Tom Lehman
Nathan Newman wrote:
> > -----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