Many many moons ago in college I majored in political science. One of my first courses was Feminist Politics. It was an eye opening experience and quite an education about the intricacies of equality and equity for women. I saved my political theory requirement for my senior year. The course was a seminar called Justice and the Welfare State. I learned how difficult it was to put philosophical and theoretical beliefs into practice when faced with the limitations of people and systems. While I am certain these particular political science courses have changed and evolved over time. I am also certain that young not-yet-tax paying twenty-somethings at any institution of higher learning are full of idealism and emotion when wrestling with the greater good and the human condition. I am a middle-aged mother of two, 26 years post undergrad and I still wrestle with the greater good and the human condition.

What does any of this have to do with equity? More than any other courses, these two classes had the greatest impact on my understanding and definition of equity. I thought this prologue helpful to appreciate my arm chair musings on the topic.

************************

Recently listening to a soundbite of a stump speech by Kamala Harris, I was alarmed to hear her say that equity means we want everyone to end up in the same place. Surely she misspoke. I went back and reviewed the extended clips of her speeches. While she never corrected herself, I am fairly certain she meant she wants us all to end up starting at the same place.

Ms. Harris also likened getting ahead in life to a baseball game, explaining that everyone doesn’t start on the same base. Actually, in baseball, if you are in the batting lineup for that game, you get an at bat. Sometimes you strike out and sometimes you hit a homerun. Sometimes the guy in front of you makes the last out so you have to wait until the next inning to get your turn. Just saying.

Perhaps what was meant to be said was, we believe the purpose of equity is to provide necessary support so that access to a successful future is more fair. I really hope so, but I’d like further clarification from the Harris campaign team.

What a person does with appropriate access to the playing field (if you will) cannot be controlled in a free society. Ergo, final outcomes will be different for everyone. The debate about what access to the playing field means is the real conversation about equity. Once upon a time, “all men are created free and equal” upset the apple cart so much so that a new nation was created. Ofcourse “all men” meant white, former European protestants with property and a penis. This country has spent its lifetime broadening the definition of “all men” to mean “all people regardless of sex, race, religion, or national origin. The discussion continues every day.

The United States has tried many forms of equity over the generations—public school, medicaid/CHIP, affirmative action, FMLA, the GI Bill, the post 9/11 GI Bill. Some of these programs worked well and others not so much. All of our current systems are in need of an overhaul. What was designed to work in the 1950s, 80s, or even 2010s does not work so well in 2024. There are serious limitations on the implementation of any policy in a country of our size. Our population is not the same. Our needs are not the same. Systems by nature are designed to be rigid and broadly based in statistical data. There is little room for the characteristics that create differences in people. Governing with any sort of fairness in a country as large and diverse as ours is a challenging, mind boggling undertaking.

There is also the elephant in the room: an unfortunate by-product of equity implementation is us-versus-them thinking. The intersection between what we want for “other”people, what we want for ourselves, and the reality of life is not a neat Venn diagram. It’s more like a wreck in a Nascar race that takes out over half of the drivers. Even with policies meant to level the playing field, variables such as nepotism, optics, likeability, reputation, and plain old fashioned luck cannot be factored out of the equation. The only constant in these types of variables is that they are always present. Now add in the existential concept of what is “enough”. How do we ever define the greater good in a way that is palatable for the majority of Americans?

On page 13 of the Tax Foundation’s Special Report, an article entitled, “The Distribution of Tax and Spending Policies in the United States” from November 2013 Gerald Prante and Scott Hodge write:

“Federal tax and spending policies drive most of the redistribution in America today. The lowest-income families receive $8.13 in federal spending for every $1 dollar they pay in federal taxes. Middle-income families receive $1.57 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in federal taxes. However, high-income families receive $0.25 cents in federal spending for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/SR211.pdf

This was ten years ago! I’m curious what the 2024 data will say.

According to the Distribution of Household Income Report for 2019 published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on November 15, 2022:

“Households in the highest income quintile paid more than two-thirds of all federal income taxes in 2019.”

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58781

This was five years ago. The top 20% of all income earners paid for 67+% of the country. The diversity and income variation of the top 20% is far greater than one may think. Even among the top 1%, the incomes of the earner at the bottom of that one percent and Warren Buffet or Elon Musk for example are vastly different. I think this is worth mentioning as 1% percenters are lumped together frequently and given a bad rap.

I am not making policy suggestions dear readers. Some form of income redistribution is the only way to make the world work. I am merely thinking out loud and wondering. What is fair? What is enough? What is right? How far do we take the greater good? And who decides? These are not easy questions. Quantifying values statements is messy and emotionally charged.

What we don’t need is more inter- or intra- political party rhetoric. I am all for civil discourse, spirited debate, and displays of passion in the heat of the moment. But the constant railing against the opposition is tiresome and unproductive.

I’ll close with another of my favorite West Wing scenes from 2000-2001. In season two, character Sam Seaborn addresses two political players in his own party:

“Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, “It’s time for the rich to pay their fair share,” I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid 27 times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of 26 other people. And I’m happy to, ’cause that’s the only way it’s gonna work. And it’s in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads. But I don’t get 27 votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn’t come to my house 27 times faster and the water doesn’t come out of my faucet 27 times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for 22 percent of this country. Let’s not call them names while they’re doing it, is all I’m saying.”

You can catch the clip here: https://youtu.be/8nzeJrXFttg?si=wB47fQLb2W6bhW29

I’ll keep thinking and wondering and searching for answers. I hope you will too. I still have faith in us (and also U.S. 😉).

Love y’all, Marla