alternet--2020-12-18--Here's how we can neutralize Trump during his dangerous last month in office

His diagnosis is clear .
The remedies for his pernicious impact on America are clear as well .
In just over a month from now , Donald Trump — a — will be removed from office by the will of the people and by the Constitution .
Until then , his seditious , conspiratorial and corrupt influence will be front and center .
He continues to promulgate the false narrative that victory in the election was snatched away from him by widespread voter fraud .
He keeps filing baseless and frivolous lawsuits , even as high as the U.S. Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters , and at least 126 congressional Republicans have publicly supported him , out of a combination of misguided loyalty , opportunism and fear .
Joe Biden will be our next president , but it is undeniable that Trump will exert a dangerous and destructive presence to his final day in office , and beyond .
It is unhealthy for us to sit back passively and allow this soon-to-be ex-president to continue to inflict damage on America .
Trump 's abusive impact is not unavoidable .
It can be stopped .
Ten remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final days .
• The media must stop giving him attention .
They must stop covering his every utterance .
No more videos , audios , print stories or interviews .
Attention is Trump 's oxygen and lifeblood .
He can not negatively influence others if his visibility is curtailed or ended .
If Trump organizes an alternative inauguration or a `` campaign rally '' on Jan. 20 , it must not be broadcast or covered in any way .
Bizarre and anti-American activities must not be given credibility .
It must remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a part of our political and social reality .
• Americans can do their part by not watching or listening to him .
Turn off the television and the radio .
Do not watch him on social media .
He is old news .
He is irrelevant .
His message must be abhorred and soundly repudiated .
• His Twitter account should be suspended .
Stopping his Twitter activity would go a long way to neutralizing his impact .
Trump tweets frequently — it is his most direct way to stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be interrupted for the good of the country .
• Facebook and other social media platforms must do a better job of rooting out disinformation .
Trump supporters have been ramped up by false and toxic rhetoric .
That is unhealthy for them , and for the country .
Making money as a business is one thing ; contributing to seditious unrest in the country is another .
Social media platforms must assume a more responsible role in our democracy .
• The mainstream media needs to allow mental health professionals to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely blocked out .
It is long overdue to hear from professionals in the mental health field .
Duty to warn the public is far more compelling than the outdated `` Goldwater rule . ''
Let experts be at the forefront of the discussion about this destructive and irrational traitor .
• Congressional Republicans need to put country over party and begin to speak out — loudly and forcefully .
They need to abide by their oath of office .
They need to find courage and boldness in Trump 's final days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior .
Loyalty to him is unacceptable .
Fear of him is weakness .
• A small group of congressional Republicans need to speak with Trump in private and compel him to stop his rhetoric , concede the election and participate in the peaceful and orderly transfer of power .
That 's what Sen. Barry Goldwater and other Republican leaders did with Richard Nixon at the end of his presidency .
These Republicans would be remembered as heroes .
• If Trump does not heed the private warning , he should be publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment remains a viable option .
• Trump needs to resign and allow Mike Pence to finish out the last few weeks of his term .
He may well do this anyway , so that Pence can pardon Trump and his entire family .
Regardless of how distasteful that is , it would at least get him out of the Oval Office and extricate ourselves from his dictatorial maneuvers .
• Finally , Americans should speak out and contact their elected officials to let them know that it is time for Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let your opinions be known .
Being a citizen in a representative democracy requires active participation .
Make a phone call or send an email .
It 's fine that Trump does not want to attend the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
He does not deserve to witness it .
We should demand that he slither away through the back door of the White House so that we do not have to endure his parting rants and raves .
The Trump nightmare is coming to an end .
Let us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has done too much damage to our institutions and to the collective psyche of America to tolerate this any longer .
Achieving a sense of closure from this man 's malevolence will take time .
It will not happen overnight .
His pathological impact will dwindle slowly as we go forward .
Positive , optimistic and hopeful political discourse will lead the way .
We can not remain hostage to his era of divisiveness and regressive decay .
Trump must be held accountable .
He must be prosecuted for his crimes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all Americans — both those who support him and those who do not — that his criminal behavior has serious consequences .
Trump has done this to himself .
He is not the victim .
He uses victimhood to garner sympathy and to enlist the support of others who feel aggrieved .
Victimhood is a deeply cynical process when it is false , fake and manipulative .
It always is for him .
Trump 's place in the history books is set .
`` Worst president in history '' will be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be his unchanging legacy .
So let us put Donald Trump in the rearview mirror sooner rather than later , where he belongs .
As we do that , let us remember the 300,000 fallen Americans who will not be celebrating the holiday season , or our new dawn in America , with the rest of us .
Their memories will be a constant reminder of what we have endured — and overcome .
Seth D. Norrholm is an associate professor of psychiatry in the Wayne State University School of Medicine in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and past White House director of communications .
He lives in Washington .

