The Death of Outrage

William Bennett recently wrote a book entitled, "The Death of Outrage."

He had a very distorted sense of what we should be outraged about, but my friends, we do have reason to be outraged, and I have a sense that you and millions of others are not outraged enough.

The Bush administration is the most devious, deceptive and dangerous administration to govern the United States since the Great Depression. It is so dangerous because while it talks the talk of moderation and bipartisanship it is pushing an agenda that is so extreme and so radical that it makes the Reagan and Gingrich agendas mild by comparison.

This administration desires not only to undo the accomplishments of the Johnson administration and do away with Medicare and Medicaid by making sure there is not enough funding for it. It seeks to privatize (a euphemism for abolishing) the landmark achievements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, notably Social Security, its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It seeks to do away with our achievements going back to 1916, when the modern Estate Tax became law. No, my friends, the Estate Tax, deceptively renamed the "Death Tax," is not a new innovation by some radical social reformers, it has been part of our political and social fabric for more than three quarters of a century.

The distinguished Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Lois Brandeis, once said, "You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, or democracy. But you cannot have both." He was right. My friends, the very essence of our Democracy is at stake.

We have a dangerous trend in this country. So many of us feel comfortable these days that we are not paying attention to what is happening. By the time we wake up it will be too late.

In 1976 10% of the American people owned 49% of the wealth of America; the remaining 90% owned 51%. Pretty shocking; But by 1999 10% owned 73% of all wealth; 90% owned 27% of the remaining wealth.

This is a very disturbing trend and it is continuing. This mal-distribution is the problem of South America and indeed Russia. It is economically unsound, for what is now widely recognized, is that the economy is driven by consumer demand and concentrated wealth cannot drive this demand. It can only invest and invest until supply far exceeds demand and depression inevitably follows.

Furthermore, wealth equals power, as Clinton's pardon of Rich so amply demonstrates. But as outrageous as that act may be, it pales by comparison to the way powerful groups like the tobacco industry, the insurance industry and various other powerful forces give millions of their largess to members of Congress in return for billions from the public trough.

This ever greater concentration of wealth has taken place despite a graduated income tax, an inheritance tax and a gift tax, though we have been allowing the rich to avoid paying capital gains taxes by the mere expedient of passing assets to their heirs, rather than selling them or giving them to charity. We need to take steps to slow down this concentration of wealth. Instead this administration, demonstrating the power that wealth already commands, wants to flatten the income tax and do away with the estate tax. We should be doing the opposite. The estate tax law is already in the process of increasing the tax free exemption from $695,000 to 1,000,000 per person, thus allowing an exemption of $2,000,000 per couple, How much more do children need, and of course they can inherit an infinite amount after paying a portion in taxes. What has happened to our work ethic when we give each succeeding generation such largesse?

And if those who are more concerned with other issues think that they are unrelated, let me assure them that they are not. Let those who believe that the cost of pharmaceutical for our senior citizens should be covered by insurance not be deceived by Bush's lip service. He has never offered a viable plan to accomplish this and part of the reason for these huge tax cuts is to make sure that no money will be available for such a program. Those who are concerned about the state of our education and are impressed by the lip service given it by our self-styled "education" President, let me suggest that they should listen less to the words and more to the budget. The old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is" is applicable here as elsewhere. When a sports facility is more than twenty years old we hear about it being hopelessly outdated and in need of replacement with taxpayer funds. No corporation would run its operations out of obsolete facilities, but the powerful financial interests who want to "return the ‘surplus’ to the people" see nothing wrong with school buildings a century or older and with a lack of books or library facilities." Part of the purpose of ridding the treasury of the "surplus" the American people hope to accumulate, is to make sure that such social needs are never met.

There can only be a surplus after our debts have been paid and our needs have been met. Given our huge debt, the result of the last egregious tax cut for the rich under Reagan, and our societal needs it is questionable whether there is a "surplus." But if part of our hoped for surplus is to be given back to the American people, let us give it back to all the American people in equal measure. Let every American man, woman, and child get an equal amount. There were almost 228 million Americans in 1999. Probably somewhat more in 2001. The Treasury could send out a check for $1,000 to each person, $4,000 for a family of four during the year 2001. The bill would come to only $228 billion Dollars. We are told we need to stimulate the economy and I can think of no more effective or quicker way to do this than to immediately send out checks to the American people. This could be passed with bipartisan support if the President were to support it and he will, if we, the American people, demand it. If some balance between spending and saving were to be desired the payments to every person under 18 could be placed in an IRA to be invested on the child's behalf and would become available to such child upon reaching maturity for college education or could, at the child's option, be left to increase until retirement and become a supplement to Social Security. And if surpluses do develop in future years over and above our societal needs, such payments could be made for as many years as tax receipts exceed public expenditures, set asides for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and a payment of 10% on the National Debt. As the President has said, The money belongs to the American people. Let us give it to the American people, rich and poor alike in equal measure. Above all let us not empty the treasury of funds required to pay for crucial societal needs.

As for the Bush argument that no one should have to pay more than 33% in taxes, it is hard to see why not if they make huge amounts. Besides few if any do pay 33%, even if their marginal tax rate is at that level. They are, in fact, paying less and less, while making more and more. In 1996 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 28.9%, in 1997, 27.9% and in 1998, 27.1%. At the same time their income went up between 1989 and 1998, even when adjusted for inflation, by 40.4% as opposed to an increase of 5.2% for the bottom 90%. Between 1997 and 1998 the top incomes after taxes went up by 13.1%; the bottom by 3.9%.

As can be seen from the above the tax system is skewed to the rich. Let us demand that it be made fairer. That will not happen in this Administration. But let us resolve that even in this Administration it will not be made even more unfair.

Let us show that we have not succumbed to the "Death of Outrage."

The New York Times on February 14, 2001 published an article entitled: "Dozens of Rich Americans Join In Fight to Retain the Estate Tax" which can be found here.