Our one nation is becoming increasingly divisible
Tom Paine, newly arrived from France, saw the times as a test for men’s souls.
Alexander Hamilton, a young pauper from the West Indies, arrived in time to take that test - and passed. Thomas Jefferson, the wealthy Virginia landowner, and Molly Pitcher, the little girl of Irish poverty - all different, all foreign to one another, but all sharing the same dream of a nation dedicated to Liberty and Equality, belonging to and serving all its people alike.
Those earliest citizens collected their dreams and put them into the preamble of their menu for America, insisting that “We the People ... establish Justice ... (and) promote the general Welfare.” Never before had such noble purpose and humanitarian promise been the motivating goal of nationhood; never before had a future shone so brightly for a nation of immigrants.
Unfortunately, even the highest of principles can in time fade and although those proclamations established the standards and set the traditions that became our national character and by which we, then and still, define ourselves, they are now becoming increasingly less applicable. Fading dreams cannot long stand up to the contrary demands of reality.
Robert Faber
Whatever the cost, the first obligation of a country at war is its military mission, but second and third and still further on down the list is the continuing necessity to fund the basics of governance so that the country will still be a viable nation when that war is won. The health needs of our people must still be attended, and the police must still maintain order, and the potholes must still be filled - at whatever the cost.
True, the treasury is not without limit, so if running the war and paying for police and fire protection and keeping schools and hospitals open cannot be continued in reasonable fashion with the same income, then clearly a better balance between need and delivery must be achieved.
There is always room, of course, for improved efficiency, but equally obvious is the need for an increase in our national income, whether by raising income taxes or instituting different kinds of taxes or finding new sources of income altogether. These are all issues of great moment, but they are matters more of tactics than of basic philosophy.
World War II broke out during the worst depression in our nation’s history, but even without available funds we managed to build a massive, world-class air force and hire millions of soldiers to fire new weapons and ride in new tanks and float on new ships and do all those many things required of a military power. Meeting those demands required dedication and sacrifice - freezing defense workers’ salaries, doubling taxes on the middle class, taxing up to 88 percent of the income of the most wealthy - but we paid for the war, won the war and kept the country operating.
Cutting costs to relieve an over-extended budget is sound fiscal policy, but simply transferring that burden onto the shoulders of our least advantaged by cutting back on such welfare benefits as food stamps for the hungry or Head Start for the impoverished or housing assistance for the homeless is irresponsible and makes a shambles of the principles on which our nation was founded.
The very fact of our national concern for setting and meeting standards of care for our least advantaged is testimony to the unique nature of our democracy and is what helps distinguish our country from all others in the world - perhaps even in world history. Our nation’s humanitarian needs should be kept immune from the pressures and preferences of the privileged and powerful. There should be guidelines for our actions, but those guidelines must be principled rather than politically convenient. And after 225 years of service, where better to find that principle than in the preamble to our Constitution where We the People pledged to “promote the general Welfare.”
To bring funding and need into reasonable balance we have to concentrate on the principles that have defined and inspired our people since our nation’s birth - and if its benefits are not available within the limits of the existing budget, revise the budget - not the principle.
Those programs that serve our people must not be dismissed when they become inconvenient and if sacrifices are required they should be borne by all our people, privileged and needy alike.
In his second inaugural address in 1937, Franklin Roosevelt said, “Government is competent when all who comprise it work as trustees for the whole people”— not a bad definition of principles by which to govern and to live.
Rober Faber is a long-time Ann Arbor resident and retired businessman, who served a couple of terms on the Ann Arbor City Council. He also writes an occasional column on aging for AnnArbor.com’s Community Focus section. He may be reached at rgfaber@comcast.net.
Comments
snapshot
Thu, Aug 19, 2010 : 11:50 p.m.