His diagnosis is clear. The remedies for his pernicious impact on America are clear as well.
In just over a month from now, Donald Trump — a malignant narcissist — will be removed from office by the will of the people and by the Constitution. Until then, his seditious, conspiratorial and corrupt influence will be front and center. He continues to promulgate the false narrative that victory in the election was snatched away from him by widespread voter fraud. He keeps filing baseless and frivolous lawsuits, even as high as the U.S. Supreme Court. He is ginning up his supporters, and at least 126 congressional Republicans have publicly supported him, out of a combination of misguided loyalty, opportunism and fear. Joe Biden will be our next president, but it is undeniable that Trump will exert a dangerous and destructive presence to his final day in office, and beyond.
It is unhealthy for us to sit back passively and allow this soon-to-be ex-president to continue to inflict damage on America. Trump's abusive impact is not unavoidable. It can be stopped.
Ten remedies exist to deal with Trump in his final days.
The media must stop giving him attention. They must stop covering his every utterance. No more videos, audios, print stories or interviews. Attention is Trump's oxygen and lifeblood. He cannot negatively influence others if his visibility is curtailed or ended. If Trump organizes an alternative inauguration or a "campaign rally" on Jan. 20, it must not be broadcast or covered in any way. Bizarre and anti-American activities must not be given credibility. It must remain a part of his pathological fantasyland — not a part of our political and social reality. Americans can do their part by not watching or listening to him. Turn off the television and the radio. Do not watch him on social media. He is old news. He is irrelevant. His message must be abhorred and soundly repudiated. His Twitter account should be suspended. Stopping his Twitter activity would go a long way to neutralizing his impact. Trump tweets frequently — it is his most direct way to stay in contact with the public. His tweeting must be interrupted for the good of the country. Facebook and other social media platforms must do a better job of rooting out disinformation. Trump supporters have been ramped up by false and toxic rhetoric. That is unhealthy for them, and for the country. Making money as a business is one thing; contributing to seditious unrest in the country is another. Social media platforms must assume a more responsible role in our democracy. The mainstream media needs to allow mental health professionals to speak out. Experts have been almost entirely blocked out. It is long overdue to hear from professionals in the mental health field. Duty to warn the public is far more compelling than the outdated "Goldwater rule." Let experts be at the forefront of the discussion about this destructive and irrational traitor. Congressional Republicans need to put country over party and begin to speak out — loudly and forcefully. They need to abide by their oath of office. They need to find courage and boldness in Trump's final days. They must condemn his anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior. Loyalty to him is unacceptable. Fear of him is weakness. A small group of congressional Republicans need to speak with Trump in private and compel him to stop his rhetoric, concede the election and participate in the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. That's what Sen. Barry Goldwater and other Republican leaders did with Richard Nixon at the end of his presidency. These Republicans would be remembered as heroes. If Trump does not heed the private warning, he should be publicly asked to resign. Invoking the 25th Amendment remains a viable option. Trump needs to resign and allow Mike Pence to finish out the last few weeks of his term. He may well do this anyway, so that Pence can pardon Trump and his entire family. Regardless of how distasteful that is, it would at least get him out of the Oval Office and extricate ourselves from his dictatorial maneuvers. Finally, Americans should speak out and contact their elected officials to let them know that it is time for Trump to either shut his mouth or resign. Let your opinions be known. Being a citizen in a representative democracy requires active participation. Make a phone call or send an email.
It's fine that Trump does not want to attend the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He does not deserve to witness it. We should demand that he slither away through the back door of the White House so that we do not have to endure his parting rants and raves.
The Trump nightmare is coming to an end. Let us hasten his exit from the scene. He has done too much damage to our institutions and to the collective psyche of America to tolerate this any longer.
Achieving a sense of closure from this man's malevolence will take time. It will not happen overnight. His pathological impact will dwindle slowly as we go forward. Positive, optimistic and hopeful political discourse will lead the way. We cannot remain hostage to his era of divisiveness and regressive decay.
Trump must be held accountable. He must be prosecuted for his crimes. That is the only way to demonstrate to all Americans — both those who support him and those who do not— that his criminal behavior has serious consequences.
Trump has done this to himself. He is not the victim. He uses victimhood to garner sympathy and to enlist the support of others who feel aggrieved. Victimhood is a deeply cynical process when it is false, fake and manipulative. It always is for him.
Trump's place in the history books is set. "Worst president in history" will be in every first and last paragraph. It will be his unchanging legacy.
So let us put Donald Trump in the rearview mirror sooner rather than later, where he belongs. As we do that, let us remember the 300,000 fallen Americans who will not be celebrating the holiday season, or our new dawn in America, with the rest of us. Their memories will be a constant reminder of what we have endured — and overcome.
ALAN D. BLOTCKY
Alan D. Blotcky, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Birmingham, Alabama.
MORE FROM ALAN D. BLOTCKY
SETH D. NORRHOLM
Seth D. Norrholm is an associate professor of psychiatry in the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.
MORE FROM SETH D. NORRHOLM
ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI
Anthony Scaramucci is a financier and past White House director of communications. He lives in Washington.
MORE FROM ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI


alternet--2020-12-18--Here's why the whole GOP devolved into a conspiracy theory cult

It 's been happening for decades — but the transformation is now complete .
It started with the Whitewater investigation , went through all of the Benghazi investigations , and ramped up in recent years when Republicans turned around to falsely claim that the investigation into Donald Trump 's ties with a Russian conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election was as a `` hoax , '' ignoring the overwhelming evidence of rampant collusion .
On Wednesday , the transformation of the GOP from a real political party to a conspiracy theory cult was finally fully completed .
Wednesday was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hefty chunk of taxpayer money to bolster the lie that Democrats `` stole '' the 2020 election , with their only evidence being the say-so of a narcissistic sociopath whose only spoken language is lying .
No one , especially no Republican politician , sincerely believes that Trump was the `` real '' winner of the 2020 election , or that there 's any evidence whatsoever of voter fraud or election irregularities of any real importance .
As Sen. Gary Peters , D.-Mich. , the ranking member of the Homeland Security and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks , `` this hearing gives a platform to conspiracy theories and lies '' and `` is a grave threat to the future of our democracy . ''
Of course , that is the point .
As the committee chair , Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , and his fellow Republicans understand , their party can no longer win fair elections or campaign on ideas , since the public rejects most policies the GOP stands for .
So the party 's only recourse is to dish out a steady stream of conspiracy theories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while leveraging their power to undermine democracy .
As the mainstream news coverage of the hearing dutifully noted , no evidence of voter fraud was presented during Wednesday 's hearing and Democrats on the committee repeatedly emphasized that Trump 's claims of `` fraud '' have been presented before the courts dozens of times and thrown out for lack of evidence .
Indeed , anyone who actually watched the hearing or read responsible coverage of it would walk away with the impression that the Republicans were a bunch of raving madmen and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense .
What the Republicans running the hearing understand , however , is that their audience , the Republican base , neither watched the hearing nor consumed the mainstream media coverage of it .
Instead , the purpose of the hearing is to generate footage that can be edited , often misleadingly , into clips that are fed into right-wing media sources and circulated through social media .
Evidence is not needed , nor is proof , nor convincing arguments .
All that 's needed are clips of the Republican senators , looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing , railing about `` stolen '' elections and defending the honor of those who purport to believe that Joe Biden stole the election .
And all those poignant and convincing rebuttals from Democrats ?
Those can be chopped and edited to make the Democrats look `` crazy '' and like they 're unleashing `` unhinged '' attacks on the noble Republicans .
None of this is about keeping Trump in office .
Senate Republicans not only understand that he lost , but that his coup efforts are failing .
Their crusade now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` rigged '' election for their own political purposes .
Feeding the GOP base 's victim complex and riling them up with conspiracy theories keeps them too busy obsessively hating Democrats to notice that the Republicans have run the country into the ground .
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri showcased the strategy perfectly , with a maudlin speech about how actual evidence of a rigged election was n't the point , because `` the constituents back at home '' told him `` they felt they had been disenfranchised . ''
`` These are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not crazy people , '' he said .
For someone actually watching the hearing , this is maddening .
The folks Hawley is talking about are just rabid Republicans who back Trump 's coup and are willing to stand by outrageous bad faith arguments to defend their belief that certain voters — namely Black voters in big cities — simply should n't have the same right vote .
But when Hawley 's remarks about are inevitably cut into a video that removes all this context and fed into right-wing disinformation channels , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his voters as `` normal , reasonable people '' who are `` not crazy '' .
It will read as him defending the honor of conservatives against those elitist , condescending liberals who are always calling them `` crazy '' , instead of what actually happened , which was that Hawley said conservative `` feelings '' about the election matter more than the fact of who actually won .
Similarly , Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared during the hearing that the election `` in many ways , was stolen . ''
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof for this claim , which was a blatant lie .
But it does n't matter .
He knows that his statement will be cut into a video and disseminated .
He does n't need evidence , so much as a quick clip with him looking authoritative as he offers this lie without rebuttal .
That 's what GOP politics is all about these days .
It 's not about making a policy case to voters , since Republican politicians know that will never fly .
Instead , it 's about identity politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , against liberals .
Hawley is hoping his constituents be so angry at the alleged liberals calling them `` crazy '' that they focus on getting their revenge by voting Republican , rather than asking hard questions about , say , why the Republican-run Senate has abandoned them to economic devastation during this pandemic .
This is all the Republican Party is these days : A propaganda engine churning out fake `` scandals '' meant to send their voters down conspiracy theory rabbit holes or stir irrational right-wing grievances .
Anything , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or governance , which Republican politicians know is territory they will always lose on .
That 's why Republicans have fully committed to Trump 's lies about the 2020 election .
It 's not that they care one whit about Trump — I suspect many of them are glad to see him go since he 's a miserable person to be around — but because this conspiracy theory is so useful .
Republicans can now focus their voters , ideally for four years , on nursing a grudge over losing an election they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the votes of those meanie Democrats had been thrown in the trash .
After all , what 's the alternative ?
Republicans know they 'd lose a reasonable debate about policy differences with Democrats .
So this is what they 've turned themselves into : A conspiracy theory cult that is always dashing from one mad lie to another , stirring up the base with nonsense and hoping the voters will never catch onto what a con the whole thing is .

