Thomas Friedman's McCarthyite Tax Attack on Sarah Palin

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I have a notion that taxation without representation is rampant. It seems that only one approach to social living can be voiced without the labeling of individuals becomes belligerent and bellicose.
What if none of us paid federal taxes and just contributed to local and state government who provides the services we social people need? I could go for that. Just let the people who want the oil and weapons systems pay their share of Federal taxes and fight the battles they decide to participate in.
If our offspring have to fight they should get the economic benefit . No one should get more resources that the military who are in harms way.
The markets should not be rescued . they need to interact to restore the confidence they need to operate effectively.
Finally , what goes around comes around. We Americans must live within our means, save for a rainy day and do unto others as we would have them do to you.

Elderglo of OH 10:21PM October 09, 2008

Thank you Mr. Sam Dealey,
I am normally a Thomas Friedman fan and was impressed with his book about the flattening of the world. I was deeply disappointed with his last writing when I noticed that he quoted Sarah Palin correctly on "higher" taxes but then changed her words within his thesis statement to "fair share". I understand that the NYTIMES is the NYTIMES, but I would have thought that any casual editor at that publication would have noted his distortion in defining his terms. Sadly, I believe that this slip up in the swappage of terms discloses Mr. Friedman's beliefe that "higher" taxes implies a "fair share" of taxes.
I expected better of Mr. Friedman

Brian of MD 9:12PM October 09, 2008

I think "patriotism" works both ways - the "giver" and the "spender".
To my way of thinking, someone who gives $18 billion in "porkbarrel"
is not patriotic, and shamelessly not in contact with what a dollar represents.(OPM).
Ultimately, taxes are mandated - not
charity, legislated.

of NJ 1:40PM October 09, 2008

Strange use of the word McCarthyite. McCarthy was a red baiter who would certainly not have considered tax paying a patriotic acitivity. Maybe check your history.

Rupert of NY 12:33PM October 09, 2008

What?! Invest social security contributions publicly to help Wall Street? Why do we have a social security program in the first place? So our seniors will be homeless and starving? As it is, look what has happened to publicly invested retirement funds in this recent fiasco --
"Stock market turmoil has wiped out roughly $2 trillion of Americans' retirement savings over the past 15 months, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2008/10/08/retirement-savers-lost-2-trillion-in-the-stock-market.html
I agree, lawmakers must cut back on spending, but I say they should start with the military defense budget right away.

Kat of NY 12:08PM October 09, 2008

A proposal for increasing taxes to fund the Iraq war from the outset would have made this country a vastly different place than it is today. It would have called for public sacrifice and spread the costs of this conflict fairly among all citizens and not just the brave men and women that have served in the military. The misinformation put forth by the administration did not rise to the level of public scrutiny and concern sufficient to reveal that we were being led by incompetence. A proposal to raise taxes to fund the war would have. Maybe that should be a standard applied to all future conflicts. Patriotism comes in many forms and willingly paying a share of the costs of a just war one of them. Being competent in leadership and accountable for mistakes is another. Who has failed that test?

P3 of NC 11:31AM October 09, 2008

Too bad Sam Dealey's article doesn't get national press coverage, Because it is "RIGHT-ON;" and, Friedman, as smart as he is, too often lets his "Liberal Biases" get in the way of truthful journalism
Ken Normand

Kenneth A. Normand of OH 11:24AM October 09, 2008

"Step 1 could be to finally reform Social Security. And if, in the spirit of patriotism, lawmakers could be persuaded to let willing Americans invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in public companies at their own risk, that would do a lot to help Wall Street's recovery."
Is it me or is this not the same basic idea of Bush's Social Security Reform package of several years ago?
News flash, Mr. Dealey: "Willing" Americans have been investing at their own risk in private companies toward their retirements for generations. They're called the 'rich', and their risk is minimized when the government bails them out when they create poor investment policies. Throw it out to 'willing' Americans, and you have a lot of people losing their shirts without seriously effecting the credit markets. I mean, think about it. If you had the choice between investing your social security money in TODAY'S market environment (knowing little or nothing about investing, mind you,l since most American's DON'T) or just sticking to getting your Social Security, even if the chances are high it will be bankrupt by the time you retire, would YOU invest it?
Human nature says most people will stick to what they know. Not enough would invest enough to give the credit markets any effective infusion of capital, and a lot of people would lose a substantial part of their retirement savings through scams, failed investments, bad management or, like now, bad banking policies.
How about a compromise? Have the United States Government invest in certain growth markets, ensuring a minimum return for those along for the ride. Let people decide if they want a part of their income invested, ensuring they'd get at LEAST what's coming to them (reducing the risk to that individual's retirement savings).
It would create a much greater infusion of capital into the markets, much faster. If you know you can't LOSE, you'd be more likely to allow the government to invest it, knowing that if it goes bad, you'd at least get back what you put in. The devil's in the details on this one, but the idea is to minimize the individual's investment risk (as if Social Security isn't risky enough as it is) so that they won't be out much, if anything, should investments fail. Since investment is a long-term proposition, and long-term gains are almost always assured, the risk to the government is minimized since it will always be a partner in that investment.
The whole purpose of social security is to help pay for retirement. For many, it's ALL THEY'LL GET. Personal investing at the individual's risk fails in that mandate. Reduce the personal risk, help finance the program - STOP BORROWING FROM IT - and the idea has merit.
The future needs creative ideas. Rehashing failed ones isn't going to help.

Fatesrider of CA 4:37AM October 09, 2008

It seems to me the best place to start is to trim the government bureaucracies. How many cabinet level positions are there? Twenty one cabinet level positions? Each and every one of them has a bureaucracy that operates independently of the others, frequently at cross purposes.
I propose a six member cabinet:
--Foreign Affairs - handling all domestic political and economic affairs including trade. (Replaces State, Trade).
--Domestic Affairs - Handling all things related to internal affairs. (Replaces, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, EPA.)
--Security Affairs - handling all things relating to defense and security, at home or abroad. (Replaces DHS, Defense Department, CIA, etc)
--Financial Affairs - All things financial (Replaces Commerce, Treasury Office of Management and Budget)
--Legal Affairs - All thins legal (Replaces FBI, Department of Justice, any and all law-enforcement and legal aspects carried out in the United States - Operates under but must vet Security affairs for all domestic operations)
--Human Affairs - All things having to do with the human condition (Replaces Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veteran's Affairs, Labor, FDA - which is not a cabinet level post but would fall under that area.)
For constitutional delineation of succession purposes, the Foreign Affairs Secretary holds the same level as the Secretary of State.
The Drug Czar would be eliminated. All other 'Czar's would be subjugated below the cabinet leader under which their field happened to fall. The vice presidency would be considered part of the executive branch as an adviser at best and NOT a cabinet level position.
All bureaucracies would be required to cut at least 60% of their operational budgets (which is the money they are given to RUN their departments, not what they control in the budget for providing services, etc).
This would streamline government when government bloat is pandemic, and in a 'lead by example' method of dealing with tighter budgets, will show America and the world they are serious about real reform in how the US does business from now on.
It's a pipe dream, of course. But it's one worth advocating if for no other reason than it would make people sit up and realize we CAN do things differently in Washington. And right now, the need is extreme.

Fatesrider of CA 4:07AM October 09, 2008

and if people were allowed to invest their social security in public companies at their own risk 4 years ago, they'd be bankrupt. Your 401K doomed in Wall St and your Social security too. Talk about putting everything in one basket. Bad idea!

Andy of CA 3:11AM October 09, 2008