Running Scared: Observations of a Former Republican
[Home] [Former Republican] [About the Authors] [RSS Feed] [Pointless Vanity]

"Losing my faith in humanity ... one neocon at a time."

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

The Trouble with the DNC...

posted by Jazz at 10/26/2004 01:03:00 PM


... is that it's full of Democrats. Recently I've had people continue to ask me, "If Bush wins, are you finally going to change your voter registration to Democrat?" The short answer is, no. I'm not.

Even if a Bush win brings a sense of righteous validation to the neocons and theocons currently ruining our party and warping our platform into the confused, bigoted, homophobic, spendaholic mess that it is now, that doesn't mean I'll run to the Democrats. Why? Five reasons, really.

1. Democrats tend to be redistributionists vs. reconstructionists
2. Hillary Clinton.
3. Democrats always favor expansion of the Federal bureaucracy.
4. Democrats almost always oppose the death penalty and favor gun control.
5. Hillary Clinton.

"Ummm... you listed Hillary twice."

Yes, I know. But I really don't like Hillary.

Item number one, however, is our focus today. What do I mean by those terms? Essentially, in an open market society which is based on capitalism, there are always going to be some people who are far more successful and achieve larger gains than most other people. You can call them the haves and the have nots if you like. Or, as Bush once jokingly said at a roast (which was then taken totally out of context by Michael Moore) the "haves and the have mores."

Democrats tend to treat this as some sort of social disease, and the knee jerk response is to immediately begin taxing the most affluent people while continually cutting the taxes of lower wage earners in an attempt to redistribute the wealth around the country. Obviously this is a very popular idea with a lot of the "have nots" so the concept gains traction. That's why it is referred to as a populist theory. Sadly, it's also self-destructive and serves as poison in the well of capitalism.

In England, for example, where they have taken this theory to extremes, you can get to a certain level of income beyond which, all of the money you make will be taxed at a rate of 80%. Why on Earth would anyone bother trying to achieve more if you're going to be taxed at that staggering rate? The answer is, many don't bother, and their economy suffers for it. (Why hasn't' anyone thrown some tea in the harbor over there by now?)

People who exert the drive, effort, energy and risk assumption required to be extremely successful deserve to reap at least a reasonable harvest from their achievements. We already tax the extremely rich at an incredible rate compared to modest wage earners. (Getting them to actually pay it is another question, and badly needs to be dealt with.) Conversely, my taxes are already fairly modest on the Federal level. You could cut my Federal taxes in half and not make a significant change in my lifestyle or spending habits. These tax shifting, redistribution proposals are a political trick by the Democrats to win great favor with the majority of Americans while returning very little material gain in exchange.

A better theory is to allow the successful to keep a bit more of their earnings, but put systems in place that reward them for using those resources in a way that produce more, better paying jobs here in the United States, and improving the quality of life for people across the spectrum. At the same time, the Federal government needs to get it's massive spending addiction under control, reduce the size of the bureaucracy, and let the individual states maintain the power to handle more of their own affairs.

When the Democrats start coming up with proposals along those lines, I'll consider turning in my GOP card. Until then, I'll fight the lonely fight against Bush and his theocon cronies, and try to help steer the party back towards it's moderate, sensible roots.