David Brooks | October 5, 2007
Modern conservatism begins with Edmund Burke. What Burke articulated was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.
When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.
Over the years, the voice of Burke has been submerged beneath the clamoring creeds. In fact, over the past few decades the conservative ideologies have been magnified, while the temperamental conservatism of Burke has been abandoned.
Over the past six years, the Republican Party has championed the spread of democracy in the Middle East. But the temperamental conservative is suspicious of rapid reform, believing that efforts to quickly transform anything will have, as Burke wrote “pleasing commencements” but “lamentable conclusions.”
The world is too complex, the Burkean conservative believes, for rapid reform. Existing arrangements contain latent functions that can be neither seen nor replaced by the reformer. The temperamental conservative prizes epistemological modesty, the awareness of the limitations on what we do and can know, what we can and cannot plan.
Over the past six years, the Bush administration has operated on the assumption that if you change the political institutions in Iraq, the society will follow. But the Burkean conservative believes that society is an organism; that custom, tradition and habit are the prime movers of that organism; and that successful government institutions grow gradually from each nation’s unique network of moral and social restraints.
Over the past few years, the vice president and the former attorney general have sought to expand executive power as much as possible in the name of protecting Americans from terror. But the temperamental conservative believes that power must always be clothed in constitutionalism. The dispositional conservative is often more interested in means than ends (the reverse of President Bush) and asks how power is divided before asking for what purpose it is used.
Over the past decade, religious conservatives within the G.O.P. have argued that social policies should be guided by the eternal truths of natural law and that questions about stem cell research and euthanasia should reflect the immutable sacredness of human life.
But temperamental conservatives are suspicious of the idea of settling issues on the basis of abstract truth. These kinds of conservatives hold that moral laws emerge through deliberation and practice and that if legislation is going to be passed that slows medical progress, it shouldn’t be on the basis of abstract theological orthodoxy.
Over the past four decades, free market conservatives within the Republican Party have put freedom at the center of their political philosophy. But the dispositional conservative puts legitimate authority at the center. So while recent conservative ideology sees government as a threat to freedom, the temperamental conservative believes government is like fire — useful when used legitimately, but dangerous when not.
Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has championed a series of reforms designed to devolve power to the individual, through tax cuts, private pensions and medical accounts. The temperamental conservative does not see a nation composed of individuals who should be given maximum liberty to make choices. Instead, the individual is a part of a social organism and thrives only within the attachments to family, community and nation that precede choice.
Therefore, the temperamental conservative values social cohesion alongside individual freedom and worries that too much individualism, too much segmentation, too much tension between races and groups will tear the underlying unity on which all else depends. Without unity, the police are regarded as alien powers, the country will fracture under the strain of war and the economy will be undermined by lack of social trust.
To put it bluntly, over the past several years, the G.O.P. has made ideological choices that offend conservatism’s Burkean roots. This may seem like an airy-fairy thing that does nothing more than provoke a few dissenting columns from William F. Buckley, George F. Will and Andrew Sullivan. But suburban, Midwestern and many business voters are dispositional conservatives more than creedal conservatives. They care about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts. It is among these groups that G.O.P. support is collapsing.
American conservatism will never be just dispositional conservatism. America is a creedal nation. But American conservatism is only successful when it’s in tension — when the ambition of its creeds is retrained by the caution of its Burkean roots.
I hope many Republicans will read this article and take it’s message to heart. Americans don’t always hate their government, or shrink from collective responsibility. In watching Ken Burn’s series, “The War” on PBS these last two weeks, it was impossible to be struck by the contrast between the shared sacrifice Americans willingly assumed during World War II and the lack of sacrifice Americans have been asked to make during the Iraq war.
Most ordinary Americans also value many of the services government provides and the underlying concept that governmemt has a role to play in protecting citizens from avoidable crises and misfortune. In his second innaugural address, in 1937 Franklin Roosevelt looked back on his first term and said, “We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.” I think most Americans would still agree with that.
The challenge for both parties is to find a way to deliver governemt services in the most efficient, business-like and intelligent manner possible, rather than simply throwing money at problems or crafting new, glib tag-lines for demonizing governemt. This is the opportunity for the Republican party in the post-Bush era.
I’ve been watching Governor Schwarzengger’s health care reform effort unfolding in California and already one can see its enormous budget-busting potential emerging. The bill seeks to placate every interest group and industry sector while doing little to hold down costs. The original reform package was crafted in the heady days before the sub-prime lending crisis and the sharp decline in housing activity and is based on optimistic revenue projections. If this reform package passes, state expenditures will be set to rise dramatically just as state tax receipts are falling. Conservative Republicans in California are going to have a field day.
If Hillary Clinton is elected President and attempts to pass a health care reform package that also seeks to placate every interest group while doing little to hold down costs, she could be setting up the nation for a similar situation.
The harsh reality is that health care reform cannot be both politically easy and economically successful, because the only health care reform package that can be economically successful is one that reins in the growth in spending by demanding shared sacrifice by all of the system’s players. This means hospitals will have to learn to be more efficient, insurance companies will have to reduce overhead and do more to manage the health of their beneficiaries, drug companies will have to negotiate with the entire Medicare program instead of 200 little insurance companies, medical specialists will have to accept lower salaries, and there will have to be fewer specialists and more primary care physicians, and people who can afford health iinsurance are going to have to buy it.
A Republican party that takes health care reform seriously as an urgent and neccesary goal, but is also honest and open-eyed about the sacrifices involved in doing the job correctly, has the opportunity to win back it’s lost reputation has guardian of the nation’s fiscal integrity.
As usual, Dean S starts us off by a hijack – but still, it is a reminder to pray God that Dean S wish for medicine never comes about…
Back to the subject of the article…
(don’t worry, it won’t last long, Dean S or Jim will take us right back where they want us – and the rest of you will follow unfortunately 😉
… I have recently read this article, which is a very good explanation (starting with a historical analysis) of “neoconservativism”:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010684
It’s long but the best read on the subject I have seen in a while. Brooks of course asserts the more traditional conservative position (reminding us of Burke), but the problem is that he is asserting a bit of a caricature. The neocons are making a good faith effort, in the hope that there is something within the culture of Iraq (and possibly more of the middle east) that would be able to start the process of building something of a civil society, something of a counter to Islam. Even though I have my strong doubts, I still understand the thinking, and think it worth a go – epically in Iraq, which in the scale of things is not all that costly in terms of men and treasure. The other reasons for the war he also leaves out.
His view of “expanding executive power” I think is also a caricature – it has been radically expanded since Lincoln, and Bush strikes me as more restrained than most presidents in the past would have been, given the circumstances. Certainly more reserved on “executive power” than FDR/Clinton.
His view of “abstract theological orthodoxy” as related to Life issues is a LOL caricature. To say traditional burkean conservatives are open to redefining human life is simply silly. He obviously has a personal agenda here.
The following 3 paragraphs or so is a legitimate attempt to separate conservativism from libertarianism. Unfortunately, he does not come out and say this, or mention the strategic alliance with libertarians the GOP had formed the last 30 years or so. Now that this alliance is cracking (mostly due to the fact that after getting libertarian and conservative votes for the last 30 years or so, the government was delivered to the Rockefeller Republicans – and the libertarians and conservatives have noticed). I also disagree with him that “many business voters” fall outside of the Rockefeller camp. They have simply reaped all the benefits of the GOP governance of the last 30 years – why would the object?
(OK, now you boys and girls can go off on a 134 post tangent ‘debating’ Dean’s socialism ;)…
Christopher- Believing that “an invisible hand” of the market is going to come and cure all ills is about as childish as believing in the Tooth Fairy and Harvey the Easter bunny.
Market-driven medicine is the reason health care in the United States costs twice as much as it does in Europe while producing inferior health outcomes. Market-driven medicine is the reason why we have too many medical specialists and too few primary care physicians. Market-driven medicine is the reason physicians are paid poorly for keeping patients healthy and exorbitantly for treating them when they are sick. Market-driven medicine is the reason why sick people who need managed care the most, are the least likely to receive it from cherry-picking insurance companies. Market-driven medicine is the reason why the phamaceutical broadcasts hundreds of commercials for erectile dysfunction drugs every night, but cannot seem to produce enough flu vaccine. Market driven medicine is the reason why we have wide geographic disparities in hospital capacity and hospital costs througout the United States.
I think most sensible Republicans understand that there are some things in life too important to be left to the market, and it is starting to dawn on them that health care is one of them. I hope most sensible Republicans understand that the choice isn’t only between total socialism or a totally unfettered market, but among a large number of alternatives involving varying degrees of government and private sector control, in between.
The opportunity for Republicans is to design and offer the voters a new health care system that doesn’t simply throw money at problems, but helps align priorities and financial incentives properly in order to produce the best outcomes at the least cost. By engaging in denial and empty slogans the Republicans cede the initiative to their Democratic rivals. Today the New York Times reports:
A Battle Foreshadowing a Larger Health Care War
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/washington/06health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Great question for Republicans by Jon Stewart:
Interviewing Jack Goldsmith, the former assistant attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel,to discuss his new book, The Terror Presidency.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/05/daily-show-the-terror-presidency/
Conservatives, by temperment, are supposed to be cautious and prudent. The Republicans sycophantic support of the concentration of unchecked power in the White House in order to carry out the imperial designs of the neoconservatives, however, has been both radical and reckless.
Fr. Jacobse:
Can we ask Dean S to at least pretend to respond to subject of the blog??
He has yet again hijacked this thread to spill his usual electronic ink about “health care” or whatever it is he is talking about this time…
Dean protests too much. He is stung by the charge of liberal intellectual shallowness (he is reduced to defending moveon.org for example, and quoting entertainers like John Stewart), and after discovering that the incessant moral rebukes just don’t carry any authority around here, tries to turn the tables. It doesn’t really work. All we get more is tomes about Hillary care, neo-cons, and such, and long cribs from other liberal pundits. He has dropped discussion of Iraq however, since the Democrats keep bumbling their leadership (outmaneuvered by the Republicans actually) after the success of the surge.
I think Dean really believes good motives justify ideas. And I also think he does not really understand what I mean by this.
My comments are completely consistent with the subject of David Brooks commentary. Brooks draws a distinction between the temperment of a conservative which should be cautious, prudent and deliberative and the more recent creed adopted by conservatives which is been radical in its attempts to limit the role of governmemt, redistribute income upward and draw power into the executive branch.
19th century British Prime Minister Benjarmin Disraeli once remarked, “I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad.”
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3217.html
Notice that in Disraeli’s presentation of their respective roles the conservative preserves and the radical discards. Seeking to sharply limit the role of government and eliminate many of the responsibilities of governemt that the public has become accustom to, therefore is the action of a radical and not a conservative temperment.
As the rejection of the social security privatitazation effort in 2005 demonstrated there are government programs that the public values, and responsibilities for government in our economy that the public largely accepts. Instead of seeking to overturn these popular views the Republican party could perform a greater service to the public and itself by working to ensure that the services government provides are delivered in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The weakness of the Democrats that the Republicans could and should exploit is their tendency to fix problems by throwing money at them and by installing large, permanent bureaucratic agencies to solve problems where smaller, more entrepeneurial and locally-focused solutions might suffice. This weakness could expose itself again. If a Democratic President attempts to expand health care coverage without addressing the underlying forces causing health care spending to rise so fast, the result will be a massive ballooning entitlement.
Cautious, prudent and deliberative by temperment, sensible conservatives know that letting our health care system collapse under the weight of rapidly increasing costs and rapidly falling private coverage is a greater threat than letting the government step in to help. It therefore behooves the Republicans to learn everything they can about health care and offer a meaningful and more cost-effective alternative rather than the vague, undefined hysteria about the socialized medicine boogeyman that they have been feeding the public so far.
As Stuart M. Butler, a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said “It’s hard to fight something with nothing,”
Christopher writes: “The neocons are making a good faith effort, in the hope that there is something within the culture of Iraq (and possibly more of the middle east) that would be able to start the process of building something of a civil society, something of a counter to Islam.”
So there is a hope that something exists in Iraqi culture such that something of a civil society can developed through the process of something happening that will bring that about. And then something else happens to make more of the Islamic countries in the Middle East something of a counter to Islam.
Christopher: “Even though I have my strong doubts . . . ”
You have strong doubts about the possibility of turning an Islamic country into something of a counter to Islam . . . Well, you never know. Maybe they’ll become Amish. Maybe they’ll all grow spiked mohawks and listen to goth metal bands. You just never know. Don’t give up hope.
Christopher: ” . . . I still understand the thinking, and think it worth a go . . .”
Yes, you just never know. Maybe we can turn lead into gold too.
Christopher: “[especially] in Iraq, which in the scale of things is not all that costly in terms of men and treasure.”
What a comfort that must be to the families of the dead and wounded. “Mrs. Smith, we regret to inform you that your husband just had half his head blown off trying to make something happen to turn an Islamic people into something of a counter to Islam. But not to worry, in the scale of things, it’s not all that costly. Frankly, I have strong doubts, but it was worth risking your husband.” Who could resist a message like that?
I think there is a great marketing opportunity here. In a twist on an old bumper sticker, we could create an exciting new Neocon bumper sticker: Something Happens
Note # 8:
You wouldn’t know a conservative if he came up and bit you on your big fat greek !@#.
You simply suck in Brooks into your usual left wing spam-a-lot. Why don’t you go troll somewhere else?? Your only fooling yourself…
Describing Conservatism with precision is dificult because the movement encompasses different strands, or sub-groups. A nice NY Times book review from Sunday on two new books on Conservatism provides the following:
Crisis on the Right, By JONATHAN RAUCH, October 7, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/books/review/Rauch-t.html?8bu&emc=bu
Perhaps the growing divide between conservative temperment and creed that Brooks refers to is actually the unhappiness of conservative “traditionalists” with other groups within the conservative movement.
Jonathan Rauch writes:
Mr. Scourtes,
Are you saying that you are more in line with “real” Conservatism? You approve of it yet support Ms Clinton?
Jim,
What is the point you are trying to make/prove?
Cepik: I could be drawn to a traditionalist form of conservatism – one that accepts that government has responsibilities towards the welfare of it’s citizens, but finds solutions that are more entrepenerial and efficient, cost-effective, and less intrusive, bureaucratic and expensive to carry out those responsibilities. I think that Theodore Roosevelt exemplified that sort of Conservativism, one where the rich were embued with a sense of noblesse oblige to help and raise up those around them.
Sometime I wonder if many people on the right today confuse conservatism with Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Rand, an athiest who scorned faith and religion, wrote, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life”. Contrast that self-centered outlook with Christianity which teaches us that our moral purpose in life is to serve as conduits of God’s love. Objectivism rejects altruism and compassion for their own sake, and insists that every act must be based on one’s self interest.
Objectivism demands an absolute freedom that requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary. In a world governed by objectivist philosophy having to pay taxes for a fire department, for example, would be considered an intolerably coercive violation of freedom. If it is in their rational self interest not to have their neighbor’s house burn down, citizens have a right to come out with their garden hoses and try and extinguish the fire. Otherwise it is better for homes to burn than to coerce people to pay taxes. Clearly this is a philosophy deeply in conflict wth Christianity and any sense of community responsibility informed by Christian values.
As to Hillary Clinton, I support her over her Republican rivals because I have yet to see any daylight between the positions of any of the Republican candidates and the policies of George W. Bush, without a doubt, the worst president in American history. The GOP candidates all support an indefinite continuation of our costly, counter-productive and futile occupation of Iraq and support making the fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent None of them has yet to offer a meaningful and comprehensive plan for health care reform or energy independence.
Mr. Scourtes,
Thank you for your reply, do you think Hillary embodies what you wish for (providing you wish for what you say in #13)? If what you wish for a more “traditional” conservatism, wouldn’t Ron Paul be a better fit for you? Don’t you think there is quite a bit of “daylight” between him and GWB?
Although, I don’t think what you refer to as a “traditionalist” form of conservatism is truly a traditional form; I am not sure what to make of it. When you say government that accepts that it has responsibilities to its citizenry’s “welfare”, how do you define “welfare”? Is it health? happiness? security? something else? Would it be only what is outlined in the constitution? Would/could it change and for what reasons?
Furthermore, wouldn’t / couldn’t “welfare” be different for the areas of the country? Or do you think that there is a central thread that binds “welfare” across the nation? Finally, do you think that government (presumably federal) is the best institution to address this? how and why?
In closing, didn’t a number of the Democratic candidates also acknowledge continued involvement in Iraq was necessary? Regarding the tax cuts, would you be supportive of a Flat Tax or do you think it better to only “soak the rich”?
I am just curious as to what you believe.
Regards,
CP
I almost forgot,
What is it about Ms. Clinton’s healthcare reform and energy independence programs that you like?
Cepik – Traditional Conservatism’s most compelling argument for me is that unchecked government inevitably becomes wasteful, burdensome, intrusive and oppressive. This doesn’t mean that the “goals” of government are neccesarily wrong. It means that the manner in which government carries out it’s business must be strictly supervised, frequently reviewed and revamped and constantly subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny and accountability. Clearly many government agencies or entities have become entrenched, wasteful, inefficient and dysfunctional and need to be redesigned from the ground up, or maye reconsidered entirely.
