At the candidates presidential debate (MSNBC - Politico), the Republican contenders will vie to reclaim the mantle of the Ronald Reagan legacy. Here it is, in a surprise image:

It should be framed in gilt. The decade of the 80s begat the RR tax-cut and job-export policies (the notorious "twin deficits" of trade and federal budgeting) that flipped the US abruptly to net debtor nation status.

This was the natural outcome of "less is more" tax optimism ideology.

The roaring 80s was the first modern time when the country wasn't at war that the U.S. turned to finance the economy by giving foreigners ownership of more assets of ours than we had a stake in theirs.

The Democrats have been provided with a huge opening on the tax cut issue by Republicans.  The big question is:  Will they seize their potential advantage?

A major element driving the issue of creating a third party revolves around the pathetic example the Democrats have provided in recent years.  

The course Obama charted during the 2008 "Yes we can!" campaign on the issues of honesty and prosecuting violations of the law and the U.S. Constitution has been severely compromised.  Instead of prosecuting culprits from the previous administration Obama and subordinates have copied them on the pretext of fighting terrorism, the supreme catchall used by Bushies.

This campaign is shaping up as a repetition of previous ones where Democrats failed to take advantage of opportunities to score big against Republicans.  The ammunition is clearly available with the current debate over tax cuts.

Most budget cassandras have Social Security right in their sights. Wyoming Republican Alan Simpson, the co-chair of the president's Deficit-reduction commission, has compared it to a "milk cow" in a vulgar broadside against the program. Each SS retiree, meanwhile, is pulling in a yearly average benefit of $13,900 — after having socked away a chunk or his or her paycheck into the fund continually through the working years.

Congress and the electorate can face up to a funding choice.

The SS fund has two sources of income: 1) the payroll tax and 2) interest income it receives every year on Treasury bonds it acquired when it had lent billions of dollars to the Treasury from surpluses it accumulated. Actuaries figure the fund's outflow will start to exceed its total yearly income around 2025. Over a 75-period, with no adjustments, the shortfall would amount to 0.7% of gross domestic product.

So to redress the shortfall during the 75-year actuarial period would require a dollar amount that's about 0.7% of GDP for the period.

President Bush likes to claim that the economy is doing really well, citing record highs in the stock market and relatively low unemployment as proof. Things are going so well that this year the Forbes 400 richest people are all BILLIONAIRES. But the reality for the working class in America is much different and the canary in the coal mine may just have fallen over.

One of the most eye-popping parts of Al Gore's inconvenient truth was when he boarded a crane to illustrate the unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide levels. The inconvenient truth of our economy could be equally well illustrated as the fabulously rich have gotten fabulously richer, while the working class has gotten (to name another pop culture hit) "Left Behind."

On June 22 the U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution to consider a bill to permanently eliminate the Estate Tax (skillfully spun by the Republican neo-cons as "death tax").

If Congress approves this bill and it is signed into law, it will mean our treasury will realize an additional deficit of  $283,000,000,000 (that's BILLION) over the next decade, a time when our soaring national deficit can least afford this additional blow.

Congress is extending tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans again, but at a great cost to the rest of us.  Sure, our representatives tell us they help all Americans, but that's not true - unless you think all Americans are helped by giving workers who make under $40,000 a year a refund of LESS than $17, while those who make over $1 million a year will get about $43,000.

Why are we giving $43,000 to people who already have more money than most of us will ever earn in a lifetime?

There is a major issue affecting today's service members and of veterans of wars recently fought and wars of our past. PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress disorder as it is known in the DSM-IV, the pyschiactric bible. This is not a subject you will see a lot of major news coverage on, as it is one of the naked ugly truths of war and other traumatic events, People other than veterans have it, war is not the only cause.

The survivors of the WTC and of New York City attacks of 9/11 have a high rate of diagnosis, the Federal Building on Oklahoma City, etc you see the things that can cause, even car accidents, physical attacks, rapes etc. It affects people from all nations, all ethnicities, but soldiers and other service men are more prone to it, than others, due to the images and events they are exposed to in service to this nation.

