What Is Fairness?

It depends on your point of view. Let’s look at Robin Hood. We all know the story: Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor – so the story goes. Was this fair? The rich had more money than anyone else and the poor had less money than they needed. Was this a fair endeavor? Remember, this was a feudal society.

How about Sam Walton. Because of his own work, the money and effort he invested, his idea evolved into the largest retail operation in the United States. The Walton family has become wealthy because of Sam Walton. Or, take Bernie Marcus, who invented the largest Do-It-Yourself hardware store in the United States (Home Depot). He took huge risks, worked 12-16 hour days, and very nearly lost his first store. Yet, Sam Walton and Bernie Marcus persevered and became hugely successful because people wanted their products and services. Should we tax the income of these two corporations and distribute that money to low-income people or to students who want their loans forgiven? If we tax corporations, who pays the tax?

Now let us look at two secretaries. One is highly efficient, hardly ever misses work, and is on top of his/her job. The other secretary misses time because of family, is late with his/her work assignments, and complains that he/she never has enough money. Who should be rewarded with the best wage? Who creates the most value?

Now look at low-income people – the homeless, people on welfare, people who can barely survive. Do we owe the people a minimum subsistence income? What value do they create for themselves or society? What decisions did they make that earned their lot in life. Should we give money so people can survive? There is a moral argument that people should have a basic amount of subsistence. Does that mean that there is no way to get out of this dilemma? No, of course not. University of Michigan – Flint’s, Richard Perry, analyzed data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota and showed that 44 percent of the households in the lowest 20 percent of income moved to a higher income bracket and that 34 percent of the highest earners moved to a lower income bracket. Nothing is hopeless – unless you want it to be.

America is obsessed with fairness, but what kind of fairness? Again, it depends on your point of view. There is Redistributive fairness – everybody (except the elites) essentially make the same amount of money and benefits (like Socialism). In other words, inequality is unfair. Then there is Meritocratic fairness – reward is matched to merit (like Capitalism). In this case forced equality is unfair. I get to keep what I earn. Which one does America like best – or is there a middle road?

Progressive politicians prefer the first definition of fairness, whereas the Conservative politicians prefer the second definition. There is a case for a minimum income floor, but there is also a case for keeping what you earn. Neither scenario at the ends of the spectrum is the correct one for all people. This is a decision with which Congress must wrestle. So far Congress has kicked the can down the road. Congress has, again, failed to do its job. There are not enough votes on either end of the spectrum. And yet this is a compromise that must be made in the near future for our country to survive. So far, Congress has tried to appeal to both sides and that has got us to where we are today.

One of the objectives of the Convention of States is to balance money income and money outgo for the budget of the United States. Over the past 20 years, Congress has done a poor job of balancing this equation. Social Security and Medicare account for most of the spending. There is also a lot of wasteful spending in the budget (earmarks for one). Congress will have to deal with these budget issues if we want to balance income and outgo. So far, Congress has been unwilling to address these issues because of the fear that they will make a wrong decision and hamper their ability to be re-elected. Term limits should help in this regard.

There is no solution that can be termed entirely fair to the Progressives or to the Conservatives. The result will be a compromise that nobody will buy wholeheartedly. That is why Congressional representatives have a job. Congress’ job is to provide a forum where alternatives are discussed and the best solution for the American people is chosen. In any case, the American people should be part of the discussion and solution. Buying votes has shown to be a poor alternative for the problems we face.   

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The problem of deficit spending will not go away. Until Congress acts and resolves this thorny problem, we will continue to face deficit spending, inflation, increased debt service, and a future bill owed by our children, which currently is $85,000 per person. A Convention of States is our only hope to limit the excesses of government. Congress will not limit its powers and neither will the President limit his powers. That means it is up to us, the people of the United States.