The article on this page is owned
and copyrighted by the named author
Link
to original
article:
Richard H. Collins
June 13, 2008
Barack Obama may be the political equivalent of a rock star with his
huge crowds and his celebrity endorsements, but his economic policies
are simply the warmed over liberalism of the sixties and seventies.
Stale liberalism doesn’t have a history of success in America and
doesn’t match his image of Hope and Change. This same old big
government tax and spend liberalism is a far cry from a “New
Politics.” So Obama has been forced into some creative marketing
to sell his leftist ideology as post-partisan solutions to the
country’s problems.
If you can cut through the hype and the rhetoric, his worldview is
clear. Look at the way he talks about money. Tax cuts are
“giveaways” and “wasteful spending.” Forget for
a moment whether specific tax cuts enhance revenue or stimulate the
economy. Instead, remember that tax cuts are fundamentally different
from government spending because the money isn’t the governments
to begin with.
This captures the liberal view perfectly; the government knows how to
spend your money better than you do. Wanting to keep your own money is
selfish and wasteful. Obama even made the ludicrous claim that it is
only with his nomination that America can began to heal the sick and
find jobs for the jobless. It is only increased government spending
that can solve problems and only Obama who can lead the way.
Obama is counting on the fact that many Americans have a poor grasp of
history. He is counting on the fact that high gas prices and a slowing
economy might tempt them to return to a philosophy that has failed
repeatedly in the past. Have we forgotten the legacy of Lyndon Johnson
and Jimmy Carter?
It was Lyndon Johnson who waged the War on Poverty and initiated
“urban renewal.” These crusades resulted in a system of
dependency and family dysfunction based on the warped incentives of
government welfare; in rising crime rates and destroyed neighborhoods;
in bloated government bureaucracies and higher taxes.
Jimmy Carter brought this same attitude to Washington. His solution to
America’s problems was more federal government control and
spending. Is American education better off since Carter created the
Department of Education? Is America more energy independent and secure
since the creation of the Department of Energy? Did Carter’s
policies jump start the US economy?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is no. The Carter
administration was a time of long gas lines and rationing, stagflation
and rising unemployment. A general malaise fell over the country.
Facing this crisis Carter famously called on Americans to sacrifice in
the name of energy conservation. Rejecting the dynamism and innovation
of America, Carter proposed that we simply learn to live with less.
Despite all of his charisma, Obama brings the same attitude. He too
castigates Americans for selfishly driving the car they want or for
using air conditioning too often. He too believes that the answer to
our energy challenges is more federal spending. He too believes that
domestic sources of energy must be off limits; that the desires of the
environmental lobby trump our national interest and the pocketbooks of
average Americans. He too opposes free trade and favors big unions over
small businesses.
Obama’s record matches his attitude, if not always his seemingly
centrist campaign rhetoric. Obama and his allies in Congress have tried
to resuscitate the windfall profits tax strategy that failed during the
Carter administration. In his first three years in the Senate Obama
voted for increasing taxes 94 times (including taxes on coal, natural
gas, payroll, and income).
Obama talks at length about only raising taxes on the rich but he voted
in favor of increasing the 25 percent federal tax rate to 28 percent
(this bracket covers income from $32,550 to $78,850 for individuals and
between $65,100 and $131,450 for married couples). And his plans to end
the cap on Social Security taxes means an increase for anyone making
more than $100,000.
In order to get elected Obama is sure to campaign with centrist
rhetoric. He will try to play on the weariness of voters tired of
Washington. His fresh face and rhetorical skills will be used to
convince voters he is different.
In reality, Obama is a traditional liberal who favors more government
and less freedom. These policies have been tried and failed. Dressing
them up with fancier words and bigger crowds won’t change the
outcome.
