The Senate used to have a process where one senator could place an anonymous secret "hold" on any nomination or bill to prevent it from coming to a vote. It represented all that was wrong with the Senate. It was undemocratic, anti-transparent, and cowardly. The Senate voted to end secret holds by a 92-4 vote. Who were the four opposed? The Senate Tea Party Caucus, of course, with Utah's own baby-faced tea-party senator, Mike Lee, included.
Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint (all founding members of the TPC), and John Ensign voted against ending secret holds. They voted against democratic procedures, against transparency in our legislative process, and for cowardliness.
When asked why he voted against the rule change, his anemic answer was, "It may be one of those things where sometimes, you throw up an idea and see if it gains traction. You know, I respect that strategy, even if I don’t agree with the objective." Which is no answer at all, he just didn't want to change Senate rules and maybe has some other unstated ulterior motives.
The Senate also voted against ending the filibuster, which is a shame. It voted to end the delay tactic of having an amendment to a bill read in its entirety and to streamline some of the hundreds of stalled Obama administration nominees. It was a good start to making the Senate work again, but ending the filibuster should have been priority one. In the end, I'm not really sure the TPC is up to here, and I'll be interested to see where this leads.
Jumat, 28 Januari 2011
Rabu, 26 Januari 2011
State of the Union Highlights
I was at scouts last night and couldn't watch the State of the Union Address, but as I've browsed through it there are several items that I believe are worth highlighting. The theme was Win the Future, which I guess is the new Hope and Change. In both cases, President Obama wants to exude optimism, which is something, as I've said before, we dearly lack around here. So with optimism in mind, here are a few things worth looking at.
As some of you know, I'm a proud and moralistic environmentalist, so I appreciated the renewed emphasis on renewable energy:
As to education, and to allay concerns that liberals are masked communists who want to destroy the family:
Finally, one point that I wish was hit more forcefully. When the president spoke about reducing the deficit he spent quite a bit of time talking about reducing non-discretionary domestic spending, which he acknowledged made up only 12% of the nation's budget. Then he blithely stated, concerning the deficit commission:
From the Center for Arms Control:
From Think Progress:
From the Daily Mail:
If we want to seriously get the budget under control, we should cut defense spending, which is filled with corruptions, special interests, and waste. Pres. Eisenhower correctly predicted this in his farewell speech where he warned:
As some of you know, I'm a proud and moralistic environmentalist, so I appreciated the renewed emphasis on renewable energy:
Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."
That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.
At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if — I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.First, there is almost nothing so offensive, in my mind, as the billions of dollars in tax relief that we give to oil companies. Those should end immediately. Second, I've been contemplating a post about the world's population crisis, and one of the most important points in that discussion is energy. Where are the billions of people we are going to be adding to our world's population going to get their energy? How can we add billions more people to the Earth and not completely destroy the environment in the search for and consumption of cheap energy? Renewable energy, of course, is the answer, and the longer we wait to make the President's goal a reality the harder it will be. We simply have no choice but to invest aggressively in renewable energies. And it will be good for our economy in the long-term, as well.
As to education, and to allay concerns that liberals are masked communists who want to destroy the family:
That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair. We need to teach them that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.As a parent of children who are starting to make their way through school, I simply could not agree more that the most important factor in determining whether our schools are successful is the efforts of the home. We wouldn't be talking about failing schools and teachers if families bore more of the burden and responsibility of education. That is nearly impossible, however, when parents are facing foreclosure, unemployment, insurmountable medical bills, neighborhood violence, and the like, and where the stresses of oppressive poverty crowd out most other concerns. The stability of the family is one reason why it is so important to build and maintain a robust social safety net.
Finally, one point that I wish was hit more forcefully. When the president spoke about reducing the deficit he spent quite a bit of time talking about reducing non-discretionary domestic spending, which he acknowledged made up only 12% of the nation's budget. Then he blithely stated, concerning the deficit commission:
And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.I believe I've linked to this before, but take a look at the a visualization of the budget found at the New York Times. What jumps out immediately? National Security and Social Security. Those are certainly worthy of a lot of money, and we talk all the time about ways to control Social Security costs. What we never talk about is controlling National Security costs. It is virtually unheard of for a politician to seriously suggest bringing defense spending down in any meaningful way, which is a travesty. Here are an assortment of charts to help put our military spending in context
From the Center for Arms Control:
From Think Progress:
From the Daily Mail:
If we want to seriously get the budget under control, we should cut defense spending, which is filled with corruptions, special interests, and waste. Pres. Eisenhower correctly predicted this in his farewell speech where he warned:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.I thought the State of Union was good. I think it had the right tone and struck the right balance between government waste and government investment. A focus on families, peace, and renewable energy, among other things, is the kind of liberalism I support.
