Claiming Victimization, Again And Beyond


It's not a joke anymore. Nor is it harmless.

Sarah Palin responded to the shooting in Tucson by claimning "especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

But that was only the latest occasion on which Sarah Palin enthusiastically played the victim. (It is her trademark, a kind of calling card.) Nor is she the only conservative who has found victimhood politically advantageous.

Right-wing talk show host Mark Levin (think an angrier Sean Hannity, who is a big fan of his colleague). The Huffington Post reported January 14

Conservative radio host Mark Levin is threatening to sue Chris Matthews and anyone else who he feels is accusing him of having helped foment to political violence.

The impetus for Levin's threat was a statement Matthews made about him on his Tuesday show. Matthews had cited him and fellow right wing radio host Michael Savage as examples of incendiary media figures promoting ugly rhetoric--something that has come under scrutiny in the wake of the Arizona shootings.

"Every time you listen to them, they are furious," he said. "Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with some ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk and it never changes."

In response, Levin laid down a challenge to Matthews.

"I challenge Chris Matthews, I'll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody," Levin said, though he added that calling for the killing of terrorists didn't count.

"A hundred thousand on the table if Chris Matthews can find anywhere Mark Levin has urged the murder of people who have different political viewpoints," he said.

He then threatened to sue not only Matthews, but practically all of MSNBC's biggest hosts, if he felt they had made any allegations against him.

It takes a special kind of talk show host, a special kind of whiner, to threaten to sue anyone for expressing his view of the impact of vitriolic rhetoric spewed by a public figure. But as one of the secondary leaders in the conservative movement, Levin knows his role: threaten and intimidate, always claiming that the left (Chris Matthews?) wants to shut you up.

But it has reached a new level. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the vitriolic comment (for which he later profusely apologized on The Ed Show) by Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), in which the Congressman compared the GOP myth of the government takeover of health care with the tactics of Joseph Goebbels. Rush charged

If you're gonna make a comparison with Nazi Germany, isn't it clear who the new Jews are? It sure as hell isn't the Democrats. Who are the new Jews, Congressman Cohen? It's not the Democrats. It's the Tea Party. Tea Party.

Now we have Republican Party leader Limbaugh suggesting a nexus between criticism of the tea parties and pogroms conducted against Jews in Europe. The vast majority- virtually all, or perhaps all- criticism of tea party members or of their astroturf leadership is far milder and more respectful than that of Cohen. Nonetheless, it apparently reminds Rush of incidents like this:

Violence erupts in Poland. Three Jews are killed and more than sixty wounded in the town of Przytyk, Poland. In the days following the attack, the pogrom spreads to neighboring towns. Before the pogrom is ended, almost 80 Jews are killed and over 200 wounded. Violence against Jews is widespread throughout central Poland between 1935 and 1937. Anti-Jewish pogroms take place, for example, in Czestochowa, Lublin, Bialystok, and Grodno.

It happened in Poland, elsewhere in Europe, and, yes, in Arab lands. But, apparently, tea party members by the dozens are being attacked and killed here in the United States, right under our noses, undetected by the news media, our neighbors, and even Rush Limbaugh.

As Thomas Frank noted in "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Conservatism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of the oppressed majority. Conservatism does not defend some established order of things: It accuses; it rants; it points out hypocrisies and gleefully pounces on contradictions. While liberals use their control of the airwaves, newspapers, and schools to persecute average Americans- to ridicule the pious, flatter the shiftless, and indoctrinate the kids with all sorts of permissive nonsense- the Republicans are the party of the disrespected, the downtrodden, the forgotten. They are always the underdog, always in rebellion against a haughty establishment, always rising up from below.

All claims on the right, in other words, advance from victimhood. This is another trick the backlash has picked up from the left. Even though Republicans legislate in the interests of society's most powerful, and even though conservative social critics typically enjoy cushy sinecure at places like the American Enterprise Institute and the Wall Street Journal, they rarely claim to speak on behalf of the wealthy or the winners in the social Darwinist struggle. Just like the leftists of the early twentieth century, they see themselves in revolt against a genteel tradition, rising up against a bankrupt establishment that will tolerate no backtalk.

The Republican cry of victimhood already had been established. However, references to "average Americans" and "always the underdog, always in rebellion against a haughty establishment, always rising up from below" seem to have foreshadowed the rise of tea party members, often falsely depicted as uniquely salt-of-the-earth.

With it all, though, overwrought rhetoric such as "blood libel" or "the new Jews" by conservative Republicans with a vast following suggest that we may be entering a new, uglier phase of victimhood as political strategy.

