Wednesday, August 22 , 2018, 1:27 am | Fair 63º

 
 
 
 

Mona Charen: Making America ‘Fairer,’ But at What Cost?

Realistic Republicans understand that President Barack Obama and the Democrats head into fiscal cliff negotiations in a far stronger bargaining position now than in 2011. When voters were asked on Nov. 6 whether they favored raising taxes to reduce the deficit, a total of 60 percent said yes (47 percent favored increasing taxes for those who earn $250,000 or more, and 13 percent approved tax increases for all).

So taxes will be going up. As a matter of political strategy — not to say survival — Republicans will have to agree to raise taxes on those defined as rich. It’s more than just the exit poll on support for tax increases. Republicans must also contend with the Pew poll that asked who would be more to blame if a fiscal cliff deal were not reached.

Before a single meeting has been held or talking point fed to the press, 29 percent said they’d blame President Obama, while 53 percent said they’d blame Republicans in Congress.

President Obama sounds so reasonable when he asks for a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction. Whether the implied spending cuts — the flip side of his balance — will materialize is the great question.

Obama is the anodyne face of a leftist party — a party perhaps best defined by Massachusetts Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren. Her speech to the Democratic National Convention in September was a protracted roar of grievance, a fulmination against the (imagined) entrenched interests who were “rigging the system” against the poor and the middle class.

Wow. A nation that is skating to the brink of bankruptcy because it spends so much on the middle class is whipped into a righteous frenzy about how rigged the system is toward the rich? As the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson wrote in April, 60 percent of the federal government’s non-interest spending goes to transfer payments to the poor and middle class. Spending on the 10 largest means-tested programs — that is, programs for the poor — has increased from about $4,300 per person in 1980 to $13,000 per person in 2011 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The bill for this spending is disproportionately paid by the wealthy. The top 20 percent of income earners pay 70 percent of the taxes. Soon they will pay even more. If this is what happens when the rich rig the system, the poor and middle class should beg them to keep rigging it.

The Democratic Party is consumed by the insatiable appetite to make America “fairer” — by taking from some to give to others. As noted above, the U.S. tax code is already steeply progressive. You needn’t love the rich to understand that chasing the goal of redistribution rather than growth can result only in everyone becoming poorer.

Like many European social democratic countries, the United States has gotten into trouble by spending far more than it collects in taxes. Andrew Biggs, Kevin Hassett and Matt Jensen examined studies on how other nations have recovered from their fiscal improvidence. Looking at 21 countries over 37 years, they concluded that effective resolutions are rare (only about 20 percent of cases) and successful attempts to balance budgets rely heavily on spending cuts, whereas failed ones rely on tax increases. What about the “balanced” approach? “On average,” the authors noted in the Wall Street Journal, “the typical unsuccessful consolidation consisted of 53 percent tax increases and 47 percent spending cuts.”

Yes, taxes are going up, but let’s remember, as we bow to the inevitable, that raising taxes on the rich will put only the most trivial dent ($80 billion according to one proposal) in our trillion-dollar annual deficits. This is the great god “fairness” appeased, while the demon debt continues to breathe fire.

The sane policy goals for a nation in the kind of trouble we’re in would be economic growth and entitlement reform. The progressive agenda, Richard Epstein writes in Why Progressive Institutions are Unsustainable (Encounter Books), supplies a “one-two punch.” First, it reduces the private sector by ill-advised regulation. “Second, it imposes extensive and counterproductive programs of redistribution that cannot be supported by a stagnant economy and a shrinking productive wealth base. As that base gets smaller, the demand for a stronger safety net induces yet another round of transfer payments and makes the tax burden heavier and the rate structure more progressive. The new redistributive tax regime in turn exerts greater negative pressures on production levels.”

And down we go. The worship of “fairness” is a death cult.

Mona Charen of National Review magazine writes for Creators Syndicate. Click here for more information or to contact her. Follow Mona Charen on Twitter: @mcharen.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >