The Gilded Age, Deja Vu All Over Again

Just what do conservatives mean by "smaller government" and "lower taxes"? If their perspective on the social compact is so narrow that government's only role becomes protecting the borders then just how small can small get?

A better question is, "When were average Americans better off, 1950 to 1980 or 1980 to now?" Even most conservatives would agree it was the "good old days." Notably, during those years the top tax bracket ranged from 91 to 70 percent. And you know what. The rich still invested in new businesses, created jobs and made huge fortunes. Imagine that!

We're not in a financial jam because we spend too much. We're in a financial jam because for 30 years we've been taxing the rich too little! The current 35 percent top rate, except for a tax bracket anomaly from 1988 to 1992, is the lowest in 70 years.

The Bush tax cuts put billions into the hands of the already richer-than-God and for what? Instead of creating jobs, The Wall Street Journal (1/9/09), no liberal rag it, reported, "President Bush -- shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records" in 1939.

So, if cutting taxes on the wealthy didn't create the jobs the conservative mantra proclaims, what did it do?

Well, first off it saved the rich a lot of dough. Because of the way they make their money these days, off-shoring jobs, controlling markets, trading exotic derivatives instead of building stuff, they no longer need a healthy workforce anyway, so why pay for government safety nets, Social Security, unemployment insurance, health care, decent schools and mass transit?

Second, cutting their taxes created the deficit Republicans are now using as an excuse to shrink government, and a smaller government means less oversight on what the rich can get away with.

After all, an engaged government -- and viable unions, hence Wisconsin -- is the final obstacle to their total economic hegemony. They have directed their lobbyists and acquiescent politicians to evoke patriotic-sounding bromides like "smaller government" and "lower taxes" and donated millions to right-wing media, think tanks and Astroturf advocacy to secure the populist cover needed to disguise their real intention.

Now regardless of how smart, tenacious or self-reliant people think they are, they don't stand a chance in this massively Byzantine matrix of crony capitalism, monopolistic collusion, deceptive marketing, stock churning and general corporate rapaciousness without a powerful and aggressive countervailing government.

So sure, if you want to rollback a century's worth of middleclass social and economic gains and return to the Gilded Age of Robber Barons, regressive taxation, Pinkerton strikebreakers, tainted food, sweatshops and mine disasters, go right ahead and emaciate government. But frankly we tried it in the late 19th century and it sucked!