Posted on 08/17/2004 2:38:57 PM PDT by unspun
By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (admin@illinoisleader.com)
CHICAGO -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes has just released a statement clarifying what appeared to be a surprising position he took at a news conference yesterday.
"I think a cogent argument could be made for reparations in principle," Keyes is quoted as saying to reporters yesterday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
The Chicago Tribune expanded:
Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment."
The response from conservatives was immediate. "Who downstate will now vote for Keyes?" wrote IllinoisLeader.com reader Randall Mead of Springfield today. "I certainly won't."
This afternoon, Keyes released the following statement, clarifying his position:
I have consistently opposed the effort to extort monetary damages from the American people. As I have argued in the past, the great sacrifices involved in the Civil War represented the requital in blood and treasure for the terrible injustices involved in slavery. In this form the so called "reparations" movement represents an insult to the historic commitment that many Americans made to the end of slavery, which included the sacrifice of their lives.I have also consistently maintained that the history of slavery, racial segregation and discrimination did real damage to black Americans, left real and persistent material wounds in need of healing.
In various ways through the generations since the end of slavery, America has tried to address this objective fact, but without real success. This was at least in part the rational for many elements of the Great Society programs of the sixties, and for the original and proper concept of affirmative action developed under Republican leadership during the Nixon years.
Unfortunately, the government-dominated approaches of the Great Society, which purported to heal and repair the legacy of historical damage, actually widened and deepened the wounds. They undermined the moral foundations of the black community and seriously corrupted the family structure and the incentives to work, savings, investment, and business ownership.
The idea I have often put forward to address this challenge involves a traditionally Republican, conservative and market-oriented approach: removing the tax burden from the black community for a generation or two in order to encourage business ownership, create jobs and support the development of strong economic foundations for working families.
This has the advantage of letting people help themselves, rather then pouring money into government bureaucracies that displace and discourage their own efforts. It takes no money from other citizens, while righting the historic imbalance that results from the truth that black slaves toiled for generations at a tax rate that was effectively 100 percent.
I have also made it clear that while I believe that the descendants of slaves would be helped by this period of tax relief, my firm goal and ultimate objective is to replace the income tax, and thereby free all Americans from this insidious form of tax slavery. It is well known that this is one of the key priorities of the Keyes campaign.
In response to Keyes' statement, conservative Jack Roeser of Family Taxpayers Network told IllinoisLeader.com, "I expect Keyes would say this is one of those interesting subjects to be talked about among people sharing ideas. Reparations is an impractical concept. Everybody in every category has been wronged in one or the other, and you cannot single one out."
Roeser continued, "Keyes is a man of ideas, and I expect he gets into discussions like this that are proper in their proper place, but that he would never vote for reparations. The problem with American politics is that people don't get into deep discussions."
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
______What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.
And some sort of reparation for proven decendants of actual slaves has been something I have never really opposed, if there was a way to do it other than direct payments of cash.
I'm happy to see anybody get a tax break, myself.
Then there are those of us whose forefathers fought for the Union. Should we be penalized for the very crime that our ancestors fought AGAINST? That's infuriating.
If reparations (liberal style) ever passes, the very first thing I'll do is organize a "Descendants of Union Vets" group and sue for exemption. And the second thing I'll do is sue an ancient, guilty instituion - the DEMOCRATIC PARTY -- for having defended slavery and thereby sparking the Civil War, leading to my ancestor's "trauma".
I do think that the Keyes idea might have merit though, if only because it may eventually doom ALL income taxes.
Can't he find some grown-ups to work on his campaign?
If someone insisted on cutting my hand off, it would be clever if they did it in one fell swoop, rather than sawing it off, an inch at a time.
You can't be serious, Knotts! Are you actually shifting your opinion on reparations simply because Keyes advances the notion?
This would be true if you're taxes are getting raised to pay for it.
You're still operating through the emotion of jealousy that the Democratics have exploited so well, getting people to believe that tax cuts for other people are bad for them.
