There Is No 1%

In a recent interview, the New York Times sat down with businessman Edward Conrad to discuss the merits of the American economic system. Conrad, a former employee at Bain Capital, friend of Mitt Romney, and author of the upcoming book "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong," came out swinging with a powerful defense of the United States' capitalist economy and the so-called 1%.

Conrad must be given credit for both a sound economic defense of the American system and for unabashedly standing up to the onslaught against the core economic principles that have defined the United States for generations. In a financial and economic discussion that is defended as "genuinely fantastic" even by prestigious leftist economists, Conrad outlines how the accumulation of wealth allows investment that proportionally helps everyone.

Conard understands that many believe that the U.S. economy currently serves the rich at the expense of everyone else. He contends that this is largely because most Americans don’t know how the economy really works — that the superrich spend only a small portion of their wealth on personal comforts; most of their money is invested in productive businesses that make life better for everyone....Conard concludes that for every dollar an investor gets, the public reaps up to $20 in value. This is crucial to his argument: he thinks it proves that we should all appreciate the vast wealth of others more, because we’re benefiting, proportionally, from it.

Essentially, he argues that, despite much opposing popular sentiment, there is not anything wrong with the perceived wealth gap in the United States. In fact, it seems he argues the opposite.

A central problem with the U.S. economy, he [argues], is finding a way to get more people to look for solutions despite these terrible odds of success. Conard’s solution is simple. Society benefits if the successful risk takers get a lot of money.

While to the interviewer's chagrin, Conrad does not delve into some serious counterarguments, such as rent-seeking, his economic arguments are sound and convincing. If one buys his logic, as is hard not to do, the Occupy Wall Street crowd are simply fools who are naively injuring themselves.

Nevertheless, Conrad's argument implicitly accepts leftist (socialistic) assumptions through his defense of the so-called 1% by highlighting their provision of a social good. He attempts to refute the charge that the high income and wealth of the rich is somehow denying the poor of what they are due. However, despite the clearness of this analysis, he is making the wrong argument. He is battling the left (and the populist right) on their battleground—generally a woeful proposition—by accepting two significant, albeit it wrong, assumptions.

First, his argument accepts that the divide between the 99% and 1% is real, that there is some fundamental gap that separates the two groups. But such a contention is insupportable. What separates, for instance, the 2% from the 1%? Is everyone in the 99% in the same position? How about the 1%? The truth is that this divide is arbitrary, as any sensible person would acknowledge. It ignores myriad nuances—costs-of-living, family-size, personal goals, type of career, and others.

But the divide has powerful political ramifications, which is precisely why promoters of class warfare have seized upon it. It mobilizes people into an us versus them mentality, attempting to create an artificial camaraderie between the vast majority of Americans—an in-group—against some undeserving out-group. Worst of all, it ignores one of the founding principles of this country that all Americans are equal under the law. There is no 1% or 99%, but simply 100%, each trying to live their own life according to their own abilities, goals, and luck.

Second, by expounding these economic benefits Conrad is accepting the argument that in order for certain members of society to be able to justify high incomes or accumulated wealth, they need to be providing a social benefit. In other words, Conrad's formulation is identical to that of the far-left—individual success, at least for the wealthy, is only justified if the rest of society gains from their behavior. The flip-side implies that if high-income earners cannot convincingly highlight a social good, then their income is somehow illegitimate and possibly forfeit. Conrad only differs from the OWS thugs insofar as he believes that high-income provides such a social good, while those in Zuccotti Park do not.

But this argument is untrue and unjust. Individuals are entitled to the rewards of their work simply because they have been deemed valuable enough by the efforts and their employers to be compensated accordingly. No one, whether wealthy, poor, or middle-class, has to justify their compensation in any social context. Society seems to accept this logic for all but the rich. Very few people feel the need to justify their salary by citing a greater social good. Most feel entitled (and rightly so) to their income based on the hard work they put into their jobs. However, at some arbitrary point a sort of jealousy kicks in creating a scenario where certain Americans have to justify their incomes according to different standards.

This is profoundly un-American. A banker has no greater moral responsibility to justify a social benefit of his salary than a shopkeeper or mechanic. Every American is entitled to reap the rewards that come his way, in whatever form he desires. No one else has a claim to his income and no one else should arbitrarily define criteria to judge whether such wealth is deserved or not. To do otherwise opens a dangerous arena for improper abuse by the majority against the minority.