Conservatives are also correct to argue that some sacred cows, like public education, need to be challenged, and Democrats stand on the wrong side when they align themselves with unions instead of frustrated taxpayers. However, Republicans have their own sacred cows as well, like defense contractors and agri-business. Often what the Republicans are pushing for is just socialism for the rich. But bottom line, I agree with conservatives that you just can’t let government grow and grow; it has to be held in check.
While I agree with Ron Paul on Iraq, I disagree with some of his other libertarian positions, like taxes. Clearly ballooning deficits are a greater economic threat to the nation than modest tax increases for people making more than a million dollars annually. So we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire, at least for peiople with incomes over one million annually.
Let’s put the rest the false notion that a progresive income tax “soaks the rich”. I do agree that before Reagan, taxes on the upper tax bracket were far too high, but they were not too high when Bush lowered them. While income tax rates may be progressive, the impact of other taxes like sales tax and FICA tend to regressive, so that when you look at overall taxes they are only mildly progressive. As Warren Buffet points out, the wealthy obtain a much larger portion of their income from investment than from labor, and investment income is taxed as a much lower rate than labor income. That is why Mr. Buffet pays only a 15% tax rate compared to his secretary who pays a 30% tax rate.
Also the rich have garnered an increasing share of the national wealth over the last 20 years reaching levels not seen since the early nine-teen twenties. CEO compensation, for example is at unheard of levels today. Historically we know that when disparities between rich and poor reach certain levels the threat of social unrest increases dramatically. So some income redistribution designed to strengthen America’s middle-class is probably a wise investment if we want to keep our democracy.
The clearest word on Ayn Rand: Big Sister is Watching You.
Mr. Scourtes,
Thank you for your reply. How are the points you addressed above viewed by the Democrats; Hillary in particular? Regarding the taxation, wouldn’t your comment be a stellar argument for a flat tax? Obviously the Kennedy’s, (Heinz-)Kerry’s, Rockefeller’s, Edwards et al are paying less than the average working Joe (percentage wise). How are your candidate(s) going to correct that? It always seems to me that when you set out to soak the rich, the middle class get “wet” too,
Also, tell me more about your candidates’ energy independence and health reform programs, as well as the other questions I asked in #14 & #15.
Regards,
CP
Cepik – I agree that the tax system needs to be revamped. The major impetus for reform is the need to correct the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was written with no adjustment factor for inflation and is now beginning to impact and increase taxes for middle class families.
Unfortuunately the Flat Tax is one of those ideas that is superficially appealing at first glance, but under serious scutiny is found to be too simplistic to be practical. Here are some potential problems with a Flat Tax.
1) A Flat Tax may not be revenue neutral. During the nineteen-nineties the only flat tax proposals that even came close to being revenue neutral and not increasing the deficit, were those that eliminated the popular mortgage interest deduction.
2) Doing away with the mortgage interest deduction would result in a huge net increase in taxes for most middle class families for whom the family home represents their primary investment. Good luck trying to argue that one.
3) A Flat tax on income from wages only, would leave other regressive taxes in place, resulting in a more regressive tax system overall that punishes the middle class and poor. Sales and FICA tax are regressive in that they represent a greater percentage of the inome of the poor compared to the rich. Since the rich derive a large percentage of their income from investment which is taxed at a lower rater rate this would also contribute to the regressive effect. Doing away with the inheritance (“Paris Hilton”) tax would make our tax system even more skewed against the poor and middle class.
4) There are some tax credits and deductions which reward socially beneficial behavior, that would be eliminated under a flat tax. Foremost among these is the mortage interest deductions which promotes home-ownership. Home-ownership, in turn is associated with higher rates of savings, hard work and concern for the community. Clearly there are too many deductions, but rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater we need a commission to identify those that have outlived their purpose, rather than get rid of all of them.
5) While a relatively flat tax rates may be logical for middle-income tax payers, there are good reasons for having different rates for the two extreme ends of the income spectrum. The Earned Income Tax credit which lowers taxes for the working poor has been a useful tool for reducing the ranks of those on welfare and moving people into the workforce. At the upper end of the sprectrum, the extremely rich have so many tax loopholes that it was Ronal Reagan himself who pushed for the AMT to make sure that the rich pay at least some taxes. Also there is a strong moral argument to be made that those who have all their material needs satisfied and have enjoyed the lions share of the nations prosperity have an obligation to bear an additional burden.
Dean S. you’re leaving out the 6 billion man hours of productivity we waste every year complying with a completely artificial and idiotic “accounting” system of “here’s the receipt, claim that deduction” that wastes vast resources and brain power without producing a single beneficial result.
Also, your skewed definition of “fair” is the communist model of “punish” achievement and success. The original and truthful definition of “fair” should mean everyone is taxed EQUALLY not punitively. A flat tax is indeed the only fair tax a society can have.
Mr. Scourtes,
Thank you for your reply, where do you get your figures? As Banescu states above, a flat tax is one of the fairest taxes around. If your attracted to “traditional” conservatism, wouldn’t you think it best to cut spending?
You refer to programs encouraging socially beneficial behavior, beneficial to who? How and why? Is it government the best vehicle to accomplish this? Why exactly is it needed to have different rate scales for the “extremes” of the spectrum? If the wealthy are to bear the additional burden, do they get to have a greater voice/benefit? Why or why not? What exactly is the burden? What programs are included in the “burden”? Also, what percentage of the population fit your definition of “wealthy”? What are their outlying parameters (in US Dollars)?
Also if you can answer the rest of my questions (above), it would be helpful.
Regards,
CP
All I have to say about this is that when you tax people too much, you deprive them of opportunities to be generous spontaneously. They will feel that the government is doing enough already (even if that isn’t the case) and so won’t give as much. Also, they, obviously, won’t have as much money.
I do agree that the rich should part with their money. But not through more taxes. By voluntarily freeing themselves of their wealth, they will be better people.
