Fairness: It's Good Economic Policy

There was an editorial the other day in the New York Times by Warren Buffet.

What kills me about Warren is how universally ignored he is by the pundits and professors. He's like this rich uncle that people love and respectfully listen to... and then ignore. He is the Polonius of the Plutocracy.

In his piece, he argues strongly for the rich to pay more in taxes for two reasons:
a) We need the money and
b) It's basic fairness

This argument was immediately countered by economists on all sides of the equation for the simple reason that they think the actual increase in revenue would be relatively minor. OK, that's Argument A. But everyone ignored B. And B. is what matters.

Basic fairness matters. It matters -more- than the actual revenue because morale matters. When people feel the system is constantly gamed and unfair, they just stop trying. The motivation of fair play... that 'every kid can grow up to be President' is more valuable to the country than any bailout or stimulus package.

And economists almost never include that morale as a part of their equations... for the same reason they get things wrong about so many issues; they refuse to ignore any capital that can't be quantified in dollars. But social capital matters as much as financial capital. (I think David Brooks is largely corect when he suggests that this is because Economists know they aren't -real- scientists and if they get within 100 yards of 'human' factors, they won't get tenure.)

Until we start conducting tax policy with 'fairness' as a primary goal... regardless of it's economic efficacy, we will never regain our country's past glory.

Old Uncle Warren is correct: Moral tax policy is good economic tax policy.

Founding Fathers

In American politics these days it's very common for conservatives (and liberals) to refer to 'The Founding Fathers' to support one's position on an issue. Several Supreme Court justices describe themselves as 'originalists'... adhering to the letter of these 'framers' intentions.

To my mind this is as dangerous as a strict 'scriptural' interpretation of God's Laws.

Because the Founding Fathers did not speak with one voice on much of anything.

It's easy to forget that the hatreds amongst the founders of this great country.

Adams and Jefferson slandered one another. Jefferson used dirty tricks to win their presidential contest. They then didn't speak to one another for more than a decade.

Oh, and Hamilton was shot by fellow Founder Aaron Burr.

So besides getting rid of the Brits, there wasn't much they did agree upon.

As you can see, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about 'the framers original intent'. Franklin's vision of America was as different from Madison's as was Paul's version of Christianity from Peter's. In short, though they shared the same dream of heaven, their roads to Paradise were quite different.

There is always great tension between leaders of any important movement. So we should not be too quick to assume we know a singular truth about any founder's long term intentions. It's like asking 'What Would Jesus Do?' We can't know because, after all, even those who followed nearest him were being constantly surprised.

If we attempt to govern based on 'original intent', we must first decide on a singular intent. And in the case of America's foundation, there simply was no singular vision. So then it's up to us to choose which vision is truly 'authentic'. And when we choose, we must ask ourselves whether or not our choice is self-serving. Because Madison's 'vision' on many issues is diametrically opposed to Hamilton's or Adams'. When we choose to say we 'know' what the founders would do, aren't we really saying we prefer one founder's vision over another? And if so, can we really say we're being honest. Aren't we simply cherry-picking a viewpoint (albeit a heckuva viewpoint) to bolster feelings we already have in our mind?

I submit to you, Dear Reader, that those who spout 'original intent', either in matters of government or religion are likely using fine words to follow their own desires, rather than being led by those fine words. It's the height of irony and hypocrisy in my view.