@FutureChallenges: The Annual Bertelsmann Conference: Making a Comeback

I attended the annual Bertelsmann Foundation conference—Making a Comeback: A Return to Jobs and Growth—which discussed the economy, jobs, and the political state of Washington, D.C. and Europe. Check the following links for my coverage, all posted at FutureChallenges.

Here's a link to a general review of the event, including descriptions of some of the more interesting discussions and panelists.

One of the panels had a lengthy discussion on risks to the international system. This interesting conversation featured panelists Ian Bremmer, from Eurasia Group, and Anne Krueger, from SAIS.

At the conference, Bertelsmann Foundation and the Kiel Institute proposed a new international, non-profit, credit rating agency (INCRA), to address some of the short comings and possible conflicts of interest in the current for-profit model.

In one of the more interesting panels, Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY) provided a discussion on the Democrat's take on the debt and tax issues. Fiscal Consolidation: A Technical Term for Partisan Quarrels.

The Privilege of Being American

In today's Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Lindsey, a former Federal Reserve governor and adviser to George W. Bush, wrote an interesting op-ed, refuting Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner's argument that it is a privilege to be an American and thus, by extension, the richest should pay more taxes. Lindsey's argument is worthy of reprinting in-part.

Last week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that the "most fortunate Americans" should pay more in taxes for the "privilege of being an American." One can debate different ways of balancing the budget. But Mr. Geithner's argument highlights an unfortunate and very destructive instinct that seems to permeate the Obama administration about the respective roles of citizens and their government. His position has three problems: one philosophical, one empirical, and one logical.

Philosophically, the concept that being an American is a "privilege" upends the whole basis on which America was founded. Privileges are things granted to one individual by another, higher-ranking, individual. For example, in my house my children's use of the family car is a privilege. One presumes Mr. Geithner believes that the "privilege" of being an American is granted by the presumably higher-ranking, governing powers that be.

This is an age-old view that our Founding Fathers rejected. First, they argued that the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., economic liberty) were natural rights, endowed by our Creator, not by government. Second, the governing powers do not out-rank the citizens. Rather it is the citizens who grant government officials their "just powers." As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men based on their consent in order to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The notion that a governing authority grants privileges to those it governs directly contradicts Jefferson's declaration.

...

This philosophical point is fundamental. But even if you accept Mr. Geithner's case that the well-to-do must pay more for their presumed "privilege" of being governed, his story ignores the empirical fact that they already do pay a record share of income taxes, even relative to their share of income. According to the Census Bureau, the share of income received by the top 5% of American households is now 21.5%, up from 21.4% in the 1990s. Their share of income taxes has risen to 59% under President Obama from 52% under President Clinton. This despite the fact that the top tax rate was five points higher in the Clinton years.

If you go further back to the pre-Reagan days, when the top tax rate was 70%, the story becomes even more dramatic. Under the four presidents of that era, the income share of the top 5% was 16.8% and their share of the income tax was 36%. In other words, the share of income received by the top 5% has risen 28% and their share of income taxes has risen 64%.

Stated differently, based on the data provided by the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service, the relative tax burden of the top 5% of American earners compared with the remaining 95% has grown from roughly three-to-one prior to 1980 to almost six-to-one today.

One can always argue that this ratio should be 10-to-1, that the "privilege" of being governed is worth 10 times as much per dollar of income to someone who is rich than to someone who is middle-class. Once we give up our moral compass of government deriving its powers from the people. we must also give up any empirical compass of how much we must surrender to government. When you begin the argument that being a citizen is a "privilege" for which one should pay ever more, you very quickly find yourself on Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

This brings us to the third problem with Mr. Geithner's argument, a fundamental logical inconsistency. If being governed, or over-governed, is a privilege for America's citizens, shouldn't everyone pay for the privilege? Why are more than half of all American workers paying nothing at all in income taxes? And if the issue is the need to "pay more" for our privilege, why should only those making over $250,000 be the ones who pay more? If being an American really is a privilege, then certainly all who are thus privileged should pay something.

