No Property Taxes on Seniors: a Really Terrible Idea

 A Really Terrible Idea

 In the last couple of posts on this blog, I talked about the anti-tax movement that has caused the decay of our country and of our public services.  One particularly awful demand of the anti-tax movement is the demand to eliminate property taxes for old people like me. The demand takes two forms: one of them is a demand that people over 65 should pay no property taxes, and the other is that there should be no property taxes on a property if the mortgage on it is fully paid off.

Many Old People Can Afford to Pay the Taxes

These are terrible ideas for several reasons. First, many old people can well afford to pay the taxes. Some old people are poor and struggle to get by, and perhaps we should help them so that they can stay in their homes. We don't really need to kick poor people out onto the street. On the other hand, there is no reason to provide tax relief to wealthy old people who own large properties and they, of course, would be the main beneficiaries of these ideas.

Today’s old people own 51% of our country’s wealth. We have been the beneficiaries of a period of great economic growth.  Why should our good luck entitle us to special tax treatment? Moreover, we also consume public services just as younger people do. Why should our children and grandchildren - who have had less time to accumulate wealth than we have - carry the burden of paying for the services that we use?

Should People be Exempt From Taxes Because They are Rich?

The idea that that there should be no tax on a property when the mortgage on it has been paid off is even worse. Real estate property is a form of wealth; the more such property I own, the wealthier I am. What is usually called my "net worth" is equal to the value of what I own minus the debts that I owe. For example, if I own a house worth $500,000, but carry mortgage debt of $250,000, my net worth is $250,000. On the other hand, if I own the same house but carry no mortgage debt, my net worth is $500,000. In other words, the less I owe in mortgage debt, the higher my net worth is. Why should I be exempt from taxes just because I have a high net worth?

The Main Beneficiaries Would Be Rich People

If we ask ourselves who would be the main beneficiaries of the elimination of property taxes on old people or on properties with paid-off mortgages, the answer is obvious. The main beneficiaries would be wealthy old people who own large properties and have to pay big property tax bills. The image of a poor couple who have worked all their lives and now struggle to pay their property taxes is nothing but a screen to hide the real beneficiaries of these destructive policies. Rich people who are trying to avoid carrying their fair share of the tax burden are the people who are paying for the campaign to enact such policies. They do it because a reduction in property taxes would reduce their tax burden substantially. That is of course, the real reason for the whole campaign to eliminate property taxes on retired people. Rich people are paying for the campaign to reduce the taxes they pay. If it happens to reduce taxes for a few other people, the rich can live with that.

Working Americans Should Stick Together

Finally, we should note that the demand for these policies also has a destructive political effect. It divides working Americans among themselves. It encourages young and old people to fight against each other instead of fighting against the oligarchs who run our country and are gradually destroying it by choking off its revenue.  Let’s keep our minds clear and remember where our real interests lie!

The Ideological Roots of Our Country's Decline

The Story of the People Against the Government 

In last week’s post, I said that the United States is declining because we have lost the sense of community and shared destiny that must underly the willingness to pay the taxes needed to maintain our public facilities. We have come to see the taxes that we pay not as an investment in those facilities but purely as a burden that should be minimized. How did this come about?

It came about because the radical right in our country has seized on one of the strands in our political tradition and used it as the basis of an anti-tax campaign that has endured for decades. That strand begins with the story of the American Revolution as we usually tell it.

The American Revolution as we usually understand it was a rebellion by a people against a government and particularly against that government's power to levy taxes. We remember the Boston Tea Party and the “embattled farmers” of Paul Revere’s famous ride. We remember "No taxation without representation." Our revolutionary story is not a story of class conflict or of resistance to class oppression or even of social change. It is a story of people freeing themselves from a burdensome government. 

Of course, the American society of the eighteenth century had class differences and injustices, but they do not play a large role in our story as we tell it. The reason is that they did not weigh heavily on the Americans of the eighteenth century. The natural resources of the continent seemed limitless, and the labor force was small.  Wages were necessarily high, and people could escape from the injustices of the seaboard cities by moving to the frontier to carve out their own destinies. So, class conflict did not become an important part of our national story.

The Archetypes of Our National Consciousness

Instead, the people who moved to the frontier became the archetypes of our national consciousness. People like Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett and Jim Bridger are the heroes of our national story. We remember “Sweet Betsy from Pike” and her fellow pioneers enduring - as the song tells us - “starvation and cholera, hard work and slaughter” as they traveled west. Such people did not need much government in the story as we tell it. Each American was the architect of his/her own destiny.

The Depression Changed the Narrative

The Great Depression upended this narrative. Amid the suffering that the Depression caused, our government under the New Deal took on broad responsibilities for the welfare of the people including most famously Social Security for retired Americans. Later, we added civil rights enforcement and Medicare. However, The New Deal always had opposition from the very wealthy because it required government regulation of commerce and higher taxes to pay for the new services. The opponents of the New Deal were able to draw on the American tradition of opposition to government in support of their opposition to the New Deal.

Opposition to the New Deal and the Radical Right

Over the decades since, the opposition to the principles of the New Deal has become the radical right. The radical right has fed us the idea that government is necessarily bloated, inefficient and oppressive and that it should be minimized. As Grover Norquist famously said, "I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Under pressure from the radical right, we have lowered taxes over and over again without considering how the government programs we depend on will be paid for. We have to some degree papered over the gap between the cost of the programs we want and the taxes we have been willing to pay by relying on government borrowing. That has worked fairly well for the federal government but not at the state and local levels. They have become more and more dependent on federal funding. Even the federal government is now running into problems caused by rising interest rates on the federal debt.

Our Public Services and Our Country Are Decaying

As a result, all of the public services on which we depend are decaying, and our country is decaying with them. We can reverse the decay only by reviving the ideology of solidarity that is another strand of our political tradition. We must remember Benjamin Franklin’s comment after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. “We must all hang together or we will certainly all hang separately.” We must remind ourselves that government is not only a burden. It is also the means by which we achieve our collective goals. We must remind ourselves that the development of our country has always depended on the contributions of government, How would the Midwest have developed in the nineteenth century without the Erie Canal? Where would our universities be without the Land-Grant University program? Where would our modern middle class be if the GI Bill had never been passed? 

North Lawe Street and the Decline of the United States

A Symbol of the Decline of United States

The pavement on North Lawe Street in my hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, has become a poignant symbol of the decline of the United States. Last summer, there was work on the street that involved digging a number of holes, and when the work was finished, the holes were filled and the pavement patched. The patching was done in a slapdash manner, and the street now resembles a street in a very poor, third-world country. North Lawe Street is not the only road in our country that has deteriorated. If you travel much by car and have driven in other countries, you know that the state of the pavement on our interstate highways is significantly worse that the pavement on similar roads in Europe or Asia.

The Result of Focusing Exclusively on Lowering Taxes

Twenty years ago, my city would never have tolerated a street so badly paved, but recently, its people – like people all over the United States – have come to accept as inevitable the decay of our streets and indeed of all of our public services. We have abandoned the idea of decently maintained public services in the name of lower taxes. We have focused so intently on minimizing our tax burden that we have allowed the shared facilities on which we all depend to decay.

Our willingness to allow our shared facilities to decay is a symptom of the fact that in the name of low taxes, we have given up our commitment to the well-being of our communities and of our country. Now, our country is in decline, not because it lacks resources or skills, but because we do not see that the welfare of each of us is bound up with the welfare of our communities and country. We have come to believe that the prosperity of our country is no more than the sum of the private prosperity of each of its citizens.

A Campaign by Anti-Tax Radicals

This has not come about accidentally. It is a result of a campaign to lower the taxes we pay that has been funded by anti-tax radicals and pursued over several decades. The campaign has relied on pitting the interest of each individual against the interest of the community. We have been told that the taxes we pay are nothing but a loss to us. They buy us few or no benefits. We are aso encouraged to think of public services as consumer goods, which means that we should pay only for services that we use directly.

Thus, for example a person who has no children is encouraged to think that it is unjust for him/her to have to pay for our public schools. We are persuaded to ignore the fact that as members of a community we benefit from having an educated work force and an educated electorate. Similarly, people who already have health insurance are encouraged to believe that they would not benefit from a national health care system, and as a result, the United States is the only country in the world where people can go bankrupt because they are sick.

We Have Lost Our Understanding of the Value of Community

We no longer understand that our welfare is bound up with that of our community, and we have lost the feeling of pride in belonging to a community and a nation with first rate public services. We no longer feel a commitment to maintaining them. We vote to lower our taxes because we don’t care what happens to our community. We think that if a decline in the quality of our public services does not affect us directly, it does not affect us at all. That is why we have streets like North Lawe Street that would be regarded as inadequate in a third-world country. In my next post, I will talk about why this has happened and what we can do about it.

On Vacation

 Fox Cities Progressive is on vacation during the month of January. I will be back in February.

J.D. Vance is a Christian Nationalist and a Danger to Millions of Americans

Who Is an American?

J. D.  Vance is a Christian Nationalist and a danger to every American who is not a Christian. Vance believes that only a Christian can really be an American. He claims that he doesn't really mean that, but his own words belie his claim. In a recent speech, J. D. Vance talks about “the nature of citizenship” and “what it means to be an American.” He tells us that Americans are hungry for answers to the question of American identity. What does it mean to be an American? His answer is,

The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and by the grace of God we always will be a Christian nation.

This statement appears to mean that a person must be a Christian to belong to the American nation. Vance tries to deny that by saying, 

I’m not saying you have to be a Christian to be an American. I’m saying something simpler and truer. Christianity is America’s creed. 

What does it mean to say that Christianity is America's creed?

What is a Creed?

A creed is a set of fundamental beliefs. When a group has a creed, the members may be required to profess belief in it in order to claim to be members.  That has been the role of the Nicene Creed in Christianity - especially Catholicism - for centuries. In the diverse world of Christian beliefs, the Nicene Creed is the closest thing to a creed that defines what it means to be a Christian, and it officially defines what it means to be a Catholic. 

Vance must know that. He is a Catholic, and he attends mass regularly.  The Catholic mass includes a long section called the “Credo,” which is a recitation of the Nicene Creed (or an extension of it called the "Apostolic Creed"). Its recitation in every mass underscores the fact that a person cannot really be a Catholic without believing in the Nicene Creed. That is the context of Vance's understanding of what a creed is.

So, when Vance uses the words “America’s creed,” he must understand them to refer to a formal statement of belief to which every American must subscribe. He may say that he doesn’t mean that a person must be a Christian to be an American, but his use of the word “creed” shows us that really, he means exactly that.

Vance says that Americans are hungry for identity. They are searching for the meaning of American citizenship and for what it means to be an American. His answer is that Christianity is America’s creed, which can mean only that an American is a person who believes in that creed. The rest of us may be tolerated here, but we can never be real Americans.

Vance Claims that Christianity is the Basis of the American Political Tradition 

To bolster his claim that Christianity is America's creed, Vance says that Christianity is the basis of the American political tradition, and to make that claim, he says that across our history from its very beginning, our most important debates have always "centered on the question of how we as a people can best please God.” That is a very questionable claim. The Declaration of Independence says nothing about “pleasing God,” and neither does the Constitution. Moreover, the founders of our country included people who were Deists, Unitarians or rationalists who expressly rejected Christianity. 

In his Gettysburg Address, – surely the best-known expression American political ideals – Lincoln could easily have said that the fight to end slavery was pleasing to God or was the work of God, but he said nothing of the kind. Lincoln's ringing declaration that, "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced" might have said that such a dedication would be pleasing to God or that it would be in accord with God's will. But Lincoln said nothing like that and nothing about Christianity. The closest he came to any religious belief is in the address's closing paragraph, which says,

… that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Gettysburg Address shows that while Americans share a tradition of belief in "government of the people, by the people and for the people," we do not base that belief on Christianity or any other specific religious tradition. Therefore, when Vance insists that Christianity is the core of American identity and that Christianity lies at the root of our political tradition, he is lying. He wants to convey the idea - without saying it directly - that only Christians can be Americans. So, if you are a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Unitarian, a Deist or an atheist, beware. To Vance and his supporters, you will never be a real American.

Toward a Just Healthcare System That Does Not Bankrupt Us

 A Shared Lack of Realism

A recent podcast  focuses on the current impasse over extending the premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The podcast says that the impasse reveals the lack of realism in both parties to the debate. Republicans, the podcast says, insist on reforms that help to control costs but do not deliver immediate relief to working Americans. Democrats, on the other hand, insist on relief for working Americans without reforms to control costs. Both are morally and politically unrealistic. The podcast claims correctly that the system as it stands is unsustainable. It cannot survive without continually expanding government assistance because its incentives drive rising costs. 

The Free Market Cannot Solve the Problem

However, the Republican solution to this problem is unrealistic. The Republicans want to give money directly to individuals and to rely market constraints on costs. Markets rely on bargaining between buyers and sellers. Sellers are constrained by the fact that they cannot sell a product above a certain price. The market “clears” when the price is at a level where the amount supplied is equal to the amount that consumers are willing to buy.

Inevitably, in such a system, some people cannot buy a particular good at the market price. It is too high for them, and - according to market theory - they choose rationally not to buy. That system makes sense and works well as long as the goods in question are goods that not everyone needs. If some people can afford to pay $5000 for a designer handbag while others cannot, we do not feel that any serious injustice is involved. (There may be injustice in the distribution of income, but that is a different question.) 

However, not all goods are like $5000 handbags. Some things meet real, universal needs. For example, if the family of a little girl in Wisconsin cannot afford to buy her a warm, winter coat, we feel that one ought to be provided for her in some other way. In Wisconsin’s climate, every child should have a warm coat. Most of us feel that healthcare is like a warm, winter coat. It should be available to everyone. So, if the healthcare market cleared at a level that denied healthcare to some people, almost all of us would see that as unjust.

Health insurance changes the incentives that market depends on. There is another problem with the idea using market constraints to control costs. Healthcare is so expensive that most people cannot provide it for themselves without insurance. However, insurance separates the payer (the insurance company) from the consumer (the patient).  A consumer who does not have to pay has no incentive to bargain over costs. Health insurance prevents the market from controlling costs. 

