I heard an argument over the weekend that has never made sense to me, although I've heard it time and time again. It goes something like this: "We can't afford to tax job creators, because then they will just stop working as hard, or they will find loopholes and other measures to avoid the higher taxation." The latter claim is ludicrous and defeatist. It is admitting that because there are dishonest people out there who will evade taxation that we should stop trying to tax them at all. Try to apply that same logic to any other situation and it will seem ridiculous. Take a sports example: it is like saying that we can't enforce steroid regulation in major league baseball because players will abuse other dangerous drugs, so we shouldn't enforce drugs at all. Or, we can't levy heavier penalties for helmet-to-helmet hits in football because players will find another way to play dangerously anyway. The fact that loopholes exist is an argument for higher taxation, rather than against, because you have a certain amount of illegal and dishonest people diverting tax revenues. After all of the exceptions and loopholes, the actual tax rate would drop to near what it was intended in the first place. There is an astounding amount of tax theft occurring in this country - a far greater injustice than any sort of mythical "welfare queen."
I'm not sure I understand the first claim either, that "job creators" will simply stop working if they are taxed at a higher rate. Pundits scream that higher tax rates "punish success," and would lead to lowered productivity among skilled workers. Let me try to parse out the logic here. Within this conservative paradigm, it is understood rich people work hard and deserve the vast wealth they currently control in our favorable tax climate, thus we should continue to promote this brand of success. If we tax the wealthy at a higher rate, they argue, this removes the incentive to work hard, because high-earning individuals would receive lower returns on their investment and labor. I've always wondered why someone would take a double loss when presented with only a slight change in tax rates. To elaborate, if money is the sole incentive (or at least the main one) to pursue profit, and successful individuals desire money, they will continue to work for profit regardless of the marginal tax rate. Take this simple example: if you earn $10 million a year, and are taxed at the current rate of 35%, you're still clearing $6.5 million a year. If the federal government makes the move to increase that tax rate to around 40% (as is scheduled to occur in 2013), you're still left with $6 million. And then people are arguing that the wealthy will voluntarily work less, thus bringing their annual incomes much lower? If I raise the tax rate on someone, and they prize money, why would they decide to lose money on two fronts? If these paragons of business are supposed to be our economic saviors, why would they cut and run in the face of some economic "hard"-ship?
Historically, we have a very low tax rate on our top earners. The top marginal tax rate was as high as 90% until the '60s and did not drop below 70% until 1981. The same year US GDP growth experienced a sharp drop, followed by a short spike, and another deep decline. When the marginal tax rate was above 70%, the US economy was flourishing, the middle class was alive and well (not a mythical demographic like today), and GDP growth was steady. What we have seen borne out in recent history is a slashing of tax rates on high earning individuals with little to no benefit to the rest of Americans. I believe that America is a democracy, and should tax democratically. This requires an open conversation about the benefits of taxation without the emotionally driven and factually void arguments of punishing success, or disincentivizing profit. The fact of the matter is that the wealthier you are, the greater benefit you derive from the federal government, whether this be in better education systems, better public health and safety, nicer transportation and infrastructure near your home, or countless other externalities the private sector saddles the federal government with. The true job creators are the consuming and the laboring class. Do not let the vanity of the rich fool you, they aren't John Galts.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
A Fair Tax
One of my least favorite (and most effective) conservative talking points is the notion of a "fair" flat tax. They argue that since America is the land of equality, everyone should pay the same tax rate. No person, they claim, gains an advantage or a disadvantage from a flat tax rate, because it is the same for all people. They point to the current tax code, which exempts some low income people from income taxes, as unfair "class warfare." This argument is so fallacious it would be funny, if so many people did not buy it.
