It's a Two-party System: So Where's the Second Party?

Despite earlier assurances that any deal to raise the debt ceiling would include some form of revenue increase through the closing of loopholes or allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans, Senate democrats put forth a proposal cutting federal spending by $2.7 trillion that included zero dollars in revenue increases. Of course, republican leadership was so thrilled with the idea that they told them to G.O.P. stick it in their jackass. The whole scenario reminded me of an exchange between Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush (little known fact - the H stands for Hussein) during the '92 presidential debates, which despite being too young to vote, I watched - just to give you an indication of how sad my childhood was. Anyway, I don't remember it verbatim, but it went something like this:

Clinton: This N.A.F.T.A. thing seems like a great idea to me.
Bush: Hell yeah. Me too.
Clinton: Wow, we have so much in common. We should be friends.
Bush: That sounds awesome. We can turn our beds into bunk beds and then we'll have so much more room for activities.
Clinton: Good thinking. C'mere and give me a hug.
Bush: Mmmm... You smell good. Is that a mango conditioner?
Clinton: Yes. My new intern loves it.

That other guy who was there: That idea sucks. Someone pay attention to me.

I know what you're thinking - There are a lot of differences between the two parties. Things like gay rights, the second amendment, and the whole evolution vs. the Flintstonian theory. And you're right, but what occurred to me then, and what I've seen time and again since, is that there is no difference in economic policy between a republican politician and their democratic counterpart. Sure, they talk a different talk, but what do they actually do that is so different? Much like Clinton and Bush in '92 regarding N.A.F.T.A. Obama and McCain practically fought over who liked the banking bailout more. Between 2009 and 2011 democrats held the presidency and a majority in both houses of congress. In that time they managed to give billions of dollars to the banking industry and military contractors (because they kept us in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the world), they passed a financial reform bill that was the textbook definition of a paper tiger, and gave us health care reform that put a proverbial band-aid on a gunshot wound.

So when it comes to issues that are emotionally charged and can be debated until the cows come home (i.e. abortion) we have clear divisiveness and ideology, but when it comes to the bottom line - the issues that will really effect normal people on a day-to-day basis - things that will have an impact on interest rates and the job market - we have complete bi-partisanship. Even if that bi-partisanship comes in the form of faked surrender or under achievement, the result is the same. Sadly, it's been going on for so long that it's become cliche - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I know what you're thinking again (because I'm psychic and have decided to use my powers to write this stuff - which I don't get paid for - instead of going to the track or playing lotto), "How can you bring Bill Clinton into this? What about his attempt at health care reform?". It's a valid question, but if you look at the big picture, it's the same old story. The president promises health care for all during his campaign, he gets elected with a democratic majority in the house and senate, his own party squashes his attempt, and he feels so strongly about it afterward that he doesn't even bring up the idea again in the remainder of his six years as president. The most obvious part, to me, was when insurance companies that belonged to the Health Insurance Association of America (whose advertising was vital to creating opposition to the bill) actually donated big bucks to Hillary Clinton (who was in charge of the whole fiasco) for her 2006 senate re-election campaign. You can call this water under the bridge, but it sounds more like payola to me.

So if not health care reform, then what did we get from Clinton's presidency? Well, there was N.A.F.T.A., welfare reform, and the de-regulation of anything to do with turning a profit. Wow - what a leftist. Ask a conservative about him and they'll tell you about the assault rifle ban, the rescinding of the global gag rule, and health care. Health care was smoke and mirrors and the other two were social - not fiscal - issues. At the end of the day, despite the cries of "socialism" and Rush's "Comrade Clinton" cracks, Bubba was just another democrat who felt our pain while he dug the knife in deeper. We did enjoy a brief period of prosperity during his time in office, but it was just a big set-up. Everyone was making money in the stock market, driving hummers, and spending $14 a day on exotic coffee drinks - life was good - and then the financial institutions swooped in and stole all the money, corporate America exported all the jobs, and gas started threatening $5 a gallon - making that hummer seem like a really bad idea (of course, if you still have one it is big enough to house your family when your home is foreclosed).

Not since before Teddy Roosevelt's presidency has the system been so rigged in favor of the wealthy elite. I've been hearing the term "class warfare" thrown around a lot these days, which I find amusing and sad and insane all at the same time. They've set it up so that they can take everything we have - our hopes and dreams as well as the tangibles - then accuse us of class warfare.

America needs a second party.