14
Nov/07
0

Ditch the Rich Hits

The wealthy are not made of money.
By Jonah Goldberg
November 14, 2007 12:00 AM

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFkNzQyNjU4MjQ4NzQxNzZiOTdjMmVlYmYwYjM2NDA=

“The question is, should we be giving an extra $120 billion to people in the top one percent?”

So asked Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton’s chief economic adviser, at a recent National Press Club panel discussion. Translation: It’s the government’s money, and anything left over after Uncle Sam picks your pockets is a “gift.”

Indeed, to hear leading Democrats talk about the “richest one percent” — a diverse cohort of investors, managers, entrepreneurs, and, to be sure, some fat-cat heirs — one gets the impression that wealthy Americans are a natural resource, to be pumped for as much cash as we need.

Further, the Democrats don’t think that well will ever run dry. “I no more believe that the hedge-fund managers are going to quit working at billion-dollar hedge funds because tax rates go up 5 percent than Alex Rodriguez will quit playing baseball because they put in a salary cap,” Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama’s economics guru, said Friday.

This sort of thing used to be a staple of the hard Left. “Look at the wealth of America, weigh its resources, feel its power,” wrote the editors of The Nation back in 1988, endorsing presidential candidate Jesse Jackson’s extravagant public spending plan. “There’s enough money in this country to do everything Jackson asks, and more.”

But now this vision simply defines liberal economics. John Edwards’s unending campaign for president is based on the idea that there are two Americas and everyone will be better off when un-rich America mugs rich America. According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.

Michael Boskin, Rudy Giuliani’s economic adviser, said, “There is no — let me repeat — no example in the last quarter century of a large, complex economy that has been successful with high taxes.” He added: “The Western Europeans have seen their standards of living decline by 30 percent in a little more than a generation because of their high taxes.” The U.S., meanwhile, has outperformed the competition over the last quarter century.

I’m with Boskin. But I think there’s a more pressing issue. What does it do to a democracy when people see government as something only other people should pay for?

Let’s take seriously for a moment the notion that rich people are an inexhaustible army of Energizer bunnies that just keep going and going, no matter what taxes you throw in their path. You can see where Democrats get this idea, after all. The top 1 percent of wage earners already provide nearly 40 percent of federal income tax revenues. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers contribute only about 3 percent.

Taxes are a necessary evil. But their silver lining is that they foster a sense of accountability and reciprocity between the taxpayer and the tax collector. Indeed, democracy is usually born from this relationship. Widening prosperity brings a rising middle class, which in turn demands the rule of law, incorrupt bureaucracies, and political representation in exchange for its hard-earned money. You might recall the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

The one great exception is what development experts call the “oil curse.” In countries “blessed” with oil wealth or similar resources, the relationship between the government and the governed gets distorted. These “trust-fund states” (author Fareed Zakaria’s term) don’t need taxes, so their rulers worry little about representation and accountability, opting instead for paternalism or authoritarianism. Worse, the people are less inclined to see government as their expensive servant and more as their goody-dispensing master.

Today, our politics seem to be suffering from a “rich people curse.” We treat the rich like a constantly regenerating pinata, as if they will never change their behavior no matter how many times they get whacked by taxes. And we think everyone can live well off the treats that will fall to the ground forever.

Of course, typical wage earners pay plenty of taxes, but not in ways that foster a sense of reciprocity with the government in Washington. Their biggest federal payment is the regressive payroll tax intended to fund Social Security and Medicare. Even though, as a matter of accounting, these payments are no different from other taxes, they’re sold simply as retirement and health insurance programs.

Meanwhile, Democrats keep telling the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that America’s problems would be solved if only the rich people would pay “their fair share” of income taxes. Not only is this patently untrue and a siren song toward a welfare state, it amounts to covetousness as fiscal policy.

I don’t know what the best tax rates are, for rich or poor. But I’m pretty sure that it’s unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don’t see government as a service they’re reluctantly paying for but as an extortionist that cuts them in for a share of the loot.

27
Aug/07
0

How Poor Are America’s Poor?

Robert E. Rector
Senior Research Fellow
August 27, 2007

http://www.heritage.org/

Executive Summary:
How Poor Are America’s Poor? Examining the “Plague” of Poverty in America by Robert E. Rector Executive Summary #2064 Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the number of “poor” persons in the U.S. In 2005, the Bureau found 37 million “poor” Americans. Presi­dential candidate John Edwards claims that these 37 million Americans currently “struggle with incredible poverty.”#[1] Edwards asserts that America’s poor, who number “one in eight of us…do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” and are forced to live in “terrible” cir­cumstances.#[2] However, an examination of the living standards of the 37 million persons, whom the government defines as “poor,” reveals that what Edwards calls “the plague”#[3] of American poverty might not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as candi­date Edwards contends. But, if poverty means (as Edwards asserts) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of the 37 million people identified as living “in poverty” by the Cen­sus Bureau would, in fact, be characterized as poor. Clearly, material hardship does exist in the United States, but it is quite restricted in scope and severity.
The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

  • Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Cen­sus Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
  • Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
  • Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
  • The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, Lon­don, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the averagecitizens in foreign countries, not to those classi­fied as poor.)
  • Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
  • Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
  • Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
  • Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of liv­ing conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of fam­ilies in poverty have no telephone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as over­crowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. Much poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home. In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year—the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year—nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of offi­cial poverty.
As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
Yet, although work and marriage are reliable lad­ders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid con­tinue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced. While renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boosting impact of the nation’s immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hun­dreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more dif­ficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigra­tion, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.