Unbribery Objection No. 1

Got quite a bit of response, both in comments and via e-mail, to this post about the immense sums of money that President Bush and Vice President Cheney personally have at stake in abolishing the estate tax.

One friend suggested that I look at this in terms of the 1993 movie, Indecent Proposal. You'll recall that was the movie in which Demi Moore's character accepted $1 million to sleep with the tycoon played by Robert Redford. My friend agreed with Woody Harrelson's character, Demi's husband, that taking any amount of money to sleep with someone other than your husband is wrong. But what if Redford had offered her $1 million to sleep with Woody? She was going to sleep with her own husband anyway, so how could it be wrong to take the money?

In other words: It's not the greed, it's the ideology.

The abolition of the estate tax would just be the latest in a very long line of legislative and regulatory windfalls profiting the president and his cabinet. My friend's analogy suggests that something like the principle of double effect* excuses this kind of personal profit at public expense. As long as such personal profit is not the primary intent of the legislation or regulation in question, then perhaps it is acceptable. It's simply a side effect, a fringe benefit, a lagniappe for supporters of an antitax, antiregulatory, antigovernment ideology. So all the president's men may be lining their pockets, but it shouldn't count as corruption. There's a quid and a quo, but no pro.

I wouldn't try this argument in court. Plenty of public officials have been convicted for taking bribes and kickbacks for things they probably would have done anyway.

A county commissioner might always side with developers, and might have a 20-year track record of approving every project that comes before the panel. But none of that will help him if he's caught accepting a $40,000 gratuity from a developer with a project awaiting the county's approval. (And $40,000 is, again, about the amount that President Bush gets every year thanks to his first tax cut in 2001.)

The problem with the argument that "it's not the greed, it's the ideology" is that it merely pushes back the matter of choice/intent/corruption one level deeper. This regression doesn't resolve the matter. Perhaps Bush's motive for supporting tax shelters for heirs of the super-rich is not greed. Perhaps his motive for this support is that he subscribes to an antitax ideology.

OK, then. But why does he choose to subscribe to such an ideology? Greed again appears a likely suspect.

Wait just a moment, some will say, isn't questioning others' motives supposed to be off-limits? What gives us the right to cast suspicion on the president's motive?

Two things. First is the appeal to double effect. That's all about motive and intent, so it puts them into play. The second thing is all that money.

You take the money and your motive becomes suspect. You accept the money and you accept along with it the burden of proof. The onus is now on you to demonstrate that you are such a saintly, incorruptible person that $40,000, or $787,193, does not even slightly influence your decisionmaking.

"It's not the greed, it's the ideology" doesn't eliminate the grounds for this suspicion. It only means that the president's ideology, like his character, is suspect.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* "Double effect" is a principle usually applied in medical or military ethics. The idea is that it may be morally acceptable to cause harm if such harm is a side effect, but not a means toward, promoting a greater good. It's a subtle distinction, but one that's often inescapably necessary. It's also prone to abuse (particularly in military matters).

Comments

[Scott]

Would the same argument apply to people on Social Security voting for candidates who support the program, people on welfare voting for candidates who support those progams, etc? As a percentage of their incomes, their govt checks may have much more weight than a tax cut for the 'rich'.

BTW, a tax cut isn't a "kickback" - a bribe is illegal where a lower tax bill isn't

[twig]

Yeah Scott, I can see your point, but somehow I have a lot less pity for people arguing the intellectual ideology issue of getting to keep their ridiculous sums of money when they sleep in warm, large beds and get up to good, hot meals than people arguing that they'd really kind of like things like time off and shelter and dental care.

It isn't really greed when you can't afford to eat.

[Scott]

It isn't really greed when you can't afford to eat.

If you cannot afford to eat w/o the $$, that money is clearly the motivator instead of a side effect and thus a bribe.

Between our not usually electing people on welfare to high office (and also paying them enough to put them in the upper tax brackets at least) - making tax cuts leave more money in officeholder pockets - all this does is _define_ it to be unethical to benefit financially from your political activity as long as it is right wing activity and not left wing activity. That's nothing but moral special pleading (it's OK for our friends, but not for you).

[DummyPlug]

Congratulation Scott, you just confused the issue.

How about we keep this discussion about apples (politicians enacting policy that substantially benefit them) and leave the oranges (people votes being manipulated by campaign promises) for another time?

No one here, as far as I can tell, would look too positively on an office holder passing legislation to put himself and/or his family and friends on Social Security which is the closest “left-wing” equivalent to the “right-wing” attempt to repeal the estate tax... which is the subject at hand.

I'm sure well eventually get to "campaign promises" and the potential of "bribing" ones constituents to get voted into office in the first place. I'll look forward to your input then.

If you have the choice between having hot tar funneled into your ass and not having the hot tar enema, I'd say that avoiding searing colonic pain is not really a bribe. A devil's choice isn't really a choice. Furthermore, you seem to be trying to erase the distinction between policy maker, and policy supporter. If given a choice, a person will usually vote in favor of policy that benefits them the most. That's just common sense. The policy-maker is in the position of making the choices given to the voter, and using that position to line one's pockets constitutes corruption.

[g]

Something seems a little off here. Fred, you're arguing IIUC that it's Bad, or at least suspect, any time a politician pushes legislation that benefits {him,her}self, even if they'd have done it regardless of the benefit. Surely that's too strong, because it would mean that cutting taxes is alwayswrong, even if they start off at 99.9%. That can't be right. What is a politician supposed to do if it turns out -- as sometimes it surely must -- that doing the right thing benefits them as well as everyone else?

Now, in this particular case the proposed legislation benefits Bush and his pals a lot, and is clearly harmful on balance, so suspicion seems eminently reasonable. But your argument can't be quite right as it stands.

[Scott]

How about we keep this discussion about apples (politicians enacting policy that substantially benefit them) and leave the oranges (people votes being manipulated by campaign promises) for another time?

Political activity is political activity - getting what you want politically because it benefits you financially is just as much a bribe (or not) for people on the lower end of the income distribution scale as those on the higher. No moral special pleading designed simply to define your side as more ethical.

Don't believe me? Imagine Bill Gates buying votes for public office with his own money instead of some Democrat buying votes w/ Gates' money via the IRS. Do you have a moral problem with that? If Gates doing it himself is bribing for votes, then it's bribing for votes when politicians do it. No difference.

because it would mean that cutting taxes is always wrong, even if they start off at 99.9%. That can't be right.

No, that's what he wants to say. The whole point is to make anyone in a position to cut taxes unethical because he will benefit from that tax cut, and thus define his own fiscal policy as the only allowable one ethically.

[DummyPlug]

Political activity is political activity - getting what you want politically because it benefits you financially is just as much a bribe (or not) for people on the lower end of the income distribution scale as those on the higher.

Again, your just trying to mix the issue. We're not talking about "income distribution" here, we're talking about actual elected officials: people with genuine power to enact laws that directly benefit them, potentially against the better interest of the voters that put them in that position of power in the first place, on both side of the aisle.

It's a question of degree, really: even you can see the difference between the influence wielded by a voter that cast a ballot during a general election (no matter his income) and the influence of, for example, a presidential veto. Their both "political activities", sure, but ones got a lot more weight and, as such, should be under more ethical scrutiny.

I'm not disagreeing with you that campaign promises could easily be seen as a form of bribery. That said, it's not like these "bribes" are exclusively used by the "left": for every "left-wing" "Social Security" promise theirs a "right-wing" "military spending" promise. In that regard, both sides can be seen as guilty.

It's not the discussion where having right now, though.

[Fred]

g --

Any given proposal -- tax-cut, tax-hike, whatever -- must justly serve the public interest and promote the common good. Any politician advocating any kind of policy must demonstrate that the policy meets this test.

When politicians support proposals that result in immense financial benefit for themselves personally they have an even greater obligation to demonstrate that the proposal in question is truly in the interest of the entire public and not merely in their own interest.

Some policies that justly serve the public interest may also result in financial benefit for some politicians who support them. I have no problem with that, but what I'm arguing here is that in such cases the burden of proof lies with those politicians to demonstrate which way cause and effect is working.

Scott --

The above is a response to you as well. But I guess it only makes sense if you believe that such things as the public interest and the common good and justice are real.

If you do not believe that such things exist, or if you believe that government is always the enemy of such things (or if you somehow manage to believe that such things do not exist AND government is the enemy of them) then I suppose you wouldn't be able to make sense of it. But that still wouldn't justify leaping to the conclusion that everyone who talked about such things is advocating the confiscatory Stalinist Leviathan that stalks your personal nightmares.

[Omar K. Ravenhurst]

Look, everyone knows that Social Security helps old people. We openly advance that as the reason for the policy. And why not? Voters want to help the elderly. But Bush doesn't go around saying he wants to cut the estate tax so he can profit. In fact, I seem to recall some wildly misleading statements about family farms. If Dubya's personal bottom line influenced his policies, as it most likely did, then he's deceived people about his motives.

[Mabus]

One could argue that America's history is all about an "anti-tax, anti-regulatory, anti-government ideology"--namely, freedom. Personally, I think there's more merit to that than most people here would agree to. (Scott and I being the major exceptions that I have noticed.)

But, being a social conservative more than a libertarian, I recognize that too much freedom for some people is a lack of freedom for others. Nine times out of ten, I may agree with Scott on taxes; I want the government to leave me alone and stay out of my wallet as much as possible. But this is time number ten. Once you're dead, you are no longer capable of owning anything. There's no point to denying the hardworking poor the freedom that money can bring so you can pass it on to heirs who haven't earned it.

If Bush & Co. really are doing this out of ideology, that's still no reason to give them an absolute pass. Ideologies, blindly followed, lead one to do stupid things. First, check their motives by insisting that, at the least, they leave themselves out of the windfall. Then ask to see the numbers on what they hope to accomplish.

[Scott]

That said, it's not like these "bribes" are exclusively used by the "left": for every "left-wing" "Social Security" promise theirs a "right-wing" "military spending" promise. In that regard, both sides can be seen as guilty.

Definitely. That's my point here - both sides are guilty, not just the 'other' side, while 'our' side is defined to be ethical. Given that anyone who gets into public office will either have to nickels to rub together already (or will be paid enough to do so afterward), he's setting up a double standard to make tax cuts less ethical than spending hikes. That's not arguing - that's special pleading.

There's no point to denying the hardworking poor the freedom that money can bring so you can pass it on to heirs who haven't earned it.

Once the govt gets to decide who has 'earned' what, there's nothing they cannot do.

[Scott]

It's a question of degree, really: even you can see the difference between the influence wielded by a voter that cast a ballot during a general election (no matter his income) and the influence of, for example, a presidential veto. Their both "political activities", sure, but ones got a lot more weight and, as such, should be under more ethical scrutiny.

If bribing for votes (by both parties) is whay got him in a position to veto in the first place, than that should face the same ethical scrutiny.

Besides, a bribe is a bribe - my lack of personal political power doesn't make me, by definition, more ethical.

[Ray]

But it makes your lack of ethics less important, right?
"President of local Rotary Club gets kickbacks" is not as big a headline as "President of the United States gets kickbacks". If I'm not a member of the Rotary Club, and their activities don't really affect my life, why should I care if the prez is corrupt? Most US citizens, on the other hand, have an interest in the reasoning of their president.
And the double standard Fred is referring to is benefitting _personally and directly_ from a measure vs offering benefits to other people.

[Scott]

If I'm not a member of the Rotary Club, and their activities don't really affect my life, why should I care if the prez is corrupt? Most US citizens, on the other hand, have an interest in the reasoning of their president.

