Democrat Party: "Dependency-Bureaucracy Complex"
by George Will
____________________________
If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush.
He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor.
John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now aroused, may propel tort reform that will curtail the windfalls that make trial lawyers the Democrats' largest source of contributions.
Another Democratic faction, organized labor, profits from coercive laws that make mandatory some of the $8 billion it collects in members' dues. Substantial sums flow into Democratic coffers. Furthermore, organized labor is, increasingly, government organized as an interest group -- public employees unions. The growth of organized labor is in those unions, whose members tend to vote Democratic, for government growth.
Bush is pressing to put hundreds of thousands of federal jobs up for competition with the private sector. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says: "The people who cut the Pentagon lawn are government employees. Why?" People listed in the phone book will do it cheaper. How many of the 15 million state and local government jobs could be privatized, with how many billions of dollars in savings?
The public education lobby -- one in 10 delegates to the Democratic convention was a member of a teachers union -- wants government to keep impediments in the way of competition. That means not empowering parents with school choice, including the choice of private schools, which have significantly lower per-pupil costs.
Welfare reform, the largest legislative achievement of the 1990s, diminished the Democratic Party's dependency-bureaucracy complex. That complex consists of wards of government and their government supervisors. And Bush's "ownership society" is another step in the plan to reduce the supply of government by reducing the demand for it.
That felicitous formulation, from Jonathan Rauch's masterful analysis of Bush's domestic ambitions (National Journal, July 26, 2003), follows from two axioms of which conservatives are fond: Give a person a fish and you give the person a meal; teach the person to fish and you give a livelihood. And: No one washes a rental car. Meaning people behave most responsibly about what they own. Hence Bush's menu of incentives for private retirement, health, education and savings accounts.
Conservatives hope such measures will encourage aptitudes that will make the welfare state compatible with traditional American individualism and self-reliance. And conservatives hope such aptitudes will result in Republican attitudes, especially among the elderly and other people with portfolios of equities.
Forty years ago, when President Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater, the elderly were the most conservative age cohort. Today the elderly are the most liberal.
About 2.4 million Americans die each year. Most are elderly, and a majority of that majority are Democrats, for two reasons: Most of them formed their political sensibilities in the Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson era of Democratic presidential ascendancy. And the elderly are devoted to big government: Social Security and Medicare by themselves are 33 percent of federal outlays.
About 7 million members of the elderly cohort from that Democratic presidential era have died since the 2000 election. And a Republican-leaning cohort that the Bush agenda aims to enlarge -- owners of stock -- continues to expand. In 1980, 20 percent of adults owned stock. Today 60 percent do, as do more than 70 percent of those who will vote on Nov. 2.
In addition to their economic rationale, the Bush tax cuts have the political purpose of crimping Democrats' abilities to satisfy their factions' desires for spending. And Bush's private retirement, health and education savings accounts would implement the theory that, as Rauch says, Republicans will empower the people, who in turn will empower Republicans.
Furthermore, Social Security private investment accounts would simultaneously multiply investors and diminish both dependence on government and resistance to reduction of it. Among some prescient Democrats this pincer strategy provokes anxiety, and some of today's fury.
georgewill@washpost.com
____________________________
____________________________
If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush.
He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor.
John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now aroused, may propel tort reform that will curtail the windfalls that make trial lawyers the Democrats' largest source of contributions.
Another Democratic faction, organized labor, profits from coercive laws that make mandatory some of the $8 billion it collects in members' dues. Substantial sums flow into Democratic coffers. Furthermore, organized labor is, increasingly, government organized as an interest group -- public employees unions. The growth of organized labor is in those unions, whose members tend to vote Democratic, for government growth.
Bush is pressing to put hundreds of thousands of federal jobs up for competition with the private sector. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says: "The people who cut the Pentagon lawn are government employees. Why?" People listed in the phone book will do it cheaper. How many of the 15 million state and local government jobs could be privatized, with how many billions of dollars in savings?
The public education lobby -- one in 10 delegates to the Democratic convention was a member of a teachers union -- wants government to keep impediments in the way of competition. That means not empowering parents with school choice, including the choice of private schools, which have significantly lower per-pupil costs.
Welfare reform, the largest legislative achievement of the 1990s, diminished the Democratic Party's dependency-bureaucracy complex. That complex consists of wards of government and their government supervisors. And Bush's "ownership society" is another step in the plan to reduce the supply of government by reducing the demand for it.
That felicitous formulation, from Jonathan Rauch's masterful analysis of Bush's domestic ambitions (National Journal, July 26, 2003), follows from two axioms of which conservatives are fond: Give a person a fish and you give the person a meal; teach the person to fish and you give a livelihood. And: No one washes a rental car. Meaning people behave most responsibly about what they own. Hence Bush's menu of incentives for private retirement, health, education and savings accounts.
Conservatives hope such measures will encourage aptitudes that will make the welfare state compatible with traditional American individualism and self-reliance. And conservatives hope such aptitudes will result in Republican attitudes, especially among the elderly and other people with portfolios of equities.
Forty years ago, when President Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater, the elderly were the most conservative age cohort. Today the elderly are the most liberal.
About 2.4 million Americans die each year. Most are elderly, and a majority of that majority are Democrats, for two reasons: Most of them formed their political sensibilities in the Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson era of Democratic presidential ascendancy. And the elderly are devoted to big government: Social Security and Medicare by themselves are 33 percent of federal outlays.
About 7 million members of the elderly cohort from that Democratic presidential era have died since the 2000 election. And a Republican-leaning cohort that the Bush agenda aims to enlarge -- owners of stock -- continues to expand. In 1980, 20 percent of adults owned stock. Today 60 percent do, as do more than 70 percent of those who will vote on Nov. 2.
