Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
We almost had a really interesting conversation about taxes in the waning days of the election. Almost.
To the surprise of few, it was discovered that Barack Obama favors something called "redistributionism." John McCain, it was discovered, opposes it -- which also surprised a lot of people.
To a certain extent, the outrage from folks on the right, at times including yours truly, over Obama's response to "Joe the Plumber" was overdone. It was, after all, Teddy Roosevelt -- McCain's hero -- who introduced the progressive income tax for precisely the purpose of spreading the wealth around. The maverick's campaign saddlebags are heavy with redistribution policies that redistribute wealth as well.
I still believe that redistribution for its own sake is little more than institutionalized covetousness. But that's a subject for another day. What was left out of the national tax conversation was the reality of the situation: America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it. In fact, we're one of the most progressive countries in the world in this regard.
Now, first let me vent a peeve. Many people think "progressive" means "good," even though something can be progressive and bad, too. When economists refer to a "progressive" income tax, they merely mean a tax rate that increases as you move up the income ladder. (Right now in the U.S., the poor pay somewhere between 0 percent and 10 percent in federal income tax. The middle class pays 15 percent to 28 percent, and the highest earners pay 33 percent or 35 percent.) But most liberals also think that the income tax is "progressive" in the same sense that fair-trade coffee and weepy acoustic-guitar college music are progressive -- i.e. good and enlightened.
Either way, the U.S. tax code is a lot more progressive than you might think. A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population." Our tax system is, in fact, the most "pro-poor," according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country's save Ireland. That's right, we're more progressive than France and Sweden.
The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.
Lower- and middle-income workers pay a lot in other forms of taxation, particularly regressive payroll and sales taxes. Indeed, that's one reason Obama wants to offer the middle class a tax cut. I don't like his version of it, but I think he's right that the middle class deserves some tax relief.
But what all Americans need is tax reform. Our tax code is outrageously impenetrable. And we've built a system that treats the wealthy like an inexhaustible natural resource.
Experts on economic development have long noted what they sometimes call the "oil curse." Countries with huge oil reserves become economically wealthy but democratically impoverished, because the government can fund itself without taxing the middle class. As a result, the middle class demands less accountability from government because, heck, they didn't pay for it. (No taxation, no representation.) In the process, the people become subjects rather than citizens.
Both Obama and McCain have a tendency to see villainy as an explanation for our economic woes. Obama thinks opposing tax increases is unneighborly and selfish. McCain has a long habit of denouncing Wall Street "greed."
One moral hazard of such attitudes is that the investor class will start applying its entrepreneurial skills to protecting its existing wealth from the tax collector rather than trying to create more wealth.
But the greater danger is that millions of Americans might believe that all that is keeping them from the good life is the tightfistedness of people doing better than them and a government unwilling to pry those wealthy fingers open. That's a recipe for an unhealthy political culture.
A sane tax code, under any president, would be simple, clear and direct. We're not going to give up on redistribution in the form of, say, the earned income tax credit. But it's important that the working and middle classes feel as if government spending comes out of their wallets, too. Otherwise, the line between citizen and subject is blurred and the costs of government are seen as someone else's problem.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Peggy the Moocher
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. No matter who moves into the White House, Peggy has good reason to do a happy dance. The plain, ugly fact is that both major political parties are committed to spreading the wealth in one form or another. It's all just a question of how much and how quickly.
Who is Peggy the Moocher? She's Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Fla., who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was "the most memorable time of my life." Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he's gonna help me."
You can't blame Peggy the Moocher for viewing Obama as the superior Santa Claus. With a relentless messianic campaign, a grievance-mongering wife touting him as the country's soul fixer and a national infomercial promising to take care of every need from night classes to medical bills to rent and fuel-efficient cars, Obama effectively channeled Oprah Winfrey's Big Give.
"Everybody gets a car!" "Everybody gets a car!" And gas. And mortgage payment relief.
But the damning reality for fiscal conservatives is that John McCain's plan for homeowners underwater on their mortgages was even more generous than Obama's.
His $300 billion "rescue" involved directing the Treasury Secretary to "purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers." That was on top of the trillion-plus-dollar "bank" bailout supported by both presidential candidates, the White House and the Democratic leadership; the $85-plus billion to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; and the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie. And who knows what else we'll be redistributing to the indebted states of New York, California, Massachusetts and all the other Peggy the Moochers, large and small, lining up for their piece of the bailout pie.
McCain assailed massive government spending -- while promising to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership and retention at all costs. It was the Republican, not the Democrat, who entrusted the Treasury Department to renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation. Both private and public entities are planning for a McCain-esque homeowner salvation plan for borrowers in the red.
It's a swell idea for everyone who bought overpriced homes with Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Those who rented, bought within their means or locked into fixed-rate loans that they could afford are out of luck, naturally. The only sane thing to do in response? Stop paying your mortgage and get in line.
"E Pluribus Unum" is no longer our national motto. These three words are: "Do For Me." As in: What will the government do for me?
On Election Day, the federal government quietly reported that it will borrow a record $550 billion in the current quarter to fund the bipartisan bailout. The Treasury Department plans to borrow more than a half-trillion dollars in the current October-December quarter and another $368 billion in the first three months of next year.
Estimated total for the whole year: $1.4 trillion. Democrats plan to add another $500 billion in "stimulus"-palooza legislation. Credit card companies, utilities, insurance companies, and car loan and student loan debtors await their turn.
