|
Share
the Wealth
Alfred
Marshall, one of the founding fathers of modern capitalism,
called it “economic chivalry”—the idea that businessmen have
responsibilities beyond the bottom line. “The desire of men
for the approval of their own conscience,” he wrote in Principles
of Economics, “is an economic force of the first order
of importance.”
Last week, a group of capitalist heavy-hitters—including Warren
Buffet, George Soros, David Rockefeller Jr. and William Gates
Sr.—decided to put their consciences above their self-interests
by coming out against the repeal of the estate tax. Oh, excuse
me, I mean the “death tax.” Economic chivalry, it seems, is
alive and kicking.
Gates Sr. (Bill’s dad), in conjunction with Chuck Collins
of the Responsible Wealth Project, a group that practices
what Marshall preached, has gotten about 400 millionaires
to join a campaign in opposition to the repeal, which includes
a petition, op-eds and newspaper ads arguing that doing away
with estate taxes would “be bad for our democracy, our economy
and our society.”
Buffet, meanwhile, compared the repeal, and its attendant
$300 billion windfall over the next decade for the heirs of
the richest Americans, to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team
by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the
2000 Olympics. . . . without the estate tax, you in effect
will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down
the ability to command the resources of the nation based on
heredity rather than merit.”
As well as an inspiring demonstration of economic chivalry,
this campaign is a demonstration of leadership, at a time
of a complete bankruptcy of leadership in the political realm.
Compare the boldness of the position taken by Buffet, et al.,
to the flaccid response of the Democratic leaders: “I do believe
that there is plenty of room for compromise,” Sen. Tom Daschle
said about President Bush’s proposal. “We both support estate-tax
relief.”
It’s as though a curse has been placed on modern politicians
so that the moment they throw their hats in the ring, they’re
drained of all boldness, creativity and the ability to inspire.
We might as well accept that at this moment in our history,
politics is no longer the place to turn for leadership. But
since political life, no less than nature, abhors a vacuum,
we’ll have to look elsewhere—and take our leaders where we
find them. It’s businessmen today; it could be academics,
artists, preachers or grassroots activists tomorrow.
Sometimes they will expand the accepted boundaries of the
political debate, and sometimes, like the little boy who shouted
that the emperor wore no clothes, they will simply state the
obvious. After all, speaking out against the estate-tax repeal
because it will perpetuate inequalities and undermine charitable
giving is not exactly a radical stance. Even John DiIulio,
who heads the White House office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, came out against the repeal last week on the
grounds it would harm his efforts: “I don’t want to be the
skunk at the picnic. But, no, I don’t think the estate tax
should be eliminated.”
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, on the other hand, clearly
thinks the emperor is exquisitely dressed. Stating as obvious
an utter falsehood, he asserted that, “People don’t give to
a charity for a tax break. People give to charity out of the
goodness of their heart, and we all know that.” Apparently
“all” doesn’t include the president, who has proposed spurring
charitable giving by expanding the charitable deduction to
the 80 million taxpayers who don’t itemize, or the tax attorneys
for whom “charity strategies” are an integral part of estate
planning.
It was left to Gates-père to deliver a dose of reality:
“The estate tax,” he wrote, “affects only the very wealthiest
2 percent of Americans. Poverty, on the other hand, afflicts
one out of six American children.” The reason that the interests
of the top 2 percent are a higher priority than the interests
of the poorest kids was made clear by Buffet last year, when
he decried the way political contributions influence policy
in Washington. Then, as now, the fourth richest man in America
sounded the alarm: “We are on the way to becoming a plutocracy.
That is not just wrong. It is destabilizing.”
But this kind of bold language—and bold stance—is frowned
upon in a political culture where elected officials quake
at the thought of saying or doing anything that might alienate
swing voters. So instead we have Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt
fumbling with charts and graphs, substituting gimmicks for
leadership skills, and our new president boosting his leadership
quotient by bombing Iraq and then boasting to the press: “It
was a mission about which I was informed and I authorized.”
This sums up the shrinking scale of leadership in Washington
today: the Leader of the Free World bragging that he was in
the loop.
Thank God for the billionaire knights, charging in on their
trusty Gulfstream steeds.
—Arianna
Huffington
|
Columns
& Opinions