From our holy father, St. John Chrysostom (on alms-giving):
“For indeed this is the highest of arts. Its workshop is built in heaven. Its tools are not made of iron and brass, but of goodness and right will…. And what is indeed marvelous, being so superior to the rest, it needs no labor, no time for its perfection; it is enough to have willed, and the whole is accomplished,But let us see also its end, what it is. What then is the end of it? Heaven, the good things in the heavens, that ineffable glory…”
Well, you all get the idea. Have a wonderful day, in Christ.
Chris – Don’t you think that success in life is due in equal measure to both skill and luck?
Of course, people who work hard and apply themselves, and/or develop a brilliant business idea that meets a huge demand in the market, do well and deserve to be rewarded.
But not all success results from merit. Do you know anyone who actually was able to pick their parents? This is important because we know that children of wealthy parents have a much higher probability of doing better than children born into poverty. Children of the wealthy are more likely to receive a better education, network with people in high places, make connections with would be benefactors and be receive job offers and business opportunities. Children born in the inner city or rural America are more likely to become ill from a preventable illness, be shot by a gang member or be injured by farm machiniery, receive a sub-standard education, receive a high school education that fails to prepares him for college or be able to afford to go to the best universities.
Do you really think that the inate worth and merit of the boy who graduates from Yale and goes to work for his father’s buddies at Morgan Stanley making $100k in the first year, and the boy that graduates from Community College in a small town and then goes to Iraq to spill his blood for his country for $800 a month should be estimated solely from their income?
What about the rigged nature of business that you yourself have described so well in your articles. Do the bloated pay packages of those CEOs who falsify financial statement, or buy off Congressmen to pass favorable legislation, reflect their merit and worth?
As you have insightfully noted Chris, the United States is approaching a level of corruption ussually associated with banana republics in South America. Like Rome we are evolving from an idealistic Republic to a corrupt empire. The corruption is systemic and not associated with only one political party. I’m sure we will see a lot of Democratic congressmen now back in the majority, indicted for corruption in the years ahead.
The opportunity for the conservative movement is the restoration of integrity to the system. That is how the Conservative movement can reinvigorate itself IMHO.
Dean – One of the deductions the flat tax would eliminate would be the deduction for charitable giving.
See “A conceptual analysis of the flat tax” The CPA Journal
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/17335510.htm
A Flat tax creates winners and losers.
The elimination of deductions leads to an increase in taxable income, which proponents of the flat tax attempt to offset with an increase in the personal exemption. If the increase in the personal exemption is greater than the amount of the deductions lost, the taxpayer will be a winner and end up paying less taxes. If the the increase in the personal exemption is less than the amount of deductions eliminated the taxpayer will be a loser and end up paying more taxes.
This means that if you live in a low tax state, either rent or have a small mortgage, have lots of children, don’t give to charity and don’t have a health savings account you probably will be a winner.
If you live in a high tax state, have a large mortgage, have no children or one child, give to charity ot tithe to your church, and have a health savings account you will probably be a loser and end up paying a lot more in taxes under the flat rate proposal.
Mr. Scourtes,
Are you saying that we are pretty much assigned our station in life at birth? There is nothing that hard work, perseverance and attitude can do to alter that outcome?
Are you saying that because a person is born of the “wrong” lineage, they are destined to go to a juco, public university and no doubt a lifetime of poverty or financial under achievement? How do you explain the success stories of the immigrants who didn’t (and don’t) accept governmental handouts? many of whom are small business owners and community college graduates.
I don’t know where you are going about choosing our parents. Injured by farm machinery? What are you talking about? Innate worth? That whole paragraph is a run-on sentence with no meaning.
You haven’t answered any of my questions but I am only trying to see what you really believe. You said earlier that you didn’t want to “soak the rich” but it appears that you really do. Only thing is, you won’t define what you consider “rich”. I am not sure your version of the flat tax is correct, could you give me a link to it so I can read more about your version?
It seems that you have an axe to grind against the wealthy and see the government as the only way to correct a vast inequality. Since you acknowledge governmental corruption do you think they are the best ones to do this?
BTW, the name is Cepik.
Regards,
CP
Dean (not Scourtes),
Heavy taxation tends to cripple small business growth, too.
Regards,
CP
So Dean S., following your logic, if I happen to be 6′ 10″ male, gifted in playing basketball, and able to earn $15 million/year by running around on a court and placing a round ball through a hoop I should be punished by the gov’t for having been “lucky” to have had the right DNA and therefore should pay 2-3x times the tax rates of shorter men and women who cannot be basketball stars and in the NBA. This is wholly lacking in common sense, reason, and ethics.
Furthermore, the “rich” (whatever your definition of that may be) being taxed not only at 2-3x times the rate of everyone else but also 3 times more often:
(1) when their companies earn it [corporate tax rates – federal & state]
(2) when dividends are distributed (or stocks sold) [personal tax rates – federal & state], and finally
(3) when they die (death tax) and give away their fortunes to their children,
is still not enough to punish them for having dared risked, worked hard and succeeded? (Note: I’m not referring to individuals who have acquired wealth through criminial means.)
How much more should we punish them?
Chris and Cepik – No, I never said “that we are pretty much assigned our station in life at birth? There is nothing that hard work, perseverance and attitude can do to alter that outcome.”
I said “success in life is due in equal measure to both skill and luck”. A person born into a lower class family can work hard and be successful, however statistically and emprically, the probabiliity that a person with rich parents will be rich is much greater than the probability that a person with poor persons will be rich.
Warren Buffett, one of our nation’s most successful capitalists had this to say about inherited wealth in Fortune magazine;
A conversation with Warren Buffett, Fortune magazine, June 25, 2006
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity2.fortune/index.htm
First, note that Mr. Buffet attributes much of his success to the fact that he lives in America, and accepts that he has an obligation to pay back America something for his success America has brought him.
Second note that Mr. Buffet does not consider his inheritance something that his children have earned. The inheritance tax is not levied against the dead, as Chris suggests, but against the living heirs who have done nothing to earn it. Dead people don’t pay taxes, the living do.
Lastly note that even Mr. Bufffet can see a danger in what he calls “Dynastic mega-wealth”. These large inheritances create an American “aristocracy” when success in America should be based on “meritocracy”. We are tilting “the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level”, Mr. Buffet says.
Dean S. I finally understand, you are an unabashed communist! You agree that even the triple taxation to the rich even unto death, in addition to the punitive tax rates during their lives is STILL not enough. They must give it all back to the state. Thanks for clarifying the ideology you hold so dear.
If Warren Buffet wants to VOLUNTARILY give it all away then God bless him that’s his prerogative. Notice the voluntary element that is the only ethical and Christian approach to charity; not the punitive and involuntary, by force only, methods you love so much. It is grossly unethical and un-Christian to force people to give it all to the state.
Thou shall NOT Covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor’s. Forgot that tiny little commandment there Dean? You are Orthodox right? You do realize that the Orthodox Faith still recognizes those 10 little rules also right?
Chris Banescu writes: “You agree that even the triple taxation to the rich even unto death, in addition to the punitive tax rates during their lives is STILL not enough.”
Elsewhere, Christopher wrote: “Fat people are not poor – at least any Christian definition of the term ‘poor'”. In fact, I believe he asserted that there were few, if any, real poor people in America (at least in the Christian sense).
In light of that, one would have to tax the wealthy quite a bit to make them suffer in any real “Christian” sense, yes? The guy across the street from me has two or three BMWs and a boat. They seem to be doing okay.
Chris writes: “It is grossly unethical and un-Christian to force people to give it all to the state.”
“All”? Absolutely it would be wrong. Who’s suggesting that, and what percentage do you suppose would be fair? Personally, if I had to pay less in taxes I’d be thrilled, but you know, someone has to pay for the Iraq invasion which, according to recent numbers, is running close to 2 billion a week.
I’m all for fiscal responsibility (something not demonstrated by this current administration, by the way) and small government. I also don’t believe in providing hand-outs to those unwilling to carry their own weight. In talking about levels of taxation, however, it would be beneficial to keep in mind that the cost of basic goods and services are not adjusted according to income. In a free-market society, the prices for food and basic necessities are partially determined by the demand and what can be reasonably expected from a median-income wage earner. The ultra-wealthy benefit from this by having access to these goods at rates determined by incomes far lower than their own.
Mr. Scourtes:
“Don’t you think that success in life is due in equal measure to both skill and luck?”
How can anyone know this? Do you really believe the ration of results due to skill and luck is 1:1, and applies to all people? I think this is just specious rhetoric.
Granted, life is not fair. But is it desirable to try to make it fair? If so, who should be the arbitor of what is fair enough, and what proportion of skill or luck contributed to one’s wealth? You? Warren Buffet? Howard Dean?
What scale of fairness is desirable, in your opinion? If you were born in Haiti you might look at America’s “poor” and complain about the advantages they had in life that you did not. Why, given your reasoning, should we not distribute wealth across national boundaries until everyone is equally miserable? That way, while we might all live in shacks, at least we would have the satisfaction of knowing that nobody was richer than us due to good luck.
“…the United States is approaching a level of corruption ussually associated with banana republics in South America. Like Rome we are evolving from an idealistic Republic to a corrupt empire.”
Not even close. This is just unhelpful hyperbole. Life isn’t perfect here, but I know people who work overseas and the worst corruption in America doesn’t come close to what one experiences in a banana republic, or in the Middle East and Asia.
Also, what sort of empire are we? We allow our very few territories to vote on whether they should stay or go and we pour billions of dollars attempting to rebuild a place in the rare event that we occupy it. If we’re an empire, we’re about the most benign empire in history.
Chris- You are too intelligent to dismiss my comments as “communism”. You know that it is not a choice between absolute unfettered free market capitalism or communism, but a choice between a wide array of economic models involving varying degrees of private and public sector involvement. What economic model would you say they have in Sweden, for example, a nation with both social welfare and highly successful private sector companies? If you prefer an economic model that is 90% private and 10% public, and I prefer an economic model that is 70% private and 30% public that does not make me a communist.
I happen to think that to protect capitalism you have to introduce a small measure of socialism. History demonstrates pretty clearly that when economic disparities beconme too great and large portions of the population finds themselves economically disenfranchised and marginalized, the result is usually social unrest and revolution.
It was during the depths of the Great Depression, when more than one-third of the American workforce was unemployed, that communism enjoyed it’s greatest popularity in the US and fascism enjoyed it’s greatest poularity in Europe. Media magnate William Randolph Hearst actually had a movie made in 1932 called “Gabriel Over the White House”, featuring a American President who as result of divine revelation, becomes a benovolent dictator who saves America, in order to persuade Franklin Roosevelt that he also needed to assume dictatorial powers to deal with the growing economic crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Over_the_White_House
Conversely, America has enjoyed it’s strongest prosperity and stability when it’s middle class was strong and economically secure. Today America’s middle class is under seige in an environment that includes the outsourcing of jobs, an unstable and increasingly costly health care system, falling home prices, and an aging and crumbling public infrastructure. Government investment to build a stronger middle class, even if they have to be paid for in part by higher tax rates for the rich, are not communism. They are steps to strengthen capitalism.
Here is data from Greg Mankiw, who is a professor at Harvard and was former chairman of the council of economic advisors to Bush.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/average-income-tax-rates.html
Notice that the average tax rate paid by those in the bottom 50% of earners was about 5% in 1990 and is about 3% now. The tax rate paid by the top 1% is about 23%, which is lower than the 27% paid in 2000 but about the same as in 1990.
