That is the problem with the extreme anti-redistributionist logic of the Tea Party and many incumbent or activist Republicans: Society simply tends to distort the importance of certain jobs in terms of the pay received, while giving fuck all attention to other, equally important, often more difficult jobs. Therefore a Nobel Prize winner might only ever get that cash prize and a middling salary at a research insitution, while a hedge manager who has fuck all idea about even how the economy works rakes in millions simply by being in the right place at the right time, and having a plan that almost accidentally works. And people who put roofs on houses make far less than people who run with balls for a living.Domino wrote:I can't fathom people making more money by working less.
I don't believe that it is wrong for there to be wealthy people who can steer the economy, but it needs to be held in check: In part by the technocrats who ask the question "what actually is good for the economy at large?" and in part by the progressive movement which understands that if things get bad enough, the masses will have some wisdom about how to make it more equitable again.
BulletMagnet wrote a lot, so here is a big response:
Most of this is a problem, but the VRA hasn't been totally gutted. Rather what the Supreme Court found is that they don't believe Justice can automatically make the argument that some states are not compliant with the Act. If there are abuses, they can be brought individually. Of course it's a problem in terms of efficiency - if you can assume that an Administration is working for the people, and they are bringing actions under the VRA, having them not be automatically approved means that less gets done. But our system - our Constitution, even - has this anti-democratic element of the states' rights. I can also mention that it shouldn't automatically be assumed that because a VRA violation is alleged, that it is true. It also isn't true that having two types of states - states alleged to be habitual offenders, and states that are alleged not to be - makes much sense either. VRA violations can and do happen anywhere, and focusing on stated assumed to be in violation can take the heat off other states.BulletMagnet wrote:Well, the American people (even in the face of particularly ruthless gerrymandering and corporate shadow funding, though now that the Voting Rights Act has been repealed it's going to get even worse)
Well, you've answered your question. I also want to point out that what they're doing isn't against the Constitution - in fact the Constitution doesn't even recognize that we have things called political parties; the Framers only assumed there would be political factions, instead of mega-blocs of disparate interests organized into parties. In terms of breaking the rules, that's also allowed. It is pretty clear that the rules are too permissive in this case.So why is the GOP suddenly taking such an uncharacteristically gung-ho, interventionist, Screw-the-Constitution, break-all-the-rules-and-we-don't-care stance instead of simply sitting back, letting the law fail miserably, and saying "we told you so" whilst sweeping the next round of elections with minimal effort?
Stuff like this is only part of the reason I'm skeptical about laws and rules in general: There will always be some case where the same rules will work well, or work badly. Rules and laws typically assume that there is a normal pattern of conduct, and either you go off the deep end trying to cover every possible angle (and end up limiting necessary freedoms - in ways that can come back to bite you) or you leave things open to people who know the holes in the system. We're living in a time where people are exploiting gaps in the rules to create chaos. However, there have also been times in American history where people have exploited the rules to crush necessary dissent. I don't think it's actually possible to have a system that perfectly prevents both possibilities. Even the mechanisms of making elected officials more accountable through systems like the Parliamentary system's easy coalition forming and the ability to call elections at any time - these things still don't guarantee that the actors in the system will be good or that the process will be orderly or disruptive as necessary.
I don't think that's actually true in many cases. The universal healthcare promise was greatly appealing to many employers - we don't have to pay for health care! - and to insurance companies - we get tons of new members! - so both the Chamber of Commerce and the insurance groups were tentatively supportive of the change.Answer: the party's primary big-money backers (including those who use health care costs as an excuse to pay their employees pitiful take-home salaries, i.e. pretty much every sizable employer) have way too much to lose
I really think this just comes down to that old ultra-Calvinist belief that you characterized earlier, and a feeling of "what's mine is mine." A lot of the Tea Party movers and shakers have little education in government economy and just wanted to pull down the system because "what's mine is mine."
What they present as an argument about economic theory - which is certainly wrong - really just obscures an intended morality question, which in turn is based just on a feeling and very little careful reasoning about why we should care about the supposed moral argument. Of course, things get more confused when everybody is so intent on just framing things in a way that sounds good - when you're being driven by rhetoric the only thing you are tied to are raw emotions, and nothing finer than that.
Yeah, he is a Majority Leader in everything but title. It's confusing because his counterpart in the Senate isn't a Speaker and isn't elected according to a Constitutional office, similar to the House Majority Leader (neither of these latter positions explicitly called for in the Constitution).
