The Surreal Life, Campaign Edition
posted by Frank Pasquale
We’ve been through a vertiginous week or so, with a kaleidoscope of commentators opining that Palin would sink, save, inspire, or incriminate Steve Schmidt and the merry band of Rove-epigones now running the McCain campaign. But today is an inflection point. The media-crafted uproar over Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment–brilliantly dissected by Glenn Greenwald here–will either generate a “backlash to the backlash” that returns us to seriousness, or will spur ever more frivolous navel-gazing by the press corps and its solipsistic pundit class. We’ll either confront the lies permeating our political public sphere, the endless parade of distractions or diversions, or succumb to them.
A few days ago, Thomas Friedman argued that a response of “drill, baby, drill” to the current energy crisis is about as struthious as arguing “typewriters, baby, typewriters” at the dawn of the PC. As income inequality skyrockets, one candidate wants the wealthiest to pay a fair share, while the other wants to give those making over $2.87 million per year an additional $269,364 annually. We’ll either face these facts head on, or we’ll make a nation ever less capable of collective action, ever less competitive on the international scene, ever more susceptible of being distracted and perhaps destroyed by the panem et circenses now substituting for democracy.
Photo Credit: droolcup.
September 10, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Posted in: Blogging
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Bill - September 11, 2008 at 7:53 am
“one candidate wants the wealthiest to pay a fair share”
Hmmm…The top 1% currently pays 40% of federal income taxes. Is that “fair”?
Maryland Conservatarian - September 11, 2008 at 10:43 am
“…while the other wants to give those making over $2.87 million per year an additional $269,364 annually.”
When you write “give” do you mean similar to an Earned Income Credit, where people are actually given additional money or do you mean it in the modern-day liberal/progressive sense whereby a tax rate cut (or not initiating a tax rate increase) is portrayed as a subsidy by the government just because it doesn’t take as much of a person’s money as it did previously.
…now if you want to discuss truly taxing wealth (vice income or production) with, say, an excise tax on the idle rich – i.e. Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, or John Kerry…
Sam B. - September 11, 2008 at 10:43 am
Bill,
That depends. What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control? What percentage of income do they acrete to every year? And does “fair” = “pays the same percentage as everybody else?” I mean, ultimately, is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? The fairness argument, while valid, is both more complicated than “pays 40%” and has more aspects than merely percentage paid. FWIW.
Bill - September 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“What percentage of the wealth do the top 1% control?”
Why does this matter if it was legally attained/earned?
“And does ‘fair’ = ‘pays the same percentage as everybody else?’”
Why not?
“is it fair that Trust Fund Kid inhereted millions from her father? ”
The “Trust Fund Kid” argument is an appeal to emotion. Having said that, if her father legally attained the wealth then yes, it is fair.
Mike - September 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.
Mike - September 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.
Mike - September 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Most Americans, whatever their wealth or income, want to contribute. Some don’t. That small group that doesn’t think that the country is theirs and the rest are merely presences, not owners. But that small group has invested a large amount of money to “buy” the intellectual life of our country and the government as well. This is all understandable but not a reason for them not to be required to contribute.
Leave a Reply