I apologize for not blogging that often this month, I will attempt to get back up to speed, but in the meantime this kid (oh GOD I'm old) Josh Johnson is blowing up YouTube with clips of his stand-up routines skewering the billionaire techbro bastards currently tearing down every aspect of human civilization.
And these illiterate elites are trying to shove their artificial intelligence as though that fakery can compensate for their stupidity. Argh.
I'll check back in soon.
(This is the first of four articles I write on this blog in honor of the 4th of July, although this 2025 trumpian dystopia is going to make it hard to be a pleasant Fourth)
I once noticed how presidential candidate Mitt Romney had "massive tax cuts for the rich" as his "ever-fixed mark," the one campaign pledge he never flipped against. I should have noted how that massive tax cut was a core belief of the modern (Reagan Era) Republican Party, because even after 2012 the goddamn GOP kept pursuing their massive tax cut plans in order to placate their overlords at the Club For Greed and other SuperPACs.
When the Republicans held control of the federal government back in 2017, one of the few agenda items they were able to pull off was that massive tax cut for the rich, alongside shifting the tax burden more onto lower income brackets to "balance" the shifts in revenue. Even then, it didn't work: Deficits went up and the national debt went up. But the Republican congresscritters didn't care because - under the sway of the minority power of the uber-rich billionaires and mega corps - they honestly don't represent their congressional and state interests anymore.
Which is why this week - again in control of the federal government this 2025 - Congress went and passed an even bigger tax cut for the rich at the expense of the rest of America (via Elena Moore, Claudia Grisales, and Deirdre Walsh at NPR):
President Trump's massive spending and tax cut bill is on the way to his desk for a signature. The bill passed Thursday after Republican leaders in the House of Representatives convinced holdouts in their own party to get in line behind the controversial legislation.
House Republicans passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214, nearly entirely along party lines. All 212 Democrats voted in unison against the bill, and they were joined by two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Leaders were forced to work all night to win the votes necessary to pass the bill and meet Trump's demand to sign the bill by July 4.
All so donald trump can hold a photo op signing event on the 4th of July, hijacking the symbolism of independence for "independence from taxes" even though that's not going to happen for most Americans. Our taxes - yes my bracket is affected - are going to go up (via David Morgan at Reuters):
Several independent analyses conclude that the bill now before the Senate would effectively transfer money from poor Americans to the rich.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model, for example, found it would reduce after-tax income by $1,500 for families earning less than $22,000 per year, and boost income by $104,000 for those earning more than $5.2 million. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reached a similar conclusion...
House Republicans say the bill would provide the typical family with a $1,300 tax cut and that business tax breaks would lead to higher wages for workers.
Which is a lie: All the previous massive tax cuts for businesses NEVER turned into higher wages for employees. Tax cuts for the wealthy never balanced budgets and never improved the middle or lower classes. Those families with $5.2 million annual income don't NEED $104k extra pocket change, but that family (or individual) on $22,000 a year WILL NEED that $1,500 for bills, bills, and staying out of massive debt.
And those massive tax cuts are not what a sizable plurality of this nation are asking for, if this Pew Research 2025 report from Andy Cerda and Andrew Daniller is accurate:
Far more Americans oppose the legislation than favor it. Nearly half (49%) oppose it, while 29% favor it. Another 21% are not sure.
A narrow majority says the legislation would have a negative impact on the country. While 54% say it would have a mostly negative effect on the country in the coming years, 30% say it would have a mostly positive effect. Another 12% think it would not have much of an impact.
About half (51%) expect the bill to increase the budget deficit. Just 18% of Americans say the bill would cut the deficit, and 27% say it would not have much of an effect...
You would think congressional Republicans would be intelligent enough - or at least aware of the polling - to understand their budget bill is going to hurt their support back home. And you'd be right: A number of GOP congresscritters were begging everyone else to stop them (via Bill Scher at Washington Monthly):
Soon after Senator Lisa Murkowski coughed up the 50th vote for the Senate version of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, she told reporters what was wrong with it.
“I struggled mightily with the impact on the most vulnerable in this country, when you look to Medicaid and SNAP,” she said, referring to the bill’s deep cuts to health care and food assistance. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill’s onerous provisions would directly strip health coverage from 11.8 million people by 2034, and the omission of any extension for Joe Biden-era health-care tax credits would deny coverage for another 5.1 million, for a total of 16.9 million. And according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “more than 5 million people—about 1 in 8 SNAP participants…would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance” because of the Republican “red-tape-laden, ineffective work requirement. ” For its part, the Congressional Budget Office predicts 2 million people will lose SNAP benefits altogether because of the work requirement...
And yet, Murkowski, you fucking voted for it. You had the power and ability to say NO for the benefit of your constituents of Alaska - and the nation - and yet...
Opinions differ regarding the potential consequences of historically high post-World War II federal debt levels, and whatever those consequences are, they won’t be felt by households as immediately and acutely as the loss of Medicaid and SNAP coverage will be felt. Many Republicans agree with Senator Johnson that our debt level should be declining. Yet, they continue to support legislation that piles on more debt by cutting taxes far more deeply than cutting spending, and in the process, rewarding high-income households and punishing low-income households. Johnson is one of them. He told NPR that Trump “satisfied my requirement, which was a commitment to a reasonable, pre-pandemic level of spending and a process to achieve and maintain it.” A hollower commitment would be impossible to make...
The modern Republican Party is caught in a fantasy of their own making: Pushed by deep-pocket campaign funders who want to keep their greed expanding at the expense of everyone else (damn you, Citizens United ruling), pressured by anti-government ideologues who want to starve the federal government and drown it in Grover's bathtub, and convinced that their incumbent - and gerrymandered - status makes them protected from voter outrage; the Far Right keep buying into the lie of trickle-down in order to justify their cruelty and disdain towards the lower classes.
The Republicans - with trump hosting his horrific photo op today - are going to be celebrating a bill they know is destructive and harmful to the national well-being - especially the Medicaid cuts that will force far too many rural hospitals and nursing homes even in deep Republican Red states to close - but they hope won't affect their re-election hopes for 2026 and 2028.
If trump lets us have fair elections any more, that is.
Goddamn these Far Right bastards.
So the Eternal Shitgibbon ahem Dark Lord is returning, greedier and more terrible than before, and there's not so much panic as there is despair and regret among the Center-Left people I hang out with. I know I'm feeling it, the utter dread of knowing trump - a court-convicted felon, a certified sex offender - is getting back into a White House with Presidential powers now more far-reaching than he wielded last time.
Meaning things after January 20th are going to get worse than what we saw from 2017 to 2020. Which - given the racism, the cruelty, and the greedy self-glorification - was pretty bad.
I could game out what I expect to see out of the Cruelty Is Policy 2.0 administration trump is about to unleash. But I got to admit when I attempt these "What If" guessing games, I'm really not making the correct predictions. The last couple of "What Ifs" were actually heart-breaking.
So if I'm going to do a "What If" for trump's second term of office, I'm going to have to recognize that - given how sadistic and greedy the upcoming policies we already know is coming - whatever I'm guessing at is likely going to be worse.
I mean, it's already a given that trump will use his inauguration speech to rage through his grievances. The media is already reporting how he's going to issue Executive Orders to begin mass deportations, to declare Mexican drug cartels as terrorists so he can deploy the military against them, to begin purging the civil service through Schedule F rules to decimate the federal agencies, pardoning every person convicted in the January 6th insurrection, and even change the rules on electric vehicles (which benefits his BFF Elon Musk).
But let's suppose the "What If" has trump going full Dictator on Day One like he threatened to do during the campaign. What if trump goes completely overboard with the abuse of executive power?
Let's say trump during his speech gives the order to arrest every Democratic figure on the stage with him - Biden, Obama, both Bill and Hillary Clinton, any other congressional leader - on "charges" that they "conspired to steal" the 2020 Election from him. Don't forget, that's still a serious thorn in his pride as he can never admit he loses at anything. Most of the punditry and power players in DC knows he's going to unleash "his" Justice Department on those who slighted, indicted, and convicted him. But what if he does it right there, Day One, ordering the Secret Service and other law enforcement at the inauguration to drag the Democratic leaders off to jail cells?
We know trump wants to implement massive tariffs on our major trading partners. While his handlers are trying to talk him into a slow incremental process at 5 percent (which would still cause serious havoc), trump is likely eager to jump right at the 15 percent across-the-board hike just to show how tough he is on trade.
We know the mass deportations and round-ups of "illegals" are going to begin the second he gives the order - they're already telling us which city (Chicago) so the media can show up and let them get their publicity while they harass and attack thousands of people and families - but we shouldn't expect ICE or any of trump's eager brownshirts to go by proper procedure. We're going to see bloody faces and bodies as a show of force. We're going to see a lot of innocent people who aren't "illegals" - a lot of Puerto Ricans are going to have a rough week - get caught in the chaotic dragnets.
Worse, don't be surprised if the migrant hunters go after the local schools instead of workplaces. trump is going to issue Executive Orders removing the Birthright Citizenship protections. They're going to aim for loopholes so they can "detain" any Latino or dark-skinned child even if they were genuinely born in the United States and gained their citizenship (even children who have one parent who IS a natural citizen will get targeted). Remember everybody: Cruelty Is the Point with trump's anti-immigrant crusade and they WILL go after kids. It may be unconstitutional right now, but don't be surprised if trump gets this before his puppets on the Supreme Court and gets them to uphold the loopholes as "legal."
I wouldn't even be surprised if trump declares we're in a "state of war" with Mexico concerning the border, which would excuse his attempt to create a national emergency and grant himself more power. It would let him - through the Joint Chiefs - seize control of every National Guard in every state including the Democratic-controlled ones, and use them to fill the logistical - manpower and firepower - holes in the deportation plans.
If trump declares that national emergency, he could go to Congress and get his Republican lackeys to pass legislation activating the draft (Selective Service): It will allow him to quickly fill the military ranks to use in his deportation schemes, and also shake the stick even harder at Mexico to get them to bend the knee to trump. Thing is, trump could try to ignore Congress altogether and set up his own draft using his own parameters to pick and choose who gets drafted. It may be against the law, but he'll certainly try it because he's testing the limits of "official acts" of the presidency. What he'll set up will be no lottery, no physical or educational requirements, no psych evals: A way to bring in a lot of the Proud Boy and white supremacist extremists who'd otherwise get filtered out of the military.
And because trump is fully "anti-woke" - he opposes racial diversity in hiring practices - he's going to abuse his office to purge our own military of what he'll call "DEI" hires of Black and Latino (and maybe even women) officers and undo everything we've done since Truman to make our armed forces a truly American - and honestly diverse - institution. he's going to turn our military into an overpowered national police force for which it wasn't designed to do, while crippling the chain of command during all of these adjustments.
Oh, and he's going to insist on the military and every civil servant to swear a new oath of loyalty, not to the United States or the Constitution. he's going to insist they swear loyalty to himself.
The result of all this madness? Arguably within the first week of trump's takeover?
Obviously, the lawsuits from various civil rights groups to counter trump's efforts. They will try to delay the immediate effects of trump's cruelty, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed in a legal system now skewed to trump's will.
We will see serious damage to our federal bureaucracy and in ways that will make service to the public even worse. trump's purge of agencies will leave behind those unqualified at their jobs or overwhelmed by the workload expanding as more people are fired (or quit in disgust). In terms of the military, gutting the officer corps could also trigger mass resignations, disrupting the chain of command even more. I doubt trump and his Far Right buddies will care, though.