The biggest fraud on the American people is performend by government employees who don't have to do their jobs because there is no accountability liability. They have total immunity to incompetance. That's why the defense contractors and financial institutions and the BP's of the world can rip off the taxpayer, because the government employees the taxpayers are paying to mind our government business aren't doing their jobs.
snapshot
Thu, Aug 19, 2010 : 11:41 p.m.
Hey Ghost, do you doubt that small businesses are the largest employers in the U.S.? There's 300 million people. Where do you think most of them work? I would recommend you read a financial publication so you can relate to the facts rather than create inacurate innuendos. Small businesses are the largest employers in the United States.
jcj
Wed, Aug 18, 2010 : 11 p.m.
@ demistify I agree with you for the most part. However the part of your post that had your solutions to the problem must have been deleted because I did not see it. As for original thought. Well sometimes the truth is the truth no matter who says it or when. You can't turn a pumpkin into a pineapple just because your looking for something different.
demistify
Wed, Aug 18, 2010 : 9:36 p.m.
I just plowed through 58 comments, and it was very depressing. They came from different parts of the political spectrum, but there was nothing I had not heard before. It was all recycled talking points (Some of the more honest even provided links to where they got them). There was no attempt at conversation or problem solving, only harangue with pre-packaged spin. What I found particularly sad was not merely the lack of original thoughts but that the posters apparently felt that regurgitation is more convincing than brainstorming.
Mr. Tibbs
Wed, Aug 18, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.
people in here are asking the right questions. WHy aren't hurting homeowners being helped? It seems to me that when fiscal conservatives were asking that very question we were attacked...HARD! Obama claims to be going after the rich but he gave the richest of the rich in this country billions of bailouts so they can remain rich and yet you still support him? Obama claims to be going after the Oil companies yet he recieved more money from BP thaan any other cnadidate did in 08..... oh and just in case you don't believe me. Google Doud McKelway, the reporter who lost his job at ABC for reporting that very fact. why are people in the government going after this net neutrality thing when we already have the freedom of speech and anonymity, to a certain degree...that is. they know who we are and right where we are sitting.... look the people who are willing to give are getting sick of giving to those who refuse to find work. Atlas Shrugged....? I wish I could just throw it all down. The needy are needy, and safety nets are a necessary evil. but they should not be a way of life as it has indeed become.
Mr. Tibbs
Wed, Aug 18, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.
I just wish we had a flat tax. even the "fair tax would be better than what we have now. But those that are against it are telling lies...AGAIN. if this tax is implemented, it will eliminate all the others, no federal income tax, nothing. but even that I believe is a lie, eliminating the other taxes....while the people telling us how bad the fair tax will be are not telling you is it is SUPPOSED to eliminate the other taxes....I do not care. I wish we had a flat tax. you make "X" you pay "X" percent of your income. Bill Gates will still be Bill Gates and Donald Trump will still be DOnald Trump....and you and I will have the pleasure of KNOWING, finally, that they are paying thier fair share. everyone pays "X" percent of what ever they have as income. it is what the former soviet satellite countries did to balance thier books. but we are becoming a nation of dependants. mommy and daddy are going to die soon. what are you going to do then? how are you going to pay for rent? the phone? the food? the dishnetwork TV? the basement we are all living in will be repossesed if we do not do something. so lets say "IF" the day comes and it all does fall apart. do you have a plan? the people you surround yourselves with, do they have a plan? the TV show the colony....is a freekin' TV show. right now, in real life, in real time, people are being killed. that only makes good TV for anti gun and anti 2nd amendment freeks. but right now in arizona people are being killed. I have a sister there. People are dying in detroit right now. drugs and god knows what else are killing people. do you have a plan? have you food? have you a water source? have you a way to deconaminate the water you have available to you? you will have 48 hours to get this right. "IF" it all just happens to fall apart, the soviet union fell apart. what makes you thik it won't happen here? there is a reason we are divided. and it has nothing to do with who we are, what color we are. and if you have no idea what I am talking about, you are one of the doomed.
Roadman
Tue, Aug 17, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.
What I have seen is a multi-billion dollar bailout of banks, who are turning around and using the funds to finance foreclosure and collection suits against consumers. Comerica Bank, for example, received 2.25 billion dollars in federal aid. The 2008 year however. saw a record 2.8 million foreclosure procedings instituted against homeowners and the projected number of such foreclosures will be 4 million in 2010. Where is the effective assistance to homeowners?
Jay Thomas
Tue, Aug 17, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
@DonBee: That's the AFDC welfare program you are talking about. The benefits paid out amount to half of the program; the rest is for overhead to run it. If it was a charity it would be on the list of the worst run for costing so much.
Jay Thomas
Tue, Aug 17, 2010 : 2:01 p.m.
It's liberals who divided this country. You either agree with them or they label you a bigot and say you want children to go hungry.
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.
Roger I guess its more politically correct to discriminate against those with money! I have no problem giving help to those in need. But it does become a crutch. I have relatives that I have seen first hand beg for money and the next time I see them they are likely to have another tattoo or child. They get assistance with their housing and child support! I see countless "poor" with tattoos. Any idea what a tattoo cost? I guarantee you a large part of them do not work for there money just like my relatives don't.
Roger Roth
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.
@David Briegel wrote: "The idea that so many people buy into the mythology that the privileged won't make out in our system of gov't for hire has to be proof of our failed educational system!" I don't think things like this are generally covered in school. Then, when kids go on to college, they specialize and, unless the specialty is in economics or politics, it's not likely they'll deal with it there either. Good and important point, but how do you suggest it be handled? For example, "government for hire" is the elephant in the room that no one admits to, especially the ins, and the ins deny it when the outs accuse them of it. Then, when the electorate gets disenchanted with the ins, they vote in the outs who get accused by the new outs (old ins) of being bought. I tell you, it's a circus that makes Ringling Bros. Barnum and Baily look like schoolboys!
Roger Roth
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.
@jcj I'm for bailouts (welfare)!!! I just don't discriminate against individuals in need, as some posting here indicate by their comments do.
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
@Roger "Stop picking on the poor. Raise the minimum wage to $20/hr." Wow what a brilliant idea! That should get the economy going! As for me I was not and am still not in favor of all the government bailouts whether they were implemented by Bush or Obama! But just who got bailed out the CEO's or the workers? I guarantee you the ones that would have suffered would have been the workers! The CEO's would have gotten away with plenty to last them a lifetime or two. So while I still oppose the bailouts your ranting about it only shows you don't understand who was helped the most! And further shows your unwillingness to face any facts! Talk to some of the workers and see if the ones you say you support opposed a bailout of the company they worked for. It would please me to no end to see some of the corporate big wigs get what they deserve. And I am not talking about a big bonus every year!
Roger Roth
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.
@sbbuilder I have run a small business for years but I did not follow my own principles. So, business owners have the moral license to take advantage of "the labor market" and pay workers under poverty level wages, according to your philosophy? And government has the moral right to be an accomplice? This is why I say that we are essentially living in a slave society, where it's ok, if not applauded, to value an honest day's work at something less than poverty level, simply because there are enough needy workers to fill the slot. The other side of that is, if we justify it saying these workers are unskilled, then, what we're saying, in effect, is that we expect even fast food workers to have PhD's. Then, would we pay them something closer to poverty level wages? I think not. One of the raging arguments around here these days is that schools are failing. If this is so, and miraculously in 25 years, everyone gets a PhD, then where are we? How does that solve anything, except stop the griping about schools. What do you do with those less fortunate, less able, less talented, less stable, less wily, less whatever? Even with a perfect, benevolent government and society, what do you do with them? Let them eat cake? As wealth continues to migrate away from the masses into the hands and control of the few, the problems associated with ubiquitous poverty will be so outrageously grand that even the wealth of the few will not be able to control the blight. I'm not religious, but I think I do believe that "The meek shall inherit the earth"--probably in small increments and maybe it's happening now. One thing I wonder about is if when it's all said and done, the world is going to be worth inheriting. That's why I feel uneasy about our kids and their kids.
DonBee
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
I am not a lawyer, but when the police refuse to take a report, nothing is going to be done in my experience. As to major issues, I reported more cases than I care to think about when I was in the service, from $23.20 silicon grease in 2 ounce tubes that I could buy at the hardware for $0.99 to people removing material from the base for their own purposes, to contract issues with major vendors. I spent more time with paperwork than I care to think about. Don't assume that because I did like wasting money, that I have a specific leaning or voting pattern.
sbbuilder
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 12:26 p.m.
Roger All I'll say is: Try to run your own small business based on your principles and see how long it lasts.
Roger Roth
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.
I wonder how anyone can begrudge an individual getting a meager amount of help from the government when government, that's congress, has been so generous with subsidies and bailouts, not to mention legislation and loopholes (I'm sure I've missed dozens) that favor additions to the bottom lines of corps. and wealthy individuals. Now my tongue is in my cheek: There's got to be a conspiracy out there to keep the poorer angry and pitted against each other and distracted from pro action against the government. Really, come up with the figure that truthfully represents government's "favors" to those other than the poor and see how it compares with poor alms. That stuff is so ubiquitous and is often so deeply mired in economic policy that even the government couldn't find it. Stop picking on the poor. Raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. The demand for a hamburger shouldn't be kept artificially high simply because the person making or serving it is deemed not to be worth wages above poverty level. We're running a slave society. If a person is willing to work a full week in a fast food joint. then she/he should be paid a living wage. Oh, I forgot. It's not advantageous to a fast food joint's bottom line to hire full-time employees. Same now seems true for many other employees and businesses--thanks to our government. It's all very complicated.
Sam
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.
I love the fact that the "Fjord's" of the world that probably don't pay taxes (income anyway), love to give away other peoples hard earned incomes. I wish we were all paid in GROSS dollars and had to send a check to the government everymonth for FICA, Medicare, Income taxes...that would get a few more people on board with fewer welfare programs and more income generating proposals. Also, America seemed to get along just fine before people began to separate themselves with names like "african americans" and "hispanic americans"...how about we are all just americans? Get over the difference in skin color and understand that prejiduce is probably stronger in the minds that "see" color everyday as opposed to just living life every day...
mike from saline
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.
I've never seen anyone buy beer with food stamps! What I have seen [too many times to count] is someone paying for food items [$25-$40], and then pulling out a wad of CASH to pay for Beer, cigarettes, and LOTTO ticket's. I worked in Detroit for 22 years. It happens all the time!
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
@Roger All good legitimate questions. I for one don't claim to have the answers. Lets suppose that all the rich in the world turned over their fortunes to 25% of the poor. What percentage of the 25% would turn over any of their new found fortune to any of the other 75% of the poor that got nothing from the rich? If we spread the wealth evenly across the globe how long would it take for a small percentage of people to gain most of it back? Why? Take a look at all of the lottery winners over the last 20 years. How many of them are any better off today than they were before their winnings? There will always be those that have and those that have not. For those that have no matter how little there is always the question of what can/should I do for my fellow man. On what does anyone base the belief that we should do anything for those less fortunate?
Roger Roth
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 9:13 a.m.
Seems to me that when you have an earth so insanely rich with natural resources, perhaps even enough to adequately support our 6 billion people and fewer and fewer are getting a "fair" share and so many live in poverty, that there's bound to rise resentment of the haves by the have-nots. So, how much is enough? Who deserves and who does not? Put forth your criteria for deeming one to be deserving and not another. Why do we value work the way we do? Just what is "an honest day's pay?" Who says? Who gets the land? Why? Because they inherit it? There are peoples in the world that live on next to nothing in some of the most inhospitable places. This problem is as old as dirt. It's good, I think, that people only live about 80 years. Time enough to amass wealth and pass it on but not so much time that they'll be around to suffer the dire consequences of this unsustainable way of life and its collapse. Maybe we're seeing the early stages of it now. Better hurry!
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Ok now we have established a baseline we agree fraud exist everywhere in and out of government. I have no disagreement with the fact that corporations are stealing untold billions from tax payers. But they could not accomplish this without the aid of crooked politicians on the left and right! We can go tit for tat in naming politicians on both sides of the isle that have or will be found corrupt. But it does no good to point fingers at only those corrupt officials with a different ideology than OURS. "That's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I've ever heard one. Must be the government's fault that you observed food stamp fraud and did nothing about it." And what have you done to change things you see wrong? "Yes, fraud exists: Penny-ante fraud by food stamp recipients buying beer" Sounds like a politician "it's just a few dollars" That adds up pretty fast! It never ceases to amaze me how some ( I won't use labels here) always skirt the issue at hand by trying to divert the discussion. Again that sounds like a politicians ploy! They are great at changing the subject and not addressing the one in front of them. Do we turn a blind eye to all the "penny ante" crimes?
Top Cat
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 8:36 a.m.
Paine and Jefferson would no doubt be appalled to see our Federal Government involved in a 9 year old war in Afghanistan, running a ponzi scheme know as Social Security and requiring citizens to purchase health insurance. If Mr. Faber is suggesting we pay more taxes and incur more debt to support this, I join many in saying No. November 2!
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.
@ermg "You guys must buy your beer in some very interesting places. In 53 years on this planet, I have never seen anyone pay for beer with food stamps." I have never witnessed a robbery in my 60 years on this planet but I don't deny it happens!
jcj
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 8:17 a.m.
@ERMG Lets establish a baseline if we can. Are you willing to accept that there is waste and fraud in almost every government program in existence? If you are not willing to admit that then you are, to use your own words. "ignorance its design or a desire to argue for argument's sake." If you will admit there is waste and fraud then we can argue how much and its effect. If you can't concede that fact then your just barking at the moon!
DonBee
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
The reason I know little is done, is because I report it. Because I travel all the time and work very late on the job sites, many nights I end up buying dinner at the local party store. I seldom buy beer or wine, mostly hot dogs that have spent way too long on the reheat rack at 11PM.
DonBee
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 6:21 a.m.
Getting around computer scanners is easy, scan some items that cost a bit more than the beer and then leave them behind, walk out with the beer, or double scan some items and walk out with the beer. I don't want to shut down food stamps, but I do want the fraud stopped. Not just in food stamps, but in all government programs. There are thousands of links on the web about government waste and fraud, even if 80 percent of them are bogus, there is still too much. One that I followed with horror was the bus company that took people to Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan to get their welfare checks. They took a cut of the check in each state. I also dislike $600 toilet seats, $2,000 hammers and billion dollar airplanes. The new presidential helicopter is way over budget. The number of Federal government employees keeps rising, Washington DC is the hottest real estate market in the US right now.
DonBee
Mon, Aug 16, 2010 : 6:08 a.m.
Yes, buying beer with food stamps is illegal, and happens all the time. I see it probably 3 or 4 times a year. I grew up where it was very common. Just because it is illegal, does not mean it does not happen. Reporting it gets very little done.
stunhsif
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 7:44 p.m.
@ERMG, The FICA cap is not 96 grand, it is 106,800 and the percentage is 7.65% with half coming from the employee and the other half coming from the employer as noted by SSBuilder. BTW, there is no cap on the Medicare portion of the tax, it goes on forever and I doubt the rich get their monies worth on that one. To say the middle class pays the majority of this tax is wrong. Perhaps including the"upper middle class" would make your assumption closer to correct. I have thought at times that there should be no cap on FICA taxes but then again, I kinda like my check getting bigger at the end of the year for several months. As well, you take more from the rich guys and they are not going to "spread the wealth". An even better idea is, force me to take that money out and put it into a private account, that way, when I croak, I can pass it on to my kids or my favorite charity? Social Insecurity is nothing but a "pyramid scam". I am 51 years old and will probably never see a check. On a side note, I know of party stores in Dearborn that will take food stamps for beer, it happens all the time Ghost and you know it.
Cash
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 6:51 p.m.
Thank you for this, Mr Faber. Very well said.
sbbuilder
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 6:32 p.m.
Ghost I hope this coversation isn't disentegrating into the nit picking stage, but, to counter your point, you only pay half of your FICA. Yet, you receive the full benefit later on. Now, how is that? That is because you EMPLOYER picks up the rest of the tab. As an employer, and a business owner, that comes straight out of my bottom line. So, I directly pay the bill for half of FICA for every employee. That, my friend, is one way in which the 'rich' pay more than their share. (Shall we talk about unemployment insurance, or worker's comp, or the new draconian health care stuff?)
jcj
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.
@ERMG Never mind!
jcj
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.
David To generalize about welfare recipients is no more fair than generalizing about people with money. To say that nobody cheats the welfare system is no more right than me saying all millionaires came by their money honestly! To say you don't know anyone that would rather draw unemployment than work is either naive or disingenuous. Certainly jobs are hard to come by now. But for most of the last 45 years jobs were available and there was always enough people that did not want to work so as to take billions in welfare. "Do any of you know of any billionaire who did poorly under the "burdensome taxes" of your hero Ronnie Reagan or Clinton??" To use your own words! "How silly can we get here???" Of course no billionaires under ANY administration did badly! Your resentment of anyone with money is too bad. I suspect you would not have a job if someone did not have enough money to start whatever business you are or were in! Unless of course you are a government employee. I am not suggesting that we lower the taxes for those making over a certain amount. ( I don't know where I would draw the line.) BUT I am honest enough to admit that the rich pay a much higher percentage of taxes than you or I. And in most cases do not use any where near the services we do! @fjord Go ahead give me some hard facts as to who pays what in taxes. Not how much of a "break" they get but in hard numbers who pays what? Not what your talking heads say.
sbbuilder
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 5:02 p.m.
Ghost Discretionary or not, that is a distinction without a difference. The funds to pay for SS, Medicaide, etc. come from taxes, period. And, the vast bulk of those taxes come from the wealthy, or upper two quartiles. So, you can spin your percentages to suit your distatste for the military, but the fact remains that over half of all taxes collected go to social programs. fjord Could you cherry pick some web sites that corroborate a different slant on taxpayer burden? You don't like 'Conservative' sites, so perhaps you could find some 'Liberal' sites that show how the bottom two quartiles actually pay anything at all. Craig My bad. But, no, I don't have any agenda. I just like facts and clarification. The problems with Mr Faber's assertion that the principles need to remain unchanged are 1) just whose definition are we using re principles and 2) more and more people are finding their way into the cart being pulled by fewer and fewer people. As a nation, we have been willing to afford the needy a huge hand out. I think, however, that we are rapidly reaching a point where there are too few people left to do the handing out, and too many with their hands out.
David Briegel
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.
Yeah, we better do something about those lazy welfare cheats drivin' their Cadillacs and buyin' beer with food stamps. Except this argument is so silly because Clinton and Bush already fixed that one. I really don't know anyone who would rather draw unemployment or welfare than work. Heck, degreed people can't find work and you think people are lazy. How silly can we get here??? How about the "self esteem" of the billionaire whose lobbyist got him his generous tax break/shelter? Even some of them have enough of a conscience that they feel guilty. Doesn't stop 'em! Do any of you know of any billionaire who did poorly under the "burdensome taxes" of your hero Ronnie Reagan or Clinton?? The idea that so many people buy into the mythology that the privileged won't make out in our system of gov't for hire has to be proof of our failed educational system!
stunhsif
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 2:59 p.m.
@Macabre Sunset, Agree fully with folks getting government assistance (gifts from the taxpayers) having to do something in return for the gift(s). We would be much better off if we had "workfare" instead of "welfare". Plus the people getting workfare have more self esteem knowing that they are being productive citizens rather than mooching off the taxpayers. It is a win win for everyone!
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.
Something has to change, that's for certain. We are bankrupting our country. We agree that wealthier people should pay more for the same service. They do. The top five percent of taxpayers foot about half of the bill. One question is how steep a curve should our progressive tax system support. Difficult question. The steeper it gets, the less incentive there is for wealthy people to provide jobs for others, as their entrepreneurial spirit means less marginal income. And the flatter it gets, the more difficult life becomes for people in poverty. To add to this problem, the tax code is a mish-mosh of special-interest-granted bonuses. Some wealthy people have been able to purchase exceptions from their representatives. This has resulted in less trust that the system is fair. However, raising taxes may not result in more money in the treasury. At some point, raising taxes only limits production and can actually result in less revenue. Another set of important questions relates to providing entitlements. At what point are the entitlements so expansive that people don't feel a need to work? I would recommend that we put in place a system where if someone takes from the government, they have to perform a public service of some sort. A "thank you" to the taxpayers who made that safety net possible.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.
@sbbuilder "Craig I'm confused. Are taxes supposed to be the great societal equalizer? Are taxes supposed to pull down the rich into middle class status? What the heck! When ~40% of the population pays no tax at all, or even receives a subsidy, then something is indeed amiss." There should be nothing confusing about what I wrote unless you read it with an agenda. To answer your two questions no and no. I didn't suggest either in what I wrote. Your attempting to "read between the lines" with your particular agenda. My first sentence was my whole point. The rest was just a way to back the point with fact.
David Briegel
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 1 p.m.
Craig, and so many of the wealthy pay little or no tax! Ask Exxon and Warren Buffet. And the Tea Partiers don't even realize they had a tax cut and their fight is really for the top 2% of income earners! Silly isn't it? Stunhsif, and in the good ole days people were bankrupt, homeless and starving. All around us. I know you long for those days. Mike, but they are free. Or are they? jcj, facts and reality aren't propoganda! We bailed out the "free market" billionaires and did nothing for the average man. Nothing!
sbbuilder
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.
Craig I'm confused. Are taxes supposed to be the great societal equalizer? Are taxes supposed to pull down the rich into middle class status? What the heck! When ~40% of the population pays no tax at all, or even receives a subsidy, then something is indeed amiss. Mr Briegel Have you any thoughts as to the 80% of the rest of the Federal Budget? Your focus seems to be always on the military. Would you care to comment on the 55% portion that comprises Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and 'Safety Net' programs? Those programs look like a more than fair redistribution of wealth to me.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.
With regard to the rich paying most of the taxes per jcj's links its because they have most of the money. Despite their seeming huge tax burden on April 15th, come April 16th the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor. The rich are NOT being taxed down to the middle class. And the large number of people who pay little or no tax are NOT getting rich because of it.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.
Fjord Here's a link to the Tax Policy Center http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/distribution/progressive-taxes.cfm The page has a chart showing effective Federal tax rate by income class and it includes a broader range of taxes than just income tax. Once again, this chart shows a very steeply progressive tax curve with the top 1% paying the highest taxes while the bottom quartile pay virtually nothing. We have arrived at the point where those who pay little or no tax outnumber those who pay the vast bulk of taxes. With tax policy skewed so steeply what incentive is there for the majority to think about what constitutes a fair tax structure?
stunhsif
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 11:43 a.m.
"promote the general welfare". What this means for me in not the same as Mr. Faber, that is for certain. What I believe it means is closer to what the founding fathers meant, not the "social programs" brought forth by Roosevelt in the 30's. Our country was not founded on the priciples of handing out welfare,Head Start,food stamps and housing allowances. These things didn't exist back then and should not today as they are run. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will feed himself till the day he dies.
