It’s admittedly a snappy soundbite although I have absolutely no idea what Brown means, and given that Rand’s most notable novel—Atlas Shrugged—is long enough to make the unabridged version  The Count of Monte Cristo look like Cliff’s Notes, I highly doubt Brown has read it, and therefore he probably doesn’t know what his own soundbite means either.

Perhaps the mystery lies in this question—when we use the term trickle-down economics, what exactly does that mean? Again, I don’t think liberal politicians have the foggiest idea—they toss it about as a soundbite, something that conservative politicians have regrettably started imitating in their recent abuse of the word “socialist.” But let’s take a crack at what trickle-down economics might mean.

Herbert Hoover (at right) was a tax-raiser, JFK (at left) a tax-cutter. Who was the trickle-down advocate?

The theory first came into vogue during the Great Depression, and was attributed to the policies of Republican president Herbert Hoover. Although Hoover also believed in tax increases to try and balance the budget. And since this latter idea is abhorred by Ryan and his philosophical soulmates, it’s clear that attributing the term’s original intention to them is inaccurate.

We could also try the face value explanation—which would presumably be the belief that government policy should focus exclusively on benefitting the upper classes, and count on prosperity to trickle down to the rest. This is clearly the interpretation President Obama and his campaign strategists hope the American voters believe.

Although again, while Ryan does undeniably advance tax policies that benefit the wealthy, he doesn’t do so at the expense of the middle class. One might reasonably argue that the country can’t  afford cutting taxes across the board. One might argue that doing so would accelerate the income gap. Both would be reasonable cases to make, but it certainly doesn’t mean Ryan thinks the middle class should do nothing but sit around and wait for a few crumbs to trickle down.

Finally, we come to the deeper explanation, which is that political Left really believes that there are only two choices in economic policy—one is to soak the rich, play the envy card and whip up class anger, and the other is trickle-down economics. And since Ryan isn’t the former, he must naturally be the latter. This theory has a simplistic quality to it that plays well in political debate although its relationship to fact is somewhat tenuous (that’s a long-winded of saying this theory is a bunch of B.S.).

I don’t believe that strengthening the wealthy and the merchant class will magically solve our economic problems. There are too many people like David Siegel, the CEO of Westgate Resorts, who told his employees that any further tax increases meant he would undertake substantial layoffs—this, while he continues to install an elevator in his mansion and continue construction of the 20-plus bathrooms.

Siegel’s attitude over what amounts to few percentage points on taxes (the top rate would rise from 35 percent to 39 percent if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, as promised) is worthy of contempt and a good example of why Republican coziness with the economic elite meets with reasonable skepticism.

But at the same time, an all-out attack on the wealthy and the merchant class is completely counterproductive. They might not be the sole cause for economic growth, but all but the most hardened left-wingers would acknowledge that a vibrant investing class is at least a component of a successful economy.

Democrats who call the above paragraph trickle-down economics have neglected the history of their own party. When John F. Kennedy decided the top marginal tax rate of 91 percent was suffocating incentives for the wealthy to invest, and pushed a plan to cut it to 70 percent (it passed after his death) was he advocating trickle-down theory?

When the old liberal warhorse Tip O'Neill, cooperated with Ronald Reagan on tax reform, was he a born-again trickle-down man?

When a large coalition of conservative Democrats cooperated with Ronald Reagan to further take the rate down to 50 percent, were they all trickle-down acolytes?

And when a Democratic House, led by liberal stalwart Tip O’Neill, along with Dan Rostenkowski,  further worked with Reagan to get both a lower top rate (28 percent) and an elimination of a large chunk of tax loopholes in 1986, were they sudden converts to trickle-downism?

No they weren’t. What they essentially figured out was that, while strengthening the wealthy is not some magic elixir to economic problems, attacking them doesn’t get you anywhere either.

I would suggest a discussion along these lines would be a healthy way to use the 90 minutes allocated for Ryan and Biden to debate. Ryan could be invited to talk further on the ideas he has that are specific to the middle class. Biden could be invited to clarify his thoughts on whether there is a point where marginal tax rates become too high.

Although that would actually be a productive use of 90 minutes, and our political class has created a “debate” culture where each candidate will be instructed to just get through the time by reciting poll-tested answers more rigged than a WWE wrestling match. I think I’ll pass and watch the baseball postseason, which is at least unpredictable.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

Neither Stricherz or Ponnuru are leftists who favor using the tax code to redistribute wealth. But both are Catholic and both think that tax policy should place families first. (In fact, Ponnuru wrote the CatholicVote white paper on taxes. It’s a quick read, worth your time.)

