When Democrats go on the stump to open pockets for national campaigns, they try to find the compassion for the greater society within a potential donor, even donors with limited resources. Obama’s success in 2008 to attain multitudes of small donors paid off in an enormous way, and with a huge monetary total. But the Republicans have a different technique to coax millions out of their donors, and this strategy plays to the individual: pay me money and I will lower your taxes and make it easier for you to keep profits from your toil.
It can still add up
Republican fundraising is nothing more than rich people believing that by supporting a candidate, they will be taxed less in the long term, giving them a tangible return on investment. They are afraid of left wing candidates and politicians who want to tap their bank accounts in order to pay for silly things like social assistance programs, physical infrastructure, and education. While many of these people probably do want to help the poor and keep America competitive in a super-globalised world, the Republicans have presented the argument that the rich will be taxed into poverty.
The fact that there are already so many loopholes within our tax code to exploit should mean that rich people — who are better disposed to hire talented tax attorneys — would be comfortable with the system, knowing full well that a strategic loss in a certain part of the portfolio means a tax break on another asset. Factor this out across millions of dollars and you essentially have Mitt Romney, who may have actually paid effectively zero dollars in taxes per year when breaks and subsidies are taken into account.
Viewed solely from a dollars and cents standpoint, raising taxes would mean less money in the pockets of the rich. While the difference might seem small, a few percentage points here, closing a loophole there, for the established rich (those who make their money entirely from capital gains and not from employment) these percentage points can threaten the lifestyle that these silver spoons enjoy. Therefore it is natural for them to fight against a change to this system. It is not sympathetic, but it is natural.
The two forces, a group fighting for society versus a group fighting for themselves, have caused a polarity in American politics that must be addressed. They are diametrically opposed. One group has very limited resources but a large numbers advantage, while the other group has very few members but huge resources. Even though the Supreme Court has effectively ended respect for democracy, each person still only gets one vote. Let’s hope that those votes silence those dollars.