The bailout bonanza blurred the differences between the two major political parties, but the Peggy the Moocher video shows there are still basically two starkly contrasting views of government in this country among the rank-and-file electorate. Unlike Joe the Plumber, Peggy sees government as her salvation and the president as her subsidizer-in-chief. She voted with the expectation that the Spreader of Wealth will reward her with payback. Joe just wants Washington to leave him alone to fend for himself.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. No matter who moves into the White House, Peggy has good reason to do a happy dance. The plain, ugly fact is that both major political parties are committed to spreading the wealth in one form or another. It's all just a question of how much and how quickly.
Who is Peggy the Moocher? She's Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Fla., who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was "the most memorable time of my life." Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he's gonna help me."
You can't blame Peggy the Moocher for viewing Obama as the superior Santa Claus. With a relentless messianic campaign, a grievance-mongering wife touting him as the country's soul fixer and a national infomercial promising to take care of every need from night classes to medical bills to rent and fuel-efficient cars, Obama effectively channeled Oprah Winfrey's Big Give.
"Everybody gets a car!" "Everybody gets a car!" And gas. And mortgage payment relief.
But the damning reality for fiscal conservatives is that John McCain's plan for homeowners underwater on their mortgages was even more generous than Obama's.
His $300 billion "rescue" involved directing the Treasury Secretary to "purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers." That was on top of the trillion-plus-dollar "bank" bailout supported by both presidential candidates, the White House and the Democratic leadership; the $85-plus billion to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; and the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie. And who knows what else we'll be redistributing to the indebted states of New York, California, Massachusetts and all the other Peggy the Moochers, large and small, lining up for their piece of the bailout pie.
McCain assailed massive government spending -- while promising to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership and retention at all costs. It was the Republican, not the Democrat, who entrusted the Treasury Department to renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation. Both private and public entities are planning for a McCain-esque homeowner salvation plan for borrowers in the red.
It's a swell idea for everyone who bought overpriced homes with Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Those who rented, bought within their means or locked into fixed-rate loans that they could afford are out of luck, naturally. The only sane thing to do in response? Stop paying your mortgage and get in line.
"E Pluribus Unum" is no longer our national motto. These three words are: "Do For Me." As in: What will the government do for me?
On Election Day, the federal government quietly reported that it will borrow a record $550 billion in the current quarter to fund the bipartisan bailout. The Treasury Department plans to borrow more than a half-trillion dollars in the current October-December quarter and another $368 billion in the first three months of next year.
Estimated total for the whole year: $1.4 trillion. Democrats plan to add another $500 billion in "stimulus"-palooza legislation. Credit card companies, utilities, insurance companies, and car loan and student loan debtors await their turn.
The bailout bonanza blurred the differences between the two major political parties, but the Peggy the Moocher video shows there are still basically two starkly contrasting views of government in this country among the rank-and-file electorate. Unlike Joe the Plumber, Peggy sees government as her salvation and the president as her subsidizer-in-chief. She voted with the expectation that the Spreader of Wealth will reward her with payback. Joe just wants Washington to leave him alone to fend for himself.
The Best Message: Racism is Dead
Laura Hollis
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
As Republicans and (some) conservatives sift through the rubble of the 2008 campaign to find remnants of hope for the future, there are a few things that stand out loud and clear – things which can and should form the basis for the Republicans’ message as they move forward.
The absolute most important message is this: RACISM IS DEAD. By that I do not mean that there are no individuals out there who harbor nasty sentiments about people who don’t look like them. But it does mean that it is long past time to announce that the American system works.
There are those who have been trumpeting this message for some time. And there is plenty of proof. We have, as a nation, already seen two black Supreme Court justices. A black Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, who went on to be the first of two black Secretaries of State. And this does not even include the innumerable successful black businessmen and women, other elected officials, authors, musicians, educators, actors, economists, scientists, and so many other African-American citizens who contribute meaningfully to the fabric of American life each day.
Now, an African-American man has been elected President of the United States – the leader of the free world, and (arguably) the most powerful man on the planet.
It’s heady stuff. And it is a powerful message for Republicans. Why? First, Republicans (and I am speaking here of registered voters) can take a good deal of credit for Obama’s election. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Obama took the overwhelming majority of the African-American vote. But this alone would not have elected him. Obama was supported – just as he was cheered on in Grant Park last night – by Republicans and white voters in huge numbers.
Second, Obama’s election confirms what Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years – that Americans are willing to elect a person whose ideas they share, regardless of that person’s race. (And Hillary’s Clinton’s 12 million supporters, along with the nearly 50 million who voted for Sarah Palin on John McCain’s ticket, also demonstrate that Americans are willing to repose trust in a woman to lead.) Conversely, those who did not vote for Obama opposed him because of his ideology, his viewpoints, and his policy proposals, not his racial background.
Most fundamentally, however, this is a core message for Republicans for the same reason that it is good news for all Americans. The system works. In the American system, a reasonably stable family life, a decent education, responsible personal choices, and a strong work ethic ensure that anyone in this country can do just about anything they wish.
This is a historically conservative message. This is the system that conservatives have always championed. This is the system that made Barack Obama a very wealthy man. And this is the system that has catapulted him to the Presidency.
While all eyes are understandably on the new President-elect, Republicans and conservatives need now to turn Americ ans’ attention to themselves as well. The message that needs to go out, like a steady drumbeat, from here on out is, “No more excuses.” Obama is proof: if you do not make something of yourself in this country, then you can no longer blame the system. You can no longer blame entrenched racism. If a black man can persuade a majority of Americans of all races, creeds, colors, and backgrounds to give him the job as Commander-in-Chief, then there is no excuse why anyone else cannot obtain what they need and want through hard work and personal initiative.
