Blogs and Stories
Spreading the Wealth Around
To suggest that "redistribution" is a dirty word is a terrible insult to American history—and to the democratic process itself.
In its final stages, the McCain campaign is placing a lot of emphasis on the R word—redistribution. It is insisting that Barack Obama favors redistribution, that he wants to “spread the wealth around,” and that he might even be a socialist. These claims are a form of desperation—and a disservice both to American history and American voters.
The latest “evidence” is a 2001 interview in which Obama rejected the effort to redistribute resources through the courts, said the Constitution “is generally a charter of negative liberties,” and added that the Warren Court “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” In rejecting judicially enforced redistribution, Obama aligned himself with conservative thinkers such as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Judge Robert Bork. Some people argue that Obama also implied, or suggested, that legislatures, rather than courts, should enter “into the issues of redistribution of wealth.”
The McCain campaign suggests that this is scary stuff. But the suggestion is preposterous. John McCain himself favors redistribution; so did Ronald Reagan.
The McCain campaign suggests that this is scary stuff. But the suggestion is preposterous. John McCain himself favors redistribution; so did Ronald Reagan; so did Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, great defenders of free markets who launched the most devastating critiques of socialism.
What is meant by the word “redistribution”? Let us put to one side corporate bailouts, subsidies for the well-off, defense contracts, and tax breaks for industry. When the McCain campaign complains of “spreading the wealth around,” it seems to be focusing on economic assistance to those who are not doing especially well. Consider some examples from the current campaign:
Obama supports the Social Security Act. He believes in unemployment insurance. He has supported increases in the minimum wage. He wants to strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. He favors the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives wage supplements to the working poor. He believes in a progressive income tax. He wants to expand the Head Start program. He favors reform of Medicare to improve benefits for senior citizens. He supports Medicaid. He seeks to ensure that every child in the United States has health care—and also a decent education.
In all of these respects, Obama does favor redistribution. But on more than one of these issues, McCain fundamentally agrees with Obama; he is certainly not an opponent of redistribution as such. Reagan himself referred, with enthusiastic approval, to the “social safety net,” declaring at a time of budgetary austerity in 1981: “We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who through no fault of their own must depend on the rest of us, the poverty-stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need, can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.”
Reagan’s social safety net “spread the wealth around.” Was it a form of socialism? Was Friedman (one of Reagan’s heroes, and a truly foundational figure for the right) a socialist because he favored a negative income tax? Was Hayek (one of Margaret Thatcher’s heroes, and perhaps the 20th century’s most important defender of capitalism) a socialist because he supported “the certainty of a given minimum sustenance for all,” including “some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health”?
James Madison is often referred to as the father of our Constitution. But he did not oppose redistribution. On the contrary—in describing ways of combating “the evil of parties,” he offered a list:
“1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth to a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”
The English Poor Laws, put in place in the 16th and 17th centuries, established public responsibility for support of those who needed help. The essential framework was imported into the American colonies. It was supported by members of the founding generation. In one or another form, it provided the basis for assistance to the needy for many decades.
The word “redistribution” is often associated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. It is true that FDR favored not only economic growth, but also a progressive income tax, minimum wage legislation, and efforts to provide basic opportunities for all. (By the way, Republican Theodore Roosevelt, McCain’s hero and FDR’s cousin, was a strong defender of the progressive income tax, a primary engine of redistribution.) In recent years, there has been some debate about FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, announced in 1944. The Second Bill included the right to a good education; the right to adequate medical care; the right to trade without domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears associated with old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing.
Obama has never supported anything like FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (though Hayek supported parts of it).
