Where I see waste and excess (yesterday’s post), Carl sees all the jobs that will go into tearing down William Lauder’s just-built $110 million 35,000-foot mansion to build another.

He characterizes this as “a $110 million public assist!”

Whereas, by contrast, Carl writes, “Democrats want to raise income and estate taxes on the uber-wealthy that will destroy jobs for the lower and middle class and direct the money instead to the greedy Washington politicians!”


What if  taxes were raised such that billionheirs inherited somewhat less, having to make do with 20,000-foot mansions, if it came to that . . . and the difference — far from going into politicians’ pockets — were used to crime-reducing measures like after-school programs, hiring more cops, and training high school grads to help rebuild the nation’s infrastructure?  Things like that, since Carl is rightly concerned about crime.

Congressional Republicans believe the scales are weighted too heavily against the uber rich and corporations.  (Or even if they don’t believe that, it’s how they vote.)  Democrats believe the shift in wealth and power toward the already-rich-and-powerful these past 40 years has been unconscionable.

(And the Court, as described in The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court, has cemented their lock on wealth and power.)

It may not be too much to say we are a plutocracy verging on fascism.

That — not global inflation (which Republican control of Congress would do nothing to abate) — is what’s on the ballot.



Comments are closed.