Plumbing Joe

Just as Willie Horton was emblematic about the deep divide over how to deal with crime in the 1988 presidential campaign and helped sink Democratic nominee Dukakis, so Joe the Plumber is shaping up to be emblematic of the great divide about socialism in America. The witch-hunting leftist media and junkyard dogs of the leftist blogosphere and talk shows have destroyed this man's privacy, and also spread the worst kind of lies about him. This in itself is a telling aspect of what we can always expect from socialism: political oppression. Indeed, most of those sorts of problematic and even repressive acts in this campaign, whether the flip-flop on campaign finance reform, or the hacking of Palin's email, have all been on the Democratic side of the campaign. The leftist press plays up the hate screams at soccer stadiums -- those numbers of people are dwarfed by the hate and derision videos on YouTube against McCain and Palin.

We're told smugly, with gleeful malice, that Joe isn't named Joe; that he isn't really a plumber; that he *gasp* owes back taxes and that "his story has sprung leaks". Huh? Of course his name is Joe -- that is established by less hysterical media. He just happens to use his second name rather than his first, as is common -- my grandfather followed that pattern, for example. And indeed he does plumbing work on water mains -- he described chapter and verse of his jobs on Diane Sawyer's program, and his company has another person who does indeed have the plumber's license that he is derided for not possessing. He owes about $1000 in back taxes -- not uncommon, either, in a country with a fairly aggressive tax collection policy -- and of course, none of this matters whatsoever nor detracts from his central critique about Obama's policy of taxing people who make more than $250,000.

Another canard repeatedly told about Joe is that there is no company he was planning to buy. But in the interview with Diane Sawyer, he makes it clear that he was talking about a company he might LIKE to buy -- a hypothetical.

Fools rush in from the left to tell us that "wait for it!" (they scream with malicious glee) he would in fact GASP be eligible for a tax cut under Obama! That's all lies, of course, because we're not talking about his putative company's *receipts* -- we're talking about his actual income -- which indeed *would* be taxed, not withstanding Obama's claims to help small business.

In blog after blog and "liberal" paper after "liberal" paper, we read the same recitation -- name not Joe, not a plumber, owes taxes, would get a tax cut. Each and every claim falsified and skewed -- and of course each and every one of these issues entirely irrelevant to Joe's point: Obama wants to redistribute wealth, because he think wealth isn't created by the rich, but taken from the poor -- and "needs" to be given back. This socialist premise is a religious belief that you cannot persuade the pious to drop, but you can try to reason to prevent new converts. There is nothing that says because I make a dollar, it is stripped away from someone else -- it's one of the fallacies of socialism that drives its messianic zeal, and plays on class hatred in a kind of evil backwards simulation of the Christian ethic.

So it seems merely for criticizing Obama publicly, and agreeing to put himself in the spotlight, this Joe of Holland, Ohio made himself vulnerable to total exposure of his private life, with his divorce papers, tax liens, and voting record spilled over the media, although none of it is relevant to the debate, and with scarifying claims that he was some sort of secret cadre primed by the McCain campaign as well.

Let's start by noting that this *is* a debate about socialism. Cringing and biting lefties are so used to lying about this, and so used to trying to avoid use of the "s" word because they instinctively understand it is rightfully a perjorative word, that their usual tactic is to try to pretend that this "isn't about socialism".

But of course it is, and Joe the Plumber knows that it is, as many normal, ordinary Americans. The issue is definitely about the redistribution of wealth -- whether by force or fiat. It's like the old Soviet joke about the difference between Americans and Russians. The Russia without a cow sees his neighbour has a cow and he is envious and wants one, too -- so the state seizes the cow and collectivizes it and two must share it -- or they kill it. The American sees his neighbour has a cow and wishes to emulate him, and works harder, and gets a cow himself.

I hadn't realized how aggressive and goofy the progressive tax nuts (like the flat tax nuts) can get in these discussions. The fact is, all tax "redistributes wealth" and we don't have perfectly flat taxes in America now, there are variations among states, and the reality is that all tax takes wealth from some and gives it to others -- and also back to the person from whom it was taken. We all get that. Roads, hospitals, national defense.

Where the progressive loons go off the rails is when they try to sell a higher tax for the wealthy as "not socialism". Why? Because they say they *give a break* to those at a lower level, which they portray as "an incentive". Of course that's fake. What they are doing is the other half of socialism -- what you do after you make the confiscation of wealth from the rich: you create an entitlement program for the poor. All the progressive taxer does is perform the usual socialist sleight of hand -- he says "this isn't an entitlement, a giveaway, it's a *non* taxation and therefore an incentive*.

The problem comes in definition and the endless sorts of analysis and means test that would inevitably have to go with this sort of system (and already does in the existing welfare system). Where will you draw the line -- at what income? Or more to the point, how do you tell the difference between a slacker who has $25,000 and a struggling hard worker who has $25,000?

Cato Institute, which is libertarian and often puts out ideas that those on the left or right or even middle find wacky, gets right to the heart of the "progressive taxation" lie. First, Cato author James A. Dorn goes back to its roots in the conservative thought of Marx of 160 years ago:

"In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state."

(Why this conservative notion of 150 years ago is still believed by leftists today as "progressive" is beyond me -- time for an update!).

"A progressive income tax violates the very heart and soul of the Framer's Constitution of liberty. Our constitutional democracy rests on the principles that individuals are equal under the law, that consent is the basis of just laws, and that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited."

Individuals aren't equal if they face different tax rates based on how successful they are -- or, conversely, as the "progressives" duplicitously claim to offset the implications of that eat-the-rich philosophy -- on how "deserving" they are of "incentive" (read: entitlement).

Washington Monthly, in a blog where you can't post apparently, tries to discredit Joe and turn the tables on him as Twitterers do, claiming that Joe should shut up about progressive tax's claim on wealthier people, because while he's still poor, he can expect under this system to benefit and be taxed less.

"But that's just not what Obama said. He did not say that he wanted to spread Joe's wealth around. He certainly did not say that he thought he was entitled to simply expropriate Joe's wealth and distribute it to poor people, like Robin Hood. He said he wanted to spread the wealth: i.e., to have a tax code that is less skewed towards the wealthy. That's Obama's radical idea: progressive taxation."

Small comfort, however, because *not* being taxed isn't the incentive these ideologues imagine in today's economy -- the differences aren't big, and even something like Bush's tax rebate isn't enough to do more than pay a few small bills.

This blogger, Hilzoy, likes others, rather than trying to really justify his socialism -- he can't -- swerves off to try to pounce on the other side's supposed sins -- he quotes small tax changes under Bush in 2004 that didn't raise taxes as redistributing from poor to rich. He argues that this ultimately makes people pay in the future by increasing the deficit -- as if the incentive of having *less* tax for the poor under Obama, so that wealth isn't "redistributed", isn't feeding a deficit, too!

Hilzoy also wrongfully characterizes child education credits that are the kind of incentives he claims Obama's *not* taxing the poor would be as "socialism" -- just because he's trying to play gotcha. Then he wheels out the favourite claim of the New York Times these days -- that few corporations are paying all their taxes and loopholes need to be closed -- because it's "corporate socialism". I think the name for such a system is rather "oligarchy" -- and perhaps these loopholes need to be closed, but you could also ask: what's up with all the taxation? I'd like to hear every chapter and verse on this.

Oh, and the meme that "Joe isn't a licensed plumber" (even Colbert, who is usually smarter than that, fell for that one). Whom do we have to thank for that gem? No doubt the union, displaying the typical narrow-minded self-interested union mentality that gives unions a bad name, looking on its rolls and not finding his name, and declaring Joe therefore as "illegitimate" and "not a plumber". Wire stories explain patiently that you don't need a license to do plumbing in the state of Ohio, only in the district of Toledo, but of course, a detail like that is lost on the Twitter shuffle. And the issue is a contracting business that does jobs like fixing water mains, not your toilet, as part of an overall construction. News facts gathered that show Joe was never cited for any violations are also lost on the Twits.

More to the point, we see that sour, jealous union mentality that says anyone who touches a wrench to a pipe had better be a card-carrying, credentialed, licensed plumber -- or else! Getting job security for themselves by making it impossible to break into the business or do repair jobs without lots of regulation and red tape. More of the socialist mentality right there.

But Joe's "not being a licensed plumber" is immaterial to his point about wealth distribution -- it would be as true if he turned out to be an insurance adjuster or a stock broker, even. Wealth redistribution does not work. Name a situation where it works. Oh, and get updated on Sweden by reading at least P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich, in which he takes you through a detailed discussion of what trouble Sweden is in, and how stagnant the economy is due to all its heavy taxation and disincentives over the year.

I see some bloggers trying to bring Teddy Roosevelt in, as if flowery old-fashioned language somehow undoes the sting of socialism -- it doesn't. There is an idea that the very wealthy won't miss and extra 3 or 5 percent, and it could do a lot of good. Great -- then let them be the judge of that, and let them achieve this good by voluntary philanthropy and tax breaks for charity, not taxation to fill state covers.

I'm well aware that nothing brings out the loons from all corners like the subject of "progressive" or "flat" taxation -- like the topics of digital rights management and copyright/copyleft, opensource software and the subject of fiat currencies. There's always some wit who tells you that you already benefit from/suffer from DRM/flat tax/fiat currency and you're soaking in it blah blah. That spirit of "gotcha-ism" is so pernicious on the left. And yes, we all "get it" that the U.S. throughout history and even within a single administration has used elements of leftist progressive tax, rightest flat tax, and supply-side tax breaks. Duh, we get all that: what it's all about is lurching further over to any one of these methods exclusively.

The voice of Joe the Plumber, however, rings through very loud and clear: redistribution of wealth in this coercive and irrational manner is wrong and doesn't achieve the goals it claims. America is based on the idea not of "social justice" that redistributes wealth or dumbs down those who do well or gives entitlements to those who don't do well, but to the idea of *equality before the law* and *equal opportunity*.

Comments

[Melissa Yeuxdoux]

Ironically, the Obamessiah's campaign treasurer has tax liens--just like Joe the Plumber.

Also, Ohio law does not require a plumber's license to do what JtP does.

Joe the Plumber is now suffering the consequences of daring to question the Dear Leader, as the Democrats and their subsidiary, the MSM, try to smear and discredit him any way they can.

[ichabod Antfarm]

"the Democrats and their subsidiary, the MSM"

Stick a fork in it because that old canard is well and truly done.

Everything you believe about Joe and Obama and taxation and free markets, etc might be entirely correct but, please, characterizing the so-called mainstream media as a subsidiary of the Democratic Party is as loony as leftist claims that 9/11 was an inside job. Is News Corp. (for example) not mainstream?

[Connie Sec]

Again Prok, you wheel out the old left/right ideologue thing which is as old as you are. And all this concentration on "Joe the plumber" of course distracts you from the underlying systemic failures that have brought the Financial system to it's knees. All rather typical of the political discourse that seems to be the way elections are run these days..a political shell game of focusing the public's attention upon the mundane while shielding them from the real problem. And i include both parties in this.
The world has moved on from the old class warfare cum ideological divide that you constantly see as the cause of anything that ails you.
The reality IS that the fin failure has led to nationalization of many institutions, something you and your fellow ideologues would decry in days gone past. Yet the very people that trumpet a hands off approach now see it as essential to the continuation of our system. Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy in that?
The U.S. is basically bankrupt, you have been living on credit for far too long, and the chickens are coming home to roost. The essential fact is that you are now, to use a metaphor, using another credit card to pay off an old credit card debt. I of course include my country in that analysis too.

[Prokofy Neva]

Er, I wouldn't have to "wheel out" the "old left/right ideologue thing" as old as I am if it weren't for the hard left continually wheeling out an old left ideology thing triple my age, namely Marxism : )

The systematic failures that brought the financial system to its knees aren't a reason for instituting socialism, and the socialist-type solutions will of course ultimately be more destructive.

You could blame the Internet, the rapidity of electronic communications that have so affected how money is moved and globalization as much as you could blame "capitalism" and its "evils".

The story of the corrupt trader at the Societe Generale in France really makes this point vivid -- it would not have been possible in a world with more human checks and balances on real ledgers.

The real problem is and remains the problem of communism v. capitalism, and socialism, the milder form of communism, which is never content except when undermining commerce. These problems remain very real, as we see from the huge amount of static from Joe's simple and direct statement about the immorality of redistribution of wealth. It is made no less immoral for being a kind of malign and artificial simulation of Christianity.

The "old class warfare" is anything but old. We see willingly and maliciously the left in America is willing to play the war game. Their vicious cultural hatred of the mainstream, let alone anything even slightly to the right of them, i.e. liberal, is appalling.

I don't know enough about financial systems to be "an ideologue" about them. These failures seem to be about lack of governance and regulation in a transparent and democratic society more than they are about "socialist solutions" which, as noted, are sure to fail.

Who says capitalism must not be regulated by the rule of law, or that corporations must not have social responsibility? This is the framework of modern capitalism where it works best, and the lack of law and responsibilty are more at the back of the stock exchange collapse and sub-prime mortgage mess than the "idea of capitalism".

I'm glad you feel such malicious glee about telling other people that their chickens have come home to roost. I hope that keeps you warm at night -- but then, what keeps you warm at night *really* is Russian gas and oil, upon which you are wholly dependent. Your real problem lies eastward, and not across the ocean.

[Connie Sec]

I need to apologize if my post perhaps gave the indication that I feel "glee" at any of this. If anything, the situation in the Economic system at the moment makes me feel cold at night..and the situation in my field of environmental science and our systemic (lack of) response to the root cause of both global problems makes me fear for the future of our children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, in both cases, ideology and self interest will always prevail.
I await your your usual uninformed one eyed put down, as to the writers motivations, with baited breath..Not.

[Prokofy Neva]

I don't believe in "root causes". "Root causes" of things like "terrorism" or "global warming" are always things like "capitalism" lol. It's utterly fake, this "root causes" bullshit.

[conniesec]

Again..there u go..assuming people are attacking "Capitalism", when the word isn't even mentioned. You are so blinkered in your idealogy that you can't see outside the box you have built for yourself. If you weren't so pathetic I'd laugh. Stick to translating Ikea manuals.

[Prokofy Neva]

Um, I don't translate Ikea manuals, although that sounds like a worthy job and *needed job* and you sound like an asshole with a class and culture bias that finds something wrong with people buying Ikea -- or buying Ikea with proper instructions in their manuals.

You're in the box, and continue to laugh in the box like the knee-jerk jack-in-the-box you are.

[rebecca proudhon]

This kind of disgusting many-headed Hydra, mob mentality, is nothing new of course, but not until Obamunism, are we reminded that hiding behind the scenes the same One World Socialism/Communism is in fact not only still alive, but had gone back to the drawing board and have been busy learning and developing new PR propagation methods, extrapolating on "Without firing a Shot" ideology and the twisted "community organizers," tactics of Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals," taking "The End justifies the Means" to new levels of lying and manipulation of the masses.

As an experiement I set up to see how long it would take to get banned from SL Universe politics forum. Although I lurk a little over there and has signed up a year ago had only posted a few times. I had lurked in the threads a few minutes to discover that ALL the SL Universe regulars with maybe 3 exceptions were entirely Obamaized.