Share|

Stand, Or Fall

It really is (or was) extraordinary. In a survey taken from Halloween through election day, the liberal-leaning polling outfit Lake Research Partners found that the public believed that Social Security would be better handled by Republicans, than Democrats, in Congress; and by Republicans in Congress than by Democratic President Barack Obama. And they did not (and do not) want the federal government to cut those benefits, notwithstanding the prescription by the Governing Elite, politicians and mainstream media. The public opposes a generic proposal to cut benefits, to impose means-testing, or to raise the retirement age. A partner at Hart Research Associates adds "For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution."

Nonetheless, speculation is flying about that President Obama will be endorsing in his State of the Union address a de facto cut in Social Security benefits, perhaps by gradually raising the eligibility age. We already knew that the President, having appointed charter school champion Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education, is no fan of the public school system. (Why fund public schools when we can fund private schools which de facto discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or disability status?) And then there was a financial reform bill which maintains the principle of too big to fail and avoids imposing a financial speculation tax. Now, President Obama meets with Hu Jintao to expand U.S.A. business interests in China, likely to be accomplished by offshoring jobs.

The inability, or unwillingness, of the Democratic Party Of Obama to stand up for traditional Democratic values and the middle class which led Susie Madrak to note

If the Democratic Party doesn't stand for public education, helping unemployed workers during a recession, and Social Security, what the hell do they stand for?

Good question. Continuing a post which summarizes (better) the point I tried to make in my last two posts, Madrak explains

Look at the reason Republicans won the midterms: They flooded the airwaves with commercials that said the Democrats were cutting a half-trillion dollars from Medicare. And now the polls show that voters trust the Republicans more than Democrats on saving Medicare.

Think about that. First of all, voters actually believed that Democrats would cut a half-trillion dollars from Medicare, the same people who have always defended it. Sounds like they're not quite sure anymore, huh?

This shouldn't have been difficult. All the Democrats had to do was run response ads, pointing out this had to do with Medicare Advantage, the part where private insurers are raping and pillaging the treasury. Now, I don't know about where you live, but we were inundated with these GOP attack ads in Pennsylvania -- and the Democrats never answered them.

It seems to me that the Democratic Party, like any organization that's adrift, needs to define itself. We can be the party of working people --- or we can be the party of the bankers. But we can't be both, and obviously most voters are just as annoyed and confused about it as I am.

In the private sector, we'd remove our attention and resources from anything that wasn't in line with our core mission. It would help if the Democrats did that, but first they'll have to figure out what, exactly, that is.

Madrak, accurately, emphasizes the political peril not for Barack Obama, but for the Democratic Party, in abandoning the "core mission"

Aaron Tippin (video below) and John Mellencamp (lyrics here; video seemingly unavailable) understand the importance of standing for traditional values, even if public education, Social Security, and protection of the jobs of American workers (think trade deals) are not at the top of the White House's list.

Share|

We Have Met The Mark And He Is Us


In her famous video message produced in response to the shooting in Tucson, Sarah Palin famously claimed

But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Not only was she, nor anyone on the right, to be held accountable for vitriolic rhetoric, the actions of Jared Loughner were prompted by the left- those who "manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

The biggest supporter- inarguably (and figuratively)- of the ex-Governor, Rush Limbaugh, agreed, in his characteristically rambling style:

I mean we could just as easily say that the left is responsible for Tucson and events like Tucson because it is the left which routinely, regularly, continually agitates, abuses, punishes, fines, name calls. The left creates this environment in which the individual is smothered, treated as worthless and degraded. The left is constantly telling us how horrible we are, how horrible our country is. The left's leader runs around the world apologizing for this country, how unfair and unjust our economic system is; how our major corporations are out to kill you, to screw you, to rip you off. They create this environment of pessimism, of self-hate and loathing, desperation. They turn citizen against citizen, blacks against whites, men against women, Hispanics against whoever, you name it. People are constantly at war with each other. How can you been proud of yourself when you're told you don't sacrifice enough for your state, you're not paying enough taxes, you're not giving enough to the cause or that your ancestors committed some horrible offense. Or, if you're unable to succeed, it's because of the Founders and the inherent racism and unfairness of your culture and our Constitution, or capitalism.

