“make levees, not war” is a very clever T-shirt slogan.

It makes a point that a majority of Americans are probably thinking right now, and that point is that they already pay taxes but they are going somewhere other than where they want them to, and that if they pay more, they will just go to more places they don't want them to.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You've got to show how you can do something about what the public sees as a whole lotta American tax money being poorly & incompetently spent on Iraqi security & infrastructure, before you can ask for more.

You have to be more specific. Which taxes? Over-all income across the board? Then no, we don't need to do that. Income taxes for the rich? You have to define rich, first. Taxing capital gains and dividends as income? Sure. But maybe we could tweak it. Maybe we could tax the capital gains and dividends of the rich as income and leave a 15% rate for everyone else.

But, more than that, you need to tell me what we're going to get for a tax increase and it's got to be better than "infrastructure improvements." I'll pay more taxes but give me healthcare so that I don't have to buy my own insurance. Because really, deep down, I do believe I pay too much in taxes and that I get too little in return (or that I get something I really didn't want like a quagmire in Iraq).

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Robert,

I'll pay more for new programs, But show me the programs first. There are tons of things out there (like healthcare) where I'd save money by paying for it in the form of taxes than by paying for it the way I do now.

I would ask you to be a little understanding about this, though -- I make a decent living but I'm always running out of money. My lifestyle isn't extravagant but I pay three levels of taxes right now (city, state and federal) if any of them go up, I will feel it. If your response to that is "Toughen up, take your medicine" well... that's a valid response. I have a fine life. It's not what I want quite yet but it's fine.

My immediate take, though is that before I'll happily hand over more money I want the government to convince me of a few things: That the money won't be wasted invading other countries for no reason, that the money will fund programs that will improve my life and the lives of others around me and finally that the tax code is fair.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Of course, I mean more a government to my liking than total control over where my tax dollars go. I'd be very angry about giving more money to George Bush right now. Less so to a Democratic president.

But that's not really the meat of what we're discussing, I guess. It does come down, as you say, to who is willing to sacrifice what. And I wonder also if the issue isn't this: as a progressive, do I consider myself in the group of people who should be helped out more by government or in the group who should be helping? And, I don't know the answer to that. I do consider myself middle class and I guess like lots of people in the middle class I feel like we're the class that gets screwed. We acutely feel the pain of paying taxes but the government considers us self sufficient enough that we are mostly left to the tender mercies of various markets. The government seems to feel no pressing need to help us get a leg up.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

To paraphrase Walter Mondale: "Ronald Reagan will raise your taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you; I just did".

Forty-nine states later (can't all be attributed to this line of course) but I still appreciated Mondale's candor then, and I continue to respect him now for what he said back then.

I think a lot of progressives think like you. They feel that they should be on the receiving end of progressive policies and look to those higher up the economic ladder to do the sacrificing. I am sure there are those below you who have their eye on you as one who should be sacrificing for them.

The political answer it seems is to promise to make only “the rich” sacrifice, expecting that everyone will assume “the rich” will be someone above them on the ladder in a place they never expect to be. I wonder why that doesn’t work?

What is at issue here is the tax payers lack of control over where his/her money goes, in other words a "democracy deficit". Your so-called representative keeps giving it to the corporations and the wealthiest citizens. (so they can continue to "spur the economy")The answer is to enhance the citizens role over economic decisions which affect him. This includes all areas from production to allocation so we have not just a participatory democracy but a participatory economy as well.

Maybe the best way to rehabilitate taxation is in terms of "pitching in" or "passing the hat," as a way to undo 20 years of GOP demonization of taxes as "theft."

I'd say the other problem here is that he accepts the premise -- that we necessarily need to raise taxes right now. Elsewhere in the thread folks are pointing out that we could always at least try shifting spending from guns to butter before we ask the citizens to pay more.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

troutsky,

The answer is to enhance the citizens role over economic decisions which affect him. This includes all areas from production to allocation so we have not just a participatory democracy but a participatory economy as well.

We can be too populist for our own good.  For example, consider the value of our public lands for recreation, habitat restoration and ecological sustainability.  But put it to popular vote whether or not to ban jetskis from the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in order to sustain the fragile habitat of the ecosystem, and just watch how fast We The People will be willing to let it all erode all the way to the I-80/94 corridor.

I certainly don’t profess any academic expertise in what constitutes progressive philosophy, I am only giving my impression from reading left of center commentators.

I think everyone is grudgingly included as beneficiaries for progressive policies for political reasons. I see no evidence that progressives support any kind of flat tax let alone a poll tax to spread the cost of programs over all of society. I think the core philosophy is sacrifice by a few for the benefit of many.

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am misreading the commentary.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. . ."

Cornball liberal sentiment!

