In Defense of Tax and Spend Liberalism

I harbor no shame in openly admitting to being an unreconstructed tax and spend liberal.

In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma I am more resolute than ever in my support of tax and spend liberalism that advocates environmental checks on growth and provides assistance from natural disasters. In the financial fallout after the hacking of 143 million accounts from Equifax I am more resolute than ever in my support of government regulations to monitor financial services companies. In the sadness evoked by the deaths of elderly residents of nursing homes in Florida during Irma, I am more resolute than ever that government regulations are vital to the health and welfare of all our citizens, particularly the most vulnerable.

I could go on citing examples of natural and man-made disasters, plus corporate greed, that command government action. We are well beyond the time when we should accept the notion that natural selection would weed out the less fortunate in our society. As the richest country on earth we should not begrudge assistance to those in need because of the vagaries of nature or the capriciousness or malfeasance of their fellow human being.

Assistance does not have to be after the fact, as when FEMA responds to floods, tornadoes or hurricanes. Proactive legislation and regulations can lessen the impact of misfortune. As Gail Collins of The New York Times recently pointed out, there’s irony in the Trump plan to dismantle government regulations.

“You don’t want all that much consistency (in presidential leadership) when you’ve got a chief executive whose recent triumph in regulatory reform was to roll back the requirement that new highways be protected against flooding — 10 days before the first hurricane,” wrote Collins.

Republicans and conservatives favor reducing taxes while spending more on defense. They want to gut regulations and assistance programs. What they fail to appreciate is that America is strongest when government cares for its people. CEO after CEO will tell you, perhaps not from their heart but they’ll tell you anyway, that their corporation’s number one asset is their people. So it stands to reason that investing in people should be the number one priority of our government.

We hear a lot about repairing our infrastructure. Fixing roads, highways, interstates, bridges, tunnels, canals, dams, mass transit systems, seaports and airports. Years of neglect have undermined our transportation network.

Yet it is equally important that we invest in the human side of our infrastructure. We need to designate money for early child care and education. We need to invest in technical schools for those who choose a path that does not include college or university. We need to make college more affordable. We need to reduce the burden of excessive student loans. 

I’m not against appropriate spending to upgrade our military. But defense spending should not be at the expense of programs to feed the hungry, to care for the infirm, to educate the young, to retrain workers whose jobs have been disintermediated or eliminated by new technologies, especially if the rollback of government funding provides tax relief to the wealthy, a cohort that surely does not need more daylight between its opulent lifestyle and those struggling to put food on their family table.

Foreign Aid: A friend wondered if the true face of the base of the Democratic Party was reflected in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ call for a reassessment of U.S. aid to Israel over its policies towards the Palestinians. In fiscal 2017, Israel received $3.1 billion from Washington (https://www.timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-calls-for-rethink-on-us-aid-to-israel-iran-policy/).

I doubt if Sanders reflects more than a slim portion of Democratic opinion on this issue. But I am equally certain there is an impatience with the Netanyahu government, a disappointment intensely felt by all but the most Orthodox Jewish communities. 

“It is an abomination against all Jewish principles and our tragic history to accept an Israeli government that discriminates against its own citizens (both Jewish—in other words, non Orthodox—and Arab) as well as the Palestinians under its control,” I responded to him. 

“Yes, the Palestinians have been guilty of terrorism amplified by their stupidity and greedy leadership. But the failure of Likud and other right-wing parties to recognize the unacceptability of controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians reduces our ethical standing not just around the world but among fellow Jews. 

“I refuse to be part of a Jewish Bund in the diaspora. From what I’ve heard in the past so does Bernie Sanders. But I would hope that Sanders imposes equally strong demands on the Palestinians requiring them to abandon terrorism while recognizing Israel before any funds would be made available to them. And before any recognition of a Palestinian state which would have to be demilitarized and include several early warning Israeli posts.”

Swearing Allegiance: That same friend opined that “Dems just lost 2018 and 2020 elections” because “Middle America has zero sympathy for millionaire athletes” protesting during the recitation of the national anthem before sporting events. My response: 

“If Middle America loses its health care,

“If Middle America keeps seeing no increase in their living conditions including family wealth,

“If Middle America thinks Trump is placing them in physical jeopardy,

“If Middle America sees the environment, including their water supply and air quality, deteriorate,

“Democrats will win regardless of what athletes and entertainment figures say.”

Policy Questions for First Clinton-Trump Debate

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is September 26, a scant three weeks away. There are lots of gotcha questions that could be asked and I am sure the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC, is under extreme pressure to come up some of those on embarrassing topics such as Donald Trump’s attack on Mexicans and Hillary Clinton’s email server shenanigans. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall for the bait but rather chooses subjects that will illuminate the policy differences between the candidates. 

