Victor Davis Hanson offers what an Obama campaign speech would have been like six months ago, had he been forthcoming about what he's been doing. It's as good as anything in explaining why the American electorate is experiencing buyer's regret.
Meanwhile, even the Obamanoids at Time are asking the most obvious of questions, whether President HopeAndChange is trying to do too much at once. Across the pond, Obama's failure to provide leadership on economic issues is being pilloried.
Where's it all headed? WSJ's Daniel Henninger points out that Obama's consistent economic commitment is to the notion that the wealth flowing to the Republics top earners must be taxed for redistribution, irrespective of the effect that such taxes have on economic growth and general prosperity. It is the politics of envy gone wild to be indignant that someone has more rather than to provide that everyone can have enough.
Meanwhile, no one is able to get appointments made, as Tim Geithner--who in light of his tax returns can't be regarded as an organizational genius himself-- muddles through at Treasury with a skeletal staff. Hillary passes out corny party favors to the Russians as her State Department botches the language. Gitmo is closing without a plan B for people who are self-described terrorists to the bone. Troops are leaving Iraq to go to Afghanistan, where the President strengthens their morale by telling them that we aren't winning. Federal takeover of health insurance will be financed by faux savings from the digitization of medical records, as businesses are "saved" the cost of employees' insurance by yet higher taxes.
Is there a bright spot? Well, Obama made a commitment to charter schools and merit pay for teachers. Notably absent was any mention of vouchers. The head of the NEA is pleased. Should anyone else be?
As the President's true ideological commitments become clear and his lack of administrative experience becomes painfully evident, citizens can only hope for a political miracle to rescue them from a morass that challenges the Carter years for its intransigence and the candidacy of George McGovern for its sheer radicalism.
18 comments:
"...citizens can only hope for a political miracle to rescue them from a morass that challenges the Carter years for its intransigence and the candidacy of George McGovern for its sheer radicalism." Dang, Doc, a tad bit of hyperbole? It hasn't even been 100 days yet and he's already on Carter's level LOL
His approval ratings are lower than Carter's at the same point, and he's got the same tendency to try to do everything, thereby accomplishing nothing. Another Democrat who rises from obscurity with little experience and captures the WH in a time of national discouragement. Worrisome to those of us old enough to remember Carter.
We note that you don't dispute the McGovernite radicalism.
The inclusion of the word "faux" caught my attention, as I used it in a "cartoon" to say "Barack is faux change."
You can see the cartoon at http://bobbywarren.blogspot.com/2009/02/oooh-be-scared-obama-is-gearing-up-for.html.
I don't dispute anything from my idol ;>)
Ah, our blessed sycophants!
The Carter days may have been better, because he was oftne at odds with congress even though they were of the same party. This at least led to some gridlock. For now, it seems that Obama pretty much gets what he wants, and that is not good.
Give the Obama a chance to catch up to Carter, or better, Congress to realize where it is politically with a flailing President. It's only been seven weeks.
"It is the politics of envy gone wild to be indignant that someone has more rather than to provide that everyone can have enough."
Could it be that it's not so much the politics of envy behind the desire to increase taxes on the very wealthy but, rather, (1) the worry that extreme wealth disrupts the democratic process by concentrating political power in the hands of very few, and (2) the belief that those who made their money in this society couldn't have done it without relying on a large portion of our natural and social resources and, therefore, owe the society a larger portion (in the form of taxes) in return?
JB,
The very wealthy already pay much more in taxes than people at my level do. They also already give back in terms of creating wealth and jobs in the first place. I don't create jobs or wealth.
Christine: I note that you didn't say anything about #1 in my post. Does that mean you agree with me on that point?
JB,
No, I do not agree with your #1. I think it is laughable to suggest that the Democrats are worried about power resting with the few. It's more a matter of which few, wealthy people they want to have that political power.
Also, I don't believe punitive taxes will do anything to curb political power of a given group. Such taxes simply cause their behavior to change in order to avoid the tax when possible. Higher capital gains tax rates result in fewer assets being sold.
