In Jamelle Bouie’s WaPo piece of this past Wednesday, she acknowledges that “there’s no doubt Democrats know that — barring a hike to pre-Reagan levels — there’s not much revenue to gain from restoring upper-income taxes to Clinton-era levels. And when it comes to deficit reduction, full employment — and robust growth — is the best solution.” Rather, she seems to be arguing on behalf of these Statists, it’s an issue of fairness that we should seek to eat the rich…even if it ends up hurting our country (extrapolation mine).
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is:
Bouie’s conclusion is worth quoting in toto, if for no other reason than to pose a question about the character of our Nation:
If upper-income tax hikes serve a purpose, it’s to slow the income gains of the wealthiest Americans, who — for the past decade — have reaped the lion’s share of gains from economic growth.
If the presidential election did anything, it put inequality on the table as a national issue, and the fiscal cliff is one battle — albeit, by proxy — in a larger fight. And, unlike most issues in politics, the lines are clear — Republican disregard for inequality is matched by Democratic attempts to, however gently, apply the breaks.
So the question is this: Are we, as a Nation, really as vindictive and myopically spiteful as Bouie would suggest we are? And to what degree does the re-election of a man who so cavalierly (and eloquently!) expressed a desire to enforce his version of “fairness”—even at the expense of harming the economy—prove her right in that contention?
(HT, the indefatigable Reason blog)
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)