It's actually pretty conservative, when you think about it.

The latest bankruptcy of coal giant, Peabody Energy, clashes with conservative claims that Obama is killing the energy industry in the US.  Peabody’s list of reasons for the filing reads like the ingredients of kid’s cereal:  the first one is the one in most abundance; the last one is barely there.  So it probably breaks Mitch McConnell’s heart to learn that Peabody tossed in “tougher regulatory environment” as their last reason for their failure.  It was almost obligatory, and the ranking Peabody gave it indicates as much.

The primary/first reason Peabody gave: the market.  In other words, in Peabody’s own words, they’re getting out of coal because it just isn’t marketable anymore.  Market forces, capitalism at work.  

Sure, we could continue to subsidize the coal industry so the corporations who still employ folks in it can keep those jobs on life support for a while longer, and lot of coal’s money has been spent lobbying toward that end, but subsidies like that sound like big government.  Subsidizing a failing enterprise (no matter how much they contribute toward your campaign) doesn’t sound very conservative at all, except in the sense that it’s just not smart or rational, ignores the facts before its eyes, blames the subsequent mess on Obama.  I guess in that sense it would be “conservative,” but not in any sense remotely related to any actual definition.  On the contrary, for coal, or Big Energy in general to expect such subsidies would seem like they have a sense of entitlement.

But Mitch says it’s all Obama’s fault.  Dear Mitch, Obama picked up the mantle (reality) every modern president before him also carried: the size and scope of our energy needs has grown to the point at which we can no longer ignore ALL of the costs of its production – not just the direct costs of materials and labor and delivery, but the costs of what that industry historically does to the surrounding land and to the planet in general – the cost of cleaning up after itself.  At the core of this idea, it’s a very conservative concept: clean up your own mess as soon as you’re done making it.  Not after you go outside and play with your friends, but AS SOON AS YOU’RE DONE MAKING IT. Put your school clothes away as soon as you’ve changed into your play clothes.  Put the Legos away before getting out Monopoly. Put your tools away when the job is done.  Sweep the kitchen after you’re done making cookies.  Mop up that mess after you’re done changing the oil.  Pick up after yourself.  Don’t squander your (or everyone’s) resources.  There’s really no denying that this is among the most core of conservative principles.  Except for some reason, when asked to apply it to corporations, it becomes liberal, intrusive, nanny-state.  WTF?!

So even though the “regulatory environment” was the last reason cited for Peabody’s failure, all it really means is after years of not cleaning up their own mess while they were making it, they’re now being forced to.  After years of failing to factor in the cost of cleaning up after themselves, they suddenly legally compelled to. (Blame big government all you want, but if you refuse to live up to your responsibilities on your own, and expect someone else to take care of your mess for you, then the law must make you.) After years of letting the rest of American taxpayers pay to restore what Big Energy has destroyed, the rules now force them to take care of it themselves – as they should have all along.  (and the move to that direction, fortunately, started well before Obama was elected) The messes our energy industry has made, but have left for others to clean up, range from negligently dangerous work environments killing off heads of households in the form of black lung, cave ins, explosions, etc. to the complete destruction of the tops of mountains, to spill sites, to poisoned rivers and entire watersheds, to abandoned pit mines left dangerously open.  If Peabody made messes like that, (messes inherent to coal) why are they surprised that they should have to clean them up?  Why did they not factor in the cost of cleaning up after themselves all along? Expecting the rest of the nation to clean up after them so as not to infringe on their profits is the ultimate example of entitlement!

So as we listen to Senator McConnell pin this latest example of capitalism at work entirely on Obama, remember what your mom would tell you if you asked if you could go out and play while your school clothes and all your toys were still scattered all over your room.  If that’s all on Obama, then he’s pretty conservative.  He and Mitch McConnell should get along a lot better than they do.

Luth

Out

Things Republicans Say

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

From a letter from President Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

Unfortunately, it appears as though Lincoln’s suspicions have not proven groundless.  Not only was Lincoln right about the aggregation of the “money power of the country,” but he was dead on in how it came about; “corruption in high places…working on the prejudices of the people.”  In our current presidential race, the top three establishment candidates are products of this very aggregation cycle.  They are created by and therefore programmed to perpetuate it.  Clinton and Cruz may as well be twin siblings whose mom can only tell apart when one wears a red lapel pin and the other blue.  They couldn’t break this cycle if they wanted to because breaking it would mean breaking themselves. And the orange man has been eugenically created in the image of Lincoln’s biggest fear – born with money, on third base, selling himself as though he made his own bat from the oak tree out back and taught himself how to hit home runs.  All three of these folks (and most of those trailing them) are products of this aggregation of wealth.  The question is, what has it gotten the rest of us?

