On The Right, Yet In The Wrong

In an article published in the Washington Times, Grover Norquist is crying once again about taxes. While it’s fair to say that nobody likes paying taxes, Norquist, at this point in time, should well understand that taxes are a necessity, if for no other reason than to enforce patent laws that make his privileged friends rich.

He claims that, originally, it was promised that only the “really rich” would have to pay taxes, and that “taxes would remain forever low”. Who ‘they’ are or when and in what context the promise of ‘forever low’ taxes was made, he doesn’t say.

Referring to the advent of the Tax Law of 1913, the dumb-ol', forever-incompetent Federal Government understood something that Norquist does not, that taxes should be levied in accordance of not just ability to pay, but in proportion to the benefits received from the government.

(Isn't it amazing? In Washington, people go from working within government, where they are deemed utterly incompetent by many republicans, to lobbying for republicans, where their incredible personal talents are highly sought.)

Some of the benefits received disproportionately to those with large incomes were (and still are): patent law enforcement, infrastructure acquisition (roads, freeways, interstate highways, sewer systems to remove industrial waste, electrical grids to provide the means of powering manufacturing facilities, maintenance of bridges, etc.)

Sure, individuals with lower incomes benefit from those things as well. But not anywhere near the extent that, say, Walmart or Cargill or Georgia-Pacific or Apple benefits from them. The average Joe doesn’t benefit from used-by-all infrastructure to the point where they are able to accumulate enough money through use of it to, say, buy or create their own political party.

Norquist wants government to ‘leave us alone’. Most people would have no severe argument with that concept. Except that most individuals can’t afford to hire their own private army of lawyers to go the owners of big corporations to recoup the cost of all that infrastructure that those same big corporations use more of than all the Jane Six-pack’s of the country do, put together.

That’s one reason why we have government in the first place. 

In a “Message to Congress on Tax Revision” from June 19th, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

“On the basis of these studies and of other studies conducted by officials of the Treasury, I am able to make a number of suggestions of important changes in our policy of taxation. These are based on the broad principle that if a government is to be prudent its taxes must produce ample revenues without discouraging enterprise; and if it is to be just it must distribute the burden of taxes equitably. I do not believe that our present system of taxation completely meets this test. Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power.” (Emphasis added).

Norquist continues his whine[1], describing how that tax rates have gone up and the highest income amounts for those rates have gone down, over time. What he fails to grasp (intentionally – it’s his job to fail to grasp things like this) is the reason for this is that the original rates and amounts were out of synch with reality.

Reality isn’t Norquist’s strong suit to begin with. This is Grover speaking:

"Americans for Tax Reform is a national taxpayer organization dedicated to opposing any and all tax increases. We work at the national, state and local level for lower taxes, less government spending and limited government."

This is what intellectuals refer to as 'Bullshit'.

He calls what’s happened with the tax code –get this- “Trickle-Down Taxation”. (Grover, take a piece of well-meaning, friendly advice: Don’t use that term while having a beer at your friendly neighborhood watering hole. Just don’t.)

See how funny he is?

Whatever term is used to describe the phenomena, what it actually does is it forces the fat-cats to be responsible citizens. And it is forced – it has to be – the Mammon worshippers won’t do it on their own.

He adds that the Alternative Minimum Tax was “invented to punish 155 Americans who bought municipal bonds”. Wrong again, Grover. This requires correction:

The AMT was created to:

“ensure that the highest-income households could not exploit loopholes, exclusions, and deductions to avoid paying any federal income tax.”[2]

The only people being ‘punished’ were ultra-wealthy tax scofflaws who think that ‘taxes’ are something that ‘commoners’ only should have to pay.

Norquist’s use of the number ‘155’ is meant to convey a small, targeted group of people in order to make his larger point: That the tax now applies to many, many more than originally intended – see how cancerous government is?

He goes on to lament Obama’s tobacco excise tax, and how it disproportionately affects the poor and middle class, which is an argument that’s nearly as old as the Union[3]. More importantly, even though he decries this ‘sin tax’, has joined a similar fight against alcohol[4], but is oddly comfortable with a tax on weed[5]. Consistency is not something this man values.

Norquist wants a future America to resemble the country’s first 137 years – where a man was a man and a woman couldn’t vote and other men were property, where children worked in factories and if they got hurt – too bad. Ahh, the good old days.

But the best part comes when he talks about states with no income tax – and boy, oh boy – does he get things wrong.

He asks you to imagine living in a state that has no income tax, implying that it would be an improvement. And it would – but only if you’re already wealthy. According to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy:

“virtually every state’s tax system is fundamentally unfair and is made more so by the absence of a progressive personal income tax…”

But Norquist doesn’t care about the plight of the poor, and any talk we hear from Republicans about helping people move up the economic ladder is simply lip service.

In fact, Norquist really doesn’t care about taxes – what he cares about is his employer’s having to pay taxes.

[1] I for one, am getting quite tired of hearing from the very, very, well-off about how hard their lives are because of their wealth and how they use it. See “Charles Koch’s Pity Party”.
[2] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1063
[3] http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b_3.htm
[4] http://articles.philly.com/2006-10-14/news/25417105_1_tax-exempt-groups-senate-report-nonprofit-groups
[5] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/grover-norquist-gives-pot-taxes-high-five

People Expect Better From Leaders...

Walmart once again tops the list of Wisconsin employers who consistently abrogate their responsibility to pay their employees a living wage so they don’t have to rely on public assistance.

In years past, if you worked for Walmart and only worked part time, you didn’t qualify for the company’s health insurance plan, or it was prohibitively expensive. That forced many people who worked for such companies (Walmart is only one of many) to seek help elsewhere to acquire insurance, etc. for themselves and their children.

As the chart shows, in part because of the economic meltdown, and in part because of the company’s well-known practice of paying below-market-value wages, BadgerCare enrollment was steadily increasing but by the 4^th quarter of 2009 (point ‘A’ on the chart) had leveled off and stayed that way until the 4^th quarter of 2011 (point ‘B’), when Walmart began increasing the hours provided to associates, throwing many off BadgerCare, due to a policy change in the state’s health insurance plan.

At first glance this doesn’t seem like it’s a problem, until you consider that the increase in hours worked (at below-market-value wage) isn’t enough to make up for the increase in insurance premiums. So, the workers get squeezed even further.

Perhaps the worst of all this is that this company, maybe more than most, is in a position to demonstrate genuine leadership and lead the way away from survival wages to wages that provide the means for families to thrive, and prosper.

I’d like to think that there are many folks in management positions who’ve been lobbying for exactly this kind of change. Think about this for a second: remove all the negativity associated with low wages and what is left?

You’re left with a very well-run organization – there’s no disputing that Walmart is the leader when it comes to world-class distribution practices, having invented many industry benchmarks over the years.

If you’ve ever seen the inside of one of their distribution centers then I’m sure you’ve marveled at how this company can keep track of the thousands of products they sell, keeping their inventories and sell prices as low as possible while still meeting market demands. Additionally, who could dispute their forecasting techniques? In these respects, there is no better company on the planet.

The company’s top leadership should set the example with respect to employee compensation - and be the paradigm in this area as well. Granted, changing corporate culture is often a very difficult thing to accomplish. Walmart is a great company – except in this area.

In fact, it is exactly that lack of ‘push’ from top management that turns public opinion against Walmart. The company could be the ideal of American employers, yet sadly, so far has chosen not to.

Yet, given the company’s performance in the technical areas of meeting consumer demand while realizing very good profits, there’s no doubt whatsoever that they can be successful in this effort – all it takes the political will to do so, and that must come from the very top.

Just think of the respect this company could garner by resetting the terms of its implicit social contract. It would earn this company greater profits than what they experience currently. Americans love success stories, and in every aspect of conducting business, Walmart is a great success story – except for one.