Parable of the Poor and Rich Plumber
The days since the last presidential debate have been preoccupied with efforts to give satisfaction to "Joe the plumber." As everyone who follows the election knows, Joe Wurzelbacher presented himself to Barack Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio as an average American with reasonable doubts about Obama's tax program.
The Obama plan reduces or leaves untouched the income tax on persons earning less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Above that amount, it would tax the earner at a slightly higher rate.
Wurzelbacher, at present, earns far less than a quarter of a million; but in the conversational exchange that has made him famous, he imagined himself as a successful plumbing entrepreneur, sitting atop a yearly income of $300,000. What then? Would I, he asked Obama, be required to pay higher taxes than someone earning a tenth as much?
Obama gave the honest answer. He added that the jump from 36% to 39% need not seem very onerous to a prospering businessman; and (he repeated) the increase applied only to Americans whose earnings place them in the top five percent. Throughout the exchange, Obama was clear, patient, and full of details. Mastery of a policy to which he has once committed his name is among his major strengths as a politician. Thus far, conciseness is not. His listener in Ohio seemed to be trying to remember his own next line or somehow to regain a foothold in a conversation that had taken so wide a turn.
The length of the encounter was surprising. Obama seems here to have surrendered to the professional deformation of every gifted speaker--the illusion that if only you stay in the argument long enough, you can persuade anyone. It was this belief, too, that gave scope for his use of the phrase "spread the wealth around." And those were the words the McCain-Palin campaign seized upon. The words are now taken to supply all the evidence anyone needs that Barack Obama was a "socialist" all along, a reckless democrat who would gladly level the deserving rich with the undeserving poor.
The truth is that Obama in Ohio spoke the language of American democracy, which has always included a perception that wealth is a form of power, and that stupendous inequalities of wealth produce an undemocratic inequality of power. His questioner, angry in anticipation that he could not hold onto all of the $300,000 he might hypothetically earn in a year, spoke the language of righteous self-interest; and he cited as his irrefutable authority "the American dream." If I follow that dream, said the Joe of today, hoarding the wealth of the Joe of tomorrow, why should I ever pay a higher tax?
Obama's answer was simple and Christian. Once you have been helped by a tax break to prosper and to grow relatively rich, it seems fair to give others lower down the ladder the same chance that once helped you.
We Americans suffer from a self-imposed immaturity. It goes back to the Reagan years and the dream of unregulated commerce--of great riches to which all eventually will surely rise; of a gambling society in which every citizen always wins his bet against an unbreakable bank. Joe had swallowed that dream. Obama, by contrast, with his suggestion of a small adjustment toward a graduated tax, was explaining the realism of the progressive tax that began with Theodore Roosevelt.
And yet, when Obama evokes a society in which you begin by working for someone else, pass on to work as your own boss, and end by employing others, he is going back further than Theodore Roosevelt. This was a favorite topic with Abraham Lincoln, a politician whose ideas of labor and progress were memorably captured in his Address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society (September 30, 1859). "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world," said Lincoln, "labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." That the prosperous employer should assist the beginner was a natural corollary, for Lincoln, of his understanding of non-slave labor. Selfishness or, as he called it, "self-interest" was a symptom of a slavish mind, and incompatible with the high morale of democracy.
Is the American dream a selfish dream? Obama's questioner in Ohio seemed to believe that it was, and that it was always meant to be. It is clear the McCain-Palin campaign is doing everything it can to encourage that belief. In the latest ads, they are cultivating the fear of "socialism" much as Barry Goldwater in 1964 cultivated the fear that Medicare was a harbinger of "socialized medicine." This is a subject on which Americans some day soon will have to choose between Goldwater and Reagan, on the one hand, and Lincoln and Roosevelt on the other; and it is a consequential choice: between a selective dependency on government which cuts out the uses of government for persons less well off than oneself, and acceptance of the value of limited government that does "for a community of people" (as Lincoln said elsewhere) "whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves--in their separate, and individual capacities."
The American dream has sometimes meant the selfish gamble that everyone takes and that all expect to win. But of the American dream when it comes in this questionable shape, we ought to begin to be wary. Not because all dreams, like all hopes that assist people in living their lives, are not to be sympathized with, but because it is possible for a platitude to acquire such an air of sacredness that the mere mention of it aborts all understanding and all thought.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for an excellent post, Dr. Bromwich. I've pondered a lot recently about the character traits of democrats and republicans. I've recently observed that many republicans appear angry or unhappy while democrats seem more content regardless of their situation. Your post helps me understand why.
If Joe the Plumber were fortunate enough to make 300,000 he would not pay 39% of that in taxes under the Obama plan. Yes, he would be in the 39% "bracket" but everyone, even those making over $250,000 a year, gets the benefit of the progressive tax code, that means that only Joe's income over the highest threshold would be taxed at 39%. Depending on his family situation, business expenses, etc. his first $50,000 could be tax free. I know that it is complicated, but it works and with deductions and tax write offs, Joe could very well be paying around 23-25% in income tax.
And with Obama's plan, people who don't make 6 figures will see a decrease in their taxes, with many ending up with no tax liability at all. I do not think this increase for the highest bracket is punitive and as long as Obama doesn't just keep raising taxes over and over, as he has said he would not, I believe it's a very fair and "American" plan - after all, is there really any other country in the world where Joe the Plumber could make $300,000 a year?
Precisely. I believe most Americans don't understand this.
A 39% marginal rate on incomes over $250,000 is far from punitive. The top marginal tax rate was much, MUCH higher under Eisenhower than it is today, thanks to 30 years of regressive Republican tax policies.
as someone who earned $250K + during the clinton years of higher taxes, i still "somehow" managed to live within my means, save for my kids college education, make the maximum contribution to my ira, live in a wonderful house overlooking diamond head in honolulu, take 3-4 week ski vacations every year (including owning condo at jackson hole), save more money for investments, buy my wife some nice gifts at christmas or for her birthday, etc. etc.
so people out there earning $250K: the extra tax you'll be paying is not going to lower your lifestyle unless you're used to living beyond your means. living in the top 5% is always going to be more comfortable than those who aren't. while i am sure you work hard for the money you earn, it doesn't necessarily (as much as you would like to believe) make you a better/more deserving person.
The theory that Reagan & Co. came in with was to reward those at the top (a la Atlas Shrugged)! Then eventually, the top will "allow" that money to trickle down to "the rest"! Unfortunately, no one wants to remember the homeless tent cities that grew up around the White House during the Reagan years! Let's fast forward to the last 7+ years, the phrasing, and words are slightly different, but the same "trickle down" theory is present! It's the pretension of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" (where do these boots come from?) mentality for the lower 90% of the population! What's not mentioned in all of this is that the "welfare for the rich and corporate" are afforded because of monies paid by the bottom 90% of Americans!
Those rich and corporate are allowed not to pay taxes through loopholes, only their well-paid accountants understand! Those loopholes that are unavailable to the rest of us! Warren Buffet said it best several years ago - when he said he didn't need another tax cut because he wasn't going to do anything but look for another investment vehicle in which to put his money! It's well past time to wake up America, stop voting against your own pocketbooks, pay attention, and vote on the real issues, not your fears, or those "feel good" fuzzy moments!
Try reading Atlas Shrugged before making insulting comparisons between that book and the failed economic policies of this country for the last twenty eight years. Reagan started the process of turning this country over to the greedy corporations and the policies are failing now as our corrupt economy collapses around us.
The collapse of the fictional US economy in Atlas Shrugged does have similarities to our current collapse but if Reagan et al used Atlas Shrugged as a guide book it was as a guide on how to destroy this country. The policies and the philosophies of our crony capitalists are those of the villains of Atlas Shrugged not the heroes.
So please try reading Atlas Shrugged before making negative comments about it. It is a ridiculously long book but it is a well written page turner. And if you do actually read it you can lord that fact over all the right wingers who claim it is the most important book in their life but have never read anything longer than the One Minute Salesman.
"if Reagan et al used Atlas Shrugged as a guide book it was as a guide on how to destroy this country. The policies and the philosophies of our crony capitalists are those of the villains of Atlas Shrugged not the heroes."
Exactly!
Unfortunately, the Repubs don't get irony.
They seem to not understand the concept
and are completely blind to examples in
their own beliefs, policies and behaviors.
It is a very long book and repetitive, but probably worth the effort.
The heroes are a bit too superman/woman-ish.
One more thing that helps explain why certain people
gravitate to it. Ayn Rand is seriously lacking is compassion.
A woman who ever had children could never have written that.
What McCain doesn't seem to know is that even his supporters know they're nowhere near the Joe the Plumber $250,000 scenario. My mother, for example, who will vote for him anyway, just today cringed when McCain came on television with the "spread the wealth around" smear again. She noted: Even her husband, the richest man in our family, never made anywhere near $250,000. And, she said, "Why does McCain think it's okay for us little taxpayers to spread our wealth around to Wall Street but no one making less than $250,000 should get a break anywhere?"
For some reason, against all logic, surveys show most Americans expect to become rich somehow -- that is why you have average Americans cheering McCain when he plays this up.
The right wing has simplified tax policy down to "TAXES ARE BAD" where the left wing has pushed for taxes to be a punishment for wealth creation. Government Tax Policy should be about stimulating the economy nothing more. That needs to be the Left's message.
