Spreading The Truth (Even If It Hurts)
So, a lot of my more Republican-leaning friends have of late been throwing around the words "spread the wealth." This is a mocking reference to a comment that Senator Obama made to the now infamous Joe The Plumber. My inbox has been flooded with emails about how Obama is going to rob us all of our hard-earned tax dollars, and give them to drug dealers and prostitutes. And probably terrorists.
As a side note, this seems, to me, what has taken the place of genuine political discourse where I live: dozens of forwarded emails that mock or make misleading or outright false statements about the other guy. Of all of my friends (and I'm happy to say I have many), I am currently engaged in an authentic exchange of ideas with exactly one person. One. The rest of my friends are too busy posting the latest attack ads on their Facebook pages to have any kind of debate about - God forbid! - the issues.
But back to the topic at hand. If any of my friends are genuinely concerned that Senator Obama's tax policy is going to take more of their money away to give it to the enemies of America, I must first congratulate you. I didn't think I was friends with anybody who made a quarter-million dollars a year. The next thing I'd like to know is if I could borrow some money. And yes, those of my (beloved) friends who make that kind of dough will receive a slight tax increase. For those of you who make less than a quarter-million a year - but are still feeling righteously indignant on behalf of the rich - I'd like to spread a little truth about another kind of wealth-spreading that is taking place right now - and you are paying for it, no matter what tax bracket you're in.
Remember the massive, tax-payer financed, 700 billion-dollar bailout of the financial sector that Treasury Secretary Paulsen got pushed through Congress recently? Yeah, I know: I forgot about it, too, especially when the price of gas dropped below 2.50 a gallon. But it came crashing back into my consciousness this week when I heard journalist Bill Moyers describe the deal this way: "There are so many loopholes in the restrictions on [executive] compensation, you could fly a fleet of Gulfstream corporate jets right through them."
To wit: since fiscal 2004, the "Golden Five" of Wall Street - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Behr Sterns, and Lehman Brothers - have lost a combined 83 billion dollars in stock market value. But - and this is where you "spread the wealth" guys need to pay attention - these same companies reported employee compensation of approximately 239 billion dollars. In other words, the architects of this financial house of cards that has now come crashing down around the ears of everyday Americans - the people most directly responsible for this disaster paid themselves almost three dollars for every dollar they lost.
If you're not screaming "WTF?!?" right now, you should be.
Here's something else to consider: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a thirty-nation body, recently published its 2008 report. In the section on "Global Gaps Between Rich and Poor" the report stated, "Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poor income groups behind. This has happened in many countries. But nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States." According to the OECD report, the U.S. ranks fourth in highest inequality in incomes. We got beat only by Mexico, Turkey, and Portugal.
I've got nothing against rich people. Believe me, I wish I knew more rich people. How do people become rich? In most of the world's developing economies, the answer is corruption. We have corruption in the U.S. too, but we also have a free press, and a constitutional right to point our fingers at corruption and cry "Foul!" But most importantly, what we have in the United States is a flawed but historically successful system of governance and economics that allows anyone the opportunity to become wealthy. You will not find that kind of opportunity anywhere else on the planet. But what seems to be happening - at least where I live - is that the more money people earn in this unique system that provides them the chance to do so, the less they want to give back to that system. The richer people around me become, the more indignant they become at the prospect of paying back into the system that created the circumstances for them to get that wealthy.
I have a good friend - a perfectly rational fellow - who recently posted this remark on his Facebook page: "I believe the government is not entitled to my money." I wondered if he could be right, so I went straight to the source. According to the United States Constitution, Section 8, Clause 1:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." So clearly, the government does have the right. By agreeing to participate in a democratic republic, we all implicitly agree that we will pay back into the system that, faulted and flawed though it is, is singularly unique in that it provides any participant a chance to create wealth.
I don't particularly enjoy paying taxes. And I most definitely desire that my taxes should be spent more wisely than they have been. But to those who truly believe that they should not pay proportionately back into the system that, unique among nations, has allowed them to prosper, I'd like to harken you back to the days of the American Revolution. The mantra back then was, "No taxation without representation." So, I'd like to suggest a new American Order; one in which you do not pay any taxes, let alone proportionate to your wealth. But going back over the Constitution (Section 8), there are some things in this new America that we will have to do without: a standing army (Clause 12); commerce with any nation outside the United States (Clause 3); a postal system, or roads (Clause 7); the courts (Clause 9); the police (Clause 16); or the rule of law (Clause 18).
If that sounds like an America you can get behind, then form a political group and go for it. After all, you live in a country that affords you the freedom to do so.
It's worth noting that the Preamble to the Constitution mentions providing for "the common defence," and promoting "the general Welfare" of the United States. That means everybody, from the Wall Street wizard to the lady who cleans his office. Somewhere along the way, we as a nation forgot that the next line in the Preamble says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
It's Posterity. Not Prosperity.
As a side note, this seems, to me, what has taken the place of genuine political discourse where I live: dozens of forwarded emails that mock or make misleading or outright false statements about the other guy. Of all of my friends (and I'm happy to say I have many), I am currently engaged in an authentic exchange of ideas with exactly one person. One. The rest of my friends are too busy posting the latest attack ads on their Facebook pages to have any kind of debate about - God forbid! - the issues.
But back to the topic at hand. If any of my friends are genuinely concerned that Senator Obama's tax policy is going to take more of their money away to give it to the enemies of America, I must first congratulate you. I didn't think I was friends with anybody who made a quarter-million dollars a year. The next thing I'd like to know is if I could borrow some money. And yes, those of my (beloved) friends who make that kind of dough will receive a slight tax increase. For those of you who make less than a quarter-million a year - but are still feeling righteously indignant on behalf of the rich - I'd like to spread a little truth about another kind of wealth-spreading that is taking place right now - and you are paying for it, no matter what tax bracket you're in.
Remember the massive, tax-payer financed, 700 billion-dollar bailout of the financial sector that Treasury Secretary Paulsen got pushed through Congress recently? Yeah, I know: I forgot about it, too, especially when the price of gas dropped below 2.50 a gallon. But it came crashing back into my consciousness this week when I heard journalist Bill Moyers describe the deal this way: "There are so many loopholes in the restrictions on [executive] compensation, you could fly a fleet of Gulfstream corporate jets right through them."
To wit: since fiscal 2004, the "Golden Five" of Wall Street - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Behr Sterns, and Lehman Brothers - have lost a combined 83 billion dollars in stock market value. But - and this is where you "spread the wealth" guys need to pay attention - these same companies reported employee compensation of approximately 239 billion dollars. In other words, the architects of this financial house of cards that has now come crashing down around the ears of everyday Americans - the people most directly responsible for this disaster paid themselves almost three dollars for every dollar they lost.
If you're not screaming "WTF?!?" right now, you should be.
Here's something else to consider: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a thirty-nation body, recently published its 2008 report. In the section on "Global Gaps Between Rich and Poor" the report stated, "Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poor income groups behind. This has happened in many countries. But nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States." According to the OECD report, the U.S. ranks fourth in highest inequality in incomes. We got beat only by Mexico, Turkey, and Portugal.
I've got nothing against rich people. Believe me, I wish I knew more rich people. How do people become rich? In most of the world's developing economies, the answer is corruption. We have corruption in the U.S. too, but we also have a free press, and a constitutional right to point our fingers at corruption and cry "Foul!" But most importantly, what we have in the United States is a flawed but historically successful system of governance and economics that allows anyone the opportunity to become wealthy. You will not find that kind of opportunity anywhere else on the planet. But what seems to be happening - at least where I live - is that the more money people earn in this unique system that provides them the chance to do so, the less they want to give back to that system. The richer people around me become, the more indignant they become at the prospect of paying back into the system that created the circumstances for them to get that wealthy.