It's been happening for decades — but the transformation is now complete.
It started with the Whitewater investigation, went through all of the Benghazi investigations, and ramped up in recent years when Republicans turned around to falsely claim that the investigation into Donald Trump's ties with a Russian conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election was as a "hoax," ignoring the overwhelming evidence of rampant collusion. On Wednesday, the transformation of the GOP from a real political party to a conspiracy theory cult was finally fully completed.
Wednesday was the day Senate Republicans spent hours and a hefty chunk of taxpayer money to bolster the lie that Democrats "stole" the 2020 election, with their only evidence being the say-so of a narcissistic sociopath whose only spoken language is lying. No one, especially no Republican politician, sincerely believes that Trump was the "real" winner of the 2020 election, or that there's any evidence whatsoever of voter fraud or election irregularities of any real importance. As Sen. Gary Peters, D.-Mich., the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee declared during his opening remarks, "this hearing gives a platform to conspiracy theories and lies" and " is a grave threat to the future of our democracy."
Of course, that is the point.
As the committee chair, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and his fellow Republicans understand, their party can no longer win fair elections or campaign on ideas, since the public rejects most policies the GOP stands for. So the party's only recourse is to dish out a steady stream of conspiracy theories meant to distract from the policy debate while leveraging their power to undermine democracy.
As the mainstream news coverage of the hearing dutifully noted, no evidence of voter fraud was presented during Wednesday's hearing and Democrats on the committee repeatedly emphasized that Trump's claims of "fraud" have been presented before the courts dozens of times and thrown out for lack of evidence. Indeed, anyone who actually watched the hearing or read responsible coverage of it would walk away with the impression that the Republicans were a bunch of raving madmen and the Democrats were the only people speaking any sense.
What the Republicans running the hearing understand, however, is that their audience, the Republican base, neither watched the hearing nor consumed the mainstream media coverage of it. Instead, the purpose of the hearing is to generate footage that can be edited, often misleadingly, into clips that are fed into right-wing media sources and circulated through social media.
Evidence is not needed, nor is proof, nor convincing arguments. All that's needed are clips of the Republican senators, looking officious in the trappings of a Senate hearing, railing about "stolen" elections and defending the honor of those who purport to believe that Joe Biden stole the election. And all those poignant and convincing rebuttals from Democrats? Those can be chopped and edited to make the Democrats look "crazy" and like they're unleashing "unhinged" attacks on the noble Republicans.
None of this is about keeping Trump in office.
Senate Republicans not only understand that he lost, but that his coup efforts are failing. Their crusade now is about exploiting his lies of a "rigged" election for their own political purposes. Feeding the GOP base's victim complex and riling them up with conspiracy theories keeps them too busy obsessively hating Democrats to notice that the Republicans have run the country into the ground. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri showcased the strategy perfectly, with a maudlin speech about how actual evidence of a rigged election wasn't the point, because "the constituents back at home" told him "they felt they had been disenfranchised."
"These are normal, reasonable people. These are not crazy people," he said.
For someone actually watching the hearing, this is maddening. The folks Hawley is talking about are just rabid Republicans who back Trump's coup and are willing to stand by outrageous bad faith arguments to defend their belief that certain voters — namely Black voters in big cities — simply shouldn't have the same right vote.
But when Hawley's remarks about are inevitably cut into a video that removes all this context and fed into right-wing disinformation channels, all that audiences will see is Hawley defending his voters as "normal, reasonable people" who are "not crazy". It will read as him defending the honor of conservatives against those elitist, condescending liberals who are always calling them "crazy", instead of what actually happened, which was that Hawley said conservative "feelings" about the election matter more than the fact of who actually won.
Similarly, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared during the hearing that the election "in many ways, was stolen." He did not offer evidence, much less proof for this claim, which was a blatant lie. But it doesn't matter. He knows that his statement will be cut into a video and disseminated. He doesn't need evidence, so much as a quick clip with him looking authoritative as he offers this lie without rebuttal.
That's what GOP politics is all about these days. It's not about making a policy case to voters, since Republican politicians know that will never fly. Instead, it's about identity politics and stirring up hate, however ridiculous, against liberals. Hawley is hoping his constituents be so angry at the alleged liberals calling them "crazy" that they focus on getting their revenge by voting Republican, rather than asking hard questions about, say, why the Republican-run Senate has abandoned them to economic devastation during this pandemic.
This is all the Republican Party is these days: A propaganda engine churning out fake "scandals" meant to send their voters down conspiracy theory rabbit holes or stir irrational right-wing grievances. Anything, really, but ever talk about actual policy or governance, which Republican politicians know is territory they will always lose on.
That's why Republicans have fully committed to Trump's lies about the 2020 election. It's not that they care one whit about Trump — I suspect many of them are glad to see him go since he's a miserable person to be around — but because this conspiracy theory is so useful. Republicans can now focus their voters, ideally for four years, on nursing a grudge over losing an election they "should" have won, if only the votes of those meanie Democrats had been thrown in the trash.
After all, what's the alternative?
Republicans know they'd lose a reasonable debate about policy differences with Democrats. So this is what they've turned themselves into: A conspiracy theory cult that is always dashing from one mad lie to another, stirring up the base with nonsense and hoping the voters will never catch onto what a con the whole thing is.