Check this out fellow HuffPosters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/another-gop-rep-liberals_n_136583.html
If you can donate to Larry Kissell, a Democratic teacher and Hayes' opponent, please do. Even $5 or $10 helps!
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/16138
http://www.larrykissell.com/
OBAMA-BIDEN!
The conservative "it's MY money" meme is as naive as a 13 year old boy's impatience to get married so he can "have sex whenever he wants". There are grown-up considerations and realities that will always get in the way of such a simplistic and selfish view.
Awesome!
Beautiful piece. Part of the problem is that progressive tax policies take more words to explain than the slogans of the right. Any liberal analogue to the conservative "lower taxes create jobs" rhetoric would be immediately slimed as socialist, which, of course, is always bad forever because we are still tentacled to the Cold War.
Raising taxes is never a political winner, but only because Reagananity is still the religion of the punditocracy. Taxes are always bad, no matter how low they currently are. An Obama win, I hope, will create a mandate for progressive tax policies, both in law and in public understanding. The right will always be there, braying on with their warfare on the lower classes, but I hope that the people can simply remember the days when those bankrupt ideas were implemented, and we all suffered, even the rich.
A major question is being asked of all of us. Whom do we want to be going forward? The implications for whatever answer we give are transformational. In such times, my background says you go home and you rally with family. America, all of it, is my family. We need to have a family meeting, for our very survival as a nation or family of people depends upon it. Time has run out for equivocation and vacillation. Either we will be great or we will be tremendously challenged and at great risk and potential for crushing peril. The family approach leaves no member behind and the family approach makes a way. The family approach is not jealous or envious but proud of the sister or brother that is wealthy, but that sister or brother is also not greedy or disdainful of the brother or sister who struggles. Through unity the house will stand and if you have it within you to put on an addition, go for it, the entire family will not only applaud your effort, but help you with it so that you become richer and thereby the family benefits. All of this is allowed for under the present rules, just not the present understanding and will. There should be no homeless, there should be no hungry and the food and shelter offered should not be of a lesser quality, but of a quality that nurtures and restores human spirit to begin again.
I
Trickle down is a social vision that presupposes many at the bottom will languish and die. The premise is to reward those who have risen to the top and choke those who are on the bottom to insure they remain on the bottom their entire life as kindling for the fireplace motives of an elite few. The GOP says repeal all legislative acts of fairness, do nothing about inequality in education for the poor (that would be all poor not just brown poor), and cut the taxes of those who make the most money in this society to the bare bone. The GOP thinks that $10 an hour is a fair minimum wage. They think it is ok for people to struggle from paycheck to paycheck while others jet off to spas to get facials and pedicures. They say it is this cutting of taxes, this greasing of the skids for the wealthy, that will be the panacea for all that ails the lower income group starting with the upper middle and going down from there. We have had since Reagan to see the nature of this prescription of slanted justice and fairness. Reagan said in essence, if you are rich now, I will keep you rich, and if you are poor now, that is the way things are supposed to be -- fend for yourself because I am looking to turn up the heat and therefore I need more kindling.
You are absolutely right, but I would take it a step further and say that the wealthy preys upon the poor. They call it "putting a value on their risk", I call it unjust, unfair and predatory.
Social Darwinism is supposedly a thing of the past -- but I see signs.
II
The unstated goal of trickle down is population reduction at the bottom, thereby decreasing the number at the bottom to a manageable number, and generational demise of certain undesirable human strains through miseducation, incarceration, and proliferation of narcotics and guns within the communities where these people stay, causing or maintaining higher incidences of violence, family dysfunction, and ultimate death. Trickle down continually looks to increase the profit at the top to obscene amounts that secure wealth for certain families out into distant future generations of that family. Trickle down is really a policy of fear, fear that if we allow fairness in ability to become wealthy then there will be less for the offspring of the power brokers of this generation. Trickle down is systemic cronyism that ignores historic inequity and seeks to turn back the clock on any progress towards inequity eradication. Trickle down is unsustainable class-ism and racism. While wealth trickles down death and suffering surge at the lower levels and that is mission accomplished. Be not ye fooled by spin, trickle down is all about glorifying the past where it benefits and denying the past where it indicts. Trickle down is all about money laundering. The ill-gotten gains of robber barons (old money), bootleggers, and traffickers of human kind has been washed clean and now they want to outlaw theft, now they want to say handout by government manipulation is unfair. The hypocrisy is all throughout the democracy.
Population reduction at the bottom doesn't make sense. Impoverished masses are needed to compete for labor therefore lowering wages. Each of the industrial revolutions required cheap destitute labor, just as our own consumer revolution requires mouths to feed and egos to gratify. Also, under stress birthrates (for all mammals) go up not down. If they really wanted to limit the population why the war on birth control and abortion?