DBinA2
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Bob...You did it once again. Thank you so much for writing this piece. You are right, we have to take care of this country and ALL of its people...not just the fortunate. It's so sad when I hear simpletons act like those on welfare are eating steak and driving Cadillac's on their mighty dollar. I get excited every time I see a "Robert Faber" special, because I know that I am actually going to be enriched, not entertained. Thanks, Bob.
jcj
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.
Fjord Please read the following facts about where most of the tax dollars come from. I will not argue who taxes HURT the most but I at least look at the facts! Instead of listening to ANY of the talking heads! http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/The-Rich-Pay-More-Taxes-Top-20-Percent-Pay-Record-Share-of-Income-Taxes Show me the facts that dispute this. Here we go!
mike from saline
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 10:06 a.m.
jcj, thanks for giving us the entire preamble, as oposed to Faber's edited version. Key word of course is "liberty". That's what has always set us apart from the rest of the world.
jcj
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
David I would be all for bringing home all combat troops now. While I might not agree that we can tell private corporations how to spend their money. (Even if I disagree with them or despise them) I am all for cutting back big time on government waste of our tax dollars from top to bottom. If that could ever be done we would be better equipped to take care of our poor. Geez I think your propaganda is starting to work on me!
Spyker
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.
Bravo Robert! I agree with your sentiments 100%.
David Briegel
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.
jcj, not to worry. We are sending them our warmest regards with our tanks, gunships, drones and cruise missiles. In the name of civilization, Christianity and fellowship. Making the world a better place one bomb at a time! Spending money on people is evil but Perpatual War Profiteering is our main industry. And we are the good guys. DonBee, watch them squeal all around the nation as Gates attempts to restructure. He is not even proposing cuts! fjord, you are absolutely correct as we have seen a huge re-distribution of wealth as the victors of the class warfare have reaped their tax cut rewards!
jcj
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.
Those earliest citizens collected their dreams and put them into the preamble of their menu for America, insisting that We the People... establish Justice... (and) promote the general Welfare. Are we to promote the "general welfare" of every other person in the world? You left out a few words! We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity insure domestic Tranquility secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves What mother takes food out of her babies mouth to feed a stranger first? With few exceptions mothers in the wild do not feed another mothers offspring. We are doing exactly that when we send so much aid around the world at a time when we have so many of our own hurting! I am not saying that we should not give aid to other countries. However I don't recall us sending aid to England during the Revolutionary War or The MexicanAmerican War and the North did not send aid to the South during the Civil War. A large amount of our aid goes to countries that are in one way or another at war with us! And how much respect do we get for it? We need to take care of our own first.
sbbuilder
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.
Thank you DonBee. I agree that the Government must first cut back, and way back, on expenditures. The military example you sited unfortunately reflects only a tiny portion of overall expenses. The two white elephants residing in the living room are Social Security and Medicare/Medicade. Social Security accounts for about 20%, and Medicare/Medicade account for about 21% of the Federal Budget. When nearly half of our budget is spent on these programs, it seems to me that this is unsustainable. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 (This is just one site among many, but it is fairly well researched.)
DonBee
Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.
I agree with the premise of people in need should get support, but standing in line watching stores take food stamps for beer, tells me the existing programs are not working. The Country is over 200 years old, but the safety net you are referring too did not start until the great depression in the 1930s. Prior to that it was the job of churches and community organizations to provide for the poor. I move for more efficiency before more taxes. One program I follow spends 2 dollars in overhead for every dollar delivered to people in need. The Department of Defense is cutting 10 percent of their civilian employees, who now greatly out number the people in uniform. The Defense Logistics Agency has more people than are in uniform alone. The new border patrol law that is putting 1,500 on the Mexican Border is costing $200 million. That is over $1 million per agent. The total bill was $600 million - with 1/3 going for agents. Thomas Paine and others listed in your story, all struggled on their own to make a country that provided freedom, mostly from a government that imposed requirements on them. I think most of them, based on their writings, would be appalled at what the Government has become.