    Not that it fucking matters.

  • ||

    Thank you for sharing your concerns with us, we review all requests and share the feedback with Newt and the team. We will send a response if need be. Please visit http://newt.org/issues for further information on the Issues you are most concerned with.

    That's not a no.

  • ||

    Why is it "Issues?" Why capitalized?

    Just for the record, I think a response is "need be."

  • ||

    OMG, Newt thinks I'm "CRAZY", and that I have "ISSUES", and that I'm "STALKING" him...come on Newcular Titties, we can have a beautiful life together.

  • ||

    I think Hit & Run should run a banner ad for your cause until Newt changes his name.

  • ||

    Holy shit, at 5:44 I received a phone call from a political polling place in DC. Strange, considering that no one has this phone number.

    Coincidence?

  • ||

    You'll know if they ask you this question: "You stated earlier that you wouldn't vote for Newt Gingrich if he ran for president in 2012. However, would you vote for him if he ran as Newcular Titties Gingrich?"

  • ||

    You should tell them to act quickly, as Palin is seriously considering adopting the name.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    capitol l, if you weren't on a TSA watch list before, you sure are now. Hats off, dude.

  • ||

    They changed their name to NTSA earlier this evening.

  • Almanian||

    Newcular Titties Security Agency?

    Thinking of that name would make the long waits and strip searches a little easier to handle. I approve!

  • ||

    Excellent. I feared I was being too indirect.

    I just had this vision of a corporation called Newcular Titties, Inc., which sells a process that uses nuclear reactions to increase bosom size.

  • N. Leroy Gingrich||

    LEEEEEEEEEEEROY GINGRICH!!!

    *while his Party is talking about how to cut spending, charges ahead to fight Muslim mosque-builders*

  • Mad Max||

    What about the poor girl in the *Alien* movies?

    And why did they kill her off in part 3, after she had managed to so dramatically get rescued from the aliens in Part Two? How messed up is that?

  • cynical||

    It illustrates the futility of life.

  • ||

    Does anyone honestly see a zombie Ronnie James Dio singing Newt's part in the (far weaker) second album though?

  • ||

    And it would still sound better than Ozzy.

  • ||

    The political process would be greatly improved if all losers were put to the sword as part of the inauguration festivities.

  • JLM||

    It'd be even better if the winners got the same treatment.

  • Mad Max||

    Making an exemption for losing candidates who belong to one of the two major parties.

    Then they can safely open up the ballot without discrimination to third parties.

  • ||

    Whoever comes in second get it.

  • ||

    I know the republicans running in my state are serious about the deficit, because they are absolutely hammering the democrats for "cutting" medicare.

    /sarcasm

    An aside:

    This morning on my ride to school I saw that some one had graffiti'd "No dems No reps No problem" onto the bike path. It warmed my heart to know that kids today "get it" a lot earlier than previous generations.

  • ||

    Yeah, but they meant the Anarchists as the alternative. You know, the kind who don't have any rules, but still buy them all the ice cream they want.

  • ||

    Actually, I don't think it was kids at all. I think it was Tulpa that did it.

    If he's a professor like he says then he will be around this part of town.

  • ||

    Oh well, if voting could really change anything it would be against the law.

    Hey dude, pass that over here.

  • ||

    Dr. Newt Gingrich, who is to the Republicans what Dr. X is to Queensryche's Operation: Mindcrime

    Anyone want to take a stab at deciphering this Nickism?

  • ||

    I command you to follow the link!

  • ||

    You didn't say the magic word.

    According to Animal Mother, the word is 'poontang'.

  • ||

    Poontang commands you to follow the link!

    Why the fuck does spellcheck not recognize "poontang", or "spellcheck" for that matter?

  • ||

    You know, I'd also accept Animal Mother or Poontang as new names for Newt.

    Animal Mother Gingrich. That's friggin' presidential.

  • ||

    Might as well get rid of Gingrich too.

    Animal Mother Poontang aka Newcular Titties Poontang for POTUS!

  • ||

    I likee, but it sounds too much like an LP candidate.

  • ||

    Didn't you ever listen to Queensryche, old man?

  • ||

    Fuck off, kid. Never got into metal.

  • ||

    Metal? I dispute that anything from Seattle can call itself that.

  • jasno||

  • ||

    Metal? I dispute that anything from Seattle can call itself that.

    The Melvins disagree.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Virginia||

    a supposed secret organization dedicated to revolution. At the head of this organization is a political and religious demagogue known only as Dr. X

    Also, Queensryche's sound was awful.

  • doomboy||

    All you need to know is in the picture -- just check out those jackets and it will all be clear.

    http://wfnx.com/blogs/sandbox/blog images/Sept 09/09 queensryche.jpg

  • Almanian||

    Damn - that just pegs the old Gaydar (NTTAWWT)

  • jasno||

    I thought the whole point of 80's hair-metal was to provide an outlet to repressed feelings of man-love?

  • Handsome Dan||

    But...but...Kerry would be worse!!

  • Mad Max||

    REPUBLICANS: And in this contract, we, the party of the first part, promise the voter, to balance the budget.

    VOTER: Hey, this part says that you don't have to balance the budget in case you go insane and start spending like mad.

    REPUBLICANS: Oh, that's just standard language. It's called the Sanity Clause.

    VOTER: You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

    REPUBLICANS: Right, so you can safely ignore that part.

    VOTERS: Exactly, so that means you're going to balance the budget?

    REPUBLICANS: Oh, you poor little lambs!

  • Mr Whipple||

    Pay particular attention to the first clause because it's most important.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Shit, that was the short version.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    My guess: Republicans make minimal, if any, gains. The T-Baggers get hammered in the elections.

  • ||

    Alaska doesn't count.

  • ||

    Nah, they'll easily win the House. I actually think that they might win the Senate, too. Not due to any good strategery; just because they are the un-Democrats.

    Which is how the Dems won in 2006, but in reverse.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    It's an especially winning cycle for the country. Well, lobbyists anyway. Who's more bipartisan than Big Financial?

  • The Other Kevin||

    Isn't it so pathetic that American politics has sunk to this? That's a good reason to be depressed.

  • Tony||

    Republicans are less popular than Democrats! People are mad at both. This is not an anti-Democrats election, that's just what the GOP wants it to be and why some analysts are not so quick to say a GOP blowout is a foregone conclusion. They aren't helping themselves with the rampant teabagging either.

  • ||

    I've been thinking about Congress' 11% approval rating. That's absurdly low. There are more people that believe that Congress is actually located on the Moon than approve of the body.

    Pretty hard to be the dominant party of the most hated entity in America and win. Crap, more people like the fucking Yankees than Congress.

  • Tony||

    You'd think that. That's how pathetic the GOP has become.

  • ||

    I know you're just pretend and all, but this is one of those times that no matter how awful the GOP is, the Democrats are even awfuller.

    Good thing that recession is over! Strange the timing of that bullshit announcement, huh?

  • Tony||

    no matter how awful the GOP is, the Democrats are even awfuller

    If you think that, you are a moral sinkhole. Lemme guess, the only thing that matters in the universe is "spending"?

  • ||

    No. There's also "paying for."

  • Tony||

    No. There's also "paying for."

    Just raise taxes. Works every time.

  • ||

    vs. the attitude that says that the only thing that matters is "spending someone else's money"?

    That's the problem with other people's money.

    There's never enough of it.

  • MNG||

    Tony
    I wish it were otherwise, but the Dems are going to get a 1994 style butt whooping in Nov. They really have themselves in large part to blame. When you supercharge everybody for hope and change and then give them health care exchanges it's going to leave them unimpressed...

  • ||

    There's one thing that you can hope for, is that your party will find its way while wandering in the wilderness.

    The GOP clearly hasn't, though it's vaguely possible that some of the newbees will be a little more limited government/freedom-oriented. Probably not enough to make a difference, but you never know.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sorry, Pro, but hoping for either Team to get their respective shit all in one sock, is not a good thing to advocate.

  • ||

    I don't expect any such thing. At best, a few players may be on board. I suppose after a few more of these back and forths, we might actually decide to put some true anti-government people in charge.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sorry, I should have been clearer: I thought you were seriously hoping the Dems would get their act together. My bad.

  • ||

    No way, no how.

  • MNG||

    I at least hope they will give up this stupid idea of big package "comprehensive (fill in the blank) reform." Politically this is stupid, every thing you tack on to a bill peels off another layer of support for it. If you have a lot of ideas about health care or such, put each one up in a separate bill with adequate debate on each measure and let it go that way.

    Take health care reform. Some pieces of it are popular, others less so. But they just passed this mammoth, incomprehensible collection of it all. Opponents can simply point to the unpopular parts and the entire package is rightfully then hated, and everyone who voted for it hated too. It's an idiotic strategy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good point, MNG. Getting rid of the practice of tacking on "riders", would be even better - force every bill to be filed separately. Jam up the works but good.

  • Tony||

    Well they have about a 2/3 likelihood of taking the House and less than 15% chance of taking the Senate.

    The point everyone who still wants to pretend that the GOP will be more favorable to libertarian ideas is missing is that we're not just electing members of Congress, we're electing the blood-sucking corporatist outfits that control them. I will never understand why welfare for poor people is always the greater evil than welfare for rich people and corporations. All things being equal, given the binary choice, you'd think a moral person would choose the former.

    Neither party is for smaller government. One is just honest about it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    SOME of us don't buy the Republican bullshit either, Tony. Nice of you to leave that bit out.

    But, hey, why not choose Candidate A, who will pick your pocket with his right hand, as opposed to Candidate B, who will pick it with his left hand? And don't mind the feeling of a hand on each shoulder as they tag-team to fuck you in the ass, because that's why they run for office.

    I wish I had your level of trust in ANY politician, Tony. Must be nice to just let go and let Godvernment do the thinking for you.

  • Tony||

    FIFY your constant reliance on false equivalence is getting very tedious. Feel free to jerk off to fantasies of anarchy. Some of us are trying to live in the real world. Here, there are two parties to pick from, so it might behoove an informed voter to figure out just what the choice is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    One:

    I've never advocated anarchy.

