Obama's America

He promises higher taxes, more regulation, less trade and less opportunity.
By Pete De Pont
Thursday, April 23, 2008

Nine months from now, the 44th president will be inaugurated. Looking at the debates, votes cast and money raised in this year's presidential primary races, the next president may not only be a Democrat, but Barack Obama, the most liberal of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate.

Add the announced retirement of six Republican senators and 29 Republican House members (compared with just seven House Democrats) and the Democrats are likely to control both the House and the Senate with much bigger majorities than they do today.

So both the next president and the new congressional majorities will be much more liberal than the officeholders they have replaced, and that will result in a broad-reaching, socialist-leaning, greatly expanded American government.

* * *

Four significant public policy changes are certain: the size, scope and spending of the federal government will substantially expand; income taxes will go up; protectionism will replace free trade; and a commitment to global internationalism will saddle America with a broad Kyoto global warming agreement that, according to the U.N. Climate Treaty Secretariat, should exempt China and India.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed increasing annual federal spending, respectively, by $226 billion and $303 billion – the Obama total being about a 10% increase. Neither of them as president would likely limit any spending – not entitlements, not earmarks, not farm subsidies.

In the past four years, income tax cuts have been good for the American economy, raising government tax revenues by $785 billion, reducing the deficit, and helping to create more than eight million new jobs and 52 consecutive months of job growth prior to the slowdown at the beginning of this year. A Democratic administration's tax increases are likely to be substantial: Mr. Obama proposes raising top income tax rates to 39.6% from 35%, capital gains tax rates to perhaps 28% from the current 15%, dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%, and top estate tax rates back up to 55%. And he wants to raise substantially or abolish the $102,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax. "He is indeed a redistributionist," said blogger and Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan after watching Mr. Obama's answer to a tax question in last week's presidential debate.

Protectionism will replace free trade as American policy, even though trade creates domestic jobs. Foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. employ five million people (think Honda's 16,000 or Nokia's 6,000), and America's exports of goods and services employs another 11 million. But earlier this month Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement by suspending the requirement that Congress vote up or down for such a treaty. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama want to repeal or significantly modify Nafta, which Mr. Obama says has never "been good for America." Their protectionist America would limit international trade agreements, likely leading to anti-American protectionism by other nations.

Of course higher taxes and broad protectionism are not new ideas, they were tried by Herbert Hoover and led to the Great Depression.

* * *

Then will come dramatic public policy changes in the areas of labor law, free speech, election laws and national energy policy.

Significant labor law changes will likely start with the elimination of secret ballots for union organizing elections, so that unions can verbally "ask" workers if they would like to join (read: intimidate them into saying yes). Then may come repeal of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act provision that allows states to enact "right to work" laws – 22 of them have done so – that allow workers to take jobs even if they decide not to join a union.

Next would come some free-speech changes, like the reinstitution of the "fairness doctrine" that requires broadcast radio and television stations to give equal time to both sides of any public policy on-air discussions. There was such a Federal Communications Commission rule that was abandoned 20 years ago, but liberals want it back in order to stifle conservative talk radio. Such a return of government regulation of free speech would create a very different First Amendment America.

* * *

Finally would come a vast energy and global-warming-oriented policy that would begin limiting the energy resources America needs to prosper. U.S. domestic crude oil field production has fallen by nearly half since 1970, but additional offshore oil and gas drilling would continue to be prohibited, for Mr. Obama even opposes existing Gulf of Mexico oil drilling. Off the east and west coasts there is a 19-year supply of natural gas and enough oil to replace our oil imports for 25 years, but access to it will not be permitted. No new nuclear power plants have been approved since the 1970s, and liberalism's antinuclear sentiment bodes ill for any significant new ones.

Perhaps the best example of the new energy liberalism is its attitude toward coal. Kansas needs additional electricity, but the state government recently banned the construction of two new electricity generators in an existing coal fired plant, the reason being the additional greenhouse gasses the plant would emit. The state Legislature overrode the ban, but Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, a Democrat, vetoed the bill, thereby validating America's first substantial step to stop the use of the coal-based power that supplies about half of our electricity.

So America's energy policy in the new administration may be no additional nuclear, coal, or oil and natural gas power generation, which leaves us with only windmill, solar, biomass, and geothermal for additional power needs. Those sources combined provide about 2.4% of our electrical generation sources.

* * *

With such policies, we would be a far more regulated, far less prosperous nation offering far less opportunity. The 23% of Americans who identify themselves as liberals may applaud, but for the rest of us it would be an unfortunate outcome.