I'm a fan of Cory Booker. I do not share his politics, but there is much to compliment him on at a local level. I can appreciate how he has improved Newark, a city very close to where I live, and how he has created a strong working relationship with Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey.
When he goes national, though, he tends to put his foot in his mouth. Most recently, there was his commentary on Bain Capital, calling out Obama's campaign.
Now he's given a speech at the DNC which makes a claim that is outlandish.
"being asked to pay your fair share isn't class warfare—it's patriotism. But we all know—it's common sense—that for an economy built to last we must invest in what will fuel us for generations to come."
There was one word which turned Cory's comment here from a great statement into class warfare. That word is "fair". Fair is a subjective term, and I'm certain Karl Marx' view of what "fair" may be is different from what I believe it is. Perhaps it's also different from what Cory thinks it is. But Cory's comment frames this election as being centered on what we think is "fair". Unfortunately, "fair" isn't part of an economic discussion, because any attempt to make things "fair" makes them inherently "unfair".
"The worst form of inequality is to try and make unequal things equal." ~Aristotle
"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." ~Friedrich Hayek
Thus, Cory Booker's addition of one word creates the tension of class warfare in a speech where he was trying to disown it. Instead, he grabbed hold tightly and slammed us over the head with the hammer of class warfare.
It's worth noting that Cory Booker mentions the Transcontinental Railroad. He used it as an example of 'good government'. While government's involvement in building infrastructure may have started with the Transcontinental Railroad, this event was one of the classic cases of crony capitalism, one of the first highly visible cases where businesspeople learned they could get the government to assume immense amounts of risk for a project they would prefer to profit from without any risk to their own capital. It was a project that cost far in excess of any reasonable value, went bankrupt several times, and enriched many capitalists of the day without them putting up much cash at all. Yet this corpse of 'government infrastructure building' is constantly exhumed to be viewed whenever politicians seek to justify their positions on building projects.
I took a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge this past weekend. I reminded my son that it was built primarily with private funds, and was designed to be a profitable venture. However, getting it done required opening the capital investment to the municipalities, which allowed politicians to play their games. Soon after completion, politicians managed to take over and turned it into a massive public project. One we are justly proud of, but one whose history clearly indicates private capital is superior to government graft.
A final point of analysis would be a comparison of the nearly completed Freedom Tower, and its political travails, to the building of the Empire State Building. Entirely funded by private capital, the Empire State Building was completed under budget and ahead of schedule.
I'm all for paying taxes. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, it's the price we pay for a civilized society. But in Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 the Supreme Court ruled:
"The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
For years while Bush was president, Democrats decried the use of patriotism and the label of being a 'patriot' as something which was used to bully them. It was a good assessment of the situation, and they had a legitimate right to be upset. But now they've chosen to follow the same hoary path and use the word in a fashion which is not only unjust, but impractical.
