Government's Long, Grubby Fingers
In the WSJ, AEI prez Arthur C. Brooks hones in on what the debt ceiling battle is really about:
This is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade....Where will it all lead? Some despairing souls have concluded there are really only two scenarios. In one, we finally hit a tipping point where so few people actually pay for their share of the growing government that a majority become completely invested in the social welfare state, which stabilizes at some very high level of taxation and government social spending. (Think Sweden.)
In the other scenario, our welfare state slowly collapses under its weight, and we get some kind of permanent austerity after the rest of the world finally comprehends the depth of our national spending disorder and stops lending us money at low interest rates. (Think Greece.)
In other words: Heads, the statists win; tails, we all lose.
He rightly says that anyone seeking national office in 2012 needs to provide Americans an escape plan. And he's also absolutely right about this: "We need tectonic changes, not minor fiddling."
He continues:
Rep. Paul Ryan's (R., Wis.) budget plan is the kind of model necessary. But structural change will only succeed if it's accompanied by a moral argument--an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture....If reformers want Americans to embrace real change, every policy proposal must be framed in terms of self-realization, meritocratic fairness and the promise of a better future. Why do we want to lower taxes for entrepreneurs? Because we believe in earned success. Why do we care about economic growth? To make individual opportunity possible, not simply to increase wealth. Why do we need entitlement reform? Because it is wrong to steal from our children.
The Mighty Burge.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 11:20 PM
PS- My money's on Scenario Two from the text you quote. Democrats think taxes can be raised again and again... And it doesn't really matter whether or not they're right. It's the world's goodwill and faith in our discipline that's been squandered. The value isn't there.
Soon enough, the statists (and all the government employees demanding fulfillment of their entitlements) are going to be compelled to approach households for the wealth they know (or believe) to be stashed within. And this ain't a nation of roll-over bumpkins. I'm not a violent guy, but having this collapse happen in the country with the Second Amendment is going to make this interesting.
(Not saying you should buy canned goods and ammo, but I hope you enjoyed recent decades as much as I did.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 11:42 PM
Sweet Jesus, Let this be true.
(Note that the monster liberals who're withdrawing their love for the Chicagoan still want to increase the power and indebtedness of government.)
Albert Brooks may be on to something; Maybe we should sell off some assets.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 5:21 AM
The United States has had a managed economy for 150 years now(cartel economy), returning to a free enterprise system would be a great start! Meritocratic fairness exists in theroy alone, but is still the morally prefered goal to the alternatives.
nuzltr2 at July 26, 2011 6:11 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/07/25/110725taco_talk_packer
Lisa Simeone at July 26, 2011 7:37 AM
Those who oppose raising the debt ceiling favor a policy course that guarantees the following: a return to recession (certainly in the U.S., and likely worldwide), increasing inflation, higher mortgage, credit card and other loan rates, significant losses in nearly everyone's retirement portfolios, among other problems I'm sure I haven't contemplated. For all the complaints about how bad things are now for people, they will certainly get worse.
You may think that this pain is a necessary step toward an austere and more limited state. Finally we will be forced to live within our means. But the opposite may very well be true - this pain may lead to calls for more intervention by government rather than less.
Christopher at July 26, 2011 8:39 AM
Lisa, there's a no-fair line in there:
This cartoonishly understates the argument of his opponents. They want smaller, less intrusive, less-activist government... Not just "tax cuts" for more walkin' around money... Or yacht money, for that matter.
It's strange that a piece which begins by acknowledging this very real ideological conflict would, short paragraphs later, mock the new, responsible force in American politics as simple and wholly self-interested. It is neither.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 8:48 AM
Let's start with the so-called "defense" budget. Right now it's an "offense" budget. Fewer trillion-dollar invasions might help.
As to the local outrages, check out today's latest: Governor Brown signs a bill helping illegal aliens.
http://news.yahoo.com/california-dream-act-approved-illegal-immigrants-013617230.html
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 26, 2011 8:55 AM
> Fewer trillion-dollar invasions
Which ones do you mean? Like, Libya?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 9:26 AM
Jeez, where were these pompous, pious pettifoggers like Brooks when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush jr. were running deficits--in a healthy economy?