To solve this problem, deductibles and copays are introduced, but if they are to be large enough to work, they will again place healthcare financially out of reach for many people. If the deductibles and copays are small enough that everyone can pay them, they will be too small to achieve their goal of controlling costs.

So, there is no way to use market constraints to control costs in the healthcare system and at the same time, make healthcare available to everyone. We will have to resort to non-market methods to control costs, and healthcare systems in various parts of the world have found various ways to do that. In Germany, the insurance providers negotiate collectively with the healthcare providers. In Britain, the government itself provides most healthcare services. Health maintenance organizations charge a fixed price per patient and manage the costs internally. Thailand uses a similar system in its government hospitals. All of these methods work to some degree, and none works perfectly, but they all are based on a recognition that market cost constraints are incompatible with the idea that no one should lack healthcare. Republicans must become realistic about cost control in health care and abandon the idea that the market can do what is needed.

Democrats Must Also Become Realistic

Democrats must also become more realistic. Extending the subsidies to make insurance affordable under the ACA is necessary today because healthcare is a human right, but extending the subsidies is not a long-term solution. If the Democrats win the elections of 2026, they must begin to look seriously at making the healthcare system sustainable as well as just.

The Very Moderate Proposals of the "Democratic Socialists"

 Moderate Democrats Have No Vision of the Future

Democrats must support the so-called “left wing” of the Democratic Party because the members of that wing are the only Democratic politicians who have ideas about how we can move our country forward. The party’s leaders have no ideas. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s campaign web site talks about his positions on various issues mainly from the point of view of his legislative achievements, which have been considerable, but he does not present a vision for the future.

If we look at the campaign web sites of aspiring presidential hopefuls Gavin Newsom and J. B. Pritzker, we find a similar void of ideas for the future. Newsom says that he is campaigning to save democracy. Pritzker does not even say that.

Opposition to Trump is not Enough

These politicians are attractive mainly because they are Democrats opposed to the policies of Pres. Trump. They resist the cruelty of his policies toward immigrants. They support the extension of the subsidies that make health insurance if not really affordable at least less ruinously unaffordable than it would be without the subsidies. They supported Pres. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, and they oppose Pres. Trump’s efforts to gut it and to favor fossil fuels over renewable energy, but again, they do not present a vision of the future.

However, opposing Pres. Trump and defending past actions, are not by themselves a vision of the future. These are backward-looking politicians. They want to preserve the American safety net and Biden’s environmental policies from Trump’s wrecking ball, but they don’t have anything to say about today’s problems or about the American future that they would like to see.

The Party's Left Wing Has Ideas But Does Not Know How to Package Them

In contrast, the campaign web site of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is chock full of ideas for the future, and so is the web site of Bernie Sanders. These politicians are not running on the past achievements of the party. They are running on a vision of the future, but as national politicians, they have a major weakness: they describe their proposals as “socialist.” “Socialist” and “socialism” are words that do not play well in most parts of the United States. To millions of voters, these words sound too much like “communist” or “communism.” Democratic socialists like Sanders or AOC are not communists or really even socialists, but their vocabulary is a problem.

Repackage the Ideas in a Realistic Way as Moderate Proposals

What Democrats should do is to take the ideas of the party’s left wing and package them as moderate ideas, which is what they really are. They are in no way revolutionary or even radical. To see what I mean, let us examine a few of those ideas: Medicare for All, Free College and the Green New Deal.

Medicare for All is not a radical idea. On the contrary, it is nothing but the expansion of a successful, existing program to cover more people. It is precisely the sort of pragmatic, incremental change that has always characterized American politics at its best.

Free post-secondary education at public colleges and universities is also a moderate proposal. In fact, we used to have it. When I attended the University of California in 1958, the tuition was free, and the fees were $140 per semester. Today, the idea of free post-secondary education seems radical, but it is not. It is merely a restoration of the normal, American way to pay for the higher education of our people.

The Green New Deal is a moderate, middle-of-the-road proposal that continues our long-standing policy of promoting the development of energy sources.  We have always believed that adequate supplies of energy were crucial to the development of our economy, and the Green New Deal merely redirects our energy policy toward promoting new energy sources that fit our country’s current needs in a time when the use of fossil fuels is endangering our country and its economy. Again, that is not radical. It is precisely the sort of pragmatic, incremental change that has always made our country successful.

Progressive candidates should promote policies like Medicare for All, Free Post-secondary education and the Green New Deal and should frame them as moderate policies . The American far right likes to describe them as "radical" or "socialist," but we should not allow the right to frame the discussion in that way. We should insist on framing Medicare for All, Free Post-secondary education and the Green New Deal as the moderate, middle of the road policies that they really are. We should adopt our party's best ideas, and we should explain over and over again why they are truly moderate proposals in the best pragmatic, American political tradition.