I had originally planned to devote this post to the issues of abortion and Supreme Court nominations, but those issues will have to wait, because I can't let another day go by without addressing McCain's ongoing efforts to turn this election into a choice between "socialism" and "capitalism." I'll give McCain credit: the "Joe the Plumber" stunt has unleashed a tidal wave of conservative fear-mongering, particularly among demographics who still haven't moved beyond the Cold War. But McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a socialist have only solidified my belief that McCain does not have the integrity to lead our country. If Obama's tax policies were truly "socialist," then McCain would have some serious explaining to do concerning his own "socialist" tendencies over the past 8 years:
Following George W. Bush's legacy, the McCain campaign seems to be guided by the belief that the average voter is persuaded more by fear than reason. Rather than rationally explaining why a proposed 3% increase on the top-5% income bracket would be a bad idea for the economy, McCain's campaign has resorted to McCarthyism by suggesting that Obama's economic policies are part of his conspiracy to become the world's next Stalin.
When McCain actually attempts to discuss the specifics of Obama's tax plan, he seems to focus almost exclusively on the effect Obama's plan would have on small businesses, despite the fact that Obama's plan would only affect about 10% of all small businesses. And in some cases, Obama's plan would even reduce small business taxes, including those of "Joe the Plumber:"
I would love for McCain and his supporters to explain why Obama's tax plan is any more "socialist" than Reagan's earned-income tax credit or McCain's proposed health care credit, both of which intentionally redistribute wealth to low-income Americans in amounts that sometimes exceed the total amount of taxes paid by the recipients. I don't know whether to be more outraged by McCain's hypocrisy or more terrified by his disconnection from reality.
When McCain actually attempts to discuss the specifics of Obama's tax plan, he seems to focus almost exclusively on the effect Obama's plan would have on small businesses, despite the fact that Obama's plan would only affect about 10% of all small businesses. And in some cases, Obama's plan would even reduce small business taxes, including those of "Joe the Plumber:"
In reality, Obama's proposed tax rates would be almost identical to the rates established during Bill Clinton's first term (a time when our economy was thriving by today's standards). Although a lot of economic growth during Clinton's presidency might be attributed to technology growth, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the country enjoyed more economic prosperity during Clinton's presidency than during any of the five Republican presidential terms since 1980. It is also difficult to argue with the fact that the superior economic growth during Clinton's presidency is consistent with the superior economic growth during all Democratic presidencies since 1947 as compared to Republican presidencies:
As even most conservatives would concede, a robust middle class is vital to any democracy. Over the past 8 years, however, the wealthiest 5% of our nation has flourished, while the middle class has rapidly diminished. This disparity has only snowballed over the past several months. Ultimately, "trickle-down" economic policies have resulted in "trickle-up" redistribution of wealth.
Anyone who has spent any significant time in a developing country will tell you: when wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few people, the rule of law loses its relevance, citizens become alienated, and democracies die. In his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith espoused a progressive tax for the same reasons as Obama (and John McCain, at least up until a few weeks ago). In Adam Smith's own words:
Anyone who has spent any significant time in a developing country will tell you: when wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few people, the rule of law loses its relevance, citizens become alienated, and democracies die. In his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith espoused a progressive tax for the same reasons as Obama (and John McCain, at least up until a few weeks ago). In Adam Smith's own words:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
Unfortunately, all of the controversy surrounding the "patriotism" of Obama's tax policy obscures a larger question: which president is more capable of handling the present economic crisis and responding to future, unexpected crises? I don't expect any candidate for president to be a world-renowned economist, and I certainly don't believe that the fate of the economy rests solely on who eats breakfast in the White House, but I do expect a president to have enough discernment to surround himself with competent advisors and enough intelligence to make informed decisions based on the input he receives from those advisors. Interestingly, most economists, including many Republican economists, think Obama is more capable than McCain in this area:
I'll admit: part of the reason I don't trust McCain to surround himself with quality advisors is his troubling selection of Palin for his VP. But I also believe, for the reasons explained in my post entitled "Ability vs. Experience," that Obama is simply smarter and more talented than McCain. I'm also satisfied by the long list of respected economists and financial experts, including America's wealthiest taxpayer, Warren Buffett, who will advise Obama on economic matters:
I don't think anyone believes the economy will recover overnight, regardless of who wins the election, but one thing is certain: when I cast my vote on November 4, I won't be questioning my patriotism, and I won't be worrying about whether or not I'm voting for a socialist. And neither will Warren Buffett.
