Democracy and freedom don't always go together well. Many believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people must make demands of its citizenry if it is to be truly fair and representative. Thus, there are those who support mandatory conscription so that the burden of defending the country falls on everyone, there are those who advocate forced community service so that everyone shares the work of improving their local communities, and there are those who believe voting should be compulsory so that every citizen plays an active role in selecting the government. On the other side of the aisle, there's the "fun and games" crowd who don't see democracy as a bringer of burdens but instead as a bringer of opportunities. I'm an irresponsible member of this latter group, I must confess. I'm not so extreme that I would call for the end of all taxation, but in general I prefer the government to refrain from ordering its citizens around if it is at all possible. The cost of freedom is that there will be both "good" citizens who take their privileged position in a free society very seriously and "bad" citizens who do not spin, weave, fight, volunteer, or vote. Could this freedom that allows some to opt out of some of the "duties" of citizenship be harmful for democratic countries?
Of the three possible duties of citizenship that I mentioned earlier, compulsory voting is the least demanding. While forced service typically requires a serious time commitment that will necessarily disrupt lives, forced voting merely requires the citizen to take some time on the day of an election to cast a vote. At most, this action will disrupt the citizen's day, not his or her entire life. Although a burden, it is not a particularly noxious one and I do not consider it as morally questionable as many other intrusive government mandates. Still, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do -- there should be a very good reason for forcing people to do anything.
The obvious benefit of compulsory voting is that it strongly encourages people to participate in politics. Democracy can give people a voice in determining how their country's affairs are run, but if they never use that voice to express their opinions they can't help shape their nation. Indeed, these silent citizens may ultimately find themselves entirely at the mercy of an unfriendly yet duly elected government -- that's not necessarily a better thing than living under a tyrant! In countries where voting is not compulsory, like the United States, people may opt out of voting for reasons some would deem frivolous: "I don't want to face the crowd at the voting booth." "I'm tired and just don't feel like it." "My DVR is broken and I'll miss my favorite TV show if I go vote." Still others may not vote because they are unsure of how the system works or feel too intimidated to vote due to racism or other discrimination. In compulsory voting countries, not going to the polls likely means paying a fine at a future date or facing some stiffer penalty -- perhaps even imprisonment -- so it is not a decision to be taken lightly. In Australia, well over 90% of the electorate votes. In the United States, the percentage is more like 60%...still a majority, though!
Even if we do grant that the reasons why some people do not vote might indeed be frivolous, we should consider the possibility that there are some perfectly valid reasons not to vote. For instance, what if you simply don't have a preference for a particular candidate? In Australia, voters without a candidate they can in good conscience support must make mandatory appearances at the polls but may submit blank ballots. That's a waste of both time and paper, but it is certainly preferable to being forced to actually cast a binding vote. Mandatory voting may also lead to people completely uninterested and uninformed about politics to cast blind votes for candidates they know little about. When it comes to voting, I think ignorance definitely is an excuse not to vote -- I know when I wasn't really following politics I didn't have a clue as to the policies of various politicians. I couldn't have made an informed decision in the booth, and at the time I wasn't really interested in devoting the time necessary to get informed. Once again, the proper action of the uninformed and uninterested would be to simply submit a blank ballot in a compulsory voting nation, but it seems like that doesn't always occur -- "donkey votes" in Australia seem to be an example of what can happen when disgruntled and uninterested voters participate in elections. (Of course, disgruntled voters are allowed to participate in noncompulsory voting countries as well, and often do!) There's another group of people who I also personally think should consider not voting even though they are some of the most informed people around: journalists who try to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Of course, journalists are first and foremost citizens who have just as much right to vote as anyone else, but I would definitely respect the journalist who chooses freely to refrain from directly participating in politics so as to better report the news "purely." I've noticed with alarm that increasingly even reporters show political bias and seem to be willing to try to twist the news in order to support a certain political outlook -- journalism is a profession that needs to stive for purity on the reporting side of things if it is to keep the nation informed. Ideally, one should be able to balance one's journalistic ethics and one's personal political beliefs, but if someone senses a conflict between the two and decides to opt out of voting in order to be a better journalist, I think that person has made a noble decision.
I've basically used Australia as my example of a compulsory voting nation throughout this post. It is a country where compulsory voting has been in place for a long time and the practice seems to have both governmental and widespread popular support there. Many in the United States, the UK, and other countries look at the Aussies' voter participation rates with envy, but it isn't necessarily easy to pinpoint how this increased participation has actually changed Australian politics relative to other democracies. For instance, I long thought that one bonus of forcing everyone to vote would be the rising of many smaller parties to cater to the desires of the enlarged electorate. Australia, however, pretty much has a two-party system though the Greens are more successful there than any third party in the United States and they also have some regional parties who are active in local politics. Compulsory voting also doesn't seem to have led to political disaster -- while I'm no admirer of Prime Minister Rudd's Internet filtering scheme, Australia remains a relatively free and first world country. Even if compulsory voting does happen to encourage more uninformed people to vote blindly, it is quite possible for the uninformed to vote for different candidates...they won't necessarily all veer towards the demagogue, for instance. So, when it comes to Australia, I'd like to see voting made noncompulsory there more for the sake of individual freedom -- the state shouldn't be ordering people to exercise their rights as citizens and inconveniencing the lives of those who don't want to vote -- than because it has been politically harmful.
It's worthwhile to note that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily always take the form it does in Australia. In 2002, for instance, Saddam Hussein claimed to get 100% of the Iraqi vote with 100% voter participation. If you can neither choose whether or not to vote nor choose a candidate to vote for, then that is the result -- a meaningless election that people participate in essentially for ceremonial purposes. Granted, voting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of a sham than a compulsory affair, but compulsory voting means absolutely nothing if there isn't also free choice. Up to this point, Australia has done a good job of protecting the freedom of the vote even as it has denied the freedom of the voter; its elections are still free. In other countries, however, compulsory voting is used to disguise the fact that elections are anything but free and fair. The Iraqi experience is not reason enough to absolutely condemn the Australian system, but one of the reasons I feel the way I do about the government making actions compulsory is because I know that the most brutal governments routinely treat their citizens like pawns.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
To Spend or to Cut
As governments around the world struggle to deal with a global recession, a pressing decision must be made. It's not the decision to intervene or not that I'm speaking about -- if governments completely ignore serious crises, I don't know why they even need to exist. Even the most laissez-faire of elected governments are reluctant to play their fiddles while Rome burns, and authoritarian governments must fear popular uprisings when economic times grow difficult. From the Netherlands to the United States to China, governments are trying their best to rescue their economies from the hell of recession. Their most troubling decision is how to go about "fixing" economies normally (even in China) powered by a more or less free market. One way to go about this is to embark on ambitious stimulus spending programs designed to create short-term jobs, boost struggling economic sectors, and spur economic growth; another way is to cut taxes to put more money in people's pockets so that they may spend, save, start businesses, and invest on their own. While it is certainly possible to both spend and cut, there is a great deal of disagreement as to which policy is better for the economy.
