Redistribution is taking from some and giving to others. It usually means taking from the more wealthy and giving to the less wealthy but it could work the other way around. But tax cuts aren't redistributionist. They don't take anything from the poor.
If Bill gets taxes $500,000 a year, and Molly gets taxed $10,000 a year, and Ted gets taxed $25 a year, and Bob pays no tax, and then you change it so that Bill gets taxed $400k, Molly gets taxed $7000, and Ted and Bob pay no tax, than no one has had anything taken from them by the tax cut.
Benefit cuts would be a separate action. More importantly benefits have not been cut. Most forms of social spending have increased every year. All the large social programs (including educational aid) now get more federal funds then they did when Bush was elected. They have not just more funds in nominal dollars, but more in inflation adjusted dollars. Specific educational programs may have been cut, but only while other programs were being increased and the overall federal spending on education has greatly increased since Bush took office.
Even if the social programs where cut it (and remember they were not) it wouldn't be redistribution. If you have been making my car payment for me, or writing me a check every month, and than you decide to stop doing so no one is redistributing anything from me to you. You would just be canceling the former redistribution from you to me.
It might be argued that the former level of redistribution is a good thing that should be continued or even expanded. You might even try to argue that reducing it is somehow unjust or unfair, but even if you can get everyone to agree that a reduction is a bad idea, or is unjust or unfair, it would change the fact that a benefit cut is a cancellation of an existing redistribution, it is not a redistribution itself.
Tim |
