The ol' razzle dazzle

The most predictable governing body on the planet, the U.S. Congress, is again doing some of its sleaziest sleight-of-hand work at year’s end, with the comfort of knowing that we lowly proletarians are focused on holiday festivities.

The average American is totally confused about the flurry of year-end legislation and political posturing coming out of the nation’s capital, and with good reason: Politicians work hard at creating confusion.

Now, let’s see if I understand this. The Dems want to “cut taxes” by extending a “tax holiday” on some of the money workers pay into the Social Security retirement “fund.” Could it be that Democrats aren’t as liberal as some of us have believed them to be? After all, they can’t be so bad if they actually favor a tax cut.

Would that it were true. But, unfortunately, it’s not. The truth is that it’s nothing more than a gimmick to keep American piglets mesmerized while feeding at the government’s entitlement trough.

I realize many true-blue conservatives and libertarians believe any tax cut is a good tax cut. In theory, they’re right. But cutting payroll taxes is an illusory tax cut. It’s attacking the symptom (payroll taxes) rather than the cause (Social Security). And like it or not, for now Social Security is a fact of life in the People’s Republic of America.

That being the case, if enough money is not extracted from workers to pay Social Security benefits to those who currently qualify for them, it has to be taken through an invisible tax (“inflation”) or paid for by politicians’ favorite tax targets – our children and grandchildren (by borrowing the money needed to cover the shortfall).

So far, so bad.

 

NOW TO THE second part of the year-end razzle-dazzle game: extending unemployment benefits. Has any Republican member of Congress taken the trouble to ask, “What do unemployment benefits have to do with extending the payroll tax cut?”

Will Republicans ever say “no” to an extension of unemployment benefits? Absolutely, positively not. After all, principles can get in the way of capturing votes. Progressive Republicans in the House and Senate are very convincing when they rail against wealth redistribution in front of the TV cameras – then turn right around and vote for it even more convincingly. Truth be known, Republicans have never met a piece of wealth-redistribution legislation they didn’t like.

Segue to the third piece of Congress’ year-end game of razzle-dazzle – the Keystone XL pipeline, which has absolutely nothing to do with either payroll taxes or unemployment benefits. It’s just more of the same – spin, twist, obfuscate and lie convincingly enough, and the anesthetized public, too fatigued from Christmas shopping and football, can be counted on to not understand that they’re getting wronged – again.

What the Keystone XL pipeline issue does is give accommodating Republicans the escape hatch they always seek to falsely claim victory in their losing efforts against Democrats. After all, how can you not applaud Republicans for agreeing to a bill that gives the illusion of moving forward with an oil pipeline from Canada, a project that promises to create thousands of jobs and help wean America off its dependency on foreign oil?

 

AND IF THAT’S what it did, maybe you could forgive Republicans for again extending unemployment benefits in exchange for getting their way on the Keystone XL pipeline. But that is not what it does. As always, there’s an out for our humble leader in the White House.

The out I’m referring to is that the wording in the bill requires Obama to grant a permit for the pipeline unless he decides that it’s “not in the national interest.” Gosh, I wonder what the likelihood is of his deciding it’s not in the “national interest”! Sounds a bit like “that depends upon what the meaning of is is.”

Interestingly, Obama’s former national security advisor Jim Jones, who almost never contradicts his one-time boss, said last week, in a press call sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, “(A)ny threat to this project, by delay or otherwise, would constitute a significant setback. The failure to (move forward with the project) will prolong the risk to our economy and our energy security (and) send the wrong message to job creators.”

Risk to our economy, risk to our energy future, sending the wrong message to job creators – sounds to me like it’s a Christmas wish list for Barack Obama. After all, you can’t expect a mere $4 million Hawaiian vacation to satisfy a high-falutin’ community organizer of his stature.

 

(The writer is an author, motivational speaker and entrepreneur.)

More

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 22:47

AP’s bias persists

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 18:09

Now the watchdogs bark