I think that Keyes is being pretty slick with this proposal. First, he wants to inspire some original thinking among the followers of the civil rights movement. Second, he wants to demonstrate that the people doing the most b*tching about slave reparations really have no idea what they are talking about, because when they total up the tax break it will be a net loss (not EITC). Finally, the size of the total size of the tax break would be small since lower income people pay little in the way of federal taxes to begin with.
This whole exercise is a sub rosa economics lesson disguised as a moral argument.
I hope so.
Think of the liberal responses to Keyes' proposal?
1. Great idea (Hey, you just admitted income tax cuts work. Why not give them to everyone?).
2. Blacks don't pay that much in taxes anyway (well there goes the "backs of the poor" argument).
3. It's wrong to divide people by race (say goodbye to affirmative action).
4. We don't want to have to work for it, just give us handouts--the liberal mind exposed.
Thank you, Dr. Keyes--an expert debater at work.
He is also setting up the race hustling leftists. He wants blacks who blindly vote for Dems to see how these hustlers react to the idea of not taxing them.
That's brilliant on your part. But is is the same kind of brilliance Keyes displays: moral clarity, conservative principles, political stupidity. It MAY be a "sub rosa economics lesson": if it is, his "students" will not get it...it MAY be a moral argument, I'll give you that -- but -- and pay real close attention here:
IT IS HORRID POLITICS.
My God, can you imagine the scramble on everybody's part to "prove" their geneology? Does he realize that some huge part of the population would be able to "prove" that? And then you would need a huge NEW Federal bureaucracy just to vet all the claims, and the lawsuits from the people who were left out, and the politicians who would introduce laws to create partial reparations for those who are partially affected, and the NEW controversies...when you introduce an entitlement into the political arena, it spawns entire industries and concepts and bodies of statutes and agencies and...I could go on.
And I don't mean by "political" what many on this board seem to think it is, a synonym for "compromise". You say "horrid politics", and they rush to Keyes' defense as a non-compromiser. No, no, no: by horrid politics I mean HE IS AS STUPID ABOUT HOW ELECTIONS ARE WON AND HOW POLICIES GET PLAYED OUT IN THE REAL WORLD AS HE IS BRILLIANT FROM THE LECTURN.
As a candidate, he's a mess. No clue.
That's what I'm thinking - especially since he knows full well such a plan would never pass.