This is simply not true. It's the lie the left loves to use to manipulate people, don't fall for it.
Oh, please, Knotts!
Why should non-slaves get reparations of any kind? They've suffered no injustice!!!
True. So if we throw out everybody who's ancestors fought for the Union, everybody who's ancestors weren't even in America during the slave times, and everybody who's ancestors were slaves, what are we left with? Maybe about 10% of people that could conceivably owe the slave decendants a couple bucks?
Any thing that gives this movement even the slightest legitimacy is a mistake.
It's not just that. Definitionally, Keyes' reparation plan does not help the lowest-income black Americans, because they don't pay taxes. So there will have to be some sort of reparations plan for them as well.
The fact is, the federal government allowed slavery for a long time, and it was unjust. But it would also be unjust to simply pay people out of the treasury. A tax break is a more indirect form of reparation which is not as offensive to me. I still think giving government land is better.
The abolition of the income tax will not come out of a plan like this. If anything, it guarantees the income tax has to stay around longer because, otherwise, the "reperations" will be played off as having been a scam on the black community.
I am not impressed with his position, but I do not think it matters.
Exactly. The "burden" on the treasury would be miniscule, while still making a moral statement.
No that'll be true period. Her's the problem, you've got this black family whose tax burden of $1000 for year X is being waved because of the reperations, now there's a proposal to cut taxes, if this proposal passes their tax burden will drop to $750. This will be argued as us devaluing our guilt over slavery, devaluing the attrocities done to these people's ancestors, and the tax cut will fail miserably.
I'm operating with that because the Democrats have used it so effectively, and there isn't any indication that it's going to stop working any time soon.
It is true, with this kind of reperations the money blacks aren't paying in taxes will be the dollar value to our guilt, any move to lower our guilt will be defeated by appeals to emotion. Sure it fails the logic test, but if we could count on the general population to use logic instead of emotion Kerry wouldn't be polling above 10%.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I don't buy into all the psychological mumbo-jumbo, but these people have at least some argument that their families were financially damaged. It would be good to put this all to rest, once and for all.
Read what your hero has proposed. He supports race-based tax cuts!
Yes, but do you really think reparations of any sort will ever make it through Congress? I don't. If Keyes were Senator from Ill. he would likely never even cast a vote on the subject. The issue is in the courts. The courts have been and always will be the great undemocratic hope for unpopular liberal ideas. If reparations happen, activist judges will be to blame. Keyes is a non-issue on this subject, imo. His position is revealing, but just not relevant.
"None Dare Call it Pandering"
btw, does anyone know if former FReeper CAL (Connie Hair, Clintonsaliar) is involved in the Keyes campaign this time, as she was in the Presidential campaign?
Seriously, though, I don't mind Keyes putting his particular spin on the reparations issue, like this, pre-remptively. Though I don't think even Baracka would seriously float reparations as a legitimate issue during or after the campaign. Keyes' bringing it up this way, and defining it and historically illuminating it in his own terms is actually a smart move. But if he's going to debate Baracka, he ought to do it in order to WIN, rather than handing Baracka "issues" like this that might actually make him look good to the voters.
So, we should all be jumping for joy that under Keyes' proposal, Allen Iverson and Barry Bonds won't have taxes to pay, while the middle-class whites who pay their salaries via ticket sales do? Gimme a break.
My take: I vehemently oppose reparations on principle. I probably could not support this plan in good conscience. I also think it is brilliant real politik. By making reparations in tax cut form, you create real and long term problems for our political opponents, and real and potentially significant benefits for our side. In addition to the long term encouraging work ethic and the family sructure, reducing dependence on gov't etc, it would create real short term benefits in the form of shaking up the black so-called 'leadership'. I really doubt upper and middle class blacks would tolerate the likes of Reveruhn Zhackson fighting their tax cut. I think we would finally see the black community split the way the white community is....the productive supporting the right, and the parasites supporting the left.
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.