Blue Notes from a Red Zone

The Mysterious Republican Base

Since 82% of the voters living in my county went for George Bush in 2004, I meet a lot of Republicans. Indeed, as the saying would have it, many of my best friends are Republicans. If I didn't have Republicans as best friends, I would be fairly lonely. Having these friends has provided me sufficient experience to realize that highly intelligent people, whose eyes twinkle, and whose humor can keep me smiling for days, can be not just Republicans, but Republicans of the wing-nut variety.

For instance, I was at a dinner party attended primarily by people in their late-70s and 80s. Three of the eight people at my table professed their excitement about Ron Paul. They brushed off his dissent to the war in Iraq, while saying they were thrilled with how he will "get government off our back."

I asked if the woman who made this statement relied on Social Security in any meaningful way, and she said it was 2/3 of her income. I asked about Medicare. She uses it all the time. Without it she couldn't get health care.

"You do know, don't you," I asked, "that the way Ron Paul plans to get government off your back is to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and all trade? He doesn't want to phase it out, he wants to stop it now. His idea of going on the gold standard would kill trade, and he says he would simply eliminate all entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare."

My friend laughed, and said, "he says that, but he wouldn't be able to actually do it."

So I'm left wondering why she is not just going to vote for, but is thrilled by, a man whose agenda she is relying on Congress to kill.

The conversation turned to the "fair tax," which the Republicans I know are convinced is the salvation of America. Of course, not only is this the single most regressive tax possible, taking much higher percentages of lower class and middle class incomes than upper class incomes, but it would destroy the American economy overnight.

The flat tax is sold as being no more than 23% of sales tax, replacing the 25% most Americans pay in income tax. If you don't spend all your income, you don't pay a full 23%. Sounds peachy keen.

The reality is that the way the "fair taxers" calculate 23% is the same way you would figure 30% - they would add $30 worth of tax to every $100 worth of goods ($30 being 23% of $130). Also, the tax would apply to every sale or purchase, including much that is not taxed now: food, health insurance, medical bills, attorney fees.

The fair tax folks also tell us that they will determine how much the tax will really be by first determining how much it will take to actually run the government's "essential services" (Social Security and Medicare are included in this one). So the 23% is just an estimate. When they say it (they primarily speaking through the mouth of Mike Huckabee) it sounds like it could go either way - 21%, maybe, or 24%. However, this is dissembling. They already know the tax would have to be at least 40%. But telling people the "fair tax" will be 40% would doom it from the start, so they lie about how much it will be.

Of course, the fair tax would only replace federal taxes. State sales, income and property taxes would stay in place.

Add 40% to the average state and local sales tax of 7%, calculated the "fair tax way" and you have added $67 in federal tax to the $7 of state and local tax, and now are paying $172 for $100 worth of goods.

Only billionaires would come out ahead. The rest of us would immediately have to stop buying anything. We would have to seriously re-evaluate what is essential from what we thought was essential, and go with the bare minimum. The manufacturing and service industries would collapse. Black markets, which pay no tax, would begin to thrive. Inflation would leap forward at a rate reminiscent of Germany prior to WWII. We could become a third world country in a matter of minutes (and much of this would happen at the 23% rate the fair tax people are pushing).

I mentioned to my friends that while it was often altruistic not to vote in one's self-interest, it was probably not a good idea to vote against the interest of the entire country. Some of us are still putting kids through college and saving for retirement, and would even like to take a vacation now and then, and all this requires a functional economy.

My friends said that a few details had to be worked out, primarily by eliminating 2/3 of government spending, and that it would all be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Naturally, these being my friends, I didn't add that cutting 2/3 of government spending wouldn't do anything wonderful for the economy either. And it sure wouldn't allow the government to "support the troops."

From time to time, I have enjoyed a good fantasy or science fiction novel, one which requires the suspension of disbelief. While happily discarding my "reality base," I still insist that my authors keep faith with their internal, artificial logic. If they don't, I can't follow the plot.

In the same way, I can't follow even the make-believe logic of a Ron Paul or a Mike Huckabee (or the standard Republican candidates who insist over and over that tax cuts for the rich create revenue, despite the fact that 100% of the time tax cuts have created tax loss).

Perhaps one day I will follow Alice down through the looking glass, and all will be made clear. Until then, I will regard my sincerely treasured friends as enigmas of the highest order.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 10:53 PM