Progressive capitalism, paradox or contradiction

Here we are weeks away from the election. Democrats are the party of “tax and spend policies,” Republicans are the party of  “borrow and spend policies.” Diesel and hamburger prices are at record highs. Our leaders response is to continue to export diesel fuel and import beef from who knows where. The cowboys whose pastures have not dried out and sold their cows because of climate change are finally making a little money, but are spending most of it on diesel fuel.

The inflation rate is 4% which seems low if you are writing checks for child care, health insurance, property insurance, property taxes, post high school education or trying to buy a home. Interest rates are high and the U.S. Treasury is having a hard time borrowing enough money. Our deficit just zipped past $40 trillion, and shows no signs of stopping. The U.S. debt is now 120% of GDP, the Socialist run European Union debt is 82% of GDP. Looks like we should trust the Socialists with our tax dollars?

How did we get here? Bush II and the Afghanistan/Iraq wars have an estimated long term cost of $8 trillion. We are currently financing the Ukranian War and another debacle in the Mideast. Apparently our billion dollar aircraft carriers are no match for a bunch of homemade Iranian drones. Presumably we will soon invade Greenland or Venezuela or both. At the same time we have cut the marginal income tax rate to the lowest levels in 45 years, shifted social program and infrastructure costs to the states, counties and cities. No country in history has been able to fight wars with tax cuts.

Republican President Eisenhower, one of only four five-star generals, warned of the military-industrial complex, and that excessive military spending would hurt democracy and drain resources from social needs. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt coined the phrase: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Currently we are all mouth and no stick. Apparently we do not study history anymore. German philosopher Hege stated that people and governments never learn anything from history. Personally, I am trying to buck that trend.

Here is the paradox, maybe conservative fiscal policy should include sizeable income and inheritance taxes. We cannot regulate what some board of directors think their CEO is worth but we certainly can tax excessive incomes and inheritances.

I have always considered myself an Eisenhower Republican. As of late, I am finishing a three volume biography of Theodore Roosevelt. I now find myself a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. When Googling Best U.S. Presidents, Eisenhower and Roosevelt are in the top five, along with Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Both had extensive military and foreign affairs experience. Both presidents had budget deficits that were balanced with budget surpluses in other years. When examining Eisenhower and Roosevelt, their policies were a paradox.

Eisenhower was President from 1952-1960.  He resisted aggressive tax cuts to prioritize balanced budgets and massive public works projects like the Interstate Highway System. He kept the New Deal Programs and expanded Social Security to cover 10 million more people and raised the minimum wage. He signed the Civil Rights Act in 1957, the first civil rights legislation since reconstruction in 1875. He OBEYED the Supreme Court and sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock. He established NASA and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. While he was President, corporate tax rates were flat at 52%, and capital gains tax was 25%. Eisenhower maintained a top marginal income tax rate of 91% on individuals with incomes over $400,000, equivalent to $5,000,000 today. Just last week the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that 14 CEOs in Minnesota had over $10 million in income last year.

Theodore Roosevelt was president from 1901 until 1908.  He was re-elected in 1904 by a landslide proclaiming he would not run agin in 1908. He did return in 1912 as a third party candidate, disgusted with both the Republicans and Democrats, advocating for further regulation on Wall Street and railroad monopolies, women’s suffrage and Social Security. As a young populist progressive in the Republican party in 1900, big business felt he was dangerous and nominated him for the “do nothing position” of Vice President, thinking it would keep him out of the their way. Ironically, President McKinley was assassinated and Roosevelt became President one year after the election.

Roosevelt mistrusted the tendency of wealthy people to form tight cliques in both social and business relationships. The tighter these formations became, the more they resented outside monitoring. Sounds like the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, doesn’t it?

He strongly advocated for a progressive, graduated inheritance tax on large fortunes, arguing it was necessary to prevent the rise of an idle aristocracy. He filed 44 antitrust lawsuits against corporate giants, championed safer working conditions, an eight hour work day and limits on court injunctions against labor unions. He created the U.S. Forest Service, five wildlife refuges, five national parks and 18 national monuments, while protecting 230 million acres of public land.

As we approach another election it would be great to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone. Maybe there is a serious quality problem with our politicians. The last several elections all we heard is voting for change. What does that mean? A few faces change but the mismanagement does not. Voters that are moralistic single issue voters may be to blame. Whether it be abortion, Black lives matter, blue lives matter, school prayer, religion, LGBTQ or which bathroom to use, etc. These voters are hot for their cause but could care less about the day-to-day things that make a healthy society run, like inflation, debt, education, child care, elder care, health care, crime and the cost of living.

Kenneth Schultes resides in Minneapolis and was a Pocahontas County resident from 1983-2024.