In context, however, it is clear that FDR was speaking about the democratic process, not about any change in the Constitution, or about judicial enforcement of positive rights. Like Obama, FDR was skeptical of social reform through the judiciary. He was committed to capitalism and to free enterprise. He despised socialism. His Second Bill of Rights was meant as a strong signal about what he saw, late in his life, as the core of his domestic policies—including those pursued by the Social Security Administration, the Office of Education, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (newly relevant these months), and several agencies whose goal was to ensure that people had decent opportunities and access to remunerative employment. In the years since FDR’s death, many of those policies, however redistributive, have been pursued, in one fashion or another, by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.
To be sure, some of the disagreements between the McCain and Obama campaigns fall under the general rubric of “redistribution.” McCain has voted against increases in the minimum wage. For health care, Obama’s plan is more ambitious than McCain’s. McCain has been critical of the Head Start program. McCain does not favor tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 each year; Obama does favor such tax increases (returning to Reagan-era, pre-Bush levels).
It is certainly legitimate to debate each of these differences. But it is ludicrous to cast aspersions on, or to raise fears about, those who favor redistribution through the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Social Security Act, or Medicare and Medicaid. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that “redistribution” is a dirty word. That suggestion is a terrible insult to American history—and to the democratic process itself.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
The word "socialism" is merely used as a voodoo incantation, a word that has long ago ceased to have much meaning but still charms the masses with a generalized sense of evil, a word for people who don't much like words but do like the buzzing of ritualistic sound.
"...it is ludicrous to cast aspersions on, or to raise fears about, those who favor redistribution through the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Social Security Act, or Medicare and Medicaid. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that "redistribution" is a dirty word. That suggestion is a terrible insult to American history-and to the democratic process itself...."
It was one of the last few straws that McCain was clutching at, thanks to his over-all adviser, Joe the Plumber and his economics expertise.
McCain-Palin are trying to exploit it, coating "redistribution" with language that's clearly intended to additional fear to our economic distress. It misrepresents our long established system, including progressive income tax, social security and many other programs.
More than misrepresentation alone, I think it also reflects either McCain's ignorance on this (very disappointing, if true) and/or deliberate twisting things that are sure to cause fear.
Rather than doing it himself, he let Palin give a 'policy' speech on energy this morning. She wasn't persuasive reading what seemed to me her 'term paper'. That got clouded in the recent report on some 'irregularities' in bidding process for the $40B pipeline through Alaska.
Where's McCain of 2000 I used to like?
even if the US had a flat tax, it would still be redistributive - all taxes are redistibutive. we use taxes to provide public goods like defense and infrastructure. the rich would be better able to purchase these goods on their own, so when the government provides them to the public at large, using tax dollars, there is an inherent element of redistribution.
It's absurd for McCain to use the "s" and "r" words, when his own party has just lead the movement to turn America's financial system into a model that the "Communist" Chinese government would recognize well.
Well done!
Past redistributive programs were created with the purpose of providing for the COMMON welfare. The persons to be benefitted had to meet particular eligibility requirements. (Sloth, ignorance, poor work habits, poor attitude, criminal background and the like were not indicia of eligibility.) The past form of redistribution stems from the notion that there will be other costs borne by the achievers if a minimal level of "sustenance" is not provided to the non-achievers. Although it is difficult to quantify these other costs, they are assumed to be greater than the cost of the redistributive programs and therefore of benefit to society as a whole. What has been exposed with Obama is a belief, not that there should be a safety net, but that life is inherently unfair and that this perceived unfairness can and should be rectified by government. This disproven and utopian notion is deemed to justify a pervasive governmental intrusion into the lives and welfare of anyone who has an ability to pay. What has been exposed is that, regardless of the cause of your condition, Obama views you worthy of receiving other peoples' money. He wants to use the force of the federal government to create equality of outcome. This is not a safety net; it's a hammer and sickle being wielded against those who've worked hard to achieve.