Spending has the most positive immediate impact but also the most negative long-term impact. It is a double-edged sword that should be used carefully; I personally tend to think the stimulus bill being debated in the U.S. Congress has a little too much spending in its present form. While a well-run stimulus program can immediately put people back to work especially in areas like construction, the bigger it is the bigger the deficit that future governments will have to heal with either inflation or higher taxes. The money that flows freely today from government coffers comes with a price tag. On the other hand, it is irresponsible and cruel to ignore the sufferings of the people. To not spend in the name of fiscal conservatism as unemployment rises higher and higher would deservedly destroy confidence in government. Confidence is actually a key factor when we talk about stimulus spending. It's not like the government is going to permanently employ all the people it plans to put back to work in the short-term via stimulus spending; to do that, it would need to start nationalizing businesses and move away from a free market economy. Rather, what capitalist governments hope to do through stimulus packages is to give their economies a nudge so that private industry can ultimately take over again. Government just needs to get the ball rolling so that banks will feel more confident about lending, capitalists will feel more comfortable starting businesses, existing businesses will feel reassured enough to start rehiring and expanding, the labor force will not grow hopeless, and savers and investors will not utterly forsake the financial system. The danger here is that government will try to push rather than nudge. It's practically impossible to draw the line on "too much stimulus spending"; there's always someone else who needs a job, someone else whose living conditions could be improved, some other business that needs to be propped up, someone else who needs a loan or needs help making payments on one. Still, that line must be drawn somewhere, and it should be drawn at a point where the costs of the stimulus can be borne without unreasonable hardships being placed on future generations and administrations...I suspect even the current generation and administration will have to deal with inflation. On the flip side, the government could spend so little that there is no increase in confidence and no cascading effect, but I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution and start out small. If one conservative stimulus plan fails to have the desired effect, then pass another one that incorporates what worked from the first plan and expands it. Although the situation is dire, rushing to push a plan "too huge to fail" doesn't seem wise to me.
Republicans in both houses of Congress have opted to rally around the banner of cutting taxes to encourage growth. Though Democrats overwhelmingly support stimulus spending as well, there is also some bipartisan agreement that tax cuts and credits could be desireable as well. Much like spending, cutting taxes can be done in rather targeted ways. For instance, senators Boxer and Ensign want to cut corporate taxes on American businesses who are willing to reinvest their earnings "back home", an idea that President Obama also voiced support for during his presidential campaign. Mikulski and Brownback (yes, the former presidential candidate) want to give American buyers of new cars in 2009 a one-time tax deduction on their purchases -- a blatant attempt to prop up a struggling industry that is vital to the American economy. I kind of like both these ideas, but Boxer and Ensign's plan provides a good example of one advantage of the tax cutting strategy. Ultimately, private businesses are going to lead us out of recession -- encouraging companies to start reinvesting in their businesses now can create permanent jobs as opposed to the temporary jobs created by infrastructure stimulus spending. Another nice thing I like about tax cuts is that they can always be reversed back to their previous level; for instance, Mikulski and Brownback's plan specifies up front that the new car deduction is a one-time only deal. With stimulus spending, the government takes on a mountain of debt instantly and must carry it around indefinitely, dealing with it only at some unspecified moment in the future. That said, not all tax cut proposals are nearly so targeted as the two I just mentioned. Reducing taxes on individuals is also a popular idea at the moment, but it puts the onus on the public to stimulate the economy on their own. They have to spend more to encourage businesses to hire more, they have to save more to encourage banks to lend more, and they have to buy homes and stocks to reverse the deflation that has been evaporating wealth so rapidly of late. It's a more indirect way of doing things, and, although I approve of the government empowering individuals to make their own decisions with their own money, I think it's a slower approach that won't provide the same confidence boost that stimulus spending will.
It's easy to be seduced into thinking the differences between spending and tax cutting are more profound than they really are. Both can easily lead to huge deficits because tax cuts can reduce future government revenues. It's probably more important to use both tools wisely than to favor one tool over the other. I personally think some stimulus spending is definitely needed but that targeted tax cuts should probably be emphasized more. Obviously, the global economy is scary right now and I think the governments of the world have an obligation to at least try to do something. I have a feeling I'm going to think the stimulus plan that will ultimately be enacted in the U.S. isn't cautious enough, but I'll be as happy as anyone if it really truly does help the situation. The mountain of debt we are likely to have to deal with in the future will be a lot easier to handle if the future economy is prosperous.
Spending has the most positive immediate impact but also the most negative long-term impact. It is a double-edged sword that should be used carefully; I personally tend to think the stimulus bill being debated in the U.S. Congress has a little too much spending in its present form. While a well-run stimulus program can immediately put people back to work especially in areas like construction, the bigger it is the bigger the deficit that future governments will have to heal with either inflation or higher taxes. The money that flows freely today from government coffers comes with a price tag. On the other hand, it is irresponsible and cruel to ignore the sufferings of the people. To not spend in the name of fiscal conservatism as unemployment rises higher and higher would deservedly destroy confidence in government. Confidence is actually a key factor when we talk about stimulus spending. It's not like the government is going to permanently employ all the people it plans to put back to work in the short-term via stimulus spending; to do that, it would need to start nationalizing businesses and move away from a free market economy. Rather, what capitalist governments hope to do through stimulus packages is to give their economies a nudge so that private industry can ultimately take over again. Government just needs to get the ball rolling so that banks will feel more confident about lending, capitalists will feel more comfortable starting businesses, existing businesses will feel reassured enough to start rehiring and expanding, the labor force will not grow hopeless, and savers and investors will not utterly forsake the financial system. The danger here is that government will try to push rather than nudge. It's practically impossible to draw the line on "too much stimulus spending"; there's always someone else who needs a job, someone else whose living conditions could be improved, some other business that needs to be propped up, someone else who needs a loan or needs help making payments on one. Still, that line must be drawn somewhere, and it should be drawn at a point where the costs of the stimulus can be borne without unreasonable hardships being placed on future generations and administrations...I suspect even the current generation and administration will have to deal with inflation. On the flip side, the government could spend so little that there is no increase in confidence and no cascading effect, but I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution and start out small. If one conservative stimulus plan fails to have the desired effect, then pass another one that incorporates what worked from the first plan and expands it. Although the situation is dire, rushing to push a plan "too huge to fail" doesn't seem wise to me.
Republicans in both houses of Congress have opted to rally around the banner of cutting taxes to encourage growth. Though Democrats overwhelmingly support stimulus spending as well, there is also some bipartisan agreement that tax cuts and credits could be desireable as well. Much like spending, cutting taxes can be done in rather targeted ways. For instance, senators Boxer and Ensign want to cut corporate taxes on American businesses who are willing to reinvest their earnings "back home", an idea that President Obama also voiced support for during his presidential campaign. Mikulski and Brownback (yes, the former presidential candidate) want to give American buyers of new cars in 2009 a one-time tax deduction on their purchases -- a blatant attempt to prop up a struggling industry that is vital to the American economy. I kind of like both these ideas, but Boxer and Ensign's plan provides a good example of one advantage of the tax cutting strategy. Ultimately, private businesses are going to lead us out of recession -- encouraging companies to start reinvesting in their businesses now can create permanent jobs as opposed to the temporary jobs created by infrastructure stimulus spending. Another nice thing I like about tax cuts is that they can always be reversed back to their previous level; for instance, Mikulski and Brownback's plan specifies up front that the new car deduction is a one-time only deal. With stimulus spending, the government takes on a mountain of debt instantly and must carry it around indefinitely, dealing with it only at some unspecified moment in the future. That said, not all tax cut proposals are nearly so targeted as the two I just mentioned. Reducing taxes on individuals is also a popular idea at the moment, but it puts the onus on the public to stimulate the economy on their own. They have to spend more to encourage businesses to hire more, they have to save more to encourage banks to lend more, and they have to buy homes and stocks to reverse the deflation that has been evaporating wealth so rapidly of late. It's a more indirect way of doing things, and, although I approve of the government empowering individuals to make their own decisions with their own money, I think it's a slower approach that won't provide the same confidence boost that stimulus spending will.
It's easy to be seduced into thinking the differences between spending and tax cutting are more profound than they really are. Both can easily lead to huge deficits because tax cuts can reduce future government revenues. It's probably more important to use both tools wisely than to favor one tool over the other. I personally think some stimulus spending is definitely needed but that targeted tax cuts should probably be emphasized more. Obviously, the global economy is scary right now and I think the governments of the world have an obligation to at least try to do something. I have a feeling I'm going to think the stimulus plan that will ultimately be enacted in the U.S. isn't cautious enough, but I'll be as happy as anyone if it really truly does help the situation. The mountain of debt we are likely to have to deal with in the future will be a lot easier to handle if the future economy is prosperous.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Donating to the Government
Though blessed with lower taxes than those faced by many in western Europe, Americans never seem to get tired of complaining about taxation. Indeed, one could somewhat facetiously argue that the American nation was founded by people who simply didn't want to pay their taxes. When it comes to paying taxes, attitudes haven't changed much in the past couple of centuries. Given that there isn't corresponding popular enthusiasm for cutting government services, some brand the American electorate as selfish and wanting to have it both ways. I, personally, have a different view.
The United States is in some respects unique in that individual freedom and personal choice are a fundamental part of our very culture. We have no kaisers or kings past or present to honor; instead, we honor the individual. We expect to have the ability to self-determine the general path in life we will follow, and we expect to be able to influence the actions of our government. I would argue that one of the reasons taxation is such a contentious issue is that it doesn't let Americans be Americans: the average citizen is too shut off from the process of government spending. In an age of unpopular economic bailouts, the alienation between citizen and government when it comes to controlling the federal purse strings is becoming only more deeply felt.
Politicians have made matters worse by tending to discuss spending only very superficially during campaigns. Even Barack Obama more or less promised the world to his supporters during the presidential election -- unrealistic promises, even if a candidate is sincere, set the voters up for disappointment when they discover what the government is really spending their money to do. I think there is a feeling among politicians that budgetary matters are "boring" and should only be broached to the public in a few tried-and-true ways (like promising the world or promising to cut taxes...Obama actually used both approaches!). Boring they might indeed be, but they're also expensive for the taxpayer. As long as politicians can both frame the debate on spending during elections and make the decisions on how to spend while in office, it will remain difficult for John Q. Public to play a prominent role in deciding how his tax dollar should be spent.
I don't hold out much hope for politicians to change a game plan that still works awfully well for them so one solution might be to democratize spending. Let the people work out a budget or approve a budget in some way or another. I've said before that I think this would be interesting to see, and I think it would change America in many ways...but I worry that voters may not have the knowledge (or be willing to do the research) needed to make wise decisions when it comes to subjects like military spending, funding the space program, and distributing foreign aid. In truth, we probably wouldn't do a worse job of it than the politicians do -- it would just be different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. If all we really want to do is give the people a greater opportunity to set spending policy, though, there's a much easier solution that wouldn't require a dramatic change in the way America does business.
What I think should happen is that the U.S. government should put a big sign up in its theoretical front window that says, "Donations Welcome!" I've heard people like Warren Buffett state publicly that they aren't taxed enough ,and I have always wondered why people like that couldn't pay more to the government if they wanted to do so. Just letting billionaires send off blank checks to the government doesn't accomplish much, though -- if anything, it probably just encourages frivolous spending. What I really would like to see is the ability to give donations to the government with strings attached. For instance, a "Pay Down The Deficit" or "Shore Up Social Security" fund could be created. People could make voluntary contributions into these funds with the understanding that the government would have to use them for their intended purpose. I would fully expect individuals like Buffett to contribute the most in the beginning, but if this plan proves effective in actually yielding results I think average people would consider donating a few dollars to a worthy budgetary cause as well. The biggest negative to this plan that I can see is that it might seem to make government even less fiscally responsible -- they could effectively outsource some of their spending to the public without facing the unpopularity caused by raising taxes and so would have less reason to budget public funds responsibly. However, this plan will make people feel more involved in the spending process, and I would expect them to start expecting more of their elected officials as a result. In other words, if the people manage to massively reduce America's debt and the politicians end up massively increasing it again, I think a lot of politicians wouldn't get reelected. Politicians would be held more accountable for their spending decisions if they weren't the only spenders in town.
Perhaps ideally all government revenue could be raised voluntarily through donations rather than compulsorily through taxation. Sadly, I don't expect to live to see such a perfect system enacted in my lifetime partly because it would be dangerous -- imagine how even more precipitously government revenues might drop in a recession -- and partly because it'll always be very hard for people to put aside their individual dreams and goals for the public good. On one hand, people do want public schools and public roads and other things the government provides; on the other, these same people want to own homes and send their children to college and take their spouse out to dinner at a nice restaurant on their anniversary. At least in our present system it isn't foolish to pay your taxes -- if the government relied solely on donations, though, those who donated would be forced to do with less than those who acted more selfishly. Still, I think a lot of people might be surprised at just how generous the public can be if given the right opportunity.
The United States is in some respects unique in that individual freedom and personal choice are a fundamental part of our very culture. We have no kaisers or kings past or present to honor; instead, we honor the individual. We expect to have the ability to self-determine the general path in life we will follow, and we expect to be able to influence the actions of our government. I would argue that one of the reasons taxation is such a contentious issue is that it doesn't let Americans be Americans: the average citizen is too shut off from the process of government spending. In an age of unpopular economic bailouts, the alienation between citizen and government when it comes to controlling the federal purse strings is becoming only more deeply felt.
Politicians have made matters worse by tending to discuss spending only very superficially during campaigns. Even Barack Obama more or less promised the world to his supporters during the presidential election -- unrealistic promises, even if a candidate is sincere, set the voters up for disappointment when they discover what the government is really spending their money to do. I think there is a feeling among politicians that budgetary matters are "boring" and should only be broached to the public in a few tried-and-true ways (like promising the world or promising to cut taxes...Obama actually used both approaches!). Boring they might indeed be, but they're also expensive for the taxpayer. As long as politicians can both frame the debate on spending during elections and make the decisions on how to spend while in office, it will remain difficult for John Q. Public to play a prominent role in deciding how his tax dollar should be spent.
I don't hold out much hope for politicians to change a game plan that still works awfully well for them so one solution might be to democratize spending. Let the people work out a budget or approve a budget in some way or another. I've said before that I think this would be interesting to see, and I think it would change America in many ways...but I worry that voters may not have the knowledge (or be willing to do the research) needed to make wise decisions when it comes to subjects like military spending, funding the space program, and distributing foreign aid. In truth, we probably wouldn't do a worse job of it than the politicians do -- it would just be different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. If all we really want to do is give the people a greater opportunity to set spending policy, though, there's a much easier solution that wouldn't require a dramatic change in the way America does business.
What I think should happen is that the U.S. government should put a big sign up in its theoretical front window that says, "Donations Welcome!" I've heard people like Warren Buffett state publicly that they aren't taxed enough ,and I have always wondered why people like that couldn't pay more to the government if they wanted to do so. Just letting billionaires send off blank checks to the government doesn't accomplish much, though -- if anything, it probably just encourages frivolous spending. What I really would like to see is the ability to give donations to the government with strings attached. For instance, a "Pay Down The Deficit" or "Shore Up Social Security" fund could be created. People could make voluntary contributions into these funds with the understanding that the government would have to use them for their intended purpose. I would fully expect individuals like Buffett to contribute the most in the beginning, but if this plan proves effective in actually yielding results I think average people would consider donating a few dollars to a worthy budgetary cause as well. The biggest negative to this plan that I can see is that it might seem to make government even less fiscally responsible -- they could effectively outsource some of their spending to the public without facing the unpopularity caused by raising taxes and so would have less reason to budget public funds responsibly. However, this plan will make people feel more involved in the spending process, and I would expect them to start expecting more of their elected officials as a result. In other words, if the people manage to massively reduce America's debt and the politicians end up massively increasing it again, I think a lot of politicians wouldn't get reelected. Politicians would be held more accountable for their spending decisions if they weren't the only spenders in town.
Perhaps ideally all government revenue could be raised voluntarily through donations rather than compulsorily through taxation. Sadly, I don't expect to live to see such a perfect system enacted in my lifetime partly because it would be dangerous -- imagine how even more precipitously government revenues might drop in a recession -- and partly because it'll always be very hard for people to put aside their individual dreams and goals for the public good. On one hand, people do want public schools and public roads and other things the government provides; on the other, these same people want to own homes and send their children to college and take their spouse out to dinner at a nice restaurant on their anniversary. At least in our present system it isn't foolish to pay your taxes -- if the government relied solely on donations, though, those who donated would be forced to do with less than those who acted more selfishly. Still, I think a lot of people might be surprised at just how generous the public can be if given the right opportunity.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Corruptibility of One Man
All things being equal, I think a government which entrusts power into the hands of a few is more corruptible than one that entrusts power into the hands of the many. Although Pompey and Crassus were able to bribe their way to the Roman consulships of 55 B.C. at great cost, the sheer expense of the operation helps explain why vote buying hasn't subverted more representative governments than it has since then (it's still around, though, commonly in the guise of political machines). Nero and Caligula would certainly argue that dictatorship is the better shield for the commitment of great crimes. Nonetheless, corruption seems to always be with us to some degree regardless of form of government, time, or place. Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, accused of attempting to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for profit, seems to be a perfect example of a modern, corrupt American politician.
The Blagojevich story doesn't make me despair over the state of the American Republic, but it does suggest to me some of the vulnerabilities of our system. Part of the problem is how Blagojevich came to power in the first place. Political machines are still very much a part of Illinois politics, and they ensure that there is not a level playing field in elections. Candidates beholden to the machine and cooperative with it benefit from its power; on the other hand, those who refuse to feed the machine are often consumed by it. The whole Blagojevich mentality is rooted in the idea of favors and payback -- I'll do what you want if you do what I want, I'll help you now if you help me later. That's how political machines work; everyone owes somebody something, from the voter in the booth to the crook in the governor's mansion. Ideally, favors do to some extent "trickle down" to the common populace, but there is really no benefit for a political machine to enact policies that help everyone, including those not part of the machine. The other side of the problem is the concentration of power in one man, the governor. Blagojevich certainly never had absolute power by any stretch of the imagination -- indeed, he is very likely to pay dearly for his abuse of office. Still, he had enough power to subvert representative government. The fault is mainly his, but I also wonder about the wisdom of letting one official appoint another official to serve in an office that is normally filled by election. Should Blagojevich -- or any other one individual -- be in a position to appoint a senator? The 17th amendment to the Constitution, which also established the popular election of senators, gives governors this power, perhaps in order to ensure the efficient running of the Senate. Unfortunately, efficiency has a price. There will always be corrupt men like Blagojevich who will seek positions of prominence, but their corruption will be always be limited by the power vested in the offices they hold. Too much power vested in a single office makes the inevitable corruption more damaging when it occurs. Improperly assigned powers have the same effect.
Still, I wouldn't call the American system broken. It actually seems to be working fairly well in this case -- the allegedly corrupt official, Blagojevich, has been found out. He will have to face up to his crimes. I'm not sure what it will take to reform Illinois politics, but at the very least the Blagojevich experience should make future machine pols a little more cautious about how they go about their business. The governor might have been entrusted with too much power, but his power was not unchecked. In the name of hampering corruption, I think it's possible to make government too weak -- one advantage of the checks and balance system is that it does allow for a fairly strong yet still limited government. Ultimately, however, I would rather see vacant Senate seats filled by special election rather than by executive appointment. That would let the appointing of senators be strictly a duty for the voters in all cases, and it would close a door to corruption for the Blagojeviches of the world.
The Blagojevich story doesn't make me despair over the state of the American Republic, but it does suggest to me some of the vulnerabilities of our system. Part of the problem is how Blagojevich came to power in the first place. Political machines are still very much a part of Illinois politics, and they ensure that there is not a level playing field in elections. Candidates beholden to the machine and cooperative with it benefit from its power; on the other hand, those who refuse to feed the machine are often consumed by it. The whole Blagojevich mentality is rooted in the idea of favors and payback -- I'll do what you want if you do what I want, I'll help you now if you help me later. That's how political machines work; everyone owes somebody something, from the voter in the booth to the crook in the governor's mansion. Ideally, favors do to some extent "trickle down" to the common populace, but there is really no benefit for a political machine to enact policies that help everyone, including those not part of the machine. The other side of the problem is the concentration of power in one man, the governor. Blagojevich certainly never had absolute power by any stretch of the imagination -- indeed, he is very likely to pay dearly for his abuse of office. Still, he had enough power to subvert representative government. The fault is mainly his, but I also wonder about the wisdom of letting one official appoint another official to serve in an office that is normally filled by election. Should Blagojevich -- or any other one individual -- be in a position to appoint a senator? The 17th amendment to the Constitution, which also established the popular election of senators, gives governors this power, perhaps in order to ensure the efficient running of the Senate. Unfortunately, efficiency has a price. There will always be corrupt men like Blagojevich who will seek positions of prominence, but their corruption will be always be limited by the power vested in the offices they hold. Too much power vested in a single office makes the inevitable corruption more damaging when it occurs. Improperly assigned powers have the same effect.
Still, I wouldn't call the American system broken. It actually seems to be working fairly well in this case -- the allegedly corrupt official, Blagojevich, has been found out. He will have to face up to his crimes. I'm not sure what it will take to reform Illinois politics, but at the very least the Blagojevich experience should make future machine pols a little more cautious about how they go about their business. The governor might have been entrusted with too much power, but his power was not unchecked. In the name of hampering corruption, I think it's possible to make government too weak -- one advantage of the checks and balance system is that it does allow for a fairly strong yet still limited government. Ultimately, however, I would rather see vacant Senate seats filled by special election rather than by executive appointment. That would let the appointing of senators be strictly a duty for the voters in all cases, and it would close a door to corruption for the Blagojeviches of the world.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Some Final Thoughts on the 2008 Presidential Election
The election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States has been greeted with both exuberance and despair, but it was hardly the most surprising of results. Polls had shown the Illinois senator to be leading his Arizonan rival consistently for weeks prior to Election Day. Even more importantly, Obama ran the far superior campaign. Obama did what I think every presidential candidate should do: he openly expressed his political ideas at every opportunity offered to him. As basic as that sounds, certain prevaricating politicians often seem to me to not to have any real ideas at all, merely positions which shift with the political wind. At times, Obama was lambasted for being if anything too open -- for instance, John McCain was shocked that Obama would openly speak of conducting military operations against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The president-elect was also open about his plan to "spread the wealth" of America around by raising taxes on the wealthy and on corporations in order to fund social programs and reduce the taxes of the non-wealthy. There are aspects of Obama's policies that I like and aspects that I don't like, but I've always appreciated how willing Obama was to lay out his positions openly and also how he was always willing to defend those positions philosophically. Obama's campaign was about Obama, as it should have been. Unfortunately, McCain's campaign was also about Obama, and there was no reason that it needed to be that way.
The McCain '08 campaign will probably be remembered as a very negative one which focused to a large extent on Obama's character, but McCain was also "negative" in the sense of being reactive and I think that's what hurt him the most. McCain was in permanent "compare and contrast mode" from start to finish in the general election. "Obama's tax policy is about spreading the wealth; mine isn't. Obama isn't pro-life; I am. Obama isn't experienced; I am." Compare and contrast definitely has a place in political argument (and Obama made good use of it), but what McCain too often forgot to do was make the philosophical case for his policies. He presented himself strongly as being against Obama's ideas, but he didn't always seem to be really for his own ideas. I ultimately think that McCain did do a good job articulating his tax policy, but I can't really think of any other issue that McCain really made his own (earmarks, perhaps). Even when it came to foreign policy, ostensibly the Republican's strength, McCain seemed to prefer to lambast his opponent's willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign rulers rather than explain why he personally favored a more standoffish, "carrot and stick" diplomatic approach. McCain always seemed to be reaching out to people who already knew that they agreed with him -- he was always preaching to the converted. Because McCain spent so much of his time criticizing Obama, I think his campaign was actually perceived as being dirtier than it really was; even valid criticisms of Obama's policies strike a dischordant note if they aren't balanced with positivity. The silliest thing about the McCain strategy is that Hillary Clinton followed quite a similar path to defeat in the Democratic primaries. I doubt I'll ever understand why McCain would try to copy a losing strategy instead of challenging Obama in a new and different way. That said, this was a tough year to run as a Republican -- voting the incumbent party out is a basic way for the electorate to express their disgust with their current government, and a lot of people are pretty digusted with the Bush administration right now. I'm not so sure Obama will be the president who will clean up Bush's messes, especially when it comes to civil liberties, but just the fact that the Republican didn't win this election makes it more likely that those messes will be cleaned up eventually...perhaps even by another Republican!
How will Obama handle the presidency? I actually think people SHOULD feel apprehensive about how their representatives will behave once in office, but there is probably too much fear of an Obama presidency in certain quarters. Not every conspiracy theory can possibly be true, right? In fact, if Obama simply governs as a reasonable moderate of a liberal persuasion, he'll erase much of the ill-will his political opponents feel towards him. How Obama's tax and spending policies will affect a weakening economy is my biggest concern, but, honestly, I'm interested in finding out even though I'm also scared. I've lived through the Clinton tax hike followed shortly by the Clinton tax cut followed by the Bush tax cut so I'm curious to see a real world test for the "bottom-up" taxation strategy Obama has consistently supported. I think it would probably be wiser (or at least safer) to not repeal any Bush tax cuts but yet to also go ahead with a small middle class tax cut if spending can be cut in other ways. Of course, the amount of any tax hike is going to be very important -- if it is small and targeted enough, it may not exactly encourage hiring or investment or the starting of new businesses, but the costs will probably be absorbed by the affected parties and life will go on after an initial bout of hemming and hawing. My greatest hope is that an Obama administration will be able to avoid any new, unnecessary wars (my main fear under a McCain administration)...I think we've got a decent chance of this, but Obama is not exactly a non-interventionist by any stretch of the imagination. Considering that the economy is likely to be Obama's biggest concern over at least the first year of his administration, I wonder how many of his other goals he'll be able to achieve. Will plans for universal health insurance fall to the wayside...again? Will alternative energy investments be neglected, in part due to falling gas prices? As I see it, the advantage Obama has by having a Democratic legislature in his corner is somewhat offset by the pressing nature of the recession -- like most presidents, I expect Obama will have trouble delivering on his campaign promises. It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out. I don't see Obama as a "do-nothing" type of president, but he'd have to be Superman to get everything he wants done in this kind of economic environment.
