Our Primary National Values

Biden and Sanders have been debating matters like Social Security. Can we afford it? Biden acts indignant that Bernie would suggest he's a threat to Social Security, yet Biden's record is plain, as well-summarized by Ryan Grim at The Intercept in this tweet:

Biden blatantly lied about Social Security at Iowa's Black & Brown Forum this week:

Q: "Do you think it's fair though for voters to question your commitment to Social Security when in the past you've proposed a freeze to it?"

Biden: "No, I didn't propose a freeze."

"You did." pic.twitter.com/DBzauK2n53

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 24, 2020

The Truthiness About Biden

Nor does Biden explain how and why his opinion has changed. In a worrisome pattern he seems to share with Trump, he simply denies he ever had an opinion that is clearly documented.

Stephen Colbert called this “truthiness”—an assertion of “facts” that come not from books or the head, but from the gut.

“Alternative facts,” Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, calls such affronts to reality.

Biden would have us see Bernie's views as extreme, radical, dangerous to consider. He offers himself as the safe choice. The message from the centrists is that Bernie's notions will bankrupt us. The truth is, many of us are going bankrupt just fine on our own. We need the government to pull the reins on corporate greed, but Biden can't even admit this is where the problem lies.

It's clear that the recent tax cuts for billionaires are part of an organized “starve the beast” strategy by the GOP. Such a strategy works in two steps: first take all the money out of the system into rich people's pockets, then declare that the government is short of money and that social programs must be cut. They've done step one. Now we're back in the same situation as happened the last time Biden championed cuts.

Has something changed? Because it looks to me like Biden has positioned himself as the realist, the compromiser, the one willing to pull a Susan Collins, hemming and hawing for the cameras so it looks like an oh-so-difficult choice, but ultimately “surprising” us by deciding that we need to be fiscally responsible and endure our middle-class medicine rather than ask too much of billionaires.

Because that's the picture he seems to be painting when he accuses Bernie, directly or through his advocates, of being too extreme, too radical, too untrustworthy, too … socialist.

Biden wants us to trust him, but trust him how? Why? The only one he seems to point fingers at is Bernie. And why? Because Bernie is willing to point fingers at who he thinks is the actual source of the problem.

Bernie is willing to say what is obviously true, that we don't need billionaires.

Assigning Value

Biden wants Bernie to be seen as obviously extreme. But is he?

We just had a candidate in the race that had half a billion dollars of literal pocket change. He will probably be as rich or richer at the end of the year as he was at the beginning of the race.

Moreover, Elizabeth Warren in a few simple sentences so destroyed this man's character that all that wealth could not overcome it, ending his run—clear proof that wealth does not measure virtue. Even given the strong tendency people seem to have to follow successful others, which is what seems to have gotten Trump elected, there are limits. As Sarah Kendzior so aptly says:

“When wealth is passed off as merit, bad luck is seen as bad character. This is how ideologues justify punishing the sick and the poor. But poverty is neither a crime nor a character flaw. Stigmatise those who let people die, not those who struggle to live.”    —Sarah Kendzior, in a 2013 essay Poverty is not a character flaw

All to say I don't think there is clearer proof that somewhere in our nation there is enough wealth to enable people to age with dignity: enabling them to be useful advisors and contributors to our society for more years, unlocking a lot of wealth and happiness. They can advise friends, family, and the community in personal and business matters. They can take care of grandkids. They can just not be a burden to younger people who are struggling themselves and might have to take time off for work.

Or we can say that it's more important, as a nation, to have a few Michael Bloombergs. My saying “a few” isn't casual. We cannot all be Michael Bloombergs. Of necessity, mega-wealth accumulates only in the hands of a few. The math only works that way. We're all taught we might one day be rich without bounds, but we should be taught that at some point increased wealth comes at the expense of others, and generally in a way that is disproportionate with actual value contributed to society. Whatever Bloomberg's positive contribution, he has not contributed that much more than other people.

Even if you think all his actions good, and that's up for debate, a lot of those actions are things any person with that money would have done, and are rightly attributed to the money, not the people. And many have done great goods for no reward. So while money is a crude metric of some amount of good people have done, we need to learn that it is not a precise measure and that we are not valueless nor these people with tons of money gods.

And that is what's being debated. Not just "social security" as words, but the values behind it. Our country generates wealth. We have allowed that wealth to flow to a few people, disproportionately. Our government is not a business. It is a group of our us that get together charged with administering a fair set of rules that allow everyone to succeed. The set of rules we have are out of balance, like a clothes dryer with the balance off. The term "wealth redistribution" is tossed around as if it's a bad thing, but it's like with the dryer, it will eventually stop if something is not done to get things back into harmony.

Social security is fair and humane, but it is also an assertion that in our quest to incentivize things as a rush for money, we have limits on how much one person may take from another. There is incentive enough in seeking millions, even many millions. There is little one can do with billions but buy governments or otherwise subvert the democratic will of the public.

That's what we're debating. Tax the rich to bring things back into harmony, or yield public control of resources on a bogus theory that over time we've realized we the public are nothing and only Bloomberg and his ilk have any entitlement to wealth for their amazing contributions.

Push is coming to shove. Billionaires are an active threat to the middle class. The GOP is actively teeing up exactly that conflict, daring Democrats to take that on. Bernie is up to it. That Biden paints Bernie as extreme suggests he's not.

Biden just isn't up to challenging billionaires' entitlement to the disproportionate wealth they have amassed. But without doing so, we'll run short of funds. At that point, we should fully well expect him to make the same choices he denies having made in the past.

So you perhaps understand why I've said I do not celebrate this “anyone but Trump” thing as a victory. I wanted Warren, but at this point, go Bernie!

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The essay which became this post started as a post by me earlier today at reddit.

I also very much recommend Sarah Kendzior's book The View from Flyover Country.

Tax Policy and the Dewey Decimal System

I’ve been thinking about the question of how to equitably distribute tax burden in society.

100’s  Philosophy
200’s  Myths & Religion
300’s  Social Science
400’s  Language
500’s  Science
600’s  Technology
700’s  Arts & Recreation
800’s  Literature
900’s  Geography & History

It may help you to know I'm a serious fan of the Dewey Decimal System not just for its ability to classify books in a library, but for the underlying philosophy that led to its categories. I don't even 100% agree with the categories that resulted—I just like the thought process Dewey went through in order to arrive at the categories.

Melvil Dewey conceived of an ordered series of questions that primitive man must have asked as he evolved socially, intellectually, and culturally from a cave dweller to a citizen of civilized society.

100’s  Who am I?
200’s  Who made me?
300’s  Who is the man in the next cave?
400’s  How can I make that man understand me?
500’s  How can I understand nature and the world about me?
600’s  How can I use what I know about nature?
700’s  How can I enjoy my leisure time?
800’s  How can I give my children a record of man’s historic deeds?
900’s  How can I leave a record for men of the future?

When trying to wrap my head around a conceptual space, particularly one that involves a series or evolution of steps, I sometimes find myself reaching for Dewey's list of questions to use as a kind of conceptual scaffolding while I try to devise something better to use. And that's what I found myself doing in this case.

One's economic life, it seems to me, follows a structurally similar evolutionary path to the one Dewey describes. Admittedly, some go to college and some don't. Some start families and some don't. So the details will differ. And even for the shared issues, we might each confront them in a different order. But that was true for Dewey's system, too. So use your imagination and you'll quickly see where I'm going.

We start life with our parents taking care of us, asking questions like this:

Hey, Mom, where‘s my lunch money?
How can I afford an iPod on my tiny allowance?
How am I ever going to afford college?
How can I get a job that pays enough for me to live on my own?

Finally we break free and set out on our own, struggling at first to become self-sufficient:

How can I afford an apartment?
How can I make enough money to buy groceries?
How can I afford to buy new clothes?
How can I pay for transportation to and from work?
How can I afford to pay my college loans?

It's a good feeling to get these items under control, but it's not enough. Yes, paying for the basics is good, but we're still at the point of being hand to mouth, with no margin for error. We still have to plan for contingencies. If we can't handle those, we're only kidding ourselves in our belief that we're self-sufficient:

Heat costs how much? How will I ever afford that?
Hey, my car broke down. I was supposed to budget for that?
How can I afford that medical treatment?
Wait a minute. I can't afford to be unemployed. What now?
While still repaying college loans, I have to re-educate myself?
What if I'm unable to work later in life?

If we're lucky, we do eventually rise above it, but often it takes a long time. Ideally, though, once the above items are mastered, we start to have surplus income and can finally turn our attention from needs to wants:

How can I repay those who have been helping me?
How can I make enough money to afford an iPhone?
How can I make enough money to afford cable TV?
How can I afford to go on a vacation?

At this same time, we may begin nesting:

How can I afford to buy a house?
Can I afford to have a family?
How can I afford to feed, clothe, and house my family?
How can I survive the loss of a job without putting my family at risk?
Can I assure my children go to college?

Or our world may expand in other ways:

How can I help my friends?
How can I afford to contribute to charities?
Can I employ others by by starting my own business?

My point here is to portray life as a continuum from helping ourselves to helping others. And finally now with that in mind I can make some of the points I wanted to make.

First, it should be obvious that the first and most important thing each of us can do to help society is to eliminate society's need to help us. If we are not self-sufficient, we cannot help others.

I mention this because I've sneakily omitted taxation from the above lists of questions. This is because I want to make a point about where taxation is appropriate. It seems obvious to me that presently we tax people before they are able to help themselves. And I just don't see the point of that.

Taxing lower income people delays the time in their lives at which they can be self-sufficient. It also introduces inefficiency into the system: The entire process of taxation expends societal energy that is simply lost productivity. Taxing our weakest members is silly since they'll just turn around and ask for the money back—and the process of getting that money back to them will use up some of the money. Our tax revenue should come only from genuine individual surpluses.

And by surplus I don't just mean that people should have a few dollars left in their paycheck to go to taxes. I mean that everyone should try to fill a savings account with $100,000 for emergencies. If they haven't got that, and most people don't, then they aren't ready for the kinds of major expenses life is sure to dish out—unemployment, illnesses, accidents, retirement. Once they've provided for those, then they can begin generating a surplus.

They should be filling that account before they get to the point where they are allowed to pay taxes. Paying taxes should be seen as a privilege, a status symbol, something people aspire to do as part of their personal growth.

Of course, that might not leave a lot of taxpayers. What a burden that will be on those who are able to take care of themselves. Darn. That's awful. We hear all the time about how the economic system is not a zero-sum game, and how it's possible for someone to get rich and for others to do well. Fine, let's see it played out.

If the wealthy want to be taxed less, they should arrange for society to enrich as many others as possible, in order to have friends who share the “burden” of taxation. If enough people make a decent enough wage to achieve a surplus, it won't be so lonely at the top. If instead the present trend continues, concentrating the wealth in an ever-shrinking portion of the population, those few wealthy should expect to pay a steep price for membership in that elite club, because the rest of us can't afford to help pay the taxes until we can afford to take care of ourselves.

---

Click here for more information
about the Dewey Decimal System.

---

Author's Note: Originally published February 17, 2009 at Open Salon, where I wrote under my own name, Kent Pitman.

Tags (from Open Salon): taxes open call, jobs, retraining, unemployment, illness, accident, rich, wealthy, wealth, low-income, poor, tax burden, wealth redistribution, income redistribution, medical emergencies, retirement, tuition, college, education, finances, politics

Redistributing Burden

McCain's near-spastic surge of emotional hotbutton issues is hard to follow, but among the spread spectrum of ideas he's been frequently hopping between is his allegation that Obama is a “socialist” seeking to “redistribute wealth.”

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

A number of people are already doing a pretty good job of shedding sunlight on McCain's confused use, or cynical abuse, of the term “socialist.” For example, Stephen Colbert recently interviewed Brian Moore, socialist candidate for US President in the 2008 election. In the interview, he asks Brian Moore whether Obama could pass for a socialist.

I wanted to make a different point, though... that is, if you're done watching the video. Hello? Is this microphone still on? Ah, there you are. I thought for a moment I'd lost you. I should know not to put myself in deliberate competition with the likes of Colbert, especially to illustrate what I don't want to talk about!

What I really wanted to talk about is the notion of redistributing wealth. I want to suggest that's a bad paradigm for viewing the question, and suggest a way to reframe the discussion. I want to discuss “redistributing burden” instead.

To start, let's look for a moment at the process of summarization. There are a lot of ways to summarize an issue, even something that seems so simple you can just count it up. Depending on what you count or how you count it, the answer can be different. For example, we have a Senate and a House of Representatives in part because one of them counts up what states think, and one counts up what people think. It was believed by our founders, and I think they were right, that sometimes one of these is the right way to count, and sometimes the other. But the point is that they're different, even though they're at some level both counting up the same thing, that is, “how much will the nation has on an issue” or “how much need the nation has.”

So it is with wealth and burden. For some things where money is involved, wealth may seem an inverse measure of burden. That is, if you have a lot of wealth, you have less burden. But the problem with that is that it sounds like it's all proportional. Wealth uses words like “more” and “less.” People who claim they have no wealth at all are rarely sympathized with, even though the use of the word is probably correct, but rather they are quibbled with. “What are you talking about? You have a family. Isn't that a form of wealth? You live in the richest country in the world. Isn't that a form of wealth?” (Given our debt burden, I'm not sure I'd call this the richest country in the world, by the way, but you still hear people say it.)

Sometimes the word wealth is a relative measure. We cannot all be wealthy because we don't all live in Lake Wobegon (“all the children are above average”). It's a necessary fact of relative wealth that for some people to have it, others don't. Now, it's certainly true that there is another kind of wealth, an absolute kind, that says that if you have more than you need to survive, you're also wealthy. And that kind of wealth we could theoretically all have at the same time. We just don't. We have many people who have enough to survive, and more, while we have many others who don't have enough to survive, to care for their families, to address medical issues, etc.

So when it comes time to pay the nation's taxes, the question is what the burden is on them to give up a little of their money to help with that cause. The answer is pretty plainly right now that there are people who are barely getting by, if at all, who are being asked to pay money they don't have in order to help with that. For example, for Sally making $30,000 to pay $3000 in taxes while Bill making $1,000,000 pays $100,000 might seem a simple issue of scale. Both pay 10%. But the $3000 that the Sally is giving up might have been just enough to afford some critical expense, perhaps a health care plan. While at his income level, Bill is at no serious risk of not being covered by a health care plan. So it's not that there is a proportional burden. Sally's basic needs are not met and Bill's are. It might not even be the case that Sally's needs were met with no taxes at all. $30,000 is not much to scrape by on, especially if she has a family. But I'd argue Bill could still manage to raise a family even if he paid $103,000 dollars in taxes, so that Sally had to pay none. Or even if he paid $130,000 dollars in taxes, so that ten Sally's had to pay none.

I hear murmurs of “he's redistributing wealth” but that's my point. I'm not necessarily redistributing burden. At least, I'm not creating a burden on anyone that didn't have it; I'm just removing it from someone who did. If Sally pays no tax, so keeps all $30,000, she's not made rich, she just fails to be quite so impoverished. And if Bill pays only 3% more in taxes, which is $30,000, he's not impoverished by that. He's just slightly less rich. Before the change, 10 people might have been struggling and 1 surviving (well). After the change, 11 people might be surviving. That's a big benefit. The mathematics of burden redistribution are very different than the mathematics of wealth redistibution. Speaking in terms of wealth rather than burden can muddy things a lot by focusing on things that don't matter at the expense of things that do.

“But,” I hear you protest, “she doesn't have to pay taxes and he does.” Not so, I claim. She pays a tax. She is poor. Being poor is a tax. (On another day, I can perhaps even explain that might be quantifiable. But today you can just assume I mean that being poor is no fun, and that Bill won't trade places with her if he has the chance. So saying Bill is enduring an inequity in this arrangement is disingenuous.)

And yes, we can argue where the line is between rich and poor, but we should not argue that there is no such line. Surely there must be some amount of money beyond which if you have it, you're set. Just as surely is some amount of money below which if you don't have it, you're in bad shape. The precise amount may differ with time and geography and other factors, but we shouldn't let that uninteresting fact distract us from admitting that are real effects worthy of discussion.

And please note well—I'm not saying that the wealthy need to just give all their money to the poor. The capitalist system is about the hope that the opportunity to get rich will cause people to work hard for that goal so that others will benefit. But we need to watch that in fact the others do benefit. If we allow the one person (or a small number of people) to get rich at the expense of the others, then capitalism hasn't done what it set out to do. Those who have succeeded under our system need to remember that this is a society in which the populace, by majority vote, chooses how we run things. And if that group gets things to the place where a majority of voters think they're not doing well, they should expect that such an unhappy majority has good reason to start pulling plugs on the process. That's what I think is in play right now, and what will continue to be in play until a basic fairness to the original premise that we should all benefit to a reasonable degree from the success of the few.

A bit of enlightened self-interest on the part of the rich would go a long way just now. Holding firm to the “it's mine and you can't have it” line is not going to serve the rich well when talking to people headed for the ballot box.

---

Author's Note: If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

Originally published October 30, 2008 at Open Salon, where I wrote under my own name, Kent Pitman.

Tags (from Open Salon): politics, economy, wealth, burden, needs, basic needs, health care, food, redistribution, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of burden, income redistribution, tax, taxes, taxation, regressive tax, tax fairness