If you're a Trekkie (I must admit to being a modest, closet Trek-ophile) then you know the title of this post is a line used in a Star Trek movie, said by Spock as he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his own life to save the crew of the Enterprise. But I think it is instructive to the political argument we are having today. I had a recent email exchange with a friend, and this is my last retort. The topic is how best to reduce US debt.
As is always the case, the most difficult part of discussing something as complex is this is agreeing on a few things; the first step is to agree on what the problem is, second to agree on the levers to fix it, and finally one must weigh the potential pros and cons of pulling each lever. This last area is the most difficult - as it touches the heart of people's ideology and in some cases religion.
First, I think we agree the main problem is US debt which is very high and we need a comprehensive plan to reduce it over time (probably 10-20 years in order to avoid the shock to the economy if we move too abruptly). I think we agree.
Next step is more difficult, what are the levers we should pull?
There are a large contingent of more conservative-minded individuals who believe the levers that must be pulled are to end social programs - under the rationale that they are too expensive for us to afford and are only getting more so with our aging population. But certainly reducing or even ending this budget item is an option.
There are still others that argue that our tax system needs reform, as it is endlessly leaving money on the table that could be used to fund government activities. Not only that but it is dis-proportionally applied to some but not others. One could say much more - but let's just agree that tax reform is something that needs to happen and a topic upon which most everyone can agree - let's lower the rates and broaden the base. That's a legitimate and useful option.
There are still others that, while they might support tax reform, believe wealthy Americans, while paying a large portion, still pay too little. The evidence for this is pretty strong (one can blame loopholes or tax breaks, but probably it's both). Here's the evidence that our income inequality is staggering and getting worse.
FACTS:
- The richest 1 percent of Americans, (a mere 32,000 people) now take home almost 24 percent of US income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976
- The top 10% (a mere 320,000 Americans) now own almost half of US income
- The bottom 50% of Americans (some 1.6M Americans) owns only 2.5% of US income
- The United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana
Clearly wealthy individuals ("job creators" as the GOP likes to call them) (or "risk takers" as [another friend] likes to call them); clearly they are not being asked to pay too much - quite the opposite. How else can you explain this income disparity, especially while middle-class incomes don't even keep up with modest inflation rates. You know what happens if this is allowed to continue - well, just recall Marie Antoinette. The needs of the many will, sooner or later, have to be satisfied, and in the end the only way that can happen is to decrease the wealth of the few. I doubt we agree on that - but to me it's simple math. It won't fit a Libertarian, or even Conservative ideology, but to me there are no other options that create a healthy society. It's the cost of getting wealthy - and after all, without a strong middle-class, the free market engine that made all us wealthy people, will cease to function.
Regulation is too complex to summarize, but I would love to see real-world examples of regulation strangulation. I have read many articles claiming that while yes, there are too many regulations, specific job-killing examples are not that easy to find. Still, Obama has correctly announced the removal of hundreds of regulations based on recommendations from a task force he set in motion some time ago.
But we should try to agree that government regulations are important. They protect markets, protect consumers, protect the environment, level the playing fields of commerce, etc etc. So while this is a difficult topic to summarize, I will stipulate that a general reduction in regulation that maintains the basic and necessary function of government to counter-balance business interests as a means of protecting common societal interests is in order. I would argue for more regulation than you probably, but we cannot just ignore the fact that in past "l'aissez faire" times of almost no or at least low government regulation, people were afraid to buy meat, rivers burned for months on end based on business pollution and dumping, and smog once clogged our cities with unbreathable air . Visit Beijing some time and you'll remember that government regulation - while needing to be practical - is important to everyone.
So finally this leads us to the heart of the matter - weighing the pros and cons of pulling some of the above levers but perhaps not others. Let's say you pull some of all of these levers. I think that could work. But the current debate is miles from that balance. The debate today revolves around trying to balance all of the pain of economic recovery and debt reduction on the middle-class - who remember already have stagnate wages and are more at risk, increasingly so, of falling into poverty - the poverty figures came out yesterday and all segments but seniors (protected by Social Security and Medicare after all) have increased markedly.
The negative outcome of ending Social Security - rather than reforming it (which must be done), or ending Medicare - rather than reforming it (which must be done) are catastrophic. I don't believe any thinking person can come to the conclusion that social safety nets are a luxury we can live without - but I fear I am wrong in that assertion and many, many people believe social safety nets need to die. And this is where the argument needs to be had.
I think a plurality of Americans can find a way to agree with most everything up to the last paragraph. The pain of this recovery and debt reduction has to be shared by all - from the baseline of where we are today as still the strongest nation and largest, most successful economy in the world. We must reform social programs, and we must ask the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share - and that means more (at least for now).
The cost to society, and the eventual harm that will come to the wealthy from pounding the middle-class even more, is not a good result and eventually will lead to the breakdown of our society and at some point we potentially risk that a mob will rise to take back those riches that today are so stacked into the accounts of so few.