As a nation we owe these men and women the best care that we can provide them, not the worst, as is being done now. The GAO report issued this week shows that, it shows that DOD is not treating 78% of the people possibly affected by PTSD symptoms, they are just ignoring it.

He's baaaaaaaaaaaack.  Just like Jason in Halloween, Bush keeps coming at the Senate to get the same deal the House gave him on his tax cuts.

There doesn't seem to be much noise in the blogosphere on this, so I'm going to stay with this until people (or the traditional media) begin to pick up on it.  Like Colbert's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the media has been mum on this week's activities between Bush and Senate Republicans.

What's the rush on making these tax cuts permanent, you say?  (Or perhaps even the necessity?).

First, the cuts are due to expire in three years (hmm, that's about a thousand days, right?)  So little time left to bankrupt the country.  Making the tax cuts permanent would extend the 15% maximum tax rate on capital gains and dividends beyond 2008 forever.  If Bush doesn't get his way, without congressional action, capital gains taxes would jump to 20 percent and dividends would be taxed as regular income.

Second, Bush has so little "political capital" left this is likely to be his only chance to salvage any kind of domestic legislative agenda.

Third, since Congress doesn't seem to be too upset about the Katrina costs, this would be a good time to tack on additional increases in our debt.

Fourth, this benefits Bush, Cheney, and crowd (but you knew this already).  How much?  
Check this out.

Fifth, this is also a plan to eliminate the estate tax for those few Americans who are concerned about it.  Here's newly released IRS information on who pays it.  

Sixth, if another pre-emptive war should start with some Middle Eastern country (lemme see, maybe Iran?), it would be more difficult to make the case economically.

As I mentioned yesterday in a diary on news briefs, the President summoned his minions to the Oval Office yesterday for some action on extending the 2003 tax breaks for the wealthy.  Looks like he may succeed.  He met, of course, only with Republican leaders.

Today we have more of the specifics from various sources, and it seems the President forced his agreement on compliant minions:

President Bush and congressional Republicans agreed yesterday on a $70 billion package of tax-cut extensions that they hope will help halt the deterioration of their political fortunes.

The package would extend the 2003 cuts to the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, continue tax breaks for small-business investment and the overseas operations of financial service companies, and slow the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system that was enacted to target the rich but is increasingly snaring the middle class.

Looks like it will be up to Democrats to stop the steam-roller of the assault on the middle class.  At least three  have weighed in so far: Kent Conrad, Pete Stark, and Max Baucus.

With so little time, and so much to catch up on, here's a round-up of late-day "news," stories, commentary, and other items of interest to the blogosphere. Just a few snippets with links to get you started:

Nine states are suing Bush over fuel efficiency. (Do we detect a pattern here?)

"At a time when consumers are struggling to pay surging gas prices and the challenge of global climate change has become even more clear, it is unconscionable that the Bush Administration is not requiring greater mileage efficiency for light trucks," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in a press release.

Cross posted on Daily Kos

Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 08:34:05 AM PDT

Armando is asking this morning, where's the outrage? I'd like to introduce him and any other confused Americans to some Republicans I know.

You can read Armando's diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

Perhaps reading about harried end-of-year Republican realities will give you some insight into things like outrage and sacrifice--Republican style.

You may be shocked or amazed at what you're about to learn, maybe you already know. Think of this, then, as a year-end recap.

The Republicans made a monumental political blunder when they passed the $100 billion tax cut bill on a vote that was almost totally split among party lines. They handed us a perfect opportunity for us to brand us and brand them as well. By this vote, we have shown that we are the party that puts the money in, while the GOP has shown that they are the party that keeps the money out.

The Republicans ignore a basic fact of life year in and year out -- it costs money to run this country effectively. Therefore, they can never be credible again when talking about the sanctity of human life, because upholding the sanctity of human life involves quality of life. And they can never be credible again when talking about jobs, the economy, health care, or education, because it costs money to fund them. On the other hand, we have always fought to put money into the economy so people can have a better quality of life.