The accomplished psychiatrist, Dr. Limbaugh, alleges that Loughner started shooting because "of pessimism, self-hate, and loathing, desperation" brought about by being told by liberals that corporations are evil. Or because our President has been "running around the world apologizing for this country" and "turning citizen against citizen," pausing, presumably, to say in Tucson

And I believe that, for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

Without referring specifically to Palin or Limbaugh, Michael Kinsley observes

In the week since the Tucson, Ariz., massacre, pleas for “civility” have turned into accusations of incivility, and the whole, useful discussion of “civility” versus “vitriol” has turned into the usual argument over competitive victimhood. The vast right-wing conspiracy has played President Barack Obama like a violin.

And they’ve done a pretty good job of messing with the heads of the liberal media as well. As a result, anyone who even raises the issue of who might be responsible, or more responsible, for the “atmosphere of vitriol” in which we conduct our politics is guilty of contributing to it. In just a few days, it has become the height of political incorrectness to suggest there might be any connection between the voices on right-wing talk radio and the voices in Jared Lee Loughner’s head.

Quoting Kinsley, Open Left's Paul Rosenberg concludes "Moral: Empathy is for suckers, and Obama is the biggest of them all."

But whether Barack Obama has been "played like a violin" or is the "biggest sucker of them all" is questionable. President Obama's favorability rating, admittedly already on the rise, soared after his speech at the memorial service. The American people, clearly, like the President- really, any President- in his role as Father-In-Chief. And when Obama absolves the purveyors of incendiary political rhetoric of any responsibility and calls for civility, conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, Pat Buchanan, and Monica Crowley applaud, lending a bipartisan veneer to the Obama presidency.

President Obama blames all equally- or, rather, no one. He asserted

....at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds.

But Kinsley notes

This sounds like a noble sentiment. But who is to blame for what ails the world if not those who think differently? If those who think the same as you are responsible, it’s time to start thinking differently yourself.

That, understandably, Obama will not do. But his comments comfort those whose words have been not only hostile, but vitriolic or even incendiary. And they allow the defenders of those individuals to suggest that it is the critics of violent rhetoric who are, in Limbaugh's words, "responsible for Tucson and events like Tucson."

Meanwhile, Obama stays above the fray, balanced but hardly fair or accurate. As the far right defends the further right, liberals and Obama's Democratic colleagues are increasingly marginalized. Barack Obama, then, is not the sucker, or played like a violin; the description better applies to his loyal supporters, who are being sacrificed to further his pursuit of a second term.

Share|

Satisfying The Right


On May 1, 2009, upon the occasion of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Souter, President Obama stressed the need to achieve consensus across the partisan aisle and across political ideologies and commented

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes....

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum

How did the right respond? A few days after Obama's statement honoring Souter's service and calling for "identifying with people's hopes and struggles, the Wall Street Journal editors were unconvinced, remarking "empathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism" and recommending "Republicans- inside and outside the Senate-" "build a case for saying no." That would prove a template for the GOP's approach to governing in the first half of Obama's term.

Little has changed in the wake of the carnage in Tucson, when we heard a President strenuously encouraging Americans to tone down their political rhetoric and listen to one another to achieve consensus across the political aisle and across competing political ideologies. Obama stated at the memorial service:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is, none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind....

Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. After all...

In response (video available here from The Huffington Post), both Patrick J. Buchanan and Monica Crowley on The McClaughlin Group took the opportunity to slam the left by praising the President's speech for itself, in their view, slamming the left. Buchanan claimed

It was a stern, a fairly stern, admonition especially to the far left in this country, whichg has been quite frankly conducting something of a lynch mob against Glenn Beck, against Sarah Palin, against Rush Limbaugh, imputing moral complicity somehow in this crime somehow because of their rhetoric. He said incivility did not do this....

In the same vein, Crowley commended the President for the speech, then charged

He could have come out on Sunday or Monday, with a message to his own side telling them to 'cut it out' when they were drawing this very sort of malicious and vicious lie that somehow conservative talk or political climate had caused this particular act of violence, which even he later admitted it had not.... (It was) an effective beatdown to his own side.

We get, we get it. Senator Obama wrote in "The Audacity of Hope" (bold, isn't it, to have "hope" and to admit it?) "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” It is a virtue which has proven, as he no doubt expected, to be virtually invaluable in gaining, and holding, political support. It has allowed President Obama to maintain broad and tremendous support among members of his own party while convincing some conservative Republicans such as Buchanan and Crowley that he is on their side, striking out against liberals bent on shutting up and victimizing conservatives.

