On the Veterans Day edition of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", US Senator Patty Murray discussed with her Republican counterpart Saxby Chambliss of Georgia that both sides must come together in Washington to protect the country's economy and resolve the fiscal cliff crisis. If Democrats and Republicans cannot reach a compromise, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, and an automatic sequester will cut hundreds of billions from military and defense spending.
Speaking for the Democrats in both chambers of Congress, Murray drew a line in the sand: "The rich must pay their fair share." If the Republicans cannot offer a compromise which does not raise taxes on "the rich", then the country will go over the fiscal cliff. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich later commented that Republicans should refuse any deals pressured out of fear, nor should they agree to any tax increases without itemizing then finalizing the spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
No one has yet bothered to focus or parse Senator Murray's three harmonious and assonant expectations: the "rich" must pay "their fair share."
First of all, how does one define "rich"? Compared to almost four-fifths of the world's population, Americans, even the residually undefined homeless, are quite well off. The vast majority of people living in third-world countries have no access to clean water, nor can they find charities which offer them adequate nutrition in spite of their poverty. Even those who eke out a living selling goods in a local swap meet or who grow their own food barely scrounge enough sustenance to maintain themselves from week to week.
I live in a safe city with food, water, shelter, and easy access to libraries and fast food restaurants. Despite the crippling Great Recession which has not recovered fast enough to replenish this country's massive job losses, my neighbors still have work, they still make money, and they are able to get by. At any time, we can call the police or the fire department in case of danger. We can appeal to our city leaders in weekly council meetings should we have any concerns about the status of our city's stability or integrity. In many ways, we are very rich.
Does Senator Murray want people like me to pay "their fair share"?
Then one should consider the union interests in this country. Despite the backlash from taxpayers and statehouses about the unsustainable pensions and benefits obligations, unions still command enough numbers to intimidate legislators and stall government business in select state capitals. These union leaders rake in significant sums of money from their members, who have to contribute in twenty-six states, although Michigan just recently became the twenty-fourth state to pass "right to work" legislation.
Then there are the federal legislators, Congressmen and Senators, including Murray. They receive Cadillac healthcare benefits and receive hefty pensions once they leave office. While President Obama is lining up to force Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine (tax), it appears that Washington's Congressional delegation will not be giving up their current health insurance to participate in the statewide ObamaCare exchanges.
Besides her pension and her health coverage, Senator Murray loves to spend other people's money, our federal tax dollars, on pet projects, pork, and any other bill that she can pass without alarming too many talking heads in the Beltway or in the Evergreen State. From her Congressional pay to her pork, Murray is "rich", and she better pay her "fair share."
In effect, "fair" as an arbiter for determining anything not only founders in the face of more penetrating inquiry, but this notion of "fair" ends up conjuring up results precisely the opposite of what leaders in Washington claim. Tax hikes on the "rich" end up hurting middle class, working class, and even impoverished citizens in this country. Tax increases induce wealthy and well-connected investors to store their assets in trust funds and tax shelters, where the money accumulates interest for one person. The same funds could start or expand businesses, which would hire more workers, get more people out of unemployment into stable work. More business, more jobs, more spending, more tax revenue, and the state would take in more money than government officials would ever predict from raising tax rates.
Also, the idea that entrepreneurs and industrious investors are obligated to "share" what they have earned is insulting as much as injurious. The state has no moral right to take more from hard-working individuals or profiting corporations simply because they "have more".
"Rich" describes far more people than one realizes. "Fair" is so arbitrary as to be dangerous in its meaninglessness; and "share" is immoral if it is the government forcing someone to part with property or money which they have legitimately accrued. Besides, the focus should be on the "rich" in government, like Senator Patty Murray and the public sector unions who support her. When are they going to pay "their fair share"?
If we agree that it is not immoral to require that people pay taxes for common services, then we simply disagree on what percent of their income each class of people should be contributing, and probably also, for what.
were more people of a specific nationality in the U.S. than what remained in the old country.
Patty Murray is a toady and brings home big bacon for the military operations here, nothing more. A reliable 'D' vote doesn't make a leader.
You have addressed me, but not the point that I made. From my point of view, the subject that you have brought up is interesting but not central to the question and far too complex for a blog discussion. Please note that I have not said that our country was ever a horrible place.....although now that you have brought it up, it is much better for those who have a lot of money than for those who need but cannot afford basics such as food, shelter, transportation, healthcare and time for education, protection & care due to disabilities. From the very beginning, it has been thus.
What we can do is make certain that all people are given access to health care, and education. . . We can debate as to how much and what kind of access. As far as health care is concerned, the Feds have been the ones who have helped the system become the nightmare of an expense that it is today and then with Obamacare they turn around with the pretense that they can help fix it. What the Fed really did was create a larger nightmare that compounded the source of the problem even further. Many people think that Obamacare is wonderful because they believe it provides health coverage to people who didn't previously have it. This is not really true and the discussion is too long for this post. All I can say is that there have been people for years offering solutions on what we could do to correct some problems seen in the health care industry (including controlling costs). These options didn't include a bureaucratic nightmare, taking away freedom of choice and all the other nightmares that some of us see with Obamacare. It's was a complete power grab, that's all that it was. There were other solutions but those solutions didn't give the Feds the complete power to control and that is what the Feds wanted control. Some people are useful pawns believing that Obamacare was born out of compassion. Those who actually wrote the regulations knew it's true purpose.
I would ask that Congress be governed by the same laws and be given the same benefits that the rest of Americans have i.e. health care and retirement plan. It should not be that Congress can give themselves special treatment.
I disagree that "We are all given the same opportunity to succeed". This a myth. If we were all to have the same opportunity to succeed, we would have to be starting out with the same privileges or lack of them. This is impossible given the structure of our society. It's something like saying, we all are in a race, but some people get to start out 10 feet from the finish line and some must start out 10 miles from the finish line. We have the same amount of time to reach the finish line, but those who start out 10 miles from the finish line will be further handicapped by obstacles to be overcome or gotten around. With the lack of obstacles on the race course for those who start out 10 feet from the finish line, all of them will finish in winning time. A few who started out at the 10 mile mark may finish the race, but many will not make it because of the size, number and nature of the obstacles. The race organizers have set it up so that those who cross the finish line first receive great rewards. Those who cross it at all are recognized and rewarded variably. Those who started 10 miles back and didn't make it to the finish line are SOL.
Opportunity as evaluated in comparison to everyone else is not "opportunity", but a fantastic notion of "equality" which wars against opportunity. Life is not a race, nor is success a finish line. The government in Washington, OIympia, or Bellevue cannot nor should they attempt to define "life" "success" or outline the "race" or the "finish line" for anyone. Merry Christmas.
I make it a point to play in my sand box unless the issue at hand is directly related to labor unions (public sector and representation in particular) because basic labor is basic labor law and I have two decades of experience in the field. So yeah on a union story I might comment on something out of California-but I have no business sniping at the folks that citizens in another state.
I am responding to a fundamental value proferred by a US Senator in a debate which affects every person in the country. I am more than well within my rights (First Amendment) to comment on the opinions and actions of US Senators, no matter what state they represent. That is not "sniping", that is democratic discourse in a republican representative govenrment.
It is a silly and sick notion that to be 'fair' we have to ship our $$ to DC in order for the political players to decide what equalization needs to occur. It is made worse by debt spending.
You are "Perfectly Correct" on this point. Taxing the rich at any level will be a tax on the poor and the middle class. Honestly, I see no reason why Republicans should compromise on any tax increases unless the spending cuts are enacted first.
That is a phrase which smacks of socialism. Socialism is an "anti-social" and "anti-society" program of government.
How exactly does a few billion solve a multi-trillion dollar problem? It is about creating enemies to draw attention away from those who really deserve the public's ire.
As Saskia said, unless you think that public roads, utilities, libraries, schools, firefighters and police and defense are "socialism", I think you'd have to admit that we as a society must do things "collectively" for the common good. Otherwise, why would we have a nation at all? And the only known way to pay for those services is taxation and fees. What Patty Murray is saying is that the rich and everyone else should pay in proportion to their incomes. And the record shows that in the past few decades the proportion paid into our nations revenues is at the lowest rate ever. I think all this hysteria about calling Obama a "socialist" is a scare tactic deployed to make him, as the first black president appear ever more menacing. Let's just put that out there. And yet, he is about as conservative in reality as Eisenhauer was. Let's hope that congress and the prez can find a solution by tomorrow, or just slide down the cliff and then we'll be lowering taxes on us all. And won't that make you happy Arthur?
Most of the things you point out can be managed at the county/local level. Why do we need to send our dollars to DC first? Many of those functions you list are largely paid for by local taxes and other revenues. For example, Mercer Island just recently passed a bond to built a replacement fire house and some new equipment. Many are supportive (myself included) in funding improved facilities for our schools. Once again, we shouldn't have to send our money to DC or even Olympia to take care of much of the items you cite. Only military (foreign) defense falls under the enumerated federal powers of the Constitution. So tell me why we need a homogenized, centrally planned system? How does that improve the circumstance for any citizen beyond the ones in power?
This isn't a scare tactic and while some might get all wound up about the term on both sides, I for one don't see an issue with calling a spade a spade. Earlier I stated in a response to Saska this who notion of sending my tax dollars to a central authority who can then best decide how the money is spend is absurd when you really thing about it. Patty Murray is not rocket scientist and I certainly wouldn't hire her for advice on money issues, let alone pretty much anything else. As far the debt ceiling, Obama has yet to display anything approaching leadership. Spouting campaign talking points and focusing on the tax issue and not the real issue of spending is beyond amazing. Thank goodness for him, he has the media in his pocket.
Public works is not socialism or collectivism. Do not misconstrue the two. Contributions through taxes for public works are acceptable. The Constitution outlines a Postal Service for example. Yet the Constitution never institued an income tax or even a sales tax. The Federal Government was supposed to operate on the revenue from tariffs and land sales. That would be a nice set-up. Saskia, to quote Mr. Buckley: "You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen." But do not feel burned. Even the fire than burns away the chaff of misnomers makes for good discussion.
What does that mean? The same problem emerges, just like with "their fair share." Who makes these decisions? As has occured time and again in this country, a small tax on the wealthy becomes a tax on everyone. The US Government is going over the cliff, and I am glad. The hyperpartisanship born of a President who won't preside, followed by a Senate which refuses to do anything should be enough of a rebuke to those who chose to send the President and Senate back in to power.