Sep 18, 2010 4:35 AM GMT
Here is something I have been unable to wrap my mind around. Why do social progressives who are not absolutely wealthy favor Republican policies? True, Republican tax cuts may save them a few dollars. But the real savings flows to to the ultra-wealthy, and the country loses so many things that it needs. Many of those same people feel strongly about the Republicans' argument that taxes are a moral issue - a matter of principle. But how have they let that become so much more important than other moral issues, like making sure everyone has access to health care, and making sure people in need have a "safety net." And how can those people still deny, after so many years of Republican control, that leaving more money in private hands does not result in the types of long-term investments in our country that will lead it to success. People looking to make money are too short term. They want immediate profits and immediate increases in their stock prices. However, in the right hands, government can prioritize long-term investment in key areas (such as energy, infrastructure, and education) that will truly provide teh greatest chance of success. So, if you're looking at it through a moral lense, shouldn't helping the most vulnerable in our society win out over helping the most powerful? And if you're looking at it through a pragmatic lense, shouldn't you forget about saving so little in taxes so you can gain so much in long-term sustainability?