Is Obama a socialist? In a recent
commentary, Socialist Party USA Chairman Billy Wharton says,
definitely not. He's correct, “if”, you compare Obama, to
Wharton's party which has just about enough members to fill a high
school auditorium. Socialist Party USA lives in the Nineteenth
Century and its program sounds a lot like the goals of the Paris
Commune during its brief existence in 1871. SPUSA wants to
nationalize all industry and distribution systems and hand them over
to the workers; create a non-hierarchical business model, a
“democratic” “classless”, “feminist” society and provide
free government services for everything. Even on his worst day Obama
doesn't approach these largely imaginary goals.
Although similar socialist movements
have had better success in attracting membership and even political
representation, if not political power, in Europe, history and modern
economies have moved on and the few surviving socialists of the old
school are an ideological and theoretical fringe. The new face of
socialism, often called “social democracy” in Europe, while
eschewing “government ownership of the means of production”,
manifests itself in policies of hyper regulation of the private
sector, strong support for organized labor, redistribution of wealth
through high taxes and the creation of a cradle to grave government
subsidies to individuals, and the embrace of social engineering to
create equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. The
economic crisis in the seventeen nation Euro-zone and in much of the
wider twenty-eight nation European Union, which in relative terms,
far exceeds the economic downturn in the U.S., offers a stark example
of these economic and social policies.
The “old socialism” as an economic
system, including the more common undemocratic forms in the former
Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, Vietnam, and which
currently remains in Cuba and North Korea, has failed wherever it has
been tried. In the West, it has been replaced by the “advanced
welfare state”, a big government dominated system which is funded
and regulated at the expense of economic growth through free markets.
Using this template, Obama and his supporters in the far Left, come
closer to today's “new socialism”.
Look no further than Obama's class
warfare campaign rhetoric and his attack on private wealth i.e.
“millionaires and billionaires”. “corporate jets”, “hedge
fund managers and Wall St. bankers”. These fortunate few are viewed
as somehow immoral or undemocratic for achieving significant
financial success. They allegedly “don't pay their fair share”
of taxes which Obama assumes to be a higher percentage of their
income than they do now, which is already a higher percentage than
everyone else. Of course mega-wealthy Hollywood actors and rich rap
stars are exempt from these criticisms.
The publicly stated rationale for
criticism of the business wealthy and his goal of raising their taxes
is that “they can afford it”, which of course some of them can.
But Obama wants to raise taxes on individuals who make $200,000 a
year and couples who together make $250,000. Such people are
certainly well off but hardly in the class of “millionaires and
billionaires” and many are small to medium sized business owners.
But the real reasons for the “fairness and affordability” claim
is that the government needs their money to maintain high spending
levels, and economic envy can be a workable campaign tactic. The new
higher Obama personal income tax rate would be 36 %-39.6% In
addition Obama's tax proposals call for an increase in the tax on
corporate dividends paid to investors from the current 15% to as high
a 44.8% depending on income thresholds.
Obama's and the Left's support of a
lower threshold (3.5 million) and high tax rate (45%) on estates,
the so called “death tax”, also fits the “new socialist”
mold. Again, it apparently isn't “fair” that successful people
who have accumulated and paid income taxes on their wealth over
their lifetimes, want to divest it according to their personal
preferences, often to surviving family members. Instead, Obama and
the Left want to “redistribute” it by funding the ever growing
welfare state.
In May, in spite of the historic 15
trillion dollar federal debt, Obama called for the creation of a
government “infrastructure bank” to provide billions of dollars
of tax payer money and debt, for government sponsored roads,
bridges, dams etc.
The president has long called for
hiring more teachers and in June, Obama campaign strategist, David
Axelrod said that the country needs to “accelerate” job creation
in the private sector “by hiring more teachers, police and
firefighters.” Axelrod was unable to explain how hiring thousands
of new public sector (government) and unionized workers would help
the recovery of the private sector, but he stuck to the claim.
The “Obamacare” health care law
isn't the single payer, “socialized medicine” of England or
Canada but that was the preference of Obama and the Left after he was
elected in 2008. It simply wasn't politically possible with the
makeup of the 2009 Congress. A single payer (government funded and
administered) healthcare system has the advantages of simplicity and
affordability on the part of recipients but the issues of quality,
efficiency, and affordability on the part of the government in the
face of huge federal deficits and monstrous accumulated federal debt
would have to be closely examined in the context of American culture
and economics before its adoption. The private insurance
company/government health care hybrid of Obamacare brings with it
mandatory participation, intervention and regulation. Massive
government subsidies to newly insured individuals who are required to
purchase it, but by some arbitrarily and bureaucratically divined
standard, can't afford it, didn't address these issues. The result
has been significant political and popular opposition.
Under Obama, while private sector
employment has crashed, the number of federal government employees
has grown by 123,000 . Attempts by governors and mayors across the
country to rein in public employee unions and excessive wages,
benefits and pensions have caused political crises in Minnesota, Ohio
and California. Opponents of these efforts, most notably in the
attempted recall of Minnesota Governor Scott Walker, included Obama
and his core supporters.
Obama and the far Left of the Democrat
Party, including former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy
Pelosi, were quick to support the absurdity of the Occupy Wall Street
and everything else, movement which was blatantly, if simplistically
socialist, with its “general assemblies”, lack of hierarchical
leadership, “international solidarity”, clenched fist banners,
verbal attacks on private economic institutions and demands that
virtually everything in life be “free” i.e. provided by
government.
The “new socialism” is highly
visible in France where the head of the actual French Socialist
Party, Francois Hollande, has recently been elected President.
Hollande's platform includes the following:
Increase to 75% the tax rate on top
earners i.e. “ millionaires and billionaires”.
Abandon the German government led
Euro-zone austerity plan to cut government spending and reduce
deficits, and increase France's government spending.
A new 3 percent tax on company dividends and a lower threshold on tax exempt inheritance.
Hire 60,000 new public sector workers, mostly teachers.
The parallels in terms of public policies between Obama and Hollande are striking and while Obama can't be the Socialist Party president in the United States, it appears that he could be in France.
No comments:
Post a Comment