Some differences are simply the result of different social values.
I found it remarkable that in the early and middle years of the Iraq war so many conservative (and a significant number of progressive) Americans could not see the writing in the sand. That tide has turned and most Americans recognize the insurmountable problems we were facing there, the limits of our power to change societies using military force and that there are things that we can't buy with billions of dollars. Many conservatives now bemoan the loss of blood, treasure and opportunities that were lost in the hard years of that war but the sad fact is that there was very little critical thinking to counter the neocon push to war especially among self identified conservatives and Republican elected leaders. (Chuck Hagel was a courageous exception.)
Some conservatives did turn against the war after the fact, just as almost all liberals did (in spite of having supported it early on). However, it was clearly the right thing to have done under the circumstances.
Condi Rice articulates the position better than anyone, in effect, that you go to war based on the facts you DO have, not those you DON'T have. It is clear today that disarming Saddam, then removing him, was totally sensible. Not only was it consistent with the "Freedom Agenda" -- which our current president totally bungled -- but it was essential as a matter of national security. The argument that we would somehow be better off with Saddam in power today just doesn't hold water, particularly, in light of what is happening in Iran. The claim that Saddam somehow, would have kept Iran in check is ridiculous; we'd just have that much more stringent at arms race in the ME than we now have.
I continue to support what we did in Iraq, but I would much rather have seen Clinton take care of the problem in the 90s. When Saddam became belligerent in the 90s, Clinton should have said, "Okay, we gave you a chance to stay in power and behave, now we're going to take you out." He didn't have the "brass" for it (his words), so his successor had to handle the problem. Paraphrasing Jack Woltz, the most powerful country in the world "can't afford to look ridiculous."
The second is the "liberals" rejection of the conservative theory that we create jobs for everyday Americans when we lower the tax burden on top income levels or reduce the estate taxes of massively wealthy individuals.
Anyone who has the slightest understanding of economics should by now be familiar with the so-called "Laffer Curve" which is demonstrably a correct representation. This, of course, didn't originate with Laffer -- in fact, Adam Smith recognized that there was some tax rate beyond which productivity would decline. And obviously, a zero tax rate doesn't yield the necessary tax revenue. So, it comes down to which tax rate at which you find the vertex of the parabola. Somewhere between 99% and 1%. About all you can do is look at empirical results, and one need not look back too far -- Bill Clinton cut cap gain rates in 1997 and what happened? Reagan cut tax rates, and what happened? JFK cut tax rates and what happened? For that matter, revenues increased for four consecutive years after George W. Bush cut tax rates. And they probably would have continued had the Democrat-fueled housing crisis not brought down the economy.
Estate taxes are a different matter and far more difficult to rationalize. Throughout their history, since 1916, estate taxes have never produced a significant amount of revenue for the government (prior to 1916, they were occasionally used to raise limited money for specific purposes). Anyway, as a revenue tool, they're immaterial in amount. So, what is the point of them?
Simply put, the point, the ONLY point, today is to try and prevent the pooling of wealth. This, of course, doesn't work -- the arithmetic of compound interest prevents it from doing so. So what exactly is the point? In effect, it forces wealthy old people to contribute money to tax exempt foundations and that's about it. I suppose that's a good thing, but you don't need a particularly aggressive estate tax code to make that happen. |