In addition to their economic rationale, the Bush tax cuts have the political purpose of crimping Democrats' abilities to satisfy their factions' desires for spending. And Bush's private retirement, health and education savings accounts would implement the theory that, as Rauch says, Republicans will empower the people, who in turn will empower Republicans.
Furthermore, Social Security private investment accounts would simultaneously multiply investors and diminish both dependence on government and resistance to reduction of it. Among some prescient Democrats this pincer strategy provokes anxiety, and some of today's fury.
georgewill@washpost.com
____________________________
Comments
Let's set the table. There is class warfare in this country. The only problem John and Mary Public are so ignorant about how the "Republican" program is helping them that they don't know the facts.
For those of you who don't know what I do much of the time, I prepare a lot of tax returns. Just for grins I created two different families to compare. John and Mary Public are middle age, middle class, religious Republicans. They both work (sorry Dr. Laura) and they have three kids and pay $25,000 in home mortgage interest. The both make $60,000 per year for a total income of $120,000 from which they pay their taxes, support 3 kids and an interest only home mortgage which costs them $25,000 in interest per year. NO OTHER DEDUCTIONS. Their neighbor, Richie Rich has his home paid for, is retired, at age 50, when he cashed out is stock options, and has a six million dollar diversified stock portfolio producing about 2% yield in dividends. In other words, Richie sits on his fat but and collects $120,000 per year in qualified dividends. Richie doesn't work, doesn't have a mortgage, doesn't support 3 kids. Who pays more tax?
Well kids, John and Mary public do. Using 2003 as the year and adding Federal Income Tax, John and Mary's Social Security Withholding and California income taxes, they pay more that Richie, even though Richie had NO tax deductions other that the standard deduction and one personal exemption.
SEE BELOW
PUBLIC RICH
WAGES 60,000
WAGES 60,000
DIVIDENDS 120,000
TOTAL 120,000 120,000
ITEMIZED DEDUCTS 25,000
STANDARD DEDUCT 4,750
EXEMPTIONS 15,250 3,050
TAXABLE INCOME 79,750 112,200
FED TAX 13,564 13,990
SSAN 9,180 0
CA TAX 4,067 8,876
TOTAL 26,811 22,866
So all you Republicans that are crying "Class Warfare", who are you, the dumb bastards who work for Richie, or Richie.
Is the Bush tax cut really helping boost the economy? Is Richie the guy who deserves to sit around the pool and do nothing, and pay less tax than a two wage-earner family with 3 kids and a big mortgage.
I say the Bush tax cut was class warfare.
Bob replies:
Richie Rich had to work to earn the $6,000,000 before he decided to retire. He paid taxes on the income when he first made it, so I give Richie credit for already contributing some $2,500,000 or probably more to the government coffers when he first earned the income. I am sure you are greatful to him for his generous support of the public sector. He likely ran a business and provided jobs to his employees. Thanks are due again.
While you are typically resentful of someone who is able to retire at the age of 50, it should be pointed out that the retired person living on investments is more likely to be much older than 50. If he/she is able to live on his investments, without government support, that will create less problems for the working public than if he is taxed into poverty.
Instead of Richie Rich, imagine the elderly widow of a deceased businessman living on family savings. I see no benefit into taxing her in her retirement into the need to trying to find a job in her old age.
Not unless you prefer that people be taxed into dependency upon the state. That makes the annoying public more, shall we say, compliant?
________________________
Hey! I finally provoked a comment from Steven Kessler!!!
Is this Ad Head-em comment the best you can do? Aren't you planning on retiring at 50 and living off your investments too? I personally think that sitting by a pool all day long would get a little boring after a few weeks. I enjoy working and paying those high taxes.
_______________
Sure Richie paid a lot of tax when he sold his stock, but why then is the income produced by his stock more sacred than wages.
When I started doing taxes in 1977, the highest tax rate on income was 70%; but there was a maximum tax on earnings and wages of 50%. For some reason Congress thought the wage earner deserved a break. He shouldn't pay 70% of his wages to the government. Dividends, interest, rents, etc. were "passive" income and were less "worthy" of protection from tax.
Since the Bush tax cut went into effect in May of 2003, the Hype was this would stimulate the economy, but this particular provision has little, if anything, to do with the recovery we are told we are experiencing.
But let's get back the the "big lie" the fat cat Republicans just keep spouting, and the dumb bunny Republicans keep eating up..... its a statement of values or morality... it kind of goes like, "Those with money deserve to keep it because they earned it." It some Purtian throw-back to thrift and other virtues. But it just opium for the masses who think that connections, race, gender, or just dumb luck hasn't got a lot to do with "success".
By extending this rationale we get the ridiculous argument made by Bob that Richie deserves to pay less on his accumulated wealth than John and Mary, because he "already" paid tax on this money when he earned and saved his capital.
Well, Bob, based upon your razor sharp reasoning, there should be no tax at all on capital, only workers should pay taxes..
The problem with the dumb bunny working Republicans is they actually buy in to this crap, think they too will hit the lottery some day, literally or figuratively, and for some reason think that should they hit the pot of gold... well then they should get special rules that allow the rich to increase the gap between rich and poor.
What about the estate tax? Oh, sorry Bob, the death tax? Once Richie and his friends get the working man to pay all the taxes, and Richie can pass his wealth to other non working Richies, the gap between rich and poor will continue to accelerate until John and Mary wake up and realize they are being bamboozled by the upper 1-2% of the population. This 1-2% group is only deserving of keeping that status as long as they bring the rest of society along for the ride. In fairness, for most of our country's history the rest of us have come along for the ride.
But if anyone thinks that repeal of the "death tax" and cutting taxes on those who already are rich is the key to success for everyone else, well I have a bridge for sale.
Bob, "Can you hear the tumbrils will start moving towards the guillotine?"