I think everyone is grudgingly included as beneficiaries for progressive policies for political reasons. I see no evidence that progressives support any kind of flat tax let alone a poll tax to spread the cost of programs over all of society. I think the core philosophy is sacrifice by a few for the benefit of many.

There are all sorts of flat taxes. Sales taxes, school board levies, property taxes, user fees, license fees, registrations, etc.

But I think I'd argue violently with anyone who argued that a global flat tax or a poll tax represented fairness in any meaningful way. I frankly would find such an argument fundamentally lunatic. I'm sorry, but it's just mean spirited goofiness to think that a bum on the corner panhandling and Bill Gates should be paying the same taxes.

It's as foolish as claiming that a cardboard box in an alley should be assessed the same property taxes as Paris Hilton's mansion.

It completely ignores the reality that the rich consume and benefit from a far greater share of society and government than the poor.

If Paris Hilton wants to pay the same taxes as beggars and villagers, she can go live in Afghanistan or Somalia, and enjoy the lifestyle that goes with it.

If you want to be an American, and if you want to enjoy all the benefits of being American, then you give it up for the country that directly or indirectly made you wealthy.

I'm inclined to suspect that you are misreading the commentary by seeing it, not in its own terms, but viewed through a particular ideological lens.

I don't agree. You need a common sense balance and the determination to advocate for the public interest. Minnesota has long had a check off on tax forms for wildlife. People consider the preservation of a mix of hunting, boating, fishing, canoeing, walking, biking etc. vital to our qualifty of life and they fund city, county and state parks and treasure the national parks within our state.

What we have to do is to stop apologizing for advocating for community interests.

If we don't have the determination to advocate for a benevolent populism you can be sure someone is going to come along on the right and advocate for the other kind.

aMike, if I can add a way less specific version of your argument...

We can give people creative choices (ie, no jet skiing here but build a jet ski spot there) or we can give them very simplistic ones (where the question is, do you want to have fun on this land OR preserve it?)

Seems to me that it's all in what types of choices are offered. If we stay away from the black and white and move towards choices where a voter would give up one thing but get another, we could have a more populist system without worrying about catering to people's worst instincts.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think that you are allowing your ideological blinders to play hob.

You remind me of a Dilbert cartoon where a lawyer, an accountant, a manager and a counsellor all give their views as to the winning strategy, which just happens to be the only strategy we know. The punchline is a porcupine sitting at the end of the table who screams out passionately and with utter conviction "PEOPLE, LISTEN! WE MUST PRICK THEM WITH QUILLS! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!"

I don't think that I could say anything to you which you would not translate into: "the few sacrificing for the many."

All that may be left is the rock and roll.

destor23,

If we stay away from the black and white and move towards choices where a voter would give up one thing but get another, we could have a more populist system without worrying about catering to people's worst instincts.

Unfortunately, choices are often a luxury, as anyone who has ever worked to pass a school referrendum in a community heavy on senior voters will understand.  These are pretty good ideas, but this is a cultural problem we are dealing with.  Civil service, and the support required to maintain the public sphere, have suffered some serious damage over the past 20 years of deregulation and privatization.

destor23,

But, more than that, you need to tell me what we're going to get for a tax increase and it's got to be better than "infrastructure improvements."

Trouble is, few policies -- and certainly no election campaign -- can ever be that specific, because specifics can never appeal as broadly as necessary.

Perhaps coming at it from another direction may serve to rehabilitate the notion of paying taxes, say putting it to the voters as a challenge.  If you want to live without paying taxes, start filling the potholes in the street in front of your own house; pick your night after work to homeschool all the kids on your block; rotate mandatory shifts with your neighbors on the local Volunteer Fire Deptartment and Neighborhood Watch program; reduce, reuse, recycle....

The point that anyone takes the public sphere seriously anymore is only largely to the extent that they are led to feel threatened by a creeping socialism of "The Nanny State."  The voters need to be convinced that running a government is not at all like running a grocery store, and we have to keep some things on the proverbial shelves that don't turn profits, at least not in any short term.

The US military budget roughly equals the rest of the world COMBINED, although the US hasn't been invaded since 1814, gets along reasonably well with its two continental neighbors, is buffered on two sides by huge oceans, and suffers no military threats from other countries. Despite this benign situation people like Hillary Clinton have called for an 80,000 increase in military strength, which is now being done (subject to enlistments), and they also advocate further military aggression (Pakistan, Iran) which would undoubtedly add billions to the budget.

