www.cnn.com/…
Chris Cuomo recently called out the GOP for normalizing corruption, calling out Graham, Nunes, and others for changing their tunes on corruption.
He is wrong about that.
He correctly pointed out that Trump doesn’t actually believe corruption and bribery are wrong, that he, Trump, views them as just part of normal business practices, wrong only if you get caught and can’t talk your way out of it, but not wrong per se.
What Cuomo seems to have missed is that is the normal, everyday corporate mindset.
The only thing that Trump has really changed vis-a-vis corruption and the GOP is the openness with which corruption is practiced. He has brought the practice of corruption into the light of day and challenged anyone to argue with success as he defines it.
The GOP in turn has stumbled blinking into the light, taking pride in the raw exercise of power, grateful they no longer have to pretend to hold either the rule of law or democratic principles in high esteem.
Corporatists of every stripe, including those in the Democratic Party, unfortunately, seem to agree that they have a right to profit and wealth accumulation that trumps all other rights, no matter the cost to the majority, be the measure health, wealth or the environment.
They know that cash donations to campaign chests buy them not only favorable legislation, but exculpation of responsibility for frauds and environmental damage.
They know that high-priced legal teams buy them tailor-made justice.
Economic might makes right.
If Chris Cuomo really wanted to call out the roots of corruption, he would be discussing how the corporate world and the billionaires are responsible for it. As the Kochs, Bloomberg, and others show, when you already have everything money can buy, what’s next on your shopping list?
Governments.
If you truly want to drain the swamp, there is only one way to accomplish it:
Deny that there exists an unlimited right to wealth accumulation and set a reasonable cap on it.
What constitutes reasonable is debatable, but I favor a $5B cap.
Why $5B? Because most billionaires have less, and thus might be more willing to accede to a cap, partially because it levels the field for them vs the really huge fortunes. At those stratospheric wealth levels, wealth itself is irrelevant to physical needs, it is entirely about psychological needs, money is just a way of keeping score, and a $5B cap would appeal to the egos of many of the smaller billionaires in all likelihood as a way to cut their competition down to size.
If a $5B cap were instituted, trickle down would finally work because there would be nowhere for the money to go but down. Cutting the1% share of newly created wealth from the 85% take they currently enjoy down to even 50% would make an enormous difference to the global economy.
To prevent economic dislocations, those over cap should be allowed four years to divest to reach cap.
My suggestion, to use Bezos as an example, is that the first adjustment would be to transfer shares of Amazon to all present and past employees helped build the company based on length of service and position.
Then set up a National Mutual Fund to absorb some of the excess wealth in order to fund climate change mitigation and healthcare.
Those over cap should be allowed to donate set amounts to existing charities, educational institutions, and scientific programs, and twice the amount to create new ones.
A $5B wealth cap wouldn’t physically change anyone’s reality, none would miss any meals or be forced to serve Andre champagne at their parties. But it would curtail their political power, reduce the ability and motives for corruption, and lead to a better life for everyone on the planet.
A cap wouldn’t destroy capitalism, it would save it from itself. A cap is not a communist plot to destroy capitalism, but rather guard rails for capitalism to prevent it from destroying democracy and the planet.
More cash in the hands of workers would create an economic boom unlike any other in history, hopefully one part of whose proceeds would go to greening homes and funding renewables.
No one has a natural right to threaten or diminish the existence of others in order to satisfy their egos and power drives.