Triumph of the Redistributionist Left (The Republican Party)

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0123/p25s01-cogn.html

Triumph of the redistributionist left
Even with Republicans in control, trends are decidedly in favor of massive redistribution of wealth.

By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

The political left in America is emerging victorious. No, this isn't about the damage that Jack Abramoff's mischief has done to the political right. Nor is it about President Bush's lousy poll numbers. And it doesn't refer to Democrats' recent win of two governorships. It's about something much deeper; namely, that the era of big government is far from over. Trends are decidedly in favor of that quintessential leftist goal: massive redistribution of wealth.

Republicans' capture of both Congress and the White House was, understandably, a demoralizing blow to the left. But the latter can take solace that "Republican" is no longer synonymous with spending restraint, free markets, and other ideals of the political right.

While the left did not get its way on tax cuts, this may be only a temporary defeat: Freewheeling spending has made future tax cuts politically a lot harder.

During the first five years of President Bush's presidency, nondefense discretionary spending (i.e., spending decided on an annual basis) rose 27.9 percent, far more than the 1.9 percent growth during President Clinton's first five years, according to the libertarian Reason Foundation. And according to Citizens Against Government Waste, the number of congressional "pork barrel" projects under Republican leadership during fiscal 2005 was 13,997, more than 10 times that of 1994.

Discretionary spending is dwarfed by mandatory spending - spending that cannot be changed without changing the laws. Shifting demographics combined with an inability to change those laws virtually ensures that, through programs such as Social Security and Medicare, America's workers will be forced to redistribute a larger and larger portion of their income to other Americans in the coming decades.

The near impossibility of changing the system was evident in the recent effort to convert Social Security from a spending program to a savings program. It hardly stood a chance against the powerful senior citizens' lobby and other left-leaning groups, and their allies in Congress on both sides of the political aisle.

Time is on the side of the left. As politically difficult as it is now to reform Social Security or Medicare, as the years pass it will get even more difficult. The swelling number of retirees will further strengthen the senior lobby. And as Social Security's surplus evaporates, there will be less money available with which to establish personal savings accounts.

The prescription drug benefit was another victory for the redistributionists. While it is true that the left wants even more spent on that program, Republican efforts have netted an additional $1.2 trillion being redistributed over the next 10 years.

Certain trends have been favoring the left for the past several decades. In the early 1960s, transfer payments (entitlements and welfare) constituted less than a third of the federal government's budget. Now they constitute almost 60 percent of the budget, or about $1.4 trillion per year. Measured according to this, the US government's main function now is redistribution: taking money from one segment of the population and giving it to another segment. In a few decades, transfer payments are expected to make up more than 75 percent of federal government spending.

Currently the federal government consumes about 20 percent of the GDP, which is another way of saying that about 20 percent of Americans' income, on average, is paid in taxes to the federal government. According to the Government Accountability Office, that is on course to rise to 30 percent by 2040. Most of that 30 percent would be redistributed as payments to other Americans, rather than spent on standard government services like law enforcement, transportation, defense, national parks, or space exploration.

While foreign policy has taken a rightward turn since Sept. 11, 2001, it, too, could drift leftward in coming decades. As the government allocates more of its budget to entitlements, there will be less money available to spend on the military, embassies, aid agencies, and other apparatuses that enable us to wield outsized influence in world affairs. We are on track to become more like the welfare states of Europe and Canada, where entitlement spending leaves limited funds available for bold foreign policy initiatives.

The left should be pleased that defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget has steadily declined during the past decades. In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time that percentage shrank, the percentage devoted to entitlements rose. This is reflected in money allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services: It skyrocketed from just over 3 percent of federal expenditures four decades ago to an estimated 25 percent this year. With the impending retirement of the baby-boom generation in addition to the new prescription drug plan, this crowding-out of defense and other government programs, such as homeland security, will accelerate.