One thing we're definitely not any closer to in America is a third party. The 2008 election was an Obama and McCain show, with no room for anything else. I really wish at least one of the three general election presidential debates could set aside some space for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and/or Cynthia McKinney. Several important issues were swept under the rug in this election cycle simply because the two major party candidates held similar views on them, including the bailout, illegal immigration, and America's relations with Israel (Joe the Plumber's analysis of Obama not withstanding). Nader and crew would have brought some different ideas to the table on these and other issues -- it's a pity that most of America never got to hear those ideas. That said, if America would get off its collective butt, go online, and start researching third party and independent candidates more we wouldn't be so reliant on the mainstream debates. Heck, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin had a couple of debates of their own in the past month (with Barr also participating in one) that I didn't even hear about until days after the fact...I'm definitely part of the problem here, not the solution! Well, there's always next election, right?
The McCain '08 campaign will probably be remembered as a very negative one which focused to a large extent on Obama's character, but McCain was also "negative" in the sense of being reactive and I think that's what hurt him the most. McCain was in permanent "compare and contrast mode" from start to finish in the general election. "Obama's tax policy is about spreading the wealth; mine isn't. Obama isn't pro-life; I am. Obama isn't experienced; I am." Compare and contrast definitely has a place in political argument (and Obama made good use of it), but what McCain too often forgot to do was make the philosophical case for his policies. He presented himself strongly as being against Obama's ideas, but he didn't always seem to be really for his own ideas. I ultimately think that McCain did do a good job articulating his tax policy, but I can't really think of any other issue that McCain really made his own (earmarks, perhaps). Even when it came to foreign policy, ostensibly the Republican's strength, McCain seemed to prefer to lambast his opponent's willingness to meet with unfriendly foreign rulers rather than explain why he personally favored a more standoffish, "carrot and stick" diplomatic approach. McCain always seemed to be reaching out to people who already knew that they agreed with him -- he was always preaching to the converted. Because McCain spent so much of his time criticizing Obama, I think his campaign was actually perceived as being dirtier than it really was; even valid criticisms of Obama's policies strike a dischordant note if they aren't balanced with positivity. The silliest thing about the McCain strategy is that Hillary Clinton followed quite a similar path to defeat in the Democratic primaries. I doubt I'll ever understand why McCain would try to copy a losing strategy instead of challenging Obama in a new and different way. That said, this was a tough year to run as a Republican -- voting the incumbent party out is a basic way for the electorate to express their disgust with their current government, and a lot of people are pretty digusted with the Bush administration right now. I'm not so sure Obama will be the president who will clean up Bush's messes, especially when it comes to civil liberties, but just the fact that the Republican didn't win this election makes it more likely that those messes will be cleaned up eventually...perhaps even by another Republican!
How will Obama handle the presidency? I actually think people SHOULD feel apprehensive about how their representatives will behave once in office, but there is probably too much fear of an Obama presidency in certain quarters. Not every conspiracy theory can possibly be true, right? In fact, if Obama simply governs as a reasonable moderate of a liberal persuasion, he'll erase much of the ill-will his political opponents feel towards him. How Obama's tax and spending policies will affect a weakening economy is my biggest concern, but, honestly, I'm interested in finding out even though I'm also scared. I've lived through the Clinton tax hike followed shortly by the Clinton tax cut followed by the Bush tax cut so I'm curious to see a real world test for the "bottom-up" taxation strategy Obama has consistently supported. I think it would probably be wiser (or at least safer) to not repeal any Bush tax cuts but yet to also go ahead with a small middle class tax cut if spending can be cut in other ways. Of course, the amount of any tax hike is going to be very important -- if it is small and targeted enough, it may not exactly encourage hiring or investment or the starting of new businesses, but the costs will probably be absorbed by the affected parties and life will go on after an initial bout of hemming and hawing. My greatest hope is that an Obama administration will be able to avoid any new, unnecessary wars (my main fear under a McCain administration)...I think we've got a decent chance of this, but Obama is not exactly a non-interventionist by any stretch of the imagination. Considering that the economy is likely to be Obama's biggest concern over at least the first year of his administration, I wonder how many of his other goals he'll be able to achieve. Will plans for universal health insurance fall to the wayside...again? Will alternative energy investments be neglected, in part due to falling gas prices? As I see it, the advantage Obama has by having a Democratic legislature in his corner is somewhat offset by the pressing nature of the recession -- like most presidents, I expect Obama will have trouble delivering on his campaign promises. It'll definitely be interesting to see how things play out. I don't see Obama as a "do-nothing" type of president, but he'd have to be Superman to get everything he wants done in this kind of economic environment.
One thing we're definitely not any closer to in America is a third party. The 2008 election was an Obama and McCain show, with no room for anything else. I really wish at least one of the three general election presidential debates could set aside some space for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and/or Cynthia McKinney. Several important issues were swept under the rug in this election cycle simply because the two major party candidates held similar views on them, including the bailout, illegal immigration, and America's relations with Israel (Joe the Plumber's analysis of Obama not withstanding). Nader and crew would have brought some different ideas to the table on these and other issues -- it's a pity that most of America never got to hear those ideas. That said, if America would get off its collective butt, go online, and start researching third party and independent candidates more we wouldn't be so reliant on the mainstream debates. Heck, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin had a couple of debates of their own in the past month (with Barr also participating in one) that I didn't even hear about until days after the fact...I'm definitely part of the problem here, not the solution! Well, there's always next election, right?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Slavery and the Constitution
I don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be a dated document. It was designed to be the framework for a government that would change with the times. While some of the language used may sound a trifle unusual to modern readers, there's little about the content that is firmly rooted in the century in which it was written. In my opinion, reading the Constitution remains the best way for anyone to learn about the American system of government as it was and as it still is. Still, although you won't find mention of pantaloons, powdered wigs, and muskets there, the body of the Constitution nonetheless was a product of a time and a place. Although the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery provides the definitive word on slavery's present legal status, there remain within the Constitution references to slavery which seem to acknowledge that the "peculiar institution" was an acceptable aspect of life in a supposedly free country.
Unfortunately, slavery is a black mark on many of mankind's early forays into representative government. Slaves could be found in the Athenian Democracy, the Roman Republic, and the Venetian Republic. It is as if it was relatively easy for people to take that first step and say, "Some people deserve rights and representation." To take the next logical step and extend equal rights and representation to all people, however, was extremely difficult, particularly when economic interests were involved. I can easily imagine some slavery defender of the past declaring, "But the slaves do the jobs that we don't want to do! Abolition will destroy the economy!" Americans can find some solace in the fact that slavery as an institution has been fiercely opposed from the very beginning of the United States. Even the writers of the Constitution disagreed vehemently on this issue. Still, it's impossible to call the pre-13th Amendment Constitution an anti-slavery document; you can at best say that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, but, considering that Section II of Article IV cavalierly affirms the rights of slave owners to have their "property" restored to them if an escaped slave moves past state lines, that argument can be taken only so far.
I suppose the Constitution must be considered a historical document as well as a political one. Just as slavery is an inextricable part of American history, so too it must be an inextricable part of the U.S. Constitution. Still, the most important thing to me is that slavery, though enshrined within the Constitution, was ultimately abolished by the Constitution as well. Although the battle for civil rights is an ongoing on, continuing to the present day, at least legal slavery was put to an end once and for all. The United States moved further along than Athens, Rome, and Venice did; it did take a while, but it's still something Americans can feel proud about.
Unfortunately, slavery is a black mark on many of mankind's early forays into representative government. Slaves could be found in the Athenian Democracy, the Roman Republic, and the Venetian Republic. It is as if it was relatively easy for people to take that first step and say, "Some people deserve rights and representation." To take the next logical step and extend equal rights and representation to all people, however, was extremely difficult, particularly when economic interests were involved. I can easily imagine some slavery defender of the past declaring, "But the slaves do the jobs that we don't want to do! Abolition will destroy the economy!" Americans can find some solace in the fact that slavery as an institution has been fiercely opposed from the very beginning of the United States. Even the writers of the Constitution disagreed vehemently on this issue. Still, it's impossible to call the pre-13th Amendment Constitution an anti-slavery document; you can at best say that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, but, considering that Section II of Article IV cavalierly affirms the rights of slave owners to have their "property" restored to them if an escaped slave moves past state lines, that argument can be taken only so far.
I suppose the Constitution must be considered a historical document as well as a political one. Just as slavery is an inextricable part of American history, so too it must be an inextricable part of the U.S. Constitution. Still, the most important thing to me is that slavery, though enshrined within the Constitution, was ultimately abolished by the Constitution as well. Although the battle for civil rights is an ongoing on, continuing to the present day, at least legal slavery was put to an end once and for all. The United States moved further along than Athens, Rome, and Venice did; it did take a while, but it's still something Americans can feel proud about.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Isn't All Taxation Income Redistribution?
I think the most interesting issue of this year's presidential campaign has been taxation. While both John McCain and Barack Obama have presented themselves as being tax cutters, McCain has consistently supported across the board tax cuts whilst Obama has emphasized that tax cuts should be geared towards those who need them the most and, at the same time, taxes should be increased for those who can afford to pay more in his view. On a number of issues, Obama and McCain hold similar views, but there is a real difference in their attitudes towards taxation.
The McCain position is essentially that taxes are a necessary evil and that America's current tax rates are too high. Though no one will ever able to agree on the perfect tax rate, I think it's indisputable that high tax rates make things difficult for a lot of people, from the middle class family trying to eek by to the small or large business that needs money to expand and hire new workers. McCain, like President Bush, sees cutting tax rates as one of the best ways to spur new growth. Compared to Obama, McCain is more concerned with getting past the recession, not surviving it. Ideally, McCain's tax policies would help the American economy zoom through the recession and start thriving again quickly, but there's certainly no guarantee this will happen. There is also a philosophical component to McCain's position which is based on the idea of America being a land of the free and also a land of limited government. Reducing taxes reduces the imposition of government on the people; at the very least, it gives people with money more freedom to spend that money as they will. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue puts pressure on government to slim down which jives well with McCain's call for a government spending freeze and his long-running crusade against wasteful government spending. It doesn't necessarily go so smoothly with certain of McCain's other positions, however, notably when it comes to foreign policy: one indisputable lesson of Iraq is that wars cost a lot of money.
For Barack Obama, the end justifies the means when it comes to taxation. No one likes paying taxes, but there's a difference between the pang an American taxpayer feels when writing a check out to the IRS and the pain a burn victim feels as he is pulled out of the flames. Obama thinks that the good that can come out of government spending outweighs the ills of taxation; he believes that increasing access to health insurance and health care, cleaning up the educational system, and otherwise aiding the masses is more important than the free spending of the wealth one has earned. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to think that the ills of taxation are quite so severe as McCain believes. Lower taxes may encourage companies to expand, but big companies have also made the "golden parachute" into a household phrase. It's not only government that engages in wasteful spending; it's rife in the corporate world and among the wealthy as well. Obama essentially makes the argument that the rich and businesses should pay more in taxes because they can afford to do so -- profitable businesses will still be able to expand and make more profits and the rich will still be able to invest because there is so much wealth floating around, but by trimming the fat of the wealthy the country as a whole can benefit. I think whether this is really true or not is very situational. Some businesses and some people really probably can afford higher taxes without cutting back too much , but not everyone will be able to bear the increased burden so lightly. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated how easily even huge businesses can fail quite suddenly so we shouldn't treat a change in tax policy in any way but seriously. Let's also not forget that Obama is an anti-tax crusader himself when it comes to the middle class. First and foremost, I think Obama's tax cuts will make it easier for folks to survive the recession even if they have been hit hard by the mortgage crisis and credit crunch; I think it's more of a humanitarian gesture than an economic one. At the same time, those tax cuts should encourage consumer spending which is good for the economy and could help keep a lot of businesses afloat. Obama also seems to believe very much in the power of government spending to create jobs and boost the economy; for instance, he wants the government to take a leading role in the drive towards alternative energy sources and he also supports increased government spending on infrastructure (public works projects can create a lot of jobs and give a nice boost to the construction and related industries). To an extent, Obama wants to use government to provide the economic boost that McCain hopes his tax cuts will encourage the wealthy and businesses to provide. Personally, my biggest beef with Obama is that he is not more focused on the most important goals he wants to achieve when it comes to spending -- for instance, I really don't believe spending money on encouraging community service is something the government needs to be worried about right now.