Senin, 24 Januari 2011
Update: Expanding the House of Representatives Just Got Cooler
My post a few weeks ago about the need for our House of Representatives to be expanded just got some support from people smarter than me with slightly more conspicuous platforms.
A couple of PhDs, Jacqueline Stevens from Northwestern and Dalton Conley from NYU, wrote an op-ed for the NY Times touting the need for a dramatic expansion of the House of Representatives and the attendant benefits it would create. Ms. Stevens also appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation to discuss the issue. Thanks for picking up where I left off, professors.
Now is the time to jump on the expansion bandwagon if you want to seem cool in a couple of years when this gets big. You'll want to hear yourself saying, "I was back reading the Mormon Left about expansion when you were still in diapers."
A couple of PhDs, Jacqueline Stevens from Northwestern and Dalton Conley from NYU, wrote an op-ed for the NY Times touting the need for a dramatic expansion of the House of Representatives and the attendant benefits it would create. Ms. Stevens also appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation to discuss the issue. Thanks for picking up where I left off, professors.
Now is the time to jump on the expansion bandwagon if you want to seem cool in a couple of years when this gets big. You'll want to hear yourself saying, "I was back reading the Mormon Left about expansion when you were still in diapers."
Rabu, 19 Januari 2011
Constitutional Over-Correction: Extreme States' Rights
Utah's very own baby-faced tea-party senator, and self-styled Constitutional scholar, Mike Lee, recently held forth that, of all things, child labor laws are unconstitutional. I guess I'm more sad than anything. Sad because we have completely stopped thinking through issues and ideas carefully. Rhetoric rules.
The best way I can describe what is going on is with a car analogy, which I understand is worn and cliche but I am nothing if not worn and cliche. So, you are driving along on a road trip and you are eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich and you look down for a second to rearrange the wrapping for your next bite and when you look up you are drifting into oncoming traffic. The natural reaction is to jerk the wheel back. But this is how rollovers happen, by over-correction. The proper response is to course-correct more smoothly.
I will be the first to admit that there are some troubling things in America. I can fully agree that the national debt is an embarrassment and has to be dealt with. I can fully agree that the federal government needs to be tightened up and run more efficiently. We have written several times that we need to strengthen our democracy with things like term limits and reformed campaign finance laws. But the tea party is over-correcting.
Rand Paul said that he thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. Mike Lee now says that child labor laws are unconstitutional. There is a whole movement to repeal the 17th Amendment which mandates the direct election of senators. Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann appear to encourage violent reaction to a perceived tyrannous government. The list goes on, and it demonstrates how some are trying to capitalize on the tea party fervor to strip the Constitution down past its logical limits. Over-correction. We delved into some Constitutional issues before, notably here and here. Let's take a look now at the extreme states' rights issues raised by Senators Lee and Paul, and the tenthers generally.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." It also gives Congress authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Commerce Clause is the biggie. Almost all economic regulation by Congress is predicated on the Commerce Clause. The health care reform bill is a classic example. Congress has the authority to regulate the entire health insurance industry because it engages in interstate commerce. That is, people buy health insurance and move around from state to state and health insurance can be transported across state lines and so it is interstate commerce of the kind the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate.
Conservatives think this is overreaching and they point to the Tenth Amendment and argue that unless the Constitution gives explicit authority to the federal government the individual states alone have authority in that area. So, since the Constitution doesn't mention health care, it must be an area that the federal government has to stay out of and only the states can regulate. It's hard to square that with the Commerce Clause, but there you have it.
