Is It Possible for a Believing Latter-day Saint to Be a Republican? Part 17

 

The Isms

If you’ve been following this series of posts, you might be thinking I could go on forever about reasons for Latter-day Saints to give up on their association with the mess we call the Republican Party. And you might be right. But I’ll spare you. This will be the last post on this theme. And to close this series I will focus on a couple of ideas that Republicans generally do not understand but insist on using anyway to fuel their fires of disinformation. I’m talking about socialism and capitalism.

I’m sure you’re well aware of the GOP’s use of “socialism” as an all-purpose bogeyman to strike fear in the hearts of those inhabiting the right-wing echo chamber. To hear Republicans talk about socialism, you’d think that it is the most evil idea ever proposed by the left. In fact, they’ve gone so far as to suggest that the Democrats want to turn the United States into Cuba or Venezuela. Sometimes they hit closer the mark and try to scare people by claiming that the Democrats want to turn us into Scandinavia or Germany. To that scare tactic, I’ve asked before in this space, “What exactly scares you about Germany?” To put this all in some sort of realistic context, let me reuse a story I have told before.

One sunny afternoon in August 1984, my wife and I wandered the streets of East Berlin. We witnessed the somber, hopeless faces of the city’s few pedestrians. We marveled at the cheap-looking Trabants that motored loudly up and down the streets and farted foul fumes out of their tailpipes. We passed soldier after soldier, each fully armed, each exuding an almost tangible assurance that the Cold War was as real as any hot one. We watched people stand in lines a block long to buy produce. We tried to spend our allotted fifty Ostmarks in the city’s most prestigious department store but couldn’t find even a souvenir we wouldn’t have thrown away. We finally bought a cheap noodle press and a metric measuring cup. We ate at a cafeteria where the food tasted as unappetizing as it looked, then stopped at an ice cream parlor on Unter den Linden that was already out of practically everything on the menu by 4 p.m. By evening we were more than eager to return to the hustle and plenty of West Berlin. We left with most of our Eastern currency and absolutely no illusions about communism.

I can still remember later that evening visiting a little Slavic restaurant in a quiet corner of Neukölln and how ecstatic I was over a tossed salad with tomatoes and green peppers. “I could never get a salad like this in East Berlin!” I exulted. That one afternoon behind the Iron Curtain had made me see the world with new eyes. I marveled at how many stores and shops there were in the West, and at how fully stocked they were. In fact, because of that one afternoon, I can perhaps dimly imagine what the East Germans must have felt that November day five years later when the Wall came tumbling down. I can understand their desires for reunification and prosperity. I can understand their blind assumption that capitalism is right—because communism is definitely wrong.

I watched with intense interest during the latter part of 1989 as Eastern Europe retreated from communism and authoritarianism. Having spent the last four months of my mission in West Berlin, that one-time island of hope in a sea of despair, I was overwhelmed by what I witnessed on television on November 9, 1989—East and West Berliners dancing atop the Wall of Shame, holes being pounded in that concrete barrier by people wielding everything from sledge hammers to ice picks, the suddenly released floods of revolution flowing through those gaping holes like water through a burst dam, the giddy intoxication of reunion as long-oppressed East Germans clasped hands once again with their prosperous West German brothers and sisters.

And yet in the ensuing weeks and months, many in the East, not entirely convinced that materialism was more noble than poverty, criticized the masses, suggesting that they were motivated not by love of freedom, but by greed. Now, this was an ugly accusation, yet it is an accusation that all believing capitalists must repeatedly explain away. “Is it wrong to have enough to eat?” they exclaim incredulously, misunderstanding the accusation. “Is it wrong to be able to purchase a few luxuries? Is prosperity bad?” they mock. “It’s certainly not as bad as poverty!”

But the question is not whether wealth and prosperity are better or worse than poverty and destitution. The real question is whether our modern form of capitalism is right simply because communism is wrong. And, oddly, in all the celebrating over the demise of communism, few in the United States seemed willing to question the fundamental moral validity of America’s version of capitalism, which can more accurately be labeled corporate capitalism. Certainly communism and corporate capitalism are opposites. But two opposites can both be wrong. Just because stealing from the sick is detestable doesn’t make stealing from the healthy commendable. Stealing of any kind is wrong.

For some reason, though, the triumph of the democratic, capitalist West in the Cold War seems to have rendered this question immaterial. Of course capitalism is right, we naively boast. Freedom and democracy triumphed, didn’t they? Capitalism conquered Eastern Europe and even killed the Soviet Union. And capitalism is the economic manifestation of freedom and democracy, isn’t it? Isn’t the free-market system synonymous with freedom?

Perhaps, but only on a very superficial level. The simplistic nature of these questions can be illustrated by looking more carefully at the enduring conservative campaign in the United States against socialism. Republicans, who are religiously devoted to free markets, deregulation, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for the wealthy, have also sounded the warning cry against socialism, particularly any tampering with the health-care industry that approaches socialized medicine. How many times have we heard that socialism is evil, just one step, or perhaps even a half-step, away from communism?

