Who is representing "We the people"?

The Republican push to pass a tax bill this year provides a lesson in how things really work 130 years after the creation of the Constitution. The lesson is this: Forget what you might have heard about members of the House of Representatives and the Senate representing the people. (Senators originally represented the states and were selected by state legislatures. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 provided for "direct election" of senators.) The voters are not being consulted in this effort to rewrite U.S. tax law. Calling the shots are not voters but corporations and foundations — wealthy donors to political campaigns and the tax-exempt "think tanks" that provide ideas, research and wording for congressional actions.

One look at the tax bill shows the consequences of this shift in representation from voters to big business, from people to money. The winners in the complex tax bill are politically powerful corporations and the top one percent of taxpayers. Despite repeated claims that the "middle class" is getting a tax cut, closer analysis shows the middle-income taxpayers get little or no tax relief. And to provide the tax benefits to rich individuals and richer corporations, Congress is cutting programs aimed at helping the poor and people striving to achieve the upward mobility this country once stood for. Health care, income assistance, education, food programs, low-income housing and other assistance for poor and middle-income Americans are being cut to pay for the tax reductions being given to the wealthy.

Public opinion polls show widespread distrust of the tax bill provisions; the people are catching on to the lies about tax cuts for working Americans. This epiphany compounds long-standing distrust of Congress. Who can blame voters for thinking their opinions and their votes don't matter? If you can't make big donations to political campaigns or establish a tax-exempt research foundation, your voice in Washington is drowned out by those with more powerful amplifiers.

For this system to change, it will take something other than the Steve Bannon strategy of tearing down the congressional establishment and the "deep state" in favor of more government of, by and for big corporations. A slim possibility for major change lies in the likelihood that if the current tax bill passes, voters will find their tax deductions ended, their educational opportunities closed, their health care unavailable and their prospects hopelessly bleak. If that happens, voters may revolt and demand an end to the oligarchy of wealthy donors and corporations controlling Washington. They may demand revolutionary change in campaign finances, lobbying, ethics, party leadership and simple attention to voters' true interests.

A tax controversy that shouldn't be

It's hard to believe that the proposal before Congress to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to everyone with an income below $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples) has become so controversial. President Obama, in keeping with his 2008 campaign promise, has proposed extending the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. He would eliminate the 2001-2003 tax cuts for the top 2 percent of wage earners. Restoring the old tax rates (misleadingly referred to by opponents as raising taxes) would help reduce the menacing federal budget deficit.

The Republican leadership in Congress has taken an all-or-nothing approach to extending the tax cuts — either the rich get theirs along with the poor and middle class or everyone will suffer. A recent poll found about half of Americans support the Republican position. I'm old enough to remember (and it wasn't so many years ago) that the Republicans touted themselves deficit hawks — they wanted to balance the federal budget, even if it was painful. Fully extending the Bush era tax cuts would cost the federal government four times what the economic stimulus package and health care reform — packages roundly criticized by Republicans for exploding the federal deficit — would cost combined!

Politicians (and voters) have short memories. One of President Bush's reasons for the 2001 tax cuts was that the federal deficit was running a surplus — it was taking in more money than it was spending. Budget surpluses were projected decades into the future. Bush argued that Washington should let the taxpayers keep the money the government didn't need.

To say the least, things have changed since then. A terrorist attack, two wars and an economic collapse later, the federal government is spending about a trillion dollars more than it takes in each year. A federal commission is looking into ways to reduce that deficit. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, says the problem is government spending, not taxation. But the real problem, as with any business or family budget, is the combination of the two. If Congress cannot find a practical way to curtail spending — and it has been powerless to do that in the past decade — then increased revenues are the only available solution.

Allowing tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to return to normal levels and reinstating the estate tax at a reasonable, fixed level would have no impact whatsoever on more than 98 percent of Americans. It would also begin the process of addressing budget deficits and signal financial markets that Washington can do something about the deficit.

What is amazing is that this proposal is so controversial.