Tom Friedman and David Brooks, the double dolts of the New York Times, are back in the Picayune this morning. Oh, did I forget to say, good morning? Yeah, well, sorry about that; let me at least take the opportunity to say get lost to these clowns.
Friedman wastes our time with the idle speculation of equally irrelevant fantasies regarding the nature of the current economic troubles and struggles. One holds that we are entering something called the period of "The Great Disruption" and the other calls it "The Big Shift." Neither has anything to do with anything important, like say, the price of bananas in the French Market. So, I'll let you check that part out for yourself, if you want. But along the way, in muddling through the nonsense, Friedman returns to one of his stock motifs, which is positing as true an obvious falsehood, to wit: the unemployed have been dismissed from the work place by changes in technology and the deterioration of their employment skills set. Friedman says not to worry, though, for anyone can take courses easily on-line, even from such institutions as Stanford , and be employable again just like that. Wow.
Friedman and his ilk have been allowed to write off the unemployed all too glibly in this disreputable fashion for several decades. They just want to dismiss unemployment as a failure of the unemployed. They say the unemployed fell behind the needs of the modern workplace, and are now not rehabilitating their degenerated employment profile. It's all their fault. Uh huh, that's why qualified job seekers currently out number job openings by a factor of five to one.
The other liar, David Brooks, repeats the propaganda of the right-wing plutocratic defense league, something that calls itself the Tax Foundation. This fraudulent outfit exits to invent lies about our unfair tax system, which keeps the rich very rich and the country broke. Today, Brooks picks up one of these lies which claims that taxing the super rich fairly, like they once were during the time of that evil Bolshevik, Dwight Eisenhower, would not make even a small dent in the national debt.
But Brooks is either too stupid or too interested in spreading lies to report that this bogus numbers game is based on only a one year return from a fair tax on the rich. If a Dwight Eisenhower era fair tax remained in place, it would pay down the national debt in the next twenty-five years by over fifty percent. There simply is no other proposal out there which could accomplish so much good, while also restoring so much justice and fairness to our tax code.