Republican House Speaker John Boehner has made a counter-offer to the White House on tax cuts. As the New York Times reports today (12/17/12), the new offer is that tax hikes would only apply to millionaires. The move, according to the paper, “has already changed the terms of negotiations to avert a fiscal crisis in January.” That seems a little much, especially since this tax cut for the wealthy would still be paid for with cuts to programs like Medicare.
The strangest part, though, was this:
With Friday’s exchange, the president and the speaker put aside their philosophical argument over whether higher tax rates would hurt “small businesses” and “job creators” and began wrangling only over price.
In what sense is this debate “philosophical”? The two sides disagree about who is affected by an increase in the marginal tax rate for the wealthy. Boehner and most Republicans say this hurts “small business” owners. In reality, this is highly misleading; the number of small businesses affected is tiny.
This notion has been attacked many times, often by economist and press critic Dean Baker. One of his recent pieces about this (10/4/12) critiqued the New York Times for an entire piece detailing the supposedly “philosophical” differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. As he pointed out, the examples of Romney’s “philosophic” approach were really evidence that he either didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to things like taxes or gas prices, or that he was doing what politicians often do: representing the interests of the powerful people and institutions that wanted him to be elected president.
To classify these positions as somehow “philosophical” obscures the reality that they are not based in fact. And it makes them sound more like deep convictions based on some sort of pursuit of the truth.
It would be a lot more useful to say that Boehner’s comments about protecting “small businesses” have little basis in fact. But to say so would look like bias.
“[H]e was doing what politicians often do: representing the interests of the powerful people and institutions that wanted him to be elected president.”
Or senator … or congressmember … or governor … or mayor …
Isn’t that the unstated, but unquestioned, job description?
To the beltway journalist, the two parties are always fighting a philosophical battle. They come from positions of opposite principle in order to meet halfway to compromise for the benefit of all. They – unlike us mere peons – have the acumen to understand that these hard decisions are necessary in order for democracy to continue.
You may think we have things called ‘facts’, but the beltway journalist understands that we live in a postmodern world where nothing can ever be truly known, and the perception of reality is more important than the vagueness of what we call truth. It’s in this way that they see politicians as still being philosophical when they discuss the most crass of issues. They reject our fact-based reality, and substitute their own.
A politicians job, after all, is to take their own personal philosophy and make sure the public understands it’s a good idea to implement. This is a glorious task, undertaken by a society which understands the need to avoid the messiness of direct democracy. By skipping the uncouth task of fully educating the populace, we reach levels of untold efficiency. And Romney? Romney was a great philosopher: he might have been endlessly lying to the public, but in his mind he was doing it for his own good. You see, it was Plato’s noble lie in action, and both parties believe in its efficacy. They always mean well, no matter their actions. They are none other than our very own philosopher-kings.
I am not sure if that was Brilliant dead pan Satire or someone who really believes in the major media. That’s scary to think we’ve come to that point.
I think he’s kiddin’ around, Padremellryn.
Philo-sophy is the love of wisdom, study, knowledge. If Boehner is a philosopher, he must love only the wisdom of obedience to his superiors, the study of golf, and the knowledge of how to gather a few bucks for himself.
Philosophical-in the sense of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…
Boehner is an idiot–a habitual drunk whose chief accomplishment before he outrageously became Speaker was to make sure the checks from lobbyists made their way into the correct pockets. He’s the third most powerful politician in Washington, but acts like events he should be controlling simply happen because “Washington” is controlled by cruel and all-powerful Democrats who are, for some reason, following some strange “Democrat Party” impetus. “The People” he likes to crow about overewhelmingly reject his reactionary bullshit, and he’s the voice of reason for the ‘Cons in the House(!). He no more has a philosophy than Hugh Hefner does.
Mr B is showing his political side.And that usually means being stupid.He knows higher taxes(no matter how high)will not fix the problem.Hell it wont make a dent.This is not…..never was, a fiduciary problem.It is a spending problem.Obama is lost.Now Mr B is playing moron games with the head moron.His days are numbered as the head of the Rs.The tea party takes names of morons on both sides.
Totally off subject but remember Obamas first inaug?He excepted no gift from big business to pay for it.Just saw those”gifts” this time are unlimited.And why do we have an inauguration again?