Luxury taxes result in lowered spending on those goods which of course has a much greater effect on the not so wealthy people providing the good or service.
For unavoidable taxes such as income taxes, the wealthy just have less to spend on things like home improvements, vacations, eating out, cars, investing in new businesses, etc.. Of course if you think all these activities are bad and should be curbed, higher taxes are a great idea.
Christine: I figured you probably didn't. For my own part, even though (a) I think ##1&2 are the right views to take concerning taxation on the wealthy, and (b) that many (even some Democrats) do in fact take those views, and (3) that we as a society already recognize the dangers and responsibilities expressed in ##1&2 and have instituted laws accordingly, I still admit (as my original post attests) that many who want to tax the wealthy want to do so out of envy, as SWNID suggested. In other words, I do not take as absolute a stand against SWNID's original suggestion as you appear to take against mine. Perhaps if you recognized that some of the assumptions you made in arguing against ##1&2 are unwarranted, you would be less inclined toward such an inflexible position yourself. ... Or perhaps not.
To clarify: we use the phrase "politics of envy" rather than "economics of envy" deliberately. We don't insist that those who advocate higher taxes for the rich are motivated by envy. They may have high minded motivations. We do think, however, that the political appeal of such policies--what sells the idea to the electorate--has more to do with envy than with any demonstrable benefit or moral principle at stake.
As to the specific rationales for higher taxes on the rich that JB suggests, does not a tax system that taxes at a percentage of income and then imposes progressively higher rates on higher incomes already account for the disparities?
Certainly it addresses the disparities, as I suggested in #3 of my last post. Whether it accounts for them—in the sense of appropriately addressing them, which I understand may not have been your intent—is another question altogether. To answer it, a number of considerations must be taken into account, including Christine's point about the resulting economic disincentives and my point about the resulting imbalance of political power. My worry is that we sometimes overlook these subtleties and exaggerate our differences in an effort to distance ourselves from the opposition.
We doubt very much that a concentration of political power in the hands of a few is really what's driving the discussion about higher taxes on the rich. And in any case, tax rates would have to be confiscatory to make a dent in that issue. If anything, will the higher-taxed wealthy not use their remaining wealth even more deliberately to influence the political system when it's been demonstrated to them that the government can tax them at ever higher rates?
Every discussion of this subject that we hear is driven by the notion of economic fairness (too often mislabeled "social justice," but that's another point): everyone participates in the economy but some have been left out of the growth. Along the way, high-tax advocates simply assume that taxing the rich benefits the not-rich. We SWNIDishly ask how that is the case when higher tax rates discourage investment that benefits most people economically, even if it benefits some more than others, and when government spending only rarely brings the same economic growth as private spending (based on the observation that people are more careful with their own money than with other people's).
Of course, we could presently be duped by rich guys who are exercising a disproportionate influence on our political thinking.
Most sinister is Obama's veiled ideology that unwittingly leaks into his policy-making. You, sir, should write an article on his "non-ideology" that has changed stem cell policy and abortion policy abroad. The broad acceptance of his claim to be making policy decisions from the philosophical bunker of non-ideology demonstrates how clueless people are to their respective biases.
-BFox
If anything, will the higher-taxed wealthy not use their remaining wealth even more deliberately to influence the political system when it's been demonstrated to them that the government can tax them at ever higher rates?
SWIND said this so much better than I could.
Personally I believe that the motivation behind taxing the rich, or any group for that matter, is because those in power can and because our government is naturally geared toward growth. And that growth often comes at the expense of the private sector. It's easier from a political standpoint to tax the wealthy because they are fewer in number.
I would love to see the federal government's size relative to the rest of the economy shrink or at least stop growing. This has not happened in my lifetime as far as I'm aware, but at least at times the growth has been slowed.
President Obama and congress seem bent on accelerating that growth.
"I would love to see the federal government's size relative to the rest of the economy shrink or at least stop growing."
As would I. Unfortunately, as you point out, "President Obama and congress seem bent on accelerating that growth."
Post a Comment