> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
> Proved, for once and for all, that there's only one party in Bubble
> America, the Party of Wall Street -- a parasitic beast with two heads and
> only half a brain. Also note that the Dems kept those military-industrial
> subsidies intact, cut capital gains taxes and in general presided over
> a period of unparalleled wealth polarization.
The comment on capital gains seems odd, given the fact that one absolutely substantive gain from those 30 Dem seats was a large tax hike on the wealthy - one of the reasons we have a surplus to fight over today, which the GOP is trying to eliminate by reversing the tax increases on the wealthy passed by the Dems. It is worth noting that by the time the GOP lost control of the Senate in 1987, the top tax rate on the wealthy had dropped from 70% down to 28% (with some closing of loopholes due to the 1986 tax bill).
In 1990, the Democratic controlled Congress forced Bush to accept an increase in that top tax rate to 33% (that number right, Max?). In 1993, the top rate, including a new surtax for Medicare on wealthy individuals was pushed to 41%.
So the difference between GOP control and Democratic control was 28% versus 41% top tax rates on the wealthy. This is not Adam Smith versus Karl Marx, but it is not beanball either.
Just look at the GOP attempting to take another wack at the Earned Income Tax Credit this week to be reminded of the differences.
Now, people don't have to agree that the differences are important enough to divert resources into Democratic campaigns from other organizing struggles - an always reasonable argument - but it is just intellectual condensension to act like the AFL-CIO, environmental groups, abortion rights groups and civil rights group are just too stupid to recognize the essential similarity of the parties.
Tom makes the argument that the CLC restructuring may impare the functioning of the Democratic electoral support they now give in elections. That may or may not be true. But a lot of folks - including obviously the AFL-CIO exec board - is willing to take that chance in hopes of strengthening unions ability to support core workplace organizing.
While I will argue strenously for the marginal advantages of electing Dems, I will trade off a marginal number of those seats in exchange for more substantive gains in the workplace (assuming we don't lose the ability to filibuster pure anti-union repression from the GOP).
Rather than equating John Conyers with Helen Chenoweth, it would be nice if the extremes of hyperbole could be restrained to a more strategic evaluation of costs and benefits of different strategies.
--Nathan Newman