I fully understand that liberals will fight this message tooth and nail. Regrettably, I fully expect President Obama to fight it. I hope that I am wrong. But his message all along has been the system is broken; it’s someone else’s fault; we need to take from them and give it to you; you can’t do it on your own.
Democrats cannot have it both ways. Or perhaps, more accurately, Republicans must no longer permit them to have it both ways.
This must be the Republicans’ message. But it should also be President Obama’s message. It should be the Democrats’ message. If it is, then we will know that, like so many Americans, they believe in our system of government, in the economic foundations that have provided our prosperity, and in the limitless genius of the American people.
If it is not; if President Obama and liberal Democrats continue to insist that African-Americans somehow manage to be hobbled by the very same system that has elevated him to the highest office in the land; that they cannot establish businesses, create jobs, build wealth, strengthen their families, and educate their children, as so many other Americans have, then we will know all we need to know. We will know that the Democrats’ attitude towards disadvantaged Americans - and their approach in office - will not be one of facilitating opportunity and unleashing human creativity, but of exploiting human misery, and of crass political maneuvering to obtain a stranglehold over what will be an ever-larger class of dependent people for personal gain.
There is no other interpretation. Because, at its essence, the message that racism is dead is a message of achievement. It is a message of progress. It is a message of hope. For a man who just vaulted to the Presidency on that very principle, that does not seem too audacious.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
As Republicans and (some) conservatives sift through the rubble of the 2008 campaign to find remnants of hope for the future, there are a few things that stand out loud and clear – things which can and should form the basis for the Republicans’ message as they move forward.
The absolute most important message is this: RACISM IS DEAD. By that I do not mean that there are no individuals out there who harbor nasty sentiments about people who don’t look like them. But it does mean that it is long past time to announce that the American system works.
There are those who have been trumpeting this message for some time. And there is plenty of proof. We have, as a nation, already seen two black Supreme Court justices. A black Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, who went on to be the first of two black Secretaries of State. And this does not even include the innumerable successful black businessmen and women, other elected officials, authors, musicians, educators, actors, economists, scientists, and so many other African-American citizens who contribute meaningfully to the fabric of American life each day.
Now, an African-American man has been elected President of the United States – the leader of the free world, and (arguably) the most powerful man on the planet.
It’s heady stuff. And it is a powerful message for Republicans. Why? First, Republicans (and I am speaking here of registered voters) can take a good deal of credit for Obama’s election. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Obama took the overwhelming majority of the African-American vote. But this alone would not have elected him. Obama was supported – just as he was cheered on in Grant Park last night – by Republicans and white voters in huge numbers.
Second, Obama’s election confirms what Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years – that Americans are willing to elect a person whose ideas they share, regardless of that person’s race. (And Hillary’s Clinton’s 12 million supporters, along with the nearly 50 million who voted for Sarah Palin on John McCain’s ticket, also demonstrate that Americans are willing to repose trust in a woman to lead.) Conversely, those who did not vote for Obama opposed him because of his ideology, his viewpoints, and his policy proposals, not his racial background.
Most fundamentally, however, this is a core message for Republicans for the same reason that it is good news for all Americans. The system works. In the American system, a reasonably stable family life, a decent education, responsible personal choices, and a strong work ethic ensure that anyone in this country can do just about anything they wish.
This is a historically conservative message. This is the system that conservatives have always championed. This is the system that made Barack Obama a very wealthy man. And this is the system that has catapulted him to the Presidency.
While all eyes are understandably on the new President-elect, Republicans and conservatives need now to turn Americ ans’ attention to themselves as well. The message that needs to go out, like a steady drumbeat, from here on out is, “No more excuses.” Obama is proof: if you do not make something of yourself in this country, then you can no longer blame the system. You can no longer blame entrenched racism. If a black man can persuade a majority of Americans of all races, creeds, colors, and backgrounds to give him the job as Commander-in-Chief, then there is no excuse why anyone else cannot obtain what they need and want through hard work and personal initiative.
I fully understand that liberals will fight this message tooth and nail. Regrettably, I fully expect President Obama to fight it. I hope that I am wrong. But his message all along has been the system is broken; it’s someone else’s fault; we need to take from them and give it to you; you can’t do it on your own.
Democrats cannot have it both ways. Or perhaps, more accurately, Republicans must no longer permit them to have it both ways.
This must be the Republicans’ message. But it should also be President Obama’s message. It should be the Democrats’ message. If it is, then we will know that, like so many Americans, they believe in our system of government, in the economic foundations that have provided our prosperity, and in the limitless genius of the American people.
If it is not; if President Obama and liberal Democrats continue to insist that African-Americans somehow manage to be hobbled by the very same system that has elevated him to the highest office in the land; that they cannot establish businesses, create jobs, build wealth, strengthen their families, and educate their children, as so many other Americans have, then we will know all we need to know. We will know that the Democrats’ attitude towards disadvantaged Americans - and their approach in office - will not be one of facilitating opportunity and unleashing human creativity, but of exploiting human misery, and of crass political maneuvering to obtain a stranglehold over what will be an ever-larger class of dependent people for personal gain.
There is no other interpretation. Because, at its essence, the message that racism is dead is a message of achievement. It is a message of progress. It is a message of hope. For a man who just vaulted to the Presidency on that very principle, that does not seem too audacious.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Change You’ll Get
Americans will finally learn what Barack Obama really believes and really wants.
By Clifford D. May
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Who says you can’t have it all? The Democrats — the Left — now have the White House, control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governors’ mansions, a majority of state legislatures, the entertainment media, the elite news media, the unions, the educational establishment, the lion’s share of the philanthropic community, and increasing power over the courts.
