Crisply defining the core problem with Obama’s economic and tax policies

Expanding on the problems with Obama’s economic and tax policy issues described here, John McCain finally nailed it today in describing the true essence of Obama’s economic and tax policies:

My opponent’s answer showed that economic recovery isn’t even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to “spread the wealth around.”
You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, “spreading the wealth around” is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn’t sound like a “new kind of politics.”
This would also explain some big problems with my opponent’s claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?
Well, that’s the key to Barack Obama’s whole plan: Since you can’t reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe.
In other words, Barack Obama’s tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington. I suppose when you’ve voted against lowering taxes 94 times, as Senator Obama has done, a new definition of the term “tax credit” comes in handy.
At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut, it’s just another government giveaway.
What’s more, the Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning. Small businesses provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike will kill those jobs at a time when we need to be creating more jobs.

Jennifer Rubin continues:

There it is — finally. The “it” is the argument against Barack Obama: he’s wedded to income re-distribution, not growth, which is exactly the wrong philosophy at the worst possible time…This is the heart of the “choice election” formula (as opposed to “experience vs. choice”) which McCain has been struggling to articulate.
If he gives this speech (or the Alfred E. Smith roast remarks) every day and repeats the substance in every interview — with a reminder that the trio of Obama-Reid-Pelosi will be an unchecked liberal juggernaut — he might make the race very interesting…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

Can’t… resist… commenting…
I find it more than a little amusing that the conservative wing of American discourse seems to have just discovered that (surprise!) liberals favor progressive taxation. It’s weird to hear that something that has forever been a fairly uncontroversial part of mainstream Democratic policies is suddenly the camel’s nose of *le gasp!* socialism. A debate on the principles of progressive taxation might be interesting, but I find it a bit disingenuous to pretend that this is some sinister Obama plan.
McCain’s (and, by proxy, your) railing against tax credits as an instrument of public policy are interesting: does he also oppose the EITC? Do you?
Also, although 40 percent of Americans don’t pay income tax–because they don’t earn enough!–it’s worth remembering that most of them still do pay payroll taxes, which are not insignificant. Any new tax credits or tax breaks really ought to be judged against the taxpayer’s whole tax burden.

15 years ago

Dear John,
I read the news today, oh boy. It said you were against ‘socialism’. You mentioned it by name. You blamed Barack Obama for promoting it. You threatened that he would force it upon the American taxpayer.
What part of the $700 BILLION bailout for guys with multiple houses, yachts, garages full of luxury cars, and refrigerators loaded with “Whole Foods Market” brand foods WASN’T socialism in it’s purest form?
You ceded any argument against socialism when you took money out of my pocket to give to the rich like some Bizarro-World Robin Hood.
Drink up, Comrade McCain. You spent five years in a tiger cage because you refused to surrender to Communism only to roll over and VOTE FOR IT when your rich friends were suddenly in trouble because of the same policies they’ve been buying with their ‘political contributions’ (read:B-R-I-B-E-S) for decades.
They reaped what they sowed but that wasn’t acceptable so you and your buds in Washington D.C. created a bogus story about how the sky was falling and we need an infusion of MY money into the rich pockets as soon as possible or we were all DOOMED.
Just replace “Terrorism” with “Economic Collapse” and we’ve heard this song before.
I was never going to vote for McCain. I just couldn’t. He’s a laughable candidate.

15 years ago

“he’s wedded to income re-distribution, not growth, which is exactly the wrong philosophy at the worst possible time”
A plan guaranteed to actually shrink the pie/economy, not to mention revenue for government services.
But if it doesn’t bother Democrats, why should it bother me? If Obama is elected, I have dibs on being one of the people who gets to stay home and do nothing and have my rent and food (they gotta give me gasoline, too) paid for by our government.

15 years ago

You may be able to apply for all the things you mentioned for as many of you that exist. You could get ACORN to help.

15 years ago

Without getting into detail, the word “crisp” can never apply to your bloviated style.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.