This page was last updated on August 25, 2011.
Below the surface; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 24, 2011.
Intra-class warfare; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 24, 2011.
Regarding “Below the surface,” there have been a number of editorials on this topic since September 2004 and they are all basically the same piece with the words moved around. Among these retreads are “The new poor,” “Even worse,” “A real challenge,” “With us always,” “Morally right,” “Dire straits,” “Bottom line,” “Disturbing trend,” “Crisis stage,” and “Hard times.”
The editorial says, “But instead of being admired for their work ethic, these working poor Americans are scorned as slackers in some quarters. Just listen to the right-wing commentators who yammer on and on about 50 percent of Americans not paying federal income taxes. (While willfully ignoring that they pay others [sic] kinds of taxes. However, reality never stopped these manipulators before.)” Apparently I read/listen to the wrong “right-wing commentators.” I have yet to hear a righty pundit demean a working-but-poor person not trying to game the system. You’ll note the BCT was quick to mention the working poor “pay others [sic] kinds of taxes,” but fails to note the same about “the rich” when lobbying for them to pay higher tax rates. In any case, who cares? If there’s an income tax, everyone should pay and it should not be used to provide stealth welfare. Otherwise, you have a group of people who don’t care how high tax rates go for everyone else. I got a chuckle out of the BCT writing about “reality” and referring to others as “manipulators.”
The editorial continued, “There’s a good reason these men and women, who often have jobs that none of their critics would ever dream of doing, don’t pay any federal income taxes, and why many are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit: the (still semi-progressive) federal tax code.” As for “jobs that none of their critics would ever dream of doing,” if the job is that bad, isn’t it fair to say no one would dream of doing it, including the person doing the job? For those of you who may not know, the misnamed Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a stealth version of welfare that results in income tax “refunds” even to people who didn’t make an income tax payment. You’ll note the BCT didn’t refer to these provisions of the tax code as “loopholes” or “spending in the tax code” as it does when trying to justify higher tax rates for “the rich.” Also, there’s nothing “progressive” about “the federal tax code.” What lefties call “progressive” the rest of us would call regressive.
The editorial completely sidesteps individual responsibility. Most people in situations where they can’t provide for their family are there because of predictably poor life choices, not by unforeseen circumstances. For example, if a person has children outside of marriage, that’s a poor choice. If a family breadwinner earns minimum wage but the couple decides to have kids anyway, that’s a poor choice. If a couple can’t afford to raise a family on its own, do they have the right to go ahead and have kids anyway and dump part of the burden on their neighbors? Isn’t that the real irresponsibility and selfishness? If you can’t provide appropriate financial support for your family without taxpayer handouts, you have no business building a family. It is completely unfair to your children and to all the responsible families who live within their means.
Just over eight years ago the BCT (“Left Behind;” June 1, 2003) profiled two poor families. In both cases, individual irresponsibility caused the alleged poverty. In one case, a single mother of four children headed the “family.” The children had three fathers and the mother had never been married to any of them. In the other case, the guy admitted he mostly screwed around until he was nearly 30 and by then felt it was too late to do anything about his situation. That didn’t stop him from getting married to a woman with a child, however. How did the BCT present these persons? As people the economy “left behind.” These folks were not left behind. When the bus of opportunity stopped, these folks chose not to get on.
In my critique of “Hard facts” I wrote, “The left and right approach ‘helping’ people differently. The left believes ‘help’ must come from government by confiscating ‘hard-earned money from hard-working taxpayers’ and giving it to those in favored groups. There is nothing compassionate about the government taking ‘hard-earned money from hard-working taxpayers’ to give to someone who didn’t earn it. There’s nothing altruistic or charitable in ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’ The right believes we help everyone when we maximize effective individual liberty. That means letting people keep what they earn and letting them decide how to distribute the fruits of their labor. The more a person gets to keep of his paycheck, the more he has to help others voluntarily. Compassion is when a person freely chooses to use his own paycheck to help someone in need. Should people in need because of unforeseen circumstances get help? Of course, but from private charities funded by voluntary contributions, not by confiscating ‘hard-earned money from hard-working taxpayers.’”
As for “Intra-class warfare,” it probably belonged in the funny-pages section. That piece employed the tactic of accusing your opponent of actions you employ yourself.
The editorial starts with, “Right-wing manipulators know this about class warfare.” Wow, “right-wing manipulators” twice on the same day in two editorials!
The editorial opines, “A beggar doesn’t resent a millionaire’s wealth. In fact, he admires him and fantasizes about being like him. Meanwhile, that same beggar bitterly resents another beggar who has just a little more than he does.” The BCT has been using variations of the beggar comment since at least 2004. “Rich man, poor man” said, “As Bertrand Russell once observed, beggars don’t envy millionaires. They envy other beggars who are doing just a little better than they are.” Subsequently, the BCT embellished the Russell “observation” and chose not to mention him. In “Quick hits/THE RICH GET RICH” we read, “as someone once observed, a beggar doesn’t begrudge the millionaire his wealth. In fact, he admires him. However, he bitterly resents another beggar who has just a little more than he does and relishes dragging him down to his level.” If that’s true, who has been making all the noise about the mythical “tax cuts for the rich” for the last decade?
You likely won’t be surprised to learn the BCT cherry-picked the quote. In case you care about what Mr. Russell wrote before and after the quote in “The Conquest of Happiness” (1930), here it is: “In an age when the social hierarchy is fixed, the lowest classes do not envy the upper classes so long as the division between rich and poor is thought to be ordained by God. Beggars do not envy millionaires, though of course they will envy other beggars who are more successful. … Our age is therefore one in which envy plays a peculiarly large part. The poor envy the rich, the poorer nations envy the richer nations, women envy men, virtuous women envy those who, though not virtuous, remain unpunished. While it is true that envy is the chief motive force leading to justice as between different classes, different nations, and different sexes, it is at the same time true that the kind of justice to be expected as a result of envy is likely to be the worst possible kind; namely, that which consists rather in diminishing the pleasures of the fortunate than in increasing those of the unfortunate.” Oops. No wonder the BCT tells us to beware of the Internet.
The editorial concludes with, “When the right-wingers talk about class warfare, it’s not the rich against the poor. Instead, they are promoting resentment that fuels intra-class warfare between the have-nots and the have-a-bit-mores. It’s clever — and cruel.” A key strategy of the left is to herd people into classes and groups based on age, ethnicity, income, race, religion, sex, skin color, wealth, et cetera, and pit them against each other, but “right-wingers” are the ones into class warfare? If you’re not rolling on the floor laughing, you’re not human.
If this weren’t funny enough, another local lefty commented about the editorial, “Very good. But as Abe Lincoln reminded us, ‘you can’t fool all the people all the time.’ The days of the promoters of division among the working class, hopefully, will be short.” I agree, but he doesn’t seem to understand he’s referring to himself and his fellow travelers. By the way, if you think you’re part of the “working class,” you may not be. According to this gentleman’s definition of “working class,” you’re a member only if someone else signs your paycheck. If you’re a business owner, whether the business is large or small, you’re not in the “working class.” For some other lefties, labor union membership is also a requirement for belonging to the “working class.”
Some of the following are several years old, but I suggest you read the following papers.
Understanding Poverty in America (Backgrounder #1713); Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; January 5, 2004.
Understanding Poverty in America: What the Census Bureau doesn’t count; Robert E. Rector; The Heritage Foundation; September 11, 2009.
Poverty and Inequality; The Heritage Foundation.
The Data on Poverty and Health Insurance You’re Not Reading (WebMemo #556); Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; August 27, 2004.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.