Will President-elect Barack H. Obama use this awesome power to strengthen America’s defenses in a time of global conflict and repair America’s economy in a period of financial distress? Or will his goal be to solidify the Left’s grip for the long-term, for example by shutting down conservative talk radio and perhaps other pockets of media resistance, by growing the percentage of Americans dependent on government programs, and by using immigration policy and gerrymandering to create a permanent Democratic majority? Your guess is as good as mine.
Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, and Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, founder of modern intellectual conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish Congress. Here’s a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone is going to be sorely disappointed.
Thomas Jefferson famously said that “every generation needs a new revolution.” Could this be ours? I know: On Tuesday, we had an election, not an insurrection. But look up revolution in the dictionary and you’ll find it means “change” — sudden, radical, or fundamental change. Is that not what Obama has been promising?
The thing about revolutions is that very few succeed. The American Revolution was an exception in large measure because America’s founding revolutionaries were not utopians: They believed people had a right to govern themselves — even if they governed badly. They saw freedom as a means, but didn’t claim they could envision the ends. They understood that no system of government, however clever, can guarantee happiness — only the right to pursue that elusive state of being.
The more ambitious French Revolution that soon followed deteriorated into what became known as the Terror — mass executions that Robespierre defended as “prompt, severe, inflexible justice.” Pace Zhou Enlai, it is not “too early to say” that the French Revolution was a failure.
In the 20th century, revolutions in Russian and China failed on a grander scale — millions of innocent people murdered, imprisoned, and tortured, again in the name of justice.
And soon it will be 30 years since Iran’s Revolution. We have no idea how much suffering theocratic fascism will inflict on the world.
But back to more prosaic matters: John McCain did not win the Republican primary — he did not defeat Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, et al. Rather, each of those campaigns imploded or eroded — and McCain was the last man left standing.
I thought it possible that something similar might happen in the general election. Had the race become a referendum on Obama — his lack of experience, his links with so many unsavory and radical characters — a majority of Americans might well have decided to at least wait a few years before giving him the keys to Air Force One.
In another era, the mainstream media might have seen it as their duty to probe deeply and reveal to the public as much about Obama as they could. But the days of a fiercely independent, disinterested, tough-but-fair press are over. Too many American journalists have become partisans, propagandists, and lackeys. This, also, is a kind of revolution.
In another era – say, four years ago — independent political groups would have focused the public’s attention on such issues. One reason that did not happen this time: restrictions on political speech — gussied up as “campaign-finance reform” and championed by none other than John McCain.
Those who helped the Swift Boat Veterans tell their tales about serving under John Kerry’s command were warned by their lawyers that it would cost them more than just money if they were responsible for ads questioning Obama’s fitness for office. They’d be served subpoenas and find themselves confronting hostile congressional committees. They might suffer other forms of harassment as well.
Of course, McCain himself could have forced this debate into the public square. But he was either unwilling or unable to do what needed to be done. Though a military man by breeding and training, as a candidate he shot rubber bullets and pulled his punches.
There were other factors, too — enough to fill books, and that will happen. So long as national security was the issue foremost on voters’ minds, McCain was a contender. But when the economy went into a tailspin, McCain threw away his advantage. He raced back to Washington in an effort to show he was a work horse, not a show horse. Huddling with the confused and querulous politicians who had caused the crisis did not enhance his image as an elder statesman.
Obama was well-advised to stay on the campaign trail and stay on message, continuing to offer “hope” and to promise “change.” Soon now, we’ll find out what that really means.
By Clifford D. May
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Who says you can’t have it all? The Democrats — the Left — now have the White House, control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governors’ mansions, a majority of state legislatures, the entertainment media, the elite news media, the unions, the educational establishment, the lion’s share of the philanthropic community, and increasing power over the courts.
Will President-elect Barack H. Obama use this awesome power to strengthen America’s defenses in a time of global conflict and repair America’s economy in a period of financial distress? Or will his goal be to solidify the Left’s grip for the long-term, for example by shutting down conservative talk radio and perhaps other pockets of media resistance, by growing the percentage of Americans dependent on government programs, and by using immigration policy and gerrymandering to create a permanent Democratic majority? Your guess is as good as mine.
Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, and Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, founder of modern intellectual conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish Congress. Here’s a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone is going to be sorely disappointed.
Thomas Jefferson famously said that “every generation needs a new revolution.” Could this be ours? I know: On Tuesday, we had an election, not an insurrection. But look up revolution in the dictionary and you’ll find it means “change” — sudden, radical, or fundamental change. Is that not what Obama has been promising?
The thing about revolutions is that very few succeed. The American Revolution was an exception in large measure because America’s founding revolutionaries were not utopians: They believed people had a right to govern themselves — even if they governed badly. They saw freedom as a means, but didn’t claim they could envision the ends. They understood that no system of government, however clever, can guarantee happiness — only the right to pursue that elusive state of being.
The more ambitious French Revolution that soon followed deteriorated into what became known as the Terror — mass executions that Robespierre defended as “prompt, severe, inflexible justice.” Pace Zhou Enlai, it is not “too early to say” that the French Revolution was a failure.
In the 20th century, revolutions in Russian and China failed on a grander scale — millions of innocent people murdered, imprisoned, and tortured, again in the name of justice.
And soon it will be 30 years since Iran’s Revolution. We have no idea how much suffering theocratic fascism will inflict on the world.
But back to more prosaic matters: John McCain did not win the Republican primary — he did not defeat Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, et al. Rather, each of those campaigns imploded or eroded — and McCain was the last man left standing.
I thought it possible that something similar might happen in the general election. Had the race become a referendum on Obama — his lack of experience, his links with so many unsavory and radical characters — a majority of Americans might well have decided to at least wait a few years before giving him the keys to Air Force One.
