Don't Be Fooled By Political Parties

 

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, POLITICIANS HERD US AROUND LIKE CATTLE

Political parties excel at grabbing our attention and herding us by:

• telling us they are the good politicians who care about us,
   
• represent our interests, 
   
• will go to distant places called legislatures or congresses,
   
• fight for us against the bad politicians,
   
• and secure Victory for Us Against Them!

The above metaphor is not meant for our cynical enjoyment; instead, it is a mental picture to keep in mind as we the voters attempt something really difficult:

 

We must understand and respect the usefulness of political strategies and behavior in order to participate in governing ourselves and others. We the people should manage the politicians at least as much as they manage us.

 

The Getting Power To My Votes Blog has its own definition of politics and here it is:

 

Politics, really, is what people must think and do in order to get along with each other and avoid serious injuries. Politics handles the ugly stuff we do to each other. In politics rules and laws are made. It takes skill, self-control, common sense. Politics is useful between two people or many. It’s useful between countries. Politics is an essential part of life together.

 

As important as politics is, a majority of Americans don’t understand what the fuss is all about and don’t want to be bothered with it. But politicians get our loyal votes by using their engaging personalities and leadership skills. They're usually good at:

• Making an emotional connection to voters,
   
• Figuring out what voters want to hear,
   
• Using their verbal skills to arouse the passion of the audience and,
   
• Selling a solution to the audience with promises to get it done.

 

WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION. YES! BUT NOT TO THE HEADLINES

 

In American politics today, many politicians are creating headlines by acting like goofballs and nincompoops. They entertain or disgust us to “get traction” in media. The politician doesn't just want to spin his wheels--he wants his impassioned pleas and drama to emotionally arouse us to vote for him. That's wonderful--if indeed he can help us get what we want.

 

From Politics Is For Power we learn from a political scientist that political hobbyism is not the road to political power (Hersh, 2020). 

 

From The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It we heard a political economist warn us to “forget politics as you’ve come to see it, as electoral contests between Democrats and Republicans. Think power. The underlying contest is between a small minority who have gained power over the system and the vast majority who have little or none” (Reich, page 7).

Both authors are telling us to concentrate, not on the Party System talking points and drama, but on:

• Making meaningful, helpful relationships with potential voters in our local communities. 
   
• Participating in all local elections and other political activities. (There are many local elections and activities through which we can multiply our social connections and voting power.)
   
• Learning who has the power and where they got it, especially where they got the money. 
   
• Learning about how the Congressional lawmakers make laws to prevent abuses of power during one administration and then weaken or entirely remove those protections later on. An important law might be passed one year and gutted two years later.
   
• Learn about how the Supreme Court has made decisions which have increased the likelihood of the abusive of power and money. For example, Citizens United SCOTUS case.
   
• It is just not realistic to trust politicians to persist in going in the direction they promised. We need to follow their individual votes and send them thanks or complaints.

Hersh and Reich direct our attention away from the political drama news. They know the machinery of government (the structure) and they know how politicians use or abuse that structure and who pays them to do so.

About the labels “Democrat” and “Republican”:

Since America’s beginning in the late 1700s, we’ve always had two major political parties. They have been called the Republican and Democratic parties since the 1850s. What those two parties stood for and tried to accomplish varied a lot over time; sometimes the two parties were quite similar and sometimes more different. According to Wikipedia this was true until 1965 and the Voting Rights Act.

After 1965, “the Democratic Party has been the center-left and liberal party, and the Republican Party has been the center-right and conservative party.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

About the complexity of groups that interferes with understanding them:

 

The life of an average adult in a family is often hard to understand. Even harder to understand are groups of people like political parties. The thinking, feelings, and behaviors of large groups of individuals over a few years are extremely difficult to understand. 

 

That we might be familiar with political parties does not mean we really understand them. 

 

I’ll use football to illustrate. Unless one is a football coach, the actions and results of the men on a football team are hard to grasp and usefully summarize. Even the best coaches’ summaries of the game we saw on TV are so general as to be almost meaningless. Sixty minutes of football over a few hours is extremely complex.

How much more difficult to comprehend is what happened in the lead up to an election that caused the results! Fans of football and politics passionately argue about what happened or what should have happened. But the football coach, after the recent win or loss will…go back to basics. The coach watches game films the then methodically plans changes in strategy to execute properly in the future. In contrast, the political hobbyist is not really engaged in doing something different in the future; he is looking at history soon after it occurred and having good or bad feelings about it.

 

So we have two labels, Democrat and Republican, to distinguish two competitive teams, each of which involve fifty states, tens of millions of citizen-players, functioning under hundreds of laws, on and on and on. It is no wonder people are confused by politics, even if they watch news programs. 

 

For a useful article on percent of ignorance in voters, see this from the CATO Institute: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/september/october-2016/solving-problem-political-ignorance#

 

 

 

TWO POLITICAL ECONOMISTS DEBUNK TAX CUTS AS A SOLUTION 

 

Both Paul Krugman (2020) and Alan Blinder (2018) inform us that the Republican party frequently proposes tax cuts as a solution to various economic problems; they also address whether tax cuts have good results. Older citizens might recall hearing Republican candidates within the past several years reminding us that the Reagan tax cuts were very successful. Both Krugman and Blinder are widely regarded economists.

 

Krugman (2020) asserts the following:

 

The economic analysis after the Reagan tax cuts was that the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, not the Reagan tax cuts were the cause of a surge in business activity. 

 

“In short, few economic doctrines have been as thoroughly tested, and thoroughly refuted, as the claim that low taxes on the rich accomplish great things for everyone. Yet the doctrine persists. In fact, it has tightened its grip on the Republican Party, to the point where almost nobody in the party dares to express skepticism” (Krugman (2020, page 216).

 

During the Clinton administration, conservatives (Republicans) warned that Clinton’s raising taxes to promote health and social welfare programs would be a disaster. But there was a “huge economic expansion” under the Clinton administration Krugman (2020, page 215).

Blinder (2018) 

 

The Reagan administration was inspired with the idea of what is called “supply-side economics,” which is the theory that the economy will do better when taxes are cut. There were big tax cuts and unrealistic beliefs that somehow the tax cuts would result in the federal deficit shrinking. But the so-called “supply-side boost” did not occur and the federal deficit got worse. 

 

 

There have been times when Congress has passed carefully constructed legislation, as in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It lowered taxes, eliminated loopholes. 

 

But Trump and Republicans rushed his tax reform through Congress “with results that were less than stellar.” (Blinder, 2018, page 46)

 

Blinder remarks that, “Large tax-rate cuts for top earners are the mainstay of Republican economic policy to this day” (Blinder, 2018, page 130).

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

We have found startling information strongly indicating average Americans have been unknowingly duped into supporting tax cuts for the rich. This information should motivate average citizens to vote, not from their emotional devotion to a party, but vote for specific politicians who can help average citizens survive. 

 

Amazingly, the facts about the tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the average citizen—this hasn’t been a secret. My primary information sources have mostly been books found in the local library. I do know that it is unrealistic to expect the typical adult citizen to read books. I honestly don't know, yet, in what direction the.solution lies. 

 

I have become aware, from what I’ve been reading, that my impression I had of Paul Ryan, former Speaker of the House was very incomplete. Based on what I saw and heard of him in the nightly news, I thought he was a straight-up, trustworthy fellow. And also Reagan seemed a genuinely good guy. But they did hurtful things to American citizens—out of ignorance and/or heartlessness. 

 

Reagan and Ryan certainly come across on TV as good, pleasant, seemingly worth our trust kind of people. “Seemingly,” however, is just not enough proof of trustworthiness. 

 

We need politicians to do the extremely difficult work of politics. We need voters to demand and get straight talk from the politicians. Voters have not been getting the essential information they need to make good voting choices. Government so-called tax cuts haven't reduced income inequality, they have made it worse. 

 

The Trump Tax Cut and Jobs Act is a bizarre, lengthy, document which, as described by Krugman, is likely unreadable even by the politicians who voted for it. They were probably told how to vote by some Party consultant.

 

 

         WORKS CITED

 

        For references, see the relevant page on the powertomyvotes.com website.

 

 

        - END - 

 

 

 

Political Parties, a Trump Success, and the 2017 Tax Cut

 

 

HOW REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CAMPAIGN 

 

Having voted for presidents for 50 years, I find their platforms are usually limited to about five issues. Pretty simple concepts. National as well as state politicians routinely do as follows.

 

Salesmen are professionals—they know how to make a sale. Politicians are professionals—they know how to get elected. Politicians are good salesmen who know lots and lots about governing citizens. The average citizen knows very little about political realities. Politicians sell ideas how they can make government work for what we citizens want. They want us to buy into their plan and give them our vote. Politicians always, with some exotic exceptions, try to look honorable, kind, wholesome, and family oriented.

 

They sell their party (Republican or Democratic) as the best choice for Americans, also adding that the country is at a critical time in history. Very ,very rarely in election campaigns do politicians have enough air time to explain to citizens how they will accomplish what they are promising—legislation is far too complex.

 

They ask for our contributions and votes. They want us to feel a part of their campaign. But they avoid revealing how much money they have received from special interest groups. Appearances are everything; they don’t want it took look like they were bought out by powerful interest groups. Examples of important interest groups are: labor versus business, old versus young, taxation, the “haves” versus the “have-nots.”

 

Nowadays, by far the biggest campaign contributions are from the very rich and very powerful who give substantial sums to both candidates-- so whoever wins will be indebted to them.

Trump, throughout the primaries leading up to his 2016 election win, revealed himself to be unusual in disturbing ways that were obvious to almost everyone. He doesn’t apologize for anything but just persists in trying to get his way. Many persons who loyally served him have also written about his problems—most recently his attorney general Bill Barr in the new book, One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of An Attorney General.

