Governing while Democrat

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos discussed a report from the New York Times about the taxes the rich are not paying. Yeah, we know they’re not paying. So here are some new stats. Like this one. Over the last ten years the amount of money the 1% didn’t pay and should have is $7 trillion. That’s 18 months of the federal budget. When one gets money through a job their pay is automatically withheld and sent to the government. Which means working and middle class people are quite good at filing tax returns, many in hopes of getting some of it back. The rich don’t get paid that way so their income is not withheld. So they underreport and underpay. The way to fix this: Properly fund the IRS. Right now it can afford to go after only the middle and working class folks – people who don’t have complicated returns. Sumner wrote:

What’s being left on the table each year is enough to cover all unemployment payments, SNAP and other child nutrition programs, have a few billion left on the side for all foster care programs and children’s health programs—every one of which Republicans are sure to claim is too costly. What it would take to recover those funds is a tiny fraction of the benefits that would result. But somehow, Republicans—or specifically, Republican donors—don’t want the IRS to spend more time looking at the wealthiest 1%. And there are 7 trillion reasons why.

Joan McCarter of Kos wrote:

The insanity of governing while Democrat was on full display Wednesday as numerous political figures fought over how much money is okay to spend on helping people have better lives. In a rational world, policymakers would look at a problem—say, nearly half of senior and disabled people not having dental care—and determine how much it would cost to fix that, then find that money. Like from raising taxes on rich people. Or maybe just enforcing the tax laws already on the books and getting the money from fat-cat tax dodgers [see above]. It's how it works for defense spending. "Look—there's a shiny new plane which may or may not work and costs $100 million per pop! Let's get it!" Then the nation sinks $1.62 trillion into a black hole over three decades even though the damn thing doesn’t work, and has to spend billions more on yet another plane. That just keeps happening. But making sure a senior citizen has teeth with which they can eat? Allowing them to age in their own homes with adequate, paid assistance? That we have to pinch pennies on. ... The point is, we are the richest country in the goddamned world. We can afford all of these things. We don't have to treat policies—and the people whose lives they would change—as game pieces to be traded.

Some of that reluctance to spend money comes from ideas pushed by conservatives who don’t want the government to spend money on those people. A federal balanced budget amendment has been a conservative dream for a long time. The main idea is that a family budget must balance. A small business budget must balance. A city budget must balance. A state budget must balance. But the federal budget is not any of these. McCarter reported that Rep. John Yarmuth, chair of the House Budget Committee is now saying out loud, “We can spend whatever we need to spend in the interest of serving the American people.” That’s progress. Stephanie Kelton, former chief economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee for the Democrats, wrote a literal book on that myth. She’s also been posting about it. Short version: treating the federal budget like a family budget does not serve the public interest. We as a country can have nice things. Leah McElrath tweeted: “I think ‘rural’ is an attempt to invoke the romanticized mythology of the family farm.” Which prompted Jessica Huseman, editorial director of VoteBeatUSA which helps small newsrooms survive, to tweet:

Yes! And I cannot tell you how many people say s--- to me about farm subsidies. Who do you think gets those subsidies? There are no mom and pop farms anymore. They work on big farms to get those subsidies and then still have to drive half an hour to a f---ing grocery store. ... Increasingly, small family farms are being bought up by gigantic corporations who get the farm subsidies that so many people who live in suburbs and urban areas think are the equivalent of providing appropriate services to these communities. They are not.

Lauren Floyd of Kos discussed the difficulty of people of color have when buying a house. She included a report from The Wall Street Journal that the buyer of roughly one in five houses isn’t going to move in. They buyer is a pension fund or a corporation wanting to collect the rent. This is making housing more expensive for everyone and owning a home more out of reach for black people. There is an election next week in California about recalling Gov. Gavin Newsom. Gabe Ortiz of Kos reported that Fox News is already saying that if Newsom is not recalled it’s because Democrats cheated, there must have been vast election fraud. I’m sure we’re going to hear that leading up to every election from now on. Dartagnan of the Kos community discussed an article in The Washington Post, which begins:

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s supreme court voted unanimously on Tuesday to decriminalize abortion, a striking step in a country with one of the world’s largest Catholic populations and a move that contrasts sharply with tighter restrictions introduced across the border in Texas.

That happened even though Mexico is 82% Catholic. It happened because there is a strong women’s movement and women make up half of Mexico’s Congress. This might also influence the rest of Latin America. And maybe the US? Cheryl Rofer, who writes on women’s issues, tweeted a thread refuting the phrase “life begins at conception.” It’s a phrase used by the forced pregnancy crowd in a misleading way.

The celery and carrots in your vegetable drawer are alive. So is the mold on the cheese. Being alive by itself doesn't require a particular ethical stand. Before conception, the egg and sperm are alive. Nobody is insisting that men be prosecuted for killing all those alive sperm. Where does "life begin" for the celery and carrots? The seeds that made that plant are alive, as was the plant that made them. Or, for that matter, for the egg and sperm? Everything living owes its life to its parent. What are the forced birthers saying when they say that "life begins" at conception? And by "conception" do they mean fertilization or implantation? What they are trying to do is to impose a value on the conceptus, not to make a biological statement. And that is, of course, a matter of belief. Religious belief, even, as that quote tweet refers to Catholic doctrine. Laws against abortion impose religious restrictions on all. Roe v. Wade attempted a practical definition, in terms of viability of the fetus.

Ferrel Bruce showed an image that explains the concept.