Joe The Plumber
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008Rather unfortunately, I feel compelled to make a statement here about this whole “Joe The Plumber” thing from the debate tonight. I say “unfortunately” because it is pretty well known that talking (or typing) about politics can easily turn into the first chapter in How to LOSE friends and ALIENATE People.
Here is the video of the encounter with “Joe The Plumber” that was a hot topic at the beginning of tonight’s debate:
Chad brought this blog to my attention today. I’ve actually met Ernie’s sister-in-law once or twice at our former employer’s Xmas parties (her sister worked there with Chad). His sister-in-law, Shawna, keeps a blog. CLICK HERE to read the post she made yesterday about the encounter.
I have to say that I completely agree with her. When Chad was working as an accountant with a Big 4 firm, we did really well for a time. Enough to spend a year as Richie Rich and watch our taxes skyrocket. We used the money we saved from that time to purchase our businesses: Custom Fence Company and A&R Painting. Right here, is where I have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that “the rich” are “evil” and “greedy” in America and can’t be trusted to “do right” with our money. What happens at the $200,000/year mark that supposedly turns Chad and I from “hard-working middle class” to (gasp!) “the rich”?
But, I digress, back to the specific topic at hand. When we first bought those companies, I didn’t love the idea of being an employer who doesn’t provide health care. Providing good benefits to employees helps us keep them in the long term, which is in our best interest. So, without any government mandate to do so, we looked into our options for group health insurance that would include our employees.
What came out of this were a couple of revelations. The first, that we probably would not be able to afford to provide that benefit for at least a few years down the road. Another was that in order to provide group coverage, we had to have and maintain a minimum amount of employees to opt into the plan. When I surveyed our full time workers about our plan to offer health care, not one of them was gung-ho about it and every single one of them indicated they would rather not have to opt in to the plan. I was really shocked at this. They were mostly afraid of the cost even though we would be paying half or more of the premiums!
Tell me how our small business is supposed to survive this economy if we are, among other things, required to offer health care that we a) can’t afford b) won’t qualify for because c) our employees don’t want it? “Spread the wealth” may seem fair to some, but it hardly seems fair to me after all the sacrifices of money and time we have gone through the past two years in order to make these business work.
I’m starting to realize a couple things about myself. I believe in small government and I believe in capitalism. And, I think it is unfair to link capitalism to greed and selfishness. If you look back in our history, you’ll find numerous examples of private enterprise providing great amounts of money for the public good – our first universities and volunteer hospitals (in a time before a health care system), for instance. Take what Bill Gates has done for education as another fine example.
The last point I’ll make is that most of my friends, Republican and Democrat alike are more than willing to give their time and money to “good” causes. It is no wonder that those of them that are Democrats would support the government taking more money, as they are willing to give it to help out (that is not to say Republicans aren’t). But what I question is the notion that they are for some reason not capable of making those decisions about their money and which causes they help ON THERE OWN. Maybe it’s more that they know they will give the money but believe “the rich” won’t (because rich people are greedy is the assumption I’m familiar with.)** I think the perpetration of this idea that “the rich” are a separate breed of people from the “middle class” is a false one. Take a look at books like The Millionaire Next Door and Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I’ve seen write ups on this before, that if you poll those who qualify as “rich” and millionaires, they think of themselves in terms of “middle class”. I can state this was true for Chad and I during that one year. Neither of us suddenly thought we could upgrade our house, buy new cars or travel with no regard for what it would cost us.
Argghhh, well, sorry for the rant. I’m no Dennis Miller, I know. But this election, for the first time maybe ever, feels like it directly affects me. Maybe I’m just growing up a little and can’t be content to remain indifferent to the political machine that is Washington D.C.
As for Shawna, I’ll be interested to check back in on her blog tomorrow to see what their reaction was to the debate tonight and “Joe The Plumber’s” new found fame.
**I’m worried those sentences about “my friends that are democrats” is going to come across sounding like some kind of accusation. I can’t quite figure out if it is and if so, how to change it, but what I’m getting at is that my friends whom I know are democrats know me (and are aware of some of my republican leanings) and I don’t think any of them believe that I am greedy and wouldn’t give my time or money to help out good causes. So it’s a question about the line at which do we or do democrats, I guess, believe “the rich” will not give their money and time for such causes. When they think rich are the really thinking incomes of a million or more? A billion or more? If so, that’s a significant difference from defining “rich” at the $200,000 mark. (Though I’m not saying that I would agree that it is okay to take more money from the rich even if it was defined at that much higher level.)