First, a flat tax is not an equal tax, because it does not have an equal financial impact on all taxpayers. Let's take a simple example to demonstrate the point. Let's say the federal income tax rate is 25%, just to make the numbers easier. Joe is a recent college graduate, earning $20,000/ year, saddled with minimal student loan debt (unrealistic, I know), and he lives in a small apartment with a rent of 500 dollars a month. Let's say his total utilities and food monthly costs come out to another $300-350/ month (again, unreasonably low, but it makes the point). Assuming Joe does not spend a penny on anything else, this brings his monthly expenses up to about $800. So, Joe get his yearly salary of $20,000, and the flat "fair" tax rate of 25% is applied, so he ends up with $15,000 of cash for the year. Take his monthly expenses of $800, multiply by 12 and you get $9600 for the year. That equates to nearly 2/3 of his entire income for the year, leaving him with only $5,400 to spend on himself. This means that Joe, although he may earn a $20,000 salary, has only one quarter of that in disposable income each year. Imagine how much worse the situation is to individuals facing medical bills, student loan debt, credit card or mortgage debt, unemployment or underemployment, disability, etc. And this simplistic example does not factor in such day to day costs as gasoline, clothing, medical costs, or even state and local taxes. I deliberately made Joe's situation much easier than the situation many people, young and old alike, face every day. Even this unreasonably optimistic example shows how a flat tax rate would destroy the finances of a majority of Americans, all in the interest of "fairness."
Take Mike, now. He's a manager of some firm, earning a nice 6-figure salary, let's say $200,000. A 25% tax brings him down to a "measly" $150,000. Perhaps his mortgage and housing costs are $6,000/month, let's tack on another $4,000/month in other expenses. Even if he spends over 12 times more than Joe, he is still left with $30,000 at the end of the year, almost 6 times as much disposable income as Joe. Furthermore, these numbers don't take into account the vast difference in quality of life between spending $10,000 a month on "necessities" and Joe budgeting $1000. Where Joe would be struggling to make ends meet, likely paying rent and accruing no wealth, Mike is able to turn his necessary expenses into an investment in the form of housing. He also could opt for a less lavish lifestyle, if he feels that $30,000 is too meager of a sum for disposable income. Once again, Mike is contrived as an unrealistic example; in reality, the fraction of disposable income left over is much higher than what Mike was left with. It is clear, however, that no matter how contrived the example, the flat tax simply is not fair. It affects the poor much more than it affects the rich.
The point is simple: wealthy people make a choice to spend more on living expenses, while poor people have no choice but to scrape by. It is often a good investment decision for wealthier taxpayers to pay more for housing and accommodation because it accrues wealth, whereas it is rarely feasible or possible for less wealthy individuals to invest in any long-term assets. The flat tax argument ignores the reality of most American's finances by neglecting any idea of disposable income. At the end of the year, Mike is left with more money than Joe could hope to earn in a year, and all of that is money that he can spend on himself however he wants. At the end of the year, Joe is likely in debt due to the numerous expenses that are bound to come up. Yes, a flat tax does take the same numerical chunk out of everyone's paycheck, but it takes a much greater slice away from one's disposable income. A flat tax flattens the poor under its heel, while still allowing the wealthy investment opportunities and further income. The only fair and democratic tax system is a heavily progressive and structured system, where the most fortunate pay the most, while a great deal of Americans pay little to no income tax at all. We cannot bleed those least fortunate and stand by while the wealthy argue about "fairness." What isn't fair is the disappearance of the middle-class, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the empowerment and representation gap. The first step toward reducing this inequality lies in tax reform. The highest marginal tax rate should climb much higher, at least over 50%. This is not punishing success, or demonizing it; rather, it is the recognition that great gains are only made with the aid of a whole society. We are simply asking that one's debt to society be repaid. If you can no longer afford caviar, I'm sorry, but I can barely afford bread.
First, a flat tax is not an equal tax, because it does not have an equal financial impact on all taxpayers. Let's take a simple example to demonstrate the point. Let's say the federal income tax rate is 25%, just to make the numbers easier. Joe is a recent college graduate, earning $20,000/ year, saddled with minimal student loan debt (unrealistic, I know), and he lives in a small apartment with a rent of 500 dollars a month. Let's say his total utilities and food monthly costs come out to another $300-350/ month (again, unreasonably low, but it makes the point). Assuming Joe does not spend a penny on anything else, this brings his monthly expenses up to about $800. So, Joe get his yearly salary of $20,000, and the flat "fair" tax rate of 25% is applied, so he ends up with $15,000 of cash for the year. Take his monthly expenses of $800, multiply by 12 and you get $9600 for the year. That equates to nearly 2/3 of his entire income for the year, leaving him with only $5,400 to spend on himself. This means that Joe, although he may earn a $20,000 salary, has only one quarter of that in disposable income each year. Imagine how much worse the situation is to individuals facing medical bills, student loan debt, credit card or mortgage debt, unemployment or underemployment, disability, etc. And this simplistic example does not factor in such day to day costs as gasoline, clothing, medical costs, or even state and local taxes. I deliberately made Joe's situation much easier than the situation many people, young and old alike, face every day. Even this unreasonably optimistic example shows how a flat tax rate would destroy the finances of a majority of Americans, all in the interest of "fairness."
Take Mike, now. He's a manager of some firm, earning a nice 6-figure salary, let's say $200,000. A 25% tax brings him down to a "measly" $150,000. Perhaps his mortgage and housing costs are $6,000/month, let's tack on another $4,000/month in other expenses. Even if he spends over 12 times more than Joe, he is still left with $30,000 at the end of the year, almost 6 times as much disposable income as Joe. Furthermore, these numbers don't take into account the vast difference in quality of life between spending $10,000 a month on "necessities" and Joe budgeting $1000. Where Joe would be struggling to make ends meet, likely paying rent and accruing no wealth, Mike is able to turn his necessary expenses into an investment in the form of housing. He also could opt for a less lavish lifestyle, if he feels that $30,000 is too meager of a sum for disposable income. Once again, Mike is contrived as an unrealistic example; in reality, the fraction of disposable income left over is much higher than what Mike was left with. It is clear, however, that no matter how contrived the example, the flat tax simply is not fair. It affects the poor much more than it affects the rich.
The point is simple: wealthy people make a choice to spend more on living expenses, while poor people have no choice but to scrape by. It is often a good investment decision for wealthier taxpayers to pay more for housing and accommodation because it accrues wealth, whereas it is rarely feasible or possible for less wealthy individuals to invest in any long-term assets. The flat tax argument ignores the reality of most American's finances by neglecting any idea of disposable income. At the end of the year, Mike is left with more money than Joe could hope to earn in a year, and all of that is money that he can spend on himself however he wants. At the end of the year, Joe is likely in debt due to the numerous expenses that are bound to come up. Yes, a flat tax does take the same numerical chunk out of everyone's paycheck, but it takes a much greater slice away from one's disposable income. A flat tax flattens the poor under its heel, while still allowing the wealthy investment opportunities and further income. The only fair and democratic tax system is a heavily progressive and structured system, where the most fortunate pay the most, while a great deal of Americans pay little to no income tax at all. We cannot bleed those least fortunate and stand by while the wealthy argue about "fairness." What isn't fair is the disappearance of the middle-class, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the empowerment and representation gap. The first step toward reducing this inequality lies in tax reform. The highest marginal tax rate should climb much higher, at least over 50%. This is not punishing success, or demonizing it; rather, it is the recognition that great gains are only made with the aid of a whole society. We are simply asking that one's debt to society be repaid. If you can no longer afford caviar, I'm sorry, but I can barely afford bread.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Polarities
We in America are too comfortable thinking in terms of polarities or dualities. Things are black or white, war or peace, mind or body, for us or against us, conservative or liberal, etc. Many of these false polarities deserve attention in their own posts, so I'll focus today on a favorite political division: public versus private. Right-wingers are fond of deriding the federal government as a bloated nanny state or a woefully inept bureaucracy, while upholding the sanctity and ingenuity of the private sector. This division is the cornerstone upon which much of conservative economic theory rests, but the foundations are quite shaky. Before looking deeper into how problematic of a division this truly is, I want to step back and look at some of the logic that follows this first proposition. If government is woefully inept and the private sector efficient, then all attempts must be made to keep government from "meddling" in the "private" activities of its citizens. If only the government would leave business alone, proponents of laissez-faire economics argue, then the economy would be efficient and flourish. Rather than "wasting" valuable tax dollars on social spending, we should focus on structural reforms (a nice euphemism for drastic cuts to vital programs), and just let the resulting wealth "trickle down." Because of this philosophy, deregulation is seen as promoting liberty, freedom, and wealth, rather than as a dangerous accumulation of risk. Here is the simple truth: regulation is not getting in the way of American business. The ingenuity of the private sector manifests itself most when confronted with government regulation, whether through lobbying to weaken or remove vital provisions, by rebranding or renaming processes to avoid detection, by shifting funds to off-shore accounts or funneling them through subsidiaries, or by "restructuring" a firm, which usually entails laying off a lot of workers to ensure a large enough bonus for the management. American businessmen are geniuses for creating wealth, but that wealth is not to be shared. This point is all the more pressing today, seeing as JP Morgan Chase just reported over $2 billion in losses because of unregulated derivative trading - the exact same behavior that led to the financial meltdown a few years ago. Private companies will engage in the same behavior over and over again so long as it remains profitable to do so. Yes, derivatives regulation will lead to reduced profits in the financial sector, but it will also lead to greater security - a far greater boon than short-term spikes. Furthermore, these financial wunderkinds are able to employ various tricks of accounting to make their profits appear exactly as high or low as they desire. We cannot allow ourselves to kowtow to unaccountable, lying, and thieving banking overlords, because we have seen time and time again how little they care about the implications of their actions. They will run their companies into the ground, and then laugh as we are forced to bail them out again. We need a Volcker rule, and not the pared-down bastard child that emerged from the legislative process.