And why were they not fawning over Clinton (who ran federal surpluses)?
Oh, you mean they are just party hacks? Braying carnival barkers? Strumpets?
And, hwy or why does no one mentioned defense outlays have doubled in real terms in the last 10 years, even as we have no real military enemies?
BOTU at July 26, 2011 9:32 AM
This is such a dishonest argument. The wealthiest two percent of Americans don't pay anything near their fair share of taxes. Hell, *I* don't pay anything near my fair share of taxes. Anyone who can look at America and not see how clearly we are owned and operated by big business is blind. Anyone who complains that taxing the wealthy harms entrepreneurs is either a moron, or lying to you. We are at the tail end of a savage class war, and - surprise surprise - the people with the money are winning.
Cut defense, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (for whom this is strictly and solely an academic issue) and we're done with this shit. It really is that simple.
Josh Olson at July 26, 2011 10:03 AM
Dude, comments go best when you can sustain a coherent narrative over at least two paragraphs.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 10:16 AM
"Crid,"
No narrative to sustain here. The notion that the way to best help society is to free the richest and most powerful members of that society from financial obligation is literally insane. It demands that one have no understanding of human nature, economics, history, or politics. A heady brew of ignorance there, "Crid."
The notion that the richest Americans are so abused by the tax system that they're nearing the point of violence is equally lunatic. Tell a working, middle class family who's buried under a mountain of debt that the scumbags responsible for the economic crisis who've been giving themselves huge bonuses and tax breaks are so angry they're about to pick up a gun. We're getting into French Revolution turf here, bubba. The suggestion that the rich are the aggrieved party at this point in history is one of the most morally repellant ideas you could possibly put forward.
Josh Olson at July 26, 2011 10:38 AM
> No narrative to sustain here.
Well, at least you admit it.
> The notion that the way to best help society
> is to free the richest and most powerful
> members of that society from financial
> obligation is literally insane.
Who said anything of the kind?
More later. (I love it when people are wrong... Wrong, wrong wrong.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2011 10:51 AM
What exactly is their "fair" share?
The top 1% of earners already pay just under 40% of income taxes. The top 25% of earners pay just under 90% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay less than 3% of income taxes.
Leftists keep harping that the rich should pay their "fair" share without stating what exactly that "fair" share is. Is it 50% of their income? Is it 75%? What is "fair?"
At some point, taxation is more than an "academic issue" and has real economic impact. People make economic decisions based on avoiding costs (including taxes). I have a coworker who believes that people should be taxed by their ability to pay (the "fair share" argument); but he orders his toiletries from an online pharmacy to avoid sales taxes. He doesn't see the contradiction. Most leftists don't.
Or, is "fair share" just another way of stirring up class resentments in a "savage class war?"
*You're* free to pay more.
Conan the Grammarian at July 26, 2011 11:18 AM
I think you fail to understand something. Income and wealth are not the same thing.
Ted Kennedy was happy to raise income taxes on high earners and piously claim his income was being taxed too. But his wealth was safely secured in trust funds.
Liberal rich guys like to self-righteously claim their income is not taxed enough. But that's a shell game. Touch their wealth and you'll hear them howl.
Conan the Grammarian at July 26, 2011 11:30 AM
"Liberal rich guys like to self-righteously claim their income is not taxed enough. But that's a shell game. Touch their wealth and you'll hear them howl."
Even more to the point, leftists routinely cheat on their taxes, with full knowledge that their buddies in government will call off the dogs if they get caught. How many admitted tax cheats are there in the current Administration? And of those, how many have been prosecuted?
Cousin Dave at July 26, 2011 3:16 PM
"Cut defense, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (for whom this is strictly and solely an academic issue) and we're done with this shit. It really is that simple."
