QandO

Perhaps the reason for the response here is that she's not been quite so bald faced about it before. Certainly, this has been her agenda all along. But it's the first time she's actually admitted it.

Posted by: Bithead at July 7, 2004 08:11 AM

The problem with Hillary's comments is that she sees the "common good" as meaning that the government should redistribute income to make the world a "fairer" place. Taxes per se are not wrong. I believe all citizens realize the need to provide for such matters as the common defense, and that means that there has to be a way to raise the funds to pay for such. The argument is not whether the government should have the power to tax, but rather where one draws the line regarding proper governmental action (and the raising of taxes to support such action). A more restricted government role than that championed by Hillary is the mantra of the Republican Party -- although I agree that recent experience with the Republicans in power raises a legitimate doubt as to their commitment to this principle.

Posted by: RAZ at July 7, 2004 08:33 AM

Lets not confuse pragmatism with ideology. And let's also not pretend the present Republican party represents all of the right (it certainly doesn't represent anyone who claims to be libertarian).

The Republican party is precisely that ... a political party. And as is the nature of all political parties, they sniff the wind (also known as polls) and attempt to please the majority in the hope of seizing and/or keeping power. That produces pandering. And spending, in most cases is simply pandering for votes.

The fact is this isn't about the Republican or Democrat party. Its about an ideology which states the needs of the "group" trump the rights of individuals.

Whether Republican or Democrat, that sort of thinking, that sort of ideology, needs to be stomped flat whenever it emerges.

The fact that Clinton was so forthright about it is a bit shocking. But it sure shows the ideology under which she operates. That is why I said what I said. I don't excuse the Republicans for the same sort of nonsense ... that ideology has no business operating anywhere in this country.

My reaction was simply to the blatant nature of the statement, a statement that I feel is simply "un-American" when compared to the ideology under which this nation was founded.

Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 08:42 AM

I accept a great many of your premises, but that leaves the question: unless a person believes we should have nothing but user fees, how does Hillary's position differ at all from the taxation philosophy of....well, anybody?

Her position is certainly no different than, I'd guess, that of 99% of Americans.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 08:46 AM

First of all, I'll grant you that at least part of the issue we had was that it was that witch saying it.

Frankly, another part of it was her phrasing. "We're going to take things away from you" - conjures up all sorts of negative images doesn't it? And in fact, it's an open ended statement- what else is she going to take away from me? My house? My car?

And "common good" - sounds a little too socialistic for me.

Basically, the subtext of her position was a threat- the all knowing all powerful govt forcibly taking things from me. Of course, that's not what she meant, but that's the imagery she conjured up when I read that.

As to how it differs from the Republican Party- well, the Repubs. passed a tax cut. That's a world of difference right there, isn't it? I guess the real difference is in degrees to which each party takes this idea. There are "taxes" and there are TAXES.

Posted by: shark at July 7, 2004 09:07 AM

The real big issue is who's "common good" is it? I do not consider the Clintons to have moral clarity beyond my own. I don't necessarily think the Republicans do either and I would not be especially happy if they said anything similar. However the Bushs aren't saying these things, they're much more in line with "you have a fundamental right to your paycheck" line of thinking.

Posted by: MrAcheson at July 7, 2004 09:16 AM

You're focusing on the wrong thing. It's isn't about taxes and that some want them higher and some want them lower. It's the arrogance and the position she is taking in regards of the government in its relationship to the people.

She didn't say "we all need to pitch in to help America in this time of crises" or similar such phrase where "we" means all Americans. She said "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." in which "we" means the government and "you" means the little people who aren't the government.

This is a real turn of events in a government by, of, and for the people. This turns the "we" into a "royal we".

The phrasing is also disturbing in "take things away from you...for the common good". Things. Concentrate on that. Does this mean your house? Your car? Your children? Your life? Stalin murdering 20 million of his own people was for the "common good". It's a nice, undefined phrase that politicians can leave undefined and no one can object to, including you apparently.

Posted by: Director Mitch at July 7, 2004 09:23 AM

For me the answer is simple: I'm not a Republican. I agree the difference between Dems and Repubs is in degress. Neither side is going to cut taxes beyond a certain point. Neither is going to get the government out of areas it shouldn't be in (health care for one example). For me, when I do decide to support a Republican--and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to support Bush this election, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Steve at July 7, 2004 09:31 AM

Steve makes a valid point here, and one that seemed to go missing in the initial uproar: in all the fuss about Hillary's statement, nobody noticed that the "Right" is not better in principle....only in degree.

