On Sharing the Wealth

On Sharing the Wealth October 30, 2008

McCain’s sudden attack on Obama for “sharing the wealth” and promoting “socialism” is utterly incoherent. The only appropriate reaction is: huh? Let’s try to figure it out. The part of Obama’s plan than so irks McCain is raising tax rates on those who earn above $250,000 back to their pre-Bush levels, while simultaneously giving tax cuts to those making less than $200,000. Here’s the problem: any income tax system is inherently redistributive. If you want to remove any progressivity (in the sense that the average tax rate rises with income), then you need not only a flat tax, but a flat tax with a zero threshold (in other words, you start paying from your first dollar, no exemptions or deductions). Not even the crazies on the libertarian fringes are promoting such a reform.

But this is only the start. Income tax is only one tax, and is progressive just as many others have strong regressive elements, including social security contributions and sales taxes. This is the problem when people focus only on the income tax, and notice that a substantial number escape the net, and indeed receive refundable credits (something even libertarians like Milton Friedman have long advocated by the way). But on the whole, the federal tax structure is pretty progressive, as one might expect. Obama’s proposal merely tinkers around the edges. Is McCain planning to completely overhaul the progressive income tax system? I think not.

We also need to go beyond taxes and take in spending too, for the whole of fiscal policy is redistributive, in the sense that different groups of people gain more or less in spending over what they contribute in taxes. One way to calculate this is by state. And the results are instructive. A report from a few years back shows clearly that the so-called red states are the ones benefiting greatly from this “sharing of the wealth” in the sense that they gain more than they lose. Given that the red states are disproportionately poorer, this is not too surprising. Of the 32 states that receive more in federal funding more than they receive in taxes, 76 percent of them are Bush states. The three biggest losers from the federal redistribution game are California, New York, and Massachusetts. The big winners are DC, North Dakota, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, and West Virginia. So if McCain wants to complain about redistribution, perhaps he should have a little chat with his running mate and his base.

So what is McCain talking about? Indeed, Larry King (of all people!) tried to find out last night. From the transcript:

KING: Concerning spreading the wealth, isn’t the graduated income tax spreading the wealth? If you I and pay more so that ‘Jimmy’ can get some, some for him–or pay for a welfare recipient, that’s spreading the wealth.

MCCAIN: That’s spreading the wealth in the respect that we do have a graduated income tax. That’s a far cry from taking from one group of Americans and giving to another. I mean that’s dramatically different. I mean Senator Obama has clearly talked about for years redistributive policies. And that’s not the way we create wealth in America. Not even the crazies on the libertarian fringe are pushing such a radical reform.

I don’t know about you, but I have no idea what he is trying to say. This is completely incoherent. Then again, the attack always made no sense. “Taking from one group of Americans and giving to another” is exactly the what happens with fiscal policy. Of course, McCain himself advocates redistribution on a daily basis, from cutting taxes on upper income levels and freezing spending programs, having government buy out bad mortgages, and boosting spending on the military.

In a sense, a progressive income tax is a basic issue of fairness. Indeed, the father of liberal economics, Adam Smith, made this very point when he argued that “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion“. In the current economic climate of rising inequality, where the benefits of growth have accrued only to the rich, the case for progressivity becomes even stronger.

Of course, McCain knows this. He made this very argument about the Bush tax cuts (before the monster flip-flop) arguing against redistribution toward the wealthy. And as for Palin, don’t get me started! She is on record as saying that “we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs” in the context of Alaskan natural resources, which puts her “socialist” attacks in perspective, does it not?

Of course, Catholic social teaching also has a lot to say on this topic. From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

The economic well-being of a country is not measured exclusively by the quantity of goods it produces but also by taking into account the manner in which they are produced and the level of equity in the distribution of income, which should allow everyone access to what is necessary for their personal development and perfection. An equitable distribution of income is to be sought on the basis of criteria not merely of commutative justice but also of social justice that is, considering, beyond the objective value of the work rendered, the human dignity of the subjects who perform it. Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.”

