At the most recent Republican presidential debate [Oct. 18, 2011], Herman Cain parried all questions about his 9-9-9 tax plan by saying that his critics were comparing apples to oranges. Well, maybe. At least they were talking about a real policy issue—taxation. But from what I heard, I’d say they were comparing baloney to bullcrap. Why? Because the obvious premise underlying these so-called debates is simple: taxes are bad.

The notion that taxes are a negative aspect of our democracy has become conservative dogma that, unfortunately, goes essentially unchallenged during the infomercial/game shows—predominantly sponsored by conservative groups, not by independent news-gathering organizations—that are being passed off as “debates” by Fox, CNN and even PBS. I have yet to hear a single host/journalist/newsreader ask a candidate to explain how, under the slash-and-burn ideology of tax cutting, we’re supposed to do what our government is charged with doing. [And yes, I do understand that virtually all of the Republican candidates want to cut taxes as a way of starving government until it’s so small that it can’t get in the way of their god—the free market.]  Just once, I’d like someone to ask the Republican candidates to name a tax that they would not reduce, or, better yet, to define their view of the proper role of taxation for our country.

In Republican circles, every discussion of taxes focuses on participles like reducing, cutting, eliminating and flattening, and nouns like burden and relief. This framing isn’t new, as anyone who’s read anything by linguist George Lakoff  knows. The overwhelming and unchallenged anti-tax message pushes the assumption that there is no tax that is good, and that there’s no tax that’s too small to cut. That notion flies in the face of the reality of everyday life in this country, where we all rely on—and expect—tax-supported services in hundreds of ways—both large and small.

Unfortunately, the conservative message has become so predominant that, often, interviewers, pundits, and progressive politicians and individuals forget that it’s based on a false assumption, and that we need to stand up, challenge the premise, and counter it [even when facts don’t count].

To her great credit, Elizabeth Warren did just that recently, when she made her now famous statement about corporate wealth and fairness:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

It’s also worth reminding ourselves and others of some of the specific ways that we all rely on taxes . The following list has been in my files for almost 10 years, which shows how long the conservative anti-tax meme has been infiltrating our consciousness. I’m sure many readers have a similar list, so I’m not pretending that I’m breaking any news here. Some of these examples seem obvious, but I think they bear repeating—often and loudly. Here are some highlights, in no particular order. Memo to Anderson Cooper and “debate” hosts: How about trying some of these out on the next show?

If you don’t like taxes…

– Don’t drive on paved streets or highways.

– Don’t call 911.

– Don’t flush your toilet.

– Don’t bring your garbage to the curb.

– Don’t fly in an airplane that uses air-traffic controllers.

– Don’t use the court system.

– Don’t call the police when you get robbed.

– Don’t ask for a farm subsidy for not growing crops.

– Don’t ask for a taxpayer subsidy to do business in a city or state.

– Don’t buy a sports franchise and ask the taxpayers to build your stadium.

– Don’t send your children to public schools.

– Don’t attend a state university.

– Don’t expect a social security payment.

– Don’t let Medicare pay your bills if you are over 65 or disabled.

– Don’t look for a government contract to bolster your defense industry business.

– Don’t look for a government.

– Don’t look for a lucrative government consultant contract.

– Don’t run for political office where your salary is paid for by the taxpayers.

– Don’t accept government research findings that subsidize research for your industry.

– Don’t be an airline and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a car company and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a steel company and expect the government to bail you out.

– Don’t be a company that pollutes and expect the taxpayer to bail you out.

– Don’t climb to the top of the Washington Monument, which is maintained at taxpayer expense.

– Don’t be rescued by fire department paramedic team.

– Don’t expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business.

– Don’t expect the military to defend your country.

– Don’t visit national parks or hike in national forests.

– Don’t eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce.

– Don’t take any medications tested and approved by the FDA.

– Don’t drink, bathe or otherwise use the water from municipal water systems.

– Don’t look at or relay a weather report.

– Don’t look at a NASA generated picture.

– Don’t expect a unit of measure like a gallon of gas to be a full gallon.

– Don’t expect an elevator to work correctly or not fall.

– Don’t expect a red light to work.

– Don’t accept government money to help develop a product which you then personally patent or copyright and sell for your own profit.

– Don’t use the services of a doctor who is licensed through the state.

– Don’t expect research into medical problems such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, aging, prostrate, menopause, etc.

– Don’t use the public library.

– Don’t go to a state university affiliated hospital.

– Don’t apply for government grants.

– Don’t ask for a business loan from the small business administration.

