When left to troll around the internet for any appreciable amount of time, it is near impossible to not get a whif of the perplexing myths that have arisen concerning anybody who still dares to call themselves by such shameful terms as progressive or liberal. Most of these myths are rewritten from their much more casual internet forms (a distinct dialect of English in itself) and evaluated. A lot of it is just talking points that get tossed around with little thought but are accepted as truth by many and stated over and over with the highest degree of conviction. Perhaps by giving an alternate explanation that is not so rooted in anger there can be a bit more understanding of why such ideas are not quite as absolute as many would believe.
Myth: Progressives just want to spend money and want to bloat government.
Reality: The bloat of government is something that is not unique to either conservatives or progressives. At this point, there are few from either side of the bullpen arguing against significant cuts in the budget. Debt is something that is necessary at times, but after the better part of thirty years of running up the bill, we are reaching a point in which we need to get the books in balance.
The debate is not on what should be cut, but rather where should the cuts come from. Tea Party representatives are under the impression that we could balance the budget simply by cuts, mostly to social programs that benefit the lazy, nonworking poor. They will throw out the numbers of international aid as waste, knowing that any time the average person hears the term "billions" that they will assume it to be a large portion of the budget when the reality is that most of these expenditures are more minor than most believe.
If there was more attention given to progressive discourse, there is talk of reducing government. Most of these discussions focus on issues such as reducing the nearly 1 trillion a year we spend in military expenditures and reducing the military footprint we leave on the planet (unparalleled to the military presence by any other nation). Given that we know that tens of billions of dollars have vaporized to dishonest contractors, corrupt government officials and inefficiencies in the past decade in the Middle East, most progressives would like to see better oversight of such funds as one way to reduce the budget.
Liberal government reductions would include reduction or elimination of federal subsidies to profitable industries, including the oil and natural gas industries with multi-billion dollar profits. Contrary to the belief of conservative pundits, our welfare is heavily focused on business and corporations and is contrary to the principles of capitalism.
That said, I am the first to acknowledge that there are wasteful social programs in government that should be eliminated. In many cases, there is redundancy and overlap in coverage that can be reduced. In the big scheme of things; however, this is not the largest area of government waste and while worthwhile to address, is not the most productive area to focus budget arguments.
Myth: The progressive agenda is to enable the lazy through entitlements who don't work or pay taxes.
Reality: Right now there are many people receiving aid in some form (unemployment, food stamps etc) because they don't have any other option. As someone who has recently finished university and with friends with various levels of education, I know of nobody who is simply sitting on their duffs and collecting benefits without trying to find their way to the next step. There are those who abuse the system and manipulate their incomes to obtain benefits they should not qualify for (my own estranged sister is one of them). That said, most of those obtaining benefits see it as something temporary and they have no desire to rely on aid for longer than necessary.
The age of welfare queens has largely passed with Clinton era reforms that limited the ability for families to collect aid from various sources and benefit by having more children. Most aid are not in monetary form but is given in the form of vouchers that can only be used for things such as food or housing. These benefits typically come contingent on some form of requirement and have time limits for which a person can collect.
The majority of Americans are industrious and independent by nature and there is a great deal of pride in maintaining self sufficiency. For them, benefits are something that allows them to get by under the worst of times and mitigate homelessness and starvation. In these economic times, it is a pity that we deride the truly needy and seek to take away the safety net that prevents the situation witnessed during the depression in which people drifted aimlessly in search of work and left with few means to reclaim their lives.
Myth: Liberals want to tax the rich to nonexistance
Reality: The tax burden is at the lowest point in modern history for all income levels, but the wealthy have disproportionately benefited from tax cuts in the 1980s and 2000s, largely from reductions in the capital gains tax that composes most of the revenue for those in the upper income brackets. With this shift, many of the wealthiest Americans have greatly reduced their tax burden. It is largely on account of these tax reductions that people like Warren Buffett pay a lower percentage of his income than many of his salaried workers under him.
Critics of tax increases argue that the United States already has one of the highest corporate rates in the world. This is admittedly true, but with the tax code written with a large number of deductions and exclusions, few major corporations are paying the states rates. Fortune 500 companies typically employ a large team of accountants year round to scan through tax law and find new deductions for the company's benefit. When it is all said and done, large corporations pay a pittance of the given rates and their taxes are not detrimental. On the contrary, it's the smaller corporations who get stuck with a disproportionate tax bill as they seldom have the ability or knowledge to make full use of the various loopholes.
It should not be considered class warfare to call for greater equality in the tax code. Given that the proportion of wealth held by the upper 2 percent of the population has grown significantly in the past thirty years, they should not be able to write off a large portion of their income while the middle class is willing to pay a certain percentage based on necessity.
Contrary to the believers in Reaganomics, taxes on the wealthy are not shown to have a direct negative correlation on economic health under most economic conditions. Currently our economy is not in the current rut due to taxes or a lack of business capital but a lack of consumer demand amongst the lower and middle classes. Some revision and simplification of the tax code would raise some revenue and perhaps even prompt some companies to use their record money on hand so they can call it an investment instead of profit.
Of course, I wouldn't mind lower corporate taxes if the loopholes were eliminated. If we had higher personal income tax rates and lower corporate rates it would perhaps encourage the wealthy to invest their money to avoid taxes. If they hire a few people or started a new business to knock themselves down a tax bracket or two, I'd be okay with giving them the lower rate as it at least would enrich someone other than themselves.
Myth: Liberals are Communists that will turn us into the Soviet Union.
Reality: This one is perhaps the most ridiculous, but one of the most frequent ones that I see floating amongst conservative circles. I've had to endure my boyfriend's father mutter such things, typically after listening to one of the talking heads on Fox News. More than the others, this one not only incorrect but actually a bit of an insult considering the number of people who endured real suffering as a result of Soviet mismanagement.
I suppose the logic goes along the lines that in calling for regulations on capitalist ventures, despite some of them being intended to protect consumers and the economy as a whole, a slippery slope begins in which private enterprise would be stymied and placed under the control of the government. The eventual end result of this would be a planned economy that resembles the Soviet system of production that became famous in the later years of the Union for its barren shelves and shortages of basic necessities.
Quite frankly, this is one of the most insulting given the fact that few progressives are communists or even pure socialists and the accusation shows a complete lack of understanding of the Soviet political machine. Marxist philosophy was far too idealistic and reliant on a post-industrial society, which was a rather poor fit for what was still agrarian societies like Russia, and Ukraine and even worse in regions of Central Asia where nomad customs were still present. What resulted in the Soviet Union was a series of dictatorships dominated by Russian leaders that manipulated its people and regions to subjugate large numbers of people. With millions having been relocated, executed or made to disappear over those years, it is dishonest to claim that we are bound to repeat those mistakes based on market reforms.
The reality is that few want to displace the system of free enterprise. We need innovation and the market is the most responsive vehicle to ensuring the right goods in the proper quantities enter the market. A planned economy, despite emphasizing how much hyperbole is present in the Soviet references, would be disastrous. There are many areas in which the government controls would be inefficient given the size of any national economy. That should not mean that there should be no regulations to prevent monopolies, ensure minimum safety standards and avoid the conundrum we faced when certain businesses became 'too big to fail' and needed to be bailed out on our future dimes.
I implore those who would compare us to the Soviet Union to do a bit of research on the history of that country. Look up the Ukrainian Famine of 1933, Gulags, Vilnius 1991, January Events of 1991, and the Katyn Massacre as starting points. I can assure you that if you bother looking at the facts that the comparison seems all the more absurd.
I was going to go into the flat tax, but I'm saving that for a bit later as that is a rather big issue in itself and requires a bit of digging into the specifics of Eastern European tax law (where flax taxes are in place).
No comments:
Post a Comment