The Constitutional originalists, who have shaky historical footing to stand on, in my opinion, would like to go back to the era of the Founding Fathers where the federal government exerted almost no control over commerce, and state sovereignty was much more pronounced. Again, over-correction. As I've pointed out before, we live in a drastically different world than the one of 1787. At the time there was very little interstate commerce. It was an agrarian nation where the necessities of life were grown, made, and consumed locally. But as the nation began to industrialize and commerce started to expand beyond localities and states, the Commerce Clause suddenly began to take on immense meaning.
Now, virtually nothing we consume is not a product of interstate commerce, and it is very common, probably the norm, for a person to move to a different state at least once during their lives. These are phenomena that didn't exist at the time of Framers. States' rights, then, in a world of ultimate mobility, have much less importance. The need for the federal government to exert control over commerce and ensure uniformity, an equal footing for all states, and protections for consumers who are far removed from the production of the things they purchase, not to mention the ability of large multi-state and multi-national corporations to abuse their power, is more important now than in 1787.
The tenthers like Lee and Paul who want the federal government to relinquish most of its authority over interstate commerce to the states simply don't understand, or willfully misrepresent, the complexities of the modern world. Look, I agree that the federal government has done some overreaching and over-regulating, and I'm happy that the Pres. Obama is tackling that issue. I can understand the desire to have government de-centralized and closer to the people. We can certainly do some rearranging in those areas.
But we are still the United States of America. One big, complicated nation. We need certain minimum protections and regulations that protect all citizens equally and tackle problems that are much, much bigger than individual states. The Constitution gives the government power to do that, no matter what bizarre things Senator Lee has to say about child labor laws.
The best way I can describe what is going on is with a car analogy, which I understand is worn and cliche but I am nothing if not worn and cliche. So, you are driving along on a road trip and you are eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich and you look down for a second to rearrange the wrapping for your next bite and when you look up you are drifting into oncoming traffic. The natural reaction is to jerk the wheel back. But this is how rollovers happen, by over-correction. The proper response is to course-correct more smoothly.
I will be the first to admit that there are some troubling things in America. I can fully agree that the national debt is an embarrassment and has to be dealt with. I can fully agree that the federal government needs to be tightened up and run more efficiently. We have written several times that we need to strengthen our democracy with things like term limits and reformed campaign finance laws. But the tea party is over-correcting.
Rand Paul said that he thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. Mike Lee now says that child labor laws are unconstitutional. There is a whole movement to repeal the 17th Amendment which mandates the direct election of senators. Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann appear to encourage violent reaction to a perceived tyrannous government. The list goes on, and it demonstrates how some are trying to capitalize on the tea party fervor to strip the Constitution down past its logical limits. Over-correction. We delved into some Constitutional issues before, notably here and here. Let's take a look now at the extreme states' rights issues raised by Senators Lee and Paul, and the tenthers generally.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." It also gives Congress authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Commerce Clause is the biggie. Almost all economic regulation by Congress is predicated on the Commerce Clause. The health care reform bill is a classic example. Congress has the authority to regulate the entire health insurance industry because it engages in interstate commerce. That is, people buy health insurance and move around from state to state and health insurance can be transported across state lines and so it is interstate commerce of the kind the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate.
Conservatives think this is overreaching and they point to the Tenth Amendment and argue that unless the Constitution gives explicit authority to the federal government the individual states alone have authority in that area. So, since the Constitution doesn't mention health care, it must be an area that the federal government has to stay out of and only the states can regulate. It's hard to square that with the Commerce Clause, but there you have it.
The Constitutional originalists, who have shaky historical footing to stand on, in my opinion, would like to go back to the era of the Founding Fathers where the federal government exerted almost no control over commerce, and state sovereignty was much more pronounced. Again, over-correction. As I've pointed out before, we live in a drastically different world than the one of 1787. At the time there was very little interstate commerce. It was an agrarian nation where the necessities of life were grown, made, and consumed locally. But as the nation began to industrialize and commerce started to expand beyond localities and states, the Commerce Clause suddenly began to take on immense meaning.
Now, virtually nothing we consume is not a product of interstate commerce, and it is very common, probably the norm, for a person to move to a different state at least once during their lives. These are phenomena that didn't exist at the time of Framers. States' rights, then, in a world of ultimate mobility, have much less importance. The need for the federal government to exert control over commerce and ensure uniformity, an equal footing for all states, and protections for consumers who are far removed from the production of the things they purchase, not to mention the ability of large multi-state and multi-national corporations to abuse their power, is more important now than in 1787.