    Two:

    There are always more than "two parties to pick from". Except in the backwards states/localities where third parties are forbidden.

    Three:

    I don't vote for Team Red or Team Blue anymore. And if more people did that, your party and its equivalent doppelganger would be on the unemployment line, just like so many are now with YOUR Team in charge. Hint hint.

    There is no false equivalence. Name me one completely honest elected R and/or D, one with absolutely no legal, ethical or moral problems. I'd settle for just one, but an example from each party would be even more unlikely.

  • Tony||

    It's inherent to our system (many would say a flaw) that we really only have the 2 choices. For evidence, note how few 3rd parties are represented in government. The implication of that is when you vote 3rd party, you're almost always voting as a spoiler, therefore for the candidate who least represents your interests. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying it's how it is.

    There are plenty of good people in government. But the GOP is the most corrupted political party in the civilized world, and it's hard to be in it without being bought and paid for by corporatist interests. You can say Dems are owned by interests too, but I'd rather government be beholden to teachers and firefighters than corporate CEOs, that's just me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why not have a government beholden to NO powerful interests, Tony? Unions or huge corporations pulling the strings, in my book, neither way is acceptable.

    Can't agree with the "plenty of" bit, either. When I see a politician, I see someone who lied to get where he/she is, and the higher up the political food chain, the bigger the lies have to be. Making campaign promises just to get elected, is an act of lying, Tony, and no none should ever get a pass for that.

  • Tony||

    I guess I'm just not as cynical as you, which is funny because I'm pretty damn cynical. I think you and most modern libertarians are the victims of a long propaganda campaign by the GOP and their corporate butt buddies to discredit the very notion of government and to attach a negative label to the idea of public service. Funny how that's worked out. The GOP is now full of corrupt self-serving sociopaths and whenever they get in power they do their damnedest to prove themselves right about how government fails at everything. My hope is that we can return to a place where serving in government means serving the people, and public service is not somehow inferior to private profitmaking.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I've never said "get rid of ALL government", Tony - just MOST of it. Keep the parts that DO work, and hand out automatic prison sentences for those who abuse the public trust or treasury - now, we're talking real reform.

    I just can't trust anyone who promises unobtainable egalitarian pipe-dreams any more than I trust any given right-wing Christian Congressman. To me, there is no difference - both are equally reprehensible.

    I'd rather not be cynical, but that's all I'm left with - and I'd say it's spreading.

    Oh, and I haven't voted for a Republican since George Bush Senior, so spare me the "GOP brainwashing" bullshit.

  • Tony||

    Ooh, Nate Silver has just upgraded the GOP's Senate takeover chances to 18%.

  • Ring||

    Well, at least corporations employ people. In reverse, why is welfare for poor people ok and not corporations? Again with the class warfare trying to create images of rich white folk taking money from starving kids.
    Regardless, I'm in favor of welfare for none.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Good thing that recession is over! Strange the timing of that bullshit announcement, huh?

    I thought that I was the only one who caught that.

    ... "Incredulous" Hobbit

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How can anyone be mad at your party, Tony? According to you, there's not one drop of evil in it. What's not to like?

  • Tony||

    I have never claimed that the Dems are perfect or even all that palatable. My single concern is keeping the GOP out of power.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But you'd want them over the GOP, which shows you're only halfway there, getting-it wise.

  • ||

    When I vote GOP in November, it'll be for one purpose: Gridlock.

  • Tony||

    I get it. Truly. I just think "it" is juvenile thinking. Of course I'm not anti-government. I'm anti-bad-government.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'd say most of us on here, other than you big-government libs and their big-government conservative enemies, are just as anti-bad-government, Tony... and that most of us, again, are anti-BIG-ASSED-government, not anarchists.

    But feel free to toss that word around like it means something.

  • ||

    I'm only in favor of totally unlimited government if I'm in charge. I trust me, you see.

  • MJ||

    "Of course I'm not anti-government. I'm anti-bad-government."

    What we have been experiencing since jan '09 is horrible, incompetent government.

  • ||

    """ My single concern is keeping the GOP out of power."""

    Even if that means screwing us further?

    I would like to see enough of a mix so both houses of Congress can't pass shit.

  • Ring||

    Why, most people would rather be back at 2005 than 2010.

  • Ted S.||

  • VikingMoose||

    re: 1,2,4.

    despite these facts, there is still that perception that the GOP is party of limited govt. It's also a myth that the tea baggers are allowed to get away with: it's a "yes but". if it encroaches on their activities, they're against the program. when it fits (e.g., Iraq, maybe, boarder patrol/ WOD/WOT), then they're for hog wild spending and pissing on the constitution.

  • ||

    Here's what I think is true: The GOP houses a large number of libertarian and libertarianesque voters. Who have only a small influence on national policy and platforms.

  • MNG||

    I think they talk this small government thing, but as has been pointed out when it comes to something like defense spending or online gambling that talk becomes pretty cheap. The political culture in this nation favors those who use rhetoric to keep government small, the GOP markets itself that way, despite whatever it is actually doing.

