Fare And Balanced

Bob Packwood, former Senator from my former home state, had an editorial in the NY Times Sunday. More famous, at the end of his career, for his (mild, by modern standards) sex scandal than for being Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and despite his Republicanism and his indirect role in the failure of my dad's nomination to the federal bench, I found the piece much in line with my thoughts:

"Some people might assume that we could afford the maximum amount of government largess and still avoid pain for most taxpayers by simply collecting more taxes from the “rich.” Not a chance. Let’s assume, based on historical patterns and President Obama’s suggested spending, that at some point, the spending of all governments in the United States, federal and local, could add up to 40 percent of G.D.P. Mr. Obama proposes to increase the tax rate on income over $250,000 to 39.6 percent. The billions of dollars a year raised by the higher rate won’t begin to cover the trillion or so a year in increased government spending. Nor would current state and local taxes support their share of that spending. Therefore taxes would have to be raised on Americans making less than $250,000...

....we simply cannot raise enough money in taxes from the rich to pay for the programs the president wants.

So we basically have two options: raise taxes on the middle class, or demand that federal, state and local governments spend less."

Although he takes no stand on the dichotomy he raises, I'll assume that's where we part company. I'm guessing he'd opt for the less spending option. I've said here, and to anyone who'd listen, that I think the tax-cuts in Obama's budget are ill-advised. Maybe, in these times, they're justifiable in the short run, although the economists I trust say tax cuts are less stimulative than direct government spending. But this amount of imbalance isn't sustainable, as everyone agrees.

I don't have a problem with the plan to return taxes on the wealthy to the levels they were when the economy was soaring; they'll still be way less than under Republican presidents previous to Clinton. But if we're going to provide health care for all and make college more affordable -- things which, in the long run, will help our country prosper -- the costs are going to have to be spread to more than those making two-fifty kay.

And let's not forget: if taxes go up to pay for those things, family expenses will go down by a similar, if not greater, amount (in fact, that's a part of the debate that rarely gets coverage: if we have a "public" health plan, the money that currently goes from businesses and individuals in the form of premiums will go there instead. Right?) It gets back to that idea of priorities, and what really makes for happiness and security. Senator Packwood (I didn't realize he was still alive!) properly raises the question, and so far President Obama is dancing around the answer.
.

To What End?

[I wrote this two or three weeks ago, but never got around to posting it.]


Where's the balance point?

As we witness the consequences of unfettered greed, of the idea that the accumulation of wealth is the essential goal, of a system built on facilitating the achievement thereof by setting aside -- deferring endlessly -- the needs of the very people who swallow the inequities which allowed the enormous accumulation of wealth at the top, at some point you have to wonder.

Traveling in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, I saw clearly that their form of socialism wasn't working (and that true communism existed only on a few колхозов.) Capitalism, with its incentives and rewards for personal achievement, is a better system; of that I had (and have) no doubt. But I think we've gone overboard, and it threatens to destroy us as surely as the USSR destroyed itself. They in horse-carts, we in Escalades, it's the same cliff, ironically, over which they went and we're going. Neglecting the basics.

My wife is president of the local school board, one of the most successful and responsible in the state. Lowest administrative costs; among the highest achievement scores; enormously diverse, with over forty languages spoken by its students, its schools are a bustling broth. Unlike most, it has managed its finances cautiously and wisely, maintaining reserves. And yet, because of state budget deficits, through no fault of its own, the district faces the possibility of very hurtful cuts in services and personnel. It's a perfect showcase of what's wrong. That, and the fact that in the state budget, health services are also being cut, along with drug programs, correctional facilities, housing assistance, public transportation, and various other necessities of a functioning society.

Question: Why aren't there people teabagging over THAT???

Answer: Because we've lost our way. Because we were led -- most willingly -- down a garden path strewn with false promises. Because of years of being told that government is the problem, that eliminating taxes and services will make us all thrive, that worrying about the basics is socialistic, European, liberal wussiness. Don't look under the rug, we were told; and, since there was nice furniture on top of the rug, and because we preferred to believe it was just fine even as the floorboards got rot, we didn't. And here we are.

Too bad the collapse didn't happen AFTER we fixed some of the stuff, because now we're impossibly screwed. It was so much easier when we were told, by Reagan, then Bush, that we could have it all without paying.

Time to find a new balance point. Which, if the party of family values has anything to say about it, will never happen. Yet, it seems to me, we are at a point of unavoidable choice, between preserving our country, or riding the wave of unfettered greed until it drowns us. If the choice in the long run is -- as I think -- between collapse and retooling, isn't the latter preferable, even if it means everyone has to give a little more? If, to maintain current levels of taxation, we need to let our schools go, ignore climate change, give up on helping the less fortunate, let our health care system become more and more dysfunctional, isn't it a better choice to bite the bullet and pay up? I never agreed with the Obama tax cuts; and I share with the right wing a sense that it's not fair (if it's true) that up to 45% of people pay no taxes at all. When the economy regains its footing, it has to change, to my way of thinking.

I don't claim a crystal ball, nor even a firm grasp on economics; but looking around and adding things up, it's not a stretch to think we really are at -- or well beyond -- the crisis point. To me it's clear the era of tax cuts and ignoring infrastructure and other societal necessities is over, unless we want to take as policy the idea that we'll take what we can get for ourselves and let the country die a slow death. It's a policy. Maybe even a sensible one, if it's true that it's too late to save ourselves. Or if you expect the rapture next week. But if not, we need to sit down and pencil some things out.

It's a really fundamental question, a serious question, which means that in the halls of Congress it will not get useful or honest debate. The party of no to everything but torture (Republicans want all their talking heads to begin referring to Democrats as "The Democrat Socialist Party." Seriously. So that's my counter suggestion: "The Republican Party of No To Everything But Torture.") will never step up with seriousness. When Barack Obama proposes what are in fact modest and likely inadequate tax increases, the RWS™ simply can't discuss it seriously.

Ignorance, after all, is bliss. And the next election is more important than the next generation.
.

Revenue Scream

A little dose of reality for those who scream that Obama is a socialistic wealth-punishing over-taxer.

.