Still, the real problem with this whole privilege argument goes back to what the Founding Fathers were thinking. Being an American is a right, not a privilege. The privilege belongs to those who are temporarily allowed to serve this great nation in a decision-making capacity. When they turn this privilege into a right to distribute government largess in ever larger quantities—and in ways, to use Jefferson's phrase, a "wise and frugal government" would not—it is those in government, and not the governed, who bear the responsibility for our budgetary problems.

Redistributing GPA

University students in California put accepted liberal wisdom to the test in a well-executed video. Posing as petitioners, they asked bewildered classmates to sign a petition that would mandate redistribution of GPA points from those fortunate enough to have high GPAs to those with low GPAs—in order to bring everyone closer to the university median. Unsurprisingly, most students demurred, claiming it was unfair to take what they had worked hard to earn and give it to others. Regrettably, most were then unable to reconcile this belief with their contradictory support of a "tax-the-rich" mentality. Its quite sad how so many Americans, particularly our budding scholars, accept such arguments whole-cloth without thinking through the underlying reasons and implications.

The video is a few months old, but highly poignant given the equally obtuse rhetoric coming from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Why the GOP Won the Debt Debate

As argued yesterday, the debt deal compromise is not perfect, but it is nevertheless a fair deal.  William McGurn, at the Wall Street Journal, outlines why the deal is a large win for the Republicans.

It's that the deal has Democrats, including the president, essentially signing on to the Republican framework for defining the Beltway's budget problem: spending that is too high rather than taxes that are too low.... And come the 2012 elections this deal will help force the debate that all conservatives have wanted all along—about the size, scope, and proper mission of our federal government.... That puts 2012 on terms much friendlier to the argument that Republicans need to make to the American people. It runs like this: If you are want a government in Washington that spends less, that taxes less, and encourages our private sector to grow, you need a Republican in the White House.

The win lies not so much in the details of the compromise - there is certainly a mix of good and bad in this regard - but in the fact that the right has changed the terms of the debate.  America has a long history of relying on a leftist framework to government and budgetary issues; namely, big government spending is good and taxes must be increased to fill any budgetary gap.  Now, serious government retrenchment is on the table.  The right is still a long distance away from actually crafting a government in the proper, limited fashion supported by conservatives, but by beginning to alter the frames of discussion we are one large step closer to achieving that.

A Fine Debt Deal

The bipartisan deal, announced yesterday by the White House, to raise the debt ceiling alongside significant spending cuts has not only helped avert an economic crisis, but has started a much needed process towards fixing America's fiscal situation.  As Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) said, "[It is not] the greatest deal in the world.... But it shows how much we've changed the terms of the debate in this town....”

The deal, which has yet to be voted on by either chamber of congress but is largely expected to pass, includes immediate cuts and an increase in the debt ceiling.  This is to be followed by a second round of cuts and debt ceiling raises, backed by the recommendation of a bipartisan committee.  Notably absent at this stage are any tax increases or a balanced budget amendment.  Both issues will be raised by the time of the second round of cuts.

Republicans should be quite happy with the outcome.  While the deal certainly has not achieved everything that the GOP desired, it is a good first step.  Reforming the fiscal condition of this country is a process.  After some 80 years of fiscal misguidance, it is far too ambitious to expect all of the needed changes to be implemented during one summer's battle over the debt ceiling.  What this battle has done is begin to change the national mentality.  It has rewritten the terms of debate in a manner that is more conducive to further reforming the fiscally unsound policies of the post-war era.  For the first time, debt limit increases have been linked to to spending cuts.  As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) bemoaned, the debt ceiling has been unconditionally raised 74 times since 1962.  This has now changed and each future debt limit increase will most certainly involve debates over additional cuts.

In one sense, it is probably good that the Republicans have not received everything that they want - and everything the economy needs - in this one deal.  If the GOP had managed to drive through a "dance-in-the-streets" deal - one complete with a balanced budget amendment, fulsome plan to reduce our national debt, and severe cuts to government spending and entitlements - the debate would be prematurely terminated.  This may have thus provided the needed fiscal changes, but would accordingly fail to make them lasting.  It would only be a matter of time before the left regained the position to scale back these reforms.