  • ||

    The problem is that even if you're a limited government Republican, you're likely to buy into the argument that a vote for the Democrats is worse. It's how both parties stay in business.

  • MNG||

    The Dems don't help much here, as lately they don't even give freaking lip service to any small government policy. I mean, they could have tried to spin something like Kelo their way (big corporate party takes middle class person's property with government's help!) or grew some balls and done something in the WOT/WOD front, but nope. In missing these opportunities they have managed to position themselves as the hands down big government party while killing enthusiasm among their base.

  • ||

    The really fatal flaw in the current leadership is that its turned its back on the tradition that Democrats were, at the end of the day, in favor of a mostly free market. By today's standards, JFK was a Tea Partier--too radically right even for the GOP!

  • Tony||

    That's nonsense. The fact is St. Ronald is too far left for the current GOP.

  • MJ||

    The Democrats do not give lip service to any small government policy because they do not believe in any small government policy. Things like the Kelo decision give them the ability to social engineer at will.

    The Democrats are genuinely frightened of any theory of society that is not under the direction of a central authority, they are tempermentally incapable of being for small government.

  • VikingMoose||

    nah. they give libertarian lip service, that's it. your basic socially conservative goals are not compatible with libertarianism. it's not a "yes, but". they want to speak "libertarian", but also want a desired, specific outcome.

    this is in contrast with, "libertarian" with a general, non-specific outcome in which there are scenarios where you'll get beaten. such is the free market

    I'd argue that MJ also gives the perfect formula for the GOP. socially engineering a nice christian-conservative platform.

    organized religion is a wonderful example of collectivism and not individualism.

    it boggles the mind that the LP can't get its head out of its ass, then!

  • Socraticsilence||

    Remember- its about getting big government off your back- unless you know your a woman or want to marry another consenting adult- then its public business.

  • Socraticsilence||

    Remember- its about getting big government off your back- unless you know your a woman or want to marry another consenting adult- then its public business.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    Both parties are identical in this regard. They are both ok with big gubmint as long as their special interests are catered to. However, I'll suggest that, at least this go around, the people that vote R will hammer their representatives about spending. We shall see. But, how many D voters care about spending other than military (granted, a big one).

  • VikingMoose||

    MS: not necessarily. there's also the group that votes (D) to battle the social policies of the current gop.

    it's which set of policies fit on the higher order of the "benefit ladder".

  • ¢||

    keeping Gitmo open (?)

    "Lie about closing Gitmo" isn't Pledge-y.

  • Tony||

    Everyone should vote for Democrats only, as every single Republican is evil. Every one of them.

    Meanwhile, all of our candidates are pure and clean and above reproach, and it should be illegal to mock or deride them.

  • ||

    I can tell that this is a spoof...but it is getting tougher.

  • Tony||

    "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties; that is not longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."

    --John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    The absolute, bestest line of the movie to which you refer upthread was:

    "No, last year's losers."

    It was mouthed by the greatest american lacrosse player of all times.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Highly irrelevant, Tony.

    Besides, why should we trust your gang of criminals over their gang of criminals?

  • Tony||

    Why is everything automatically equivalent all the time?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not all the time, Tony, but I'd wager at least half of each party is composed of some kind of criminal element.

    Note, I'm talking about the elected ones. The Average Joe Team Red/Team Blue types are less prone to criminal activity, as they do not hold public office.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nice of you to admit there's criminals in both parties, though, Tony. Quite refreshing. Keep going, eventually you'll tumble on to the truth.

  • Tony||

    That goes without saying. But pretending that both parties are equally corrupt is giving undue credit to the one that is actually more so.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, a marginally-smaller level of corruption is THAT much more preferable?

    Jesus. That's like "choosing" between being boiled alive in hot water, or being fried to death in hot oil.

  • Tony||

    Your problem is you think everything government does is evil, so what's the point in distinguishing between, say, medicare and, say, torture? All one big pot of steaming statist evil, right?

  • ||

    If I weren't sure that you were a libertarian posting just for fun, I'd point out that it's not focusing on limiting government across the board that allows torture and welfare to be anything the government wants them to be at the same time. But you know that.

  • Tony||

    I'm a libertarian on some issues. Economically I'm practically a socialist. I'm for government being smaller in some areas, bigger in others. A central libertarian blindspot is when you don't recognize that there are centers of power outside of government, and government, as the theoretical agent of the people, needs to be there to keep those other centers of power in check, for they are not as accountable.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Pretty much, yeah.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, scratch that... *most* of what it does is evil. I'd say about seventy percent, just to be charitable.

    If the actions of a politician create more expense, unnecessary burdens on commerce or personal autonomy - fuck yeah, I'm against them. And I don't give passes based on Rness or Dness.

    That's called being bipartisan, Tony. I truly hate the GOP as much as the Dems, which is a huge difference between you and I.