Some individual examples are also useful. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI wrote: “riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that the common advantage of all…. one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits.” He called socialism and unfettered capitalism as the “twin rocks of shipwreck.” And Pope John XXIII in Mater Et Magistra argued that “the economic prosperity of a nation is not so much its total assets in terms of wealth and property, as the equitable division and distribution of this wealth.”

Can some of the many Catholic advisers to McCain please pass on this simple message? Thank you.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dan

    Let’s start with simple stuff. The reason that there is what you think is a redistributive nature to taxes is because you don’t understand the purpose of the tax breaks. It is to be an incentive for growth. To tax one income bracket and cut another in order to manage fairness is not the same thing and if you haven’t heard Obama say that then you haven’t heard Obama talk or McCain talk.
    Obama wants to redistribute wealth out of some sense of his for “fairness”. It has nothing to do with incenting business growth.
    Can I get more simple than that? Are you that thick?

  • Dan

    Let’s start with simple stuff. The reason that there is what you think is a redistributive nature to taxes is because you don’t understand the purpose of the tax breaks. It is to be an incentive for growth. To tax one income bracket and cut another in order to manage fairness is not the same thing and if you haven’t heard Obama say that then you haven’t heard Obama talk or McCain talk.
    Obama wants to redistribute wealth out of some sense of his for “fairness”. It has nothing to do with incenting business growth.
    Can I get more simple than that? Are you that thick?

  • Franklin Jennings

    I thought it had been lowered to $150,000, per Joe Biden?

    I mean, it won’t have any impact on little old <$22,000 me, but how can your analysis even be considered if your sources can’t even agree on the numbers themselves?

  • Franklin Jennings

    I thought it had been lowered to $150,000, per Joe Biden?

    I mean, it won’t have any impact on little old <$22,000 me, but how can your analysis even be considered if your sources can’t even agree on the numbers themselves?

  • blackadderiv

    The irony here is that the feature of Obama’s tax plan that has received the most criticism (giving low income people more back in tax credits than they paid in taxes in the first place), is actually a Republican idea, first implemented during the Ford administration, expanded by both Reagan and Bush, and originated by that great socialist intellectual, Milton Friedman.

    That’s not to say Obama’s plan doesn’t contain objectionable features. Raising the top bracket back to Clinton levels is not a huge problem per se, but when combined with his plan to apply payroll taxes to wages in excess of $250,000, you’re talking about a potential 15+ point increase in the top bracket. And on top of that he plans on raising capital gains tax rates. Doing all this when we are on the verge of a recession (passed the verge, most likely) does not strike me as terribly wise.

  • blackadderiv

    The irony here is that the feature of Obama’s tax plan that has received the most criticism (giving low income people more back in tax credits than they paid in taxes in the first place), is actually a Republican idea, first implemented during the Ford administration, expanded by both Reagan and Bush, and originated by that great socialist intellectual, Milton Friedman.

    That’s not to say Obama’s plan doesn’t contain objectionable features. Raising the top bracket back to Clinton levels is not a huge problem per se, but when combined with his plan to apply payroll taxes to wages in excess of $250,000, you’re talking about a potential 15+ point increase in the top bracket. And on top of that he plans on raising capital gains tax rates. Doing all this when we are on the verge of a recession (passed the verge, most likely) does not strike me as terribly wise.

  • S.B.

    I’ve long been partial to Ralph Nader’s ideas on tax policy.

  • S.B.

    I’ve long been partial to Ralph Nader’s ideas on tax policy.

  • Dan,

    With all due respect, but you don’t know what you are talking about. You seem to be referring to supply-side effects of high taxes, effects on incentive to work, save, and invest. These effects are empirically small, and outweighed by the macroeconomic effects of deficits (i.e. want growth? reduce the deficit, don’t reduce taxes). If your argument were to work, we would expect a boost to productivity from tax cuts. We don’t see it. In fact, the only boost to productivity since the early 1970s slowdown occurred during the Clinton administration– when taxes were at the level proposed by Obama. Arguments like the one you are making were also made in 1993, when Clinton’s first budget raised taxes. A recession was predicted. Didn’t happen, did it? Honestly, it would help if you people would look more to facts than to ideology on issues like this one.