 

Ezra Klein in his book Why We’re Polarized tells us that the 2016 voters “treated Trump as if he were just another Republican” and, further, that voters were so “locked into political identities” that nothing could change their minds. Klein believes that American politics has become a “toxic system.” Part of Trump’s uniqueness is how much loyalty he generates despite his unsuitability as a candidate. (2020, page xiv). 

 

As he campaigned for president, Trump made unrealistic and grandiose statements about what he would accomplish for the American people. He wanted a tax cut and in his publicity proclaimed his tax cut would pay for itself by stimulating the economy (economists thought this outcome unrealistic). The Trump tax cut would subsequently be known as the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA).

THEN COMES ELECTION NIGHT 

 

Elections decide winners and losers. Elections are about the wants and unmet needs of citizens. Elections are very much about loving or hating candidates. For all these reasons and more, election night is high drama. We are compelled to care, and therefore, we are nervously concerned about who wins. 

 

Donald Trump’s win in 2016 made many people shake their heads in disbelief. Even many political commentators thought the election itself was unusual, abnormal; and they began analyzing the causes. 

 

Remarkably, as detailed in Klein’s book, Why We’re Polarized, the statistical patterns of 2016 voting “mostly looked like 2012 and 2008, and 2004.” It is worth adding here that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote but Trump won the election by the electoral college vote and therefore the presidency; this procedure is correct.

The election was not unusual but the candidate was. (Klein, 2020).

 

AFTER THE ELECTION TRUMP AND CONGRESS WORKED TO PASS THE TCJA 

 

Fortunately, to insure adequate and useful legislation, the political process in the U.S. Congress has numerous checks and balances.

• Both parties keep a wary eye on each other and protest strongly when any part of the legislation might be bad for their constituency (the loyal voters who voted them into office). 
   
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was well prepared to sue the Trump administration for anything violating civil rights. (Cose, 2020)
   
• Political commentators, including many economists, analyzed in depth the Trump Administration proposals and made public their analyses of the good or faulty parts of TCJA. Before, during, and after passage of TCJA, dynamic models were run to predict the effects of the proposed law. 
   

The models predicted that the TCJA would not pay for itself but would increase the deficit by one or two trillion dollars. And the models predicted which income levels would get more or less tax benefit. The economists with their models made fairly accurate predictions of what results the TCJA would produce for the various income groups and the amount added to the federal deficit.

 

 

THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE TCJA ACCORDING TO HARD DATA 

 

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act ((TCJA) passed into law in 2017 at a time when the Republicans were the majority party. 

 

I attempted to figure out whether Trump’s TCJA was successful or not. I looked at news reports from Bloomberg Tax and Accounting, Brookings Policy, the New York Times, and a few other sites. I definitely had to look at many sources in order to have confidence in my assessment.

Here are my takeaways:

• The Trump treasury secretary Mnuchin was asserting that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy such that the tax cut would pay for itself. Economists didn’t think this was at all likely and Mnuchin’s claim was widely disputed. 
   
• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the law paid for only about a fifth of itself. And, the law added a trillion dollars to the national debt. I have not heard that the CBO is biased and presume, therefore it's findings are credible.
   
• Some experts figured that an average American family would have about $750 more to spend per year due to the tax cuts. But the top 20% of earners got much larger tax savings! It reduced taxes for upper classes more than for the lower. 
   
• Businesses benefited the most from the tax cuts. This result is, of course, a very typical Republican goal. 
   
• There is plenty of hard data, and the data has led to a clear consensus that most citizens really did get something of a tax cut. However, citizens in the lower fifth of the income groups did not see much in tax savings (of course, a percentage tax cut on a lower wage leads to a smaller dollar savings).

A remarkable fact about the TCJA, is that the tax cuts for citizens expire in 2025. But the tax cuts for business don’t expire! Hmm... Turns out the layers and layers of congressional laws have sections which place undesirable restrictions on future laws; for Congress to pass TCJA they had to reduce the cost of TCJA by having the citizen tax cuts expire within a prescribed time frame. Economist Paul Krugman makes reading about these convoluted politico-economic issues quite entertaining! I highly recommend reading "The Ultimate Zombie" in his book, Arguing With Zombies. (Krugman, 2020)

Only in this week have a learned much about the TCJA. I’m quite pleased to find it has benefited not just businesses, but also the middle class. I also learned that the tax laws were simplified. That’s certainly a benefit to all. 

 

And I’m pleased for Trump and his supporters that one of his platform planks is something of a success—although an expensive one. 

 

I plan to do more study on the interaction of economics, government, and politics. The world’s economists seem to agree with each other better than the politicians about the workings of economics. On one best-of lists, the most highly rated political economics writer-commentator is the Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman. I’ve been reading his book Arguing With Zombies(2020 copyright). Very readable, lively, and without statistics. The book contains 15 short articles just on the TCJA. He said the TCJA is very complex and he explains some of its convoluted aspects. 

 

Enjoyable and enlightening reading!

 

 

 

        WORKS CITED

 

        For references, see the relevant page on the powertomyvotes.com website.

 

 

        - END -