The problem with politics
Robert and I watched the State of the Union speech last night. Then I watched Mitch Daniels deliver the oppositions view. I don’t want to veer into the politics of right and wrong. I simply will say this.
It is nearly inconceivable to me that there is so much intellectual dishonesty in our national debate.
As a person who works with and loves words I am horrified by how they are used to obscure fact. I am particularly vexed by the catchphrase ‘class warfare’.
Let’s be intellectually honest. Short of a revolution, the only side that wins in class warfare is the side that has, not the side that has not. It is equally true that our national wealth has shifted disproportionately to the top 2% of Americans. Not many people, but in their hands lie our national wealth.
Nothing wrong with that other than our system was predicated on a bell curve in which the proportion of extreme wealth is to correlate to proportionately to those living in extreme poverty. It does not. With over 30% of the country living on less than $30,000 annually, our balance is out of whack.
Today we are left with a disproportional few who have richly benefitted from a free enterprise system … and who in turn are asked to make a disproportionately large contribution to the greater good.
It’s not warfare. It’s not wealth redistribution. It’s simply the reality that our country can not run a champagne budget on the backs of those with a beer wallet.
The simple math is this. An annual income of $1,000,000 taxed at 30% leaves the individual with $700,000. The annual income of $30,000 taxed at 20% leaves the person $24,000 to spend. That’s a $294,000 swing on one person. The math is clear. To provide the desired social net in our country those with more will have to pay more. Who desires the safety net? I guess that is a question of ox and goring.
But I note that everyone in Congress claps for a strong military. There seems to be agreement that our national infrastructure,both physical and digital, needs to be restored. We all agree that a well trained police force, fire department services, litter free public spaces, etc. all serve the common good. Many of us want their to be subsidized health services for those of lower incomes or higher age. These elements of a social safety net come at a significant price.
But is that the price of freedom? Of social justice? Or a nation that fosters equality of man and of opportunity? And in the absence of the net, what is the preferred lifestyle choice? European ghettos? A system of feifdoms? Or simply the machine gun nested neighborhoods that protect those of affluence in cities throughout the world?
It is simply not true that the wealthy in America require fewer government services. The services required are simply different… as greater affluence affords greater access .. to the public roads, airways, protective services and the like.
Obama got one thing right last night. We are better as a country when we work together to solve a particular challenge. No amount of jingoism changes the fact that our most fortunate citizens are our most valuable financial resource. To protect our current way of life, the rich must do more. It may not seem fair, but who with an income of over $500,000 annually would trade places with the homeless, the unemployed, or even the typical American wage earner.
It’s not class warfare. It’s the American way of life. It should be defended at all costs. That is the same warfare that our founding fathers waged against the occupying British rulers. King George was wrong then. And those who argue as George did that the bounty of the new world was his to discharge at will are equally as wrong today.
Or so I think.
