Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:31:09 PM
I was reading through comments on the various pundits' articles and saw several liberal posters pulling out the hoary old argument that the right is "for the rich", while the left is "for the poor". Does
anyone believe this any longer? Well, just in case, let me refute the many absurdities.
First, let us distinguish between the right and the Republicans. Long ago much of the Republican party was captured by career politicians. They
may be evicted in the wake of the Obama defeat and the Specter defection, but
they may not. Whatever the case, confusing the right and Republicans can lead to mistaken results.
Now, let us first look at the claim the right is "for the rich". Do I even have to disprove this? When the Democrats are supported almost uniformly by the trial lawyers, hardly an impoverished group? Or that both parties support farm bills, which tend to heavily favor agribusiness firms? Neither party seems adverse to bowing to the requests of lobbyists, and I don't know of too many lobbyists who work pro bono, so I have to conclude both parties are pretty friendly to the rich.
On the other hand, many conservatives have favored the Fair Tax. I personally
oppose it for various reasons, but if you look at it, the FairTax is hardly a pro-rich measure. Yes, it does end capital gains and inheritance tax, but the rich rarely pay those, hiding behind various accounting tricks, most who end up paying those taxes are firmly middle class. Similarly, income tax, while a popular tool for those trying to "soak the rich", tend not to hit the truly rich, but rather the upper middle class, or even the middle class as a whole. So moving to the FairTax, or even a flat tax, far from favoring "the rich", would probably not help the rich so much as the middle class.
Now the second claim, that the left favors the poor, is, on the surface, rather plausible. The left loves to give away money to those who can't or won't work. However, one must ask, do they truly help anyone with these policies? Is it not possible that
these measures actually
perpetuate poverty? When added to the left's soft on crime policies, which keep criminals in poor neighborhood to commit more crimes, is it not possible to argue that the left, while giving condescending handouts to the poor, does more to increase, rather than reduce,poverty?
It may be still worse than that. Through
excessive regulation,
taxes which hinder
capital formation,
minimum wage laws,
unionization which increases unemployment,
inflationary schemes,
massive government spending,
inconsistent courts,
environmental boondoggles,
protectionism, and a
host of other policies, the left itself
causes slowed economic growth, which also helps to keep the poor in poverty. (See my posts "
How Democrats Keep the Poor Poor" and "
How to Become a Victim of Crime", among others, for more on the same topics.) And is it not support for
the free market, for
personal responsibility, and for the
economic growth inherent in a vibrant economy which would truly help the poor?
Then again, this is all beside the point, as as the basic premise of this question is not valid. The idea that government must "favor" the rich or the poor is absurd. Government should favor neither, and that is the conservative position. Yes, favoring individual rights, including the right to the proceeds of one's labor, may seem to favor those who have more, but in reality it doesn't. Everyone benefits by the right to keep what they earn, both because others who keep their earning create new employment opportunities, invent new products, provide more goods, and in general enrich everyone, but even more because once one does start to earn, he can keep all of what he earns, making ti easier to make one's way out of poverty than it is under a confiscatory or over-regulated regime.
So, though the left often tries to paint respect for economic rights as "favoring the rich", in reality it favors everyone, everyone that is except those who earn their living form big government, be they rich or poor.