One fun aspect of writing letters to newspapares is when one of their regular Op-Ed writer gives you an opening in their articles to comment.
Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.
Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.
I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)
Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:
Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.
As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.
Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.
My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.
The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment