I read with interest, amusement, agreement and sadness an article from the NYT. The link is here. I have several responses and thoughts form the article.
First, Kristoff makes an argument from the particular to the general, a common journalistic choice. So often we here stories about the 'mood in the heartland' where one or two people are interviewed and the writer claims they are representative. Here Kristoff uses the purchasing of generators by wealthy homeowners to suddenly claim it represents the underfunding of our infrastructure in favor of private solutions. He then further generalizes this argument to not only the power grid but other infrastructure. He gives as his data ASCE's grading of US infrastructure as D+. He then even further generalizes his argument to say that privatization and a lack of investment and belief in public solutions has led to an abandonment of parks and libraries (always popular), and then uses our National Park System as his example. He compares our mindset to Chad or Pakistan and then says we all pay for poverty in the end.
Now that is one sweeping argument. We went from a single generator to the values of the wealthy to US infrastructure failure to a comparison with Chad! That's hard to do, and I admire the adroitness with which it is done.
But it is all quite false and misleading.
People may purchase generators for all sorts of reasons. For some needs, even a few minutes off the grid is a problem (a friend of mine's late husband was on a ventilator for 16 years; they had a generator). The mere private sale of generators is not a prima facie condemnation of our power systems.
Our infrastructrue is indeed doing poorly. As a Civil Engineering major I studied how to build roads, power systems, bridges and buildings. Many of our public works are aging and in various states of disrepair. We have not allocated money to improve them. That is true. The argument linking this to the values of the wealthy isn't.
Increasing taxes alone does not increase funding for public works. Much of the objection to higher taxes from Republicans has nothing to do with public works at all, but rather with social programs (more on that in a minute). And funding for parks and libraries is almost all local, not federal, so arguing higher federal taxes will help libraries is completely false. Relating this problem to our national parks is also false. This is again a problem of allocation of funds, not raw availability.
And speaking of social programs, Kristoff writes a 'friend' of his says we pay for poverty one way or another, either with prisons or programs for the poor. Specifically mentioned is early childhood education for children at risk. Except that we already have programs for this. A startling number of children eat breakfast and lunch on the federal dime, and there has not been one bit of improvement in school performance. Indeed, there has been a decline.
And here is where I part company with Kristoff most strongly. I am all for parks and libraries, all for national parks and a big fan of education. Relating the failure of infrastructure and social failures to the income tax rate of the top 1% is however like blaming the demise of the dinosaurs on the thickness of fur on primordial rodents. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.
Why do I say that? Because all the social programs anyone could want already exist. Head Start has been around for 50 years, during which time school performance has worsened. There is no data to support an effect from Head Start, but we continue to pay for it. School performance is closely tied to two parent homes. Perhaps the 70% single motherhood rate among blacks should be looked at, or perhaps the matching rate among lower class whites. For all our handwringing and spending the rate of high school graduation, not GEDs, but actual grads, has not improved in 60 years. Maybe it's time to do something besides pour money on the problem. Kristoff calls reduction in taxes for the wealthy a failed experiment. More accurately, increased federal social spending is the failed experiment that no one will admit.
With regard to the distribution of wealth, there is quite an inequality at this time. Most liberal writers seem to propose fixing this by taxing the wealthy. That fixes nothing. The wealthy should and do pay more for public services benefiting all the public, and I feel good about that. Parks and libraries are paid for mainly by the wealthy and benefit mainly the middle class. No problems there. But to somehow claim or insinuate that our social problems and income inequality can be solved simply by taxing those wealthy bastards who got their money by exploiting WalMart workers' babies? That's false.
Our economy has fewer and fewer jobs for the uneducated and undisciplined. These people end up raking leaves, flipping burgers, etc. The wealthy did not create this. Those that go to school, learn and practice a trade, a profession or start a business make money and join society. Plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bookkeepers, store owners, restaurateurs. Efforts to reduce income inequality would do as well to look at how to improve low incomes rather than tax high incomes. And in this vein, given the failure of federal social programs some education about the effects of single parenthood and school dropouts might be useful. But simply taking money from those who earned it equilibrates nothing.
As far as CEOs paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, there are two problems. The first is that is not common at all. While it can and does happen Kristoff makes our country sound like a bunch of fat cat bastards paying nickels while some struggling working girl starves because of taxes that support the rich. What a class struggle fairy tale! While secretary pays 15% of 40,000.00, or 15% of 25,000.00 boss is paying 12% on 1,000,000.00, or 18% of 500,000.00. So secretary pays 6,000.00, or 3750.00, while boss pays.......120,000.00 or 90,000.00. And lost in the class war argument is the fact that boss employs secretary not with federal money but his own earnings and that of his company. Second, and more important, the boss pays what the law requires. If he is smart enough to pay 10% so what? If you really want taxes to fund government, as opposed to promoting class assaults, make a flat tax without exemptions or deductions. Now everyone is a contributor.
I am all for the wealthy paying 'their fair share'. I am willing to give the government a few percent more than previously, not in the name of 'fairness' but in the name of reducing our deficit. But I am not willing to listen to superficial and glib claims that our social problems are the result of inadequate taxes on the wealthy. Better look a little wider than that. The failure of the poor is the result of far, far more than the tax rates of the wealthy.
Ted
First, Kristoff makes an argument from the particular to the general, a common journalistic choice. So often we here stories about the 'mood in the heartland' where one or two people are interviewed and the writer claims they are representative. Here Kristoff uses the purchasing of generators by wealthy homeowners to suddenly claim it represents the underfunding of our infrastructure in favor of private solutions. He then further generalizes this argument to not only the power grid but other infrastructure. He gives as his data ASCE's grading of US infrastructure as D+. He then even further generalizes his argument to say that privatization and a lack of investment and belief in public solutions has led to an abandonment of parks and libraries (always popular), and then uses our National Park System as his example. He compares our mindset to Chad or Pakistan and then says we all pay for poverty in the end.
Now that is one sweeping argument. We went from a single generator to the values of the wealthy to US infrastructure failure to a comparison with Chad! That's hard to do, and I admire the adroitness with which it is done.
But it is all quite false and misleading.
People may purchase generators for all sorts of reasons. For some needs, even a few minutes off the grid is a problem (a friend of mine's late husband was on a ventilator for 16 years; they had a generator). The mere private sale of generators is not a prima facie condemnation of our power systems.
Our infrastructrue is indeed doing poorly. As a Civil Engineering major I studied how to build roads, power systems, bridges and buildings. Many of our public works are aging and in various states of disrepair. We have not allocated money to improve them. That is true. The argument linking this to the values of the wealthy isn't.
Increasing taxes alone does not increase funding for public works. Much of the objection to higher taxes from Republicans has nothing to do with public works at all, but rather with social programs (more on that in a minute). And funding for parks and libraries is almost all local, not federal, so arguing higher federal taxes will help libraries is completely false. Relating this problem to our national parks is also false. This is again a problem of allocation of funds, not raw availability.
And speaking of social programs, Kristoff writes a 'friend' of his says we pay for poverty one way or another, either with prisons or programs for the poor. Specifically mentioned is early childhood education for children at risk. Except that we already have programs for this. A startling number of children eat breakfast and lunch on the federal dime, and there has not been one bit of improvement in school performance. Indeed, there has been a decline.
And here is where I part company with Kristoff most strongly. I am all for parks and libraries, all for national parks and a big fan of education. Relating the failure of infrastructure and social failures to the income tax rate of the top 1% is however like blaming the demise of the dinosaurs on the thickness of fur on primordial rodents. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.
Why do I say that? Because all the social programs anyone could want already exist. Head Start has been around for 50 years, during which time school performance has worsened. There is no data to support an effect from Head Start, but we continue to pay for it. School performance is closely tied to two parent homes. Perhaps the 70% single motherhood rate among blacks should be looked at, or perhaps the matching rate among lower class whites. For all our handwringing and spending the rate of high school graduation, not GEDs, but actual grads, has not improved in 60 years. Maybe it's time to do something besides pour money on the problem. Kristoff calls reduction in taxes for the wealthy a failed experiment. More accurately, increased federal social spending is the failed experiment that no one will admit.
With regard to the distribution of wealth, there is quite an inequality at this time. Most liberal writers seem to propose fixing this by taxing the wealthy. That fixes nothing. The wealthy should and do pay more for public services benefiting all the public, and I feel good about that. Parks and libraries are paid for mainly by the wealthy and benefit mainly the middle class. No problems there. But to somehow claim or insinuate that our social problems and income inequality can be solved simply by taxing those wealthy bastards who got their money by exploiting WalMart workers' babies? That's false.
Our economy has fewer and fewer jobs for the uneducated and undisciplined. These people end up raking leaves, flipping burgers, etc. The wealthy did not create this. Those that go to school, learn and practice a trade, a profession or start a business make money and join society. Plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bookkeepers, store owners, restaurateurs. Efforts to reduce income inequality would do as well to look at how to improve low incomes rather than tax high incomes. And in this vein, given the failure of federal social programs some education about the effects of single parenthood and school dropouts might be useful. But simply taking money from those who earned it equilibrates nothing.
As far as CEOs paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries, there are two problems. The first is that is not common at all. While it can and does happen Kristoff makes our country sound like a bunch of fat cat bastards paying nickels while some struggling working girl starves because of taxes that support the rich. What a class struggle fairy tale! While secretary pays 15% of 40,000.00, or 15% of 25,000.00 boss is paying 12% on 1,000,000.00, or 18% of 500,000.00. So secretary pays 6,000.00, or 3750.00, while boss pays.......120,000.00 or 90,000.00. And lost in the class war argument is the fact that boss employs secretary not with federal money but his own earnings and that of his company. Second, and more important, the boss pays what the law requires. If he is smart enough to pay 10% so what? If you really want taxes to fund government, as opposed to promoting class assaults, make a flat tax without exemptions or deductions. Now everyone is a contributor.
I am all for the wealthy paying 'their fair share'. I am willing to give the government a few percent more than previously, not in the name of 'fairness' but in the name of reducing our deficit. But I am not willing to listen to superficial and glib claims that our social problems are the result of inadequate taxes on the wealthy. Better look a little wider than that. The failure of the poor is the result of far, far more than the tax rates of the wealthy.
Ted
I completely agree. Scapegoats are convenient when people don't want to admit fault. And scapegoats are far easier to find than true solutions to difficult, multifactorial, complex problems.
ReplyDelete"For every complex problem there is a simple solution... and it is wrong." (H.L. Mencken)
-D-