On Taxes, Socialism, and Word Choice

Here we sit merely two weeks away from Election Day. We've all grown weary of the ads, the debates, the spin. And I've not commented much lately as to how I've perceived things (not that anyone has been waiting with baited breathe).

In short, I think the debates have been largely uninteresting. I think both campaigns have made mistakes and both have gone negative. I do think McCain has gone more negative (and insidiously so), and by that I mean, making flatly untrue statements, trying to detract from legitimate debate, and cultivating fear and anger by playing on the xenophobic and narrow-minded ignorance of some Americans. I've a bevy of views and thoughts on everything from Palin to robo-calls to Bill Ayers. But today, I'll focus on economics (something I don't claim to have an mastery knowledge of).

The most recent stratagem the McCain-Palin ticket has employed is to suggest the notion, directly and indirectly, that Obama is "experimenting with socialism." Sunday, McCain went so far as to suggest Obama was a cover socialist, drawing a comparison that "at least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives." Three things:

First, most Americans cannot define socialism. Before 9/11, that was probably the "scariest" word in the American lexicon, with much thanks to Joe McCarthy and the "red scare." Now it competes with "terrorist" or, regrettably, "muslim." The Republicans are deliberately choosing to play on this fear, a fear most don't know the roots of and a fear that too many are willing to buy into. I'd like to survey people and figure out what they really think socialism is; they won't know, I am certain. As my mother use to say (I'm so folksy), "Don't use a word you can't define."

Second, the jumping off point for Repubs to paint Obama red is from his conversation with the now-famous "Joe the Plumber." Here is Obama's direct quote: "Right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (emphasis mine). They are apt to say that the Obama-Biden plan is to take money from everyone and spend it as they see fit. It simply isn't that way, though. I think it is, at most, a poor choice of words (beside the point, the definition of taxes is that we give government, elect officials, and ask them to decide on our behalf how to spend it).

The idea isn't that Obama wants Americans to have an equal distribution of wealth, that all should have the same amount of money and equal lifestyles. He isn't penalizing anyone for being successful. Instead, he should have said that when you spread the economic responsibility to support government around, that is good for everybody. Because the emphasis, again, isn't to equalize wealth, but to make sure everyone is doing their part, financially (more on this in the next point). The goal is to have a fair and just tax system. And as Obama has pointed out, if you want to talk about redistirbution, the "Trickle Down Effect" was a type of wealth redistribution, the theory going that if you give tax breaks and incentives to big business and the wealthy (make the rich...richer), the effect will be economic prosperity, i.e. wealth, trickling down.

Thirdly, no one speaks better on the issue of needing to equalize the responsibility of taxes than the richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. When he says the rich should be taxed more, then I think we should all listen. He has famously talked for several years now regarding the fact that he roughly pays an 18% income tax and the average administrative employee in his office pays almost double, at 33%. He bet anyone on the Forbes 400 ($1 million to a charity) that they would find themselves in the same situation. No one has taken him up on that yet. Here is a link to a great interview with Tom Brokaw detailing all of this. And as he says, he doesnt' have an accountant or special loop-holes. All he does is pay according to what the IRS tells him to. And quippy as always, "I guess I do have a tax planner. His name is President Bush." The rich get richer, the poor.....Here are a few articles that are on Buffet and class warfare.

In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class is Winning?

Warren Buffett on the Bailout and Taxes

Taxes and Paying my Fair Share

Obama doesn't want to equalize wealth, redistribute it or in turn move us into a socialist state. He wants to set right a system that heavily favors those that have moved beyond the point of needing favor. That's why he wants tax credits for childcare expenses, a tax credit for college students who serve their country and community (it's not a handout), and numerous other initiatives aimed at balancing the economic strain and increasing the opportunity for everyone, regardless of their tax bracket, to live a decent life. The alternative is maintaining the status quo, allowing the top 10% to continue to pay half-as-much in taxes as you and me.

And I think it serves as good evidence socialism isn't the goal (or even a thought) when one of the most successful capitalists ever (Buffett), a four-star general and former Secretary of State (Colin Powell), and uber-conservative Christopher Buckley have all endorsed him.

If you want to argue any of this with me, you've got to start by defining socialism. And it can't start with "redistribution of wealth" because that is a crap answer.