The 2008 Defense Appropriations Act totals 648 billion dollars, almost two billion dollars a day, and that includes almost 2,000 earmarks added to the budget for pork projects in home districts. The amount represents an increase of $40 billion, or 8.5 percent in real terms, above the amount authorized for Fiscal Year 2007. The largest pork project is the basic budget which includes carefully apportioned contracts, subcontracts and military bases in most congressional districts. The new F-22 Raptor jet fighter, twenty of them at $160 million each ($3.2 billion), with no military need, has contracts and sub-contracts in over 200 districts. It's untouchable. No congress-critter will vote against a bill that will mean fewer jobs and fewer federal dollars in the district.

More taxes under these conditions? No.

destor23,

I tend to see it as a larger crisis in leadership.  We can find examples in the way the administration has treated government agencies, and casually dismisses science as a form of elitism.  Meanwhile, the infrastructure does suffer, social services go underfunded and national wildlife refuges go understaffed (if they are able to support any staff at all).

Otherwise you are making the case for the few sacrificing for the benefit of the many. My definition of a progressive.

No one's asking for a free ride. We should all pay taxes. People who make more money should pay more of those taxes.

I see it as a crisis in leadership too. But unlike you, I've never tried to organize and I've never tried to built a coalition for the passage of any law.

And now it seems to me that my point of view on things, which could be sloganized as "more and better choices" might work in a thought experiment but that it won't work in real life.

And I'm back to the drawing board. And also very curious to hear more about what you've done, have attempted and have experienced.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

First, you have to find out what the voters want. You might be surprised. In 2004, when the conventional wisdom was that progressive values had been vanquished and the Republicans would rule for eternity, Democrats picked up a dozen seats in the Minnesota legislature. Surprisingly, they did not come from swing districts but from traditional Republican districts. But they did have something in common -- they were districts of professional, upper middle class voters. It seems these voters actually want their children to have a superior education, excellent health care facilities, and a clean environment. They were reacting against the meat-axe anti-tax sentiment at the state level and against the anti-science silliness in the Bush administration.

These are people who do vote for that school referendum. But you do have to have the right issue for the right district. Ever seen an anti-tax farmer oppose a farm bill?

Who ever said this was easy? Democrats still haven't figured out that they have to work a lot harder at representing voters and leading them in a progressive direction with messages that resonate with what voters already consider important.

I know you're writing rhetorically but it does help your case that Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, the tycoon who is second only to Gates in America realize exactly what you're saying. Both have attempted, in parternship no less, to give something back. Now, what they're doing is, to my mind, not sufficient by any means, but they do obviously agree with you, even from positions of privilege. I don't mean to seem ungrateful for their charitable work. But they do agree. They know. They still take salaries at hundreds times those of their average employees but at least they know and act on the fact that they have been rewarded in ways that most could never dream of and that they owe at least part of those rewards to the societies that have supported them.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I'd add only one thing to this fine post.  It is usually easier to pass bond issues if one explains why it is in everyone's enlightened self-interest to do so.  I've never voted against a bond issue for schools...I'm childless and a senior, to boot.  But...I know the value of my property is enhanced by a good school system and diminished by a bad one, and I can go on any number of websites now and get my community's score on this issue and significant others, as well.  Besides...the quality of my life is enhanced by having neighbors attracted to good schools and living in such a community enhances my well-being in quantifiable ways.  Too often issues are sold by showing how they benefit "them" instead of benefiting "us". 

aMike

No, I was pointing out the problem that progressives have selling tax increases.

Our good friend destor23 is a gold plated progressive who indicates that he is reasonably well off financially, but he is not very keen on joining the sacrifice part of the progressive story. If you can’t readily sell a tax increase to a progressive then how can you sell it to anyone else?

I don’t think you have been reading the posts here close enough. I detect a visceral hatred of “the rich” every day.

I think it is human nature to want our public goods paid for by someone else and I don’t think progressives are immune to that nature. It is only natural to look to those we think are better off than we are to pay the bills.

As I read through your comment I see you making my point. You make the case for big government doing a range of wonderful things for everyone, then conclude that the rich will have to pay more taxes to provide those goodies.

By the way, advocating for a large government is unrelated to the question of whether there will be shared sacrifice to support government of not.

destor23,

My political work is a mixed record of frustrations, failures and occasioinal achievements.  I'm just an average fish in an average pond.  

Bluebell is right.  What the achievements have all had in common were teamwork, legwork and persistence.  Take no defeat as final, but (as David Brower put it) treat every victory as a stay of execution.  Construction of a Home Depot was planned just across the border from the town where I live at the edge of a county Forest Preserve, and threatening a wooded wetland habitat.  The neighboring city that had approved the development told us that there was no way we would stop the plan short of purchasing the land outright ourselves.  Between resident stakeholders, village government, a local open lands foundation, the county Forest Preserve District, we were able to forge a coalition that brought a formidable opposition to the development at every municipal level -- from plan commission to zoning board to city council.  At each level we were assured that our efforts would not succeed at the next. 

Eventually, our coalition bought enough time until the Forest Preserve District was able to buy out enough of the land with the assistance of the open lands foundation to defeat the development.  It took about 18 months of sustained efforts, but there was also plenty of motivation -- from people in and out of civil service that are opposed to the practice of urban sprawl, to resident stakeholders well acquainted with flooded basements and other properties.  The more immediate the impact of an issue, the stronger the movement.

Once, I was lucky enough to simply be standing in the right spot, so to speak.  I was serving on a commission when a proposition to submit an ordinance to the Village Board condemning the county Forest Preserve's Natural Areas Management Program came up.  We had great arguments over the "right of experts" to determine the limits of development in and around town.  Real estate futures seemed limitless then and these efforts were part of a larger "Wise Use" campaign to diminish support for open lands preservation, conservation and ecological restoration.  The commission was ready to move a draft ordinance to our Village Board simply by virtue of the pathos of one vocal commissioner -- who ran a very successful family owned landscaping business.  I was new on the commission, but had been a regular volunteer for several restoration efforts organized by the Volunteer Stewardship Network of the Nature Conservancy at some of the Forest Preserves around the county.  The other commissioners up to then were simply unaware of the arguments in favor of ecological restoration and conservation from the standpoint of environmental impacts, stormwater management and other advantages of ecological management.  The "Wise Use" adherents promised universal prosperity under a robust economy free of interference by scientific experts (populism vs. elitism).  In this case, education at the point of a decision-making body was the gamebreaker. 

So, yes, it can be done.  But understand that your opposition will take no prisoners, and that there isn't always room for compromise when interests conflict.

You are correct that selling shared sacrifice in the political realm has not been easy in the last 30 years or so. What sells politically is not always what is right. I do think that our political leaders need to take on the notion you seem to espouse that all liberals want to do is play Robin Hood.

This is really my point give the topic of this thread. A broad based tax that requires shared sacrifice is a difficult sell, even among progressives in my opinion. Even though progressives talk about shared sacrifice, when it comes to policy proposals progressive politicians nearly always promise to pay for new programs with a tax on the top one percent of some small number that clearly signals to their constituency that they will not have to pay for it.

I am not here to quibble about which public goods are wonderful and which are not such a good idea. I might question the wisdom of sinking enormous amounts of money into the NO levies. Not sure if any levy can prevent flooding, perhaps it would be better to have good evacuation policies for the hundred year storm and an insurance pool to rebuild. But that’s an argument for another time.

Robert Brown,

I might question the wisdom of sinking enormous amounts of money into the NO levies. Not sure if any levy can prevent flooding, perhaps it would be better to have good evacuation policies for the hundred year storm and an insurance pool to rebuild. But that’s an argument for another time.

This is a good place for a wise populist to defer to an elite -- in this case, those trained in environmental studies and engineering disciplines.  Using this example, reconstruction and sustainability for a city like New Orleans does not come with only one answer -- ie, levees....

Without the levees, right now, New Orleans would be inhabitable. However, as we have seen, just fixing the levees clearly is not the answer. Researchers are talking about replacing the silt to the wetlands in a controlled manner eliminating the need to flood the whole area. Periodic flooding through a control such as a dam could help bring back the wetlands. The new sediments dumped by this method should offset the sinking of New Orleans. If this is done, or at least started, maybe the next hurricane would hiccup on one of the barrier islands and wetlands instead of unleashing its fury on the residents of New Orleans again.

Restoration of the barrier islands and wetlands must be a necessary component of any effective reconstruction effort in New Orleans.  Environmental regulation is often dismissed as an unreasonable impediment to economic progress and development, and environmentalits are easily dismissed as "tree huggers" who care more about flora and fauna than humanity (as if humanity were somehow above nature and not part of it). 

Robert A. Thomas, Chair of Environmental Communications at the University of Loyola in New Orleans said,

“For every 2.7 miles of healthy marsh, the tidal surge is diminished by one foot,” he said. “When I was in college, you had 70 miles of healthy, coastal wetlands…Today you have 50 miles of depleted wetlands, with lots of pockets and holes. Do the math.” Referring to the hurricane season of 1995, Thomas explained that Hurricane Danny was the first on record to cross the barrier islands—once uninhabited coastal islands undergoing rapid development—and grow stronger. According to Thomas, it was common knowledge that New Orleans would eventually be in the path of a hurricane that would cause mass destruction: “We all knew this was going to happen…America’s emergency preparedness is ill-equipped for large disasters,” he said.

Unfortunately, concerning budget priorities and collecting the revenues that determine them, it is ultimately easier to communicate the short sighted benefits and instant gratification of economic development than it is to communicate long term necessities of ecological sustainability.