– Don’t ask to use the G.I. bill to go to college.

– Don’t drive a car that benefits from government safety regulations.

– Don’t use currency printed by the US Treasury.

– Don’t use a bank or credit union that insures your deposits through the FDIC.

– Don’t get married, have children or die and expect the government to keep track of all the certificates.

– Don’t visit public museums.

– Don’t go hunting, fishing, or camping on government property.

– Don’t cross a bridge.

– Don’t use truckstops or public restrooms.

– Don’t expect the government to protect the copyright for the works you create.

– Don’t expect your tap water to be clean and germ free.

– Don’t eat any food transported on roads.

– Don’t expect any workplace safety standards, labor laws, or minimum wage.

– Don’t expect zoning laws.

– Don’t expect anyone to plow your roads when it snows or sweep them when they’re dirty.

– Don’t expect your children to be able to ride the bus to school.

– Don’t write any material to be published and copyright it.

– Don’t expect the court to appoint a taxpayer-paid attorney to represent you (or your child) when you are accused of a crime.

– Don’t call or go to the US Embassy in a foreign country when you get in trouble.

– Don’t get a passport or try to get out of the US without a Passport.

pp

The post Republican tax “debate” is baloney appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You may recall that in one of the earlier Republican debates, all candidates were asked if they could support a debt reduction plan that involved $10 spending cuts for every dollar of revenue enhancement (taxes). None raised his or her hand. This is not the only issue in which the Republicans walk in lockstep. When it comes to reproductive choice, all the candidates are against it. When it comes to gun control, all the candidates are against it. When it comes to strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment, all the candidates are for it.

They all feel that the key to economic growth is reducing taxes and eliminating regulations. They all trust the private sector to manage health care.

Differences of opinions among the Republicans are minimal. However, there can be moments of interest. Michele Bachman and Rick Perry battle one another for to see who makes the most faux pas. Herman Cain is truly a character – so much so that he says what he would bring to the White House would be humor. He might be right about that. Ron Paul is appalling. Without emotion he expresses a preference to maintain the free enterprise system at the expense of providing health care for a young man or woman in a coma.

What the Republicans don’t provide is either thoughtful dialogue or solutions to our problems. There is no incentive to do so. Their debates might be characterized as “pandermonium” as they try to outdo one another in pandering to the Tea Party, their so-called base. The televised debates should not be called broadcasts. They are actually narrowcasts in which each candidate tries to slice and dice his or her comments to satisfy the small percentage of voters who only drink tea.

But the Republicans are the only party in town for now, and probably until after both party conventions are concluded next summer. President Barack Obama is unopposed in the Democratic Party and thus there are no debates with Democrats until after Labor Day. For anyone interested in promulgating the Democratic agenda (assuming that there is a clear one), it may be a year before it goes face to face against the Republicans.

So here’s a thought to remedy the problem. Suppose we established a “sweet sixteen tournament” between Democrats and Republicans and start it now. Republicans would not have the luxury of parroting one another and assuming that no one likes Social Security in its present form. Each Republican would have to face off against another Democrat. You might have two consecutive nights, each with four half-hour debates. President Obama would be exempt from the competition since his chance will come later and he has a tougher day job than any of the other participants.

Republicans would have to explain their views on Medicare while being challenged by Democrats who support it. Democrats would have to explain their views on the E.P.A while being challenged by Republicans.

The system could be structured so that the opponents for each Democrat or Republican would be different in each debate. Here’s a graphic representation of what it could be:

Week 1, Night 1

Democrat	Republican
Dennis Kucinich	Ron Paul
Amy Klobuchar	Mitt Romney
Dick Durbin	Michele Bachmann
Emanuel Cleaver	Newt Gingrich

Week 1, Night 2

The next week the deck could be shuffled so that no candidate faced one who he or she previously debated. The issues may be similar to those from the first week or they might be different. Frivolous (Coke or Pepsi) questions would not be allowed. The moderators would be creditable journalists such as Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, or Judy Woodruff. There would be no silly YouTube or Twitter questions.

This has the potential to be beneficial for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats would get a message (or more likely a combination of messages) out at a time when they are not being heard with the exception of the president. Republicans would have to stand up against the type of opposition they will face in Fall, 2012. Their supporters will see which ones can successfully parry arguments from Democrats.

How could it be worse that Republicans trying to distinguish themselves from one another when they essentially agree on everything. It’s worth a try and certainly would come closer to “must see TV” than what we have now.

The post Republicans need Democrats in their debates appeared first on Occasional Planet.