The fact is while these needed changes are apparent to many, especially on the right, they are unfortunately not obvious to all Americans.  Fixing policies is only half the game, changing the American mentality is the real crux of the battle.  Unfortunately, many Americans are not quite ready to completely revamp their thinking about deficit spending and the government's fiscal responsibilities.  Accordingly, winning too much, too soon could undermine the broader discussion that is needed.  America needs to realize the necessity of making these reforms and turn from its all-the-time-Keynesianism deficit spending mentality to one of long-term fiscal responsibility.  The process that the battle over the debt ceiling has started will provide the continued platform to present these arguments.  These reforms will only become permanent if the American ethos is severely altered. Spending beyond our means is unsustainable, but unfortunately much of America will need to be convinced of this through a drawn out debate.

Republicans should be sanguine with their success.  No, it is not perfect, but it is an amazing start.  For a party that only controls one-third of the government and has faced a Democratic opposition that started on the far-left of American politics, it has been an astounding feat to so change the national dialogue.  There is still much more work to done, and given the ingrained and long-established interests it will not be easy; yet a historical process has begun.  For this we should be proud.

The Entitlement State

The Wall Street Journal provides what they call "a short history of the entitlement state."  Unsurprisingly, the essay concludes, "The looming debt downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no conceivable way those promises can be kept."


The Journal is right to peg so much of our dire fiscal straights on the over-inflated welfare state.  Beginning under FDR in the 1940s, the WSJ tracks the growth of entitlements through LBJ's Great Society and the Social Security problems of the 1970s and then onto Obama's profligate spending today.  While correctly arguing that the left's counter-argument of military spending is a red herring ("But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis."), the editorial is fair to pin some of the blame on the GOP.

Mr. Bush and Republicans did prove after 9/11 that the Washington urge to spend and borrow is bipartisan. Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays on education, the most expensive transportation bill in history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the housing bubble. The GOP's blunder was refusing to cut domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. Guns and butter blowouts never last.

Whatever nuanced disagreements one has with this argument, the fact is clear that the federal government is spending far beyond its means.  Much of this is arguably the by-product of a process that encourages a lack of forward-thinking.  The American system - and to some degree human nature - encourages politicians to dole out perks today while placing the costs on future citizens.  As time progresses, entitlements are increasingly piled on and rarely are forward-looking politicians able to remove these newly constructed "rights".  Political and moral arguments are marched out to defend these handouts and so the fiscal burden grows.

To be fair, the blame cannot solely lie with politicians, but must also lie with the electorate who votes for politicians who swing perks their way.  Individuals and groups across the political spectrum lobby politicians for special treatment, not realizing or simply not caring that someone else will have to pay for it.  Even the most stalwart small-government folk are resistant to relinquishing the handouts that they receive (Medicare?).

This is a losing mentality - a short-sighted and fatal way-of-life.  Americans have, for far too long, thought about the benefits they receive from the government separately from the costs that are required to pay for these perks.  It has always been someone else or some other generation that will pay.  But this model of government has proven it cannot endure for any prolonged period of time.

The fiscal sanity of our government and the future of the state demands that we, as a nation, rework our way of thinking.  We have become far too comfortable, as individuals and a society, living beyond our means, but it cannot continue.  Citizens need to reevaluate what they expect to have and what they want others to provide for them.  Remember the government does not produce anything.  Whatever is provided by the government comes in one end and, with some loss along the way, goes out the other.

Government should be restructured to perform the essential duties for which a government is needed; namely providing certain common goods (roads, defense, rule of law) that all citizens benefit from and are unsuccessfully provided by the private market.  It should largely cease its role as a wealth re-distributor, both across time and class.  Whatever the argument one has about this program or that program, the fact is they are unsustainable in our society.  The welfare state has only been maintained over the past seven decades because of the wool over America's eyes - it has been stomached because nobody has been paying for the full extent of the entitlement state.  This ultimate grand bargain has allowed politicians to appease both those who want more and those who do not want to pay more (oftentimes the same people).  But the free lunch has ended and Americans must reconcile themselves to reality - we can never over the long-run get more than we produce.  Americans must realize that government is not a magical tool to solve society's woes or to enact some vision of morality, but a limited means of coordinating essential services that a society needs.

