Skip to main content

Tax and Spend

Berkley MI
Friday

The phrase “tax-and-spend liberal” has always been a pejorative. It’s meant to be said with a sneer. With an implied middle finger. Ever since Bush 41, it’s been spit at anyone who thinks government might have an actual purpose beyond cutting taxes, eliminating regulation, and eviscerating the social safety net — the time-honored Republican agenda.
But I have personally adopted “tax-and-spend liberal” as a badge of honor. I actually believe in the potential of big government, as well as in paying my fair share towards its upkeep. I am not oblivious to its shortcomings and disappointments — if anything I expect them. But I get incensed when I see people in government who clearly don’t believe in government. Especially when they ruin it for the rest of us.
And damn, this is the moment where government should have shined. This pandemic is exactly what government is made for. This is why we pay our taxes. This is why we elect public servants in, presumably, good faith. It should have been government’s finest hour. Instead we’re being lied to, stolen from, and murdered.
Government was never supposed to make financial sense. Its job is to do what needs to be done. To protect us in a crisis, whatever it costs. To invest in the things the private sector does poorly — healthcare, basic science, infrastructure and, oh yeah, epidemiology. To oversee the financial and medical systems so they don’t break down under stress. To gather reserves of key resources in the good times because they might just come in handy in the bad.
Without a good, strong, well-meaning government, we are easy prey for diseases and bandits. And right now we have both at once.
If we’d taxed and spent the way we should have, we would certainly have handled this virus better. But ever since Reagan told us that “government is the problem,” we have been among the least taxed citizenries in the western world. Keeping it that way has been the life’s work of any number of Republican hacks (What rock is Grover Norquist under these days?).
But it isn’t enough that we’re under-taxed. Or that being under-taxed was already causing widespread and irreparable damage, even before the virus. Or that the treasury is being looted. Or that our people are dying in inexcusable numbers.
No, even that’s not enough for these bandits. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, with characteristic wryness, “Always grab much too much or you’ll get nothing at all.” The perfect motto for the GOP.
Remember the tax scam? The two trillion in tax breaks? I know, that’s so 2017. But the coarse venality of what Republicans did then is typical of what passes for government these days. Most of that tax break went to large corporations who then used it to buy back their own stock. A huge windfall for much-too-muchers, and a pittance for those with never enough.
In a desperate effort to make up for this colossal stupidity, we got a $2.2 trillion “stimulus.” Misnamed. It’s not a stimulus, it’s a rescue, and not much of one. Then last week, we got $350 billion or so for small business, however that gets defined. Apparently, the states will still have to twist in the wind — they won't get help paying their bills until Moscow Mitch heaves up another trillion or so. Add in the $2 trillion from the 2017 boondoggle, and we’re looking at roughly a $4.5 trillion down payment on a pandemic response that’s just getting started.
And all the while, tax revenue is falling through the floor. Unemployed people don’t pay taxes.
So by now it should be quite evident that tax-and-spend liberals are exactly what we need more of. Much more. The question is whether we can vote them into office before the much-too-muchers leave us nothing at all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I