But is socialism really just a half-step away from communism? Remember the contrast I drew between the scarcity of goods in East Berlin and their abundance in West Berlin, between the oppression in the East and the freedom in the West? Yes, this was a contrast between two opposing systems. But it was not a contrast between East Germany and America; it was a contrast between communist East Germany and socialist West Germany. West Germany in the 1980s was a solidly socialist country, with socialized medicine, high marginal tax rates, a statutory guarantee of four weeks’ paid vacation every year (compared with none in America), and a substantial social safety net. Yes, West Germany was a welfare state. It also had one of the strongest capitalist economies and highest standards of living in the world. It was strong enough to absorb the crumbling mess that was East Germany and still remain the strongest economy in Europe. And the fact that West Germany (now just Germany) has endured stably for almost eighty years since World War II as a socialist nation reveals the lie in conflating socialism and communism, as Republicans often do. Socialism is not a subtle opening for communism to step in and take over. It is a system that has proven both durable and successful—and compatible with democracy.

I’ve lived in Germany. I have friends there. They do not consider themselves deprived of freedom or democracy. They are prosperous. Their country has less income inequality than ours, and very little poverty. They would never trade their socialized medicine for the American health-care system (if we can call such chaos a system), for their system ranks higher in quality than ours while costing only half as much as a percentage of GDP. And now you can even get tomatoes and green peppers on your salad in East Berlin. Socialist East Berlin.

So, to return to the question I asked earlier, did freedom and democracy really win the Cold War? Or were they merely secondary issues in the real conflict? And anyway, does winning prove anything about rightness or wrongness?

Socialism and capitalism are not the monolithic entities that simpletons and dishonest politicians would paint them. We have socialism in the United States, and, as I pointed out in my last post, many Republicans would be very angry if their elected representatives tried to cut their Social Security checks or Medicare benefits. They would not appreciate Congress turning our interstate highways into toll roads. Nor would they like being required to send their kids to private schools. So socialism is here to stay. The only question is whether we are willing to allow socialism to expand optimally to fulfill functions that the market is ill-suited to perform, like providing health care.

We also have a particular form of capitalism in America that I refer to as corporate capitalism. I call it this because we accept a high level of corporate welfare in our economy. Corporations are definitely more important in America than individual citizens. Our system’s most significant feature is probably that we allow certain individuals and corporations to accumulate as much wealth as possible, while relegating millions of Americans to poverty and such low wages that they cannot afford food, shelter, and transportation. Germany has a form of capitalism (and socialism) that is very different in significant ways from what we experience here in America.

So, if you can accept that socialism is not the evil Republicans have portrayed it to be, and if you can accept that our form of capitalism is not ideal, then you should be suspicious of those who use these terms imprecisely for purely political ends. Of all the politicians in America, Bernie Sanders probably comes closest to what Latter-day Saints should expect from government. Yes, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist who is not afraid to tell the truth about what is wrong with America and what we should be doing to create a more humane and just society.

Well, I don’t know whether my arguments about the Republican Party’s fitness for Latter-day Saint participation will make any difference. But I feel that I have to do my part in trying to confront what I see as some dangerous political trends among Latter-day Saints. In many ways, the Constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. And many Latter-day Saints are rushing forward with scissors.

Is It Possible for a Believing Latter-day Saint to Be a Republican? Part 16

 

The Debt Ceiling and Balancing the Budget

Since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, they have issued incoherent threats about holding the economy (and by extension the world financial system) hostage over the debt ceiling. Now, let’s be clear about the debt ceiling and the hypocrisy involved in these threats.

The debt ceiling is not the time to be negotiating over budgetary items. It is a normally perfunctory measure that Republicans have nevertheless found a way to weaponize. The time to negotiate over spending is when the budget is passed into law. That has already happened this fiscal year, so raising the debt ceiling should be nothing more than an official approval of new borrowing for items the legislature has already agreed to spend money on.

The hypocrisy, of course, is that the Republican House had no qualms about raising the debt ceiling during Trump’s term in office. Indeed, it was raised three times without incident. When Trump entered office, the national debt stood at $19.9 trillion. When he left office, it was just over $26.9 trillion. For you math types out there, that’s a 35 percent increase. A good portion of that debt was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but much of it was also due to a totally unnecessary and unfunded tax cut that benefited mainly the wealthy (I’ve mentioned before that I’m firmly in the middle class, but the Trump tax cut increased my taxes slightly) and due to an increase in government spending that for some reason didn’t bother Republicans at all. But now that a Democrat is in the White House, the debt is suddenly a crisis. Go figure.

But let’s talk about the budget. Fiscally conservative Republicans in the House say they have secured a commitment from Speaker Kevin McCarthy to create a balanced budget over the next decade. But Republicans are notoriously bad at math. Or perhaps they understand the math but know that in order to retain political power, they have to take positions that are mathematically impossible. First and foremost, Republicans are genetically opposed to raising taxes. They think tax cuts are the solution to every economic problem so they will, under no circumstances, vote for a tax increase. Second, they are also opposed to cutting defense spending. Third, they claim (perhaps not truthfully) that they will not cut Social Security or Medicare, which would be political suicide. So, if these measures are nonnegotiable, what are the Republicans going to cut in order to balance the budget?

