Election Year Politics

I'm listening to Martin Bashir's interview with Congressman Joe Walsh, who plumps for a zero percent tax rate on all inheritances and capital gains. "That money has already been taxed," he says, and even Mitt Romney should pay no tax on the millions he made in recent years. To me that's the equivalent of saying my employer's earnings are taxed, and therefore I shouldn't be taxed on any income paid to me.

Meanwhile, the cannonade of Republican hyperbole continues. President Obama not only does not deserve a second term, he's an abject failure and the worst president ever. (Apparently  nosing out Jimmy Carter, who has been their whipping boy for the last thirty years.) The ghost of Osama bin Laden might agree with them, but only because he's no longer among the living, thanks to the current president.

A joke circulating last week was along the same lines. Fidel Castro is quoted as saying that a robot could have done a better job as president than Barack Obama has. Mitt Romney immediately called Castro to thank him for his endorsement.

Mitt Romney, by the way, paid 13.9% in taxes on his income last year, an income in many millions of dollars, all from investments, none from actual work. Romney insists he has earned all his money, but economists refer to investment income as "unearned." Not saying Mitt broke the law or isn't entitled to take legal tax deductions, unless he was instrumental in passing tax loopholes that would be to his own advantage. Still, remember Joe Walsh, who wants to cut Mitt's tax burden to nothing.

And there is Newt Gingrich, he of the $1.6 million dollar income from Freddie Mack for his work as a historical  consultant. Mr. Gingrich is highly educated in history. So am I. I taught history and I'm here to tell you I never made $1.6 million or any significant fraction of  it. If I had taught for thirty years, beginning in 2000, I would have totaled just about the amount of money Newt made from Freddie, doing heaven only knows what valuable  service. ($35,000 per year times thirty years)

Let me end with a reference to Joe Walsh's argument. Surely every parent, including Mr. Walsh, would like to leave an inheritance for his offspring. (Maybe not Mr. Walsh, who is fighting charges that he's a delinquent dad.) But, for how large a fortune? Is our country well served by having a permanent leisure class generation after generation, because someone along the old family  tree was spectacularly successful or spectacularly lucky? Or, how many of us favor Paris Hilton never having to work a day in her life when so many others struggle along from week to week, one short jump ahead of the bill collector?

I agree with Mr. Walsh one one thing: bring on the election and we'll decide as a country which way we want to go.