There could be no better example of Obama persuading his listeners that he agrees with them, no matter their perspective, than when he told the nation

And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

Liberals and the mainstream media applauded Obama for encouraging "civility in our public discourse" while Buchanan noted the President "said incivility did not do this" and Crowley maintained Obama nixed the "malicious and vicious lie" that "political climate had caused this particular act of violence." Thus denying a calming role for civility, Buchanan would claim a "lynch mob" has attacked Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh who, at last notice, seem very much alive. And the President of the United States, in the cause of "civility," which "can help us face up to the challenges of our nation," can only blame both sides. And neither.

Share|

Palin On Personal Responsibility


I must have been wrong. On January 9 I wrote of Sarah Palin's (in)famous 'crossshairs' image

Too little is known now for any conclusions to be drawn as to motivations, even the assumption that Representative Giffords was the primary target. Still, if she was, it was an attempted political assassination and an objective, curious media would have a few questions to pose to the former governor.

Although slyly noncommittal as to whether Palin's apalling ad actually did contribute to the crime apparently committed by Jared Loughner, reasonable minds might have concluded that I thought so.

Evidently, however, no such connection should be made. That has been made clear by Sarah Palin herself. Attention was focused on use of the arguably anti-Semitic term 'blood libel' following release of Mrs. Palin's seven-and-a-half minute video (below); address (transcript from hypervocal.com) about the shooting in Tucson. However, practically buried within that same statement, the ex-Governor joined the debate over whether the atmosphere fostered by vitriolic rhetoric and images play a role in violence"

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Palin apparently believes individuals "should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

Palin, of course, referred to the potential impact of "journalists and pundits"- far be it for her, a politician, to assume any responsibility or afford anyone an opportunity to assign her responsibility, especially when the Third Estate can be blamed. Still, she supported the principle: incendiary words can incite violence. That is, by itself, nearly enough for me to conclude that (except in the most extraordinary situations) they cannot.

It is no contradiction, though, to suggest that Loughner probably was motivated by something beyond, or in addition, to any mental illness he was suffering from. It is too soon to determine what that was, or to what extent it may have motivated the shooter, but Alex Pareene (without even bringing up the name "Glenn Beck") in Salon explains it well:

Yeah, he's no Tea Partyer. He's a complete nut. It's silly to obsess over "tone," as if arguing on TV caused this. Cross hairs on a map is rude, but didn't lead directly to this. But there are hints of far-right rhetoric in Loughner's Internet trail. In addition to the passing mention in his YouTube videos of currency backed by gold or silver, he was said to have gone off on "a rant about the Constitution" at his school. There are varieties of far-right extremist belief that seriously appeal to, shall we say, troubled young men convinced of their own intellectual superiority. That's the Ayn Rand demographic, basically.

This is just sort of listening for echoes of understandable rhetoric in the ravings of a madman, and there's no politician or media person who should be held personally responsible for any of this guy's crimes, but the direction his madness took was inspired by something. There's a reason he was fixated on the illegitimacy of the government, there's a reason he was fixated on his member of Congress, there's a reason he decided to shoot her instead of, say, shooting up the community college that kicked him out. I think it's likely he was drawn to some of the really nutty, out-there kind of individual sovereignty stuff, and I also think that the fact that there's been so much intense media noise concerning the supposed illegitimacy of the federal government over the last couple years probably had an effect on this guy's obsessions.

Share|

On This Occasion


We all knew this but The New Tork Times helpfully summarizes:

The dismal fiscal situation in many states is forcing governors, despite their party affiliation, toward a consensus on what medicine is needed going forward.

The prescription? Slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.

Ironic it may be that the article, "Budget Worries Push Governors to Same Mind-Set," was published today, the day the nation supposedly celebrates the life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It would have been helpful if, as the left and the right (the latter illegitimately) scurry to claim the legacy of Dr. King, some Times' reporter had mentioned how contrary these politically correct efforts are to the life work of the slain leader. Dr. King's mission was not only civil rights but also the rights of workers, including unionized workers, and he lost his life while fighting for them. The Nation's John Nichols takes us back:

It was to that end that King made his last journey, at the age of 39, to march with and campaign on behalf of members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union in Memphis, Tenn., in April of 1968.

The sanitation workers of Memphis had experienced not just racial discrimination but the disregard and disrespect that is so often directed at those who perform essential public services.

No one should miss the fact that AFSCME, the union that they joined and the union with which King worked so closely, is now under attack by right-wingers who would have us believe that public workers are to blame for the problems that occur when policymakers blow the budget on tax cuts for the rich, bailouts for big banks and military adventures abroad.

King did not fall for the fantasy. He stood at the side of public employees, telling a Memphis congregation on the night before he died: "Let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we've got to keep attention on … the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers are on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them."

