In The Truth About Obama’s Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives are Telling About It), Robert Reich uses the word “regressives” to refer to our ideological opponents, who are often called “conservatives.” But regressives don’t conserve much of anything, except perhaps the wealth and power of the privileged few.
Reich points out the lies and distortions in the regressives’ arguments against President Obama’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts for incomes about $250,000. “The only people who’d have to pay substantially more taxes under Obama’s proposal are those earning far in excess of $250,000 — and they aren’t small businesses. They’re the fattest of corpulent felines. Their spending will not be affected if their official tax rate rises from the Bush 35 percent to the Bill Clinton 39.6 percent.” But regressives such as those at the Wall Street Journal are trying to spin the tax proposal as unfair and as a jobs-killer.
I love the term “regressives.” I wonder if Reich coined it. [Apparently not: see Robert S. McElvaines’ 2010 HuffPost article Let’s Start Calling Them ‘Regressives.]
I sometimes call Republicans “repugs” — and that accurately reflects my feelings about what those bastards have done to our economy, our civil rights, our way of life, and our moral standing. But calling Republicans “repugs” is tantamount to name calling. In contrast, calling them “regressives” is much more descriptive.
I love the term “regressives.”