Thanks to Hilary Rosen we have discovered that this “War on Women” is even worse than we had first supposed. Her swipe at stay at home mom Ann Romney as ‘never actually having worked a day in her life’, has revealed that this “war” is apparently being waged from all parts of the political spectrum!
While Mrs. Romney has had it easier than a lot of stay at home moms, the connection wasn’t lost that this liberal commentator and lobbyist with ties to the Democratic Party was making; that stay at home moms could hardly be consulted on the economy since they don’t have a “real” job. The connection might have been more difficult to draw if it didn’t have the history among some that a woman choosing the more traditional role of stay at home mom is somehow betraying the cause of feminism.
Having made the “War on Women” now a little too messy to continue with, the administration swiftly distanced themselves from Ms. Rosen’s remarks and moved on to the next distraction. The war of the week this week is right out of the Occupy Wall Street playbook. That’s right folks, it’s the “War on the Poor and the Middle Class”. Instead of working on initiatives that would actually help the working class, in a blatant demonstration of campaigning instead of problem solving; the administration is pushing “The Buffet Rule”, an idea that has zero chance of being enacted, and if it could be, would accomplish nothing. Even the President and our own Chuck Schumer admit that the idea is less a solution than a way to “get us moving in the right direction”, or in Schumer’s words “You’ve got to start somewhere”. Sounds a little like how we got income taxes in the first place, by convincing the public that this will only apply to the rich. One way or another it always trickles down to the rest of us.
The complexity of the tax code exists because the government desires to use it not only to generate funding, but also as a tool for social engineering. The Fair Tax, or some other form of consumption tax would automatically be fairer, if that was really what we were after, since rich people do so much more consuming; but a consumption tax is hard to use to manipulate the public. Behavioral Psychology teaches us that behaviors that are reinforced increase, and behaviors that are not reinforced, or are negatively reinforced, decrease. If we punish investment with heavy taxes, investment will decrease; that’s why the tax break is there, to encourage the rich to earn income via investment as a catalyst to the economy… is this a good time to be slowing down the economy?
IMHO: Children tend to be inordinately concerned with what is fair or not fair. Adults have learned that real life is seldom fair, and so they concern themselves with what works. Of course, when things don’t work, even adults tend to perseverate on how unfair life is! Appealing to class envy is a low and futile avenue to pursue. It is naive to contend that because one man’s piece of the pie is bigger, that somehow that makes yours smaller; and that if somehow you could decrease the size of his piece, that your piece would at least seem bigger… the economy is not a pie; we need to grow up and stop worrying about pie! The rich are rich even in socialist countries, and the most successful income redistribution nations are in totalitarian regimes where everyone is poor except those in charge. The rich always find a way to stay rich, and laws to impoverish the rich generally fall hardest on the middle class. There are two ways to get a rich man’s money; one is to provide him with a good or service whereby he is willing to voluntarily give you some of his riches, often repeatedly. The other way is to rob him… it shouldn’t surprise us if he proves uncooperative in this.
Since the “War on Women” kind of fizzled, a new red herring has been introduced. If this one doesn’t resonate, I’m sure there’s a whole list somewhere that will take us through the election with talking points instead of effective government. Both of these issues will return in various iterations, because apparently there are large blocks of voters these diversions appeal to. Maybe one day we will all grow up and real issues and real solutions will rule the day; in the mean-time, we tilt at wind mills and swim with red herrings.
Yes, the Buffet Rule or a steeply graduated income tax in general is only a small step towards more income equality. It is a necessary step nonetheless since the gap between rich and poor in the United States and other countries has reached historic levels. The trickle-down effect is a lie. Also, your claim that “rich people do so much more consuming” is incorrect. While many Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, spending close to 100% of their income or even indebting themselves on a monthly basis, those better off have the means to save and invest money, which, in turn, should be taxed adequately.
This said, none of the proposals by the political mainstream tackle the underlying causes of wealth inequality which are rooted in the nature of capitalism. The Buffet Tax is nothing but a temporary fix that does little to transform our society into a more just one. If you are suggesting that we should sacrifice fairness for that which works, I strongly disagree. Maybe children tend to be more concerned with what is fair, or just, because their moral compass is still intact. We, who have been brainwashed for decades by capitalist greed, have a great deal to learn from our children. I refuse to live in a society that merely “works” and where injustice is the norm. And the problem is not jealousy over the size of somebody else’s pie, it is the fact that many don’t have a slice of pie to begin with while others stuff themselves.
By the way, what socialist countries are you refering to near the end of your post? There aren’t any socialist countries that I am aware of and the countries you might be thinking of are as “socialist” as Obama’s health care reform. The Paris Commune (where “elected officials took only the average worker’s wage and were subject to recall”) was socialist before it was brutally struck down by the French government. It gives us a glimpse of what democratic socialism really looks like.
Fairness is a concept that very much exists in the eye of the beholder. Having raised seven children, I can tell you that a “moral compass” is not something that is entirely innate, and fairness to a child generally involves making sure “I get mine”. Fairness to some would mean not having the fruits of their success taken from them, to others it means not having the fruits of their labor go to others, to yet others it indicates “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Measuring fairness by disparity of wealth is mathematically problematic, since the distribution is downwardly absolutely limited at zero (not including whatever limited debt the poor can accrue) and upwardly entirely unlimited. In a thriving capitalist economy one would expect disparity to increase as the numbers themselves increase. Double everyone’s income and you double the disparity. To determine the success of an economic system purchasing power, poverty levels, and sustainability are perhaps more accurate measures; and arguments could be made more effectively on these bases.
Socialism tends to be a subjective term as well, and as their are no purely capitalist governments, there are no purely socialist ones either; much to the chagrin of the “true believers” on both sides. Proponents of each insist that their ideas would work if only they were implemented. And while Christ encouraged a child-like faith in matters of our spiritual beliefs, in the realm of political reality this must be tempered with an adult understanding of human nature. One would require more than “a glimpse” at the two month life span of the Paris Commune to determine if it would have been any more sustainable than the Pilgrims’ original experiment with socialism, say a couple of hundred years?
Most consumption taxes, including the Fair Tax make allowances for basic living expenses, and only tax expendable income; they are in that sense, progressive. In my tour of Beverly Hills it certainly seemed that the rich were consuming more! Certainly, people save, people invest, people donate to charity; but the point of having money is to buy stuff, and if you tax what people buy the tax will automatically be graduated to those who consume the most, generally the rich; as long as accommodations are made for the necessities of life.
I could go on to the grander discussion of Capitalism versus Socialism, but the point of the entry was to show that the “Buffet Rule” is a pointless gesture, a red herring intended to gain political advantage in lieu of solving economic problems. As you said, it “…does little to transform our society into a more just one”. On this point we can agree.