In another era, the mainstream media might have seen it as their duty to probe deeply and reveal to the public as much about Obama as they could. But the days of a fiercely independent, disinterested, tough-but-fair press are over. Too many American journalists have become partisans, propagandists, and lackeys. This, also, is a kind of revolution.
In another era – say, four years ago — independent political groups would have focused the public’s attention on such issues. One reason that did not happen this time: restrictions on political speech — gussied up as “campaign-finance reform” and championed by none other than John McCain.
Those who helped the Swift Boat Veterans tell their tales about serving under John Kerry’s command were warned by their lawyers that it would cost them more than just money if they were responsible for ads questioning Obama’s fitness for office. They’d be served subpoenas and find themselves confronting hostile congressional committees. They might suffer other forms of harassment as well.
Of course, McCain himself could have forced this debate into the public square. But he was either unwilling or unable to do what needed to be done. Though a military man by breeding and training, as a candidate he shot rubber bullets and pulled his punches.
There were other factors, too — enough to fill books, and that will happen. So long as national security was the issue foremost on voters’ minds, McCain was a contender. But when the economy went into a tailspin, McCain threw away his advantage. He raced back to Washington in an effort to show he was a work horse, not a show horse. Huddling with the confused and querulous politicians who had caused the crisis did not enhance his image as an elder statesman.
Obama was well-advised to stay on the campaign trail and stay on message, continuing to offer “hope” and to promise “change.” Soon now, we’ll find out what that really means.
Karl Marx is Not the Father of Capitalism
Wynton Hall
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama won for a simple reason: historical amnesia.
I once asked a room full of college students who the father of capitalism was.
Crickets began chirping as blank stares shot my way.
“Oh, come on,” I prompted. "Does anyone want to take a guess?”
Finally, one bold student blurted out, “Isn’t it Karl Marx?”
(That creaking sound you’re hearing is Adam Smith rolling over in his grave.)
Sadly, this is a true story. And sadly, this kind of economic and historical amnesia goes a long way toward explaining how the most far-Left candidate in American presidential history wound up in the White House.
The reason Sen. McCain’s “socialism” charges didn’t stick is precisely because “socialism” means little to voters who don’t know what the term even means. Public schools teach multicultural curriculum but seldom if ever the basics of free market economic principles.
But don’t take my word for it. Today, go out and ask five members of Sen. Obama’s target demographic—the 18 to 25-year old voter—to explain how capitalism works.
Then sit and wait for the crickets to begin chirping again.
Joe the Plumber understands free markets because he’s operated a business. But without proper economic education or real world experience, young people are left in economic darnkness.
And what about the 46 million Americans who don’t even pay taxes?
Do they understand that President-Elect Obama's economic designs only rattle an already rickety economic infrastructure? Of course not.
Republicans must bear much of the responsibility for not communicating these lessons clearly. Unlike Ronald Reagan (who majored in economics at Eureka College), Sen. McCain missed critical opportunities to play the role of “Educator in Chief.”
Take, for example, Sen. Obama’s “soak the rich” tax proposals. Sen. McCain missed huge opportunities to teach the American voter a lesson that Ronald Reagan pounded home often: businesses don’t pay taxes! Oh sure, on paper they pay taxes, but in reality they merely pass taxes along to consumers or cut jobs to make up the difference.
Here’s how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:
Reagan understood that you have to teach voters why Leftist policies are wrongheaded. He also understood that you have to pound home a message before it will stick.
Rebuilding the conservative message will demand that the next generation of conservative leaders do the same.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama won for a simple reason: historical amnesia.
I once asked a room full of college students who the father of capitalism was.
Crickets began chirping as blank stares shot my way.
“Oh, come on,” I prompted. "Does anyone want to take a guess?”
Finally, one bold student blurted out, “Isn’t it Karl Marx?”
(That creaking sound you’re hearing is Adam Smith rolling over in his grave.)
Sadly, this is a true story. And sadly, this kind of economic and historical amnesia goes a long way toward explaining how the most far-Left candidate in American presidential history wound up in the White House.
The reason Sen. McCain’s “socialism” charges didn’t stick is precisely because “socialism” means little to voters who don’t know what the term even means. Public schools teach multicultural curriculum but seldom if ever the basics of free market economic principles.
But don’t take my word for it. Today, go out and ask five members of Sen. Obama’s target demographic—the 18 to 25-year old voter—to explain how capitalism works.
Then sit and wait for the crickets to begin chirping again.
Joe the Plumber understands free markets because he’s operated a business. But without proper economic education or real world experience, young people are left in economic darnkness.
And what about the 46 million Americans who don’t even pay taxes?
Do they understand that President-Elect Obama's economic designs only rattle an already rickety economic infrastructure? Of course not.
Republicans must bear much of the responsibility for not communicating these lessons clearly. Unlike Ronald Reagan (who majored in economics at Eureka College), Sen. McCain missed critical opportunities to play the role of “Educator in Chief.”
Take, for example, Sen. Obama’s “soak the rich” tax proposals. Sen. McCain missed huge opportunities to teach the American voter a lesson that Ronald Reagan pounded home often: businesses don’t pay taxes! Oh sure, on paper they pay taxes, but in reality they merely pass taxes along to consumers or cut jobs to make up the difference.
Here’s how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:
Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can’t be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they’re going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians–and you’ve got plenty of them in the state legislature–to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we’re not going to tax you, we’re going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they’ll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he’s doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.They didn’t call Ronald Reagan the Great Communicator for nothing. That’s a pretty amazing quote, isn’t it? Especially in light of the recent financial meltdown and the rationale used to justify a $700 billion bailout. But here’s what’s even more amazing: Ronald Reagan said those words in July 1975, a full five years before winning the White House. Put simply, Reagan stayed “on message” for years and didn’t relent.
