The Roots of Reverse Class Warfare

August 23, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (7)

With impeccable timing, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart picked up the theme of Rick Perryesque "reverse class warfare," RCW, that I addressed last week.

If the segment weren’t a parody, it might pass as Dickensian tragedy. Various Fox Newsoids call into question whether people categorized by the U.S. Census as "poor" truly deserve not to pay federal income taxes. Because, don’t you see, they have all these "modern conveniences:" refrigerators, cellphones, air conditioners, dishwashers!

A couple of minutes of Googling proves why you don’t need a bleeding heart to realize this kind of thing is a farce. Simple household budgeting will do the trick. [See photos of the GOP hopefuls on the campaign trail.]

Big-box stores like Walmart and Best Buy and various online outlets offer fridges at $399 or less. You can score a dishwasher for $250 and a microwave for $50. A window-unit air conditioner can be had for as little as $100. Plugging these items into the bill estimator at www.consumerspower.org brings us a monthly electric tab of less than $50. As far as mobile consumer goods go, cellphones are often free and darn near disposable—and monthly plans are as cheap as $40.

Add all this together and our theoretical freeloader has spent less than $1,000 for items that will last five to seven years or more.

Meanwhile, he’s renting in a neighborhood with lousy schools and high crime rates, and he’s taking the bus to a lousy job. This is to say nothing of paying state and local income taxes as well as the federal payroll tax, and dealing with high food and fuel costs (wait: If he’s got a car, he shouldn’t be on the bus!).

But the fact that he’s chatting on a cellphone while waiting for the bus—why, it could only mean socialism. [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

It occurs to me that the RCW habit began over a decade ago, in a far, far different political and fiscal environment. Back then, there were surpluses as far as the eye could see—and tax cuts had lost traction with the electorate. So the bright bulbs over at the Wall Street Journal dreamed up this line of attack: How can we make cutting taxes for the wealthy a political winner again? Bingo: Make everyone pay federal income taxes, and everyone will be back on board.

Not to understate things, but times have changed. RCW has become a sort of vestigial ideological organ. It didn’t used to be about raising revenue. Rather, broadening the tax base was supposed to be about making everyone feel the Leviathan’s pinch.

Almost without anyone noticing, RCW became part of the debt-crisis discussion. [Vote now: Who won the debt ceiling standoff?]

It’s a moral disgrace.

Reagan wept. Again.

Tags:
income tax,
Rick Perry,
economy,
2012 presidential election,
poverty,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

wrote: " . . . [it is] a bit like saying all people of social group wear the same size shoe." Which is precisely why the government is not the vehicle. Government is good at creating a round hole. Unfortunately, square pegs don't fit nicely and neatly in round holes. Consequently, let's create more round holes. Before long you have something that looks like swiss cheese . . . which, interestingly enough is exactly how the government looks. A plethora of programs trying to do a lot but achieving little.

Bruce wrote: "add to the fact that before the bush recession,more people were working and thus for paying income taxes.when the economy improves,and more people can find a job the situation will reverse its self."

So tell me what has Obama's stimulus stimulated besides more debt. Again, historical context is needed. Facts show that the recession during Bush's watch was the result of Dems failed social experiment in the form of Freddie/Fanny. The chickens came home to roost during Bush's tenure. Bush was on record voicing his concern about the potential disaster. But, ok. He was president. He should/could have done something if he was so certain. But he didn't. So, if you hold Bush's toes to the fire for his "recession" then you have to put Obama's toes in the fire for prolonging the recession and subsequent depression. Which explains Obama's plummeting poll numbers. I find it surprising Obama's poll numbers aren't in the teens. Had this term of presidency been a Republican president, Dems would be calling for a recall election.

The irony is that it will take a Republican president to repair the damage. Put the country on a sound financial footing. Turn the current tide. And, when it happens, Obama will get the credit by saying it was a result of Obama's policies that finally caught hold. Much like Dems try and credit Clinton whose presidency was saved by a Republican controlled congress.

David of ID 10:32AM August 24, 2011

people can argue about what,or how,got got the country into it;s current fiscal quagmire,thats yesterdays news.right now what is needed,is not more postulating by our leaders in washington,but a solid,workable plan to create jobs and get the economy moving again.

bruce b of NV 3:11AM August 24, 2011

brucetee, don't mind me, I provide evidence with links. Does it hurt, knowing it takes all liberal cable news to equal Fox news prime time audience ?

Recession was coming and Bush tried to stop it, beginning year one in office. Bad housing paper go recession going:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

__

"The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s"

"Since the Clinton Administration’s own numbers reveal that the 1993 tax increase was a failure, we have to find a different reason to explain why the budget shifted to surplus in the late 1990s."

"Fortunately, there’s no need for an exhaustive investigation. The Historical Tables on OMB’s website reveal that good budget numbers were the result of genuine fiscal restraint. Total government spending increased by an average of just 2.9 percent over a four-year period in the mid-1990s. This is the reason why projections of $200 billion-plus deficits turned into the reality of big budget surpluses."

"Republicans say the credit belongs to the GOP Congress that took charge in early 1995. Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997."

"To sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government approach compared to the OMB and CBO forecasts of what would have happened under Clinton’s tax-and-spend baseline."

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

__

Brucetee, what does Steve Wynn mean when he said obama was a "wet blanket". Guy Is a democrat supporter RIGHT ???

Bill Hedges of MO 3:09PM August 23, 2011

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement