Rock Against Republicans!

Candidates of both political parties like to have rock music playing at their rallies for obvious reasons. Rock is the music of millions of Americans, it has energy, it evokes a certain forward-looking vision, it connects with young people, it is culturally inclusive, and it implies that the candidate is not part of the Establishment.

In other words, rock is everything that Republicans are not. Still, they keep trying their own version of cultural appropriation by choosing rousing rock anthems to warm up the crowd, and once again, the musician who recorded that rock anthem told the Republican to get lost.

Today it was Neil Young. Today The Donald and that dead weasel on his head announced his candidacy for president to the tune of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World.

And just as fast, Neil Young told The Donald to get bent. “Donald Trump’s use of ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ was not authorized,” Roberts said, adding for good measure, “Mr. Young is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders.”

And, as usual, the candidate missed the entire point of the song.

Other examples:

Just a couple of months ago it was the Dropkick Murpheys and Scott Walker. New York (AFP) - The Dropkick Murphys, the Boston rockers known for their left-wing politics, have voiced outrage after union-busting Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin played their music at a conservative forum.

"Please stop using our music in any way. We literally hate you!!! Love, Dropkick Murphys," the band tweeted over the weekend.

It was also Rage Against the Machine when Paul Ryan tried to appropriate their music. As the band's Tom Morello wrote in Rolling Stone: Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

The list goes on and on, but maybe we should confine ourselves to the list of music that Republicans should use for their rallies: Hank Williams, Jr., who said  "We've got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S. and we hate him!"

Ted Nugent, who said of President Obama  "I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.". 

What about you? If the Republicans must play music at their rallies, what is your ideal Republican playlist?

Want a tax cut?

Who doesn't like the idea of having their taxes cut, right? After all, taxes are money out of your pocket, and nobody feels that they have enough money, so if they can hold onto some of it they'll be happy.

That's been the Republican mantra for decades, ever since Reagan was president, or even earlier (remember Jarvis-Gann in California, the proposition that has decimated California's educational and other public institutions?).

This idea continues to form the latest Republican tax proposal, and I think it really deserves a close look.

You see, the Republicans, and their head budget guy, Paul Ryan, have proposed a new tax plan, and their plan does, as promised, cut taxes. A lot. $182,900,000,000.00. In case you're not used to reading numbers like this, it's $182.9 billion.



There's only one problem here. With all that money in tax cuts, who's not getting a tax cut?

You.

That's right, you and everyone else who makes less that $127,769 a year. In fact, the bottom 90% of all taxpayers would receive a tax increase. Not to worry, though, because we are getting a big tax cut in the aggregate. Does it really matter if 100% of those tax cuts are distributed to the highest 10% of all earners?

The Republicans are betting that it won't matter one bit, because they'll still pitch the debate as one where they are proposing a tax cut and Democrats are proposing a tax increase. I would think, though, that there should be a huge difference between the Republicans' usual tactic, which is to package a pittance in tax cuts to the middle class with gigantic tax cuts to the wealthy and this new plan, which is to actually raise taxes on the middle class to fund big tax cuts on the rich.

This is really Robin Hood in reverse.

This should be a winning argument for us, but it has to be made, and made loud and clear, every single day.