  • Dan,

    With all due respect, but you don’t know what you are talking about. You seem to be referring to supply-side effects of high taxes, effects on incentive to work, save, and invest. These effects are empirically small, and outweighed by the macroeconomic effects of deficits (i.e. want growth? reduce the deficit, don’t reduce taxes). If your argument were to work, we would expect a boost to productivity from tax cuts. We don’t see it. In fact, the only boost to productivity since the early 1970s slowdown occurred during the Clinton administration– when taxes were at the level proposed by Obama. Arguments like the one you are making were also made in 1993, when Clinton’s first budget raised taxes. A recession was predicted. Didn’t happen, did it? Honestly, it would help if you people would look more to facts than to ideology on issues like this one.

  • As Blackadder points out, giving refundable credits to people who already don’t pay taxes is in origin a Republican idea — but it was originally proposed as a way to allow everyone to feel like they were participating an across the board rate cut. Basically, the GOP wanted to cut taxes, and since 40%+ of Americans don’t pay taxes, they included a refundable tax credit in the plan to make it more broadly popular. (And for the record, I didn’t really like the idea when it was coming from the GOP either.)

    But what Obama is doing differently is providing most people with a tax cut and set of refundable credits while at the same time raising taxes on the top earners. This looks a lot more like active redistribution. And I think a lot of people are taking on a “if this goes on” mentality and imagining massive taxes on the upper end being used to hand out tens of thousands of dollars a year to the lower end. (Which is realistically very, very unlikely.)

    Add to that that a lot of GOP voters (who demographically fill the middle income range, while the Democrats predominate at top and bottom) are:

    a) Suspicious that Obama will break his promise and raise taxes on a much broader section of the American populace.

    and also

    b) Offended at what they see as Obama’s attempt to buy their votes by taking on the tax cutting mantle which has traditionally been a Republican garment.

  • As Blackadder points out, giving refundable credits to people who already don’t pay taxes is in origin a Republican idea — but it was originally proposed as a way to allow everyone to feel like they were participating an across the board rate cut. Basically, the GOP wanted to cut taxes, and since 40%+ of Americans don’t pay taxes, they included a refundable tax credit in the plan to make it more broadly popular. (And for the record, I didn’t really like the idea when it was coming from the GOP either.)

    But what Obama is doing differently is providing most people with a tax cut and set of refundable credits while at the same time raising taxes on the top earners. This looks a lot more like active redistribution. And I think a lot of people are taking on a “if this goes on” mentality and imagining massive taxes on the upper end being used to hand out tens of thousands of dollars a year to the lower end. (Which is realistically very, very unlikely.)

    Add to that that a lot of GOP voters (who demographically fill the middle income range, while the Democrats predominate at top and bottom) are:

    a) Suspicious that Obama will break his promise and raise taxes on a much broader section of the American populace.

    and also

    b) Offended at what they see as Obama’s attempt to buy their votes by taking on the tax cutting mantle which has traditionally been a Republican garment.

  • There is a Deadly Side of Spreading the Wealth. Here are three ways a President Obama will use your tax dollars for expanding sin:

    1. President Obama will spread the wealth to fund elective Medicaid abortions with
    your tax dollars.

    2. More of your tax dollars will to go to fund Planned Parenthood, and the Crisis
    Pregnancy Centers in your neighborhood will be defunded.

    3. Your tax dollars will fund organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas.

    And yes – using our tax dollars to start and expand unjust war is sinful, too.

    The problem with the government sharing our wealth is it is at best ammoral institution and at worst immoral. Why is there some believe that politicians know the best way to spread your money to improve society? When has there ever been the case?

  • There is a Deadly Side of Spreading the Wealth. Here are three ways a President Obama will use your tax dollars for expanding sin:

    1. President Obama will spread the wealth to fund elective Medicaid abortions with
    your tax dollars.

    2. More of your tax dollars will to go to fund Planned Parenthood, and the Crisis
    Pregnancy Centers in your neighborhood will be defunded.