If you're electing a President (or congresscritter) based on kickbacks (i.e. govt checks), that's also more important than electing the president of the Rotery Club. People's interest in the reasoning of their president is what motivates the kickback of "vote for me and I'll give you someone else's bank account".

And the double standard Fred is referring to is benefitting _personally and directly_ from a measure vs offering benefits to other people.

Voting for someone offering you govt benefits involves you benefitting _personally and directly_ also. A bribe is a bribe.

[Nate]

Wow, okay. So, anything the government does, for anyone, is a bribe, and so therefore the government shouldn't do anything and is also irredemably corrupt, by nautre? Wow.

Tax cuts such as Bush's, and the proposed repeal of the estate tax are unethical because they do much more harm than good. They give more money to the already ridiculously rich, who wouldn't have had their fortunes without the use of the infrastructure and market enforcement of the government. They put the government even deeper into debt, which has bad long-term consequences for everyone, the least of which is that taxes will have to go up more later to pay back the debt. On everyone, not just on the rich. And the estate tax is particularly ludicrous, because the people are dead, their money doesn't matter to them any more. One of the reasons behind the creation of the estate tax was specifically to prevent the creation of multi-generation aristocratic families to the extremes that happened in Europe.

The fact that on top of this, it will benefit the President and his advisors by millions or billions of dollars is just extra. That's bribery on a different scale than welfare checks to keep somebody from starving. It's simple greed.

[Beth]

One could argue that America's history is all about an "anti-tax, anti-regulatory, anti-government ideology"--namely, freedom.

I couldn't disagree more. Freedom is not simply freedom from an oppressive government, but freedom from all oppression. If you're anti-government to the degree that government oppresses, then you are indeed pro-freedom, but if you're anti-government to the degree that government prevents other powerful forces from oppressing, then you're anti-freedom. The mafia's not anti-police because policing reduces people's freedom but because it reduces their freedom to maintain an iron grip on the population. Corporations that oppose anti-trust regulations do so not because those regulations interfere with a free market but because they ensure it. The South wasn't more free before the Fed imposed those regulations against slavery. The fortunate few -- the slaveowners -- were arguably 'more free', but at the cost of the basic human rights of others. It's no more correct to say anti-government = pro-freedom than to say pro-government = pro-freedom. And when the government is already running in the red, reducing taxes simply steals from future generations. How can choosing to saddle people from birth with an oppressive debt possibly described as pro-freedom?

[Scott]

Wow, okay. So, anything the government does, for anyone, is a bribe, and so therefore the government shouldn't do anything and is also irredemably corrupt, by nautre? Wow.

I'm saying be consistent. If benefitting from a govt activity you support brings up ethical questions, it brings them up for everyone, not just your 'rich' political opponents.

[Mabus]

Beth, I think if you read my post more carefully you'll see that I didn't say I opposed all government or all taxation--perhaps Scott thinks that way. I'm well aware that there are other oppressive forces out there; big corporations are one sizable lot of dangerous, 800-lb. gorillas. Government, however, is King Kong. The wealthy may have gained an unpleasantly large amount of influence in recent years, but Washington is still the greatest, and thus most dangerous, power around. Anything it wants to do that would curtail anyone's freedom deserves some scrutiny.

I don't think we're as far apart on this as you think we are. If we were, you wouldn't be against the Patriot Act, and you wouldn't have been among the riled when I hinted that Democrats might gain the votes of poor social conservatives by compromising on abortion. You don't want the government to trample you either; we just object to different particular rules.

I don't know how much money you have, or where you've been in life, but take my word for it that in my current economic position, with enough money to pay your bills and obtain the occasional extreme luxury like, oh, renting a movie or buying a book, having Uncle Sam rummaging in your wallet is a serious impediment, and having him interfering with your employer is generally worse. When it's absolutely necessary, it's tolerable, but it's still a pain in the rear. When it's not necessary, it's infuriating. It suggests that the government wants to keep you from ever being any better off than you are.