$40 trillion of debt and all we got was rich people

I finished the book Queer as Folklore, the Hidden Queer History of Myths and Monsters by Sacha Coward. It is a discussion of many beings and monsters from the queer point of view. Coward says folklore is a great source of historical perspective because it is created by the people, not the people in control who write history. In each chapter Coward delves into quite a bit of history of each creature. Some of the things I learned from the book: One will see a lot of mermaid symbolism at Pride events. Some of it is because mermaids have to give up something to live in the human world, as many queer people have to give up something to live in the straight world. Hans Christian Anderson, bisexual, wrote his The Little Mermaid (far darker than the Disney version) after he had been turned down by a guy he had fallen in love with, quite likely because the other guy was straight. Unicorns are another creature featured in Pride events because they are always seen as the outsider. These were originally not the gentle creatures that cavort with virgins. Early versions were more sexual and dangerous. When one talks about feeling horny, it is the unicorn’s horn that gave us that term. Queer people understand demons because through history the reason for our queerness was frequently attributed to being possessed by demons. The book also covers the queer side of fairies, vampires, werewolves, witches, aliens, and supermen. Many times Coward wrote that a writer of an important story about one of these creatures was queer. An example is Bram Stoker, author of Dracula. An intriguing idea: What if the wolf that Red Riding Hood encountered didn’t kill Grandma, instead Grandma was a werewolf? One can read history and folklore and totally miss the queer details. But those details are frequently there. Even the author had to educate himself in the finer points of some cultures to know that certain details were actually coding a queer meaning. An example is reading about two nuns who “spoiled” themselves. I enjoyed the book. Yesterday I wrote about Natalie Harp, the woman who seems to be a constant companion to the nasty guy. In a campaign speech Sen. Jon Ossoff said the phrase, “travel with Natalie,” without defining what role she plays for him. The White House and Republicans freaked out. Kos of Daily Kos discussed what all this might mean. The nasty guy having an affair with Harp would be a good story for Republicans. To them an affair is a sign of manliness and an 80 year old having an affair signals he’s still got it! If that’s a scandal, they’d gladly defend it.

The reality is much harder to spin. This looks like the opposite of the virile, macho image Trump has spent his entire life constructing. This isn’t a powerful man attracting younger women. It’s an increasingly diminished old man apparently unable to tolerate being separated from his emotional support aide. Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has an even better term for it. She described Harp as a “human binky” for Trump. That’s not macho. That’s not virile. That’s dependency. And that’s why the details of Trump’s dependence on Harp are so politically dangerous. She offers a window into the version of Trump that Republicans have spent years trying to keep out of view.

The American national debt has passed $40 trillion. That’s two trillion higher in the last year (or is it since the start of this year?). There has been a string of stories this week in the NPR show Marketplace on what it all means. The biggest affect is that as the national debt rises and looks to be harder to pay back (just paying interest on that debt is now $1 trillion a year) the higher investors demand the interest rate to be. To attract money to finance mortgages banks now have to pay a comparable rate. That raises rates on mortgages. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tried a maneuver to lower the interest rate. The maneuver was to buy back long-term government bonds by issuing short-term bonds. The market was pleased. For a day. Then the market said spending billions to fix a problem that is trillions in size isn’t going to work. Bessent also said we’ll grow our way out of it. Yeah, Treasury Secretaries have been saying that for decades as the debt has gotten larger. And as Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal said, growing an economy at 2% a year (which is a robust economy) can’t overcome a debt that is growing at 6% a year. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported Bessent pulled out the old standby of the nasty guy and his minions: Blame Biden. At least Biden had a reason for increasing the debt – the pandemic and pulling the economy out of the chaos it caused. That’s an important use of a deficit and resulting debt. But the nasty guy doesn’t have that excuse. Thom Hartmann of the Kos community discussed where that $40 trillion debt came from and the implications of it. Hartmann started off with a chart of the national debt that goes through 2020, so doesn’t show what the nasty guy’s crew has been doing over the last two years. The chart shows the debt as percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since GDP has been increasing translating the amount in dollars doesn’t work. The debt was high at the end of WWII, another good reason for a government to go into debt. After the war Congress and presidents were good at reducing that debt. Until Reagan and his voodoo economics. The debt went down under Clinton. By the end of Bush II the debt was $14 trillion. Obama had to deal with the Great Recession, another good use of debt. Then the debt took off again during the nasty guy’s first term. Before Reagan the top tax rate was 70% to 91%. People could become rich, but not so rich as to buy politicians and the Supreme Court. In that time we built the Interstate Highway system. College was cheap to free. The GI Bill offered cheap mortgages. We created Medicare and Medicaid, built schools and hospitals, and sent men to the moon. Reagan followed Jude Wanniski’s strategy:

Cut taxes on the rich and spend like a drunken sailor when a Republican is in the White House, and then scream about the national debt and demand cuts to social programs when a Democrat comes into office.

The purpose of that was to reduce the size – and power – of the middle class, so they didn’t have the political power to challenge rich people. Oppressing the poor was also a goal. Hartmann makes another critical point. I noted that the US government now pays $1 trillion in interest. Who does that money go to? Rich people. We went from the rich paying into the US treasury to the rich receiving an extremely safe revenue stream from the US treasury. Who pays all that interest? Poor people, though not directly. This is another policy to get money flowing upward, from poor to rich. Japan’s national debt is nearly twice ours, at 237% of GDP to our 121% of GDP. The difference is what that money was spent on. They have universal health care, bullet trains, almost no homelessness, and a life expectancy 5 years longer than ours. We have billionaires. And a health system that can bankrupt us and college tuition that can put us into debt for life. Hartmann rightly calls this a scam. What are Democrats doing about this scam? Not much of anything. They get too much money from rich people. What could Democrats do? Teach us what the scam is doing to the country. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did that for a while. But much more needs to be done.

When Republicans loudly and self-righteously proclaim that America can’t afford Medicare for All or tuition-free college, we all need to be clear about what they’re really saying. They’re telling us that they’ve already spent that money, on themselves and their rich buddies, and stuck you and me with the debt and the interest payments. ... After all, we paid down most of our national debt once before following the most expensive war in world history, and we did it while building the world’s first more-than-half-of-us middle class because we taxed great wealth at rates requiring the morbidly rich to contribute to society like the rest of us. It worked then and it will work now, if we can just squeeze the political and moral courage out of our elected representatives.

I get the feeling the rich want to make sure the poor stay poor, that there are few to challenge (or even join) them at the top of the social hierarchy.