  • Tony||

    I know that. And I'm saying it's a mistaken view, because whatever the faults of the Dems, the Repubs are evil, pure evil, and I don't care what your views are, they need to be kept out of power.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If you're willing to put the fate of this country into the hands of just one party, Tony, based solely on their being slightly less corrput... then you are a dupe beyond redemption.

    If a nuke hit the House tomorrow, I'd only feel sorry for the truly-innocent who got caught in the blast. I wouldn't shed Tear One for the rest of the fuckers.

    THAT is how much I despise your gang AND theirs.

    Oh, and for the NSA's benefit: I do not own any nuclear weapons of any kind.

  • Tony||

    You have some major irrational hate going on there. I don't want the country in the hands of one party. There's no reason the Dems won't someday be as corrupt as the GOP. I WISH we had 2 sane, viable parties. But we only have one and that's reality.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Your idea of a sane, viable party is pretty spotty, Tony. I wouldn't trust the Dems to pluck weeds from my garden, let alone run my country.

    But you're not getting it - it's not so much "hate" as it is "vehement distrust".

    And if you're willing to vote and advocate for just one of the two reasons why this country is going down the shitter... you ARE in favor of one-party rule. One-hundred percent Democrats, top to bottom, would not give you what you think you want - you'd just have zero Republicans in office. Trading one doom for another, IOW.

  • Tony||

    So would slightly more sane and viable work for you? I've already outlined that it's a binary choice. Be a pessimist if you want, but even if there is a sliver of a difference in evil, not choosing is to implicitly choose the worst evil.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hmm... Hitler, or Stalin? Gosh, that's a coin-toss.

    No, thanks, I'll just abstain from voting Team Red OR Team Blue. That way, I avoid making the mistake most voters make in assuming that either side is worthy.

  • Tim||

    " their senses-shattering agenda "

    Is that Stan Lee? It's great!

  • Mainstream Media Pawns||

    You mean the Contract on America? 'Cause we can never be original.

  • MNG||

    I have to say I think the whole "Liberal MSM" meme is now officially the dumbest meme in US political discourse. It's dumb on so many levels. In this day and age with so many different news sources on so many different mediums reaching so many different people it really is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard to keep using that phrase. Lumping Mother Jones in with Meet the Press, ignoring huge outlets like Fox (news, network, and movie studio), not realizing that every ideology feels like media outlets are "biased" (oh noes!) and ignoring the diversity of new media outlets all in one dumbass partisan brainfart, it is truly, truly, lazy, tired, stupid thinking.

  • MSM||

    We agree completely

  • Keith Olbermann||

    Cock sucking now complete. Initiating anal penetration.

  • Ring||

    Name one self confessed Liberal in the MSM.
    I'm sure you can name plenty of conservative media figures who open admit to being conservative.

    The point is about calling out those with a clear agenda who continually pretend they don't have one.

  • ||

    The original Contract With America had about zero impact on the election of 1994. Somewhere around 70 percent of voters told exit pollsters that they had never heard of the CWA before casting their ballots.

    While in no way detracting from the other points you make in the post, the online media landscape has changed dramatically since 1994...I suspect there will be no difficulty raising awareness of the CWA 2.0 in time for midterms.

  • ||

    ABC News' Jonathan Karl has an anonymously sourced preview of "The Pledge to America" (ain't no contract!), which reportedly includes extending the Bush tax rates permanently, capping discretionary spending, ending the stimulus, keeping Gitmo open (?), bashing Iran and spending more money on missile defense. Vague details here.

    Vague? they posted the damn white paper!!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html

    also you forgot to mention they plan of taking back the unspent TARP money.

    It is weird they no one knew about the contract with America....

    Hell i knew about it and in 1992 did not even give a shit about politics.

  • ||

    keeping Gitmo open (?), bashing Iran

    WTF?!?!

    Why even put that shit in there?

    more money on missile defense

    What do libertarians think about this?
    Personally i would rather the military spent money on "star wars" then keeping troops in Germany, Japan and North Korea. but yeah the republicans probably mean spending increases...not reallocation.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, we can't spend money on a missile-defense shield because - bear with me, now - other countries have a right to have their missiles hit the U.S. mainland.

    I know, it sounds silly, but that appears to be the prevailing wisdom. Or lack thereof.

  • ||

    By "bear with me" you mean humor the stupidity?

    """I know, it sounds silly, but that appears to be the prevailing wisdom."""

    No it is not.

    """Personally i would rather the military spent money on "star wars" then keeping troops in Germany, Japan and North Korea."""

    Joshua, I agree, and I think you're right, it will be in addition to. The Rs have no problem increasing spending for defense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd prefer they not bother with star wars and just relocate our troops to Iran.

  • ||

    What and rebuild Iran with US tax dollars after we blow it up? I'll pass.

  • Leroy||

    No.

    Just blow it up, and tell the people if they let some jackass take over again, we'll be back.

  • ||

    Yeah, like that will happen. Not paying attention to the way we conduct war over the last decade?

  • ||

    Yeah, like that will happen. Not paying attention to the way we conduct war over the last decade?

  • Jason||

    What and rebuild Iran with US tax dollars after we blow it up? I'll pass.