alternet--2020-12-18--Republicans are forcing tragic tradeoffs in the COVID relief bill as 8 million Americans enter pover

Republicans are forcing tragic tradeoffs in the COVID relief bill as 8 million Americans enter poverty

After months of inaction , Congress finally appears close to passing a second , $ 900 billion coronavirus stimulus package .
The agreement is likely to include additional unemployment assistance of $ 300 a week and one-time direct cash payments of between $ 600 and $ 700 for people in the U.S. — a sharp reduction from the first COVID check of $ 1,200 .
The COVID-19 relief checks were put back in the bill after a major push from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party .
A new study reports 8 million Americans have been pushed into poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a lack of federal assistance .
`` It 's just staggering that Congress ca n't come together to help people in their time of need , '' says David Dayen , executive editor of The American Prospect , who has been following stimulus talks closely .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I 'm Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
After months of inaction and facing record-shattering COVID-19 cases and deaths in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signing a second , $ 900 billion coronavirus stimulus package .
The agreement is likely to include additional unemployment assistance of $ 300 a week and one-time direct cash payments of between $ 600 and $ 700 — a sharp reduction from the first COVID check of $ 1,200 .
The COVID relief checks were put back in the bill after a major push from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party .
A new study reports that 8 million Americans have been pushed into poverty since summer , in part due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cori Bush , who will be representing Missouri 's 1st District , tweeted , quote , `` Republicans are going to act like the difference between $ 600 and $ 1,200 is no big deal .
This is infuriating .
I 've been unhoused .
I 've lived paycheck-to-paycheck .
The difference of $ 600 is having a hotel room or sleeping in the car .
$ 1,200 was already the compromise , '' she said .
The stimulus package will not include the Democrats ' desired $ 160 billion for state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not including the financial liability protections for corporations that Republicans have been pushing for for months .
Well , to tease this all out , to explain what 's in the stimulus package , what is n't , we 're joined in Los Angeles by David Dayen , executive director — executive editor of The American Prospect , where he writes a daily update on the coronavirus pandemic called `` Unsanitized , '' his latest book titled Monopolized : Life in the Age of Corporate Power .
David , welcome back to Democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is on the table right now .
DAVID DAYEN : Well , yes , as you described , the two main pieces that you just talked about were the unemployment boost and also extension of two programs that are going to expire next week — the one that helps gig workers get unemployment , the other that extends unemployment benefits — and then there 's this check , this stimulus check of $ 600 , $ 700 , something like that .
I should say that because they wanted to make room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they do n't want to go above $ 900 billion , they actually curtailed the boost to unemployment , the $ 300 a week , by four weeks : It 's now a 12-week program rather than a 16-week extension .
So , that 's $ 1,200 out of the pockets of the unemployed to give a $ 600 check one time to individuals beyond the unemployed .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Aid to states and cities in this package was omitted , and what the impact of that will be ?
DAVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I mean , the $ 160 billion was probably about a third of what was needed to fill budget shortfalls across the country .
And so , what you 're going to see , if there 's nothing , is cuts to public safety , cuts to teachers , cuts to public employees , cuts to firefighters , things like that , all over the country , offsetting the benefit of economic stimulus that can be done at the federal level through state and local austerity .
And there 's just this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain dollar figure , even though it 's Republicans coming to the table and saying , `` Hey , we 're going to lose our majority in the Senate if we give no relief to people before these elections in Georgia . ''
Democrats might think that , `` Well , that puts us in — you know , gives us some of the upper hand here , the ability to say , 'Well , we need state and local relief .
We need more money from these one-time stimulus checks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these unemployment benefits . '
'' But that 's not what 's happening .
There 's really a line being drawn at $ 900 billion , and they 're kicking out the state and local spending , which is going to create really bad austerity throughout the country .
AMY GOODMAN : The U.S .
Postal Service — can you talk about what role it has in this bill ?
I mean , we have been seeing the rollout of the vaccine , the celebration of FedEx and UPS .
Where is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's happening to it ?
DAVID DAYEN : Well , in this bill , there was a $ 10 billion loan that the Treasury Department previously gave to the U.S .
Postal Service .
And according to the bipartisan bill being used as a framework here , that would be forgiven .
So , that is a boost to the fortunes of the Postal Service , which is actually straining right now because FedEx and UPS are pushing off their less profitable packages and telling — you know , moving them over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clogging kind of the package delivery here in the holiday season .
So , that 's one thing that 's going on there .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , David , could you talk about some of the concerns around the Paycheck Protection Program that have been reinstated with this package ?
What are the issues with that program ?
DAVID DAYEN : Well , yes .
So , one of the major parts of this bill is the extension of PPP and allowing individuals to get a second draw from PPP loans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in here that subtly changes the tax treatment of these forgivable loans .
These are reimbursements that are given by the federal government — grants , essentially — and they 're tax-free .
They already were made tax-free originally .
But under this bill , they could be taken as deductions , as well , which would reduce the tax liability for a host of businesses .
And we know that not only small businesses got these PPP loans .
A lot of larger businesses did , as well .
So , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in benefit , tax benefits , including benefits to S corporations , which are these corporate structures set up by very rich individuals , that could be used to reduce their tax liability .
So , that seems a very egregious part of this bill .
And it 's not really getting as much attention as some of the other pieces .
AMY GOODMAN : I mean , the majority of Congress , the House and the Senate , they are millionaires at least .
Talk about the millionaires deciding the pittance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now may or may not get .
In this time of the pandemic , this is news just breaking : In the next three weeks , while Donald Trump is still president , 83,000 Americans will die of COVID .
DAVID DAYEN : Yeah , it 's really staggering that it takes the threat of the loss of a Senate majority to get Republicans , for the first time in nine months , to come back and say , `` Yes , we 'll deliver a little bit of relief to the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any since many of the CARES Act programs expired in July .
What we know , if you look at the economic numbers , is that unemployment for high-wage people has barely budged .
It 's pretty much at the same level it was before the pandemic .
All of the losses , or practically all of them , have been — DAVID DAYEN : — in the low-wage sector .
Yeah , it 's just staggering that , you know , Congress ca n't come together to help people in a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , we 'll continue to follow this .
David Dayen , executive editor of The American Prospect , where he writes a daily update on the coronavirus pandemic called `` Unsanitized . ''
Democracy Now !
produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena .
Special thanks to Julie Crosby , Miriam Barnard , Denis Moynihan .
I 'm Amy Goodman .
Thanks for joining us .

