I was surprised a while back when Democrat Dick Durban and Republican Lindsey Graham, appearing on Meet the Press, both admitted that Social Security actually had nothing to do with the deficit. This is something that I have long maintained and have explained in this blog ad nauseum. Unfortunately David Gregory, as he showed in the next segment of his admirable program, has still to get the message.
Social Security is just an excuse for politicians, lacking a real agenda, to find something to harp about instead of getting into the real, difficult but solvable problems.
At the end of Meet the Press we were treated to Ed Gillespie, a former speechwriter for Bush (and would you believe, the guy admits it), telling us that Amtrack had lost $1 billion this year so we shouldn’t be investing $53 billion in high-speed rail. His quote was something like:
“Didn’t we lose enough money on rail last year?”
We lost more than enough on inefficient rail last year, Ed. Maybe if we had an efficient system like they have in Spain and other parts of Europe it would make money and help other industries make money too, by providing efficient, timely transportation for people and goods.
New York to Washington or Boston; in under two hours. New York to Philadelphia; in under one. You think maybe that would boost productivity, Ed?
High-speed rail and many other needed infrastructure project mean immediate employment in the fields that have been hardest hit by the recession. It also means increased employment and productivity in any number of other industries. These industries and the people who work in them, all pay taxes. All these taxes help to reduce the deficit. This is logic, not rocket science, so all but the most intellectually deficient of our population, should be able to understand the following.
The real problem with solving the deficit problem, is that solving the deficit is only half the problem. The other half is solving unemployment and you can’t solve one without helping or hurting the other.
I heard someone say, today, that Bill Clinton solved his deficit problem so what makes this one so insurmountable? Well maybe it isn’t, but Clinton didn’t have the problem that Obama is facing now. Clinton had a raging economy and money pouring in so fast they couldn’t count it. Obama has a recession and brutal unemployment.
The Republican pundits say that Obama is standing back, waiting for the Republicans to put forth all their proposals for cuts and then waiting for the voters to rise in outrage as each of their favorite entitlements are cut. They’re probably right. Why shouldn’t he? After all, it’s the Republicans who are dumb enough to think you can cut taxes and still balance the budget. Need I go back to good old dumb George; two wars and a tax cut and what it can do to a budget surplus? Or how about we’re cutting taxes for the richest people in the country but we’re also cutting the number of teachers for our, already ailing, public schools to balance those cuts. Is this really how Republican logic works?
Would it be too much here to inject a little serious (non-Republican) logic into the discussion and also a dirty word? Taxes! There I said it. We pay what are just about the lowest personal income taxes in the civilized world. For that we get just about the best country. We are trying our best to ruin it but right now it still rates better than almost anyplace in the world.
Why is that? It’s because human dignity is valued higher in this country, than almost anyplace else in the world. It’s because we have more freedom and a better atmosphere in which to enjoy it, than almost anyplace in the world. It’s because, as a nation, we have respect for all our citizens, whether they are young, old, rich, poor, black, white or any other color, size or shape. (Or at least we’re supposed to) It’s because like a giant family we take care of our own. Or do we? Maybe not.
Part of taking care of our own is making sure that those who are in the most need get at last a modicum of help. I have a house in a small town in Northwest Connecticut and the people of that town are a revelation. If someone is in trouble, no matter what kind, they band together as a group and help that person, to the best and often way past the best, they are able… as long as that person is a local person. But if he’s not, if he’s an outsider, he could bleed to death in the street and very few of those same wonderful people, would raise a finger to help him. We are all tribal and that is a huge problem. It’s a problem because we have to learn that our tribe isn’t just our family or the people next door or in our small circle but that our family is the entire population of the country and by extension the whole population of the world. I know it’s corny, I know it’s pie in the sky, but once we realize that and practice it, we will be a superhuman race.
But we’re really not going to, so why bring it up? Well, because in order for this country to be everything it should be, we have to, at least, expand our horizons beyond ourselves, and right now we’re not doing that. Right now our leaders aren’t doing that. Right now with all the worry and noise about deficits and the economy and unemployment, our leaders are worrying only about their own jobs and how to hold on to them, usually to the country’s deficit.
We need to cut the deficit but right now, in this economy, many of the cuts that would normally need to be made will only make the economy worse and contribute to higher unemployment and eventually a bigger deficit. So what do we do? Well, there are always some things that can realistically be cut and probably many more that can be handled more efficiently in order to create savings, but the reality is, the only way to lower the deficit in any significant manner, in this fractured economy, is to raise taxes. But that won’t work.
Why won’t that work? Because no one in Washington, from the President down to the lowest first time congressman has the balls to do it. Why? Because they’re all worrying more about keeping their jobs, than they are about saving the country. And why are they in that position, because the people of this country won’t face reality. Everyone wants someone else to pick up the check. Well, guys, that won’t work. Somebody has to be the grownup.
All over this country there are people sitting in their split level’s with three monster TV’s, all the electronic equipment known to man, fancy kitchen’s remodeled baths, two cars and a pickup in the driveway, and down the street some guy is living in a box and the guy in the split level is moaning that he can’t afford any more taxes. Bullshit!
I’m not just talking about whacking the country with a massive tax increase. I’m talking about a complete revision of the tax system, corporate & personal. The traditional argument against higher taxes for higher earners is that this creates an inequitable system and removes incentive for the big earners to create employment. There are two ways to look at this. One is that this statement is the original steaming pile and the other is that it’s just another version of the big lie.
Hitting up big earners for more taxes won’t stunt their incentive. Why, because, big earners got to be big earners by creating their own incentives to overcome all obstacles. Average Joe is overwhelmed by big obstacles and gives up. That’s what makes him average Joe. Big earner is inspired by big obstacles and strives to triumph over them. That’s what makes him a big earner. So lets, once and for all, bury the myth that higher taxes will rob the top 1% of our big earners of their incentive to forge ahead. It just ain’t so. What it will do, is inspire them to earn more, just to raise their bottom line.
As far as inequality goes let’s use Warren Buffet’s tax returns as an example. No I didn’t hack into his files. Buffett revealed that he pays only 11% or maybe it was 16% because of all the tax breaks he gets just for being rich, while most of his employees pay a much higher percentage because they don’t make enough money in enough interesting ways to take advantage of these breaks. So much for the big lie about the inequality of the rich being asked to pay more.
What I am proposing here is a semi-flat tax. One in which we all pay the same percentage of our income and one in which the only deductions allowed are for; charity, mortgage interest and medical expenses over a certain percentage of our income.
Of course if this were to be proposed the lobbyists would immediately start picking away at different aspects of it to get “relief” in as many different areas as rich contributors have needs, but this cannot be allowed. A tax setup like this can work, can add to national income and can help alleviate the debt but the cowards in congress have to grow the stones to get it done.