I Remember It Like It Was Next Week
Jacob Sullum | August 23, 2004, 3:00am
In the latest issue of Harper's, Lewis Lapham has a long, tiresome essay on the "Republican propaganda mill"--which, to judge by one of the accompanying graphs, includes the foundation that publishes Reason. (No wonder we find ourselves praising the president so often.) Lapham briefly mentions but otherwise ignores ideological divisions on "the right," lumping together "the Catholic conservatives with the Jewish neoconservatives, the libertarians with the authoritarians, the evangelical nationalists with the paranoid monetarists, Pat Robertson with the friends of the Ku Klux Klan." According to Lapham, all are part of the same conspiracy against decency and compassion, bound together by a common "resentment" (of what, exactly, he doesn't say). It tells you something about Lapham's acuity that he sees George W. Bush as a faithful disciple of Barry Goldwater. The main thrust of the piece is that all conservatives are stupid and closed-minded, with the possible exception of Irving Kristol.
Perhaps the most revealing part of the article is the paragraph where Lapham pretends to have heard the speeches at the Republican National Convention that does not open until a week from today. Referring to "the platform on which [George W. Bush] was trundled into New York City this August with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the heavy law enforcement, and the paper elephants," Lapham writes:
The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal--government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden's prayer--and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn't stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?
True, the issue is dated September, but I got my copy in early August, and Lapham must have written those words in July. Didn't it occur to him that his readers might notice he was claiming to have witnessed an event that had not occurred when the magazine went to press? Evidently, Republicans are not the only ones Lapham thinks are stupid.
syn | August 24, 2004, 1:03am | #
OTT but I must respond to one of Joe's comments.
Hey Joe, Relieving tax burden on the poor? I thought that if one made less than a certain amount of income per year then they were relieved from paying taxes.
Anyway, all that entitlement programs have managed to accomplish over the years is to make Hollywood actors, producers, directors and rock/ rap/ pop stars rich! Something not spoken too often, actually, the entire entertainment industry is responsible for impoverishing the public.
Priority economics: Get the poor & middle class hooked on entertainment while requiring government pay for their basic necessities this way the poor & middle class will have more money left over to spend on actors, producers, directors and rock/rap/pop stars and all the marketing crap for each product.
My proof, the billions made, PER YEAR, by the entertainment/music industry from a product that yields little or no return.
Perscription drugs cure disease but what does watching "the day after tomorrow" actually deliver? People will spent $300 to see a two hour madonna concert but will not use that same money to pay for good health insurance? Michael Moore's propaganda film Fahrenheit 9/11 earns 100 million plus in less than four months, that money could have been used to pay for and abundance of health insurance for the working class but is instead enriching Michael Moore. Why is this happening?
If one thinks that the entertainment industry provide jobs and income for the masses, look at the earning of the top 5% stars as opposed to the
bottom 95%. And, because everything in Hollywood is outsourced these days, the entertainment industry has managed to absolve itself from paying its fair share of the TAX BURDEN!
joe | August 24, 2004, 1:51am | #
jc, Mick McMick, if we're talking tax policy, then it's best to limit the other variables and focus on tax policy. If the sum total of needed tax receipts was half of current receipts, I'd still argue that the system of collecting that money should be progressive. The proper size and scope of government - save it for another thread, and focus!
Say what, spending by lower income people goes more towards things with high social utility - keeping roofs over people's heads, keeping the car running so they can get to work, putting food in the kids' bellies - than spending by upper income people. Now, I realize that buying stocks and luxury goods has positive economic effects, but so does the same amount of spending by lower income people. But on the plane of utility, a hundred mothers being able to get more fresh fruit into their kids' diets has more value than one millionaire being able to get the really good leather in his plane, or adding to his portfolio.
