An Empire of Taxation
The government role in Obama’s
budget looks like something last seen in 17th century Europe.
By Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal
The president’s annual budget
reminds the Beltway tribes of what they do—tax the country, distribute revenues
to their allies, and euphemize it as a budget. With his 2015 budget, Barack Obama at last makes clear his presidency’s reason for
being: to establish an empire of taxation.
Commenting on Mr. Obama’s nearly $4
trillion budget, Jared Bernstein, a former policy adviser to Vice President Joe
Biden , told the New York Times : “It’s a visionary document and
basically says, ‘You’re with me or you’re not,’ and we can have big
philosophical arguments about the role of government.”
He is right. For the Obama
presidency that is what it has always been about: You’re with me or you’re not.
The government role reflected in this budget looks less like a 21st century
American institution than a system last seen in 17th century Europe, in which a
leader defines national wealth by handing out dispensations, emoluments and
punishments.
The administration’s infliction of
punishment deserves special note, most recently what the Obama Justice
Department did this week to Standard & Poor’s, the bond-rating agency.
S&P had been very public in
saying the Justice Department’s investigation of the company was political
payback for its 2011 downgrade of the U.S.’s credit rating. This week S&P
agreed to pay the government a mind-boggling settlement of $1.5 billion, while
pointedly withdrawing its charge of political retribution. What we have here is
the creation of a political crime, heretofore unrecognized in the U.S., known
as lèse-majesté, or insulting the majesty of the sovereign.
House and Senate Republicans will
submit their own budgets in coming weeks. News analysis of the Obama budget
admits that its spending and tax priorities are a “utopian vision” (the New
York Times). But it argues that congressional Republicans may eventually buy
into a version of Mr. Obama’s own private utopia because he’s offering them
spending they can’t refuse on infrastructure and defense. The White House also
calculates the Republicans are desperate to escape blame for Washington’s
“gridlock.”
Maybe it’s time for the Republicans
to tell the Obama Democrats that if they want to own the issue of promising to
bring the American people federal government goodness, they can have it. The
Republicans should claim as their own what’s left, which is to say the entire
private sector.
In six years, the Obama Democrats
have abandoned any belief in the idea that the private sector is the primary
cause of American prosperity. Instead, they seem to see the private sector as a
kind of tax sump-pump, a dumb machine whose only purpose is tax flow.
At the small end of the private
economy, starting this year, employers with at least 50 full-time workers who
fail to offer health care must pay an Orwellian-sounding ObamaCare tax called
the Employer Shared Responsibility Payment. At the other, larger end, the Obama
budget offers corporations with overseas profits a convoluted tax deal, whose
payments will be dedicated, he says, to underwriting public infrastructure
projects.
“Infrastructure” is supposedly the
carrot with which Mr. Obama will attract Republican rabbits into his spending
garden. But refusing to bite on Mr. Obama’s carrots would be a good way for
Republicans to re-establish credibility with American voters.
The most lasting contribution of the
conservative insurgency out in the country may be that it blew the whistle on
Washington’s bipartisan crony capitalism. Republicans should use infrastructure
to join the whistleblowers.
Building infrastructure could indeed
be a real public good, if the political process beneath it weren’t so bad.
Economists for the International Monetary Fund first blew the whistle on the
downside of infrastructure spending in an important 1998 paper, “Roads to Nowhere: How Corruption in Public Investment Hurts
Growth.” Last spring the Public Administration Review similarly
published a study, “The Impact of Public Officials’
Corruption on the Size and Allocation of U.S. State Spending,”
notably spending on highways and construction.
Barack Obama chants “spending on
infrastructure” as if it were the holy of holies. It’s not, and most voters
don’t need IMF economists to tell them “infrastructure” is code for the
campaign contributions that flow back to the politicians only after they spend
someone’s taxes on cement, bicycle paths and bullet trains.
That is the empire of taxation. It
is an isolated system, based in Washington, which allocates what it exacts from
the private sector. Sometimes it calls the allocations “spending choices.”
Other times they are purported to be benign decisions about who gets tax
credits and who doesn’t get tax credits.
Isolated systems can suffocate. The
fourth-quarter growth number for 2014 came in below expectations, at 2.6%. That
was of a piece with the historically weak economic growth of the Obama
presidency, which is the main cause of stagnant middle-class incomes.
The most disturbing number inside
the fourth quarter’s details was that business investment grew only 1.9%.
Business investment is the heart and soul of the private sector that the Obama
years have left behind. Republicans, the only alternative out there, need to
rediscover it and reclaim it.
No comments:
Post a Comment