The left has a powerful institutional force on its side: "public choice" economics. Our system of government is highly responsive to vocal groups that lobby for subsidies, government programs, and other special favors. Since the costs are spread out among all taxpayers while the benefits are concentrated among smaller segments of the population (such as retirees, in the case of Social Security and Medicare), the taxpayers have much less of an incentive to lobby against the measure while the beneficiaries have a huge incentive to lobby for it. Whenever those subsidies are threatened, the lobbies launch their barrages of politically effective complaints.

Forces favoring the left are virtually locked in. Even with Republicans in control, big government is destined to get a lot bigger.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Don't forget to add your own comments so this doesn't get locked...

An interesting theory, but a couple of flaws here. The first is that whatever the numbers in the article say, the income gap is growing in the US. If wealth is being redistributed, it's not being done very well. Perhaps government attempts at doing so seem to be on the rise, but the results are quite the opposite. The other problem is that while Republicans seem to have embraced the concept of "big government" in a big way, the Republican big government is less the kind of big government that goes after Enron or gives out more welfare checks, and more the type of big government that feels the need to regulate whether or not John and Steve can get married. Big government, perhaps, but quite a different kind.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Very deceptive.
Such things as claim 20 percent of GDP is coming out of Americans pocket in taxes. Thats an out right lie.
Another lie is Bushes retirement savings account will fix SS.
What a poorly written opinion piece.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Don't forget to add your own comments so this doesn't get locked...

An interesting theory, but a couple of flaws here. The first is that whatever the numbers in the article say, the income gap is growing in the US. If wealth is being redistributed, it's not being done very well. Perhaps government attempts at doing so seem to be on the rise, but the results are quite the opposite. The other problem is that while Republicans seem to have embraced the concept of "big government" in a big way, the Republican big government is less the kind of big government that goes after Enron or gives out more welfare checks, and more the type of big government that feels the need to regulate whether or not John and Steve can get married. Big government, perhaps, but quite a different kind.
You're assuming redistribution means from the wealthy to the poor. I suspect more of this "wealth redistribution" is happening from the middle class to both the poor and the wealthy, especially since Bush "cut" taxes.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Would you count perscriptions and medical treatment people could not afford, and that are paid from by taxes from the wealthy as income? There is more to distribution of wealth than an annual income number.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Would you count perscriptions and medical treatment people could not afford, and that are paid from by taxes from the wealthy as income? There is more to distribution of wealth than an annual income number.
Don't you mean paid for by the taxes of the middle class? This is an example of what I was talking about. The poor get free or discounted medication. The wealthy, in this case people with major pharmaceutical holdings, get windfall profits due to the new prescription drug program which uniquely prohibits Uncle Sam from negotiating group-rate pricing. It is clearly and undeniably a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded gift to big pharma.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RichardE
Would you count perscriptions and medical treatment people could not afford, and that are paid from by taxes from the wealthy as income? There is more to distribution of wealth than an annual income number.
Don't you mean paid for by the taxes of the middle class? This is an example of what I was talking about. The poor get free or discounted medication. The wealthy, in this case people with major pharmaceutical holdings, get windfall profits due to the new prescription drug program which uniquely prohibits Uncle Sam from negotiating group-rate pricing. It is clearly and undeniably a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded gift to big pharma.

That would work, save the logic not every wealthy person is in the pharm program. As well, the more wealthy you are, the more tax dollars you are paying. Yes, you can get out on paying taxes on stocks ect, but income wise, you will still pay more dollars than single at home mother of 3 who is getting checks ect. There are many many social services that you could count as income besides actually income.

Just one example, 13000 in health care costs on average per year per head. Take into account wealthier people usually pay for top notch health care, you could increase that 13000 if you take the upper echelon out. Say we add that one and only one thing to income...bam...lower income just shot up 13000.

Add the cost of public schooling to that it shoots up even more. Ect ect
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Don't forget to add your own comments so this doesn't get locked...

An interesting theory, but a couple of flaws here. The first is that whatever the numbers in the article say, the income gap is growing in the US. If wealth is being redistributed, it's not being done very well. Perhaps government attempts at doing so seem to be on the rise, but the results are quite the opposite. The other problem is that while Republicans seem to have embraced the concept of "big government" in a big way, the Republican big government is less the kind of big government that goes after Enron or gives out more welfare checks, and more the type of big government that feels the need to regulate whether or not John and Steve can get married. Big government, perhaps, but quite a different kind.

