As Suzy Lowdown continues to try denying and lying her way out of her hot mess of scandaliciousness, Desert Beacon actually tries to find glimmers of real fiscal policy coming out of her campaign... But can only find this crap.
If we were speaking of bankers, hedge fund managers, and corporate chief executive officers, then Ms. Lowden would have a point [on making the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich permanent, repealing the estate tax, and repealing capital gains taxes]. However, the effect of the Bush tax cuts was to place more tax burden on the middle and lower income strata and less on the the upper 2% of income earners. The effect of the Bush Tax cuts lessened the liability for federal taxation for the lowest income groups by 1.9%, the middle income levels by 2.0%, the top 20% of income earners by 3.4%, and the top tier by a hefty 4.8%. [CBPP] The result was anything but a progressive income tax: "High-income households are paying considerably less of their income in income taxes now than before the tax cuts. In 2000, households in the top 1 percent of the income scale paid an average of 24.2 percent of their income in federal income taxes. By 2005 (the latest year for which data are available), that figure had fallen to 19.4 percent, the lowest level since 1986." [CBPP] In short, support for the Bush Tax cuts is to advocate a scheme in which the top tier income earners receive the greatest benefit while the "burden" is effectively shifted to the middle and lower income tiers.
Would not a better, more thoughtful, income tax schematic advocate have decreased the lower income tax burdens by 4.8%, the top twenty percent earners' by 3.4%, the middle income burden lessened by 2.0% and the top 1-2% by 1.9%?
By simply adopting the shorthand of supporting the Bush era tax cuts as a campaign platform plank, Ms. Lowden is clearly advocating a tax structure in which the greatest liabilities are placed on average income earners, and the income gap between the extremely rich and the middle class would continue to expand. However, it would probably not do to take the podium and announce, "Hi, I'm candidate Sue Lowden, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the top two percent of Nevada taxpayers, and to advocate for their benefit."
So what is Suzy Lowdown really saying? Basically, she's supporting the continuation of the George W. Bush economic policies that benefitted the super-rich at the expense of all the rest of us. No really, Bush's tax cuts did absolutely nothing to produce sustainable economic growth and did not benefit the vast majority of working Americans. So why exactly would we want to return to that?
And yet, even this devotion to hard-line radical right economic "policy" secure the "frontrunner status" that Suzy Lowdown's campaign is trying desperately to keep.
Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle continued to show momentum by winning the endorsement of the Club for Growth, a conservative group that often opens deep pockets to its favored candidates. Angle won the group’s endorsement in 2006 in a Republican primary she would eventually lose to Rep. Dean Heller in the 2nd Congressional District. [...]
The Lowden campaign, clearly sensing an Angle boomlet, launched what could be a devastating attack in a Republican primary, hitting her for voting to raise her legislative salary in 2001 and 2005, despite Angle’s denials.
Uithoven also made what will be the most important argument on behalf of Lowden: electability.
“To beat Harry Reid, you have to attract conservative Democrats and independents. Sue Lowden can do that,” he said. Angle “has never proven her ability to win over independents in any race.”
Ah yes, the Club for Growth... They're really a perfect fit for Sharron Angle. They've gone to the furthest extremes to lie about health care reform. They would consider Suzy Lowdown's above tax cut lunacy (which Sharron Angle more than agrees with) "mainstream". They support only the most radical of radical right candidates, and won't even allow for mainstream conservatives to serve in the Republican Party.
And yes, the Club for Growth, the teabaggers, and Sharron Angle all go together hand in hand in hand.
On the issues, it would be hard for Angle to run farther from the right. In Washington today, she spoke often of the Smith & Wesson she carries when she's not in D.C. and told one tea partier that she agreed this year's Census form is "too intrusive."
She promised to get rid of the "unconstitutional czars" in the executive branch.
"Our president can have friends," she said, to laughter from the crowd, "but I don't have to pay for them."
Angle is a member of the "Oath Keepers," the conservative group that advocates law enforcement and military types disobey orders they feel are unconstitutional. She touted her "Ronald Reagan Freedom Medallion" from the conservative Claremont Institute, and other right wing bona fides in conversations with reporters today.
When it comes to governing, Angle has no doubts about her priorities. She told the audience at the Tea Party Express press conference that her first legislative act as a Senator would be to call for the repeal of the health care reform bill, which she called "Obamacare."
After the press conference, I asked her how far that opposition to the reform bill goes. Angle made no bones about it: she doesn't support a single shred of the health care bill, including the banning of preexisting condition discrimination. Angle told me that the "free market" would eliminate the need for preexisting condition screening, as long as the government stopped mandating what kind of care insurance companies have to provide. [Emphasis mine.]
"Whenever the government makes a law [about health care] it just gums up the works and makes things worse," she told me. "I don't think the law is solution."
That mantra is central to the way Angle views politics.
"I'm a free market person," she told me. "The law doesn't solve problems. Law is the problem."
So she's a "free market person"? Apparently, she is for everyone except the super-rich, the big corporations, and the Church of Scientology.
OK, I'll put aside the Scientology issue for now. Let's focus on health care. The new health care reform legislation is projected to expand health insurance coverage to about 92% by 2016 if just left as is. There are immediate benefits set to start this year, and more that will be implemented by 2014. And just take a look at how health care reform specifically helps us here in Nevada!
And Sharron Angle wants to repeal it all? Why? Because the "free market" was working so splendidly for the HMOs (while screwing us over)?
Again, Sharron Angle is just too batsh*t crazy for Nevada... And Suzy Lowdown is trying to be just as batsh*t crazy to try to woo the teabaggers over to her side. Neither of them seems to care one bit about doing anything to help us working class folks. So why bother taking either of them seriously?