Jacob Cohen was a well-known personality who once offered the thought that “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor; and believe me, rich is better.” I hope that there is no disagreement from my readers as to the wisdom of Mr. Cohen’s remarks. The fact is that the honorable Mr. Cohen was known as a comedian who worked using the name Rodney Dangerfield. Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen/Dangerfield died in 2004, which denied the world of his further wisdom.
In my own case, I have never been successfully accused of being rich. I spent my work years laboring for a firm that provided me with enough income to be considered basically middle class. All things considered, I have no illusions about being a rich man. If I come out even at the end of life’s game, I would consider it a great success.
That is not the view of politicians on the right side of our political spectrum. Specifically they are Republicans who are masquerading under the title of conservatives. Conservation is nowhere in their thoughts. They wish to enrich themselves at the expense of the public, passing legislation that requires the rich to pay minimum taxes to the federal government.
I have been an observer of the American political system since 1928. In all of those years, I have never seen attempts by one party to rig the bidding so that it preserves their richness and condemns other folks to poverty. There is no attempt at equity in the year 2011. There is a completely bald attempt to fix it so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Amidst all of these transgressions, I find that the editorial on December 30 in The New York Times summarizes my thoughts more succinctly than I can. Besides, the editorial writers for the Times are much better writers than I am. Here is the editorial of December 30, 2010.
Deficit Hypocrisy, New York Times editorial. December 30 2010.
Deficit Hypocrisy
It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end Bush-era income tax cuts and — as a little bonus — won deep estate tax cuts for America’s wealthiest heirs. Those cuts will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term, while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money had been spent more wisely.
That should have been evidence enough that the Republican Party’s one real priority is tax cuts — despite all the talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here’s some more:
On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays, House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.
First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress annually.)
The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.
It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-spending increases be offset by spending cuts only — and actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such spending.
Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that lets the nation’s wealthiest private equity partners pay tax at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years, but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.
Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural course of politics for which no payment is required.
For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working families — extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal — unless it is fully paid for.
House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing spending. That’s been their approach for 30 years after all, and it unfailingly rallies their base.
The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to present an alternative, including investments — in energy, technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution.
The New York Times has done a formidable job in gathering all the facts. Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, I do not see how you can argue with the conclusion. The Republican politicians are aiming to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. They are abiding by the dictum laid down by the former Vice President Cheney: “Deficits don’t matter.” May I say to Mr. Cheney and his ilk, “The hell they don’t!”
My thoughts were set off by the recollection of Mr. Cohen/Dangerfield’s observation that “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor; and believe me, rich is better.” Unfortunately, I have never been a rich man so I will have to take Mr. Cohen/Dangerfield at his word. You may also recall that this same fellow is the comedian who said, “I don’t get no respect.” Mr. Cohen/Dangerfield is gone now, but I would give him all kinds of respect for his observation that rich people have a better go of it in this life than those of us who have to get by on more modest means.
E. E. CARR
January 4, 2011
Essay 523
~~
Kevin’s commentary: I am curious what Pop would do with more money if he had had it. He doesn’t strike me as the type who is given to frivolous spending, and he already seeks out unorthodox purchases. For instance, for a birthday I once received a card saying that he had donated a water buffalo to a poor village in Asia in my name. One of the cooler presents I’ve ever gotten.
Oh, and I read this article the other day. Apparently since 2009, 93% of income growth has been for the 1%. I realize that I am from a family that probably belongs to this latter category or close to it, but this is nevertheless pretty darn messed up. I am not sure how sustainable these patterns are for the country.