The more interesting consequences will be with the economy, which was chugging along pretty well under Biden. trump's efforts to enact tariffs will create shock among investors and cause markets to crash - much like they did during trump's first round of tariffs - all the while forcing prices to go up, because those tariffs will both be an extra tax on the citizenry as well as create supply chain shortages making goods more expensive. Not to mention the tariffs will trigger trade wars on a greater scale than we saw earlier, because the other nations - Canada, Mexico, and China in particular - are not exactly keen on dancing to trump's tune.
trump's efforts to create a national emergency over immigration will trigger international outrage, especially if trump tries to start a border war with Mexico. Considering how trump is panicking Europe over his obsession with buying annexing Greenland from Denmark, we're going to find ourselves with few allies.
trump's also threatening to send troops to the Panama Canal to retake it, arguing that China is getting too influential with that nation (but more than likely he's angry with them for shutting down his properties there). If he pushes too hard, we're going to witness most of Central and South America - and other global powers affected by trade through the Canal - retaliate however they can. trump is rattling his sabers at everyone (except Russia) and he's going to make more enemies that are willing and able to push back.
And speaking of Russia: trump is likely going to do everything he can to lift the massive economic sanctions to allow Putin more freedom to attack Ukraine even harder. I don't buy the public narrative that he'll issue more sanctions on Russian oil. he's too beholden to Putin to play the tough guy. There may be foreign policy experts - and a sizable number of Republican congresscritters - who are pro-Ukrainian and hopeful that success on this front would break Russia's corrupt influence across most of the planet. But trump doesn't care about experts, he only cares about getting adoration from those he views as his equals (the rich and the corrupt).
So by next Saturday: expect Wall Street to be engulfed in flames, with half of the Armed Forces seriously considering a coup to overthrow trump and the Republican Congress before they fire a third of their generals and admirals, while Mexico and Canada agree to a mutual self-defense pact escalating the chance of a two-front war along America's borders. All the while half our nation's sheriffs departments and National Guardsmen overwhelmed chasing after migrant workers instead of doing their normal duties in their communities.
That's what I'm expecting. I don't believe I am over-exaggerating. trump and his wingnut allies really want to disrupt everything they can so they can profit from the chaos.
Don't forget: 77 million of you voted for his madness to drive our nation over the cliffs. Goddamn you.
One of the things dreaded about this ultraconservative Supreme Court was how - at some point - the Far Right Republican justices were going to nuke federal regulations from orbit in order to appease their uber-rich corporate buddies. Well, this weekend that finally happened, and apparently nuked the checks and balances of the Constitution with it (via Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog):
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system...”
The justices took up their appeals, agreeing to address only the Chevron question in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Relentless case but was recused from the Loper-Bright case, presumably because she had heard oral argument in the case while she was still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.)
Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
Instead of the Executive Branch making these decisions, Roberts is saying, it should be the Judiciary. And by the sound of it, the Legislative Branch passing the regulatory laws can't say anything about it either.
Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”
The problem with this position is that judges really aren't the experts they think they are. On matters of law, yes. On matters of what construes as toxic waste, or the effectiveness of safety gear in hazardous work areas, or the type of materials that Boeing should use to build planes that are falling apart as I blog this, no they are not.
This Court is effectively kneecapping every civil servant in every regulatory office at the federal - and likely state - level, forcing them to cope with filing requests to judges for every safety / health regulation challenge that the major corporations handling dangerous or costly products - the energy companies, the chemical manufacturers, pharmaceuticals, car makers, building constructors, anything listed in the Thomas Register - are now likely to file.
Everything regarding clean water and clean air are now out the window, which you'll need to keep closed if you suffer from allergies and asthma and anything else pollution can affect. Remember what happened to Flint, Michigan? Start multiplying that by 100 as poor communities find themselves dumping grounds for toxic waste that companies no longer have to regulate.
