America owes a lot to progressives. If not for progressives, women wouldn’t be allowed to own property, vote or possibly even drive. If not for progressives, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would never have passed in 1964. If not for progressives, white males might be the only attendees at our nation’s colleges and universities. Even now progressives remind us of income inequality and other social challenges that some of us might otherwise ignore. Progressives deserve to be heard and their ideas considered.
However, some ideas coming from those labeling themselves progressives don’t seem to pass the logic test. They correctly diagnose the problem and then often prescribe a completely illogical solution. Here are two of my favorites:
Tax Policies
Progressives see themselves as advocates for the poor and working class, so they despise the rich and successful almost by definition. They will often say they want the wealthy to “pay their fair share” but are loathe to define what a fair share is. Conservatives like Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer can cite statistics that show that tax cuts at the top end have been followed by periods of economic growth and increased tax revenues as a result of increased economic activity. Liberal economists like Paul Krugman counter with their own statistics that show that a tax cut is essentially government spending benefitting the wealthy and provide greatly reduced economic benefits to lower income individuals. Logic says that there is a “rate” at which enough capital remains in the private sector to stimulate and encourage investment while maximizing the revenue to the government. While the Laffer Curve is sometimes criticized as being overly simplistic, it does make sense. The question is, “what is that rate?” The economists will debate this, but the progressives will always think that rate is too low. They seem more interested in punishing success than maximizing government revenues through a sensible tax structure.
Likewise, progressives oppose the current process of stepping up the basis of an inherited asset. Currently, if I inherit 100 shares of a stock from my mother when she passes away, the tax basis on that asset is re-set to match the stock price on the day I inherited it. Lets say she bought it at $10 per share many years ago and it is now worth $80 per share. When I sell the stock, I pay tax on the capital gain from proceeds based on the tax basis of $80, not $10. Progressives want the gains taxed based on the $10 basis.
This may not be a big deal as it pertains to 100 shares of common stock, but it becomes a huge deal when you’re talking about a family farm or a closely held company. Imagine a couple starting a company as young adults, grow it into a $20 million operation, and die unexpectedly in their 60’s. They’re daughter inherits ownership of the business, but is faced with a tax bill based on a $20 million capital gain. Many folks would have to sell the business to pay the taxes. Progressives are thrilled when a business is shuttered for the sake of taxes since they don’t think it’s fair for a kid who is lucky enough to inherit a business to benefit while others don’t. But what they don’t understand is that rules which punish achievement for white people also make it more difficult for marginalized people to build generational wealth as well. This policy only helps large corporations who come in to scoop up what’s left of the family business.
Progressives’ preference for taxing unrealized capital gains is another example, but the argument against this is essentially identical to the argument above. While it punishes the wealthy, it would also create a barrier for minorities to build individual and generational wealth.
Education
Another area where progressive ideas seem to fail the logic test is related to education. If a minority group is underrepresented in an honors program, they want to eliminate the honors program. An article in the Daily News in 2020 stated, New York City’s system of “screening” applicants to elite public high schools based on their grades, test scores, attendance records and other criteria violates federal law by disproportionately keeping Black and Latino students out of the coveted schools. If Black students drop out of a university at a disproportionately high rate, progressives claim it is the university’s fault. If Black students perform poorly on standardized math tests, progressives claim that not only the tests, but math itself is racist.
The Oregon Department of Education recently published A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, an 82-page workbook on how teachers can “examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics.” They claim that asking students to calculate the correct answer and show their work are evidence of white supremacy in teaching. I certainly hope the engineers who design our next generation of bridges and tunnels can solve math problems correctly! This is a perfect example of what some educators refer to as, “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.”
In previous posts I have noted More Spock’s support of greater school choice as a logical way to help urban black students to perform better in STEM courses. There is nothing genetic keeping bright black kids from becoming math and science whizzes. These young people would benefit from access to solid math instruction and the reduction of social pressure that many experience in urban neighborhoods that associates academic achievement as a “white” thing by attending smaller, more flexible neighborhood schools.
Absurd Comparison
I enjoy applying progressives’ logic to areas of our society where African Americans and other people of color are over-represented. The easiest targets are the NBA and Billboard Top 100 artists. 74% of NBA players are black while around 17% are white. According to study cited by CNN, 38% of Billboard Top 100 artists are black, well more than their 13% of the population would predict. Applying progressive logic to these industries, the NBA would be forced to publish equity goals for increasing the number of white players in the league and may eventually be forced to punish the very best NBA players. For example, they could pass a rule that once you’ve been elected an NBA all-star you are required to retire to allow another player an opportunity. They could insist that contracts be restructured to ensure that black players are not being over-compensated in relation to their white teammates. In the music industry, we could make a rule that once an artist has had 3 billboard hits, they must stop recording new music to allow others the opportunity to score a hit. Billboard must educate the general public about what is good music and bad music to allow white artists a better opportunity to be heard.
Of course these suggestions are absurd. No one wants the premier basketball league in the world to be hampered by stupid rules designed to achieve “equitable” outcomes. They want the best players in the world on the court, hopefully representing their favorite team. If white players want to make it to the NBA, they simply need to work harder to develop their skills and ignore the “microagressions” they might experience in youth, traveling and developmental leagues in which they are the minority. The same is true with music. We like what we like and more of us like certain genres than others. More white kids listen to R&B and rap than black kids listen to bluegrass or country, for example. But there are no real musical boundaries and the government nor music industry should try to create them.