Jeff, the wealthy who own the businesses benefit from having more customers with more money to spend. I call this theory "trickle up economics."
syn, "I thought that if one made less than a certain amount of income per year then they were relieved from paying taxes." That's because you are so eager to be duped by Republicans, that you've forgotten about the payroll tax (hint, the jumping off point of this discussion), which takes a bigger bite out of most Americans' paychecks than the income tax. So interesting how the taxes that hit rich people the hardest (income, inheretance) are in the forefront of the conservative mind, but those paid by poorer people just slip your minds!
Duck, despite the EITC, each of the income quintiles continues to pay roughly the same % of their income in taxes - about 20%, with figures slightly higher for the top and the bottom, and those in the middle paying slightly less. It was a step in the right direction, though.
Jason | August 24, 2004, 2:38am | #
joe :
In order for consumers (read: poor working mothers) to be able to spend money on essential goods and services, those goods and services must exist. In order for these goods and services to exist, someone must produce them. That someone (unless you propose returning the lot of us to a subsistance life-style) will be rich.
By disproportionately taxing the rich, you limit their ability to provide goods and services. This creates scarcity, which in turn raises prices. Which means that the consumers (read: poor working single mothers with ten children) will be paying more for those essential goods and services.
In other words, even though you have placed more dollars in the hands of the poor by reducing their tax burden, you have done them no good, because they must now spend more to obtain these goods.
Wealth is not, and never has been, determined by the amount of green cotton-based paper one hoardes. Wealth is determined solely by production. Those who produce the most are the richest, and by appropriating their capital for taxes disproportionately, they produce less. Disproportionately less. Thus, you have harmed the entire economy, and done no good for the poorest.
The sad fact of the matter is that wealth is generated by the wealthy, and trickles down from them to the less wealthy who work from them, and then to the middle class (who work for the less wealthy) and lastly to the poor (who work for all of the above). If you take money from the poor, they have less to spend. If you take money from the rich, they have less to sell to the poor. Either way, the poor are hurt.
The advantage of the former over the latter is that, by not taking money from the rich (at least, not doing so disproportionately), you promote investment both in increasing overall production, and in the infrastructure required to generate such production. In other words, the poor gain little benefit in the short term, but over the longer term we all gain from a stronger economy.
Evil Capitalist Oppressor | August 24, 2004, 3:22am | #
Joe: a hundred mothers being able to get more fresh fruit into their kids' diets has more value than one millionaire being able to get the really good leather in his plane
Depends... Does the kid's dad work in the leather business?
I don't have a plane, but I am a millionaire, and I do have really good leather in my cars...
In the last year remodeling my house I have employed dozens of people -- no,
dozens of moms and dads -- ranging from professionals (architects, lawyers, engineers) to middle-class (contractors, craftsmen) to lower-class (laborers, including legal immigrants).
While they've been working on my project, they've felt confident enough in the future to have an "extra" baby, they've bought cars and $$$ equipment, they've expanded a small business, they've sent their kids to better schools and colleges, and two recent immigrants have bought their own homes. Probably even bought some fresh fruit, too.
All of their activities, of course, imply further economic activity -- paying toy-makers, hiring help, paying car-makers, hiring teachers, etc.
BTW, I paid for this project out of capital, with the obvious implication: overtax capital and I could not have hired these guys. Jeez, overtax capital and I would not have made the money in the first place.
part-time slave | August 24, 2004, 4:59am | #
I ALREADY F... ...IDIOT!
Reasoned debate. How heartwarming.
Efficient schools. Educated citizens, who learn the value of mutual respect. I don't mind paying for that, even though I may send my kids to private schools.
Garbage collection. I don't mind paying for that.
(Unarmed) police to maintain the peace. I don't mind paying for that.
Major roads. Privatise them. Let the user pay. Let the costs of transport of vegetables be born by the vegetable eaters.
Fire departments. A kind of insurance. I can accept paying for that.
Zyklon B, or whatever it is executioners use nowadays. Nope. Not gonna pay for that.
The phone company. The post office. Privatise.
Sidewalks. No problem.
The things I use, I'll pay for. (Either privately or publicly.) The things I can accept morally, I'll pay for.