So in the spirit of my own satire I started posting threads there, about the various issues the Mass Media is doing nothing about. It took about 3 weeks before I was banned for trolling and disruption.

The many headed Hydra, joined at the hip, has absolutley NO objectivity or ability to see when one person is ganged up on by 40. I see it as 40 trolls They see it as one troll---as though SL Universe as a site is automatically a Obama blog.

Do we even notice that the William Ayers hand drawn logo for Weather Underground was redoctored into the Obama Logo?

Pretty slick.

While the older liberals like Hillary (who I was previoulsy supporting) and Bill who as students were once enamored by Alinksy, had learned through trial by fire the meaning of being a "Moderate," they watched a rigged and crooked primary process roll over them like tons of Acorns falling from a big Oak tree of the new ultra left by proxy, kool-aid, internet young.

Obama voted "Pie" "94 times"---the new code for FU, to any kind of sane dialogue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZOxqVl5oP4

The computer addicted, new age commie welfare state is at our door.

[rebecca proudhon]

This is the "Joe the Plumber" video I think shows it best, because it shows Obama's remarks the day the controversy begins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSHqxosjyLY&feature=related

[conniesec]

Love conspiracy theories..don't you?

[rebecca proudhon]

to connie sec...

Oh you hint what I said is conspiracy theory, but forgot to say "rascist."

[Erbo Evans]

All right, Prokofy, I pose a question to you:

Knowing what you know about Obama's stance as a Communist/Socialist, and what you know about the lengths to which he and his thugs are willing to go in order to silence his critics (which scares the living crap out of me, incidentally), do you still support him as President of the United States? And, if so, why?

As for myself, I will NEVER vote for Obama to hold ANY office of profit or trust under the United States government or any lesser government. It is my considered belief that the man is not fit to be elected DOG-CATCHER, let alone President of the United States.

And I know liberals will scream "RAAAAAACIST!!!11!1!!one!!" at me for that statement. Let them; I know it's not true. I would love to see a black President...just not THIS black President.

[Prokofy Neva]

Yes, I do continue to support Obama, because we have to chose among only two candidates, and all the reasons I discussed already still hold for the negative:

o McCain is too old, and his VP choice is not a viable leader
o The Republican Party is associated with gross and heinous violation of the rule of law, in permitting torture of foreigners and the launching of unjust war in Iraq, and the entire Party must be removed from the White House to begin to clean this up
o The U.S. must begin to cooperate more with other countries and with international institutions.

Obama's socialist ideals, which I flagged long before Joe the Plumber came along, as did many before me, remain troubling. But here's the thing about such socialism: it is very hard to put into practice in a country full of Joe the Plumbers. Plans to "spread the wealth around" could not happen without Congress, and there, you will find few actual socialists who would actually implement this.

And there is the other factor of "betrayal" and constant compromising that we have seen with Obama -- and to the good -- on Durban and reparations, on the telecoms, for example. Obama's thuggish backers will be furious with him -- more furious than anybody.

Yes, indeed, I'm very troubled by the implications of these thugs for free speech. The lengths to which they have gone to discredit the other candidates, and to harry and harass poor Joe, have only served to discredit them. And that's just it -- they discredit themselves in the act of doing this, and they will really appear isolated when Obama comes to power -- and leaves them behind.

Far from being able to ride to power on his coat-tails and implement these extremist ideas, they will see what is actually involved in *governing* and having to *serve* in office. Unlike Lawrence Lessig or Dave Winer or scores of other extremists around Obama, Obama has actually served in office. While in office, he might spout some of these ideas, but he could not implement any of the extreme variants of them.

I frankly don't see the race of Obama as the big deal that it has been made, especially on the left, especially as a tool to beat anyone to the right of them. He does not represent the old black caucus in the way Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson does -- which is why they haven't been seen around him, or have even broken with him. The chief identifying traits of Obama are "liberal" and "lawyer" and not "black", although of course he *is* black and this will be played out as relevant.