Redefining Poverty

There is a problem of definitions in American politics.  Although not a new phenomenon, it is unfortunately one that is rarely discussed.  In many instances, challenging the accepted political definition of certain words leads to harsh, acerbic, and often unwarranted attacks by those who wish to defend a political definition for their own partisan uses.

In a recent report, the Heritage Foundation has courageously taken a stand against the definition of one of these words - "Poverty".  The abstract to the full report states the following:

For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

The report continues by discussing the standard of living experienced by most "poor" Americans and how high these are, both in historical comparisons and vis-à-vis other countries.  It makes the key argument that there is a need to separate the truly destitute (eg. those that chronically lack shelter, food, or clothing) from those that are just defined as poor.  Due to limited resources, this expansive definition of poverty has not only injured the truly destitute but provided for those that are arguably not needy.

The U.S. Census Bureau, which determines the poverty thresholds, bases their calculation of these thresholds on a 1963 study that looked at the Department of Agriculture's low cost food plan.  Surprisingly, it was not designed to reflect the daily needs of an individual or family.  "...[They] did not develop the poverty thresholds as a standard budget... a list of goods and services that a family of a specified size and composition would need to live at a designated level of well being." 

While the Census Bureau's "poverty thresholds" are only used for statistical purposes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) further complicates issues by setting forth "poverty guidelines" for administrative purposes.  While these are generally based on the Census Bureau's numbers they are modified for various programs (for instance scaled up by some percentage).  These guidelines are what are used in most welfare programs.

Arguably both the Census Bureau's and HHS's definitions are exceedingly arbitrary.  As the Heritage report empirically supports, far too many are able to achieve substantial luxuries while nevertheless being deemed poor by the government.

A secondary source of definitional challenge comes from politicians who often use the term "poverty" in a relative sense.  A relative definition of poverty signifies that poverty is determined by some distance from a measure of "middle-class" - for instance the median income. This necessarily implies that the problem of poverty can never be solved, unless all incomes become very narrowly distributed around a median income.  Taken to its logical conclusion, in some perverse world, poverty could easily be eradicated by evaporating the wealth of the richest in a country without any concomitant change in the position of the poorest. By thus diminishing the "wealth gap," relative poverty would no longer exist. Obviously such a precept is laughable - no state would be better off by removing wealth from society - but it nevertheless is the natural conclusion of a doctrine of relative poverty.  In reality, "relative poverty" is nothing but a euphemism for "income inequality."

Instead, poverty should be measured in relation to what a person needs to achieve certain necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing. By using an such an absolute measure, poverty is defined by essential characteristics not an arbitrary statistical formulation or relative comparison. This is undoubtedly a more just definition of poverty and puts the state in a better position to provide resources to alleviate poverty. It also provides proponents of the welfare state with a better position from which to defend the need for state assistance in eradicating poverty.

[By claiming the American definition of poverty is wrong, one does not mean there are not people who truly are in need, nor that there are not those who are truly poor in America.  But it does imply that a changed definition can have significant implications for welfare policies.]

It is to be expected that vested interests will attempt to avoid any discussion, let alone any changes to the definition of poverty.  Expansive definitions of poverty allow numerous constituents (particularly but not exclusively of the Democrats) to gain benefits at the expense of others.  It is unlikely that recipients of handouts (whether low- or high-income) will be willingly to abdicate their lucrative positions.  This is unfortunate and unfair.  In such times of economic difficulty and budgetary disorder it is necessary to carefully study if our current definitions and resulting policies have stepped beyond what is appropriate and into the realm of social and economic largess.

Arguably, much of our welfare state has become a system of wealth redistribution rather than a social safety net.  This is not so much a critique of the concept of the welfare state but of its abuse to fulfill abstract notions of social justice.  As Heritage points out, our working definition of poverty has become one much more about "income 'inequality'" than one of need.  This has arguably caused the state to venture far outside of its appropriate bounds and has indubitably contributed to our expanding fiscal woes.  According to the authors of the study, "President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new 'poverty' measure that deliberately severs all connection between 'poverty' and actual deprivation... giving the President public relations ammunition for his 'spread-the-wealth' agenda."  A redefinition of "poverty" to more accurately reflect individuals' needs may not only help alleviate America's budgetary problems but allow a misappropriation of the system to revert to its moral underpinnings.