The tenthers like Lee and Paul who want the federal government to relinquish most of its authority over interstate commerce to the states simply don't understand, or willfully misrepresent, the complexities of the modern world. Look, I agree that the federal government has done some overreaching and over-regulating, and I'm happy that the Pres. Obama is tackling that issue. I can understand the desire to have government de-centralized and closer to the people. We can certainly do some rearranging in those areas.
But we are still the United States of America. One big, complicated nation. We need certain minimum protections and regulations that protect all citizens equally and tackle problems that are much, much bigger than individual states. The Constitution gives the government power to do that, no matter what bizarre things Senator Lee has to say about child labor laws.
Kamis, 13 Januari 2011
Too Much Air in the War We Breath
War has become the single most pervasive theme in modern society. We wage War on Terror, sports arenas are battlefields, and any significant level of destruction is deemed a war zone. Even positive efforts fall prey to the theme - the War on Cancer, War on Drugs, and the Battle Against Hunger. It's become so common that we are desensitized to the violence conveyed with such a theme. Is the recent political rhetoric just a result of the common vernacular? Or is it the cause?
Violent, war-laced imagery exists on all sides of the aisle, and has been present for generations. Consider Lincoln's "House Divided" - , Roosevelt's "Man with the Muckrake" - , or more modern examples like McCain's 2008 GOP Convention Speech "Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for your country", and even Obama last year in Ohio "I'll never stop fighting to give every American a fair shake.".
While the last two references seem relatively mild, the frequency and amplitude of the imagery has increased dramatically as of late; with phrases like "kill the bill", "battleground states", and the now infamous crosshairs from Sarah Palin. Current debate has arisen over the relationship between the political jargon and the horrible events in Arizona.
I personally haven't decided if there is a quantifiable dependence on the actions of psychopaths and the violent allusions of politicians, media, and society. Nevertheless, I do feel strongly that action needs to be taken against the perpetuation of violence. Joseph Smith had it right when he said, "Let us conquer ourselves, and then go to and conquer all the evil that we see around us, as far as we possibly can. And we will do it without using violence; we will do it without interfering with the agency of men or of women. We will do it by persuasion, by long-suffering, by patience, and by forgiveness and love unfeigned, by which we will win the hearts, the affections and the souls of the children of men to the truth as God has revealed it to us."
Thankfully modern commentators and politicians echo this same idea:
There is no need for violence. It has no place in our society, nor in our hearts.
Violent, war-laced imagery exists on all sides of the aisle, and has been present for generations. Consider Lincoln's "House Divided" - , Roosevelt's "Man with the Muckrake" - , or more modern examples like McCain's 2008 GOP Convention Speech "Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for your country", and even Obama last year in Ohio "I'll never stop fighting to give every American a fair shake.".
While the last two references seem relatively mild, the frequency and amplitude of the imagery has increased dramatically as of late; with phrases like "kill the bill", "battleground states", and the now infamous crosshairs from Sarah Palin. Current debate has arisen over the relationship between the political jargon and the horrible events in Arizona.
I personally haven't decided if there is a quantifiable dependence on the actions of psychopaths and the violent allusions of politicians, media, and society. Nevertheless, I do feel strongly that action needs to be taken against the perpetuation of violence. Joseph Smith had it right when he said, "Let us conquer ourselves, and then go to and conquer all the evil that we see around us, as far as we possibly can. And we will do it without using violence; we will do it without interfering with the agency of men or of women. We will do it by persuasion, by long-suffering, by patience, and by forgiveness and love unfeigned, by which we will win the hearts, the affections and the souls of the children of men to the truth as God has revealed it to us."
Thankfully modern commentators and politicians echo this same idea:
There is no need for violence. It has no place in our society, nor in our hearts.
Jumat, 07 Januari 2011
Worst News Story Ever
Apparently a washed up old rocker is not yet ready to endorse a half term governor and reality TV star as President of the United States of America. We'll keep you updated as the story evolves.
Everyone please say a prayer for the future of our country, because if this is news we've got some serious issues.