    Just think of the stimulative effect that would have on the contractors!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You've never heard the bitching from other countries that a US missile shield is unfair because it would prevent their missiles from hitting us, Vic?

  • ||

    No. I haven't.

  • ||

    Got links? And just having links that someone said it isn't good enough. You need to prove how it's the "prevailing wisdom" as you claimed.

  • ||

    ""Apparently, we can't spend money on a missile-defense shield because - bear with me, now - other countries have a right to have their missiles hit the U.S. mainland.""

    That doesn't effect how we spend our money. Yeah, ok. "other counries" might have an issue with it, but we don't base our defese spending on what other countries want.

  • Socraticsilence||

    No I think the prevailing wisdom is that ramping up the spending on a program with an absolutely absymal record of success is moronic- its like spending 100 mil a year on the development of flying "Iron Man" Style battlesuits- its a cool technology that doesn't work and spending more than simply R&D money on it is not just fiscally irresponsible but militarily so (if for some reason a president thinks Missle Defense works they might do something moronic like invade North Korea, Pakistan or Iran because hey well just shoot down the missles its all good).

  • Socraticsilence||

    No I think the prevailing wisdom is that ramping up the spending on a program with an absolutely absymal record of success is moronic- its like spending 100 mil a year on the development of flying "Iron Man" Style battlesuits- its a cool technology that doesn't work and spending more than simply R&D money on it is not just fiscally irresponsible but militarily so (if for some reason a president thinks Missle Defense works they might do something moronic like invade North Korea, Pakistan or Iran because hey well just shoot down the missles its all good).

  • Socraticsilence||

    No I think the prevailing wisdom is that ramping up the spending on a program with an absolutely absymal record of success is moronic- its like spending 100 mil a year on the development of flying "Iron Man" Style battlesuits- its a cool technology that doesn't work and spending more than simply R&D money on it is not just fiscally irresponsible but militarily so (if for some reason a president thinks Missle Defense works they might do something moronic like invade North Korea, Pakistan or Iran because hey well just shoot down the missles its all good).

  • ||

    This is the old guard Republicans. These are the folks who will probably be replaced--they're still trying to be relevant, but they're just making it harder for themselves to win.

    They shouldn't be advancing their own agenda--they should be pointing at the President's, speaking of which...

    "U.S. Must Sell GM Shares at $133.78 to Break Even

    The U.S. government needs to sell all its stock in General Motors Co. at an average price of $133.78 a share to fully recoup the $49.5 billion it spent to rescue the auto maker, according to the Obama administration official overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    That price is $39.15 greater than the highest level shares in the old GM ever reached, during the boom in pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles in 2000."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TWhatsNews

    That should be their new proposal for trusting them. What are gonna do if you elect us?

    We're not going to bail out the UAW. We're not going to bail out Wall Street...

    How's that for starters?

    That's a winner right there. Forget the Republicans' stupid agenda, their stupid agenda is what brought on this Obama plague in the first place.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    no matter how awful the GOP is, the Democrats are even awfuller

    no matter how awful the Democrats are, the Republicans are even awfuller

    Works either way.

  • ||

    Well, of course. It depends which is in power. Right now, the Democrats are worse.

  • Tony||

    Liar.

  • ||

    Well, I suppose the Democrats are less in power now that everyone knows that they're losing control of at least one house. It's like being a lame duck president.

  • Tony||

    The Republicans are on the verge of a complete crackup, though they may do well this year. What happens when they actually gain power? I'll tell you what happens. Their RINO-hunting loony-tunes teabagging base will be 10x more discouraged by their inability to enact their agenda than the Dem base ever was, and the crackup will begin.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If only the Dems had a similar downfall... maybe, with some luck, they will.

  • ||

    """Their RINO-hunting loony-tunes teabagging base will be 10x more discouraged by their inability to enact their agenda than the Dem base ever was, and the crackup will begin."""

    Sure they will be upset, but will they blame it on their tea baggers or the obstructionist democrats? I'm going with the later.

    The R crackup is a couple of years old already. But having their vote split between their party and the tea party may help the Ds. If Fox News rallys behind the tea party, it may be a gift to the Ds.

  • ||

    If Fox News rallys behind the tea party, it may be a gift to the Ds.

    The tea party has higher approval ratings then the Democrats, the Republicans and Fox news....

  • Ring||

    Not really, being truthful, a democrat will tell you he wants to raise taxes and redistribute wealth how they see fit.
    A conservative will tell you they want smaller government, less taxes.

    The problem is that when Democrats get elected, they do as they say and when Republicans are elected they don't do what they say.

    So the problem is good democrats and bad Republicans.

    I think for the most part LIbertarians could find enough common ground with good Republicans. Either way, you are screwed with the Dems.

  • ||

    Awesome smackdown. The Jacket does it again.

  • ||

    Are they as good at sticking to their pledge as they are their oath?

    The R comeback might not be as strong this time around. Sadly, the D's strategy of saying the Rs stink, and we'll give you government services might barely win the day. When people are pissed off about how much taxes they pay, the party that gives them something in return may have more appeal.