The McConnell Escape Plan

Poor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is getting slammed for what he has called "a sort of last-choice option[in the debt debate]."  The senate minority leader has proposed what seems to be a reasonable way for the Republicans to escape from the stalled negotiations over the debt limit, while putting the Democrats on the defensive.  Yet, very few seem to be thrilled with McConnell's proposal.
The proposed plan would allow Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling at set times and set amounts with Congress possessing the right to prevent an increase with a 2/3 vote.  This would go into effect without any deal on taxes, entitlement reform, or spending cuts.
At first glance, such a proposal appears to be a timid withdrawal and much of the far right base is livid.  Over at RedState, Erick Erickson calls McConnell "Pontius Pilate" for his "historic capitulation".  Michelle Malkin howls that it is "another mortifying McConnell head-banging-against-the-wall moment."

While the base is right to be angry at missing the opportunity to really reform the system, their anger is woefully misplaced.  McConnell's plan certainly is not optimal.  Any ideal plan should reform both the tax and entitlement systems.  However, it is a second-best backup plan - one that is preferable to realizing too late that the Democrat's truly are willing to sink the country's economy in order to maintain a surfeit of entitlements.

The Wall Street Journal spells out the logic the best.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday he's concluded that no deal to raise the debt ceiling in return for serious spending restraint is possible with President Obama, and who can blame him? 

... 

The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?  

Republicans who say they can use the debt limit to force Democrats to agree to a balanced budget amendment are dreaming. Such an amendment won't get the two-thirds vote to pass the Senate, but it would give every Democrat running for re-election next year a chance to vote for it and claim to be a fiscal conservative.  

... 

Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He'll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He'll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he'll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor's so decides.  

We'd far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won't go along, there's no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.

Essentially, if no deal is possible then McConnell's plan lets Obama take the fall for raising the debt ceiling without cuts (a surefire way to look like an economic dunce), absolve the Republicans of charges of being obstinate and causing economic turmoil, and salvage the economy in the short-run in order to fight the entitlement battle another day.  The alternatives?  Sign on to the Democrat's plan or allow the economy to run off a cliff.  If a deal with the Democrats truly isn't possible, the McConnell plan seems like a healthy way out.

A Taxing Mentality

Tensions have been mounting as the White House and congressional leaders have failed to agree on a package to resolve the impending debt-limit crisis.  Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, have all resolutely stood firm in opposing any tax increases as part of a deal to raise the debt-limit.

The GOP leadership is absolutely correct in their obstinacy.  While ultimately some short-run tax increases may be necessary to pay-off the monumental heap of debt this country has imprudently managed to accumulate, the Democrats seemingly do not understand the need to spend less than the federal government takes in.  Until the Democrats show an understanding of what taxes are for - namely to pay for the essential services required by this country - no tax increases should be considered.

Mona Charen highlights the backwards thinking of the left in an editorial at NRO.

It is becoming a verbal tic — the tendency on the part of the president to tell wealthy Americans (“people like me,” he’s always careful to add) that they have made more than enough money and will have to cough up more of it for the government. Speaking for himself on July 11, the president offered that he had “hundreds of thousands of dollars that I don’t need.” 

The president is of course welcome to donate as much of his extra money as he likes to the federal treasury. He knows Timothy Geithner personally and can probably get a guarantee that his check will be cashed without delay. And since the president is so ready to impute unpleasant motives (like greed) to those who oppose tax increases, perhaps we should impute some sort of moral failing to him for not having thus far contributed his spare change to the government.

The government should never be in a position to determine who has "enough" and thus claim a moral right to take "excess" from an individual.  The government's place is to provide a set of essential services - military, police force, infrastructure, and arguably some minimal safety net (to minimize social disruption).  The need for taxes should be based not on some arbitrary definition of "enough" but on the predetermined needs of the state to properly function.

The Democrats' reliance on the notions that the government can take because people have to much and that the government should provide because people want, shows a flagrant disregard for the purpose of government and taxes.  Tax reform may be necessary (loopholes should be closed), but it cannot succeed (and shouldn't be part of a "grand bargain") until this country's approach to spending and taxes is reevaluated.

Class Warfare and the Social Yard-Stick

Class warfare is becoming a full-blown storm on Capitol Hill. It is not really anything new – a time-tested strategy frequently relied upon by the left, but also used by the right. President Obama’s latest deployment was during his announcement of the bipartisan tax deal with Republicans.

