Democrats use the phase “paying their fair share” to justify rolling back Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and bringing in significant revenue to set against deficit reduction. This is the wrong sales pitch because it implies that the wealthy should be encouraged to decide on their own that it is “fair” to “give” money to help with the deficit, rather as they make decisions on charitable contributions.
Recall that early in the first Bush Administration then Senate majority leader Trent Lott claimed that taking away more than 30% of an individual’s income for public purposes through taxes was “immoral.” In Lott’s and Republicans’ worldview, the individual has a moral right to keep what he gets, and the moral right to make the decision, as a free choice, to use what he gets for “doing good”. Liberty is the highest value for Republicans for moral reasons.
The Republican ideal is not so much small government as “exclusionary” government. What is excluded out – at least ideally – is any area of public policy where individuals are to be treated equally, any degree of redistribution whether through tax policy, welfare, health or even education spending. The social Darwinism ethos is challenged any time an individual who cannot afford a particular benefit lays claim to it as an entitlement. In right wing ideology, that individual case must be located in a sector where help cannot be presented as a claim, but rather as an appeal to another individual’s or private institution’s inclination (or not) to help out. It is key that the giving be a matter of private choice.
No one has an absolute right to wealth they earned because getting it is so dependent on preexisting institutions and norms, which in a democracy have theoretically been created with the participation of the citizenry as a whole, in many areas with moral justifications. This is precisely the idea of government the Republicans seek to constrict and delegitimize and that Democrats must support. So let’s not appeal to the Republicans sense of “fairness”. Just roll back the tax cuts. Remember, according to a Washington Post poll, 72% of the public support raising taxes on people who make $250,000 or more.
April 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I AM A MEMBER AND SO IS MY WIFE ANNE OF THE WOMAN’S NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CLUB. DR. KAMANSKY AGREES WITH YOUR FUNDAMENTAL THESIS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE BASICALLY EXCLUSIONARY. HOWEVER IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE VERY POOR CANNOT HELP THE VERY POOR SO BE RICH, BUT GIVE. A SOCIETY CANNOT HELP THE POOR BY DESTROYING THE RICH AND THE MOTIVATION TO BECOME RICH. I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA THE KING OF ENTITLEMENT STATES AND THE THE MORE WE ENABLE THE LOW MOTIVATED POOR THE MORE THEY DEPEND ON THE RICH. I WAS BORN IN THE BARRIO IN 1945 AND WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A SHARECROPPER JEW, BUT REALIZED THAT SINCE THIS (IS) AMERICA AND NOT RUSSIA WHERE THERE WAS THE EQUAL SHARING OF MISERY AND POVERTY UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM, THAT WORK IS LOVE MADE VISIBLE. I AM NOW RICH, BUT WOULD NOT MIND BEING TAXED MORE IF IT WENT TO VERY POOR KIDS LIKE ME WHO WANT TO WORK. THE PROBLEM IS THAT I WANT THIS TO BE A VALUE ADDED TAX AND NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. DR. ROBERT KAMANSKY, FORMER CAPTAIN, US ARMY
May 20, 2011 at 8:28 am
The DNC’s Women’s Leadership Conference on Thursday was a rousing call for women, in particular, to get busy for the 2012 election or face the rollback of achievements gained over the last few decades. Women voted for Obama at 56% in 2008 and 48% for Democrats in the 2010 elections. Let’s get organized and active!
May 27, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Periodically I catch up on (1) the Public Policy Statements & Resolutions and (2) the WNDC blog. It’s way past time to say – they’re excellent! (In Quaker-speak: “You speak my mind!”) Many thx for clarity of thought, precision of speech, timely opinions and, most especially, for sharing via the WNDC site!!
February 10, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Sheriff Jimmie Russell…
[...]Democrats vs. Republicans on the Budget: a Clash of Morals. «[...]…