    3. Your tax dollars will fund organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas.

    And yes – using our tax dollars to start and expand unjust war is sinful, too.

    The problem with the government sharing our wealth is it is at best ammoral institution and at worst immoral. Why is there some believe that politicians know the best way to spread your money to improve society? When has there ever been the case?

  • nathan

    Looking at country’s current status, one could say Our Founding Fathers failed us. But the truth is, we have failed them. We have forgotten and abandoned nearly every principle they stood for. Where our Founders saw very little that government could do, and even less that it should do, nowadays we see no area of life in which government should not be involved. Too often we see government as the leader, all-knowing, all-providing, all-powerful. The worse the crisis, the more frantically we seek government solutions. Just now we are suffering through a government-generated economic debacle from which (we are assured) only government can save us.

    If you include all forms of taxation, government confiscates about 40 to 50 percent of our income every year. What we receive for this robbery in goods and services is a pretty poor trade by any measure. Our schools turn out ill-mannered ignoramuses by the millions, many of them not fit for anything but Congress. Our health care system is a shell game where Peter is robbed and Paul doesn’t even get paid. Our social security system is a transparent Ponzi scheme that, if perpetrated by an individual, would earn him life in prison. The U.S. Treasury is the world’s greatest counterfeiter, inflicting on us an invisible form of taxation called inflation.

    Democrats and Republicans may disagree slightly on the structure and parameters of programs and how much money to pour into each. They no longer disagree on whether government should have its fingers in everything. Hence McCain’s difficulties regarding taxes.

    It is no longer shameful to lust after power so long as one lusts for the good of the people. The reason is the corruption of power. No matter for what noble ends power may be sought, at some point it always becomes an end in itself, and then the jig is up . . . but the power and its abuses live on.

  • nathan

    Looking at country’s current status, one could say Our Founding Fathers failed us. But the truth is, we have failed them. We have forgotten and abandoned nearly every principle they stood for. Where our Founders saw very little that government could do, and even less that it should do, nowadays we see no area of life in which government should not be involved. Too often we see government as the leader, all-knowing, all-providing, all-powerful. The worse the crisis, the more frantically we seek government solutions. Just now we are suffering through a government-generated economic debacle from which (we are assured) only government can save us.

    If you include all forms of taxation, government confiscates about 40 to 50 percent of our income every year. What we receive for this robbery in goods and services is a pretty poor trade by any measure. Our schools turn out ill-mannered ignoramuses by the millions, many of them not fit for anything but Congress. Our health care system is a shell game where Peter is robbed and Paul doesn’t even get paid. Our social security system is a transparent Ponzi scheme that, if perpetrated by an individual, would earn him life in prison. The U.S. Treasury is the world’s greatest counterfeiter, inflicting on us an invisible form of taxation called inflation.

    Democrats and Republicans may disagree slightly on the structure and parameters of programs and how much money to pour into each. They no longer disagree on whether government should have its fingers in everything. Hence McCain’s difficulties regarding taxes.

    It is no longer shameful to lust after power so long as one lusts for the good of the people. The reason is the corruption of power. No matter for what noble ends power may be sought, at some point it always becomes an end in itself, and then the jig is up . . . but the power and its abuses live on.

  • Dan

    Minion,

    First, Clinton got lucky. The .com boom made his economy work. It would have worked no matter what. It wasn’t his policy it was the internet.
    Second, the tax breaks on business keep business here and keep them investing in growth. I live in NY state where taxes are very high and business are leaving all the time. That is why many go out of the country. Lower taxes attract more business. Sorry, that is an emperical fact.

  • Dan

    Minion,

    First, Clinton got lucky. The .com boom made his economy work. It would have worked no matter what. It wasn’t his policy it was the internet.
    Second, the tax breaks on business keep business here and keep them investing in growth. I live in NY state where taxes are very high and business are leaving all the time. That is why many go out of the country. Lower taxes attract more business. Sorry, that is an emperical fact.

  • One other thing worth mentioning: The top marginal tax rate during the administration of that notorious Leninist, Eisenhower, was north of 90%.

    The right seems to want to define “socialism” as pretty much any economic or tax policy that is not hard-right conservative.