To answer your last question:
1. To get women out of the workforce.
2. They don't care about infancy death rates.
3. Control, control, control.
4. If early death is in a constant state within families, they will forget about raising themselves up, they'll be too busy just surviving.
...yet through all of the slicing and dicing of data...people are dying. We need to redefine what life is as opposed to existence or survival. You can be very much dead yet still alive. See chicken with head cut off. An impoverished, uneducated, homeless, drug addict with a criminal record is dead, though he or she may be breathing. If your credit score is at a certain level you are financially dead unless you have large amounts of liquid cash, but if you had that then your credit score…you get the point I presume.
Cold data is how we got into this mess. Dehumanization of individual life is a huge sin, even more so when it is to deflect from greed run amok. I am not in favor of wealth distribution. I am in favor of love channeling which will increase the flow of prosperity to all sectors. Such an approach will ferret out poverty and it will seek to address the load placed on society through generational failure and thereby benefit aggregate society. If I have billions (individual or corporation) and someone is starving, I am a failure if I am not seeking to eradicate hunger. There is no slicing and dicing of empathy and compassion -- they are one and cannot be divided.
Die-off is the point for the energy crisis suggests the current demand on resources is not sustainable. Serfdom will still rule, there will be less serfs affecting resources that span social classes.
Hmm... though I agree with most of what you're saying, I think that their TRUE goal is an undereducated population, not population reduction. It won't matter how many of them there are, if they don't understand their rights and don't know how to organize. I think that it's no coincidence that America is undergoing a "dumbing down." If we were investing in education and families were making it a priority, it would be a problem for the people on top. Instead, they push religion and latch onto it because they know that the "group think" mentality for the masses will serve them far better than any type of real education will.
Education is crucial. The GOP tries to spin. Any call for assistance is a call for welfare. I am not calling for a handout for that injures the self-esteem and does little good to address the underlying problem -- thus a nation continues to struggle with problems that could have been addressed more decisively long ago. The call is all hands-on-deck to help fellow Americans see the inherent value of education and the methods and tactics by which they can take control of their own lives for their own good and the good of the entire country. A prisons sub-culture, or tag’em, and bag'em, is unsustainable or immoral.
Approach has nothing to do with money. $700,000,000,000 dollars later we see that when the government thinks something is in its interest -- money is no object -- also see expenditures of unwarranted war for another situation where America comes up with money for the agendas of a few versus the many. The capital that America continues to be bankrupt on is empathy, compassion, and unifying spirit that would allow the eagle to soar more proudly and higher than heretofore realize. A literacy rate in the ninety percentile if not at one hundred percent is a staple for a strong society. It is not the only solution but it is a cornerstone of the foundation. It would reduce crime, it would reduce poverty, and it would reduce family dysfunction, which, in many cases, is at the heart of generational strife.
If they kill off the working class, who will buy their goods and services and keep them rich? Not to mention washing their cars and cleaning their houses.
Joe the plumber is one lucky guy, he has had a dream to be rich .. by the grace Fox media he will essentially be rich - he should be worried as Obama will come get his wealth to spread it around (ha ha ha). Joe needs to understand basic math 2nd graders are taught at schools. Most people with degrees from top universities would be happy to make $200k/yr, Sarah Palin makes $125K per year (first dude makes less than her). Obama will not tax income above $250K. Tax increase will be 3% on anything over $250K.
Perhaps Mccain, Joe, Sarah Palin and entire rightwing population need to go to school for some real education in math, world history, geography, science, etc. They have been reading (??) to much unhealthy stuff written by hate and war buffs like Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingram, et. al.
on the other hand, if Joe wins the powerball.........ouch!
The Republican's ideal economy constitutes nothing more or less than pure anarchy.
Let's review each of their goals, taken to its unrestricted outcome:
1) Smaller government, except military = military-controlled government
2) No regulation = anarchist economic practices
3) Greater income disparity = handful of wealthy, everybody else in abject poverty
4) Stronger executive branch = fascism
5) Strong on terrorism = no human or civil rights protections
There are and have been plenty which fit this Republican ideal. They're typically known as Banana Republics, or Military Juntas. Pinochet's Argentina is a prime example of a country that exemplifies their ideals precisely.
Although I pretty much agree with your 5 points, I think you mean "Pinochet's CHILE." Of course, Argentina under the military junta headed by Jorge Virela was a similar kettle of fish, pretty vile unless you happened to be on top of the heap.
Fantastic piece that is only a beginning to touching upon so many fundamental truths of human social behavior.
It really stirs to the legacy of some who have pillaged the system only to learn the error of their ways such as Andrew Carnegie.
One prospers because there was something to build upon--always.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