After months of inaction, Congress finally appears close to passing a second, $900 billion coronavirus stimulus package. The agreement is likely to include additional unemployment assistance of $300 a week and one-time direct cash payments of between $600 and $700 for people in the U.S. — a sharp reduction from the first COVID check of $1,200. The COVID-19 relief checks were put back in the bill after a major push from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. A new study reports 8 million Americans have been pushed into poverty since the summer, in part due to a lack of federal assistance. "It's just staggering that Congress can't come together to help people in their time of need," says David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, who has been following stimulus talks closely.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
After months of inaction and facing record-shattering COVID-19 cases and deaths in this country, Congress may finally be close to signing a second, $900 billion coronavirus stimulus package. The agreement is likely to include additional unemployment assistance of $300 a week and one-time direct cash payments of between $600 and $700 — a sharp reduction from the first COVID check of $1,200. The COVID relief checks were put back in the bill after a major push from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
A new study reports that 8 million Americans have been pushed into poverty since summer, in part due to a lack of federal assistance.
Congressmember-elect Cori Bush, who will be representing Missouri's 1st District, tweeted, quote, "Republicans are going to act like the difference between $600 and $1,200 is no big deal. This is infuriating. I've been unhoused. I've lived paycheck-to-paycheck. The difference of $600 is having a hotel room or sleeping in the car. $1,200 was already the compromise," she said.
The stimulus package will not include the Democrats' desired $160 billion for state and local aid, as a compromise for not including the financial liability protections for corporations that Republicans have been pushing for for months.
Well, to tease this all out, to explain what's in the stimulus package, what isn't, we're joined in Los Angeles by David Dayen, executive director — executive editor of The American Prospect, where he writes a daily update on the coronavirus pandemic called "Unsanitized," his latest book titled Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power.
David, welcome back to Democracy Now! Just lay out for us what is on the table right now.
DAVID DAYEN: Well, yes, as you described, the two main pieces that you just talked about were the unemployment boost and also extension of two programs that are going to expire next week — the one that helps gig workers get unemployment, the other that extends unemployment benefits — and then there's this check, this stimulus check of $600, $700, something like that.
I should say that because they wanted to make room for this check, and Republicans have said they don't want to go above $900 billion, they actually curtailed the boost to unemployment, the $300 a week, by four weeks: It's now a 12-week program rather than a 16-week extension. So, that's $1,200 out of the pockets of the unemployed to give a $600 check one time to individuals beyond the unemployed.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Aid to states and cities in this package was omitted, and what the impact of that will be?
DAVID DAYEN: Yeah, it's terrible. I mean, the $160 billion was probably about a third of what was needed to fill budget shortfalls across the country. And so, what you're going to see, if there's nothing, is cuts to public safety, cuts to teachers, cuts to public employees, cuts to firefighters, things like that, all over the country, offsetting the benefit of economic stimulus that can be done at the federal level through state and local austerity.
And there's just this mindset that you can't go above a certain dollar figure, even though it's Republicans coming to the table and saying, "Hey, we're going to lose our majority in the Senate if we give no relief to people before these elections in Georgia." Democrats might think that, "Well, that puts us in — you know, gives us some of the upper hand here, the ability to say, 'Well, we need state and local relief. We need more money from these one-time stimulus checks. We need more money or an extension of these unemployment benefits.'" But that's not what's happening. There's really a line being drawn at $900 billion, and they're kicking out the state and local spending, which is going to create really bad austerity throughout the country.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. Postal Service — can you talk about what role it has in this bill? I mean, we have been seeing the rollout of the vaccine, the celebration of FedEx and UPS. Where is the U.S. Postal Service? And what's happening to it?
DAVID DAYEN: Well, in this bill, there was a $10 billion loan that the Treasury Department previously gave to the U.S. Postal Service. And according to the bipartisan bill being used as a framework here, that would be forgiven. So, that is a boost to the fortunes of the Postal Service, which is actually straining right now because FedEx and UPS are pushing off their less profitable packages and telling — you know, moving them over to the Postal Service, which is clogging kind of the package delivery here in the holiday season. So, that's one thing that's going on there.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, David, could you talk about some of the concerns around the Paycheck Protection Program that have been reinstated with this package? What are the issues with that program?
DAVID DAYEN: Well, yes. So, one of the major parts of this bill is the extension of PPP and allowing individuals to get a second draw from PPP loans. However, there's a provision in here that subtly changes the tax treatment of these forgivable loans. These are reimbursements that are given by the federal government — grants, essentially — and they're tax-free. They already were made tax-free originally. But under this bill, they could be taken as deductions, as well, which would reduce the tax liability for a host of businesses.
And we know that not only small businesses got these PPP loans. A lot of larger businesses did, as well. So, this could potentially be up to $100 billion in benefit, tax benefits, including benefits to S corporations, which are these corporate structures set up by very rich individuals, that could be used to reduce their tax liability. So, that seems a very egregious part of this bill. And it's not really getting as much attention as some of the other pieces.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the majority of Congress, the House and the Senate, they are millionaires at least. Talk about the millionaires deciding the pittance that people who are suffering so deeply now may or may not get. In this time of the pandemic, this is news just breaking: In the next three weeks, while Donald Trump is still president, 83,000 Americans will die of COVID.
DAVID DAYEN: Yeah, it's really staggering that it takes the threat of the loss of a Senate majority to get Republicans, for the first time in nine months, to come back and say, "Yes, we'll deliver a little bit of relief to the American people," who haven't seen any since many of the CARES Act programs expired in July.
What we know, if you look at the economic numbers, is that unemployment for high-wage people has barely budged. It's pretty much at the same level it was before the pandemic. All of the losses, or practically all of them, have been —
AMY GOODMAN: We've got five seconds.
DAVID DAYEN: — in the low-wage sector. Yeah, it's just staggering that, you know, Congress can't come together to help people in a time of need.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, we'll continue to follow this. David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, where he writes a daily update on the coronavirus pandemic called "Unsanitized."
Democracy Now! produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena. Special thanks to Julie Crosby, Miriam Barnard, Denis Moynihan. I'm Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.


alternet--2020-12-17--Here's why progressives are so excited about Biden's historic Cabinet pick Deb Haaland

President-elect Joe Biden 's nomination of Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland to be secretary of the interior—the successful culmination of a campaign waged by a broad coalition of social and environmental justice advocates—was met with applause on Thursday .
Climate justice and Indigenous rights advocates commended the decision to put the progressive Native American congresswoman from New Mexico in charge of the department overseeing 500 million acres of federal land—calling the move promising for the responsible development of clean energy infrastructure and for the reversal of the fossil fuel industry 's harmful legacy of extraction and pollution on land belonging to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anna Peterson , executive director of The Mountain Pact , an organization that works with local elected officials across the West on federal climate and public lands policies , said in a statement that `` for the last four years the Department of Interior has sold off America 's public lands and natural resources to Secretary Bernhardt and [ Bureau of Land Management defacto director ] William Perry Pendley 's friends and former clients while draining the agencies of their experienced staff . ''
`` Our country is lucky , '' Peterson added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to correct so many wrongdoings from the Trump administration . ''
Haaland—a member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe who co-chairs the Native American Caucus and has represented New Mexico 's 1st congressional district since 2019—has been a strong voice on the House Natural Resources Committee .
The Democratic lawmaker is also leading congressional efforts to accomplish the goals set forth in the Thirty by Thirty Resolution to conserve at least 30 % of the ocean and 30 % of the land within the U.S. by 2030 .
Varshini Prakash , co-founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , called Haaland `` a perfect choice . ''
Haaland `` is a fierce ally of our movement who has fought for renewable energy job creation in the House and was one of the first congressmembers to endorse the vision for a Green New Deal , '' Prakash added .
`` With a progressive leader at the helm , we can make real progress on stopping climate change and ensure sovereignty and dignity for all native people and justice for all . ''
The nomination also elicited praise from Western Values Project director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the experience to make sure our public lands are part of the solution and knowledge to unravel the special interests ' tentacles controlling the department . ''
Nikki Pitre , executive director of the Center for Native American Youth , called Haaland 's nomination `` historic , groundbreaking , and a proud moment for Indian country , '' adding that the congresswoman can `` chart a new path forward between the United States government and Indigenous communities . ''
`` Haaland will be the first Native American to serve as secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and has a history of exploiting Indigenous people and displacing tribal communities , '' said Lori Lodes , executive director of Climate Power 2020 .
`` As secretary of the interior , Haaland will be on the frontlines of addressing the climate crisis and protecting our land , air , and water from polluters . ''
Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn called the nomination `` absolutely tremendous news for Indigenous rights and our fight for climate justice '' —struggles that Haaland has called inseparable because `` tribal nations across the country ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their backyards . ''
`` There will be lots of work to undo Trump 's toxic , anti-public lands legacy , '' O'Neill noted .
Food and Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones joined the chorus of praise , pointing out that `` hundreds of progressive organizations and climate activist groups have rallied to support Deb Haaland as the next interior secretary because she has the record and the expertise to protect our public lands . ''
`` Most importantly , '' Jones added , `` Haaland has been clear about her commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by fossil fuel corporations , which over the last four years were given a green light to pollute and profiteer off of land that should be managed in the public interest . ''

President-elect Joe Biden's nomination of Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland to be secretary of the interior—the successful culmination of a campaign waged by a broad coalition of social and environmental justice advocates—was met with applause on Thursday.
Climate justice and Indigenous rights advocates commended the decision to put the progressive Native American congresswoman from New Mexico in charge of the department overseeing 500 million acres of federal land—calling the move promising for the responsible development of clean energy infrastructure and for the reversal of the fossil fuel industry's harmful legacy of extraction and pollution on land belonging to the U.S. public and tribal nations.
"This is a big deal," tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Anna Peterson, executive director of The Mountain Pact, an organization that works with local elected officials across the West on federal climate and public lands policies, said in a statement that "for the last four years the Department of Interior has sold off America's public lands and natural resources to Secretary Bernhardt and [Bureau of Land Management defacto director] William Perry Pendley's friends and former clients while draining the agencies of their experienced staff."
"Our country is lucky," Peterson added, saying that Haaland would "be able to correct so many wrongdoings from the Trump administration."
Haaland—a member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe who co-chairs the Native American Caucus and has represented New Mexico's 1st congressional district since 2019—has been a strong voice on the House Natural Resources Committee. The Democratic lawmaker is also leading congressional efforts to accomplish the goals set forth in the Thirty by Thirty Resolution to conserve at least 30% of the ocean and 30% of the land within the U.S. by 2030.
Varshini Prakash, co-founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement, called Haaland "a perfect choice."
Haaland "is a fierce ally of our movement who has fought for renewable energy job creation in the House and was one of the first congressmembers to endorse the vision for a Green New Deal," Prakash added. "With a progressive leader at the helm, we can make real progress on stopping climate change and ensure sovereignty and dignity for all native people and justice for all."
The nomination also elicited praise from Western Values Project director Jayson O'Neill who said that "Haaland has the experience to make sure our public lands are part of the solution and knowledge to unravel the special interests' tentacles controlling the department."
Nikki Pitre, executive director of the Center for Native American Youth, called Haaland's nomination "historic, groundbreaking, and a proud moment for Indian country," adding that the congresswoman can "chart a new path forward between the United States government and Indigenous communities."
"Haaland will be the first Native American to serve as secretary of the interior, which controls federal lands and has a history of exploiting Indigenous people and displacing tribal communities," said Lori Lodes, executive director of Climate Power 2020. "As secretary of the interior, Haaland will be on the frontlines of addressing the climate crisis and protecting our land, air, and water from polluters."
Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn called the nomination "absolutely tremendous news for Indigenous rights and our fight for climate justice"—struggles that Haaland has called inseparable because "tribal nations across the country... are battling the fossil fuel industry in their backyards."
"There will be lots of work to undo Trump's toxic, anti-public lands legacy," O'Neill noted.
Food and Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones joined the chorus of praise, pointing out that "hundreds of progressive organizations and climate activist groups have rallied to support Deb Haaland as the next interior secretary because she has the record and the expertise to protect our public lands."
"Most importantly," Jones added, "Haaland has been clear about her commitment to ending the exploitation of public lands by fossil fuel corporations, which over the last four years were given a green light to pollute and profiteer off of land that should be managed in the public interest."


alternet--2020-12-17--India can afford a welfare state — it just needs to tax the rich