    We're so screwed.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's no reason the Dems won't someday be as corrupt as the GOP

    Someday?

  • Bell, CA City Council||

    Good thing we skimmed all that loot over the years... we've got bail money, bitches!

  • ||

    Maybe, do the dems have someone cracking the K Street whip as good as Tom Delay?

    The Ds know they are not as corrupt as the Rs and they are trying everything they can to get ahead. They will not stand for second place. ;-)

  • ||

    Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts (all of them), or, as Republicans put it, a promise not to raise taxes on January 1, 2011 (the day the Bush tax cuts expire).

    Man, this is beautiful. The Republicans promise not to raise taxes on January 1, 2011, if they win the elections this year . . . January 1, several weeks before they'd assume office. It's sad, but this whole Contract with America 2: This Time It's a Pledge, Bitches, makes me almost hope the Democrats win. Between the tepid promises and nonsensical promises like this, the Republican leadership almost deserves to lose more than the Democrats do.

    Almost.

  • Chad||

    God, reading this is painful...

    Let's start with this beauty, which just reeks of "No one that is dumb enough to vote for us will do any math".

    "With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt"

    So, first they use "common sense" to exempt about 80% of the budget (defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Vet spending, along with interest, which they can't do anything about). And what do they exempt them from? A whopping THREE PERCENT CUT. Wow! THAT will sure "put us on a path" to balancing the budget. Yeah right. Not even close. Oh, and then we will cut taxes in a way that will wipe out these savings several times over. But don't worry about that. They will magically pay for themselves, as they did the last time we cut taxes...

    So nope, Republicans still have no plan to fix our budget problems. They are only preying on the stupid, who too lazy or inept to understand the truth.

  • ||

    What's the Democrat plan to fix the budget problems? Even the modest cuts the GOP mentions are going to run into a wall of blue squealing stuck pigs, so we know they won't do that. Or do you want to raise taxes by 50%?

  • Chad||

    Unlike Republicans, who suffer from horrid group think, Democrats span the gamut from Ben Nelson to Bernie Sanders, so there is no one answer to your question. However, it generally consists of cutting military spending and adopting health care systems like that of our fellow rich nations, all of which are vastly cheaper than our system, and raising revenues through carbon taxes and higher taxes on the rich, and probably a VAT.

  • ||

    Defense budget cuts are barely going to put a dent in the deficit. The health care bill the Dems just passed was never going to reduce health costs; to do that you need to ration and yes, you need death panels. Also helps to have another country's citizens footing the bill for basically every medical tech and pharmaceutical innovation of the past 50 years...and we won't have the luxury of leeching off someone else as European medicine has.

    But at least you're honest about the bulk of the deficit reduction coming through raising taxes (2/3 of which are going to disproportionately target the poor).

  • ||

    Even if the GOP were serious about cutting spending, getting specific is extremely bad politics at this point. The electorate by and large doesn't want or need specifics, they eat up vague platitudes like so many Big Macs -- and it's too rich to hear Obamatrons who but two years ago were treating "hope and change" and "getting America on its feet again" as policy proposals now suddenly demand line-item specifics.

    Anyway, if the GOP actually comes out with a list of budget items they want to cut, sufficient to balance the budget, it would certainly have to include both programs that are popular but destructive (Medicare, SS, etc). It will also certainly have to include items that, while obscure now, can be made popular by the Dems trotting out would-be "victims" (preferably white blond children) of budget cutting, and pass it off to their pals in the state-aligned media to show the faces of the targets of this new Republican cruelty every 10 minutes on TV.

    It's a fool's errand. Even if they're serious about budget cuts they shouldn't be specific at this point.

  • ||

    This is why I vote for Libertarian candidates whenever they appear on the ballot.

  • Karl Rove||

    Their standard-bearer, George W. Bush, managed to jack up total federal outlays 104 percent over his predecessor in eight short years, and he either signed off on or strong-armed all sorts of big-government projects through both Republican and Democratic majorities (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drugs, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, endless war supplemental spending bills, TARP, auto bailouts, etc.).

    As I told W. back when we were strategizing in '04, 'America is a two party, two parent country. The Democrats are the momma, always ready to feed, clothe, burp and tend to your boo-boos. The Republicans are like the daddy, making sure the family budget is prioritized, prtecting our families by keeping boogie men from lurking at our windows and enticing our daughters away to their mutant freak show raver discos. However, there is a way we can make the Democrats irrelevant altogether. We can become both the momma and daddy. A little nip, a little tuck, a little silicon, high heels and make up, a nice Jane Russell styled wig, and we can be both the mommy and daddy of America.' He didn't care much for how I explained it, but he went along with the idea anyway.

  • ||

    +1.0x10^100

  • ||

    Just for the record, if I'm a Tea Party candidate right now?

    I'm campaigning on the promise that if I'm elected? The first thing I'm gonna do is vote for different party leadership...

    John Boehner voted for TARP. ...so John Boehner is unfit to be Speaker of the House. John Boehner should pay for voting for TARP with his seat--but short of that? If the Tea Party helps the Republicans take the House, and it doesn't even mean that John Boehner--who voted for TARP--loses the Speakership?