If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can’t be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver’s license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn’t far behind and nobody had to make that. There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!
Reagan understood that you have to teach voters why Leftist policies are wrongheaded. He also understood that you have to pound home a message before it will stick.
Rebuilding the conservative message will demand that the next generation of conservative leaders do the same.
Will Americans Really Vote to Fundamentally Transform America?
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Today, Americans decide on whether, in the words of Barack Obama last week, to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
That is really what this election is about, even though most of those voting for Barack Obama do not want to fundamentally transform America. That is Barack Obamas and the Democratic Partys agenda.
Why then are so many people likely to vote for the U.S. senator from Illinois?
They all have their reasons. But aside from those who hold left-wing views, relatively few want America fundamentally transformed. This can be seen by analyzing the largest groups voting for Barack Obama:
1. People who vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.
These are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats -- people who usually want more government in their lives, want bigger and stronger unions, dont trust Republicans, and/or have voted Democrat all their lives. Whatever their reasons for regularly voting Democrat, for most of these people, fundamentally transforming America is not one of them.
2. Black Americans
Black Americans regularly vote Democrat, but more will today than ever before. The possibility of a black president electrifies them in ways that no other minority group in America can fully relate to. Jews were happy and proud when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ran for vice-president in 2000. And Greek Americans felt similarly when Spiro Agnew and Michael Dukakis were candidates for national office. But little changed in Jewish or Greek Americans perceptions of themselves or of America.
For most blacks, however, the prospect of a black president symbolizes that they are truly part of America, and in one fell swoop helps undo the racist perception of black inferiority that more than a few blacks believe many whites hold. In short, it gives black Americans the thing all humans most yearn for -- respect from others and self-respect, i.e., dignity. Left-wing blacks, like left-wing whites, want America fundamentally transformed, but that is not the primary reason most blacks are so excited by an Obama victory.
3. Hispanic Americans
According to all analyses of Hispanic voting, Hispanics vote increasingly Democratic because they perceive Republicans as hostile to them. Their social values are far more conservative than liberal, but the immigration issue is a far larger concern for most Hispanics. In fact, if Barack Obama were a conservative Democrat he would get even more Hispanic votes. So, with this group, too, fundamentally transforming America plays little or no role in the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama.
4. Single women
Single women of all colors and ethnicities vote Democrat. They do so primarily because many of them are financially dependent on the state, because they have no man to depend on, nor a husband who might influence them politically (married women are considerably more likely to vote Republican than single women). Whatever their reasons for voting for Barack Obama, transforming America is not one of them. They would vote for any Democrat.
5. Young people
Large numbers of young people are apparently passionately committed to Barack Obama. In their case, the senators youth, his being black, and his charisma are major factors. But for them, transforming America is particularly appealing. That is why Obama used these words before a college audience. Young people tend to think their elders have made a mess of the world and that they will transform it because they are smarter and more idealistic than those who lived before them. They do not know how hard it has been to make a country as great as America and have been educated to see its flaws far more clearly than its far greater virtues.
6. Leftists.
Leftists by definition want to fundamentally transform America. That is their primary reason for voting for Obama. His intelligence, charisma, and being black are only bonuses. Most important to the left is changing America. The farther left you go, the greater the disenchantment with America as it now exists and the greater the yearning to fundamentally transform it in the image of the vision they have for it.
If Barack Obama wins and he is given a Democratic-controlled Congress, the United States will indeed be transformed.
There will be, in Charles Krauthammers words, an unprecedented expansion of government power.
Economic growth will be slowed in favor of achieving economic equality.
Unions will be allowed to abolish secret ballots.
Serious attempts will be made to shut down the most effective opposition to the left -- talk radio.
The defense budget will be severely decreased.
Judges will be chosen based on their commitment to empathize with the downtrodden (Obamas own stated criterion for choosing judges), not based on their commitment to judging according to neutral rules that are blind to the individuals status in life.
Same-sex marriage will become national law as the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed and liberal judges rule that defining marriage as man-woman is unconstitutional.
Coal, nuclear energy, and new drilling will be discouraged and dependency on foreign oil will therefore rise while rationing of energy is instituted.
Companies will seek to do more and more business abroad as they become taxed more than in any other Western country.
Israel will be pressured to make peace.
America will leave Iraq whether or not Iraq is ready for us to do so, thereby increasing Islamic terror there and elsewhere.
Parents will have fewer years to instill their values in their children, as earlier and earlier education becomes the norm.
Judeo-Christian values, the founding values of America, will continue to recede in influence as America becomes more and more a secular-left country like those of Western European.
And when all this -- and much more -- transforms America, no one American will be able to argue they didnt know. Barack Obama promised it.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Today, Americans decide on whether, in the words of Barack Obama last week, to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
That is really what this election is about, even though most of those voting for Barack Obama do not want to fundamentally transform America. That is Barack Obamas and the Democratic Partys agenda.
Why then are so many people likely to vote for the U.S. senator from Illinois?
They all have their reasons. But aside from those who hold left-wing views, relatively few want America fundamentally transformed. This can be seen by analyzing the largest groups voting for Barack Obama:
1. People who vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.
These are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats -- people who usually want more government in their lives, want bigger and stronger unions, dont trust Republicans, and/or have voted Democrat all their lives. Whatever their reasons for regularly voting Democrat, for most of these people, fundamentally transforming America is not one of them.
2. Black Americans
Black Americans regularly vote Democrat, but more will today than ever before. The possibility of a black president electrifies them in ways that no other minority group in America can fully relate to. Jews were happy and proud when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ran for vice-president in 2000. And Greek Americans felt similarly when Spiro Agnew and Michael Dukakis were candidates for national office. But little changed in Jewish or Greek Americans perceptions of themselves or of America.
For most blacks, however, the prospect of a black president symbolizes that they are truly part of America, and in one fell swoop helps undo the racist perception of black inferiority that more than a few blacks believe many whites hold. In short, it gives black Americans the thing all humans most yearn for -- respect from others and self-respect, i.e., dignity. Left-wing blacks, like left-wing whites, want America fundamentally transformed, but that is not the primary reason most blacks are so excited by an Obama victory.
3. Hispanic Americans
According to all analyses of Hispanic voting, Hispanics vote increasingly Democratic because they perceive Republicans as hostile to them. Their social values are far more conservative than liberal, but the immigration issue is a far larger concern for most Hispanics. In fact, if Barack Obama were a conservative Democrat he would get even more Hispanic votes. So, with this group, too, fundamentally transforming America plays little or no role in the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama.
4. Single women
Single women of all colors and ethnicities vote Democrat. They do so primarily because many of them are financially dependent on the state, because they have no man to depend on, nor a husband who might influence them politically (married women are considerably more likely to vote Republican than single women). Whatever their reasons for voting for Barack Obama, transforming America is not one of them. They would vote for any Democrat.
5. Young people
Large numbers of young people are apparently passionately committed to Barack Obama. In their case, the senators youth, his being black, and his charisma are major factors. But for them, transforming America is particularly appealing. That is why Obama used these words before a college audience. Young people tend to think their elders have made a mess of the world and that they will transform it because they are smarter and more idealistic than those who lived before them. They do not know how hard it has been to make a country as great as America and have been educated to see its flaws far more clearly than its far greater virtues.
6. Leftists.
Leftists by definition want to fundamentally transform America. That is their primary reason for voting for Obama. His intelligence, charisma, and being black are only bonuses. Most important to the left is changing America. The farther left you go, the greater the disenchantment with America as it now exists and the greater the yearning to fundamentally transform it in the image of the vision they have for it.
If Barack Obama wins and he is given a Democratic-controlled Congress, the United States will indeed be transformed.
There will be, in Charles Krauthammers words, an unprecedented expansion of government power.
Economic growth will be slowed in favor of achieving economic equality.
Unions will be allowed to abolish secret ballots.
Serious attempts will be made to shut down the most effective opposition to the left -- talk radio.
The defense budget will be severely decreased.
Judges will be chosen based on their commitment to empathize with the downtrodden (Obamas own stated criterion for choosing judges), not based on their commitment to judging according to neutral rules that are blind to the individuals status in life.
Same-sex marriage will become national law as the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed and liberal judges rule that defining marriage as man-woman is unconstitutional.
Coal, nuclear energy, and new drilling will be discouraged and dependency on foreign oil will therefore rise while rationing of energy is instituted.
Companies will seek to do more and more business abroad as they become taxed more than in any other Western country.
Israel will be pressured to make peace.
America will leave Iraq whether or not Iraq is ready for us to do so, thereby increasing Islamic terror there and elsewhere.
Parents will have fewer years to instill their values in their children, as earlier and earlier education becomes the norm.
Judeo-Christian values, the founding values of America, will continue to recede in influence as America becomes more and more a secular-left country like those of Western European.
And when all this -- and much more -- transforms America, no one American will be able to argue they didnt know. Barack Obama promised it.
Monday, November 3, 2008
United States of France?
The same policies that have failed in Europe won’t work here.
By James Sherk
Monday, November 3, 2008
America’s financial system is on government life support. Unemployment is rising almost as quickly as the stock market is falling. Small wonder that many voters find Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for “hope and change” appealing. Who doesn’t want change right now?
But hope and change are vague terms that allow everyone to project onto Obama’s campaign the changes they want. Far fewer voters realize what changes, exactly, Obama has promised: changes that would essentially change America — into France.
America is the world’s leading economic power because American workers are productive and entrepreneurial. The U.S. economy — and government policy — place relatively few barriers in the way of upward mobility. Americans who work hard can rise as high and far as their skills will take them, and many do.
Of the poorest fifth of Americans, three-fifths work their way into a higher income quintile within a decade. Remarkably, many of the much-maligned “rich” weren’t born that way. Only two-fifths of the top 1 percent of earners today earned as much ten years ago. The rest worked their way to the top during the last decade. Tens of millions of American families really do live the American Dream.
Today that dream seems under attack. High energy costs and the resulting financial crisis have dealt a severe blow to the American economy. But these are not uniquely American problems. These economic storms have also buffeted France, Germany, Britain and most other developed countries. Americas dynamic economic system didn’t cause this crisis any more than Germany’s heavily regulated system did.
Now consider the change Obama wants to bring. He promises to raise the top tax rate on the most financially successful Americans to confiscatory levels above 50 percent. Two senior Democratic committee chairmen have also proposed taxing the IRA and 401(k) retirement accounts that most Americans hold.
Obama wants to nationalize most health care, paid for with your tax dollars, and to spend hundreds of billions more on a raft of new federal programs. One pays workers who take jobs that pay less than their previous employer. Obama has pledged to take away secret ballot organizing elections so unions can publicly pressure workers into joining, or else. Once unions organize companies, the government would micromanage them, with federal bureaucrats writing every detail of new labor contracts.
