Rick Santorum Admits What He Shouldn’t
by David Atkins
Rick Santorum on the attack against Mitt Romney:
He criticized the tax plan Romney laid out earlier in the week that would reduce all income tax rates by 20%, noting that Romney said he would make the plan revenue-neutral by limiting mortgage and charitable deductions for the “top 1%.”
“Hmmm, where have I heard that before?” Santorum said. “We have a Republican running for president who’s campaigning as an Occupy Wall Streeter.”
“What is Gov. Romney doing? He’s adopting President Obama’s plan to limit contributions to the very institutions that allow limited government to work. He doesn’t understand how America works any more than Barack Obama understands how America works,” Santorum said.
First, let’s take a moment to gaze in awe at the sight of a serious contender for the Republican nomination for President accusing Mitt Romney, vulture capitalist extraordinaire, of being an “Occupy Wall Streeter.” That deserves a golf clap all its own.
But second, I know it’s a common theme for Republicans to pretend that charitable giving can somehow replace the modern welfare state, but it’s hard to believe they’re allowed to get away with it. It’s one thing to argue that the absence of government will create an economic system of incentives that will create the greatest benefits for all. Factually ridiculous, but rationally consistent. It’s quite another to somehow pretend that individual charitable giving will somehow take the place of Medicare and NASA to provide heart transplants and space shuttle launches. That’s just nuts. Charity is too under-funded, too localized, too mismatched and too ill-suited to replace the modern welfare state alone, much less the major investment projects government must take on to create a forward-looking, prosperous society.
Either limited government works or it doesn’t. If it works, it works. But if it doesn’t work, charity is just a very meager band-aid on a very big problem. When conservatives pretend that charity can substitute for a decent social safety net, I’m always reminded of this scene from Dickens’ A Christmas Carol:
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?”
“Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge returned his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
There were plenty of charity seekers in Dickensian England, but very little in the way of social services. Charity was completely inadequate to the task of doing what was necessary to alleviate the utter misery of the poor that Dickens did so much in his life to highlight.
This argument is a glaring glass jaw of the Republican economic argument. What works for Republicans about doctrinaire anti-government, trickle-down theology is the same thing that works for doctrinaire Communists: they can always claim that their ideology was never truly tested or tried. It lives in a utopian hypothetical theoretical construct that can only be failed, but never fail itself. As long as it remains in the realm of the untestable and unprovable, Republicans can always claim that limited government is a perfect system if allowed to exist.
But to admit that it has flaws that charity must pick up the slack for is an admission that should kill their program outright. Far better for the Black Knight to defiantly declare the loss of all his limbs as nothing but a flesh wound, than to acknowledge the seriousness of his predicament while declaring that his injuries can be easily patched with some sutures and a little gauze.
There’s room here for progressives and Democratic politicians to pounce for the kill, if only they dare to do so.