Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Let me get this straight.....

Tax troubles should have doomed the nominations of Geithner and Daschle, but working for the IMF and lobbyists should not have done so? Did I get that right?

Seems to me that working for the IMF, which strangles developing countries by loaning money not to businesses, but rather governments, is far worse than cheating on taxes. So is, for that matter, being a large part of the cause of the recent housing debacle. (why again are we hiring people from Bear Stearns and Citibank to "fix" these problems again?) In the same way, Tom Daschle is a brilliant example of what's wrong with DC--the pay to play lobbying that results in bloated spending and excessive taxation.

If the GOP had any brains, they'd start responding to these highly flawed nominations with the bigger reasons why they're flawed. Don't neglect the "cheating on taxes" angle, of course, but there is simply a lot to say against these Obama nominations that doesn't have to do with their tax evasion.


Gino said...

because the GOP itself doesnt believe its own words, thats why.

they say things because they know thats how to get elected as a GOPer. but they dont believe the things they say. those that do, dont get elected (ron paul).

pentamom said...

It might be partly what Gino says, but I have to think it's at least partly tactical. They're the minority party, and neither the majority in the Congress nor the majority of the people is going to twig to "the IMF is a bad organization" or "people who lobby for nice, liberal healthcare reformers are bad people." Those arguments get nowhere politically.

But "these guys didn't pay their due and lawful taxes to Uncle Sam?" Sure. Democrats think paying taxes is inherently virtuous (politically, they think that, at least, privately is no doubt quite another matter) and the Average Joe does not want somebodoy getting away with not paying his taxes when Joe can't get away with it.

A nice philosophical stance about the depredations of the IMF and healtcare lobbyists (of the virtuous, liberal kind) gets you nowhere except with conservative pundits and bloggers. But people GET getting away with not paying taxes on incomes most of us can only dream of. It works.

So in a practical sense, the question is, would you rather have the case thoughtfully made about how bad pro-socialism healthcare lobbyists are, or would you rather have Daschle the socialist healthcare lobbyist shot down by a reason that actually resonates politically? I can well understand the argument for taking the principled stance, but those ARE the choices in 2009. I know you say "don't neglect" the tax evasion arguments, but the reality is that being from the IMF and lobbying in favor of socialized healthcare would be regarded favorably by the congressional majority and the public, and would only weaken the effort, not help it.

Terry @ Breathing Grace said...

Welcome to "the *change* we needed!"

Bike Bubba said...

Terry: :^).

Pentamom: what you say is absolutely true, but if we don't point these things out now, then when? Maybe after a few more famines killing millions in the third world?

pentamom said...

Bert, my point is that no matter how many gazillions of people die in the third world, it's not going to make liberals believe that their methods of poverty remediation are actually wrong. It fits with the vision, so who cares about evidence?

So point it out and make the case and fight the battle, to be sure, but not because you think that anybody in the near future is going to say, "Oh, wow, you're right! Economic liberalism doesn't actually work and isn't really compassionate! What was I THINKING? We'll just throw these guys overboard right now and give up the delusion that we just haven't gotten enough cooperation from evil Republicans yet!"