Everyone please say a prayer for the future of our country, because if this is news we've got some serious issues.
Rabu, 05 Januari 2011
Progressive Taxation
A recent poll showed that over 60 percent of Americans think that the government should tax the rich in an effort to reduce the budget deficit. Polls also consistently found that a majority of Americans wanted the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Conservatives, inexplicably, won that battle in their larger war against progressive taxation.
So with all the recent talk about taxes, I wanted to try to explain why liberals, and a majority of Americans generally, support a progressive tax scheme. A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with taxable income. So a person making a smaller salary pays a smaller percentage in taxes than a person making a larger salary. Currently in the US, we have a progressive federal income tax that ranges from 10% for the lowest income earners to 35% for the highest marginal rates.
Mainstream conservatives typically oppose a progressive tax for moral reasons. They argue that it is unfair to tax the wealthy at higher rates just because they have a lot of money, that it is a form of class welfare, that the poor are getting off easy, and that it disincentivizes hard work. These arguments miss the point.
As a starting point, let's look at tithing, which is a conservative's dream flat rate of 10% for all. Tithing is nothing like taxation, of course, and an analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed for that reason. Tithing is a spiritual commandment, and is a matter of faith, unlike taxes which are a matter of public policy. But it provides a nice, simple example of what I want to talk about.
Lets say there are two people, Person X makes $1,000 per month and Person Y makes $10,000 per month. If they both pay 10% tithing, X pays $100 and Y pays $1,000. It is tempting to say that since X and Y pay the same rate it is equally difficult or easy for them to pay, that their burden is equal. That, however, would be wrong. X makes very little money and thus a higher percentage, probably approaching 100%, of her income goes towards needs like rent, food, clothing, utilities, etc. X's tithing check comes at the expense of items she needs, but will sacrifice nonetheless. Y's 10%, on the other hand, will come almost exclusively from money she was going to use for savings, luxuries, and non-necessities. It is much harder for X to pay 10% than for Y.
Tithing, then, in my opinion, is disproportionally more beneficial to the poor who gain greater blessings because it is a greater sacrifice. The wealthy, again in my opinion, had better seriously step up in fast offerings if they want similar blessings, because the more wealthy a person is the easier the law of tithing becomes to keep. There are plenty of scriptures that warn the wealthy that their wealth is a hindrance to their righteousness, and I think tithing was specifically set up to test how generous the wealthy will be with their money beyond the strict minimum required by tithing.
So for taxation, you can see why a progressive scheme is favored by liberals. For another example, say that the we all agree that a nation of three people, for simplicity, needs $10,000 for its government to function properly. Three people, A, B, and C, make $10,000, $30,000, and $60,000 per month respectively. How should the tax burden be divided? If there was a flat rate of 10%, A would pay $1,000, B $3,000, and C $6,000 and they'd get there. But, again, this is actually a disproportionate burden on A who makes less and has a much more difficult time making ends meet under this scheme than B or, especially, C. In this situation A actually has a higher tax burden. A progressive tax of 5%, 10%, and 11% evens out those burdens. You'll see that A had her tax burden cut in half and to make up for it C only had an increase of one percent. This is more fair to everyone.
There are, of course, other reasons to support a progressive tax system. The wealthy have increased access to influence and power, and thus more ability to shape public policy to their benefit at the expense of the poor. Progressive taxation can even out that inequality. There is also a persuasive argument that the wealthy receive greater benefits from the government, such as the protection of property rights, defense and security, infrastructure, and market regulation, than the poor and thus should shoulder a greater tax burden to support societal order. Wikipedia has a nice rundown of the pro and con arguments.
What is overstated is the amount of animosity and hatred felt towards the wealthy, and the use of progressive taxation to punish them. Some people no doubt feel this way, but the best and most useful arguments for progressive taxation do not rely on emotions or retribution. Progressive taxation is a sound rational policy.
In fact, despite all of the hand-wringing about raising rates on the wealthy and the detrimental effect it will have on the economy, this is the least progressive tax system we've had since the Great Depression. Throughout the steady economic growth of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s the marginal tax rates were typically in the 70-90% range, instead of the 35% we have now. During the Reagan era the top marginal rates were around 50%. Here's a chart I think I've probably posted before from that link above.
