I want to be clear at the start. I associate myself as a Democrat. There are certain assumptions and presumptions predicated on that label, just as there are if I were to refer to myself as a Republican. Modern definitions trumping history, it's safe to say that both parties have evolved substantially since their inception. The modern Republican can be said to favor small government, low taxes, business growth unhindered by limitations of government, and faith-based governance. Their most vitriolic attacks against Democrats are to label them Liberals, Socialists, and even Communists. Let's stop pussy-footing around with name calling and get right down to brass tacks, shall we?
Let's tackle small government first. A small government implies a larger state role. It means a reduction in the federal government, especially oversight (related to business). That's essentially what is meant. It means less taxes. All three are inextricably linked. At the root is the essential assumption that government has a way of limiting business growth by putting in restrictive rules that provide artificial advantages for competition and punishing those with business advantages by taxing them. I understand the rationale. Let's move beyond the idealism and discuss the implications.
Less competition means monopolies. Monopolies stifle innovation and the lack of competition results in a net loss to the consumer, who cannot go to a competitor because of pricing considerations. Lack of oversight (deregulation), results in business running with a free hand regardless of any considerations, including poor decision-making. The problem with this idea is that if a business gets big enough, government has no choice but to bail it out or risk systemic economic loss and massive layoffs. The true Republican will say that this is just a result of risk inherent in the model. If you risk it all and y0u put yourself in a bad position, you get what's coming to you, even if that means bankruptcy. Ignored in this equation is the workers who will lose their jobs. The only motivation for a Republican to run against their model in this respect is the consideration of the electorate, some of whom are in fact these very same people who face losing their jobs. Herein lies part of the conundrum and in fact, the hypocrisy inherent in the model.
Back to the subject of small government and lack of taxes. Bear with me because I'm working towards a point you don't want to miss. Smaller government and continued tax breaks is a movement towards a flat tax rate and possible movement to zero taxes. In order for government to function at all, it must have taxes, so the end goal is obviously a flat tax rate. This is floated around from time to time from the Right and certainly in a vacuum, it sounds reasonable enough. In a society of equals and equal opportunity this might make sense. However, we don't like in that vacuum. There are people without the opportunity of higher education. There are people born with defects that give them a disadvantage in society. There are people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. In such a society, as ours is, a flat tax rate ends up punishing a person with lesser means and rewarding those with the means. This is justified by the suggestion that those with the means got their as the result of a single reason: determination and hard work. The reality is anything but that.
Now, I'm starting to get to my main point. If Republicans could call a spade a spade and not just say what they need to get elected, what would they say? What would they be in favor of and not be in favor of? They rail on about the Socialists and the Liberals. When they speak this way, they are assuming that society is seeing it's health, vitality, and energy sapped by a bunch of freeloaders looking for a handout. Their assumption is that we're on a level playing field and that they're being punished for working hard to get where they have. Their "fix" for society is two-fold: Get rid of government assistance programs that hinder business and take money away from those that deserve it more because of their hard work, and reduce taxes and regulations on business that does the same. Talk to a Republican on the side and he'll go on and on about how Social Security should be scrapped. He'll go on and on about how all these government programs should be removed. He'll go on and on how if we deregulated everything and let business govern itself naturally through opportunity and aggression, that everything would be fine and dandy. Let's look at this.
Let's suppose that we removed all of the tenants of the 'New Deal', which the Reaganites have always sought. You weaken or destroy unions (as Reagan did in the Air Traffic Controllers strike), you decrease business taxes, you put all of the burden of health care on primary care providers and deregulated 401k investments, you remove unemployment insurance, medicare and medicaid, and government pensions. What is the result? Why, you're back to the mid-1920's again, my man. The New Deal was created to allow the citizenry not to be taken advantage of by business. Ultimately, the Republican ideal is the removal of all government restrictions and oversight, a flat tax rate, government assistance programs, etc. All is for the health of business unhindered, and damn the workers. It is cold and calculated and inhumane.
Let's tackle small government first. A small government implies a larger state role. It means a reduction in the federal government, especially oversight (related to business). That's essentially what is meant. It means less taxes. All three are inextricably linked. At the root is the essential assumption that government has a way of limiting business growth by putting in restrictive rules that provide artificial advantages for competition and punishing those with business advantages by taxing them. I understand the rationale. Let's move beyond the idealism and discuss the implications.
Less competition means monopolies. Monopolies stifle innovation and the lack of competition results in a net loss to the consumer, who cannot go to a competitor because of pricing considerations. Lack of oversight (deregulation), results in business running with a free hand regardless of any considerations, including poor decision-making. The problem with this idea is that if a business gets big enough, government has no choice but to bail it out or risk systemic economic loss and massive layoffs. The true Republican will say that this is just a result of risk inherent in the model. If you risk it all and y0u put yourself in a bad position, you get what's coming to you, even if that means bankruptcy. Ignored in this equation is the workers who will lose their jobs. The only motivation for a Republican to run against their model in this respect is the consideration of the electorate, some of whom are in fact these very same people who face losing their jobs. Herein lies part of the conundrum and in fact, the hypocrisy inherent in the model.
Back to the subject of small government and lack of taxes. Bear with me because I'm working towards a point you don't want to miss. Smaller government and continued tax breaks is a movement towards a flat tax rate and possible movement to zero taxes. In order for government to function at all, it must have taxes, so the end goal is obviously a flat tax rate. This is floated around from time to time from the Right and certainly in a vacuum, it sounds reasonable enough. In a society of equals and equal opportunity this might make sense. However, we don't like in that vacuum. There are people without the opportunity of higher education. There are people born with defects that give them a disadvantage in society. There are people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. In such a society, as ours is, a flat tax rate ends up punishing a person with lesser means and rewarding those with the means. This is justified by the suggestion that those with the means got their as the result of a single reason: determination and hard work. The reality is anything but that.
Now, I'm starting to get to my main point. If Republicans could call a spade a spade and not just say what they need to get elected, what would they say? What would they be in favor of and not be in favor of? They rail on about the Socialists and the Liberals. When they speak this way, they are assuming that society is seeing it's health, vitality, and energy sapped by a bunch of freeloaders looking for a handout. Their assumption is that we're on a level playing field and that they're being punished for working hard to get where they have. Their "fix" for society is two-fold: Get rid of government assistance programs that hinder business and take money away from those that deserve it more because of their hard work, and reduce taxes and regulations on business that does the same. Talk to a Republican on the side and he'll go on and on about how Social Security should be scrapped. He'll go on and on about how all these government programs should be removed. He'll go on and on how if we deregulated everything and let business govern itself naturally through opportunity and aggression, that everything would be fine and dandy. Let's look at this.
Let's suppose that we removed all of the tenants of the 'New Deal', which the Reaganites have always sought. You weaken or destroy unions (as Reagan did in the Air Traffic Controllers strike), you decrease business taxes, you put all of the burden of health care on primary care providers and deregulated 401k investments, you remove unemployment insurance, medicare and medicaid, and government pensions. What is the result? Why, you're back to the mid-1920's again, my man. The New Deal was created to allow the citizenry not to be taken advantage of by business. Ultimately, the Republican ideal is the removal of all government restrictions and oversight, a flat tax rate, government assistance programs, etc. All is for the health of business unhindered, and damn the workers. It is cold and calculated and inhumane.
Comments