With that in mind, here are questions I would recommend to him, questions to be asked of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so that they might provide substantive answers with limited opportunities to dodge with generalities or obfuscations or hyperbolic attacks on their opponent.

1. How specifically would you change the Affordable Care Act? Which provisions would you keep and which would you jettison?

2. Would you continue federal funding of Planned Parenthood and why?

3. Would you continue funding overseas programs that include birth control measures?

4. Would you continue federal support of stem cell research?

5. Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Should Roe v Wade be overturned, leaving to individual states to decide the right to an abortion? Should anyone who participates in an abortion, be they patient or medical professional, be subject to prosecution if abortion is declared illegal?

6. Should clergy be permitted to advocate politically from their pulpits?

7. Do you support or want to overturn the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court?

8. Do you favor a federal minimum wage and, if so, at what level?

9. Given the low interest rate on borrowings do you favor increasing the federal debt to fund infrastructure spending projects?

10. What test, if any, would you have in determining your response to any aggression against a NATO ally or against Japan, Korea or The Philippines?

11. Are there any government departments or agencies you would close down? Are there any new ones you would create?

12. What would happen to undocumented immigrants during your administration?

13. How would you restore confidence and good relations between the police and minority communities?

14. Should there be any limitations on the type of weapons ordinary citizens may possess, and, if so, how would you implement such restrictions?

15. What specific changes would you make to NAFTA and the proposed TPP?

16. What is America’s role during humanitarian crises in foreign lands? Under what circumstances would you engage our military during these crises? 

17. What is your position on American support, both financial and philosophical, for the United Nations?

18. Explain your position on the Iran nuclear deal and how your administration would handle relations with Iran?

19. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

20. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

21. What guidelines would you impose on legal access to immigration?

22. Does the United States have any interests in helping solve the refugee problem from Africa and the Middle East?

23. How confident are you that the election will be a fair one, and do you have any evidence of past voter fraud that would lead you to believe the results would be rigged?

24. Are Americans better off today than they were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

25. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

26. What role would alternative energy programs play within your administration?

27. What is your position on equal pay for women?

28. Should Americans 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?

Questions For the Next Debate

I fell asleep watching the second Republican presidential debate—the main event, not the preliminary—an hour into the program. Frankly, the schoolyard taunts and tit-for-tats did not become our democracy. But I really don’t blame the candidates. No, the fault lay squarely on the shoulders and reporter’s notebook of moderator Jake Tapper of CNN whose questions were geared to bait the candidates into infantile attacks on each other rather than engage them in serious dialogue about the issues confronting our nation and the world at large. 

To be sure, some of the would-be-presidents tried to refocus the discussion, but they were could not succeed in elevating the evening into anything resembling a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Here’s what I was hoping the candidates would be asked (in random order) so that America could better gauge their competencies and strategic visions:

*Since all said they would tear up Obamacare upon assuming office, what health coverage would they immediately provide those who are presently covered by the Affordable Care Act? Are there provisions of the ACA they would keep? What provisions would they jettison and why?

*What is their strategy for dealing with Iran in the absence of a unified international coalition? 

*What should Europe do about the refugee crisis? What should the United States do? 

*Ronald Reagan amnestied illegal aliens. Would they? If not, why wouldn’t they follow the example of Ronald Reagan?

*Reagan raised taxes. Would they, if it meant reducing the $18 trillion national debt?

*Infrastructure in our country is deteriorating. What would they do to reverse that trend so that our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and rail systems are up to 21st century standards? How would they fund any improvements they would propose?

*What should be done about the minimum wage? Should it be increased, reduced or stay at the current level which many economists believe cannot sustain a family of four above the poverty level?

*How do they view current race relations? What steps, if any, are needed to improve them?

*Is there a need for OSHA to protect the safety of workers? The FDA to protect consumers? The SEC to protect investors? The EPA to protect the environment?

*What is their vision about the way we can improve the education of our children? Is there any role for the federal government in this process?

*In 2008, would they have signed on to the auto industry bailout?

*Given their support of Israel, what is their position vis-a-vis a two-state solution incorporating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Should it be demilitarized? Should Israel be permitted to retain strategic defense positions within the Palestinian state? 

*What role would alternative energy programs play within their administration?

*Should the federal government endorse equal pay for women? If not, why not?

*What changes to Social Security do they advocate and why?

*Should those 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?

*What specific changes to the federal tax code do they want enacted? 

*What social welfare programs would they eliminate or sharply reduce in their budgets?

I’m sure I could think of other questions, but in the interest of time and space, let’s end the list here and hope that during the next debate the moderator and other journalists asking questions will concentrate more on substance and less, much less, on style. We are, after all, looking for the next president, not the next Miss America (or in Donald Trump’s world, the next Miss Universe).