Interesting that you think so. You could tax the top 25% of earners at 100% of their income, and eliminate the defense budget (you know, one of the few things the federal government is constitutionally REQUIRED to provide) and still not touch our debt. Great job repeating the leftist erroneous talking points, though.
If you could answer me one question-why is it the people who say they aren't taxed enough, never pay more? No one is stopping you. But I'm willing to bet you grab every deduction you can.
In the meantime, the more of us who take a page from the democratic administration playbook and simply don't pay our taxes, the better. Bleed the beast dry, it's the only way to kill it.
momof4 at July 26, 2011 5:26 PM
"Tell a working, middle class family who's buried under a mountain of debt that the scumbags responsible for the economic crisis who've been giving themselves huge bonuses and tax breaks"
Josh, I think it's important to distinguish here between ordinary hard-working job-creating entrepreneurs (small/medium business owners) who have been steadily earning their success honestly (people like this http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=1586), and corrupt cronyist rich people such as politically connected bankers who are beneficiaries of the greatest theft in human history.
The former are having a (comparatively) tougher time than ever but still create the most jobs for the middle; the latter are the ones getting the huge bonuses and tax breaks and are the ones stealing from the middle class and destroying jobs. The mistake in your thinking is to lump all "rich people" into one category. It's an understandable mistake, given that the politics of the day is to deliberately spread propaganda to that effect, so that people like you incorrect blame the wrong people instead of the guilty ones.
Lobster at July 26, 2011 8:17 PM
I can't find the link off-hand, but if you were to tax all income over $250K at 100% -- starting today -- it would be be about $3 billion a year. The government is burning through about $4 billion every twelve hours.
And in what world is it fair to me that I have to pay thousands of dollar of my money to the federal and state government? I did not work for the government. I worked to provide for my self. But is it fair that 47% pay no taxes or get more back.
Why isn't it fair that everyone should have to provide at least $5 dollars of their money to government?
Once you can answer that -- I'll listen to you. But for right now everyone is saying soak the rich. What happens when there are no more "rich"?
Jim P. at July 26, 2011 8:24 PM
Coney & company have pretty much done this one....
> when Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush jr.
> were running deficits
Some women like manicures. Yet when you cut off their arms just above the elbow, they get all pissy... Imagine!
> why were they not fawning over Clinton
Because Reagan set him up for the revenue. Also, he was a fuckhead.
Now Josh, why are you complaining that too few people are paying taxes in one paragraph, and that it's time to really soak the rich in the next?
Most Americans pay no taxes. They don't care how big and powerful government gets. Their brains and talent have been removed from the process. Meanwhile, you'll have noticed that all the really rich people tend to get their regulatory needs met no matter what. I don't think you know much about "nature, economics, history, or politics." I think you're being spun by a government that exploits some of the most primitive forces in your brain... Especially if you're old enough to vote. And I'm not sure yet.
Comments like yours are why I added those links about trolls in the other thread. People complain that internet commenters are boorish and mean-spirited... Without acknowledging that first-time participants, while having never expressed or defended their goofy ideas in any forum, are outrageously optimistic about their chances for finding the agreement and admiration they seem to crave.
I bet this guy Josh is OK in person... BECAUSE HE NEVER DISCUSSES SUCH THINGS.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2011 12:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/26/governments_lon_1.html#comment-2383572">comment from Josh OlsonHell, *I* don't pay anything near my fair share of taxes.
Josh, it shouldn't be hard to look up the address of the IRS and send them more money.
It's sort of a reverse Bastiat, no?
(Per Bastiat, just because we object to government doing something doesn't mean we object to it being done at all.)
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2011 1:22 AM
Check this one out: Apple has more cash than the USA.
The "tell": "Since Apple takes in more money than it spends and the U.S. government does the opposite, the company by now has considerably more cash on hand than Uncle Sam."
The key: even if a demand is created, YOU CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE, without exceptions, such as those made for people who might vote the "right way".
(Somebody tell Richard Bennett, hm?)
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 5:55 PM
Leave a comment