Trickle Up

I posted this reply to the article "A Liberal Supermajority" in the WSJ today:

Most liberals individually do not believe in "big government" the way many conservatives demonize them to. Usually, they believe in "government just big enough to support my pet projects", and with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama government, it's the aggregate of all these liberal pet projects that become the "big government" that conservatives hate and fear so much. So let's refrain from demonizing individual "tax and spend" liberals and focus on what I took to be the original point of your argument, liberal government unchecked (I agree, we have reason to be concerned).

If you listened to the presidential debates, moderators occasionally attempted to address this issue in the context of the recession, which the author brought up: We may be less likely to face this balloon in government programs because the next President will have to prioritize. From what I heard, it was Senator Obama who enumerated his priorities (healthcare, the environment, education), and Senator McCain who contended that we could do it all.

Lastly, the author's use of quotation marks to denote "the rich" and "green elites" conjurs images of old white men in smoky rooms chortling at the ludicrous notion that we might be facing global environmental disaster and that a person making $200,000/year is considered rich. All arguments to the contrary aside, this image is not working for the Republican Party and the author would be well-advised to rethink his base-pandering tactics.

-an Independent

I didn't post the full extent of what I really thought bc I wanted the comment to get posted, but let's address some other issues in the original article (I can't even get into all of them):

1) The idea that wealth redistribution is bad.
-I understand the arguments against wealth redistribution: it stifles growth by taxing investors and those who would own their own business, my money is my money, it's a slippery slope into socialism, etc. Let's consider for a moment the current economic crisis, however, and think about putting money into the hands of people who would actually spend it, and moreover, spend it on Kraft products, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds (by company, these three make up 10% of the DJIA). When was the last time Warren Buffett ate string cheese, you think? But he (or at least his holding company) will benefit off the people who eat it on a regular basis. Letting the rich keep their money benefits the poor, under trickle down theory, by advancing investment in companies, thereby promoting growth and job creation: a rising tide lifts all boats. But, spreading some of that money to people who don't have enough to buy the things they need benefits company revenues, which benefits the rich. Furthermore, high inequality leads to a less-safe society for everyone. Besides, the U.S. has experienced more growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones; even if the business cycle is the major underlying cause of this, it is not consistent with the argument that Republicans stimulate the economy significantly or that Democrats slow it significantly. Indeed, all it says is that either party has little effect at all! We could argue about this (and who benefits more from the gov't, the rich or the poor?) around in circles, and we do, which is why we have politics and a power sharing system, and huge majorities of one party could be cause for concern. But, the President's job is larger than the veto, so again it's just one issue in the many that voters use to make up their minds.

2) Environmental policies are thrust upon us by a "green elite".
-Sure there is a "green elite", but they are those who can afford to buy local and organic, and install solar panels in their homes. They are not, as the author implies, an oligarchy of liberals who want to impose their agenda on the unwilling American people. It is irresponsible and morally reprehensible to discredit the good work people are doing to try and save our planet and benefit everyone on it. If you're not willing to help, at least thank us for the positive externality you will be receiving. That's just my axe to grind.