In the last post I argued that Republicans have reversed John Locke’s “life, liberty and property,” putting property (or the wealth of the wealthy) first, liberty second, and life a distant and expendable third. Now Paul Krugman agrees —

If you look for an overarching theme for overall conservative policy these past four decades, it definitely isn’t liberty — by and large the GOP has been enthusiastic about expanding the security and surveillance state. Nor is it in a consistent fashion smaller government, unless you define military and homeland security as not government. Instead, it has been about making the tax-and-transfer system harsher on the poor and easier on the rich. In short, class warfare.

It seems that several Republican governors, whose “conservative” economic policies strangled their states’ economies, are proposing tax increases to make up for loss of revenue. However, Krugman writes, “in every case the tax hike would fall most heavily on those with lower incomes, and many are proposing simultaneous tax cuts for business and/or the wealthy.”

In short, doing more of what hasn’t worked before. Erik Loomis writes,

Watching how Republican presidential possibilities have been talking in the last couple of weeks, it’s pretty clear that they are going to focus on income inequality, but define income inequality as a problem that exists because the rich pay too much in taxes and the poor don’t pay enough. I know this sounds like a terrible strategy for the Republicans, and maybe it is, but I do believe in their ability to obfuscate an issue and twist meanings that the message of income inequality I hope the Democrats run on in 2016 will have a lot of difficulty motivating the public.

Unfortunately, I think he’s right. A substantial portion of the American public will be persuaded that “income inequality” means the rich are being soaked so that the poor can lounge around living high on the hog and food stamps.