The electoral effectiveness of Romney Inc.'s new offensive against the old bugaboo of "redistributionism" would, in any normal presidential contest, play out like a national IQ test. Are voters really so dumb that they don't, or can't, understand that every tax dollar collected by government and then reallocated--up, down, or laterally--is by definition a redistribution of income?
One hopes that in a "normal" campaign our bright electorate would feel uncompelled to ponder this non-puzzler ... one hopes ... but alas there's no need to hope, because this contest is already over. The electorate's answer to the quiz question is by now superfluous.
We still deserve, however, to hear Mitt Romney's answer. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus writes in Politico that "This tape recording"--the one exposing the president as an uncloseted Trotskyite--"has made clear what Obama wants." Yet Priebus never really spells out what it is that Romney wants. Or, put another way, How does Romney define redistributionism?--or better yet, What alternative to redistributionism is Romney offering?
If he's a purist on this--as he should be, since his party demands purism on every issue these days--then Romney must be ideologically opposed to all taxation. All of it. Every last dime of it--hence every last bit of government--because all taxation is only redistributionism.
Good enough. But is that, in turn, not Karl Marx's communist dream?--the natural abolition of government?
You undoubtedly think this an example of reductio ad absurdum. OK. Again, good enough. My next question of Romney would be, then, At what precise point, Comrade, would you interrupt Marx's communist dream?
". . . up, down, or unilaterally . . ."
Did you mean "laterally"?
Posted by: John Haas | September 20, 2012 at 01:18 PM
Redistribution is code for reparations.
Posted by: Susan Zoon | September 20, 2012 at 01:21 PM
Sure did. Thanks. My brain enjoys its little vacations.
--PM
Posted by: PM | September 20, 2012 at 01:23 PM
I frankly did not expect the Democrats to have an opportunity to maintain more than re-elect Obama and maintain a tenuous grip on the Senate. i am beginning to see the possibility of Romney so poisoning the waters as to take down some, indeed quite a lot, of downticket races. In order to do that one needs to connect those local politicians to the Madness of King Romney. And he is making it easy. There is almost no program of government that is not about redistribution. Farm supports, disaster aid, all social programs, everything and every single Republican who dares to tow the Romney line can stand accused of being in favor of eliminating redistribution or admitting they favor it. Then all you have to do is name the appropriate program the Republicans plan to kill.
Posted by: Peter G | September 20, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Why are tax cuts for the rich and corporate subsidies not considered redistribution to republicans? If the upward redistribution of wealth that's been going on for the last thirty years was supposed to trickle down from the "job creators" then wouldn't we have a labor shortage by now? And I hate to drag physics into economic policy, but if the money keeps going to the top while the bottom deteriorates making the distribution of wealth top heavy then doesn't the whole thing eventually collapse? I ask questions because I really don't know anything.
Posted by: AnneJ | September 20, 2012 at 02:36 PM
According to the guys who know, Obama is even more of a favorite. The lowest is now 3.5 to 1.
The highest is 5 to 1.
Freaking 5 to 1.
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner
Two things must happen before Romney can win. Obama must become an incompetent campaigner and debater - which he has never done, and Romney must become a highly skilled campaigner and debater - which he has never done.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | September 20, 2012 at 02:53 PM