Four years ago, Ben Stein, the conservative commentator for the New York Times wrote this article,
In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning. He recalls an interview with Warren Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, who says the rich do not pay enough taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap:
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income (…) It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office (…) “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Whenever this subject - closing the deficit gap by raising taxes on the wealthy - is the topic of conversation, free market voices raise the ugly specter of 'class warfare.' At least Ben Stein and Warren Buffett are willing to be honest and reveal an inconvenient truth.
After 30 years of supply-side economics, the argument that lower taxes will stimulate the economy and raise tax revenues is so discredited, one wonders when the corpse will finally be laid to rest. In the last year of Clinton’s administration, the government raised over $1 trillion in tax revenue - generating a surplus. By 2003 after two Bush tax cuts, revenues fell to $794 billion - adding $2.7 billion to the national debt. Of course, when Republicans lose one argument, they can always muster another: “Don’t raise taxes; cut spending!” Fat chance when the country is mired in two wars and a severe recession that has impoverished the middle class. When you lose two arguments, why not muster a third:
At the 1992 Republican Convention, Vice President Dan Quayle attacked the concept of progressive taxation with this question: “Why should the best people be punished?”
Quayle’s remark offers us a glimpse into a Republican mindset that regards the richest people as the “best people” at the pinnacle of an economic, social, and moral order. However, when the serfs and vassals lose their jobs and go on unemployment, then they must be considered defective and unworthy and undergo devaluation.
At least, this is the attitude of
GOP Senator Jon Kyl who says: “In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." I cannot imagine a more callous, cruel, and dishonest argument: When the economic policies of your party bring economic ruin to tens of millions of people,
blame the victim! Try finding work when there are no jobs available, or try raising a family on a paltry unemployment check. How can the senator honestly claim an unemployment check is preferable to a job when creditors threaten to foreclose on your home and take away what’s left of an already tormented life!
On a scale of moral depravity, there is no one lower than
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who wants mandatory drug testing of all unemployment insurance recipients. “Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction,” he claims. In other words, according to the twisted logic of Senator Hatch, everyone on unemployment is an automatic drug user suspect who will be ordered by the state to urinate on command … or lose benefits. If you are unemployed and broke, then it must be your fault. If you are unemployed and broke, then you are a suspected felon. If you are unemployed and broke, then you are deserving of suspicion. These days, the last refuge of a scoundrel is victim blame.
An estimated 10 million people are receiving unemployment insurance in some form, and another 2 million people receive no aid because their benefits have expired. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have filibustered an unemployment insurance extension bill. They rationalize their callous disregard of human suffering in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility.’ If the Democrats want a $10 billion unemployment extension bill, they demand, then Democrats must find ways to trim $10 billion from the federal budget. Except for one minor detail: Republicans refuse to consider the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax benefits that privilege their wealthiest patrons.
“The latest list of richest people published by Forbes magazine includes 27 American billionaires who made their fortunes by managing private equity investments (…) Is it fair that they pay tax on their extravagant incomes at only a 15% rate when everyone else in the country has to pay up to 35%?”
“Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains -- and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income? (…) The House has already tried three times to close it only to have the Senate cave in because of campaign donations from these and other financiers who benefit from it. (…) Closing this particular loophole would net some $20 billion.”
Meanwhile, what is to become of the millions of people who lost jobs through no fault of their own … those formerly ‘honest’ American workers suddenly turned indigent and ‘dishonest’ for having turned poor? Take away from the rich to help the unemployed? But that’s class warfare, which is socialism, which is un-American! We can always expect Republicans to hide their policy failures behind specious arguments, or demonize those who are NOT their patrons, or dismiss any human suffering that does not advance their political ambitions; but never, never, NEVER expect social justice from a Republican.