It is often believed that the ability to pass on property to one 's progeny is an essential element of capitalism , without which the capitalists ' incentives will dry up and the system will lose its dynamism .
Nothing could be further from the truth ; the acquisition of property through inheritance is , in fact , contrary to the bourgeois justification for acquiring the capitalist property .
This justification is built on the claim that the capitalists have some special quality that is rare , whose employment makes the nation prosperous and for which they must be rewarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bourgeois on what exactly this special quality is .
This quality can not consist of supervising the process of production , for such supervision is typically exercised by salaried personnel who are at best superior workers ; they get a salary and not profits ( unless they also happen to own some property in the form of shares ) .
It is in recognition of this fact that economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith had talked about firms being run not by the capitalists but by what he called the `` technostructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Industrial State .
This special quality also can not be what economist John Maynard Keynes had called `` animal spirits . ''
The strength of the `` animal spirits '' may determine , as Keynes had believed , the amount of investment , but it can not explain the very existence of capitalists ' income , and , hence , property .
Even the other justifications for capitalists ' income and property lack credibility .
One such justification refers to capitalists ' being `` risk-takers . ''
However , the risks are taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose funds are entrusted to them through the intermediation of banks for undertaking projects ; if a venture collapses then it is the latter whose funds disappear .
These days , of course , the governments in capitalist countries come to the rescue of banks and other financial institutions , which amounts to socializing risks .
But that destroys even more decisively the notion of capitalists having the special quality of being `` risk-takers . ''
Likewise , the idea that capitalists own property and earn an income on it because they undertake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumption and , thereby , make a sacrifice for which they must be rewarded—would by now be generally debunked .
Leaving aside philosophical arguments about the meaning of `` sacrifice , '' there is a very simple and obvious refutation of this view , that it is investment that determines savings and not the other way around .
The savings that are generated when investment is undertaken come out of greater capacity utilization when unutilized capacity exists , and through inflation that forcibly squeezes the real wages and , hence , consumption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Investment being governed by the voluntary choice between consumption and savings by a host of individuals , and those opting for savings needing a reward for their sacrifice , is just not the way capitalism works .
Finally , there is the view that capitalists are `` entrepreneurs '' who introduce `` innovations , '' and thereby impart new dynamics to the economy .
As this entrepreneurship is not a quality that is found in abundance in society , those possessing it must be rewarded .
The problem with this view is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it even when there are no innovations , i.e.
, even in simple reproduction .
But my object here is not to critique bourgeois theories of why capitalist property , and a category of income earned on this property called profits , exists .
The point is that even if we accept any of these explanations for capitalist property , it does not justify why a person not displaying this special quality , which entitles a capitalist to property , according to this explanation , should also have ownership of property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , to accept that property should be inherited , by anyone who happens to be a progeny of a capitalist , even if this progeny has not demonstrated any special quality , is to go against the explanation that property is a reward for some special quality .
The acquisition of property through inheritance is thus a denial of any bourgeois justification for capitalist property .
But then what do we make of the `` incentive '' argument , i.e.
, the argument that this special quality that the capitalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would not be forthcoming if they are not assured of passing their property on to their children ?
This argument , however , amounts to a justification not of inheritance but of blackmail , of capitalists ' arm-twisting society into allowing them to pass on property to their children as a price for employing their `` special talent . ''
Apart from its dubious ethical foundation , this argument is not even logically tenable : there is absolutely no reason , for instance , why innovations will dry up in a society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one person stops being innovative because there is no inheritance , then someone else will display innovativeness despite there being no inheritance .
There is thus no tenable argument for inheritance in a capitalist society even by bourgeois logic .
This is the reason why most capitalist countries , even in the current neoliberal phase of kowtowing to capitalists , continue to have high inheritance taxes .
Japan , for instance , has an inheritance tax of up to 55 percent and even the United States has a `` top estate tax rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries also have inheritance taxes of around 40 percent .
No doubt there may be rampant evasion and loopholes , but the principle of inheritance taxation is widely accepted .
In India , alas , there is neither any wealth tax nor any inheritance tax worth the name even though wealth inequality is increasing rapidly ; and , what is more , there is not even any public debate over the issue .
This could be because , notwithstanding the promise enshrined in India 's Constitution , even equality of opportunity appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they are satisfied demanding only some basic relief from their miserable conditions of life .
But democracy , which requires equality of opportunity ( that can never be realized under capitalism ) , demands at the very least not only an overcoming of wealth inequality but an abrogation in principle of wealth through inheritance .
What this can achieve may be illustrated with some figures .
In 2019 , it has been estimated that total private wealth in India was $ 12.6 trillion or roughly Rs 945 lakh crore , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent was 42.5 percent , which comes to about Rs 400 lakh crore ( $ 5.35 trillion ) .
Even a 2 percent wealth tax on this sum will fetch Rs 8 lakh crore ( about $ 107 billion ) .
A 2 percent wealth tax incidentally is what Senator Elizabeth Warren had suggested as a minimum rate in the U.S. on wealth between $ 50 million and $ 1 billion when she was a presidential candidate ( Bernie Sanders , who was also a contender in the presidential race , had suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1 to 8 percent ) .
In addition , if we have an inheritance tax of even one-third , then , assuming that about 5 percent of the total wealth of the top 1 percent of the population gets bequeathed every year , we get Rs 6.67 lakh crore ( about $ 89 billion ) .
These two taxes alone , levied only on the top 1 percent of the population , would be enough to fetch Rs 14.67 lakh crore ( about $ 196 billion ) , or roughly 7 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact of the pandemic out of the picture ) .
The institution of a welfare state in India that ensures five fundamental economic rights—the right to food at affordable prices , the right to employment ( or full wages if employment is not provided ) , the right to free publicly provided health care , the right to free publicly provided education up to university level , and the right to an old-age pension and adequate disability benefits—is estimated to cost an additional 10 percent of GDP over and above the spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the government spends an extra 10 percent of the GDP , this increases the GDP itself through the `` multiplier , '' of which roughly 15 percent comes back to the government ( both central and state governments ) as taxes .
The fresh taxes required for spending an extra 10 percent , therefore , are estimated at 7 percent of the GDP , which is exactly what the two taxes will yield .
It follows that just two taxes levied on the top 1 percent of the population will be enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state in India .
Let no one say that India does not have the resources to eradicate the miserable state of deprivation in which the bulk of its population lives .
This article was produced by Globetrotter .
Prabhat Patnaik is an Indian political economist and political commentator .