  • One other thing worth mentioning: The top marginal tax rate during the administration of that notorious Leninist, Eisenhower, was north of 90%.

    The right seems to want to define “socialism” as pretty much any economic or tax policy that is not hard-right conservative.

  • Kris

    MM has it exactly right. This socialist claptrap makes no sense in the context of Obama’s tax plan and merely highlights how desperate McCain has become. As Obama says in his stump speech, McCain seems to be trying to make a virtue out of selfishness. Will you hear a word from our holy Republican bishops to wealthy Catholics about rendering unto Cesar … ? Of course not, most of them probably hope the socialism charge has legs if it gives their boy McCain a boost at the polls. The Catholic vote (if there is such as thing) will go Democratic this year partly due to a backlash for the Church throwing its support to Bush and the resulting mess he made for the country. But Catholics are expected to get amnesia about that and focus only on abortion in each and every election, time after time, as if we live in some alternate universe apart from the concerns of other Americans. How realistic is that? Eventually someone has to step up to the plate and look out for the country. This is one of those times.

  • Kris

    MM has it exactly right. This socialist claptrap makes no sense in the context of Obama’s tax plan and merely highlights how desperate McCain has become. As Obama says in his stump speech, McCain seems to be trying to make a virtue out of selfishness. Will you hear a word from our holy Republican bishops to wealthy Catholics about rendering unto Cesar … ? Of course not, most of them probably hope the socialism charge has legs if it gives their boy McCain a boost at the polls. The Catholic vote (if there is such as thing) will go Democratic this year partly due to a backlash for the Church throwing its support to Bush and the resulting mess he made for the country. But Catholics are expected to get amnesia about that and focus only on abortion in each and every election, time after time, as if we live in some alternate universe apart from the concerns of other Americans. How realistic is that? Eventually someone has to step up to the plate and look out for the country. This is one of those times.

  • decker2003

    Mater et Magistra teaches:
    “As regards taxation, assessment according to ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system.)” (#132)

    Doesn’t that mean that anyone who rejects progressive taxation in principle rejects the authoritative teaching of the Church?

  • decker2003

    Mater et Magistra teaches:
    “As regards taxation, assessment according to ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system.)” (#132)

    Doesn’t that mean that anyone who rejects progressive taxation in principle rejects the authoritative teaching of the Church?

  • Knuckle Dragger

    MM,

    Here’s a group that agrees with your endorsement of B.O.:

    “O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him.” – al Qaeda Oct 31, 2008

  • Knuckle Dragger

    MM,

    Here’s a group that agrees with your endorsement of B.O.:

    “O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him.” – al Qaeda Oct 31, 2008

  • c matt

    The problem is that neither party will step up to the plate and do what;s right for the country – they only do what’s right for their respective party and its controllers.

  • c matt

    The problem is that neither party will step up to the plate and do what;s right for the country – they only do what’s right for their respective party and its controllers.

  • c matt

    But then democracy is structured so we get the leadership we deserve, not the leadership we need (except by pure accident on occassion).

  • c matt

    But then democracy is structured so we get the leadership we deserve, not the leadership we need (except by pure accident on occassion).

  • The term isn’t “sharing the wealth” it’s “spreading the wealth”. The distinction is an important one. “Sharing” implies a voluntary contribution. If I hold a gun to your head, steal your money and give it to someone else, I’m not sharing your money, I’m spreading it.

    The second claim, that taxes are naturally distributive is untrue. Legitimate taxation goes toward those services that make no sense for us to procure on our own, such as police (or on a state level National Guard, and on a federal level, branches of the military), fire, water, sewer, roads, etc. When my money is taken from me and used it should be for something that at some point I might be inclined to take advantage of, such as an interstate highway or a national park.

    What Obama is proposing is that people making over $250,000 (or $200,000, or 150,000 depending on what day and whether it’s Obama or Biden saying it) is going to be used to give “tax credits” to millions of people who have no tax liability. In other words, you’re not reducing their tax burden, you’re giving them a welfare check.

