Cutting taxes vs. health care for all: the voters' choice

Gordon L. Weil

Here are three statements made last week.

In a Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he wants a national system in which the government provides health care and there is no insurance.

Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen commented on the Democratic debates and concluded, "[T]here was one clear loser – the American taxpayer."

Billionaire Eli Broad wrote in the New York Times, "I am in the 1 percent.  Please raise my taxes."

Their statements focused on taxes and the role of government – two sides of the same coin.

Obviously beyond their notice was a popular vote in one Maine school district.  Voters in all four towns of SAD 75 added $600,000 of new spending to raise teacher pay beyond the school board's own proposed increase.

This vote demonstrated what can happen when people take government spending into their own hands.  They raised their own taxes, but did not see themselves as "losers."  They simply set government policy, weighing both the costs and benefits.

Thiessen's conservative view makes taxes the enemy and assumes that any action to increase taxes will be unpopular no matter what the purpose.  People would rather make their own decisions about how to spend their money, which means turning as little as possible over to government.

Behind this position is basic opposition to government itself.  If you pay less in taxes, you get less government.  A conservative view is that people are better individually at making choices than through a common effort by government.

Ultimately, the free market, driven by competition to make money, will produce the results people need and want, the theory goes.  That's better than public policy made by legislators who may impose their views and be out of touch with what people really want.

The wealthiest people have the money to drive market growth, so cutting their taxes makes sense, according to this conservative view.  Because they pay most of the taxes, they should get most of the tax cuts.  That has led to what the news agency Reuters calls "an ever-widening chasm between the unfathomably rich and everyone else."

Opposing more taxes to pay for more government, critics often distort proposals for government action.  They have also increasingly resorted to labeling as "socialism" almost any proposal for increased government.  "Socialism" is a foreign system designed to crush free enterprise, they suggest.

Problems arise.  The America health system, run by hospitals and private insurers, left tens of millions without adequate care.  Veterans and older people were given greater assured access, but many remained outside the system.

To cover the uninsured, Congress adopted the Affordable Care Act, providing government aid to allow more people to purchase private insurance.  But the GOP blocked a public, non-profit insurer, which might have provided lower-cost competition and limits on drug prices.

Sanders and some other Democrats argue that only a public insurer and care provider can bring costs under control and prevent the drug industry from raising prices to boost its profits and advertising budget.  The Democrats' proposed system would be taxpayer supported.

That would require a big tax increase.  However, its opponents ignore the elimination of insurance premiums.  Medical and drug costs could be controlled.  This year, Maine took the first step toward cost controls, which Congress has banned for Medicare, and the free market fails to produce.

If there is a net taxpayer cost for including the millions still outside the health care system (or for any other policy), perhaps voters would pay it.  That's a choice to be made or rejected, but it is hardly socialism to provide a public health care option and more help for the uninsured. 

Increased public spending should be financed by new taxes.  Both parties readily adopt measures, from tax cuts to social spending, without paying for them.  They create more debt and pass the bill to future generations.

Broad wants the wealthiest to pay more taxes, just as the not-so-wealthy school district voters decided.  He offers neither a blank check nor to be the sole payer.  Like the district voters, he likely wants to know the purpose of any tax increase, like debt reduction, and that others are also paying.

In light of all the tax-cutting loopholes and the sharp curtailment of inheritance and estate taxes, he proposes an annual two percent tax on wealth above $50 million.  A businessman and philanthropist, Broad is hardly a socialist.

Broad, Thiessen and Sanders focus on what may be the central debate of this election: what is the proper role of government and are we willing to pay for it?  

Trump policy-making: a new version of 'Whack-a-mole'

Gordon L. Weil

"Whack-a-mole" is an old arcade game that's an exercise in futility.  It has come to mean that each time you try to solve a problem, another problem pops up.

In the original game, players would hit the mole on the head, forcing it back into its hole.  Another would pop up, and players had to move fast to hit each new one.  Satisfaction from whacking each mole did not last long.

Much American policy under President Trump is like playing Whack-a-mole.  In trying to fulfill his campaign promises, each problem Trump attacks seems to create another. 

Take China.  It pursues unfair trade policies and has a trade surplus with the U.S.  It also steals American trade secrets and forces U.S. companies to turn them over, if they want to do business in the huge Chinese market.

Trump whacked China by raising tariffs on its exports, a move reducing trade by making their goods more expensive.  He believes that will bring them to the bargaining table, where the U.S. can win concessions.

But higher tariffs raise prices for American consumers.  U.S. agriculture loses markets in China when it retaliates by increasing its own tariffs and buys elsewhere.  The trade deficit with China has grown a little worse, according to official statistics.

More moles.  Quit the Trans Pacific Partnership and lose allies opposing China and farm exports to Japan.  Meet with the North Korean leader without result, but boost his international standing.  Force a North American trade deal, creating hostility with neighbors. 

Taxes are too high, stifling economic development, Trump says.  They should be cut, notably for the middle class and for business, which will invest the money with the profits yielding offsetting tax revenues.  Smack that mole.

In 2017, the GOP lowered taxes on the biggest taxpayers, also supposedly the biggest investors.  It also allowed corporations to bring foreign profits home and cut the corporate tax rate.

But the tax bill's economic effect faded by 2019.  Corporations used added funds to buy back their stock and increase executive pay, with only a portion going into new productive capacity.  Federal debt grew faster than the promised new tax revenues.  That's the new mole.

Or immigration, Trump's signature issue.  He warned that Mexican gangsters and rapists were streaming into the U.S.  Building a wall, paid for by Mexico, would end the problem.  Meanwhile, separating immigrant families is stepped up, supposedly to serve as a deterrent.

But keeping his promise depended on Congress and Mexico, and neither agreed with him.  Immigrants arrived in even higher numbers.  They were not Mexicans, but mostly from Central America and Africa.  Instead of U.S. aid to slow the flow at the source, it was cut.  Americans were shocked by immigrant family separations. 

Undeterred, Trump promised to sweep up millions of undocumented immigrants and deport them.  But his immigration agencies were caught by surprise and were unready for the task.  The president backed off, saying he wouldn't carry out the threat if the Democrats agreed to his demands to change the immigration laws.

The mole: Iran.  The nuclear deal with Iran was unsatisfactory, because 15 years later Iran could choose to resume its production of nuclear fuel.  Also, the deal did not halt Iran's aggressive moves in the Middle East.

The U.S. withdrew from the deal and has put strong economic pressure on European participants to force them to stop buying Iranian oil.  No direct talks with Iran.

Iran announced that, if the U.S. stops its oil exports, it will restart nuclear fuel development that would have been forestalled under the deal.  The situation became more tense than it was under the now-rejected agreement, as both sides rattle their sabers.

When Iran shot down an American drone, which the U.S. says was over international waters, Trump readied a retaliatory strike, but then backed off.  He said the U.S. did not want to cause 150 deaths.  Is it possible the U.S. was not absolutely sure of the drone's location?

Trump has had some big successes.  He has set a new record in sustaining President Obama's economic recovery.  He has induced European countries to increase NATO-related spending.  He now has China's attention.

But he usually announces immediate solutions – Whack-a-mole – instead of traditionally less dramatic, incremental measures, creating new problems. 

Will the oncoming campaign and what he has learned as president lead Trump to cut back on playing the game?

In his recent immigration and Iran reversals, Trump may have begun to recognize that his sudden policy announcements raise new issues and don't finally settle matters.

Separation of church and state slowly erodes

Gordon L. Weil          

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a large Latin cross on public land in Maryland was no longer a religious symbol, but merely a tribute to fallen American soldiers of any faith.  Government was not giving special status to a Christian symbol, it ruled.

This blurring of the line between church and state takes place in a country in which religious belief is increasingly given special status.

We now run the risk of government a la carte, a system in which people can choose which laws they are willing to obey.

When religious belief conflicts with public policy, individuals may demand a choice not to obey the law.  Vaccination, same-sex marriage and abortion all raise this issue.

The Constitution's drafters thought they had avoided such conflicts.  Government can neither endorse any religion nor prevent people from practicing their religion or none at all. 

Of course, government leaders are influenced in their policies by their opinions and religious beliefs.  They may be guided by those beliefs, but they must stop short of imposing them on others.  Neutral laws, applying to all, are supposed to be adopted by government in the name of the people.

This approach arose from the emphasis on personal freedom, central to the American political system.  The threat, as Europe's history taught, was that government would force religion, perhaps even a specific religion, on the people. 

In practice, government did not impose religion on anybody, and it accommodated a wide variety of religious beliefs.  Such action was not merely meant to prevent laws that endangered the free exercise of religion.  So long as others were not harmed, it served to facilitate individual belief.

A clear example has been conscientious objector status.  When men were required to provide military service, those who refused to kill another person, even in defense of their country, could be assigned non-combat duty.

The risk to others of allowing some people not to obey the law may result from a conflict between religious belief and the public interest as defined by government.  That has happened in recent years over the issue of vaccination.

Decades ago, medical science demonstrated that inoculation against certain diseases could prevent their spread, even to the point of eliminating them.  Starting vaccination among children was usually the most effective method of preventing the spread of illness.

Without scientific evidence, but as a matter of belief, some people concluded that even if vaccinations prevented some diseases, they caused other maladies.  As a result, they chose to opt out of government-required vaccinations, a practice that was adopted by some religious groups.

While there was no evidence to support the belief that vaccinations caused illnesses, there was mounting evidence that the absence of vaccinations could allow the spread of fatal diseases that had almost been eliminated.  In short, opting out has an effect on others, not merely the children who were not vaccinated.

Vaccinations are under state control, and previously only two states denied a religious exemption from required inoculations.  With the spread of measles this year, the number of states accepting only a medical exemption has grown to five, including Maine, which acted this year.

A conflict between religious belief and public policy has also arisen as a result of the Affordable Care Act requiring access to contraception.  Before the passage of the ACA, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that religious belief could not overrule a neutral law of general application.

Congress then passed a law requiring courts to decide if a law subject to dispute on religious grounds was the least burdensome way of accomplishing a public purpose and, if not, to overturn it.

The result was that a company can inform the government it will not provide contraceptive coverage under the ACA, because such coverage is against the religious beliefs of its owners.  The government may then tell the insurer to provide such coverage.

Undoubtedly, the greatest conflict has arisen on abortion.  As a matter of religious belief, some find that abortion amounts to taking a life, while many others see it as a legal medical procedure, performed at the discretion of a woman.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not prohibited by the Constitution or laws, the controversy continues.  Under their control of medical procedures, some states have imposed conditions intended to virtually prevent abortions.

In contrast, Maine this year required insurance coverage for abortions and funded this coverage in the low-income health plan

Conflicts between neutral laws and religious belief take on huge political roles.  Parties may exploit them as "wedge" issues, adopting positions on them to gain almost blind support for their policies on many other issues.  

Far from the Constitution's intent, religious belief may end up getting special consideration in government decisions.  The result could be an expanding menu of government policy options, with choice left to individuals, rather than a uniform set of general laws.