youcanhandlethetruth, I love how people with money like to claim that anyone that receives government help is "lazy, slothful, etc." I guess we should have all had the decency to be born in a family that already had the money to send us to college so we can be sucessful, like you right? You sound like another jackass scared that us poor folk just wanna steal yo' hard earned money. The point of social programs is to help other people reach a level of sucess they would not otherwise be able to obtain. It also helps people who have lost jobs, through no fault of their own, get by until they can get another job. They fact that you believe that we are living it up on your hard earned dime shows how ignorant and overprivilaged you probably are. Anyone who has the misfortune to have to apply for unemployment knows that you recieve less than half of what you made at your job and you are only eligible for about 9 weeks after which you are cut off. A family of four earning over 20,000 a year don't qualify for food stamps. 20,000 for four people a year BEFORE TAXES!!! Is that what you consider living it up on government money. I despise people like you. People like me, trying to finish my education, work, and take care of my children, would be thrown in the street to starve to death just so you can tell yourself that your money is safe. Anyone who believes that the "welfare queens" of America live the way they do just because they are too lazy to work must be too ignorant to understand the complex sociological factors that contribute to continued poverty in America and completely ignores those many, many American's, like me, who need help to raise themselves up out of poverty so we can help the next set of unfortunate people. I hope you go bankrupt you ass so you can see what it is like to be treated like crap because you need some help.
Excellent article, the problem with most Americans is we do not know our history very well or what certain terms mean. The Socialism term the republicans are throwing out there is really a reference to the old left the people who believed in Stalin until they realized he was a mass murder. Even then many where in denial about Stalin and communism/socialism. In America we have a mixed economey we are capitalist but we have elements of socialism mixed in. Things like social security, medicare police department fire departments public schools etc. Lets hope people in America see through this non-sense !
ccrase:
When my paternal grandparents made good money they were millworkers. Before that they were domestic help for a widow and her mentally disabled son. My grandmother waited tables to supplement the family income.When my father was young they lived above a bakery and shared a single bath with three other tenants. After that, they lived in servant's quarters. For college, my father attended the "extension" in the basement of his high school. My grandmother sold her wedding and engagement rings to help put my father through college. They borrowed no money and received no grants, loans or tax credits.
My maternal grandmother was abandoned by her husband and had to place her 3 children with her mother or in a Lutheran orphanage for long periods. Before this, the family resided in a homes with no electricity or indoor plumbing.
I was raised in a 900 square foot ranch house in a neighborhood that would have been called a ghetto, except it wasn't inhabited by people like you.
No family member has ever been the recipient of government assistance. The orphanage my mother lived in wasn't funded by money extorted from others by the government. Her contributions to the Lutheran church later in life vastly exceeded the cost of the assistance her mother received.
I weep for you. How's your cell phone plan working out? How about that high speed internet connection? Only got basic cable? Poor soul. I'm not going bankrupt, but if I did you'd surely starve and die you poor victim of capitalist greed. Want my money to ease your victimhood? Com'n get it.
By the way, if I believed Obama, I'd benefit from his declared plans. Someday, when you've overcome your sociological factors,and brushed up on your grammar, you too may have the privilege of raising others out of poverty. In fact, if you feel strongly about the power of government to get results, you can send in even more money than the treasury agents ask of you. Your kids won't need it. They'll be "overprivaleged" "sucessful" "American's" like me cause you learned 'em right.
Awsome comeback attacking my grammer! I am sure you have never made the mistake of posting something without checking over it first. Thanks for your life story I was really captivated by it. You proved my point about what an arrogent ass you are. I never said I was a victim, you made that assumption because I am admittedly poor. I fight everyday to get myself out of the poverty that I was born into. That is your mindset, anyone who is poor is pathetic and lazy. Hey, why don't you have "my people" rounded up and put somewhere where you don't have to see them anymore? A person who goes to school using loans isn't pathetic, it is a LOAN which as the name suggests, must be paid back. That is not a hand out you idiot, if you get a loan for a house the bank is not GIVING you a house they are lending you the money which they expect back. Guess what? School loans work the same way, except you can't even file bankrupcy on them if you decide you can't pay it back. If this is a government for the people, by the people and that includes poor people. Apparently, from the tone of your responses the only really despictable poor people are minorities or "my people". But what about people who have lost their jobs because the company they work for just went through downsizing or moved overseas. Those people are poor. Are they pieces of crap too? You are a sad ignorant person whose badass, hardworking family forgot to work hard at raising a compassionate human being. And since we are trading life stories, here I have one for you. Both of my parents served in the army, and three of my brothers have fought in Iraq. My great-grandfather was a sheriff, my Grandfather was the chief of police of a large city, and my Grandma was a cop also. I come from hardworking people who have served this country and protected the people in it. So "my people" deserve to be here as much as you do but I have one up on you. My family taught me to care about people and to help when someone is in trouble. I don't look at people and try to appraise what they are stealing from me like you do.
I have deduced a disastrous result of Senator Obama's economic plan, which no one seems to have explored in the media or via the Internet. It is as follows....
1- Senator Obama purposes to raise taxes to those making yealrly over $250.000 by 3%.
The overlooked problem with his proposal, that unfortunately no one has dove into is, Family's with Children.
What if Family A - Who makes $250.000 yearly, has four small children and a
$400.000 dollar mortgage.
Compared to
Family B - who makes $250.000 yearly, has no children and a $100.000 mortgage.
Senator Obama's plan is not factoring children who require school costs, larger living quarters, higher insurance's, food, clothing, daycare and so forth. While those without children, a low mortgage and living in a smaller home, can possibly survive this plan a bit further.
With this Spread the wealth plan, Senator Obama is jeopardizing more than small businesses. It is everything he is saying he will protect. Education, Insurance's, Children and Home Mortgages.
Will Senator Obama's plan be different for a bachelor without any children at
$250.000 yearly?
Compared to
A Family of 5 earning $250.000 yearly.
It would take Trillions of dollars yearly to deduce how Senator Obama's plan would differ from ...
A - A Business who's owner was a self supportive Bachelor.
Or
B- A business who's owner has children and more costs in which to raise them adequately.
The main discussions of Senator Obama has been spreading the wealth to those less fortunate in their small businesses or endeavors. The term "Taking food from my children's mouth." Does seem to apply to his Spread the wealth proposal.
The costs are astronomical when you have children. Being he has two children of his own, I am very surprised that this plan left out what I have entitled
the "Family Clause ."
My name is Skyler James and I am a student of Psychology, Music Teacher, Writer and Inventor.
I am not a Democrat nor Republican. I am a proud American and concerned home owner.
Please email me your thoughts.
A brief summary and extension of my thoughts,
I had a few moments to the laptop. I added another topic of my concern phased into a question. How can we tax all those over $250.000 as the same economic level? That being when there are so many factors dealing with the single, opposed to family living arraignments / costs. My concerns are quite simply if a couple has another child and costs of living go up' that coincide the 3% tax increase. Will that put their companies employees job in jeopardy, do to the 3% increase will minimize the business owners recourses to keep him working? Transferring the 3% of the unemployed worker to now their child's well being. It is a meltdown process, do to there are way to many factors to the out right plan. I feel it will never be possible without an "Individual Clause " and a " Family Claus " tax proposal set in place. Which is near imposible.
The fact is, I simply go by what Senator Obama says. Many people have agreed with my thoughts and economic site. I don't mind criticism or opinions. I am a psychology student though vary on all forms of life. My original studies were on dissecting the 3% tax increase, on what was once $250.000 -- now Senator Obama has reduced that to a $200.000 yearly income. Again raising taxes in an economic crisis is the wrong format to conjure ... period. Why push yourself to make more than $200.000. Why not make $190.000 and avoid the tax increase. The further the yearly income number is dropped depicts what is considered the middle class. You will soon see more people filing less of a yearly income. Which will cause less of a tax credit? Why make $202.000 yearly, when the $2000.00 extra income will be less than the 3% tax increase? Costing you more money to pay in taxes. TRULY: Where will a document exist that can honestly show...When an American citizen pays their ENTIRE 3% tax increase... ALL earnings will go to lower income families. An increase in taxes, followed by a complete trust of distributing the ENTIRE 3% of taxes. It is to much of a gamble.
I study Psychology and my main focus was on the 3% Tax increase initiated by Senator Obama. I only focused on that very aspect of Senator Obama in a Family Oriented analysis. I study Psychology and truthfully can tell you; That unfortunately so many people in this Country and beyond crave money over emotions. I knowingly believe what will fix this economy. That is ethics, humanity and compassion towards others. The money that leaves our hands is then intrusted in others. They must exercise these human emotions. My advise is ... Go to different sites that are not Presidentially funded, Democrat nor Republican. Again my study was on Senator Obama's tax increase and how it will effect Families. The "Family Clause"... I entitled it. I don't want to decide your vote, so please research all Senator Mccaiin and Obama's proposals and what educated economic opinions are offered. God bless you and whomever you may VOTE for. Be well, Skyler James.
I study Psychology and my main focus was on the 3% Tax increase initiated by Senator Obama. I only focused on that very aspect of Senator Obama in a Family Oriented analysis. I study Psychology and truthfully can tell you; That unfortunately so many people in this Country and beyond crave money over emotions. I knowingly believe what will fix this economy. That is ethics, humanity and compassion towards others. The money that leaves our hands is then intrusted in others. They must exercise these human emotions. My advise is ... Go to different sites that are not Presidentially funded, Democrat nor Republican. Again my study was on Senator Obama's tax increase and how it will effect Families. The "Family Clause"... I entitled it. I don't want to decide your vote, so please research all Senator Mccaiin and Obama's proposals and what educated economic opinions are offered. God bless you and whomever you may VOTE for. Be well, Skyler James.
Mr. Sunstein, aren't you an advisor to the Obama campaign?
Congratulations President Obama. Your speech was so very moving and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for making so many of us smile. We are so proud of you on this historic day. Always and forever, know that your Grandmother is watching over you. With such great pride and love for you, her loving grandson. Her smile will forever guide you on your journeys. To light up a world, that was once without light. I saw a kindness in your eyes as you spoke so humbly to America. That which gave true hope to so many, near and afar. We all know that people disagree on so many issues. Though I know, we as a Country will pull together. I have learned so much through these past joyous hours. I keep hearing in my mind...Yes we can....Yes we can....Again it was a true honor listening to you on your special night. I woke up this morning to a much needed smile and it has been a day filled with true hope. Senator Mccain inspired me in so many different ways. With his words and his never ending quest to make this Country a safer place. As we sleep soundly this night, we thank you Mr. Mccain. We will never forget the sacrifices you endured for ourselves and our children. For the present and the future you will always be our hero. I am so proud of you both, President Obama and Senator Mccain. I am so proud of you both, Senator Biden and Governor Palin. I am so proud of this Country. I am so proud to be an American. Thank you again, Sincerely Skyler James.
RE; Youcanthandlethetruth
This was a good attempt at criticism of some specific "redistribution" system, but there were several assumptions made that are questionable at best.
First problem is that the idea of helping people that "don't" deserve" help is what Obama stands for is just not correct.
Then Youcanthandlethetruth assumes that the money made by the upper class is earned by their effort alone. In reality, wealth is created by many and also made possible by the existing social and economic system. The systems as a whole (represented by government) has the right to collect some of the money it helped to produce and then "redistribute" it. There could be a discussion of where the money goes and who gets it, but the notion of progressive tax is generally agreed on even by conservative thinkers.
In my humble opinion, it is better to field some that "don't deserve it (although I have hard time understanding who doesn't deserve to eat), than leave many more hard working peple in poverty just because our financial and economic system is bent towards money going to money.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.