So, if you find Hillary's statement fundamentally wrong, fine....but you can't say the principle is wrong, unless you advocate a complete repudiation of our system of taxation, to be replaced with user fees. Otherwise, you're advocating the exact same principle as Hillary Clinton, but you differ on the precise rate of punitive taxation.

That's not a difference on which I'd want to make for moral superiority.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 09:37 AM

"Otherwise, you're advocating the exact same principle as Hillary Clinton, but you differ on the precise rate of punitive taxation."

Reminds me of the old joke about the woman who was asked by a good-looking, wealthy man if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars. When she said yes, he asked if she'd sleep with him for $20. "What kind of a girl do you think I am?" asked the woman. "We've already established that," said the man, "we're just haggling over the price."

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at July 7, 2004 09:50 AM

Bang! That's it, exactly.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 09:56 AM

Otherwise, you're advocating the exact same principle as Hillary Clinton, but you differ on the precise rate of punitive taxation. That's not a difference on which I'd want to make for moral superiority.

Why not? The devil is in the details.

Posted by: shark at July 7, 2004 10:17 AM

HENKE: you is all wrong. And confused.

Of course Left and Right both want to increase the common good; the differences are about HOW to do that!

The Right says: LET'S CUT TAXES for the common good!

The Left says: Let's raise them for the common good.

Which works? Which causes more growth, more prosperity and more abundance?

Tax cuts work. Tax increases do not.

Even Chanceller Schroeder - an openly avowed socialist (unlike Hillary who claims not to be) is now cutting taxes.

Posted by: dan at July 7, 2004 10:38 AM

I think Dan missed the point entirely.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 10:40 AM

Mitch sez: "She didn't say "we all need to pitch in to help America in this time of crises" or similar such phrase where "we" means all Americans. She said "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." in which "we" means the government and "you" means the little people who aren't the government."

That's my problem with the line, and my problem with the political class generally. Not just Hillary mind, who inherited her political power from her husband. But Shrub who inherited from Bush I, Gore who inherited from Gore Sr, etc etc. "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" -- but "representation" is not accomplished by some aristocracy of well-born, well-connected, "Do You Know Who I Am?" , professional politicians who have been campaigning for power since they formed their first clique in high school. Representation means somebody proves her/his worth doing real and useful work, THEN takes a term of service doing the gov't a term or two, then passes the reins on to the next fella. "WE the People" may need to raise taxes on ourselves. Or not. WE may need to re-think tarriffs, or sales taxes, or withholdings, or payroll/FICA caps, or any number of tax issues. But WE don't need THEM to do thing "for the common good".

Posted by: Pouncer at July 7, 2004 11:07 AM

Many (most?) Republicans, particularly the party leadership, are not "the Right;" they are mostly centrist, with conservative tendencies. So, in that respect, I would have to agree with what I think Mr. Henke is saying, that the Republicans are saying:

"We will take not as much away from you (but still lots) for the common good, though our common good is better-defined than theirs."

Those who are really conservatives would say something more like:

"The Constitution gives the government certain powers and responsibilities. So it can meet those responsibilities, we have to pay taxes. We promise to not 'pad' the bill with extraneous items."

And yes, I think that is different in kind, not just degree, from Clinton's statement.

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at July 7, 2004 11:57 AM

Not really, Gary. Even those Constitutionally required functions of the government are "for the Common Good". Thus, taxation to support them is taxation for the common good.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 12:07 PM

Even those Constitutionally required functions of the government are "for the Common Good". Thus, taxation to support them is taxation for the common good

We're into the land of nuance here. Yes, in the broadest context you're correct in that statement. But can we all agree that when using "common good", Hillary didn't mean providing basic necessary services, she meant redistribution of wealth to ensure equalities of circumstances and outcomes.

Which is quite the different thing.

Posted by: shark at July 7, 2004 12:24 PM

Doesn't matter, Shark. Whether you allocate money, or goods/services, anytime a resource is allocated without direct payment for its use (user fee), then you've got somebody taking somebody elses money "for the common good".

Now, you may argue--and I will agree--that military/policy/court spending is vital, and far more important than social spending. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, essentially, taxing everybody "for the common good" by subjective fiat.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 12:33 PM

Let's keep something else in perspective as well. The Constitution originally had no provision (or vision) which taxed the citizen's income. So its hard to pretend that the "common good" provided for by the original Constitution was subsidised by taxation as we have it today.

In fact, as I recall, the basis of our rebellion had to do with taxation.

The common good is a nebulous excuse for some of the world's worst ideas. Socialism, communism, even the Nazi's were big fans of the "volk", their way of saying "common good" (but only if you were a member of that group).

Taxation, in my estimation, has and always will be legalized theft. But it appears we're either too timid or unimaginative (or perhaps too lazy) to find a manner more in keeping with rights and liberty to pay for our "common good" so we continue to fall back on the way of conquerers ... forced payment.

Pouncer also hit a sore spot with me ... the "you" and "we" argument. The "we" means government and those "elite" who run it and make the decisions for "you" the people.

That also is precisely opposite of the vision of the Founders. It is "they" the government who are supposed to listen to the decisions of 'we' the people.

Hillary, as usual, has that turned around. And that is precisely why I wrote what I did in my original post on this subject.

Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 12:41 PM

Now, you may argue--and I will agree--that military/policy/court spending is vital, and far more important than social spending. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, essentially, taxing everybody "for the common good" by subjective fiat.

Can I try to classify it as paying for a service? Paying for postal service, military protection, etc.

If my wealth is redistributed, I'm paying but I'm certainly not getting anything for my buck.

Posted by: shark at July 7, 2004 12:58 PM

Henke wrote that 99% of Americans probably agree with Hillary and are "for the common good."

Henke wrote:

"Her position is certainly no different
than, I'd guess, that of 99% of
Americans."

I argued that this aspect of Hillary's policy is irrelevant, and that what was relevant is that the Left asserts that increasing taxes and federal involvement in any and all aspects of daily life are the best ways to achieve a greater common good. When Hillary used the term "we" this is who she was referring to, and what she meant.

Republicans in general, (and especially the right-of-center Republicans) believe that less taxes and less government is the only way to achieve a greatest good for the many.

History proves that the GOP/the Right is correct and that the DNC/the Left is wrong.

The free marketplace, ("the invisible hand" and competiton), is more effective at increasing liberty - and the prosperity which ONLY liberty produces - than the central planning and control policies that Hillary and the DNC and the Left supports.

I maintain that when Henke asserts that Hillary is in tune with 99% of the Amerfican public, Henke is wrong and confused.

Henke conflates the GOAL of both the Left and the right (improving the general welfare/the common good)with the means of achieving that goal.

The DNC/Left's means (the Left's policies) do not work, have never worked, and can't ever work.

The GOP/Right's means (and policies) have ALWAYS worked, and will always work.

Sowell - as per usual - said it best:

"What is wrong with America, in the eyes of the intelligentsia? The same things that are right with America in the eyes of others.

If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom. But what does freedom mean?

It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit -- regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters, as so many intellectuals do.

The more the American vision of individual freedom prevails, the more the vision of the anointed fails. The more ordinary people spend the money they have earned for whatever they want, the less is available to the government as taxes to spend for "the common good" as Hillary Clinton recently put it.

The more people who raise their own children by their own values, the less is there a place for the collectivist notion that "it takes a village to raise a child," as Hillary has said elsewhere. Too many of our schools are convinced that they are that village.

Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal independence -- and both are targets of hostility and even hatred by those who are convinced that they can run other people's lives better than those people can run their own lives. All sorts of claims are made against cars and guns, without the slightest interest in checking those claims against readily available facts.

When America frees ordinary people from the domination of their betters, and prevents them for being used as guinea pigs for the vision of the anointed, the more America insults the very presumptions that enable the anointed to think of themselves as special, as one-up on the rest of us."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20040702.shtml

Posted by: dan at July 7, 2004 01:04 PM

I address some of these questions at BitsBlog

(It's lengthy, and I don't want to post the whole thing verbatim)

I submit to you that were either party to limit themselves to the original purposes of govermment as I suggest in that article, that the tax question wouldn't BE a question any longer.

ANd the like of Hitlery's statement would have resulted in a few tarpots being warmed up.

Posted by: Bithead at July 7, 2004 01:04 PM

McQ: Well, that's the way it works in a representative democracy. "They" speak for "we".

Shark: "If my wealth is redistributed, I'm paying but I'm certainly not getting anything for my buck."

- - -Doesn't matter what is done with it, so long as it is taken away by force, rather than in a voluntary exchange. I "get something for my money" when it is used to create modern art displays in downtown Richmond, but I certainly don't get my money's worth.

Again, unless you advocate "user fees"--which are entirely voluntary--your position on taxation differs very little from Hillary's statement. You only disagree on what constitutes the "common good".

Dan: you're missing the entire point. It's not about whether it would be better to have higher or lower taxes, but whether taxation--at all--is acceptable. If you support any form of taxation, then your position does not differ in nature from that of Hillary.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 01:12 PM

Well Jon, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you view all of this, that's not true. We're not a democracy, representative or otherwise. We're a constitutional republic.

Once again, I refer you to Federalist 10 and Madison's discussion of 'democracy' (it was anathema to he and the founders). As has been pointed out before, democracy is simply two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. For one, I'm tired of being the sheep.

Democracy was an institution which the Founders wanted no part of. There's quite a difference between a "democracy" and a republic with democratic institutions. But when it is all said and done, we've certainly done a very poor job of protecting their original vision of this nation's government.

So I'm sorry, I don't buy "that's what you get with a representative democracy" as if that's an acceptable and appropriate answer.

No sir, that's not what you "get", its something to which we've allowed it to devolve. A special interest democracy which essentially ignores its founding document when its strictures are inconvenient to the politics of the day.

A place in which a statement such as "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" is viewed with anything but shock and outrage.

Its certainly a shame, and frankly, at least for me, it's not acceptable in any guise, under any ideology and certainly not in this country.

Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 01:42 PM

If you support any form of taxation, then your position does not differ in nature from that of Hillary.

Tell you what, I think we're off on a tangent here.

I don't think taxation was the point of what Hillary said at all.

(Yes, I'm reading into her words for meaning that wasn't explicitly said)- but the point of what she said wasn't the taxation. The point is: 1) redistribution of wealth and 2) her idea of the common good.

Supporting taxes for govt functions such as military, postal service etc is certainly not the same as supporting taxes as a means to redistribute wealth, and to "level the playing field"- which is almost certainly what Hillary means by "for the common good"

See the difference? Hillary is advocating the collections of taxes as a means to affect social and societal change- to enforce an her version of the "common good" where those of us who would support paying taxes for vital govt services would absolutely balk at that idea.

It's not the taxation, it's what the taxes are being used for.

Posted by: shark at July 7, 2004 01:47 PM

McQ: "republic" = "representative democracy"
It's the same thing.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 02:38 PM

Really? Then explain the "Republic of Cuba" to me.

Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 03:20 PM

Heh....well, obviously, it's a Republic in name only.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 7, 2004 03:44 PM

Heh ... well not really.

"Republic" is a form of government, and it requires not one iota of democracy to exist as witnessed by Cuba or many other totalitarian "republics" such as the late and unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Cuba has an "elected" president and VP. It has an "elected" unicameral legislature and a judicial branch "elected" by the legislature.

One problem ... Cuba has only one party. Which means there is really no 'democratic' choice. But regardless, it fits the description and definition of a "republic" to a tee.

With that in mind then, it is safe to conclude "republic" does not necessarily equal "representative democracy".

Posted by: McQ at July 7, 2004 04:06 PM

Jon,

A lot of it has to do with who said it, and the history of that individual. Her definition of "common good" is so broad that it includes things that you and I would never consider being a part of it. "Hillarycare," anyone?

A second objection is the tone. The poor, unenlightened rubes that are beneath the "we" who are going to take the things away is implied. The "we" is also implied, and if the implied "we" includes Hillary, well, that's not a pretty picture to most of us, who find ourselves in the first category. Basically, anyone who benefits from the recent tax cuts, including "marriage penalty" relief, is in the former category. Hillary needs to be more careful, because that includes more people than she probably realizes.

Getting to the "differing by degrees" discussion, I could write a book, but I won't do it here. You might get an e-mail later, though.

Posted by: David R. Block at July 7, 2004 04:10 PM

Director Mitch nailed it on the head.

Every politician since since the birth of the republic has known that you simply don't come out and tell Americans that you are gonna do something to them that they might not like "for their own good."

And it's not just a matter of meaninglessly sugar-coating the language, either, Jon Henke. Words mean something. History and culture mean something. Most folks hear talk like that, they automatically add the implied "...or else" to the end. That's why you ASK Americans to sacrifice, or convince them that it is their patriotic duty, etc.

Posted by: Terry at July 8, 2004 04:46 PM