There are some goods which are "public". Sidewalks are more efficiently provided by communities than by individuals. / I can't imagine a market in sidewalks. / Wherever there's a monoply of an essential service, I don't mind the community running that service. I don't mind paying my fair share. I don't mind being billed for that.
But to have someone hold a metaphorical gun to my head, obliging me to pay for "services" which violate fundamental individual rights?
This debate seems to me to be an argument about who should be raped more. Violating my property rights is violating my rights.
"...(T)hat's the way it is. Quit whining."
Lie back and enjoy it, in other words.
BradDad | August 24, 2004, 5:08am | #
Hard to believe the time tested strategy of "tax cuts when the economy in recession" flabbergasts so many of you guys & gals.
Or the concept that "the people who pay the taxes get the tax cuts" is so completely foreign, especially to people here.
The goal of tax policy, simply, should be to raise the funds required to finance the legitimate functions of the government in the manner least harmful to the national economy.
The idea that "Some have too much, so we should take more from them" is a social justice debate - Who gets to decide how much is "too much"? Why should they have that power?
Last I saw, the Federal Government's take of the National Economy hasn't dropped below historic levels - even with the tax cuts, the Federal Government is not starving for money.
Where I will fault Bush is his failure to take on the Congress on anything on the domestic side.
He hasn't taken on the Senate Democrats on judicial appointments; he hasn't taken on the spenders on any domestic program; he signed McCain / Feingold when he should have vetoed it.
I can understand the political calculation:
"I have enough fights on my hands prosecuting the War, I don't need to add to those fights - and perhaps alienate some Republicans I need on the War - by picking fights with the Congress on the Domestic side."
I just don't happen to agree with it.
He's gotten no credit for his Domestic approach, no credit for the "new tone", no credit for the prescription drugs bill, no credit for any of this stuff.
Democrats hate him because they didn't get everything they wanted - and even if they did, they're so consumed with hatred about the other stuff that it doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, those who are concerned about spending are disgusted - and because some of them don't care about the War or even oppose it, his focus on priorities other than theirs is maddening.
Really, trying to deal with "The American People" is probably a lot like trying to herd cats - we want it all & we want someone else to pay the price.
On spending, for example, a lot of you want Bush to charge the machine gun nest with a water pistol - - and you don't care if he'd get shot dead politically in the process.
Understand this - the political culture in Washington is to spend other people's money. Always has been, always will be, because no one has figured out a way (yet) to make themselves more popular politically by NOT giving this group or that group something.
Figure that one out & maybe we'll get somewhere.
raymond_m | August 25, 2004, 5:27am | #
slave 1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.
slavery 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.
2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will.
Bondage 1. The state of being bound; condition of being under restraint; restraint of personal liberty by compulsion; involuntary servitude; slavery; captivity.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Is the taxpayer subject to the will of another? Does he have freedom of action insofar as his services are concerned? If he fails to provide the service the state requires, does he risk being wholly under the control of another?
Must he submit to the the will of others? Is he restrained, compelled?
And when the draft is reintroduced (and there is talk of this)...
Comparing taxation to slavery both demonizes a necessary government power while diminishing a real moral atrocity.
How is taxation as it is practised in most countries a "necessary government power"?
Do governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed?
The legitimate powers of a government come from putting into a common pot certain natural rights which the individual may not be able to exercise fully. The individual still holds these rights, but he lends them to his agent, the government. (Paine)
Can a government legitimately do what the individual cannot?
If an individual steals from me or forces me to work for him, isn't this an "atrocity"? If the state does it, is it any less atrocious?
Does the fact that one is not aware of the violation of his fundamental rights or acquiesces to it make the violation any more acceptable?
There are degrees of horror. I'll grant you that. But any persuasive argument in favour of the sort of taxation you people are talking about can, with little difficulty, be extended to the question of the draft. And the draft is, in my opinion, about as horrendous a moral atrocity as is possible to imagine.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