    Then that isn't much of a difference.

    P.S. Did I mention that John Boehner voted for TARP?

    P.P.S. John Boehner voted for TARP.

  • Tony||

    Yes please teabaggers, make Boner go away. The thought of handing the speakership from the broadly successful first woman speaker to that penile erection makes me want to puke. Plenty of sniveling hacks ready to take his place, and I'm sure he'd rather just be drinking.

  • ||

    Gee, Tony, and here I thought I'd never agree with you!

    So, are you on board with the Tea Party now? You gotta admit, the Tea Party has gotten rid of more Bush era Republicans than the Democratic Party could...

    Hey everybody! Tony is objectively pro-Tea Party!

    Tony, you're gonna love being a libertarian. I mean, seriously, some of it's gotta be rubbing off on you...

    Even if you only think in terms of how what we're saying is wrong, you're thinking about everything in libertarian terms now, aren't you.

    That's how it starts, Tony. Libertarians aren't born, you know? They start out just like you!

    They start talkin' to us for a while; they start thinking about things the way we do--and BAM! One day, they find themselves at a rally somewhere, standing in a crowd, holding some stupid sign--praying with Sarah Palin.

    The libertarians are growin' on you, Tony. It looks good on you too.

  • Tony||

    Hmmm... I want teabaggers to succeed insofar as it means the GOP fails. So, keep baggin'!

  • ||

    The Pledge to America

    before the left get a hold of it:

    First to say "The Plague to America"

  • Aging Hippie Liberal Douche||

    They call it the Contract With America, I call it The Contract On America.

  • ||

    I don't particularly give a crap if the Republicans take Congress, so long as we punish everyone who voted for TARP with the loss of their seat...

    ...and say what you will about the new pledge (or whatever it is), it looks like a feeble attempt by the old guard Republicans to stay relevant despite the Tea Party to me.

    Really, anybody who thinks this election is about returning the Bush Era Republicans back into power--is out of their mind. Like I was saying to Tony, the guys in the cross hairs of the Tea Party, so far, haven't been the Democrats so much as the Republicans. First, the Republicans need to clean some house--and this pledge (or whatever) just looks like resistance to that to me.

    The Republican leadership should be very clear about that, or this will all be for nothing. The Tea Party doesn't need the Republicans or the Republican leadership to make a difference. And if people like John Boehner--who voted for TARP--are still in power after the Tea Party has put the Republicans over the top?

    Then the Tea Party may have failed.

    If John Boehner wants to make sure the Republicans take the House? Then he should resign as Minority Leader--right freakin' now. The Republicans in the House should show us that things really have changed--out with John Boehner now!

    Hillary Clinton couldn't be President because she supported the Iraq War and Barack Obama didn't--that's the way it works. ...and if John Boehner is the Speaker of the House come January, then it'll be to the disgrace of the Tea Party that put him there.

  • ||

    Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt

    RAZ: So in 1985, Stockman left. Now these days, he's still a conservative and still a Republican, but he doesn't think his party is taking a responsible position on taxes any longer. At the end of this year, the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire. Republicans want them renewed; Democrats want to keep the tax cuts for the middle-class, but not for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

    Now, Stockman says they're both wrong. And he says extending either of those cuts is tantamount to the government declaring bankruptcy.

    Mr. STOCKMAN: We've had a rolling referendum on what we want in government and what we don't, ever since the first Reagan spending cut program - which I was part of in 1981. And it seems pretty clear to me that by 2010, we've decided a lot of things that cost a lot of money, the American people want. I might not agree with that but apparently, they do.

    So we're spending $3.8 trillion in defense, non-defense, entitlements, everything else, and we're taking in only 2.2 trillion. So we got a massive gap. You have to pay your bills; you can't keep borrowing from the rest of the world at that magnitude, year after year after year. So in light of all of those facts, I say we can't afford the Bush tax cuts.

    NPR

  • ||

    What is their agenda?

    We know now.......

    Leaked Citigroup Memo shows economic domination agenda of the Top 1% wealthiest

    At the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to
    tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy.
    Earlier, we postulated a number of key tenets for the creation of plutonomy. As a
    reminder, these were:
    1) an ongoing technology/biotechnology revolution,

    2) capitalistfriendly governments and tax regimes,

    3) globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants,

    4) greater financial complexity and innovation,

    5) the rule of law, and

    6) patent protection.

    We make the assumption that the technology revolution, and financial innovation, are likely to continue.

    So an examination of what might disrupt Plutonomy - or worse, reverse it - falls to societal analysis: will electorates continue to endorse it, or will they end it, and why.

    Organized societies have two ways of expropriating wealth - through the revocation of property rights or through the tax system.


    And this says a lot, so true:

    A third threat comes from the potential social backlash.

    To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Plutoparticipant. Why kill it off, if you can join it?

    In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”.


    Plutoparticipant. Why kill it off, if you can join it?

    In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”.

    That would be you guys...
    Thats the plan.They wrote it down.Mission Accomplished?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement