Econ 101 - Whose Ox Gets Gored?

I learned a few things from Professor Beuchel in Econ 101 at the UW, most memorably that, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored." That expression amply explains the way our government, with the two party system, approaches taxing and spending.

The Republicans have used their control of Congress to cut taxes massively for the rich and insignificantly for the middle class and poor, while simultaneously enormously increasing spending on defense and war and more moderately cutting some other expenses, mostly social programs. The result is a massive debt to be paid for in the future unprogressively, meaning more by the middle class and poor.

"Tax reform" is nothing more than deciding whose ox to gore. There are only two things that can be done to change the tax laws - either raise taxes or lower them. There are only two things that can be done with the income from taxes - spend it or save it. There are only two things tax revenue can be spent for - paying the interest on the national debt to avoid national bankruptcy, or spending for any other purposes. There are only two ways tax revenue can be "saved" - putting some revenue into a rainy day savings account or using some revenue to pay off part of the principal amount of the national debt.

So how will the Republicans use their power to make these choices? This is an easy question to answer - "four more years"- more of what they have been doing: lower taxes, especially on the rich; spend the revenue for defense and war; make significant cuts in other spending, especially social spending; and don’t save anything for a rainy day and don’t hesitate to increase the national debt further.

So whose ox is being gored? Obviously the ox of the middle class and the poor. Why do poor people in particular put up with this damage to their ox? Because they have been conditioned to believe, ever since the end of the LBJ Great Society programs on the late 1960's, that government is not really interested in improving the economic security of the poor. The Republican Presidents since then have certainly not been concerned, Carter was too busy with other problems to do much for the poor, and Clinton was hobbled by a Republican Congress. So poor people have made their personal safety and our national security a higher and supposedly more realistic priority, and they decided GW Bush, a wartime President should be retained. Of the 28 States with the lowest per capita income in America, 26 voted for Bush. The higher per capita income States voted for Kerry.

The message in here for the Democrats is to legitimately speak to the poor. Develop and clearly explain some basic programs to economically lift up poor people - such as job training, technical school grants, minimum wage increases, etc. Constantly remind them how it has always been the Democrats who have brought improvements to the lives of the poor. But in this day of spiritual seeking, it is important for the Democrats to get religious leaders involved in voicing support of these programs as embodying true spiritual values in contrast to the false right wing message of the mis-named Christian Coalition and Moral Majority.