If I were rich like Warren Buffet I would not leave more than a fraction of my wealth to my heirs, but that is his and my choice. A quick read of Buffet’s bio shows that while he probably came from a fairly well-off family, his success had very little to do with his parents money and everything to do with his drive and intelligence.
Tidbit: he is related to Jimmy Buffett.
Mankiw’ chart however fails to include the impact of Sales and FICA tax which are regressive.
Also, I don’t think that Mankiw’s chart reflects the tax rate on investment income, just income from wages. Since investment income is taxed at a lower rate and primarily by the upper tax bracket a blended rate for income on both wages and investments would be much less progressive than the rate for wages alone.
Tom C
Thanks for the link, I followed it to Chris Edwards Blog where they explain the graph a little better.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/09/tax-shares-for-rich-and-poor/
ChrisK, thanks for pointing out that Mr. Banescu’s name is Chris. I didn’t know and thought Mr. Scourtes was posting on the wrong thread. However, your comment about
“In a free-market society, the prices for food and basic necessities are partially determined by the demand and what can be reasonably expected from a median-income wage earner.”
doesn’t seem correct. Where did you get that information? I would be interested in reading it. I thought it would be based on what they thought they could get for it in the market place (based on their target sample). Housing is a basic necessity that would fall within your supposition, no? Yet there are different prices, styles, locations, etc. The mansions of the elites do not seem to be priced for the median income wage earner. Also, what about certain brands of clothing, furniture, foods, etc? (or is that not what you were meaning?)
Banescu, again excellent points! Particularly the one about donating. Nothing prevents the wealthy from donating a portion or all of their wealth. I have some questions to ask Mr. Scourtes about his taxation guidelines but I am still trying to get his definition of “rich”.
D. George, excellent points.
Regards all,
CP
Re: “Since investment income is taxed at a lower rate and primarily by the upper tax bracket a blended rate for income on both wages and investments would be much less progressive than the rate for wages alone.”
Correction:
It is taxed at a lower rate once the stock value or dividends reach the individuals. The income created by the corporation is already TAXED by the Federal and State governments when they earn it. So the “lower tax” rate is the Second Tax that decreases the value to the owners of the company. Double Taxation is the rule already. Often Triple Taxation happens when a corporation also owns investments in other corporations. By the time the dividends reach the stock holders the Income earned by the original corp. is taxed 3x times!!
Mr. Scourtes,
Sales taxes are (usually) determined locally or statewide and “punish”/tax only when you spend. Rates can be adjusted for different items (autos vs home rates). Foods and medical care are tax free. Also, how do you know Mr. Edwards left out FICA and sales tax? Where are your sources?
I am not trying to be obstinate or argumentative, I am just trying to understand your position.
Regards,
CP
It just seems like conservatives want to kill the goose that lays that golden eggs. That goose is a large population of strong, thriving middle-class consumers whose spending largely props up our economy.
Maintaining a strong middle-class requires investment. We need to make sure our workers are educated and skilled enough to be productive laborers.
We need to have a physical infrastructure of roads and bridges, rail and electriical lines to meet the demands of business. We need to have enough jobs so that rising unemployment doesn’t have a negative ripple effect on spending and we need to have a program of social insurance to cushion workers from dislocations in a dynamic job market. We need to have a strong public health system to care for people when they are sick and return them to their jobs quickly and in good health. We need to invest in research and development, and in the technologies and industries of the future to keep our economy competitive in a changing world.
Short-changing the investment neccesary to maintain a strong middle-class and vibrant economy, in the name of lower taxes for the rich is short-sighted,self-defeating and stupid
#34
The chart is based on adjusted gross income so it does include investment income.
Chris B makes the case for lower taxes based on personal freedom, which ultimately is the best reason. But, there is also a utilitarian reason for keeping taxes low. When you let rich people keep their money they make more of it by investing wisely. This leads to healthy economic growth which benefits everyone. Bankers and other investors are plenty fallible, but on average they make decisions more wisely than politicians since they are more accountable to the investor than the politician is to the citizen.
Thanks for researching that Tom.
In response to your statement on freedom being the best reason to continue lowering taxes regardless of the economic repercussions, I think perople are more than willing to accept certain limitations on their personal freedom when it is in their best interest to do so.
Ask anyone what type of community they would rather live in, the one with good schools, nice green parks, well stocked libraries and a strong local police presence, or, the neighbrohood with underfunded and under-performing schools, no libraries, no place for their children to play and get fresh air and an under-staffed police department. You will find that most people will tell you they are willing to pay more in property taxes to live in the first type of community.
Now take the concept of community and apply it to our nation. Would you rather live in a county that resembles a thrid-world dung-heap, but has klow taxes, or a nation with a strong economy, well maintained physical infrastrure and good social services?
Note 40. Actually Dean, it is the high-tax Democrat strongholds in America that are the dumps everyone is fleeing.
Really good living to be had in these Democrat strongholds: Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Kansas City the list goes on and on.
The Democrats have been firmly in control of Kansas City, Missouri for 60 years and their school system is unaccredited, the streets are pock-marked with potholes, and every neighborhood is blighted by crime (including new urban-renewal, low-rise yuppie housing paid for by the City). It is the Democrats that have hobbled law enforcement and inverted justice so that the robber, mugger and rapist is the victim.
What a joke!! Taxes drive out business and drive out jobs. Taxes destroy they don’t create. Prosperity is created by the private sector.The few things that the private sector needs from the public sector ave been destroyed or undermined by the Democrats. We need a solid legal system which respects the rule of law and protection of law-biding citizens through the incarceration of criminals. These basic goals are constantly undermined by Democrats.
Kansas City is a city full of the criminals that the Democrats have created in their school systems and through the “criminal-justice” system. All Democrats should be forced to live in the cities that they ruined.
I have friends who are senior citizens who can tell you what downtown Kansas City was like before WWII. It was a great place to live, to work, to eat at a restaurant, to shop and to listen to jazz. Now you take your life in your hands if you want to visit any downtown venue after dark.