None of these policies would have done anything to stop the current crisis. But they would remake America’s entrepreneurial economy in the image of a European social welfare state. Most Western European economies are characterized by high taxes, expansive social programs, nationalized medical care, high union coverage — often whether workers want a union or not — and tight government controls over business decisions. It is much easier for business owners in Italy to divorce their wives than to fire underperforming workers.
The results have been predictable. High taxes give European workers little reason to try to get ahead — the government simply takes most of your extra earnings. When promotions come only on the basis of union seniority, and poor performers are guaranteed a job no matter how little work they do, workers have little reason to become more productive. Employers hire only when they absolutely must. Billions of tax dollars are wasted on politically important but economically unproductive “investments.”
This has lead to widespread stagnation. Unemployment in Europe was 60 percent higher than the United States last year, and the unemployed stayed out of work much longer. Even in the current downturn, workers in the United States who lose their jobs typically find new work within three to four months. In Europe the average worker stays unemployed for over a year. American workers are much more productive than Europeans — worker productivity in the European Union grows at less than two-thirds the rate of America. Unsurprisingly, American workers earn 40 percent more than their European counterparts. The French model doesn’t work.
That’s why France and the rest of Europe are abandoning it. France, Germany and most of continental Europe have reformed their economies, lowering taxes, loosening labor market restrictions, and reducing the scope of their social programs. Europe can no longer afford an economy that discourages productivity and entrepreneurship.
But even as Europe abandons the French model, Sen. Obama wants to embrace it. The same policies that have failed in Europe won’t work here. Higher taxes on saving and working, government bureaucrats deciding how many workers companies can hire and how much — or little — workers will earn, government run health care, and not quite voluntary union membership discourage entrepreneurs from taking risks and starting new businesses. They discourage productivity and innovation. They discourage growth and prosperity.
Sen. Obama proposes changing America, but change is a vague promise. Most Americans want to change course, but the change Obama promises would change America into a social welfare state where the American Dream is all but impossible.
By James Sherk
Monday, November 3, 2008
America’s financial system is on government life support. Unemployment is rising almost as quickly as the stock market is falling. Small wonder that many voters find Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for “hope and change” appealing. Who doesn’t want change right now?
But hope and change are vague terms that allow everyone to project onto Obama’s campaign the changes they want. Far fewer voters realize what changes, exactly, Obama has promised: changes that would essentially change America — into France.
America is the world’s leading economic power because American workers are productive and entrepreneurial. The U.S. economy — and government policy — place relatively few barriers in the way of upward mobility. Americans who work hard can rise as high and far as their skills will take them, and many do.
Of the poorest fifth of Americans, three-fifths work their way into a higher income quintile within a decade. Remarkably, many of the much-maligned “rich” weren’t born that way. Only two-fifths of the top 1 percent of earners today earned as much ten years ago. The rest worked their way to the top during the last decade. Tens of millions of American families really do live the American Dream.
Today that dream seems under attack. High energy costs and the resulting financial crisis have dealt a severe blow to the American economy. But these are not uniquely American problems. These economic storms have also buffeted France, Germany, Britain and most other developed countries. Americas dynamic economic system didn’t cause this crisis any more than Germany’s heavily regulated system did.
Now consider the change Obama wants to bring. He promises to raise the top tax rate on the most financially successful Americans to confiscatory levels above 50 percent. Two senior Democratic committee chairmen have also proposed taxing the IRA and 401(k) retirement accounts that most Americans hold.
Obama wants to nationalize most health care, paid for with your tax dollars, and to spend hundreds of billions more on a raft of new federal programs. One pays workers who take jobs that pay less than their previous employer. Obama has pledged to take away secret ballot organizing elections so unions can publicly pressure workers into joining, or else. Once unions organize companies, the government would micromanage them, with federal bureaucrats writing every detail of new labor contracts.
None of these policies would have done anything to stop the current crisis. But they would remake America’s entrepreneurial economy in the image of a European social welfare state. Most Western European economies are characterized by high taxes, expansive social programs, nationalized medical care, high union coverage — often whether workers want a union or not — and tight government controls over business decisions. It is much easier for business owners in Italy to divorce their wives than to fire underperforming workers.
The results have been predictable. High taxes give European workers little reason to try to get ahead — the government simply takes most of your extra earnings. When promotions come only on the basis of union seniority, and poor performers are guaranteed a job no matter how little work they do, workers have little reason to become more productive. Employers hire only when they absolutely must. Billions of tax dollars are wasted on politically important but economically unproductive “investments.”
This has lead to widespread stagnation. Unemployment in Europe was 60 percent higher than the United States last year, and the unemployed stayed out of work much longer. Even in the current downturn, workers in the United States who lose their jobs typically find new work within three to four months. In Europe the average worker stays unemployed for over a year. American workers are much more productive than Europeans — worker productivity in the European Union grows at less than two-thirds the rate of America. Unsurprisingly, American workers earn 40 percent more than their European counterparts. The French model doesn’t work.
That’s why France and the rest of Europe are abandoning it. France, Germany and most of continental Europe have reformed their economies, lowering taxes, loosening labor market restrictions, and reducing the scope of their social programs. Europe can no longer afford an economy that discourages productivity and entrepreneurship.
But even as Europe abandons the French model, Sen. Obama wants to embrace it. The same policies that have failed in Europe won’t work here. Higher taxes on saving and working, government bureaucrats deciding how many workers companies can hire and how much — or little — workers will earn, government run health care, and not quite voluntary union membership discourage entrepreneurs from taking risks and starting new businesses. They discourage productivity and innovation. They discourage growth and prosperity.
Sen. Obama proposes changing America, but change is a vague promise. Most Americans want to change course, but the change Obama promises would change America into a social welfare state where the American Dream is all but impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)