Well, let’s look at the budget. In 2022, the U.S. spent about $5.8 trillion, with about $4.8 trillion funded by government revenues (primarily taxes). This leaves a $1 trillion deficit. Of the $5.8 trillion, 13% went to defense, 21% to Social Security, 25% to health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the ACA), 11% to economic security programs (the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled, and SNAP), 7% to benefits for veterans and federal retirees, and 7% to interest on the debt. There’s not a whole lot here that Republicans would dare target for cuts, which leaves a whopping 16% of the budget for the GOP to take their axes to. And that 16 percent includes education, transportation, agriculture, and law enforcement. Good luck finding $1 trillion of waste there.

 

When you look at the numbers, it is easy to see why Republicans refuse to offer any specifics on what they would cut. The areas that could be trimmed would be politically unpopular Consider, for instance, that a full quarter of the electorate that either is Republican or leans Republican is 65 or older and another 31 percent are between 50 and 64. How do you suppose this 56 percent of the electorate would react if the GOP admitted it wants to cut their Social Security or Medicare benefits? That would probably go over like a lead balloon.

It may surprise you to find out that 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. Yes, that’s not a misprint. Many of these people have earned less than enough to save anything for retirement, so they are quite dependent on their Social Security checks. My generation, the Baby Boomers, are retiring in droves, and until that blip in the population picture passes, it will be very difficult to cut Social Security or Medicare.

It's also difficult to cut benefits for the poor, the disabled, the veterans, and many others who depend on the federal government to keep them fed and housed and relatively healthy. You can see why Republican legislators, when asked for specifics on what they would cut, try to change the subject or place the burden on President Biden. But it isn’t Biden or the Democrats who are threatening the freeze the debt ceiling and sabotage the financial system. It’s the Republicans who are issuing vague demands that we cut spending. But what spending cuts? They won’t say because they can’t say. They have no plan.

Now, I’m of the opinion that we should get the budget under control. But I’m a realist. I’m not a political extortionist or arsonist, which is what Republican lawmakers are trying very hard to be. So, here’s my plan.

First, we have to acknowledge that we can’t balance the budget by just cutting spending. Ain’t. Gonna. Work. Therefore, we need to restore sensible tax rates, which went out the window with Ronald Reagan. We should restore a top marginal tax rate of at least 70 percent (remember, it was at least 90 percent for years after World War II). We should also increase the corporate tax rate. We should tax capital gains, which go primarily to the wealthy, at regular income tax rates. We have coddled the wealthy for far too long, and they have amassed a staggering amount of wealth. Wealth inequality in America is, frankly, un-American and unsustainable. We should also consider a VAT, value added tax, which most other wealthy nations assess. And yes, we should increase funding to the IRS so that they can go after tax cheats. If you really want to know where the Republican Party’s loyalties lie, just look at the feeble excuses and lies they have concocted to oppose (and try to reverse) the increased funding to the IRS that the Democrats passed into law.

Second, we should reform Social Security. Right now, for obvious reasons (appeasing the wealthy), there is a cap on income that can be taxed for Social Security. It is $160,200 for 2023. The fund is set to run out of money in the next 10 to 15 years. One way to restore its solvency is to make all income taxable. Yes, all income. Remove the cap. We should increase payroll taxes slightly. We should also do some means testing. People who have saved plenty for retirement should not be receiving Social Security benefits. Medicare should likewise be means tested. Those who have benefited from low taxes and stockpiled money and assets should be expected to pay a similar premium for Medicare to what working people pay for health insurance.

Third, we should take a hard look at our defense spending. The U.S. military owns nearly 27 million acres of land in 45 countries and eight U.S. territories. This land is worth $749 billion and costs billions to maintain. The Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world, with over 2.87 million employees. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. Can we really afford this? Yes, we need to present a strong image to keep our enemies from taking advantage of us or of other free countries, but how much do we really need to spend? How much land do we really need? How many employees and active service people do we need to realistically defend ourselves and others? How many weapons systems do we really need? How much should other countries be contributing to world peace? These are hard questions that have not been asked.

Will the Republican Party allow any of these three ideas to see the light of day? No, especially any thought of increasing taxes on the wealthy, even though a majority of the GOP’s own voters believe the wealthy should pay more taxes. I mean, who doesn’t think the wealthy should pay more? Well, the wealthy. And they are the ones who have bought our politicians. So much for Republican “populism.”

So, one more reason why you should not be voting for Republicans. In the game of chicken we’re about to see over the debt limit, remember that this is a totally meaningless and artificial limit that most other countries do fine without, thank you. So don’t be fooled by the rhetoric. When politics places the credit-worthiness of the United States in jeopardy, the party responsible is, well, irresponsible and reckless. Stop giving these arsonists more matches.