I have a good friend - a perfectly rational fellow - who recently posted this remark on his Facebook page: "I believe the government is not entitled to my money." I wondered if he could be right, so I went straight to the source. According to the United States Constitution, Section 8, Clause 1:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." So clearly, the government does have the right. By agreeing to participate in a democratic republic, we all implicitly agree that we will pay back into the system that, faulted and flawed though it is, is singularly unique in that it provides any participant a chance to create wealth.
I don't particularly enjoy paying taxes. And I most definitely desire that my taxes should be spent more wisely than they have been. But to those who truly believe that they should not pay proportionately back into the system that, unique among nations, has allowed them to prosper, I'd like to harken you back to the days of the American Revolution. The mantra back then was, "No taxation without representation." So, I'd like to suggest a new American Order; one in which you do not pay any taxes, let alone proportionate to your wealth. But going back over the Constitution (Section 8), there are some things in this new America that we will have to do without: a standing army (Clause 12); commerce with any nation outside the United States (Clause 3); a postal system, or roads (Clause 7); the courts (Clause 9); the police (Clause 16); or the rule of law (Clause 18).
If that sounds like an America you can get behind, then form a political group and go for it. After all, you live in a country that affords you the freedom to do so.
It's worth noting that the Preamble to the Constitution mentions providing for "the common defence," and promoting "the general Welfare" of the United States. That means everybody, from the Wall Street wizard to the lady who cleans his office. Somewhere along the way, we as a nation forgot that the next line in the Preamble says, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
It's Posterity. Not Prosperity.
posted by Larry B | 6:29 PM
2 Comments:
I read this post and was completely BLOWN AWAY. Is there an "AMEN!" in the house??? My hero.
Lar,
I have no problem rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. However, Obama's plan for additional taxes does not support the original constitution intent. His plan would not be fair or proportionate to all (including those that make more than $250K, which you know several of these people very well, including several in your life group which are some of the most generous people I know). Further, if Obama repeals the Bush administration taxes cut provisions, then my taxes and your taxes will increase. I am not sure you fully understand the tax provisions being considered. It is much more than just tax brackets my friend.
To quote you "So, I'd like to suggest a new American Order; one in which you do not pay any taxes, let alone proportionate to your wealth. But going back over the Constitution (Section 8), there are some things in this new America that we will have to do without: a standing army (Clause 12); commerce with any nation outside the United States (Clause 3); a postal system, or roads (Clause 7); the courts (Clause 9); the police (Clause 16); or the rule of law (Clause 18)."
Obama's plan is not to fund the above items. I am more than happy to contribute to the above items, which benefit all including myself. It is the other funding areas and taxation initiatives, including redistribution of wealth through tax cuts for some and tax increases for others, that I oppose. I believe everyone should pay taxes no matter your income level. Our current system does not tax people fairly. Many are allowed to receive the above benefits you mention, army etc..., but contribute nothing. Is that fair? Also, is it fair to increase tax rates on those that have worked hard and done well to a disproportionate level? Why, to redistribute to those that aren't working? God's word says if you don't work, then you should not eat. A hard fact to accept, but it is God's word. We don't need the government reallocating resources to support initiatives that are not beneficial for all. The personal responsibility of those with much is great and God will ultimately judge how well they managed for those in need. We don't need the government playing God.
Research the income tax system if you want to understand its original purposes and how the current system has gone astray. I have been studying this for more than 20 years and trust me, the current system is broken and has become something never intended. It has become a system for government to tax and spend. The last thing we need is for the government to tax anyone more and to determine how additional money will be spent. If it was spent on the army, roads, police etc... then I would be happy. But it won't.
Further, the way to economic recovery is through incentives to invest, grow, and create jobs. That incentive comes through tax cuts for those that pay taxes and invest and create jobs. Who might that be? It's those that make more than $250,000 or are self-employed trying to start businesses. The current Bush administration provides much tax incentives for small business owners. Sounds good to me, especially those trying to start a new business. :)
Obama's plan to tax $250,000 actually causes a contraction in the economy. Exactly the opposite of what we need.
Look forwarding to talking to you personally about this.
M. Minor
Post a Comment
<< Home