To glimpse the true relationship between big business and the State, we need only briefly examine the data on how the political action committees (PACs) of the nation’s largest and most influential companies spend their money. Consider a handful of examples from 2010: That year, major defense contractor Raytheon’s PAC gave 56 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. Aerospace giant Boeing’s PAC split its donations almost down the middle, shelling out 53 percent to the Dems and 47 percent to the GOP. Colossal agribusiness firm Monsanto gave 46 percent to Democrats and 54 percent to Republicans.

These divisions between donkey and elephant of course vary from election to election, depending on everything from the composition of congress to the likelihood of incumbent victory. And certainly marginal differences between individual candidates and even parties themselves may present themselves in a given election. The point, though, is that corporate entities are very much like the state itself, ultimately nonpartisan, interested only in power and self-aggrandizement.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Lately this oversimplified narrative finds itself challenged as business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce increasingly back Democrats as opposed to Tea Party Republicans perceived as more libertarian than the traditional GOP and thus more willing to take policy positions hostile to big business.

Whatever the populist noise embedded in campaign talking points, the simple fact is that both major American political parties play the same corporate, big money game. Despite everything Republocrats say to the contrary, when the rubber hits the road you just won’t find a champion of the little guy among the elected American officialdom. On the contrary, in the end the real struggle isn’t between the Blue and Red teams — it’s between the political process itself, the whole mechanism of political authority, and the rest of us ordinary, working people just trying to pay our bills.

To glimpse the true relationship between big business and the State, we need only briefly examine the data on how the political action committees (PACs) of the nation’s largest and most influential companies spend their money. Consider a handful of examples from 2010: That year, major defense contractor Raytheon’s PAC gave 56 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. Aerospace giant Boeing’s PAC split its donations almost down the middle, shelling out 53 percent to the Dems and 47 percent to the GOP. Colossal agribusiness firm Monsanto gave 46 percent to Democrats and 54 percent to Republicans.

These divisions between donkey and elephant of course vary from election to election, depending on everything from the composition of congress to the likelihood of incumbent victory. And certainly marginal differences between individual candidates and even parties themselves may present themselves in a given election. The point, though, is that corporate entities are very much like the state itself, ultimately nonpartisan, interested only in power and self-aggrandizement.

Make no mistake, our corporate leviathans couldn’t care less who is in office as long as she plays ball, perpetuating a venal game of public and private sector cohesion having nothing whatsoever to do with “liberty and justice for all.” Consider what we might think about a single individual who split his money almost evenly between the two major parties year after year; we may think he was crazy or had multiple personalities. When a single corporate entity does so, however, we regard the move (probably very correctly) as strictly strategic, an illustration of realpolitik and a way for a commercial enterprise to hedge its bets, ensuring good relations with both wings of political establishment.

These concrete collusions between corporate and State power are not necessarily planned or premeditated, but neither are they accidental. A centralized system of politics which grants sweeping law-making and discretionary powers to a relatively small, elite group incentivizes the abuse of those powers in favor of moneyed interests. As the individualist anarchist William Bailie wrote, “Laws are made directly or indirectly in the interest of the capitalist class, and they are always administered and interpreted … in the same spirit.”

Market anarchists look forward to a free and fair economic system in which big business and big government aren’t working together to rig the rules for the powerful and connected. Consistently observed, the freedoms of competition and exchange would in fact undermine the dominance of big business, which now relies on the State for countless special privileges. Since neither Republicans nor Democrats question the fundamental characteristics of this state-corporate system, the road to real change runs through neither.

In a recent survey of the big Wall Street political donors who usually back the GOP, most of the big money people responded to the prospect of a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton contest by saying “Meh. Either way’s fine.” But if Jeb decides not to run and Chris Christie doesn’t recover from Bridgegate, the financial industry will probably back Clinton in preference to the loose cannons of the Tea Party. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who held Clinton fundraisers in 2008, would reportedly be “very happy” with either Bush or Clinton.

And frankly, it’s hard to see why Wall Street would object to an establishment Democrat at all. Clinton, in a closed speech to Goldman Sachs executives last year, told them exactly what they wanted to hear. Democratic administrations are just as prone as Republicans — at least! — to packing cabinets with Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alumni. And while they talk a good game, in practice the “progressive” wing of the party is about the same. Senator Elizabeth Warren, leader of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” recently expressed grave concern over the number of Obama administration appointees from Citigroup — right before voting to confirm Goldman Sachs veteran Stanley Fischer’s appointment to the Federal Reserve. See, Warren may rubber-stamp Wall Street control of government policy just like a DFC Democrat — but she feels really, really guilty about it.

Meanwhile, Bill Scher at The Week (“Ralph Nader wants liberals to back Rand Paul. Don’t do it,” May 1, 2014) sees corporate CEOs as much more congenial allies for liberals than libertarian civil liberties activists (he warns against Nader’s call to “side with government-hating libertarians over government-accepting corporations”). In contrast to Nader’s stated goal of “dismantling the Corporate State,” Scher argues that liberalism achieved its quiet victories through the 20th century with “some degree of corporate support,” and that the “coalition to nurture” for liberals in the future is “the CEOs.”

See, business loves the stability and certainty that comes with a state-regulated economy, along with the reassurance “that they will remain profitable.” One item in particular that makes both liberals’ and corporate CEOs’ hearts go pitty-pat is “investment in infrastructure”: the Interstate Highway System and the giant Army Corps of Engineers dams that Rachel Maddow talks about in her “great things” TV spots. Of course big business likes to “fund infrastructure.” Heavily subsidized, high-volume transportation infrastructure was what centralized the American economy in the 20th century under the control of a few dozen oligopoly corporations, and enabled big box retailers to destroy Main Street.

So if you’re looking for an “anti-corporate” party in American politics, there isn’t one.

~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

The GOP ironically seeks control in rendering the country ungovernable through obstructionism. They are upset that the Democratic Party wing of the ruling class blocks their ability to exert total control and governance. This is borne out by the ironic fact that even the government shutdown involved giving orders to government agents to prevent people from visiting memorials or national parks. A further examination reveals the GOP establishment’s support for criminalization of abortion and persecution of undocumented immigrants. These are hardly people who truly despise government in any principled manner.

The above mentioned type of obstructionism needs to be clearly distinguished from the genuine desire of the anarchist to render things ungovernable for the structurally privileged ruling class. A humane anarchist would seek to obstruct the functioning of government in a manner conducive to the well-being of those still dependent upon government for survival. An example would be prioritizing the rendering of the DEA dysfunctional over the food stamps program. The abolition of food stamps preferably follows freed market forces creating a radically more equal distribution of wealth. This will allow for the organization of egalitarian working class mutual aid societies.

In einem abscheulich lächerlichen Washington Post Kommentar („Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.“ 28. November) legt Stuart Stevens, der Mann, der als Hauptstratege in Romneys Kampagne gearbeitet hat, dar, dass sein Kandidat „die Mehrheit jeder ökonomischen Gruppe, bis auf derer, die weniger als 50.000$ im Jahr als Haushaltseinkommen aufweisen können, erlangt hat.“

Angesichts dieser Tatsache argumentiert Stevens, dass „jede Partei, die die Mehrheit der Mittelschicht erobert, etwas richtig machen muss.“ Stevens Behauptung gibt eine andere, einige Monate zurückliegende, sinnlose Bemerkung von Romneys Seite wieder, Romneys 47-Prozent-Ausrutscher, dass die politischen Lektionen den Republikanern offensichtlich abhandengekommen sind (nicht, dass dies schlecht wäre).

Die Kampagne, durch ihren Kandidaten, behauptete, dass arme Menschen Demokraten wählen, da sie von der Regierung abhängig sind. Nun deutet Stevens an, dass Menschen, die hart arbeiten und gutes Geld machen, republikanische Politik unterstützen. Die Ironie liegt natürlich dabei, was Marktanarchisten kontinuierlich verdeutlichen angesichts solch idiotischer Verunglimpfungen der Erwerbsarmut – dass die republikanische (und übrigens auch die demokratische) Version des „freien Unternehmertums“ ein aufgeschichteter Stapel ist, der systematisch Arbeit zugunsten von Kapital benachteiligt.

Staatliche Privilegien umgeben Big Business, schützen es vor Wettbewerb und unterwerfen Arbeiter der Gnade von Bossen, die ihnen Pennies des produzierten Dollars als Löhne zahlen können. Die Reichen können sich zurücklegen und die Spitze der harten Arbeit der Angestellten abschöpfen, da Landzuteilungen, Subventionen (direkte oder indirekte), Regierungsaufträge und teure regulatorische Auflagen gemischt die ökonomischen Interessen der Elite vor Wettbewerb schützen.

Die anzügliche Prunksucht, dass Republikaner gut ohne die Stimmen dieser ungewaschenen Massen unter 50.000 zurechtkommen, ist verblüffend anzuschauen. Stevens würde davon profitieren, das ökonomische System „republikanischer Ideale“ aufrecht zu erhalten gegen einen legitimen – und momentan natürlich rein hypothetischen – befreiten Markt, besonders wenn der Median persönlicher Einkommen in diesem Land bei ca. 40.000$ liegt.

Sollte er dies tun, würde es wohl klar werden (obwohl es Grund gibt, dies zu bezweifeln), dass „Reiche lange genug das Ziel von Wohltätigkeit gewesen sind“, wie es Ezra Heywood formulierte. Marktanarchisten würden die Privilegien der Mächtigen und einflussreichen Kräfte in der Wirtschaft beseitigen und somit das kapitalistische System zugunsten wirklich freien Wettbewerbs und freier Märkte auflösen. Freiwilliger Tausch und Kooperation, losgelöst von den Fesseln eines einst von Anarchisten so bezeichneten „Klassenrechts“, sind nicht nur unschädlich, sondern ein großer Segen.

Republikaner, Demokraten und der Rest der verfassungsgebenden Teile des politischen Systems dienen solchen missbräuchlichen Privilegien – das ist ihre Aufgabe auf einer wesentlichen Ebene. Statt ihnen Ehrerbietung oder selbst Beachtung zu widmen, sollten wir uns daran machen, die Gesellschaft zu schaffen, in der wir auf einer gegenseitigen Basis leben wollen, mit unseren Freunden und Nachbarn, praktische Politik für eine Weile verwerfend, oder sogar für immer.

Der ursprüngliche Artikel wurde geschrieben von David S. D‘Amato und veröffentlicht am 01. Dezember 2012.

Übersetzt aus dem Englischen von Achim Fischbach.

Among the most interesting features of the debate on health care in the United States is the relationship it assumes between the major corporate players and the federal government. The mainstreams of both right and left perpetuate the accepted orthodoxy — that the two are locked in a permanent clash, with the state as a bulwark preventing the free market from leaving the poor and elderly without medical care.

The foregoing account breaks down, however, when we observe that, as a practical matter, the relationship between powerhouse business interests and the central state is far from adversarial. Health insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies spend millions lobbying policymakers for just the kinds of legal privileges that have cut competitive pressure off at its knees.

Following the money, it isn’t hard to understand why consumers and especially vulnerable groups are an afterthought in the corporate quest for higher profits; the most entrenched commercial groups have the state bought and paid for, outlawing meaningful competition that could actually rescue us from the crisis we’re witnessing in health care. In fact, among all of the billions that American corporations spend on lobbying each year,  Big Pharma leads the pack, spending about $2.6 billion from 1998 to 2012.

If you wonder what that kind of money buys from the country’s “public servants,” the United States has some of the strictest, most stifling intellectual property laws in the world, granting rich companies exclusive rights that translate to monopoly mark-ups for consumers. And if you think that the coming implementation of the Affordable Care Act — better known as Obamacare — will allay the pain of those in need, guess again.

The centerpieces of the new law are a powerful inducement for pressing the states to expand a decaying Medicaid system and a rule forcing everyone to buy health insurance. Rather than hanging the poor out to dry by funneling them into Medicaid, where they’ll receive notoriously low quality treatment, market anarchists suggest simply eliminating the special, anti-competitive rules that now fill our supposed “free market” system.

End the subsidies, regulatory and licensing barriers to market entry, and extreme intellectual property rules (just to name a few broad categories of privilege), and we’ll start to see a very different health care system and level of quality coverage. With legitimately free and open competition, consumers will no longer be fed directly to a handful of oligopoly firms in each state, and the poor won’t be relegated to a rickety Medicaid system with such low reimbursement rates that many providers won’t even accept it. Instead, the real welfare queens (to redeem an ugly phrase), the privileged corporate elite, would see their profit margins dwindle in the face of experimentation by free individuals and communities.

Market anarchists understand that a real change, one that would actually benefit ordinary, working people, requires an end to the state’s protectorship of big money interest — which indeed is the state’s ultimate purpose. Anything short of that, and we’re leaving the problem and all attending future crises in place.

Doy por hecho que ningún político es merecedor de otra cosa que no sea desprecio y escarnio, de que casi la totalidad de ellos representan un sistema de poder y privilegio que equivale al robo legalizado a gran escala. Bueno, dicho esto, los republicanos — por su alucinante habilidad para apartarse de la realidad — podrían conseguir el premio a los más desconectados de ésta.

En un execrablemente ridículo artículo de opinión en el Washington Post (“Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.” 28 de noviembre), el hombre que trabajó como jefe de estrategia de la campaña de Romney, Stuart Stevens, señala que su hombre “llegó a la mayoría de cada grupo económico excepto en aquellos con ingresos familiares inferiores a 50.000 $ al año.”

Dado este hecho, argumenta Stevens, “cualquier partido que capte a la mayoría de la clase media debe de estar haciendo algo bien.” El argumento de Stevens refleja otra observación estúpida de hace meses desde la parte de Romney, la metedura de pata de Romney y el 47 por ciento, las lecciones políticas por las cuales los republicanos están, obviamente, superados (no es que eso sea algo malo).

La campaña, a través de su candidato, decía que la gente pobre vota a los demócratas porque son dependientes del gobierno. Ahora, Stevens sugiere que la gente que trabaja duro y gana un buen dinero apoya las políticas republicanas. La ironía, por supuesto, es una que los anarquistas de mercado continuamente plantan en la cara de este tipo de insultos imbéciles a los trabajadores pobres — que la versión republicana (y casualmente demócrata) de la “empresa libre” es una baraja con las cartas marcadas que sistemáticamente perjudica al trabajo en favor del capital.

Los privilegios estatales rodean a la gran empresa, protegiéndola de la competencia y dejando a los trabajadores a merced de jefes que pueden pagarles unos centavos por dólar producido como salario. Los ricos pueden recostarse y llevarse lo mejor de la parte dura del trabajo, gracias a las cesiones de terreno, los subsidios (directos e indirectos), los contratos con el gobierno y una combinación de costosas obligaciones normativas para proteger de la competencia los intereses económicos de las élites.

La pomposidad de insinuar que a los republicanos les va bien sin los votos de esas sucias masas que ganan menos de 50k es asombrosa. Stevens se podría beneficiar de sostener el sistema económico de “ideales republicanos” contra un legítimo — y actualmente, por supuesto, estrictamente hipotético — mercado liberado, especialmente cuando los ingresos medios por persona en este país son unos 40.000 $.

Si lo hiciera, le podría quedar claro (aunque uno pueda dudarlo) que, como dijo Ezra Heywood, “los ricos ya han sido los sujetos  de la caridad el tiempo suficiente”. Los anarquistas de mercado eliminarían los privilegios de las fuerzas poderosas e influyentes  dentro de la economía para así disolver el sistema capitalista en favor de una competencia y unos mercados realmente libres. El  intercambio voluntario y la cooperación, cuando son liberados de los grilletes de lo que los anarquistas una vez llamaron “legislación de clase,” no son sólo inocuos, sino una gran bendición.

Republicanos, demócratas y el resto de las partes constituyentes del sistema político sirven a estos abusivos privilegios — ese es fundamentalmente su trabajo. En lugar de concederles deferencia o incluso atención, debemos ponernos manos a la obra para crear la sociedad en la que queremos vivir de manera común, con nuestros amigos y vecinos, desechando la política práctica por un tiempo, incluso para siempre.

Artículo original publicado por David S. D’Amato el 01 de diciembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Tomás Braña.

In an execrably ridiculous Washington Post opinion piece (“Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.” November 28), the man who worked as the Romney campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, points out that his guy “carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.”

Given that fact, Stevens argues, “any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.” Stevens’s argument reflects another witless remark from the Romney side months ago, Romney’s 47 percent gaffe, the political lessons of which are obviously lost on Republicans (not that that’s a bad thing).

The campaign, through its candidate, was saying that poor people vote for Democrats because they’re dependent on the government. Now, Stevens suggests that people who work hard and make good money support Republican policies. The irony, of course, is one that market anarchists continually point out in the face of this kind of imbecilic insult to the working poor — it’s that the Republicans’ (and Democrats’ incidentally) version of “free enterprise” is a stacked deck that systematically disadvantages labor in favor of capital.

State privilege surrounds big business, protecting it from competition and throwing workers at the mercy of bosses who can pay them pennies on the produced dollar in wages. The rich can recline and skim off the top of labor’s hard work, because land grants, subsidies (direct and indirect), government contracts and costly regulatory obligations blend to protect elite economic interests from competition.

The pomposity of insinuating that Republicans are just fine without the votes of those unwashed masses making under 50k is amazing to behold. Stevens would benefit from holding the economic system of “Republican ideals” up against a legitimate — and now, of course, strictly hypothetical — freed market, especially when the median personal income in this country is about $40,000.

If he did so, it might become clear to him (though one has reason to doubt it) that, as Ezra Heywood said, “Rich people have been the subjects of charity long enough.” Market anarchists would remove the privileges for powerful and influential forces within the economy and thus dissolve the capitalist system in favor of real free competition and markets. Voluntary exchange and cooperation, when delivered from the fetters of what anarchists once called “class legislation,” are not only innocuous, but are a great blessing.

Republicans, Democrats and the rest of the political system’s constituent parts serve those abusive privileges — that’s their job on a fundamental level. Instead of granting them deference or even attention, we ought to get down to the business of creating the society we want to live in on a mutual basis, with our friends and neighbors, discarding practical politics for awhile, even forever.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, Privilegio y pomposidad en la política.
• Deutsch, Privilegien und Prunksucht in der Politik.

Es el “juego de la gallina” de Rebelde sin Causa que vuelve a repetirse. Pero esta vez están conduciendo TUS autos.

Mientras republicanos y demócratas van a toda velocidad hacia un supuesto “abismo fiscal”, cada uno esperando que el otro salte de su auto primero, sus partidarios guardan la esperanza de que los hechos se pierdan en la palabrería. Repasemos esos hechos.

Primero, el “abismo fiscal” es una fantasía creada por los políticos. No existe un “problema de ingresos”. El “problema” está en el lado del gasto. Los ingresos del gobierno de los Estados Unidos han aumentado 19% desde el 2009. No creo que la mayoría de los lectores de este artículo hayan corrido con la misma suerte. Por alguna razón, los políticos nunca aprenden a gastar menos de lo que les ingresa, independientemente de lo rápido que crezcan esos ingresos.

En segundo lugar, ninguno de los dos partidos propone recortes generales en los gastos del estado. Los pocos recortes reales son discretos y sobre programas específicos, y además son más que compensados por el crecimiento proyectado en otros, gracias al método contable del baseline budgeting usado en Washington para calcular el presupuesto del gobierno federal.

Tercero, todo el discurso sobre “bajar los impuestos” (para quien sea) es ficticio. Si el gasto del gobierno aumenta, los impuestos tienen que aumentar también. Los aumentos impositivos pueden estar escondidos en la devaluación de la moneda emitida por el estado, o puede que los pagos de los aumentos se difieran temporalmente al añadirlos a la “deuda nacional”. Pero no hay almuerzos gratis.

Toda la controversia sobre el “abismo fiscal” es simplemente otra de las tantas telenovelas politiqueras. Obama, Boehner y compañía quieren que tú estés tan preocupado sobre si a uno o al otro se le queda la manga atascada en la manija de la puerta y caiga al vacío hacia una muerte entre las llamas, que se te olvide que son TUS autos (con tu chequera en la guantera) los que fueron robados por los políticos para usarlos en su último despliegue de machismo.

Si a los políticos les importase de verdad evitar el desastre, propondrían recortes verdaderos. Se harían cargo de su adicción al despilfarro, balancearían sus chequeras y no gastarían más que sus enormes ingresos (los ingresos presupuestados del gobierno de Estados Unidos para el 2013 llegan a 5,5 billones de dólares, o 18.000 dólares por cada hombre, mujer y niño del país).

Pero los políticos solo se toman en serio el echarle la culpa a las víctimas. Todo es culpa tuya, por ser tan tacaño… ¿Es que no lo ves? Tú (y todos los demás estadounidenses) ya le regalan a los políticos el equivalente de un sueldo mínimo de tiempo completo todos los años. Pero eso no es suficiente. Tal como diría Jim Stark, “¡Los estás destrozando!”.

Como todos los parásitos, el estado ha evolucionado hacia una y solo una manera de sobrevivir: su instinto es chuparte la sangre, crecer a costas tuyas, hasta dejarte seco por completo. El drama del “abismo fiscal” no es más que el equivalente político de la garrapata que se esconde entre tu vello corporal, o una sanguijuela que excreta un químico analgésico para que no te des cuenta de su presencia y efecto.

Al fin y al cabo, si llegases a ver al parásito y a saber lo que en realidad es, te lo arrancarías, lo tirarías al suelo y lo pisotearías con fuerza. Lo cual es, por supuesto, exactamente lo que deberías hacer.

Deja que Jim y Buzz manejen “sus” autos hacia el despeñadero. No trates de detenerlos. No trates de rescatarlos. Y no vuelvas a dejar tus llaves en el encendido.

Artículo original publicado por Thomas L. Knapp, el 29 de noviembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

As the Democrats and Republicans in government race toward an alleged “fiscal cliff,” each hoping the other will leap from his vehicle first, their supporters hope that a few facts will get lost in the trash-talk. Let’s go over those facts.

First, this “fiscal cliff” is entirely of the politicians’ own making. There is no “revenue problem.” The “problem” is entirely on the spending side. The US government’s income has increased by 19% since 2009. Has yours? For some reason, the politicians never can find a way to live within their means, no matter how fast those means grow.

Secondly, neither side is proposing real overall spending cuts. The few real cuts are discrete cuts to specific programs, which will be outweighed by projected “baseline budgeting” growth in others. Most of the cuts are just cuts in that projected growth. Under even the most “draconian” proposals, the size and cost of the federal government will continue to grow indefinitely.

Third, all talk of “tax cuts” — for anyone — is smoke and mirrors. If government spending increases, taxes must increase as well. Those tax increases may be hidden through debasement of the regime’s fiat currency, or payment of the increases may be temporarily deferred by adding them to the “national debt,” but There’s No Such Thing As A Free Dollar.

This whole “fiscal cliff” controversy is just another trumped-up passion play. Obama, Boehner et. al want you to be so concerned that one side or the other might get its jacket sleeve caught on the door handle and plunge to a fiery death that you’ll forget it’s YOUR vehicles — with your paychecks in the glove compartments, by the way — that they stole from the curb and took out for their latest display of machismo.

If the politicians were serious about averting the crash, they’d put real spending cuts on the table. They’d rein in their spending addiction, balance their checkbook, and live within the insanely large means already available to them (budgeted US government revenues for 2013 come to $5.5 trillion, or about $18,000 from every man, woman and child in the United States).

But they aren’t serious about anything except blaming the victim. It’s all your fault, see, for being so stingy. You (and every other American) are already handing over more than the equivalent of a full-time, minimum-wage paycheck to them every year, but that’s just not enough. As Jim Stark might say, “you’re tearing [them] apart!”

Like all parasites, the state is evolved toward one and only one means of survival: It is driven to suck your blood, growing itself at your expense, until it has drained you dry. The “fiscal cliff” drama is just the political class equivalent of a tick hiding in your hairy places, or a leech secreting a pain-killing chemical to keep you from noticing its presence and its effect.

After all, if you see the parasite and know it for what it is, you might tear it off, throw it to the ground and stomp, hard. Which, of course, is exactly what you should do.

Let Jim and Buzz drive “their” cars off the cliff. Don’t try to stop them. Don’t try to rescue them. And don’t leave your keys in the ignition again.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, El “Abismo Fiscal”: Jim y Buzz Redux.