which is how he titled this New York Times column today.
He starts with a tale of an anti-taxer who drives a Porsche who then gets upset when it gets damaged by a pothole, The conclusion of that portion, all in italics, is this:
“The government is like George III,” he moans. “Robs us blind and doesn’t do anything for us!”
Kristof begins the argument flowing from this tale with what he calls a blunt argument:
Sometimes money is better spent by the government than by individuals. Indeed, it seems to me that we’re at a point where we would be better off as a nation paying a bit more in taxes and in exchange getting better schools, safer food, less congested roads — and, over all, a higher standard of living.
Please keep reading.
The very next paragraph is telling:
America’s infrastructure is now so wretched that, in some areas, the only people who drive straight are the drunks. Anyone who is sober swerves to avoid potholes.
Kristof then follows with a litany of examples, a partial list of which includes:
- NJ has not increased its gas tax since 1992 and 2/3 of its roads are in bad condition
- American Society of Civil Engineers says highway congestion cost $101 billion / year
Against these and other examples of of the weakening of America by our refusal now to tax those who can afford it and do the necessary public spending, Kristof offers three examples of a contrary approach which made a major difference:
- our commitment to public education, up to and including universities, as a major contributor to American greatness, as he notes and offers these examples:
- commitment to the electric grid, including the TVA and rural electrification
- and this, from a Convervative, pro-business, Republican President:
President Dwight Eisenhower, who had been part of an army convoy that took 62 days to cross the United States on wretched roads, invested in the 1950s in the interstate highway system. The interstates knitted together the country and created huge economic efficiencies.
As Kristof notes immediately after these words:
These were visionary schemes that, if newly proposed today, might not get off the ground.
We have seen that in the obstructionism of Republicans on things as varied as cutting interest rates on student loans, the American Reconstruction and Reinvestment Act (stimulus, which fortunately passed anyhow), expanding Medicaid, and extended unemployment insurance.
Again, to requote Kristof's earlier words, Sometimes money is better spent by the government than by individuals.
Perhaps a lesson from history is also applicable, this being history under the Constitution of the United States:
So, on Independence Day, let’s celebrate a heritage not just of opposing taxation without representation, but also of wise public investment. In the 1790s, President George Washington and other patriots crushed the Whiskey Rebellion, a progenitor of modern anti-tax crusades. It’s time for patriots again to defend reasonable taxes.
Of course to many Tea Party types and corporate types the only good taxes are those that meet two criteria:
1. they are paid by others
2. the benefits flow to them, not to the unworthy "others" on whom they wish to impose the tax burden
They are short-sighted in how they view the benefits of taxation and government spending, but we are unlikely to persuade them when their focus is on the maximizing of short-term profitability. Even the tale from Aesop of the grasshopper and the ant will not persuade them.
In his concluding paragraph, Kristof ties this all together by referring back to the tale of the Porsche owner with which he began:
So as we celebrate July Fourth, let’s get real about government. Sure, tax money is sometimes squandered, as is money in business. But what strengthens us as a nation is often investments in public goods that benefit all Americans — and, after all, there’s not much point in saving on taxes to buy a Porsche when the roads all have potholes.
Peace.