I could go on about the illogic that follows from the public-private division, but the very foundation of laissez-faire economics is suspect. No private company in America does so independent of the federal government. Without national education, there is no educated and capable workforce. Without highways and railroads, there is no distribution system. Without the internet, there is no social media marketing and convenient online shopping. Without national defense, offshore oil and other manufacturing sites would be vulnerable. Without government-funding research, a whole wealth of technologies that we use and take for granted every day would simply not have been discovered. Every day, corporations attempt to saddle the bulk of their collateral costs on the public in order to boost profits. Without government aid, most private enterprise would fail, miserably. Without the government, most private enterprises would never have began in the first place.
One final point I'd like to make on this issue is the falsity of the claim that deregulation shrinks the size of "big government." The government, faulty as it is, is accountable to the will of the public in many ways. Corporations are held accountable only to the profit margin and do not serve the will of the public. When regulation is removed, as in the reduction of the size of the FDA or the EPA, public government is simply replaced with private governance. Rather than an accountable organization regulating the quality of our food, for instance, self-regulation leads to an unaccountable organization that is no less powerful or no less influential over our lives. We need to realize that simply reducing the size of the government is not a solution in and of itself - we must evaluate the value of the government services and compare them to the cost of providing that service. Similarly, allowing the private sector greater influence over our lives is rarely beneficial - unaccountable profit-seeking entities rarely keep the public good in mind. Keep in mind that things are rarely ever black and white, and that the shades of gray need to constantly be reflected upon and reevaluated.
I could go on about the illogic that follows from the public-private division, but the very foundation of laissez-faire economics is suspect. No private company in America does so independent of the federal government. Without national education, there is no educated and capable workforce. Without highways and railroads, there is no distribution system. Without the internet, there is no social media marketing and convenient online shopping. Without national defense, offshore oil and other manufacturing sites would be vulnerable. Without government-funding research, a whole wealth of technologies that we use and take for granted every day would simply not have been discovered. Every day, corporations attempt to saddle the bulk of their collateral costs on the public in order to boost profits. Without government aid, most private enterprise would fail, miserably. Without the government, most private enterprises would never have began in the first place.
One final point I'd like to make on this issue is the falsity of the claim that deregulation shrinks the size of "big government." The government, faulty as it is, is accountable to the will of the public in many ways. Corporations are held accountable only to the profit margin and do not serve the will of the public. When regulation is removed, as in the reduction of the size of the FDA or the EPA, public government is simply replaced with private governance. Rather than an accountable organization regulating the quality of our food, for instance, self-regulation leads to an unaccountable organization that is no less powerful or no less influential over our lives. We need to realize that simply reducing the size of the government is not a solution in and of itself - we must evaluate the value of the government services and compare them to the cost of providing that service. Similarly, allowing the private sector greater influence over our lives is rarely beneficial - unaccountable profit-seeking entities rarely keep the public good in mind. Keep in mind that things are rarely ever black and white, and that the shades of gray need to constantly be reflected upon and reevaluated.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Government is Not a Business
In an industrial capitalist society, like America today, it is easy to forget that there is much more to life than the economy. As citizens we are constantly barraged with economic data and analysis, and it is easy to get lost in the mess of information. The stock prices of the day are quoted with every newscast, tax policy is constantly being debated, debt "crises" are manufactured and over-reported on, etc. One must work hard to break through the constant conditioning and realize the age-old saying, "The best things in life are free." Let us not forget that our finances are not our individuality, and that the wealth of a nation does not translate to the happiness of its populace.
While many of the best things in life are free, there are many services we depend on that cost quite a bit of money. Many of these services do quite well in the market, respond well to market pressures, and lead to an improved quality of life for the consumer. Some examples of marketable services include retail and fashion, food and dining services, entertainment, automobiles, manufacturing, etc. (although many of these industries create dangerous and costly externalities that are rarely figured into their true cost). However, most of the services we hold most dear are simply not profitable, nor should they be thought of as a viable business model. Perhaps the most basic example is public safety. If the police charged you a price for pursuing a burglar, you would be outraged. If the fire department handed you a bill for responding to your house fire, you would be furious. These are basic services that simply cannot be dealt with in the market, for the costs of maintaining an effective emergency response team far outweigh any possible price a private corporation could extort from the consumer. When the private sector simply cannot provide a service, the onus falls upon the government to fill in. Thus, we have a government who is saddled with the responsibility to: educate our youth for 12 years at no cost to the student, provide public safety services nationwide with a reasonable response time, provide disaster relief in the event of a catastrophe, provide material assistance to the disabled, underprivileged, aging, and starving, as well as countless other acts like bridge- and road building, infrastructure spending, and promoting scientific research and development.
A good government simply cannot be profitable, for that would mean that the government is taking in more money from its populace than it is spending on them. The government is not meant to expand and become more profitable, it is meant to protect and empower its citizenry. When Republicans in Congress signal the coming of doomsday because of "deficit spending," I reply that if a government is not spending on its citizens, it no longer fulfills the function of a government. Their pared-down version of government is little more than a standing army, unable to serve the needy within its borders, but fully capable of decimating the needy in other nations. The health of a nation is measured not by GDP or stock quotes, but by the happiness and freedom of the people that constitute the nation. And by people, I definitely do not include corporations. The government serves a function that supercedes economic reasoning, and so cannot be subjected to the same sorts of market analysis employed in the private sector. Unless economic policies benefit the majority of the population, they do not benefit the nation, regardless of nationwide statistics. I plead that we tear our eyes away from the stock tickers and measures of growth and focus instead on the bottom of the economic hierarchy. The nation will be economically healthy if and only if unemployment is reduced, homelessness is eradicated, and children are able to sleep without an empty stomach. Let the factories and mansions crumble, if only the people can eat.
While many of the best things in life are free, there are many services we depend on that cost quite a bit of money. Many of these services do quite well in the market, respond well to market pressures, and lead to an improved quality of life for the consumer. Some examples of marketable services include retail and fashion, food and dining services, entertainment, automobiles, manufacturing, etc. (although many of these industries create dangerous and costly externalities that are rarely figured into their true cost). However, most of the services we hold most dear are simply not profitable, nor should they be thought of as a viable business model. Perhaps the most basic example is public safety. If the police charged you a price for pursuing a burglar, you would be outraged. If the fire department handed you a bill for responding to your house fire, you would be furious. These are basic services that simply cannot be dealt with in the market, for the costs of maintaining an effective emergency response team far outweigh any possible price a private corporation could extort from the consumer. When the private sector simply cannot provide a service, the onus falls upon the government to fill in. Thus, we have a government who is saddled with the responsibility to: educate our youth for 12 years at no cost to the student, provide public safety services nationwide with a reasonable response time, provide disaster relief in the event of a catastrophe, provide material assistance to the disabled, underprivileged, aging, and starving, as well as countless other acts like bridge- and road building, infrastructure spending, and promoting scientific research and development.
A good government simply cannot be profitable, for that would mean that the government is taking in more money from its populace than it is spending on them. The government is not meant to expand and become more profitable, it is meant to protect and empower its citizenry. When Republicans in Congress signal the coming of doomsday because of "deficit spending," I reply that if a government is not spending on its citizens, it no longer fulfills the function of a government. Their pared-down version of government is little more than a standing army, unable to serve the needy within its borders, but fully capable of decimating the needy in other nations. The health of a nation is measured not by GDP or stock quotes, but by the happiness and freedom of the people that constitute the nation. And by people, I definitely do not include corporations. The government serves a function that supercedes economic reasoning, and so cannot be subjected to the same sorts of market analysis employed in the private sector. Unless economic policies benefit the majority of the population, they do not benefit the nation, regardless of nationwide statistics. I plead that we tear our eyes away from the stock tickers and measures of growth and focus instead on the bottom of the economic hierarchy. The nation will be economically healthy if and only if unemployment is reduced, homelessness is eradicated, and children are able to sleep without an empty stomach. Let the factories and mansions crumble, if only the people can eat.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Why Bother With Government, Anyway?
Let me start by saying something that may seem completely obvious to some: we need the government. This fundamental truth is often lost in the shouting match that is modern political debate, but it still holds true. On one side of the aisle, the push is towards privatization. "Let's get big government out of the way, then American innovation can be free to prosper," or something along those lines. Proponents of privatization always frame the debate in these terms: "Big government" is getting in the way of success, and if over-regulation was removed, businesses can prosper. Privatization is an issue that deserves another post all to itself, so I won't really touch that subject today, but the underlying assumption is that government is unhelpful and woefully incompetent at dealing with the complexities of the modern world. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are many young people and other groups who are fed up with the whole institution and wish to just say "to hell with it all." When government is the toy of a few rich men disconnected from the interests of most Americans, it is no wonder many Americans are disenchanted with enfranchisement and feel powerless to better their lots. Regardless of your political bent, it is easy to blame all of the problems of today on the government. When these anti-government mantras are repeated, many people come to the conclusion that government is simply unnecessary. This conclusion is demonstrably false.
A good government fulfills two basic functions: to protect and to empower. Protection can be obvious, like national defense and police, or it can be less tangible, like the sewer systems protecting us from illnesses. Similarly, empowerment can be obvious, like affirmative action or subsidizing certain activities, or it can be much more hidden, as the education system or public libraries. These two functions are vital to a good government, and no successful society can exist without a guarantee of protection and a mechanism of empowerment. In the budget debates of the past year, a lot of numbers have been thrown around about the outrageous cost of government (and many costs are outrageous), but there has been little attention focused on the human value of those costs. By human value I mean the extent to which a certain policy or institution serves the fundamental goals of government. If a policy, such as lowering student loan rates to combat skyrocketing loan debt, is analyzed through an economic lens, it may seem financial folly, but one must read these situations through a human lens. Empowering our next generation to have the skills to be successful in a complex modern world should be the first priority of any nation - the benefits cannot be overstated. Because such a policy would empower a great portion of the population, it is a vital function of government and should not be casually discarded in the name of economic convenience.
The example of student loan rates is a simple one, but the same analysis can be applied to nearly any political issue. The primary question should be: "To what extent does this policy or institution empower or protect a segment of the population?" If the policy is very protective or empowering, then it is a good policy, if not, then it should be scrapped. We need police, fire fighters, hospitals, food and drug inspectors, environmental protections, national defense, etc., because they protect our very existence. We need schools, libraries, research grants, enrichment programs, and so forth, because they make that existence worth living. I finish today's post with an earnest plea. Never allow political expediency or ideology cloud the issue, the question is simple: to what extent does this protect or empower my fellow citizens? It is only after this question is answered in the affirmative that new policy should be enacted.
A good government fulfills two basic functions: to protect and to empower. Protection can be obvious, like national defense and police, or it can be less tangible, like the sewer systems protecting us from illnesses. Similarly, empowerment can be obvious, like affirmative action or subsidizing certain activities, or it can be much more hidden, as the education system or public libraries. These two functions are vital to a good government, and no successful society can exist without a guarantee of protection and a mechanism of empowerment. In the budget debates of the past year, a lot of numbers have been thrown around about the outrageous cost of government (and many costs are outrageous), but there has been little attention focused on the human value of those costs. By human value I mean the extent to which a certain policy or institution serves the fundamental goals of government. If a policy, such as lowering student loan rates to combat skyrocketing loan debt, is analyzed through an economic lens, it may seem financial folly, but one must read these situations through a human lens. Empowering our next generation to have the skills to be successful in a complex modern world should be the first priority of any nation - the benefits cannot be overstated. Because such a policy would empower a great portion of the population, it is a vital function of government and should not be casually discarded in the name of economic convenience.
The example of student loan rates is a simple one, but the same analysis can be applied to nearly any political issue. The primary question should be: "To what extent does this policy or institution empower or protect a segment of the population?" If the policy is very protective or empowering, then it is a good policy, if not, then it should be scrapped. We need police, fire fighters, hospitals, food and drug inspectors, environmental protections, national defense, etc., because they protect our very existence. We need schools, libraries, research grants, enrichment programs, and so forth, because they make that existence worth living. I finish today's post with an earnest plea. Never allow political expediency or ideology cloud the issue, the question is simple: to what extent does this protect or empower my fellow citizens? It is only after this question is answered in the affirmative that new policy should be enacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)