Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.

No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.

At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.

Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.

These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.

And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

那些無理取鬧的有錢人

怒氣正橫掃美國。這股怒氣是少數現象，不是大多數美國同胞的情況。但這群少數人是真的在生氣，氣的是自己該得的被奪走。他們正要展開報復。

我說的不是共和黨內極端保守派系茶黨，而是那些有錢人。

對美國許多人而言，現在這段時期很可怕。貧窮，尤其是赤貧的情況，在這次經濟衰退期間暴增。數百萬人失去房子，年輕人找不到工作，中年失業者擔心自己再也找不到工作。

但這群正在受苦的美國人不會把總統歐巴馬比喻為希特勒，或指控他犯下叛國罪，會這麼做的是那些有錢有勢的人，不用擔心會丟掉飯碗、住所、還是健保的人。但這些人只要想到得稍微多繳一點稅，就氣急敗壞。

有錢人的怒氣從歐巴馬上任後就開始累積，不過一開始大多限於華爾街上。紐約雜誌登出一篇標題為「百分之一人的哀嚎聲」的文章，講那些玩弄金錢遊戲的華爾街人士，他們的公司快要倒時，政府動用納稅人的錢救他們，但有人建議應該暫時限制這些公司發放紅利時，他們卻發飆了。

百仕通（Blackstone）的億萬富豪執行長史瓦茲曼把歐巴馬的提案比喻為納粹入侵波蘭時，代表這個提案已經封住對他這種基金經理人尤其有利的法律漏洞。

然而，隨著布希時代減稅方案的命運即將揭曉，有錢人的怒氣逐漸擴大，一些特性也有所改變。

首先，這種不理智的行為已蔚為潮流。富豪們在晚宴上抨擊政府施政是一回事，堂堂財經雜誌富比世（Forbes）給美國總統貼標籤又是另一回事。

該媒體以封面專文，指歐巴馬故意以肯亞式的「反殖民主義者」的理念治國，「美國是以一個1950年代盧奧族（Luo）男子的夢想受治理」。似乎只要談到捍衛有錢人的利益，一般文明和理智的規則就不適用。

過去，支持減稅者都假裝他們很關心能否協助一般美國家庭。就算為有錢人減稅可用「涓滴經濟學」（trickle-down economics）辯護其正當性，他們至少還會說減少金字塔頂端人的稅，能讓整體經濟更強壯，嘉惠每個人。

然而，如今他們連涓滴的問題都不管。沒錯，共和黨宣稱提高富人的稅會傷害小企業，但他們並非真正關心這個問題，反而經常聽見有人強烈否認，說年薪40萬或50萬美元的人不算有錢人。

看看這群人的豪宅要繳的房產稅，送小孩唸菁英私立學校的學費等等，他們確實入不敷出。

再看看那些富可敵國的權貴階級，他們則是有種根深蒂固的想法：那是他們的錢，他們有權保留這些錢。前美國最高法院大法官何姆斯（Oliver Wendell Holmes）說過：「我們把稅交給文明社會。」但那是很久以前的事。

全世界最幸運的人、也就是這群高所得美國人，自憐又自以為是的景象很有趣，不過他們很可能達到目的。所有共和黨及部分民主黨人已經趕著去協助這群「鬱卒」的有錢人。

當減稅爭議落幕，現在強力捍衛富有階級的同一批人馬，勢必會再要求縮減社會福利和失業救濟支出。他們會說：美國人要做出艱難的選擇，我們都必須犧牲小我。

但是當他們說「我們」的時候，其實指的是「你們」，該犧牲的是如你我等市井「小」民。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html

2010-09-21/經濟日報/A5版/國際焦點 廖玉玲譯