Humans are a funny lot. Here I am writing a blog entry trying to persuade people not to be taken in by some of John McCain's bad arguments. This blog entry will be read by handfuls, possibly even tens of people, most of whom already don't buy what McCain is saying. But I do it anyway.
Which is surely no sillier than the business about Obama being some sort of a socialist.
I remember when I moved down here from Canada in 1979. I was bewildered by the force that the words "socialized medicine" had in keeping people from even considering sensible attempts to widen health care coverage. The "S" word clearly still has a charge for some people, which is why McCain keeps using it. But let's review.
Obama's tax plan would give modest tax cuts to most people. Since Republicans have long been in favor of tax cuts, and Republicans aren't socialists, that can't make Obama a socialist. But Obama's tax cuts are targeted at the vast majority of people who make less than $200,000 a year. Is it socialist to offer modest tax relief to these folks? And if it is, then what's so virtuous about directing all the tax cuts to people who make lots of money, which is exactly what McCain proposes? How does the word "socialist" help sort this out?
Obama's plan includes an earned income credit for people at the low end. Some of these people will get money back even though they don't owe any federal tax at all. Is that where the socialism comes in?
Gee. It's not as though these people aren't paying any taxes at all. They're paying social security and medicare tax on every dollar they earn. They're also paying sales tax on most of the things they buy. The only way to lower their effective overall tax rates is by tax credits. And these folks aren't likely to save that extra bit of cash. That money will end up back in the economy, going to businesses owned by the people whose taxes John McCain wants to lower. We could argue about what policies are most likely to help the economy most, but the idea that the difference between McCain and Obama is the difference between socialism and red-blooded capitalism ought to be a real head-scratcher.
Except that for some people it isn't. That's why McCain keeps saying it. Even though McCain's health care plan includes tax credits. Even though, for that matter, his running mate raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska to increase the cash payments that every single Alaskan gets from the government.
And on that tax credit McCain has in mind for health care. This is one of those cases where fear of "socialism" really gets in the way of policy. For a market solution to work, younger, healthier people have to be in the insurance pool. That's the only hope for controlling rates. But giving a check to healthy 20- and 30-somethings isn't likely to get them to by health insurance. It's more likely that they'll pocket the money and spend it on something else. So government cash will go out the door, and the health care system won't get any better.
Socialism is a loaded word. It doesn't have anything to do with the real issues. But it might get a bunch of people to vote for what they don't really want because they think they should be scared of the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Allen, I really enjoy your blog--a voice of great good sense. You are indeed probably preaching to the choir, but it's always good to know there is a choir. One does sometimes wonder.
I am almost certainly not part of the choir. I do, however, keep an open mind and make an attempt at rational discussion.
This may be worth a read (regarding the identification of Barack Obama's plans and socialist policies): http://breezejmu.org/2008/11/03/capitalism-would-work/.
Hi Erik,
Thanks for the thought. It would be interesting to talk about the blog you linked to, but i think that my reaction would be hopelessly colored by the author's last statement:
"We must understand that the implementation of any socialist policy represents cowardice and regression, and what we need now is to move forward with courage and diligence, understanding where we came from in order to carry the torch of American prosperity for another generation."
To put it bluntly, I think the author should feel embarrassed. That sentence could only have been written by someone who as never talked with a thoughtful socialist. As an American example, I'd cite the late Michael Harrington, who may have been many things, but cowardly was not even remotely one of them. But it wouldn't be hard to multiply examples. The author, alas, is offering caricatures, not real thoughts.
Post a Comment