E!! The True Conservative Story™

.

Wednesday morning during our KNPR panel discussion, LV City Life editor Steve Sebelius ridiculed the anti-socialist sentiments of Joe the Plumber and reminded listeners that America already “spreads the wealth around” via our existing social democracy and graduated tax system.  Steve also commented on the strange (to him) fact that Heartland voters like Joe will often self-defeatingly vote “against their own self interest” by opposing tax increases on hgher income famlies that would enable tax cuts for themselves and/or the funding of entitlement programs that would benefit them.

It seems that Steve and others of like mind have trouble understanding a man who votes based on principle – even if that principle might not benefit him immediately and/or directly.

So:  is Joe the Plumber, who one day hopes to own his own business and does not want to be taxed to death when he does, a big dummy for voting against the candidate who promised him a tax cut based on his present income?  He’s recently answered questions about this, as well as his general opposition to wealth redistribution, and here is the gist of what he said:

He understands that he’s earning less than $100K right now and that Obama’s tax plan would therefore benefit him in the short term.  But he also believes Obama’s tax plan and health care mandate will make it more difficult for him to succeed in the future (i.e. to start and then profit from a small business).  Joe says he is content to pay his taxes, if they are fair and reasonable.  He is willing to work hard and wants to earn his future wealth.  He does not want special breaks or handouts that he knows come out of another man’s pocket.  He does not want to pay less in taxes so another man has to pay more, and he does not want to be the man who someday pays more while others pay far less.  He believes that lower taxes on businesses create jobs, which benefits everyone (because companies that make money will generally invest profits and expand).

But yesterday Jonah Goldberg echoed Sebelius in reminding us that whatever our principles and ideals, the U.S. is a social democracy with a progressive, redistributionist tax system.  Our poorest citizens pay somewhere between 0 and 10 percent in federal income tax; the middle class pays 15 to 28 percent; and the highest earners pay 33 or 35 percent.  He writes:

A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.” Our tax system is, in fact, the most “pro-poor,” according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country’s save Ireland. That’s right, we’re more progressive than France and Sweden.

The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.

So here’s my question:  Is sweeping tax reform a necessary part of a truly conservative agenda and should we therefore be pushing for a flat (or flatter) tax system?  Or are we resigned to things as they are and content to squabble over the difference between 35 and 39%? 

.

Update:  Steve Sebelius emails with the following:

Actually, if you listen to the [KNKPR] tape again, you’ll see I went out of my way to make it clear that IF a voter considers his own economic self-interest a factor, then a voter of Joe the Plumber’s situation would have voted for Obama. I did not necessarily endorse using one’s own economic situation as a guide to voting; surely, plenty of very wealthy people who would be taxed more heavily voted for Obama, and plenty of less well-off people voted for McCain. I don’t condemn them for voting on principle, and made that clear on the show.  

Me:  I guess I’ll have to listen to the tape.  My impression in the moment was that Steve said guys like Joe are foolish and/or unintelligent and/or wrong for not voting in their own immediate economic self interest. 

Update 2:  Steve’s exact words were:  “There are people voting the wrong way by not voting their economic interests.” 

At least in that sentence, Steve was priveleging present economic interests over other factors, and indicating that voters (who don’t see it that way) are making a mistake.

However, Steve also says that the rich people who voted for Obama were voting against their own economic interest, and it was “the right thing to do.”

So, if someone like Joe votes against his own economic interest with a conservative/Republican vote, he’s voting wrong; but if a rich person votes against his own economic interest with a liberal/Democrat vote, he’s voting right…?

???

I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy.  First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:

One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”  Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong.  Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.

And this bears out in his life.  He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician.  He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology:  the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit.  Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually. 

In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues.  For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American.  You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials:  a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.

What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.”  The cognitive disconnect is disturbing.  Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read:  taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth. 

You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.”  They are one and the same. 

In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree.  We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.

We believe there is good to be done.  We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do:  less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.

The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done?  If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.