Presumably, such a cross-aisle deal is a time to rejoice at actually finding middle ground in the exceedingly divisive Congress. Instead, the “class card” was thrown about. Obama likened the deal to one made with hostage-takers [Can a deal really be enforceable if made under duress?!]. He stated, “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”

Now, the merits of Republican tactics aside, the interesting issue is the continued desire of American politicians, particularly on the left, to sow the seeds of class warfare. The storyline is familiar – greedy fat cat CEOs, those over $250k not “paying their fair share,” and “tax-cuts for the rich.” Republicans feed right into this game, defending the economics of high salaries and bonuses (needed to incentivize performance), arguing for low tax rates (high rates stifle economic growth), claiming that some “rich” just really are not all that rich, and pointing to all the good that some wealthy do for the community.

All of this is probably true and these arguments need to be made. However, they miss the fundamental point and allow the political game to be dictated on far-left terms. The left loves class warfare. It plays into a multitude of arguments defending wealth redistribution and increased government involvement in the lives of private citizens. But it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what income’s purpose is.

The left looks at income as a sort of social yard-stick, a tool to measure one’s value to society. By this logic the more one makes, the more good they should bring. However the argument goes, there is quite a bit of injustice in the system! Greedy CEOs do not help the country and yet they get rich, while struggling laborers barely make ends meet! The natural solution? Take from those who undeservingly make a lot of money and give to those who deserve it, but do not get it.

Implicit in this argument are at least two assumptions. The first is the particular standard regarding who deserves what. The left has come up with some arbitrary criteria of what is “deserving” and thus how wealth needs to be redistributed. Enter the Republicans – who try to challenge the left’s definition of “deserving.” This is where the class warfare is generally fought. Republicans, for instance, argue that CEOs, for better or worse, do deserve at least some of their recompense.

However, by playing the game of “what social value do [insert: CEOs, top 5% of income earners, those who make over $250k, etc] have,” Republicans are tacitly acknowledging the deeper assumption in this leftist [daresay socialist] argument – that there is even a relationship between social value and income.

The fact of the matter is that income is a measure of one’s services in a given line of work. It is the market’s determination of what value an individual provides for a certain occupation. Income, like the price of nearly every other good, is motivated by a host of factors, including, of course, supply and demand.

However, it is not – and should never be – a measure of one’s value to society. This is too arbitrary of a claim. Society – government in particular – has no right to pass judgment on an individual’s value or their associated income. [Beyond the issue of right – government simply has no, non-arbitrary means to determine value outside of the market-mechanism.] The rich are no more or less deserving of their wealth, than the poor are of their dearth. “Deserving” just simply is not a concept that the government is fit to act upon.

It is time to cut the class warfare. It is far too divisive and harmful for our country. Not only does it lead to strife between individuals and groups, but it creates an environment where the government feels even more compelled to meddle in the private affairs of citizens. One may not like that someone else makes more than him, but that never justifies arbitrarily taking it from him. Why should it be any different for the government?

The Budget, Entitlements, and Government

In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson wrote a poignant editorial on the much needed buget cuts.  He argues that government benefits, once lavished upon the electorate, are largely (politically) unremovable, becoming in the eyes of the people "property rights."  Coupled with the desire to minimize taxes this creates an untenable budgetary mess.  Samuelson correctly argues that partisan interests - whether farm lobbies, the elderly, or others receiving undue government support - should recognize a moral need for change and put aside their self-interest for the national interest.  In other words, he calls for a rewriting of the social contract.

The thrust of the argument is on the areas of the welfare state (or benefit state to construct it more widely in order to include agricultural subsidies and the like) that need to be slashed; however, he does tepidly venture into the more philosophical realm of the role of the state when he discusses the defense budget.  Samuelson argues that cuts to defense should not be treated the same as cuts in other areas of the national budget because "[n]ational security is government's first job."  He, unfortunately, does not take this to the next level, namely by opening a discussion on what the proper role of government is.  Government's role within society has expanded enormously and if America is to not only solve its budgetary issues but also resolve the government's wayward drift, the people need to pin down what, philosophically speaking, the purpose of government is.