Posted on 09/29/2011 4:32:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
MEETING WITH VOTERS in an Andover living room last month, US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren vigorously challenged the idea that Obama Democrats are engaging in "class warfare" when they clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy. A YouTube clip of her remarks has liberals cheering; MoveOn calls it "The Elizabeth Warren Quote Every American Needs To Hear."
Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to face Republican Scott Brown in 2012, claims that raising taxes on those who succeed is justified by "the underlying social contract" that made their success possible: Government services gave them a leg up, so they must "pay forward" to help others.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody!" Warren preaches with populist fervor as she addresses an imaginary business owner. "You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory . . . because of work the rest of us did.
"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific -- God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
As an argument for higher taxes, this is admittedly an improvement on Barack Obama's 2008 declaration to Joe the Plumber that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Nonetheless, Warren's words reflect the infatuation with government and condescension toward private initiative that have been such hallmarks of the Obama presidency. Her eagerness to minimize the entrepreneur's achievement while exalting the role of the public sector may win cheers on the Left, but it puts her sharply at odds with mainstream voters.
By overwhelming margins, Americans think well of small businesses and those who create them -- Gallup found last year that 84 percent of respondents had a positive image of "entrepreneurs," and 95 percent felt positive toward "small business." The public's view of government, by contrast, could hardly be worse: In a poll out this week, 81 percent of Americans -- a record high -- express displeasure with their government. Last month, respondents ranked government dead last among 25 business and industry sectors.
Of course that doesn't mean that some government isn't necessary. Warren's implication that Republicans or conservatives who decry "class warfare" are unwilling to pay for roads, schools, or police and fire protection is childish. Not even the most libertarian Tea Partier, never mind a moderate like Brown, wants to zero out basic public services. Warren doesn't need to hector factory owners, imaginary or otherwise, into acknowledging that they benefit from highways and police departments, or that those benefits need to be paid for.
What's a lot harder to explain is how they benefit from the kind of government incompetence that can turn a $2.8 billion Big Dig project into a $22 billion Big Dig scandal. Or from government loan guarantees that squander fortunes on Solyndra and other ventures in "green" crony capitalism. Or from vast government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, with their trillions in unfunded obligations and unsustainable costs. Or from government subsidies for airports nobody uses and broadcasters that can support themselves.
|
|
In the video, Warren gestures emphatically each time she repeats her claim that entrepreneurs succeed only at the expense of "the rest of us." Far from refuting the "class warfare" charge, her words and body language confirm it. Yet surely she is aware that half of US households pay no income taxes at all. She must have some sense of the staggering array of taxes, fees, and assessments that anyone who develops a successful small business must continually pay to governments at all levels.
And even a Harvard law professor -- at least one who aspires to the US Senate -- has to realize that most entrepreneurs get rich only when they create value for others.
Yes, there is an "underlying social contract" on which civilized society depends. But there are two sides to that contract -- and more to its terms than just taxing away ever-bigger "hunks" of wealth from people who succeed. When 81 percent of Americans are fed up with their government, and when that government already spends far beyond its means, is it really the risk-takers of the private sector who deserve Professor Warren's ire?
Elizabeth Warren:
“You serve *us*!”
“The Government owns you and everything you have!”
“You are our slaves and we will do whatever we want with you!”
“Bow to your Leftist OverLords and Masters!!....NOW!!!”
It really is a despicable view of America and Americans.
The bottom half of the population use those same roads, police forces, and fire departments, but pay no taxes.
No wonder this country is so messed up!
We have way too many morons posing as University Professors in this country!
Exactly
Walter Mondale tried it and he barely got his own state and Washington D.C. as I remember it.
We'll see how it works out for her and all the other "Progressive Liberal" democrats who now have to use Obama's line.
By the Way, how low do you think Obama's definition of Rich can go?
I agree, it’s time the “world owes me a living” class did their fair share. Round them up on buses and put ‘em to work. Clearing trash, building trails, recontouring rivers, breaking up and replacing old sidewalks. There are a million things to do. If you are a HS dropout without a job, guess what? You are now assigned to a work crew. Do you think the Chinese just let people hang out and do nothing?
She also fails to mention that "society" didn't build the factory, take the risks and create the products. That was done by the capitalist business owners, not the unemployable idiots who make up her voting base.
She is running in Massachusetts. Don’t forget that.
She is being disingenuous and misleading. Few object to paying taxes for things like police, fire, roads, and common sense public education. Those are core Government functions. The problem is all the other things Government has taken on (namely entitlements and health care) that are increasingly unaffordable. That is what most people object to and she never even addresses that problem.
I’m sure there is an answer somewhere. There are many who are able to work who won’t. They should be made to work at public jobs in order to receive any assistance. However, there are those who are ill or mentally disabled and cannot work. Our problem seems to be the disability to distinguish between the two. Too many people have learned to play the system. I think God’s plan of help your neighbor is best. You know pretty well whether your neighbor really needs help, or is a con artist. When government gets involved, social worker jobs are created, and they have to keep people signed up so the workers can keep those jobs. Its a cycle I wish we could break.
She needs a wing tip in the posterior.
It’s pathetic, but likely a winning strategy in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
The choice of the term “social contract” is no accident either. The down-and-out can then be inspired that those wealthy people over there “broke their contract with you”.
That is a GREAT article, thank you! Especially since it is from 2002, before Warrenspew and long before any jobs were shovel-ready.
The “logic” of Warren’s argument is that you don’t really own anything you have, and government can take it anytime it deems it necessary for “the public good.” That is the essence of totalitarian communism. Warren would have made a great commissar in Stalin’s day. Or head of the NKVD.
Thanks!
“... clearing away the muddle is fairly straightforward provided we refuse to be impressed by verbiage, but stick doggedly to common sense, hard as that may sometimes be to do in the face of the massive browbeating that seeks to enthrone the verbiage.
There is a minor and a major point to recognise. The minor point is that the “framework” is not a person, natural or legal, to whom a debt can be owed, “institutions” do not act, “society” has no mind, no will, and makes no contributions. Only persons do these things. Imputing responsibility and credit for accumulated wealth, current production and well-being to entities that have no mind and no will is nonsense. It is a variant of the notorious fallacy of composition.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.