Anyone arguing "self-regulation" will take place because corporations won't profit from hazardous business practices should remember all the times corporations STILL failed to hold themselves to standards while spilling pollution everywhere. If a company can cut corners and save spending even a small sum of money on something in order to report bigger profits, they will.
Government regulation was the only thing keeping the massive corporations in line when it came to cleaning up the pollution that threatened our nation back in the 1970s. People today can't remember how bad it got during the post World War II era of mass industrialization and failures to keep things clean. Lead poisoning was a serious problem with the breathable air, something that the clean air laws reduced to a point where scientists made legitimate claims that it's lessened the crime rate and extended lifespans.
But we're not going to have that scientific expertise making the decisions that can affect regional health or workplace safety anymore. Now we're going to rely on judges who are going to act on their partisan agendas instead of the facts. We're going to have justices deciding on the difference between "nitrous" and "nitrogen", something they are clearly not prepared for.
And that's just the environment we're talking about. In terms of financial safety, Roberts' Court kneecapped the Securities and Exchange Commission in a separate ruling that makes it harder to stop the fraudsters and grifters looking to inflict their greed on the rest of us.
This is where the Club For Greed's deregulatory crusade has led us: A conservative court rigging the system to answer to THEIR authority and no one else's. Not the Congress, not the Presidency.
Gods help us.
CNBC's Squawk Box asked Ross about (federal employees have been forced into food lines and homeless shelters) on Thursday, and Ross affirmed he was aware it was happening. But "I don't really quite understand why" these federal workers are out on the streets, Ross responded. "Borrowing from a bank or federal credit union" is "federally guaranteed," Ross said, so "there's no real reason why they shouldn't be able to get a loan against" the 30 days of pay they're missing, he finished.
Ross neglected to mention that taking out loans means paying interest. That's not exactly manageable for families living paycheck to paycheck, even if they are given back pay when the shutdown ends, as CNBC brought up after Ross' comments. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a slew of other critics pointed out, Ross is a billionaire...
"Perhaps he should have said it differently. Local people know who they are when they go for groceries and everything else, and I think what Wilbur was probably trying to say is that they will work along," the president said. He added that Ross has "done a great job."Essentially trump is saying grocery stores will carry credit for people they know are regular customers.
The setup is actually fairly simple: would the Republican desire to pass massive tax cuts for its donor class overwhelm its fear of being punished at the ballot box for taking healthcare away from millions of Americans, including their own voters? Under normal circumstances fear of electoral consequences would prevail. But we live in an age of unprecedented partisanship and big money influence, which leads many Republicans to feel insulated from the consequences of even openly cruel actions that damage their loyal constituents. That Republicans would actually destroy Obamacare went from remote possibility to very real.
The first thing in health policy is to always follow the money. Covering sick people means spending money. The question is always how much money and who is spending that money. We’ll know very quickly if there is an actual replacement plan that is way too heavily focused on HSAs but actually tries to provide some useful coverage to a reasonable number of Americans or if it is a Potemkin plan by looking at the top line CBO scoring of the expense of the coverage provisions. This runs into a potential Norquist problem but the money is the big thing to review.
Jan. 13 2015: Protesters rally outside City Hall to demand a return to Detroit's supply and lower bills. Hundreds turn out at a forum, some complaining of rashes on children. Detroit offered to let Flint switch back, but the city's Emergency Manager says it would cost too much.
"I'm frustrated by the water issue in Flint," Dennis Muchmore, then chief of staff to Gov. Rick Snyder, wrote in the email to a top health department staffer obtained by NBC News.
"I really don't think people are getting the benefit of the doubt. Now they are concerned and rightfully so about the lead level studies they are receiving," Muchmore said.
"These folks are scared and worried about the health impacts and they are basically getting blown off by us (as a state we're just not sympathizing with their plight)."
...the debt alarmism on display at the debate was part of a broader rejection of fiscal reality by pretty much every candidate. The federal deficit is going down thanks to a slowly improving economy and a series of ugly fights over tax hikes and spending cuts...
...But here’s the thing – while the Republican candidates were warning about the nation-ending threat posed by the allegedly out-of-control debt, they were also pushing tax proposals that would (pause for effect) dramatically increase the debt.
Let’s focus first on Marco Rubio, since he came out of the debate looking pretty good and also had a contentious exchange with moderator John Harwood about his tax plan. Rubio’s proposal calls for rate cuts on income and reducing the number of brackets, new tax credits for middle class families, and the complete elimination of taxes on capital gains and estates. Rubio insisted last night that this wildly regressive plan did not favor the wealthy – an assertion that is flatly untrue. With regard to its effect on the debt, the Tax Policy Center examined Rubio’s plan when it was first released earlier this year and it found:
They’ve proposed a tax reform that would add many trillions to the national debt over the next decade (a problem dynamic scoring is not likely to paper over). The Tax Policy Center estimated that an earlier, less ambitious version of the plan’s individual provisions would add $2.4 trillion to the debt. This plan would surely be even more expensive.
This is a common feature of most of the 2016 GOP candidates’ tax plans – they call for massive tax cuts on top earners, and they would (according to conservative estimates) cost more than $1 trillion dollars over the next decade, with some soaring as high as $10 trillion. And that’s just the cost of the tax cuts. Most of the candidates also want to dramatically increase defense spending from its current levels while also pursuing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That means they want to decrease the debt while cutting taxes for the wealthy and increasing military spending while balancing the budget. The only way this math could conceivably work is if you put in place deep, ruinous cuts to entitlement programs and the social safety net – something no one endorsed on stage last night because it would be political suicide. None of this works, none of it makes sense, and yet it’s the position of pretty much every candidate for the Republican nomination.
"The governor has declared war on the Legislature." - Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, after Scott cut funding for several Tampa Bay projects, including a marina, library and water taxi initiative.
"While Governor Scott will undoubtedly spend the next several weeks traveling the state touting his record number of vetoes as win for Florida's families, there are many families across Florida who have seen their dreams shattered by his decisions today." - Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, on vetoes of programs meant to help children with special needs, which were his top priority.
"I am profoundly disappointed . . . Our forest firefighters put their lives on the line. They are demonstratively under paid relative to peers." - Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, on learning that pay raises for the state's 606 Forest Service firefighters were being nixed.
"How does he allow a good program to pass muster last year and then vetoes the same without any reason or cause? I've seen our governor many times show that inconsistency and honestly I believe many members of the Florida Legislature are coming to realize you cannot trust the guy." - Pasco County Tax Collector Mike Fasano on Scott's cut of $2.5 million (including $1.5 million approved last year) for a conservation easement in Heritage Lake Estates. (I mentioned Fasano before: one of the earliest critics of Scott from within the State GOP itself.)If you read that linked article, you'll notice the only favorable quotes were from lobbyists happy to see Scott slash-and-burn the government they despise.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security requires fertilizer plants and depots to disclose amounts of ammonium nitrate, which can be used to make a bomb, above 400 lbs. The West, Texas plant, West Fertilizer, reportedly held 270 tons of the substance, 1,350 times that limit.
"This facility was known to have chemicals well above the threshold amount to be regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act (CFATS), yet we understand that DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said in a statement, according to Reuters.
The last election cycle demonstrated that even if you allow Wall Street and the corporations dictate a large portion of the policy, they will still fund campaigns to destroy you because they don’t want their share or ten times their share, they want it all, all the time.They are never going to stop going after social security. They want every single dollar of the education budgets. They do not want to pay any taxes for anything. They do not want any regulation that ties their hands with respect to their workers, the environment, or any other external costs imposed upon the public by their business activities. Oh yeah, and if they screw up and take the economy down, they want the government to bail them out.
