A reader writes:
Regarding this entry on taxes: the inherent problem is that if you start comparing taxes to the value of the government services received, it invites comparisons of who receives the services to who pays the taxes. When the bottom 50% of the country doesn’t pay much in income taxes, do Democrats want that kind of discussion? Yes, the wealthy may receive more benefit (just through preservation of law and order) than the poor overall, but still not in the same proportion as the taxes paid. And when you discuss a specific program for which you want to raise taxes, someone will point out that you’re increasing taxes on the top 10% (or 1%) in order to fund services aimed at the middle (or lower) of the income distribution. Klein’s suggestion isn’t the "strongest argumentative ground" either.
I would love an honest discussion, one that focused on the benefits and the potential unfairness of asking Peter to pay for services to Paul — and then had the guts to say "the benefits are so great that it justifies doing that to Peter." If they did, they might lose out on some specific tax increases but there would be greater acceptance of the rest as more than just soaking the rich.
The Democrats traditionally have not had the guts to make that argument. If Obama is really a new kind of politician, he will. I’m waiting.
The Dish 