It is often believed that the ability to pass on property to one's progeny is an essential element of capitalism, without which the capitalists' incentives will dry up and the system will lose its dynamism. Nothing could be further from the truth; the acquisition of property through inheritance is, in fact, contrary to the bourgeois justification for acquiring the capitalist property.
This justification is built on the claim that the capitalists have some special quality that is rare, whose employment makes the nation prosperous and for which they must be rewarded. But there is no unanimity among the bourgeois on what exactly this special quality is.
This quality cannot consist of supervising the process of production, for such supervision is typically exercised by salaried personnel who are at best superior workers; they get a salary and not profits (unless they also happen to own some property in the form of shares). It is in recognition of this fact that economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith had talked about firms being run not by the capitalists but by what he called the "technostructure," in his book The New Industrial State.
This special quality also cannot be what economist John Maynard Keynes had called "animal spirits." The strength of the "animal spirits" may determine, as Keynes had believed, the amount of investment, but it cannot explain the very existence of capitalists' income, and, hence, property.
Even the other justifications for capitalists' income and property lack credibility. One such justification refers to capitalists' being "risk-takers." However, the risks are taken not by the capitalists but by those whose funds are entrusted to them through the intermediation of banks for undertaking projects; if a venture collapses then it is the latter whose funds disappear.
These days, of course, the governments in capitalist countries come to the rescue of banks and other financial institutions, which amounts to socializing risks. But that destroys even more decisively the notion of capitalists having the special quality of being "risk-takers."
Likewise, the idea that capitalists own property and earn an income on it because they undertake "savings"—i.e., refrain from consumption and, thereby, make a sacrifice for which they must be rewarded—would by now be generally debunked.
Leaving aside philosophical arguments about the meaning of "sacrifice," there is a very simple and obvious refutation of this view, that it is investment that determines savings and not the other way around. The savings that are generated when investment is undertaken come out of greater capacity utilization when unutilized capacity exists, and through inflation that forcibly squeezes the real wages and, hence, consumption of workers when capacity is fully utilized.
Investment being governed by the voluntary choice between consumption and savings by a host of individuals, and those opting for savings needing a reward for their sacrifice, is just not the way capitalism works.
Finally, there is the view that capitalists are "entrepreneurs" who introduce "innovations," and thereby impart new dynamics to the economy. As this entrepreneurship is not a quality that is found in abundance in society, those possessing it must be rewarded. The problem with this view is that capitalist property exists and profits are earned on it even when there are no innovations, i.e., even in simple reproduction.
But my object here is not to critique bourgeois theories of why capitalist property, and a category of income earned on this property called profits, exists. The point is that even if we accept any of these explanations for capitalist property, it does not justify why a person not displaying this special quality, which entitles a capitalist to property, according to this explanation, should also have ownership of property, i.e., why property should be inherited.
In fact, to accept that property should be inherited, by anyone who happens to be a progeny of a capitalist, even if this progeny has not demonstrated any special quality, is to go against the explanation that property is a reward for some special quality. The acquisition of property through inheritance is thus a denial of any bourgeois justification for capitalist property.
But then what do we make of the "incentive" argument, i.e., the argument that this special quality that the capitalists possess, for which society rewards them, would not be forthcoming if they are not assured of passing their property on to their children?
This argument, however, amounts to a justification not of inheritance but of blackmail, of capitalists' arm-twisting society into allowing them to pass on property to their children as a price for employing their "special talent."
Apart from its dubious ethical foundation, this argument is not even logically tenable: there is absolutely no reason, for instance, why innovations will dry up in a society where there is no inheritance. If one person stops being innovative because there is no inheritance, then someone else will display innovativeness despite there being no inheritance. There is thus no tenable argument for inheritance in a capitalist society even by bourgeois logic.
This is the reason why most capitalist countries, even in the current neoliberal phase of kowtowing to capitalists, continue to have high inheritance taxes. Japan, for instance, has an inheritance tax of up to 55 percent and even the United States has a "top estate tax rate of 40 percent." Many European countries also have inheritance taxes of around 40 percent. No doubt there may be rampant evasion and loopholes, but the principle of inheritance taxation is widely accepted.
In India, alas, there is neither any wealth tax nor any inheritance tax worth the name even though wealth inequality is increasing rapidly; and, what is more, there is not even any public debate over the issue. This could be because, notwithstanding the promise enshrined in India's Constitution, even equality of opportunity appears to be an unrealizable dream for most people, and they are satisfied demanding only some basic relief from their miserable conditions of life.
But democracy, which requires equality of opportunity (that can never be realized under capitalism), demands at the very least not only an overcoming of wealth inequality but an abrogation in principle of wealth through inheritance.
What this can achieve may be illustrated with some figures. In 2019, it has been estimated that total private wealth in India was $12.6 trillion or roughly Rs 945 lakh crore, of which the share of the top 1 percent was 42.5 percent, which comes to about Rs 400 lakh crore ($5.35 trillion). Even a 2 percent wealth tax on this sum will fetch Rs 8 lakh crore (about $107 billion). A 2 percent wealth tax incidentally is what Senator Elizabeth Warren had suggested as a minimum rate in the U.S. on wealth between $50 million and $1 billion when she was a presidential candidate (Bernie Sanders, who was also a contender in the presidential race, had suggested a progressive wealth tax with rates ranging from 1 to 8 percent).
In addition, if we have an inheritance tax of even one-third, then, assuming that about 5 percent of the total wealth of the top 1 percent of the population gets bequeathed every year, we get Rs 6.67 lakh crore (about $89 billion). These two taxes alone, levied only on the top 1 percent of the population, would be enough to fetch Rs 14.67 lakh crore (about $196 billion), or roughly 7 percent of India's current GDP (taking the impact of the pandemic out of the picture).
The institution of a welfare state in India that ensures five fundamental economic rights—the right to food at affordable prices, the right to employment (or full wages if employment is not provided), the right to free publicly provided health care, the right to free publicly provided education up to university level, and the right to an old-age pension and adequate disability benefits—is estimated to cost an additional 10 percent of GDP over and above the spending already being incurred under these heads.
When the government spends an extra 10 percent of the GDP, this increases the GDP itself through the "multiplier," of which roughly 15 percent comes back to the government (both central and state governments) as taxes. The fresh taxes required for spending an extra 10 percent, therefore, are estimated at 7 percent of the GDP, which is exactly what the two taxes will yield.
It follows that just two taxes levied on the top 1 percent of the population will be enough to finance the institution of a welfare state in India. Let no one say that India does not have the resources to eradicate the miserable state of deprivation in which the bulk of its population lives.
This article was produced by Globetrotter. Prabhat Patnaik is an Indian political economist and political commentator.