Now Phyllis Schlafly has a great article, which shows another flaw in the Perry plan. Her biggest complaint of the Texas governor’s flat tax plan is that it treats all adults merely as individuals, treating a husband and wife no different than an unmarried couple. And that’s a problem, she says.

Does Rick Perry want to undermine traditional marriage? This question leaps out from his new 20 percent flat-tax plan, which would eliminate all tax advantages for married couples where one spouse is the primary breadwinner.

For more than 60 years, the federal income tax has treated the family as an economic unit. A husband and wife have the benefit of pooling their income in a joint tax return, which affords larger deductions and lower rates.

Perry would replace the pooling of husband-wife income with a system in which each individual, regardless of marital status, would owe federal taxes on his or her separate income.  Perry’s plan offers “generous standard deductions of $12,500 for individuals and their dependents” — which ignores the fact that children are dependents of both their parents, even if one earns all or most of the family income.

If an income tax were truly “flat,” filing status wouldn’t matter because a wife is taxed at the same rate as her husband. But Perry’s so-called flat tax isn’t anywhere near flat, so it matters greatly that he offers the same standard allowances to alternative lifestyles as for married couples. His plan would allow, for example, two unrelated adults living with two children to avoid income tax on their first $50,000 of income.

Rick Perry wanted to use a flat tax to regain momentum for his lackluster campaign. With Cain’s catchy 9-9-9 plan, Perry had reason to think that tax reform might just be the answer. But given these very sound objections from Ponnuru, Stricherz, and Schlafly, I don’t think the flat tax will be his ticket back to the top of the pack.

Read the rest of Schlafly’s article over at Crisis Magazine.

UPDATE: One aspect that I do like about the plan is its very generous tax breaks for children. If Perry were to rectify his plans to address Schlafly’s concerns, and tinker with the rates to insure that the middle class don’t face tax hikes while keeping these generous deductions for children… well, I guess it would be a totally different plan, wouldn’t it?

Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J.

There was lots of reaction to the news reports of “The Vatican” supposedly endorsing the creation of a world centralized bank. CatholicLane.com has an article by Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican in which he implores people to actually read the text of the document. http://cvote.to/6I George Weigel says it’s “rubbish” to compare the Vatican to Occupy Wall Street. http://cvote.to/6J But Thomas Peters says that’s exactly what Fr. Reese was implying. http://cvote.to/6L Bill Donohue notes that the terms “supranational Authority” and “supranational Institution” are neologisms that did not appear in the latest Papal encyclical. http://cvote.to/6M Tom Hoopes says this Pontifical Council’s report also recognized Pope Benedict’s emphasis on subsidiarity. http://cvote.to/6N Samuel Gregg wonders why a global central bank wouldn’t have the same problems that a European central bank has. http://cvote.to/6K

Rick Perry is planning a re-boot of his floundering campaign with the unveiling of his flat tax plan on income. The plan sets the income tax at 20% and keeps both the mortgage deduction and the charitable deductions. It increases the standard deduction for individuals and each dependents at $12,500. That would mean a family of four would pay no income tax on their first $50,000. Every dollar above that would be taxed at 20%. The corporate tax would also fall to 20%. Perry pitched the plan in the Wall Street Journal. http://cvote.to/6O

And yet, just as he is focusing on re-booting his campaign, Rick Perry chats up the “birther” talk. Reporter John Harwood said: “In [a] CNBC interview, Perry tells me why he kept Obama birther issue alive: ‘It’s a good issue to keep alive. It’s fun to poke at him.’” http://cvote.to/6W Uh, maybe that’s a joke suited for the White House Correspondents Dinner but not the campaign trail. Perry better not take the birther issue seriously or his campaign is toast.

Quote of the Day

“We are now enemies of the State … We all know what the power of the state can do to its enemies.” – Ed Mechmann, at the Archdiocese of New York’s blog, commenting on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s calling opponents of same-sex “marriage” as anti-American. http://cvote.to/6Q

Notes:

I promised you the interview with Sen. George LeMieux yesterday. But the news cycle yesterday involving the Vatican prevented that. So, Lord willing, I’ll post it this afternoon.

Christine Schilling will soon be blogging here at CatholicVote.org. Christine is a mother of ten and is married to Rep. Bobby Schilling, R-IL. Stay tuned!

Other articles of interest:

Yuck: A Canadian music station launched a “Win a Baby” contest, offering to pay $35,000 in fertility treatments to a winning couple. http://cvote.to/6R

Pope Benedict XVI proclaims three saints, saying their lives demonstrated that true faith is charity in action. http://cvote.to/6S

Media watchdog Brent Bozell says ABC should report on the widespread anti-Semitism found at Occupy Wall Street protests. http://cvote.to/6T

In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on a bill restoring marriage as a union of one man and one woman. http://cvote.to/6V