The Significance of Joe the Plumber

Senator Obama’s tax policies threaten an American principle

By Peyton R. Miller

If we remember anything from the final presidential debate, it will be that Barack Obama thinks the government should “spread the wealth around,” while McCain wants to let businessmen, such as Joe the plumber, keep the wealth they have accrued. This repeated reference to a small-scale entrepreneur Obama encountered on the campaign trail was particularly relevant to me, as a member of my family rose to prominence from similarly humble origins.

My grandfather, John Miller, was born on a small farm in Hawkins County, Tennessee. His ancestors worked in subsistence agriculture for generations, and his family, though they owned a modest home and produced enough to eat, enjoyed hardly any of the luxuries considered commonplace today. John left home at the age of sixteen, taking with him virtually nothing but a high school diploma, worked as an unskilled assistant at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and briefly served in the U.S. Merchant Marines following World War II. He then acquired a small dairy farm where he worked for nine years.

Using the money he saved, John purchased a failing electrical construction company in Kingsport, Tennessee. Over the next few decades Mr. Miller’s hard work grew the Tennessee Electric Company from a small building with a few desks and a secretary into a highly successful enterprise. In the process he provided many people with jobs and many homes and businesses with electrical wiring. His perseverance earned enough money to send his son to law school and, ultimately, to provide his grandson with the opportunity to attend a fine college.

The work ethic of John Miller and countless others like him is the essence of the American Dream. My grandfather started from nothing and achieved his wealth through initiative, hard work, and the grace of God, and inevitably helped many people in the process. The only money he ever received from the government came not in the form of public relief checks, but as just compensation for his service at Oak Ridge and in the military. 

Senator Obama views wealth differently. At a recent campaign event, the now well-known Joe the plumber confronted Obama, pointing out that, since he had worked as a plumber for many years and was now able to buy the company in which he worked, Obama’s plan would raise his taxes even though he is hardly a rich man. Obama reluctantly explained his belief that the economy would work better if the government more heavily taxed people like Joe, and John Miller for that matter, in order to “spread the wealth around.” Though the authenticity of Joe the plumber’s story is questionable, Obama’s tax plan will hit vigorous small businesses the hardest.

As John McCain articulated this point during the last debate, a liberal friend of mine sarcastically cried, “Socialist!” I say call it what it is: Obama would prefer that the government redistribute the wealth of those who have worked hard, rather than allowing people to distribute their wealth themselves to others who are productive. What is this but socialism?

Such redistribution is bad economic policy for obvious reasons: It discourages personal initiative and the willingness of individuals to assume financial risk. Beyond this, it can reasonably be argued that this is a morally reprehensible policy. Few would dispute that our society should help the financially downtrodden, but can we do so by taxing a man who probably does not have a college degree and who has worked all his life in order to send a check to people without nearly the same work ethic? Is it morally acceptable to raise the taxes of a dairy farmer whose decades of hard work paid off to send a “tax rebate” to someone who does not pay any taxes? Can we violate our founding principle of individualism? 

Obama’s answer: Yes, we can.