Clearly, McCain and Obama aren't on the same page when it comes to taxation. On the other hand, they're not quite as different from one another as the McCain campaign wants people to believe. Obama has been repeatedly branded an income redistributor and a socialist (and perhaps by extension "un-American") of late because of his tax policies, but we've had the progressive income tax in America for a long time now. I don't think it's fair to call someone who wants to make an adjustment within a system of taxation that has existed through many such adjustments over many years an agent of radical change. In fact, McCain also wants to make adjustments to that system but in the opposite direction. McCain certainly doesn't seem to mind disproportionately relying on the taxation of the wealthy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he probably won't mind relying on it again if another war or two starts under his watch. Granted, McCain has spoken of the flat tax sympathetically in the past, but it doesn't seem to be a part of his current platform. As I see it, ALL taxation is income redistribution -- it always involves the government taking money away from individuals, away from families, and away from businesses and spending it in a way that the previous holders of the money can generally only influence indirectly. McCain may want to reduce the amount of income redistribution rather than increase it as Obama wants to do, but both presidential candidates are redistributers. I don't understand why the social spending advocated by Obama is often treated as if it was in some way worse than other government spending. Perhaps taxation for war spending seems less like income redistribution to some because the troops are fighting for everyone, but the fact remains that all war funds raised by taxation were taken forcibly and spent without the explicit approval of the taxpayer. While Obama does want a bigger government, I don't think any of his policies are really more socialistic in nature than some of the government's recent attempts to address the financial crisis -- AIG, for instance, has essentially been nationalized...a really, really, REALLY socialistic thing to do. I think Obama and McCain both make superb arguments for their respective views on taxation; I'd even go so far as to say their arguments have raised the level of discourse on this subject in American society for the time being. At the end of the day, though, they're both essentially income-redistributin', reluctant socialists, just like FDR and Ronald Reagan. McCain is being disingenuous by claiming to be something else.
The McCain position is essentially that taxes are a necessary evil and that America's current tax rates are too high. Though no one will ever able to agree on the perfect tax rate, I think it's indisputable that high tax rates make things difficult for a lot of people, from the middle class family trying to eek by to the small or large business that needs money to expand and hire new workers. McCain, like President Bush, sees cutting tax rates as one of the best ways to spur new growth. Compared to Obama, McCain is more concerned with getting past the recession, not surviving it. Ideally, McCain's tax policies would help the American economy zoom through the recession and start thriving again quickly, but there's certainly no guarantee this will happen. There is also a philosophical component to McCain's position which is based on the idea of America being a land of the free and also a land of limited government. Reducing taxes reduces the imposition of government on the people; at the very least, it gives people with money more freedom to spend that money as they will. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue puts pressure on government to slim down which jives well with McCain's call for a government spending freeze and his long-running crusade against wasteful government spending. It doesn't necessarily go so smoothly with certain of McCain's other positions, however, notably when it comes to foreign policy: one indisputable lesson of Iraq is that wars cost a lot of money.
For Barack Obama, the end justifies the means when it comes to taxation. No one likes paying taxes, but there's a difference between the pang an American taxpayer feels when writing a check out to the IRS and the pain a burn victim feels as he is pulled out of the flames. Obama thinks that the good that can come out of government spending outweighs the ills of taxation; he believes that increasing access to health insurance and health care, cleaning up the educational system, and otherwise aiding the masses is more important than the free spending of the wealth one has earned. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to think that the ills of taxation are quite so severe as McCain believes. Lower taxes may encourage companies to expand, but big companies have also made the "golden parachute" into a household phrase. It's not only government that engages in wasteful spending; it's rife in the corporate world and among the wealthy as well. Obama essentially makes the argument that the rich and businesses should pay more in taxes because they can afford to do so -- profitable businesses will still be able to expand and make more profits and the rich will still be able to invest because there is so much wealth floating around, but by trimming the fat of the wealthy the country as a whole can benefit. I think whether this is really true or not is very situational. Some businesses and some people really probably can afford higher taxes without cutting back too much , but not everyone will be able to bear the increased burden so lightly. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated how easily even huge businesses can fail quite suddenly so we shouldn't treat a change in tax policy in any way but seriously. Let's also not forget that Obama is an anti-tax crusader himself when it comes to the middle class. First and foremost, I think Obama's tax cuts will make it easier for folks to survive the recession even if they have been hit hard by the mortgage crisis and credit crunch; I think it's more of a humanitarian gesture than an economic one. At the same time, those tax cuts should encourage consumer spending which is good for the economy and could help keep a lot of businesses afloat. Obama also seems to believe very much in the power of government spending to create jobs and boost the economy; for instance, he wants the government to take a leading role in the drive towards alternative energy sources and he also supports increased government spending on infrastructure (public works projects can create a lot of jobs and give a nice boost to the construction and related industries). To an extent, Obama wants to use government to provide the economic boost that McCain hopes his tax cuts will encourage the wealthy and businesses to provide. Personally, my biggest beef with Obama is that he is not more focused on the most important goals he wants to achieve when it comes to spending -- for instance, I really don't believe spending money on encouraging community service is something the government needs to be worried about right now.
Clearly, McCain and Obama aren't on the same page when it comes to taxation. On the other hand, they're not quite as different from one another as the McCain campaign wants people to believe. Obama has been repeatedly branded an income redistributor and a socialist (and perhaps by extension "un-American") of late because of his tax policies, but we've had the progressive income tax in America for a long time now. I don't think it's fair to call someone who wants to make an adjustment within a system of taxation that has existed through many such adjustments over many years an agent of radical change. In fact, McCain also wants to make adjustments to that system but in the opposite direction. McCain certainly doesn't seem to mind disproportionately relying on the taxation of the wealthy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he probably won't mind relying on it again if another war or two starts under his watch. Granted, McCain has spoken of the flat tax sympathetically in the past, but it doesn't seem to be a part of his current platform. As I see it, ALL taxation is income redistribution -- it always involves the government taking money away from individuals, away from families, and away from businesses and spending it in a way that the previous holders of the money can generally only influence indirectly. McCain may want to reduce the amount of income redistribution rather than increase it as Obama wants to do, but both presidential candidates are redistributers. I don't understand why the social spending advocated by Obama is often treated as if it was in some way worse than other government spending. Perhaps taxation for war spending seems less like income redistribution to some because the troops are fighting for everyone, but the fact remains that all war funds raised by taxation were taken forcibly and spent without the explicit approval of the taxpayer. While Obama does want a bigger government, I don't think any of his policies are really more socialistic in nature than some of the government's recent attempts to address the financial crisis -- AIG, for instance, has essentially been nationalized...a really, really, REALLY socialistic thing to do. I think Obama and McCain both make superb arguments for their respective views on taxation; I'd even go so far as to say their arguments have raised the level of discourse on this subject in American society for the time being. At the end of the day, though, they're both essentially income-redistributin', reluctant socialists, just like FDR and Ronald Reagan. McCain is being disingenuous by claiming to be something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)