As our nation crashes hard with a national debt in excess of $31 trillion, let’s start with the obvious: Our spending exceeds our revenue. And while this isn’t the crisis Republicans envision with a Democrat in the White House, common sense suggests that more closely matching spending and income would be a good thing.
The standard Republican formula for this dilemma? Reduce expenses and lower taxes. But this attractive campaign slogan has not yet solved the problem.
For one thing, spending is very difficult to cut. For the most part, the federal government funds programs that citizens want and need. More than 60% of federal dollars go to non-discretionary programs like Social Security and Medicare. Add in infrastructure, education, health care, veteran benefits, law enforcement and defense spending, and it’s not that fat in the budget.
And the counter-intuitive notion that tax cuts lead to higher revenues has never materialized either.
Democrats haven’t been much more successful than Republicans in aligning spending and revenue. But some Democrats are addressing the question of where to get more money by asking another question: where is the money?
Unsurprisingly, much of the money in our country belongs to the very rich. Accordingly, a number of states are considering changes in tax policies that apply a version of the “wealth tax” long advocated by Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
For example, according to The Associated Press, California is considering an annual tax of 1.5% on assets over $1 billion and 1% on assets over $50 million, a change that would affect 23,000 ultra-millionaires and 160 billionaires .
Other states are considering similar measures; Most of the time they hardly have a chance of being implemented. But they raise an interesting question: Why are we so reluctant to tax the accumulated wealth of our richest citizens?
To ask the question is to evoke hints of envy and petty resentment at the hard work, intelligence, and good fortune of our wealthiest citizens. But not asking the question is associating the idea of ultra-wealth with more virtue than it deserves.
America’s very wealthy depend far less on personal virtue than on a stable, secure, orderly society based on the rule of law and blessed with abundant natural resources and a solid infrastructure. They depend on most Americans of all economic classes to accept and support the stability of our society.
And when our national stability is threatened by outside forces — Nazis, Communists, al-Qaeda — the rich expect that all Americans — and often especially the poor and middle class — will fight and sacrifice to defend the stability that enable their wealth. And Americans always have.
The American Dream was never about ultra-wealth, but wealth has become the American Fever Dream. Wouldn’t our nation sleep better at night if all of us – every citizen – enjoyed a basic level of comfort and security as a privilege of our citizenship, with health care, a few paid days off, and a dignified retirement.
Of course, in America, we have the ability to strive for more, and many do. But many others willingly embrace careers — as nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters, health workers — that they know will never make them rich, but which contribute more to the well-being of our nation than many of the ultra-rich.
Then there’s this: we like to call ourselves a “Christian nation,” although the Founders would have gagged at that mischaracterization. But we are good at ignoring those parts of Christian doctrine that make us uncomfortable, such as when Jesus told the proud rich man, “Go sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will become one.” have treasure in heaven.”
And consider Luke 12:48: “For to whom much is given, much will be asked.”
And nowhere has the ultra-rich been given more than in America.
So go ahead and tax the rich. And don’t feel guilty about it. They will be fine.
John M. Crisp, columnist for Tribune News Service, lives in Texas and can be reached at [email protected]