An Election Year Debate: Part I
Atlanta, GA
May 6, 2020
To take our minds from our pandemic…and to remind ourselves things could be worse…today we will discuss politics.
Like a CIA Director hoarding classified documents, I consider some parts of my past best left sealed. But as with records related to atomic testing, overthrows of Iranian governments, or assassinations of US presidents, they eventually trickle out.
Now, almost a quarter century later, the statute of limitations is expiring on some of my youthful pontifications. Much as I previously released recordings of my broadcast transgressions prior to an earlier election, I now disclose a published debate in the University of San Francisco Business Journal prior to that titanic philosophical conflict between…Bill Clinton and Bob Dole (or was it the other way around?).
That epochal ideological struggle didn’t exactly produce schools of thought worthy of Raphael’s brush, but it did attract a couple nitwits plodding thru graduate school. Below is the first part of their contribution to a tradition extending from Jefferson and Hamilton, to Lincoln and Douglas, to Laurel and Hardy (which may be Secret Service code names for this year’s contestants). Part II can be found here.
Much as in my 1992 radio appearance, I don’t necessarily support all the views of my younger, more pompous, and more certain self. But I do offer them as potentially instructive examples, particularly to my sons – and as reminders, especially to me – of how even when you think you are right, a self-righteous style of argument can undermine your position.
An Election Year Debate: Josh Engel [A fellow MBA Candidate] vs. John Breen
Originally Published in the University of San Francisco Business Journal (September 1996)
Josh Engel Opening Remarks
Let’s cut to the chase: THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE PIECE OF JOURNALISM. No. This is an opinion piece. This is MY VIEW of the topic to be covered, and I welcome the opportunity for civil discourse. For now, I want to present my opinion on Clinton vs. Dole – who is better for California and the rest of the nation?
TAXES
Seems like Bob Dole would have a clear advantage on this one, right? I mean, a FIFTEEN PERCENT TAX CUT for everybody in America! Compare that with the 1993 Clinton tax increase, and Dole can’t lose on this issue. Or can he? Don’t forget that Clinton also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. What’s that you ask? Well, the EITC is actually a tax cut for working families at the lowest levels of income. As a result of the EITC, over two million families in California actually received a tax cut, and these are families that needed it the most. In comparison, only 218,777 of California’s wealthiest families paid more in taxes.
But Dole is offering us a FIFTEEN PERCENT TAX CUT! The only thing is, that he doesn’t tell us how he is going to pay for it. Oh, he might close the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. I guess that by depriving me of federally backed graduate student loans Dole will come up with about $500 billion in spending cuts. Not just my loans, however; we can say goodbye to the whole program. Ouch. Why isn’t he just straight with us? This tax cut idea is nothing more than supply side, trickle down, budget busting, deficit exploding, voodoo economics déjà vu all over again. Not to mention that this is what Dole had been fighting against all his political career. Throwing away a thirty year crusade to balance the budget in return for Jack Kemp on the ticket is a misguided, cynical, and ultimately irresponsible political calculation.
Sorry, Bob. On the tax issue, you lose.
FAMILY VALUES
This has to be a sure fire, no brainer for Dole. Even I would have to admit that when it comes to personal life, Bill Clinton isn’t a role model. However, if one examines Clinton’s accomplishments in this area, one finds that his administration has, as Hillary said at the Democratic Convention, “valued families”. For instance, the Democrats and Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth of a child, to care for a sick family member, or if they become too sick to work. Over twelve million families have taken advantage of the law since its enactment. A bipartisan Congressional study determined that about 90% of businesses approved of the law. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Clinton vowed to expand the law to allow working parents to take children to the doctor or meet with teachers without having to worry about losing their job.
What does Bob Dole have to say about this? He criticized the law. He said it was bad for business. Dole recently said, “My view is, why should the federal government be getting into family leave? It ought to be left to employees or the states or the counties, and the federal government ought to be out of it.” Bob is right and wrong. There are some things in which the federal government should not become involved. This, however, is something in which the federal government should be involved, and twelve million families are thankful that it is.
Sorry, Bob. On family values, you lose.
Oh, and how can I forget. November 5, 1996, election day.
Sorry, Bob. You lose again.
John Breen Rebuttal (published October 1996)
That so many Americans misunderstand liberty and legitimate functions of government is cause for distress in a country founded on such principles. Many Americans, who should be philosophical heirs of Thomas Jefferson, are instead those of George III. The opinion of Josh Engel is testimony to the deplorable condition to which this country has sunk.
Mr. Engel first considers the proposed 15% reduction in the amount of money the government forcibly extracts from those to whom it justly belongs. To this proposal he offers a riposte typical of those infatuated with collectivism: how will the government pay for it? The very question is insidious as it assumes government owns all the money, and what individuals keep is a function of government benevolence. Government produces nothing, and has no moral claim to that produced by others. Though the ill-conceived 16th Amendment confers upon Congress the legal authority to confiscate income, it does not and cannot confer moral authority to do so. Legal plunder is still plunder. Indeed, the flaw in a 15% income tax reduction is that 85% of the job is left undone.
Mr Engel next excoriates the idea of eliminating several detrimental and unconstitutional federal departments. Neither candidate will actually do so, as both have spent their lives expanding the power of government. Mr Engel can therefore rest assured that his precious education loans will continue to be underwritten by taxpayers who have no choice but to do so. Nonetheless, all government departments other than perhaps those of Defense, Treasury, and State should not only expire, they should never have existed. They are of dubious constitutionality, and are mere funnels through which property is forcibly transferred from one group of people to another. For attempting to retain for their mouths the fruit their labor has produced, the unwilling benefactors of society’s leeches are branded “greedy” or “selfish”.
Naturally, Mr Engel applauds the fatuous Family and Medical Leave Act, and cites as proof of its validity the fact that “over 12 million people have taken advantage of the law…”. Although the quote speaks for itself, I will nevertheless insult the intelligence of knowledgeable readers and provide some to others by noting that when something is given away, queues tend to form. Mr Engel then claims that 90% of businesses support the law. The obvious retort is that nothing prevented businesses from instituting family leave policies prior to 1993, and in fact many did. Business altruism was not, however, what supported this law. Rather, it was the desire of large business for a regulation with which most small competitors would have difficulty complying. It was another example of government bestowing advantages on one group at the expense of another, and of not minding its own business.
Benjamin Franklin noted that those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither. While agreeing with his elder, Jefferson nevertheless knew that the natural tendency was for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. It was to fighting this tendency that he devoted the greater portion of his life. Engel makes clear that Jefferson’s battle has been lost.
Mr. Engel is a McLaren MBA student and an editor of the USF Business Journal
Mr. Breen is a McLaren MBA student and Economics teaching assistant in the Executive MBA program
JD