In other words, how is this whole trickle down thing working for you?

Economists often argue that they can’t really test a theory because there’s no way to run any kind of meaningful, controlled experiment in a living economy.  We’ll never actually balance a federal budget.  We’ll never lower taxes significantly enough to truly test the trickle-down theory without wiping out programs the nation – its individuals AND its corporations – have come to rely on.  But we’ve basically been trending toward trickle-down economics since the Reagan era, and all it’s done thus far is exactly what Lincoln, America’s most universally beloved Republican, most feared: “until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands.”  In case you’re not following, those few hands are America’s top 1%...or the top percentile of income earners who, in this country, currently hold almost 40% of its wealth (according to BusinessInsider.com, last August,) as Lincoln predicted it might.

So the experiment in trickle-down economics, in spite of all of the detracting uncontrolled factors, has worked to do exactly what Lincoln predicted. It has aggregated money power into the hands of very few.  Proponents may argue that it hasn’t actually trickled down yet only because taxes STILL aren’t low enough, or because there are STILL too many regulations on these people and their industries, but it sure seems like the regulations we’ve done away with have worked to the advantage of that top 1% (and no one else.) In other words, it’s worked to make the rich way richer, even during our recent recession…so why haven’t they invested in capital or hired thousands of employees? …and actually boosted the economy that’s now working solely to their benefit? If they’re still consistently and wildly rich, then why hasn’t anything trickled down yet?  Imperfect experiment, indeed.

Kansas is probably as good an example of the trickle-down as we’ll ever get in the real world. In his first two years as governor, former conservative Senator Sam Brownback dramatically slashed taxes in the state also known as Koch country.  He promised this would fertilize economic growth that would more than make up for the immediate loss in revenue.  He said it would take time.  Apparently it’s going to take more than the 5 years since because even after narrowly securing a second term, Brownback himself is backpedaling, asking the legislature to slow further planned cuts, and even raising some taxes.  The state is so broke as a result of this experiment, the once pro-education Brownback has been forced to cut the states already basement education funding even further.   Members of his own party are quoted by The Atlantic as saying, "He’s lived and died by this philosophy, and it’s becoming more and more obvious that it is not going to be successful." (Rochelle Chronister, former Kansas Republican state chair per http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/kansass-failed-experiment/389874/)

 But that’s just Kansas, right?  Surely if this theory works, other states have proven it.  Turns out most Republican governors seem to have taken the Kansas warning to heart.  Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Louisiana, and even South Carolina, whose governor, Nikki Haley said specifically, “we’re not going to do what Kansas did,” have taken a far less conservative approach to reducing taxes over time rather than insisting the failed Kansas and Wisconsin experiments have worked. Currently, the Kansas budget woes are trailed only by Louisiana and Alaska.  Economists may not want to admit trickle-down hasn’t worked, or may continue to insist it hasn’t been adequately tested, but sensible Republican governors who have watched Kansas and Wisconsin’s budgets crumble seem to have formed their own conclusions.

So, when it comes to what you want to see in the next four years, you have to ask yourself if it’s more of the same – from a Democrat or a Republican – i.e. handing over even more of the entire nation’s wealth to the top 1%, systematically, by law and tax code, as establishment candidates have led since the Reagan era, or if it’s time to change that system up to avoid furthering what Lincoln feared, and to finally admit that if the market won’t govern itself, won’t allow all that wealth at the top to trickle down, no matter how long or how much we continue to pump cash up there, then we, the people, need to step in and create the necessary adjustments. We need to put some of that regulation back, even out the tax code so that the 1% pays a share similar to what we pay, with no exceptions. If we don’t, it won’t be long before we can’t buy any of the products our corporate overlords are making and selling anyway – and I’m pretty sure that won’t be the trigger to start the trickling!  You have to ask yourself if you want to keep on loading 16 tons only to owe your soul to the company store.

Luth

Out