creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
16 Feb 2012
Will Catholic Bishops and the Religious Right Save Obama?

What is most striking about the showdown over contraceptive freedom is not the political victory that … Read More.

11 Feb 2012
White Nationalists Share Spotlight With GOP at CPAC

If the Conservative Political Action Conference can be expected to accomplish anything more than angry bellowing,… Read More.

2 Feb 2012
The High Cost of Romney's Scorching Victory

Mitt Romney's convincing victory in the Florida primary erased his earlier defeats and perhaps any serious … Read More.

McCain's Socialist Delusion

Share Comment

Wherever John McCain appears on the stump in these waning days of the presidential campaign, he is always accompanied by his imaginary friend "Joe the Plumber," but it is the specter of Karl Marx that lurks just offstage.

Reverting back to the Republicanism of eons ago, when he was just a child, McCain inveighs against the "socialist" design of Barack Obama's tax platform. This delusional ranting, like so much of his behavior this year, tells us nothing about Obama (or socialism!) but much about him.

Let's begin with the dishonesty of the McCain rant. What Obama proposes is to restore tax rates on the wealthy to the same level as during the Clinton administration — that is, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewing them for individuals and families reporting more than $250,000 in annual income. There is nothing radical in this idea, let alone socialistic (especially compared with the violations of capitalist orthodoxy that McCain has supported recently as emergency measures to rescue the financial industry).

Not only is there nothing radical about repairing the unfairness of the Bush tax cuts, but it is precisely the same position that McCain argued when they were first enacted. Is his memory so poor that he cannot remember saying the Bush tax plan was "skewed" to benefit the rich? Having reversed that position for political convenience, he has also invented a different justification for opposing Bush back then — namely that he thought the cuts were fiscally irresponsible. But that isn't what he said in 2000 and 2001.

Now let's address the ignorance of his rant. Progressive taxation is a tradition of Western economics that dates back considerably further than Marx and the Communist manifesto, with all due respect to the wingnuts who seem to be writing McCain's speeches. He admits that he has neglected his economic studies, so perhaps he isn't aware that Adam Smith, revered philosopher of market capitalism, advocated tax fairness as far back as 1776, the fateful year when he published the first edition of "The Wealth of Nations."

Although there was then no income tax, Smith's principled judgment on the justice of higher taxes on those who could pay more, enunciated on several occasions, could not be clearer.

He favored property taxes and luxury taxes because they would fall most heavily on the wealthy. He would have levied a sizeable tax on all seven of the McCain homes plus an additional chop at all of Cindy McCain's credit card binges.

In "Wealth of Nations," Smith wrote: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Few legislators are more familiar than McCain, in his maverick incarnation, with the enormous fortunes raked in by oilmen, defense contractors, bond holders and the whole host of modern capitalists under the protection of the American state. The notion that those fortunes, often gotten in a parody of the free market, should be taxed at the same rate as the earnings of a plumber would strike Smith as monumentally unjust and an attack on the moral foundations of society.

Finally, let's discuss the other bit of demagoguery in McCain's most recent speeches, when he complains about the "redistribution of wealth" and equates an income tax rebate for working people with "welfare." Leaving aside the racial subtext of those remarks, it is hard to say whether they display ignorance, dishonesty or both. The American tax system, like all other taxation in modern nations, has always redistributed wealth. Sometimes it sends streams of money upward, from low-income taxpayers into the pockets of corporate executives; at other times it sends those streams downward, to assist the very poor.

But to cast socialist aspersions on a tax refund to working families whose incomes are too low to pay income taxes is to paint a big pink stripe onto McCain's supposed idol, Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax "refund." Reagan praised the earned income tax credit as the best "anti-poverty" and "pro-family" legislation ever enacted by Congress.

It must be troubling for Republicans to learn that according to McCain, the Gipper was a socialist, too.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... It makes sense that all should support their society... Let me take a moment to ask whose society is it??? The wealthy were saddled with the support of their government, and for that support got defined property rights. It was their government. The Senate represented the state, property pure and simple... Slavery as a property right was protected and the master recieved a large fraction of the representation his slaves would have had, were they free... But for their rights the property owners paid a tax on property which served the society because it put pressure on the property owners to pay taxes, and this made labor dear to property... What does the worker take from society that he need pay??? Is his education and upkeep excessive??? If he is educated, he is an asset to industry and well worth the investment... Is his health cared for??? Public Health is a public problem and well worth the effort and expense...It is the poor who defend what the rich acquire... It is the whole society which defends the rights of property... It is absolutly wrong for labor to pay taxes because it drives the price of labor down... When the progressive income tax first became constitutional it affected around eleven percent of the people... The people wanted wealth to pay taxes, but once in effect it was spread to the whole population... It is an insult considering all the rich do to limit income and fair wages to abuse people for not paying income tax...Whose fault is that??? They work, and they create value because their jobs are not charity, so their labor should pay taxes some where, and in any event support the society....On the other hand, it is the want of taxes that has kept huge tracts of land off the market... The insignificant tax on property drove up the price of property while taxes on wages drove down wages...We see the price of property fall... That is because interests have done what property tax should have done all along, and put pressure on the price...But instead of direct pressure which would have benefitted the whole society, and supported fair wages, the attack on wages cut the guts out of the whole market for property... I mean, the wealthy have had their government... To keep more of their wealth they have taxed the poor, and it has made the poor poorer, and the rich richer...Where has the extra wealth gone??? They have shipped it over seas... Which means our army has had to defend that wealth abroad... But the proportion of productive jobs compared to service jobs has constantly declined until we are a blown market unable to support ourselves with what we produce... Is it possible we can continue taxing people without wealth, or jobs??? Every single time labor has been beat since the great depression it has been beat on property rights... They have their rights...Do they believe they can maintain their rights without the paying the taxes to support those rights???.What do the poor buy with their taxes except less of everything, and especially of less rights... I do not agree there is even such a thing in reality as property rights.. The idea is stupid. And if it is not stupid on its face, it is clearly limited because the government is behind every title, and that title rests entirely on a taking... But if you propose a right that the poor must support with their blood, the least you can do is support it with your wealth... The rich do not grow wealth... They take it with the help of their government... We forget that all the people must benefit from every right, and no continued support can be expected for a right you do not benefit from... The behavior of the rich in regard to their property and their rights robs the idea of property rights of its meaning...Property rights are not absolute, and not natural, and must be supported by property tax... It must pay its way and do a public good...Where is the public Good??? Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:34 AM
Joe, I agree completely with your article, except I think you chose a poor quote from Adam Smith. The quote you chose argues for taxation "proportional" to revenue -- i.e., a flat rate -- whereas elsewhere (as you suggested) Smith said it wouldn't hurt to charge the rich more.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Rick Wicks
Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:15 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Feb 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 17 Feb 2012

19 Jan 2012 Tax Day: Will Romney Make April Fools of Republicans

15 Jul 2011 Obama Losing Patience as Republicans Panic

25 Jan 2007 Why Bush's Speech Didn't Matter