Kemp vs. Herbert

In response to Jack Kemp’s death, Bob Herbert at The Times pens a typically unhinged piece about Kemp’s triumphs and tragedies. Predictably, he gets it backwards.

Kemp, a student of economics – courses Mr. Herbert should seriously consider taking – concluded, based upon evidence rather than ideology, that a society which keeps taxes low, government small, abjures efforts at redistribution, rewards effort and punishes sloth, succeeds. He also saw this as the way to get more minorities into the GOP. As we all know, the Republican Party is the Party of the rich, and as people prosper, they will, Kemp persuasively reasoned, become more inclined to join the Party which supported the policies which created that prosperity.

Kemp supported certain problematic ideas, like affirmative action and enterprise zones, presumably as temporary, political measures, adopted more for public or political relations than for their efficacy. Like the Voting Rights Act – which, long ago, served its purpose, but which has become an object of liberal veneration and a useful tool to drum up support among those, like Herbert, who can’t get beyond 1953 – these programs represent deviations from principle, assertedly necessary to bring us back to principle. But, alas, programs which "work" only to the extent of deviating from principle tend to undercut it rather than encourage it; once you go down the path of identity politics, it’s hard to regain your sanity, as Herbert’s writing proves. And once you create insular, low tax zones, it’s difficult, later, to repeal that unfair advantage.

While Kemp’s efforts to broaden the GOP base ran into solid opposition from those who believe – properly – that attention paid to complexion is not worth the benefit, if any, it produces, his economic policies were solidly embraced by the conservative wing of the GOP. These ideas attracted the attention of Ronald Reagan and became the foundation for his economic policies, setting the stage for the longest period of prosperity in American history.

Herbert, like most socialists, hates supply side economics for one simple reason: freedom. Many socialists believe passionately that rich people got that way through some great crime; all socialists believe that government exists expressly for the purpose to taking from the rich to give (after a substantial deduction for governmental administration) to the poor. They are utterly blind to the destructive economic effects, because they reject the notion of economics that says people will work harder for their own benefit, and that of their families, than for others.

Let us assume that taxes were cut, tomorrow, to a top rate (federally) of 25%. Herbert and his socialist allies would scream bloody murder: "these tax cuts only benefit, and are gifts to, the rich"!! Leave aside the inanity of referring to governmental policy which permits people to keep what they themselves earn as "a gift"; it’s indisputable that the direct beneficiaries would be "the rich".

Most non-rich conservatives applaud; people – rich or not – should be allowed to keep more of what they earn, as, after all, the money belongs to them, not us. But that’s mere principle. Pragmatically, we’re delighted, because we understand that money in the hands of "the rich" is far better than money in the hands of the tax collector.

One wonders if Herbert actually reads his own paper, and, in particular, the column I mentioned a few posts back, noting that when "the rich" feel a draft, the not rich catch cold. But let’s put it in practical terms.

A few years back, the Dems, in response to the proposed Bush tax cuts, harumphed: "The rich will be able to buy a Lexus; the poor will be able to but a tank of gas." Assume that’s true.

Now: who will build that Lexus? Who works at the dealership which sells it? Who will provide the maintenance for it? Who will repair it if it’s involved in an accident? Who (in NJ) will pump the gas into it? Who will design and build the garage to house it?

The rich?

Call it "trickle down" if you want. Conservatives call it "freedom and prosperity". Tax that money away from those who earn it and the only industry to grow is government. This produces absurdities like a "stimulus" package which borrows hundreds of billions and spends it on governmental programs, which do precisely nothing to stimulate anything except more government.

Kemp looked around the world and considered the evidence. Herbert, contrariwise, like all socialists, believes what he believes as a matter of received wisdom, immune from trivialities like refutation by evidence. Kemp’s assessment of the evidence persuaded him – as it would any rational observer – that the poor do much better in free market economies in which guarantees are few but opportunities vast.

Herbert, apparently, considers working for a living demeaning. Consider:

"Working people were told they should sign onto this craziness because the economic benefits of supply-side tax policies would ultimately benefit everyone. As every scheme imaginable was developed to bolster the fortunes of the rich, ordinary people were left in the humiliating position of waiting for some of the goodies to trickle down to them."

"Goodies"? Letting people keep what they earn is giving them a "goodie"?

For whom, pray tell, do these "working people" work? Would anyone be delusional enough to believe that the best way to secure a job one lacks is to zap the employer with a big tax increase? That if one wants a a raise, best hike your bosses taxes? Conservatives have absolutely no interest in "bolster(ing) the fortunes of the rich"; what separates us from liberals is our willingness to simply leave them alone to enjoy the fruits of their labors or investments, because their money does not belong to us!! And we don’t think that leaving "the rich" alone represents "humiliating" begging for the scraps of their tables. We’re delighted when someone else can afford to buy that Lexus, because we know that their freedom benefits us all.

Herbert simply hates freedom. He is utterly ignorant of the basic principles of economics, never mind human nature. The simple, irrefutable truth is that the poor do best where government lets the rich alone, where taxes are low, and where economies are free. This is not some theoretical faith; it’s empirical fact. Herbert much prefers that everyone share equally in a minuscule pie than that some people get a larger share of an entire bakery.

Herbert’s world is a crabbed, mean place, zero sum place, filled with hate and envy, where one’s neighbor’s gain must inevitably come at one’s expense. A juvenile world in which everyone sits at the table and measures precisely how much milk and how many cookies each child gets, completely oblivious to how the cookies and milk are actually produced. A whiny, petulant, "that’s not fair!!" society.

Kemp’s, on the other hand, was a free, happy world, which permits everyone to earn what they could and to keep what they earned. In which family, friends, churches, charities, neighborhood and community ensured that the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, were met. In which people understood that we’re all in this together without a political commissar ala Herbert issuing marching orders.

Leaving aside the philosophical superiority of Kemp’s freedom based world over that of Herbert’s command and control society, the simple, irrefutable fact is that Kemp’s society works, Herbert’s fails. Kemp’s free market make prosperity in which all, in fact, benefit, without "humiliation". Herbert’s inevitably fails, collapsing under the weight of the government required to maintain it.