The rest of the Kansas City metropolitan area is booming.
“Nobel economics winner says market forces flawed”, Reuters, Oct 15, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1538104320071015?sp=true
#40
50 years ago our country had these things when taxes were substantially lower than they are today. Moreover, the examples you gave do not involve re-distribution of wealth and are better addressed by local governments than by the federal government. So, these public goods have almost no bearing on the many other ideas you advocate.
Note 42, Dean, this is classical economics, your post is an implied straw man argument.
If you took time to read Milton Friedman you would see that classical economics allows a place for “public goods.” There does not exist a single reputable classical economist who claims that there is no role for the government in a healthy economy. Try getting your hands on an Economics 101 Samuelson text.
This is like writing an essay on political economy for a 12 year old.
As noted in my last diatribe, the economy needs government to provide certain things in order for it to prosper. First among those things is the “rule of law.” Many important policies fall under this broad category.
They include….
….the protection of the person and property of law-abiding citizens. This requires a sound and robust system of law enforcement. Political philosophies which invert justice, ignore the true victim of crime and elevate perpetrators to victims status work against this. Crime and fear of crime drives everything good out of the inner city. Everything good.
…a court system that efficiently resolves ordinary disputes between businesses and citizens. Business people need to know that contracts will be respected and enforced.
….a court system which defends people from aribitrary seizure of property. See Justice Souter’s opinion that governments can seize private businesses if there exists another private business which will produce more tax revenue in the same location. Rankest tyranny.
…..a regulatory system that ensures high-quality, honest capital markets, like the S.E.C. it generally does a good job, but, it could always do better at going after the cheats and the crooks. As you can see, this is just another form of law-enforcement.
…. a transparent system of ownership records, such as land records kept by local government, vehicle ownership records kept by state governments. Again this supports the efforts of the honest and hurts only the cheats and the crooks
…..a good transporation system, including the Interstate Highway System, railway systems, and such
…. an educational system that inculcates good character, teaches respect for the history of the country, and provides the student with real skills in communication and science. Our schools are a joke, an international joke.
So, Dean, you do not score a debating point when you state that a healthy economy required “public goods.” This is a waste of time to debate, like JamesK, your writings do not provide even the slightest hint that you have read any classical economist.
Remember, a “classical economist” in modern academia, is an economist who seeks to understand how people make economic decisions and how economies work to create wealth. All other “economists” are ideologues who want to create a utopia on Earth. We know how those man-made utopias work out.
Actually it is looking more and more as if this blog is a perfect illustration of the economic truism on money: “bad drives out good”
Missourian writes: “Actually Dean, it is the high-tax Democrat strongholds in America that are the dumps everyone is fleeing.”
If you look at a map of population trends, people tend to move from rural areas to the cities, I suppose because it’s harder to make a living in a rural area.
Missourian: “The Democrats have been firmly in control of Kansas City, Missouri for 60 years, ” etc.
Why do you guys keep electing them if they are so bad? I looked at the crime stats for Kansas City and where I live — a liberal, Democratic bastion — and things are much worse in Kansas City. So I think there’s probably some other factor at work.
Missourian: “All Democrats should be forced to live in the cities that they ruined.”
If you look at the crime at the state level, blue states tend to have less crime than red states. In 2005 CNN reported on the ten safest and ten most dangerous cities. Six of the ten most dangerous were in red states and eight of the ten safest cities were in blue states.
Missourian: “If you took time to read Milton Friedman you would see that classical economics allows a place for ‘public goods.'”
Are they calling it “classical” these days? The label seems to change every few years. Sure, Friedman and company allow for “public goods,” as long as social services are defunded and everything else is privatized as much as possible.
Missourian: “Our schools are a joke, an international joke.”
Amazing, though, isn’t it that students from other countries can come here without a scrap of English, become fluent in a few months, excel far beyond the American students, and go on to successful professional careers. Last summer I went to the graduation party of a girl from Morocco. When she arrived her total knowledge of English consisted of “hello.” Within a few months she was speaking perfect English. Now she’s a pre-med college student. One of the clerks at the local grocery store was a kid from Romania. He came here when he was 15. At age 20, when I ran into him, he was trying to figure out whether to become a Shakespeare scholar or go into medicine. He opted for literature, and is currently finishing his Ph.D. in Slavic literature at Yale. Somehow the international joke turned out to be pretty good for these kids.
Michael writes: “Actually it is looking more and more as if this blog is a perfect illustration of the economic truism on money: ‘bad drives out good'”
Yeah, you guys have it tough here, don’t you. I mean, this is the blog equivalent of Babylonian captivity, with the home team weeping by the river in a strange land. What a terrible thing it must be to have to deal with other points of view.
Jim H. wrote:
Jim your argument is a fallacy. The state ratio of crime doesn’t directly correlate to the ten safest and dangerous cities list.
The city list only looks at a ratio of violent crime per 100,000; state ratio lists look at total crime per 100,000. So red state A may have a high crime rate overall to blue state B, but blue state B may still have a higher violent crime rate overall.
Here’s the CNN 2006 list for dangerous and safest cities: http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/30/real_estate/Most_dangerous_cities/index.htm
If you notice all ten of the most dangerous cities are democrat run. But I’ll admit that even then the list can be misleading in that there is a sizeable economic difference between the two lists. Many of the safest cities are affluent suburbs of larger metropolitan centers.
But, if you dig deeper into the failed cities you’ll discover that they’ve have a long history of corruption, payoffs, etc along with a long histories of democratic run administrations that have failed to address the blight in their communities. So, you’re argument about state colors and city crime is a bit of to wide of a brush argument.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains the logic behind raising taxes on the rich:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/reich-the-logic.html
Make the rich pay their fair share or the country goes broke. That is the choice.
#47
Jim, you post something like this and then expect to be taken seriously? I have not been comfortable with how Christopher throws around the troll accusation, but mayber there is something to it.