How extreme is the GOP?

The Koch brothers are major donators to the GOP.   As Bernie Sanders reports here:

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

  • “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
  • “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
  • “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
  • “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
  • “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
  • “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence.  Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
  • “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
  • “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
  • “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
  • “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
  • “We advocate the complete separation of education and State.  Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
  • “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
  • “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
  • “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
  • “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
  • “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
  • “We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
  • “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
  • “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
  • “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
  • “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
  • “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
  • “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
  • “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
  • “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
  • “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

WA GOP: Fund filthy roads first

WA GOP: Fund Filthy Roads First

For background, see Democrats Challenge Republican Two Thirds Rule, Shut Down Senate Transportation Vote

The Democratic amendment, which lost on a party line vote, would have also blocked a controversial GOP amendment that takes all sales tax revenue from transportation projects out of the general fund (about $1 billion) and puts it into the transportation package. The Democrats argue that GOP provision will decimate education funding and social service funding.

Seattle state senator Pramila Jayapal (D-37, SE Seattle) proposed a similar amendment, which also lost along party lines. Her compromise amendment would have also gone along with the GOP change, but only after the legislature came up with a plan to fund K-12 first. Her amendment mocked the GOP “Fund Education First” mantra; the GOP has repeatedly proposed not funding any of the budget until they fund education. “It looks like funding education first is just a slogan and not something they’re actually willing to do,” Jayapal said. In addition to the sales tax change and raiding the toxics account, the transportation package includes a few other things the Democrats don’t like: Only about six percent of the money goes to multimodal projects; Sound Transit got 25 percent less taxing authority than they requested; and the legislation has a provision the Democrats have taken to calling “the poison pill.” That provision says that all the money for pedestrian, bike, and transit (that’s that six percent for multimodal) turns into roads-only money if governor Jay Inslee uses his executive authority to green light low carbon fuel standards.

Conservatives

Conservatives

Wasted trillions of dollars on corrupt, disastrous wars.

Slashed taxes for rich people.

Deregulated Wall Street and banking, causing the 2008 market crash.

Continue to oppose regulation of Wall Street.

Allow corporations to move profits and jobs overseas.

Oppose funding of the IRS to investigate tax evasion.

Gerrymander election districts and enact voter-id and other restrictions to suppress minority voting.

Deny science about global warming.

Cut funding for education and blame teachers for outcomes that are a result of poverty.

Oppose public transit, clean energy, and conservation.

Crush unions.

They also want to hand the Social Security Trust Fund over to Wall Street even though it was financed from workers’ paychecks.

The outrages go on and on ….

Conservative ideology

Conservative ideology is based on protecting rich people from having to pay for the benefits they reap from government: peace at home, stable markets, infrastructure, an educated work force, research, potable water, clean air, public health, etc. Conservatives wasted trillions on corrupt, disastrous wars and are happy to pay subsidies to corporate farmers and Big Oil, but they’re eager to cut food stamps for poor people, crush unions, blame teachers, dismantle public transit, deny science, and restrict the vote. The Norquist No-Tax-Pledge prohibits income taxes but allows regressive sales taxes.

Regressive taxes are mentioned in the news and opinion pieces about Proposition 1

The issue of regressive taxes is in the news recently and is being raised by both supporters and opponents of Proposition 1.

The Seattle Times, in their April 5 editorial against Proposition 1 mentioned regressive taxes twice. The editorial begins: “VOTERS should weigh the regressive tax request embedded in King County Proposition 1 against history.” Near the end it says, “Nor should a no vote be read in Olympia as a sign the state Legislature does not need to pass a transportation package that includes less regressive transit tax options. It does.”

But would the Seattle Times editorial board support a progressive income tax? Seems very unlikely. They opposed I-1098 (high earners tax) in 2010.

Even the usually conservative Bellevue Reporter, in their editorial in favor of Proposition 1, wrote “And we don’t like any increase in the sales tax because it is regressive and hits the poor more harshly than the rich.”  (They went on to explain why, nonetheless, they favor Proposition 1.)

We should build on that momentum and get the issue more into public’s field of vision.

But wait! There’s more.

The conservative Washington Policy Center, in their Citizen’s Guide to Proposition 1, writes, “The proposed tax increases would apply only to regressive forms of taxation, falling hardest on the poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the elderly living on fixed incomes. ” There are several other mentions of regressive nature of the tax. Their final sentence reads: “Given these coming proposals and the sharply regressive burden of the sales tax, voters should carefully consider how Proposition 1’s tax increases and future taxes add up and decide which measures will best serve their financial and transportation needs.”

Both Larry Phillips, in his guest editorial in favor of Proposition and Bill Eager, in his guest editorial against Proposition 1, mention that Proposition 1’s taxes are regressive. (source)

Will Knedlik, Dick Paylor, and Jerry Galland, in their Rebuttal of Statement For that was distributed with the ballot write, “Reject Metro’s regressive tax increases on the poor for the third time in 10 years.”