King was proud to rally with public workers, and proud to make the connection between their struggle and the broader struggle for a fair and equitable economy that served all workers — public and private.

Nichols cites GOP governors such as New Jersey's Chris Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker as the most egregious examples of abuse of public employees but, in a limited way, President Obama has joined in the fun. He has proposed a pay freeze for federal employees, of whom there is a disproportionate number of blacks. The attack on federal employees has delighted his Republican supporters (what- you mean he doesn't have Republican supporters?) while the attack on public employees by state governments across the country is closing a source of mobility for many individuals, minority and white alike. Government employment rarely has made individuals wealthy, but it has gotten many into the middle, or at least lower-middle, class. Today would have been a propitious time for a Democratic president to remind the country of just that.

Share|

Salt Of The Earth


If you want to be reminded how far CBS News' franchise, 60 Minutes, has fallen roughly the past 10-15 years, you can do worse than read the transcript (here) or view the video (below) of the segment presented by part-time correspondent Lara Logan. It is a little bit of a fluff piece but Las Vegas needs an infomercial and Logan is 60 Minutes' unofficial hottie, so I guess it's O.K. Some excerpts:

When it comes to gambling, everybody knows the house has the advantage. But there are some high rollers who consistently win, and it's hard to find anyone better at winning than Billy Walters.

He bets on football and basketball, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and has been so successful that many Las Vegas bookmakers are afraid to even take his bets....

And there's no bigger bettor than Walters. But you'll never see him betting. He has anonymous partners in the sports books who bet for him and for themselves. They take their instructions from Walters.

He's holed up in his home office, with his phones and computers. On a Sunday morning in December, just an hour before the first NFL kick-off, he looks more like a stock broker than a gambler, checking the numbers and phoning his bet orders to his partners in the sports books.

"Okay, I need up to 250 on Green Bay, up to 150 on Cleveland," he instructed one of his partners over the phone.

That's $400,000 he's betting on just two NFL games.

"Where do you see the Charger total?" Walters asked. "Look at 46 only for up to 40,000. 146, up to 140,000. Game 132, where do you see the Cowboy total? 51 and a half only for up to 30,000."

"How much money did you just bet?" Logan asked.

"Let's see, 225, 325, 525, 550, 750, 900, 11- 1230, 1270, 1370 - it's a million, 370,000, plus 10 percent. That's how much I risk," he replied after a quick glance at a sheet of figures.

"Average Sunday morning of football?" Logan asked.

"Yeah, and again, who knows? I would say that before the day's over, I'll probably end up with, I don't know, maybe $2 million at risk," he replied.

Over the years, people have spied on Walters and even rifled through his trash, trying to learn what teams he is betting on and how much he is betting. To protect his operation from prying eyes, Walters has become obsessed with security and secrecy. All of his partners use code names, like "J-Bird" and "Wolfman...."

"Yeah, I had a pretty bad day. The net loss, I lost $257,200," he explained. "I could lose again today, I could lose again next week, I've had losing weeks, I've had losing months."

But he told Logan he's never had a losing year. And in sports betting, that is unprecedented....

All his winnings have made Walters a very rich man. He lives large, like a corporate titan. He and his wife Susan travel in a brand new jet worth $20 million that they use to travel to their seven homes....

Walters joined a now infamous syndicate called the "Computer Group," which revolutionized sports betting in the 1980s by feeding data into computers. The group made so much money that authorities thought they were running an illegal bookmaking operation. Later, Walters was also accused of money laundering and having connections to the mob....

(Walters was indicted four times but) None of the charges stuck and Walters went on to build his own betting business. He became better than the bookmakers at predicting which team would win and by what margin....

Walters has built an empire from his gambling. And at the age of 64, he isn't slowing down. He owns four golf courses, eight car dealerships and a ton of stock.

Along the way, we learn that Walters has given millions to charity and has lost "quite a bit of money," as he puts it, on Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco stock. Quite an adoring report on behalf of one of the privileged few the President and congressional Republicans cannot do enough for.

Fortunately, President Obama was able to overcome the "professional left," the "moaning of Congressional liberals," as well as the "infantile leftism" of Democrats generally to get those deserving guys like Billy Walters a tax break. After all, they are the country's "job producers," creating jobs for productive guys like J-Bird and Wolfman. The lowest 40% of the nation's taxpayers will have to ante up more money than before, but who could be more deserving of a tax break than Billy Walters and his middle-class colleagues?

Share|