After nearly two years, dozens of debates, hundreds of speeches, and more than a billion dollars, the final days of Campaign 2008 revolve around three words: “Spread the wealth.”
That's what a lot of Americans are arguing about as the curtain falls – including Barack Obama, John McCain, and their running mates. Both sides see it as an issue of fairness, and, oddly enough, both see it as a winner for them.
For the Obama-Biden campaign, the fair thing is that those who earn more should pay higher taxes than those who are less well-off. For McCain-Palin, government should not be playing “Robin Hood” by taxing the rich and redistributing it to the poor.
Which argument is resonating with voters? Why, both of them – depending on whom those voters support for president and how much they earn.
And to think it all started just a few weeks ago in that suburb outside Toledo, Ohio, when Obama approached Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber. Wurzelbacher asked Obama if he believed in the American dream and if it was true that if he bought his own company and it made nearly $300,000 per year, would he be taxed more under Obama's plan. After flooding Joe with numbers and percentages, the candidate blurted out the line that stuck.
“I think when you spread the wealth around,” Obama said, “it's good for everybody.”
Wurzelbacher has since characterized Obama's economic policies as “socialist.” Last week, he joined Sarah Palin at a rally at Bowling Green University in Ohio. Palin praised the plumber for somehow managing to get Obama to dole out some straight talk about his tax plan.
Palin tried to smooth out the edges and sum up Joe's view this way: “I guess if you want to work hard, and you know what hard work feels like, and if you want to get ahead, and if you believe that America is the land of possibilities, you don't want your dreams dashed by the Obama tax increase plan.” Wurzelbacher didn't speak at the event, but he did appear on stage in jeans and a checkered shirt as the crowd applauded and chanted, “Joe! Joe! Joe!” Later, he signed autographs.
Oh brother. McCain and Palin were handed a possible reprieve by the “spread the wealth” incident but then they blew it. That's because they became consumed with painting Obama as a socialist. And that's where they lost many Americans, including those who are tired of name-calling and perhaps those who recognize that other popular government entitlements – farm subsidies, Medicare, Social Security, etc. – could just as easily be labeled socialism.
Instead of attacking Obama with a highly charged label, the McCain-Palin campaign should have attacked his argument. The way to do that was to bring the issue home to something everyone understands – how different people, even members of the same family, perform at different levels. Sometimes, it's because of an unfair advantage or dumb luck, but often it's because individuals undertake varying degrees of education, risk, sacrifice, investment, hard work and other ingredients to success. The counterargument to “spread the wealth” should have been not only is it wrong to kill incentive and punish success by penalizing high-achievers, but it's just as harmful to enable low-achievers by teaching them that it's perfectly acceptable to expect something for nothing and covet what others have.
I realize there are those American workers who labor long and hard and still don't earn much money. There is nothing wrong with giving them a tax cut – assuming they pay taxes in the first place, and not all low-income people do. But there is something wrong with extending that benefit to those Americans who – for one reason or another – haven't invested what they should or made bad choices, took the easy road, passed up the chance to get more education or additional skills, refused to relocate for better jobs and so on.
There isn't a parent of grown children anywhere in the country who doesn't understand this concept. They may love their children equally, but that doesn't stop them from acknowledging that their offspring – like all human beings – perform at different levels and reap benefits accordingly. The goal shouldn't be equal outcome but equal opportunity. What you do with it is up to you.
McCain and Palin could have said all that, but they didn't. And it could help cost them the election.
Navarrette can be reached via
ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.
