Talking to The Man

Every so often, I like to send little notes to the members of Congress in my state. (Sometimes I'll send them to Congresscritters in other states, too. But let's not talk about that.) Mostly, this just gets me on mailing lists and doesn't do much else. But I'm an optimist by nature, so I keep trying.

This time, I thought I'd wander over to the "contact Tom" button on Senator Tom Udall's (D-NM) site.

Tom,

(Can I call you Tom? As much as you've emailed me, I feel I should be allowed to.)

I couldn't help noticing that a number of Democrats are caving in to the Republican talking point that any extension of unemployment benefits should be "paid for."

Well, if that's the case, how are we paying for all of the corporate subsidies that my tax dollars are going to? Gas and oil companies get massive subsidies every year, and none of them are struggling. But families in your state are.

What about the $1.1 billion we pay out to distillers every ten years, to allow them to produce flavored vodka? (That one's covered in Section 5010 of the tax code, if you're wondering.) What about the $80 million worth of sugar we bought back from domestic sugar producers (a $3.3 billion dollar industry)?

See if you can "pay for" the unemployment by reducing the subsidy to any industry that's consistently turned a profit in the last decade. This wouldn't even be a hard sell. You could point out that the majority of unemployment insurance goes to families with children, and you personally don't see the benefits to the country that comes from forcing children to starve.

You could point out that long-term unemployment hurts the economy, and while there are people who would like to see the US economy destroyed, none of them should be in Congress.

You can even finish with "And if extending unemployment benefits is such a distasteful subject, I would like to ask why our Republican colleagues have been blocking every effort to create any type of jobs bill for the past six years?"

Give it a shot, Senator. See how far it could take you.

As always, I doubt it will accomplish anything, but let's see what happens.

"Handful of Senators Don't Pass Legislation": Tax Cuts, Unemployment Benefits, and the Post-2010 Dispensation

I gather that President Obama is opting for a compromise in which long-term unemployment benefits will continue, but so will the entire spectrum of Bush-era tax cuts. I won't criticize the president harshly for this compromise; I will instead do some simple-dino thinking out loud, set (if you like) to the background music from "Eve of Destruction." I opine that there are two ways to look at the matter -- which seems best?

1. Thanks to our predictably dim-witted, memory-free electorate, the GOP now has a much stronger hand and is essentially blackmailing the entire country to benefit its own prospects for 2012 and the tiny sliver of ultra-wealthy citizens that is the party's main purpose for existing at present. Faced with such prospects, the president might be viewed as having acted appropriately and compassionately. Sure, it adds to the deficit/debt problem to the tune or almost a trillion dollars and will eventually give the conservatives an even stronger hand when it comes time to ELIMINATE all those annoying social programs ordinary people need. But it's still what I called in an earlier post "keeping a declining republic going with baling wire and chewing gum." It's either that, one might say, or run with the prospect of letting the country fall apart right in front of the current generation's eyes.

In this view, all those brilliant so-called liberal or independent voters who stayed home last November "to send a strong message" have nobody to blame but themselves, the Blinking Idiots of America. If you're amongst that honorable assembly, I've got your message right here, channeled (as near as this dino can attune its liberal sensibilities to the appropriate frequency) straight from the Grand Old Party: "If you don't have a net worth of at least eight figures, we don't care what happens to you, now or at any other time. Go straight to hell, you twenty-first-century peons, and don't bother sending us the bill for the trip."

2. President Obama might have done best to let the cuts expire, then strongly and continually advocate the proposal and reinstatement of working-class and middle-class tax cuts and an unemployment benefits extension, all the while excoriating congressional Republicans when they resolutely refuse to help millions of people whose well-being is of no interest to them. This is a difficult and painful path, especially since, if I understand the process correctly, come January House Democrats will no longer be able to drive the legislative agenda. In that body, the Republicans will have the main say in what gets proposed and voted on. The most likely scenario is two years' worth of gridlock. The up side of this strategy would be, of course, that at least the GOP would come under intense pressure not to do the worst it is clearly meditating to do. What I'm describing is something like Bill Clinton's gambit against the shutters-down of government back in the 1990's. It worked pretty well for him, I recall -- the conservatives backed down because people rightly blamed them for their juvenile temper tantrums and stalling tactics while people suffered. The president's hand might be very strong in such a case: "Do something! Stop arguing about what did or didn’t happen last month or last year! Do something, you mean-spirited rotters!" It's exactly the sort of blinkered-historical-vision, short-term, bark-it-up strategy that Republicans themselves are so good at (as when they call liberals "whiners" for reminding us that Bush 43's mistakes are partly the cause of our current troubles) -- why not turn it against them for a change to do the people a good turn?