The income gap has been growing for 50+ years...it's nothing new.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RichardE
Would you count perscriptions and medical treatment people could not afford, and that are paid from by taxes from the wealthy as income? There is more to distribution of wealth than an annual income number.
Don't you mean paid for by the taxes of the middle class? This is an example of what I was talking about. The poor get free or discounted medication. The wealthy, in this case people with major pharmaceutical holdings, get windfall profits due to the new prescription drug program which uniquely prohibits Uncle Sam from negotiating group-rate pricing. It is clearly and undeniably a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded gift to big pharma.
That would work, save the logic not every wealthy person is in the pharm program.
Nor is every poor person getting subsidized medication. That doesn't change the validity of the example.


As well, the more wealthy you are, the more tax dollars you are paying. Yes, you can get out on paying taxes on stocks ect, but income wise, you will still pay more dollars than single at home mother of 3 who is getting checks ect.
Sorry, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the OP or my comments.


There are many many social services that you could count as income besides actually income.
Undoubtedly true. This again has nothing to do with my contention that wealth is being redistributed from the middle class to both the poor and the wealthy.


Just one example, 13000 in health care costs on average per year per head. Take into account wealthier people usually pay for top notch health care, you could increase that 13000 if you take the upper echelon out. Say we add that one and only one thing to income...bam...lower income just shot up 13000.
I strongly doubt that the average poor person uses as much medical care as the average American, thus making the $13,000 figure inapplicable. In order to be meaningful, you would need statistics for the total average cost of subsidized health care for the poorest 20%. In any case, however, this is also irrelevant to my contention.


Add the cost of public schooling to that it shoots up even more. Ect ect
As above.

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: RichardE
Would you count perscriptions and medical treatment people could not afford, and that are paid from by taxes from the wealthy as income? There is more to distribution of wealth than an annual income number.
Don't you mean paid for by the taxes of the middle class? This is an example of what I was talking about. The poor get free or discounted medication. The wealthy, in this case people with major pharmaceutical holdings, get windfall profits due to the new prescription drug program which uniquely prohibits Uncle Sam from negotiating group-rate pricing. It is clearly and undeniably a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded gift to big pharma.
That would work, save the logic not every wealthy person is in the pharm program.
Nor is every poor person getting subsidized medication. That doesn't change the validity of the example.


As well, the more wealthy you are, the more tax dollars you are paying. Yes, you can get out on paying taxes on stocks ect, but income wise, you will still pay more dollars than single at home mother of 3 who is getting checks ect.
Sorry, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the OP or my comments.


There are many many social services that you could count as income besides actually income.
Undoubtedly true. This again has nothing to do with my contention that wealth is being redistributed from the middle class to both the poor and the wealthy.


Just one example, 13000 in health care costs on average per year per head. Take into account wealthier people usually pay for top notch health care, you could increase that 13000 if you take the upper echelon out. Say we add that one and only one thing to income...bam...lower income just shot up 13000.
I strongly doubt that the average poor person uses as much medical care as the average American, thus making the $13,000 figure inapplicable. In order to be meaningful, you would need statistics for the total average cost of subsidized health care for the poorest 20%. In any case, however, this is also irrelevant to my contention.


Add the cost of public schooling to that it shoots up even more. Ect ect
As above.

I honestly doubt the average poor person makes as much money as the statistics. Even skipping health care costs, take public schooling. This money does not come out of thin air, it is taken from people and redistributed through services. That is the important part, you get many services, and subsidized services, that are in essense, redistrribution of wealth. It would be interesting if someone did a study on income, and including all the free state provided services, ect, and we could see how far apart this really is. I would guess it would be alot closer than it is now.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I have been saying this for months. The Right in this country is what the left was 40 years ago. Our whole country has shifted to the left pretty drastically.