Pres. Obama and Congress were wrong, from a public policy standpoint, to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In two years the best thing to do for the country would be to let them expire and properly redistribute the tax burden. The tax system in America needs to be vastly simplified and more progressive. I don't want to necessarily go back to a 90% marginal rate, but we've certainly gone too far in the other direction.
So with all the recent talk about taxes, I wanted to try to explain why liberals, and a majority of Americans generally, support a progressive tax scheme. A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with taxable income. So a person making a smaller salary pays a smaller percentage in taxes than a person making a larger salary. Currently in the US, we have a progressive federal income tax that ranges from 10% for the lowest income earners to 35% for the highest marginal rates.
Mainstream conservatives typically oppose a progressive tax for moral reasons. They argue that it is unfair to tax the wealthy at higher rates just because they have a lot of money, that it is a form of class welfare, that the poor are getting off easy, and that it disincentivizes hard work. These arguments miss the point.
As a starting point, let's look at tithing, which is a conservative's dream flat rate of 10% for all. Tithing is nothing like taxation, of course, and an analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed for that reason. Tithing is a spiritual commandment, and is a matter of faith, unlike taxes which are a matter of public policy. But it provides a nice, simple example of what I want to talk about.
Lets say there are two people, Person X makes $1,000 per month and Person Y makes $10,000 per month. If they both pay 10% tithing, X pays $100 and Y pays $1,000. It is tempting to say that since X and Y pay the same rate it is equally difficult or easy for them to pay, that their burden is equal. That, however, would be wrong. X makes very little money and thus a higher percentage, probably approaching 100%, of her income goes towards needs like rent, food, clothing, utilities, etc. X's tithing check comes at the expense of items she needs, but will sacrifice nonetheless. Y's 10%, on the other hand, will come almost exclusively from money she was going to use for savings, luxuries, and non-necessities. It is much harder for X to pay 10% than for Y.
Tithing, then, in my opinion, is disproportionally more beneficial to the poor who gain greater blessings because it is a greater sacrifice. The wealthy, again in my opinion, had better seriously step up in fast offerings if they want similar blessings, because the more wealthy a person is the easier the law of tithing becomes to keep. There are plenty of scriptures that warn the wealthy that their wealth is a hindrance to their righteousness, and I think tithing was specifically set up to test how generous the wealthy will be with their money beyond the strict minimum required by tithing.
So for taxation, you can see why a progressive scheme is favored by liberals. For another example, say that the we all agree that a nation of three people, for simplicity, needs $10,000 for its government to function properly. Three people, A, B, and C, make $10,000, $30,000, and $60,000 per month respectively. How should the tax burden be divided? If there was a flat rate of 10%, A would pay $1,000, B $3,000, and C $6,000 and they'd get there. But, again, this is actually a disproportionate burden on A who makes less and has a much more difficult time making ends meet under this scheme than B or, especially, C. In this situation A actually has a higher tax burden. A progressive tax of 5%, 10%, and 11% evens out those burdens. You'll see that A had her tax burden cut in half and to make up for it C only had an increase of one percent. This is more fair to everyone.
There are, of course, other reasons to support a progressive tax system. The wealthy have increased access to influence and power, and thus more ability to shape public policy to their benefit at the expense of the poor. Progressive taxation can even out that inequality. There is also a persuasive argument that the wealthy receive greater benefits from the government, such as the protection of property rights, defense and security, infrastructure, and market regulation, than the poor and thus should shoulder a greater tax burden to support societal order. Wikipedia has a nice rundown of the pro and con arguments.
What is overstated is the amount of animosity and hatred felt towards the wealthy, and the use of progressive taxation to punish them. Some people no doubt feel this way, but the best and most useful arguments for progressive taxation do not rely on emotions or retribution. Progressive taxation is a sound rational policy.
In fact, despite all of the hand-wringing about raising rates on the wealthy and the detrimental effect it will have on the economy, this is the least progressive tax system we've had since the Great Depression. Throughout the steady economic growth of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s the marginal tax rates were typically in the 70-90% range, instead of the 35% we have now. During the Reagan era the top marginal rates were around 50%. Here's a chart I think I've probably posted before from that link above.
 |
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)