    Also, Obama doesn’t care if what he does hurts the economy, or even reduces tax revenues (which even John Kennedy understood). He’s willing to hurt our economy, reduce tax revenues possibily triggering even higher taxes or oppressive borrowing to fund his trillion dollar increase in federal prorams he’s promised in the interest of “fainess”.

    These are the most socialist leaning proposals I’ve ever heard, and the naked pandering (“tax cuts for 95% of working Americans) is disgraceful. Luckily Obama’s star is falling. People are finally waking up and understanding what this man stands for (after he spent a complete campaign hiding it behind a smokescreen of “hope and change”) and they don’t like it.

    Deo gratias!

  • The term isn’t “sharing the wealth” it’s “spreading the wealth”. The distinction is an important one. “Sharing” implies a voluntary contribution. If I hold a gun to your head, steal your money and give it to someone else, I’m not sharing your money, I’m spreading it.

    The second claim, that taxes are naturally distributive is untrue. Legitimate taxation goes toward those services that make no sense for us to procure on our own, such as police (or on a state level National Guard, and on a federal level, branches of the military), fire, water, sewer, roads, etc. When my money is taken from me and used it should be for something that at some point I might be inclined to take advantage of, such as an interstate highway or a national park.

    What Obama is proposing is that people making over $250,000 (or $200,000, or 150,000 depending on what day and whether it’s Obama or Biden saying it) is going to be used to give “tax credits” to millions of people who have no tax liability. In other words, you’re not reducing their tax burden, you’re giving them a welfare check.

    Also, Obama doesn’t care if what he does hurts the economy, or even reduces tax revenues (which even John Kennedy understood). He’s willing to hurt our economy, reduce tax revenues possibily triggering even higher taxes or oppressive borrowing to fund his trillion dollar increase in federal prorams he’s promised in the interest of “fainess”.

    These are the most socialist leaning proposals I’ve ever heard, and the naked pandering (“tax cuts for 95% of working Americans) is disgraceful. Luckily Obama’s star is falling. People are finally waking up and understanding what this man stands for (after he spent a complete campaign hiding it behind a smokescreen of “hope and change”) and they don’t like it.

    Deo gratias!

  • Good catch, decker 2003!

    And Kuckle, please– every expert ol Al Qaeda believes they intervened to support Bush in 2004 and desperately want McCain in 2008– see the reports in internal debate about how Al Qaeda could help McCain. It’s quite obvious: the Iraq war was their greatest recruitment tool of all time.

  • Good catch, decker 2003!

    And Kuckle, please– every expert ol Al Qaeda believes they intervened to support Bush in 2004 and desperately want McCain in 2008– see the reports in internal debate about how Al Qaeda could help McCain. It’s quite obvious: the Iraq war was their greatest recruitment tool of all time.

  • TeutonicTim

    Get with it, MM. It’s 200,000

    Oh wait, it’s 150,000

    Oh wait, it’s 120,000

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI

    If you’re going to spew talking points, at least get them right.

  • TeutonicTim

    Get with it, MM. It’s 200,000

    Oh wait, it’s 150,000

    Oh wait, it’s 120,000

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI

    If you’re going to spew talking points, at least get them right.

  • David Nickol

    If I hold a gun to your head, steal your money and give it to someone else, I’m not sharing your money, I’m spreading it.

    Tony,

    George Will last Sunday on This Week with George Stephenopoulus said the following:

    Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don’t notice it it’s in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong – that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it’s socialism none the less and it’s not new.

  • David Nickol

    If I hold a gun to your head, steal your money and give it to someone else, I’m not sharing your money, I’m spreading it.

    Tony,

    George Will last Sunday on This Week with George Stephenopoulus said the following:

    Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don’t notice it it’s in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong – that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it’s socialism none the less and it’s not new.

  • David, you’re absolutely correct. None of this should be done. Welfare is welfare whether it’s individual or corporate.

  • David, you’re absolutely correct. None of this should be done. Welfare is welfare whether it’s individual or corporate.

  • Pingback: The House That Neuhaus Built « Vox Nova()

  • Pingback: The House That Neuhaus Built « Vox Nova()