We resume the discussion at her kitchen table.
C: We’re back, and I have to say, Bailey is just as cute and furry as advertised.
W: He’s a very good boy. He’s also an asset to the campaign.
C: I want to ask you some questions today about some of your proposed programs, starting with your signature issue, the wealth tax.
W: OK.
C: I have a lot of specific questions about it, but let me start with a general one–is it intended to be more of a statement about the nature of your candidacy than a real policy proposal?
W: It’s both, of course. Why do you ask?
C: Because it truly makes a dramatic statement about what you stand for, and there are other ways to accomplish the same thing that don’t raise the same legal, political, and practical issues.
Let me start with the legal question. You have to know that there is a serious debate about whether the tax would be constitutional. Why would you propose something that will have to be reviewed by the Roberts Court? What do you think is going to happen there?
W: I’ve reviewed the history and the case law. I think it’s constitutional. There are plenty of legal scholars who agree with me. The inequality issue is too important not to take the risk. I’ll worry about the Supreme Court when the time comes–there may be ways of dealing with that.
C: And, of course, there are the administrative problems. I know the plan includes lots of money for enforcement, but the real world examples in other countries don’t exactly inspire confidence.
W: I worked out the details of the plan with some of the finest scholars in the country. We think it will work. Their studies say it will.
C: That’s all well and good, but there are plenty of other scholars who disagree, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Anyway, doesn’t the tax also send the message that someone like Jeff Bezos should stop investing money in new projects, because he’ll just have to pay more wealth tax if he hits it big?
W: I’m not against entrepreneurial success. I’m not a socialist. I just think that too much success is a threat to the working of our political system. Anyway, Jeff gets to keep most of his earnings even with my plan.
C: Why not just amend and strengthen the estate tax? There are no legal problems, the administrative issues are much easier to deal with, and the impact on incentives is much lower.
W: The inequality issue needs to be confronted directly, forcefully, and immediately. Waiting for the plutocrats to die doesn’t get the job done.
C: Let’s move to your corporation legislation. It definitely has advantages and a reasonable conceptual basis. It isn’t outrageous to view incorporation as a privilege which comes with obligations to society. You also have Germany as a precedent. But would it work? Inequality is less of a problem in Germany than it is here, but wages are stagnant there, too.
W: You just said it–at least inequality is less of a problem.
C: Aren’t you worried about corporations gaming the system by staying below the asset threshold, and about corporate executives essentially capturing the worker board members?
W: Yes, but I can’t control that. We can create the framework and make the intent clear. Everything after that has to be up to the parties. As with most legislation, the American people would ultimately have to make it work.
C: You view corporations as being the property of a variety of interests, including the workers. Why are they different than, say, my house or my car? The people who built my house and my car don’t own any interest in them. Anyway, if the corporation has multiple objectives–not just maximizing shareholder value–how can you be sure it will stay competitive in a brutal worldwide market?
W: German corporations seem to be doing just fine.
C: Next, I’d like to talk about your child care proposal. Why not just give money to parents, rather than create a new bureaucratic system?
W: We’re trying to accomplish a wide range of things with that proposal. A lot of the friends and family care that right-wingers love so much is substandard. My proposal creates standards and good paying jobs for people that need them in addition to protecting struggling families.
C: I’ll finish with reparations. Your suggestion that we should set up some sort of a committee to study reparations sounds like an effort to win favor with African-American voters without actually doing anything. In fact, I think it would alienate millions of white voters who want desperately to find a reasonable alternative to Trump.
W: It’s a really, really important issue, and talking never hurt anyone. It’s the first step in the healing process.
C: I disagree. Let me give you two scenarios. First, a white worker from, say, Michigan who is struggling financially, and wants to vote against Trump. You’re essentially telling him that he’s guilty of discriminating against African-Americans, that he needs to feel really bad about that, that he needs to be more woke, and that he needs to write a check to African-Americans who, in his view, already get cuts in line. How do you think he’s going to react to that?
W: It’s going to be a long, slow process. No one will be writing checks any time soon. Again, we can’t solve a problem without talking about it.
C: Finally, imagine a white millennial who grew up after de jure discrimination ended. He has lots of student debt and no wealth. You’re going to tell him to write a check to pay for his white privilege? Good luck with that!
W: If anyone is writing a check, the details will have to be worked out later. Maybe the money should come out of the wealth tax. It’s all subject to discussion. I don’t have any desire to pile on white people with no money.
C: Thank you for your time.