Posts
8 comments:
Why are we so afraid of anything remotely socialist? What was the economic bailout?
Great analysis! You definitely have a way with words.
I marvel at your Indian-like expository abilities and your wordsmithiness. I also love this:
The United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Greg, to answer your question, we should be concerned whenever we undertake any programs that are socialist in nature. The problem is that most people don't understand what socialism really is (government control over the means of production). Although I cringe to see Ezra Taft Benson quoting Strom Thurmond, this talk contains a lot of good information for people to consider when they consider voting for particular candidates or social programs:
http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/121550?q
Thanks for the thoughts. My concern about the blog from whence the List of Obama's Economic Advisors/Supporters" comes from really discredits itself by only listing a handful of McCain's supporters only listing a handful of McCain's supporters and chooses the ones that make McCain's economic supporters look quite incompetent.
The fact of the matter is, hundreds of professional economists support John McCain.
The representation presented on the site purposely attempts to mislead readers.
Drew,
I would encourage you to read my posts more carefully. If you go back and read my post, you'll discover that I only cited that blog for a list of Obama's advisors. I didn't rely on that blog for any other information, so the concerns you raise in your comment are less relevant than Sarah Palin's proximity to Russia. Now, if you want to disagree with something I actually said in my post, I'm all ears.
Patrick,
I was not arguing about anything you wrote, I said my concern was about the blog you cited.
I am a little perplexed about why you would make a blanket statement such as, "most economists, including many Republican economists, think Obama is more capable than McCain in this area"
The Economist itself indicated the weakness of the poll because of the respondents:
"We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates....A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither." That would indicate some bias. But they do say, "even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge"
Well, considering that the "sample" size of those who failed to identify their party is somewhere between 62 and 63 (44% of 142), that survey is not statistically sound. With a sample size of 142 for the entire survey, the margin of error is somewhere around 8.3%. The Economist knows that, which I am surprised they published this survey.
And with the praise of Clinton's economics, I would refer you to an editorial published in September of this year by Investor's Business Daily concerning the subprime mess we are currently in.
You can blame the greedy wall streeters all you would like, but the fact of the matter is, millions of Americans handed those Wall Street execs their money and their credit in hopes of becoming wealthy through home equity. And they did the same with their retirement in fabulous 401k plans. Wealth did trickle down, and we shoved it right back up. Nobody held a gun to our heads telling us we had to pay or else. Now with our tax dollars going to nationalize banks and potentially redistribute wealth, we no longer have any say on where much of our money goes. When we had the say, we blew it. And apparently that was all Bush's fault.
I struggle with the Palin argument. I really will never understand why her "inexperience" is questioned while Obama's is excusable. I would argue that experience does not a great leader make. Lincoln had very little experience and saved our nation. Carter had tons of experience and created a financial ruin and international mess for the U.S. (which calls into question your statement concerning "the superior economic growth during all Democratic presidencies since 1947 as compared to Republican presidencies." The New York Times article you reference is about income. Income is only one indicator when determing an economy's strength. Inflation, which surged to 10% under Carter and came to between 3-4% during Reagan, throws income for a loop).
I was a total Obama fan in 2006. He is quite charming and energetic. It is his policies that scare me.
Drew
Drew,
I thought you were Andrew Dixon. You must be his brother-in-law? Regardless, I welcome your comments.
I think we could both find evidence to support economic growth during both political parties' reigns in the White House and Congress. And I'm sure we both realize that the plight of the economy ultimately depends on factors that are often outside the control of government policies and regulations. That's why, at the end of the day, my vote this year is going to the person I think is most capable to lead our country and handle economic crises. I'm not voting for Obama because I think he will solve all of our problems. I simply see him as the best choice.
With regard to the "experience" issue you raised concerning Palin: it's not that I think Palin lacks experience, it's that I think she lacks general intelligence. I don't have those concerns with Obama at all. And, as I explained at length in one of my previous blog entries, our country has a history of presidents who lacked political experience who turned out to be our best presidents (e.g. Lincoln).
Regards.
Post a Comment