A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Change, hope, and all that good stuff

Like most of the people in my immediate social circle I’m somewhere between delighted and ecstatic about Obama’s victory, both because of what it means for our immediate future as a country and for overcoming, to some extent, the sins of our past (recent as well as more remote ones). Over the course of the campaign Obama’s intellect, judgment, and temperament increasingly impressed me, and I voted for him enthusiastically. I think this administration, along with a Democratic Congress, has at least an even chance at taking the country in a new and improved direction. I’m also really happy that America didn’t fall for the Republican slime machine and didn’t give into its more atavistic tendencies (whether out of idealism or cold, calculating self-interest doesn’t much matter). I’ve even found myself a bit verklempt on more than one occasion during the past 24 hours at the sheer historical-ness of it all.

Obama will undoubtedly do bad things and fail to do important things that need doing, and there’s a great risk that left-of-center folks in particular will give him a pass. Like any politician, he should be supported and praised when he does something right and ruthlessly criticized when he does something wrong. That said, I’m happy that liberalism has its turn at the helm, especially as conservatism in its present incarnation has proven itself to be such a dismal failure. Hopefully a saner conservatism will emerge in the years to come.

But before getting too complacent we should remind ourselves that this election, however significant, didn’t even touch on many of the “big” questions facing us, like the environmental crisis, the resource crunch, our military footprint, etc. The magnitude of these issuess highlights how ridiculous a debate about whether a 39% marginal tax rate constitues “socialism” really is. My hope is that the new political climate might open up a space where those debates can happen.

Anyway, here’s some reading on what to expect, what to hope for, and what to be wary of:


Obama’s Victory Speech

The war for Obama’s economic soul

Obama’s many majorities

A mandate to end the war

The great repudiator

America the liberal

The “real America”

What an Obama victory means for the environment

One more thing: it’s probably time to start putting away those t-shirts, posters, etc. with Obama’s face emblazoned on them. When he’s an avator of hope it may be inspiring, but when he’s president it’s creepy and Orwellian.

,

8 responses to “Change, hope, and all that good stuff”

  1. jayd

    I keep seeing liberals sell this illusion of how Obama is going to tax the wealthy and give that money to the middle class or the more needy.

    Many small businesses will be taxed under the individual income tax. Corporate taxes are due to rise as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains.

    The 39% tax bracket had nothing to do with the accusations of socialism, by the way. If you don’t understand the issue, at least don’t mischaracterize it.

    Is it just me that realizes that you can’t tax businesses or corporations — they simply turn around and pass it on to consumers. So by voting for something like that you shoot yourself in the foot — presuming you are middle class. Rich people aren’t going to pay. That’s not the way the system works. Every politician knows that.

    Same with dividend and capital gains taxes — they will show up in lowered earnings on your 401K’s and are a form of double taxation that punish wealth (which most Americans have in the form of 401Ks) and job creators. It’s estimated the Obama tax plan will result in a 10% drag on 401K’s. This will be over and above the current market disaster.

    You can confirm all this on Grover Nordquist’s Americans for Tax Relief (ATR.org). Most people regard Mr Nordquist as apolitical.

    As a Christian do you really support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)? That should be fast tracked through the new Congress. I knew of no church attending Christians who support this measure. Most pro-choice Catholics do not attend Mass.

    I find a lot of what you write mystifying. Could you elaborate more on what you think Obama’s tax plans will accomplish and why you support late term abortions, forcing doctors to perform abortions against their concience, using tax money to support abortions and withdrawing the current requirement of parent notification when children get abortions?

    Do you expect to have your job next year?

    Reply
  2. Lee

    Look – reasonable people can disagree about the likely outcomes of Obama’s tax plan (which may well not get enacted as-is). And there are respected economists lined up on both sides. But you’re going to have to forgive me if I don’t regard Grover Norquist as a reliable source. Did you really type the line “Most people regard Mr Nordquist as apolitical” with a straight face? He’s a longtime GOP operative who wants to cut all taxes all the time because he wants a government small enough to “drown in a bathtub.” Those of us, by contrast, who want a government that provides certain public goods to its citizens realize that you need tax revenue. And that a progressive tax scheme is compatible with robust economic growth (see, inter alia, the 1990s when many of the tax rates–on top rates, capital gains, etc.–were the same or higher than they would be under the Obama plan; meanwhile, Obama’s plan, as I understand it, leaves the top corporate rate where it is, rather than slashing it as McCain wanted to do), in addition to being fairer.

    The abortion question is a harder one, and probably deserves its own post.

    Reply
  3. jayd

    Well, positing Norquist as an unreliable source — the questions still remain about the wisdom of taxing corporations (the tax gets passed to consumers) or small businesses (a drag on the main vehicle for job creation) dividend/capital gains (ends up by reducing the value of stock and 401k).

    Tax revenue increases by reducing tax rates. It seems paradoxical but is well documented. Do you deny this?

    The point is liberal tax-the-rich-schemes only make sense to those who do not understand the reality of tax issues. If you support the Obama plan, as you have stated, do you do it:
    1. not caring about where the money comes from as long as the govt can get it
    2. denying what I have written about tax issues

    If you deny what I write then please offer a counter postion so I can understand yours.

    Voting for Obama makes you not pro-choice but pro-abortion. FOCA, which your candidate supported and Dems will now enact was drafted by the abortion industry. I look forward to your post and reasonings — if you have any.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    The fact is that there’s disagreement among economists as to whether, when, and under what circumstances, cutting taxes increases revenue. Obviously there’s a point at which the tax burden would become so crushing that it would hamper economic activity and thus revenue would decline. This was arguably the situation when Reagan came into office, though even here there’s disagreement (see, e.g. this piece by Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/)

    Whatever the case, tax rates are much lower then they were then, and even Obama’s plan would–at most–return rates to where they were during the Clinton years, a period where hardly anyone contends that the economy was groaning under excessive taxation. And, simply as a matter of logic, there’s a point at which lower rates obviously wouldn’t produce more revenue (e.g. a 0% rate would produce no revenue!). These issues aren’t as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.

    Reply
  5. Lee

    Also: it’s worth pointing out that there’s a contradiction in right-wing rhetoric on this issue. Supply-siders tell us that cutting taxes raises revenue. But Norquist and his ilk say they want to cut taxes to “starve” government. Which is it?

    Reply
  6. Elliot

    Thanks for the links, Lee!

    Reply
  7. jayd

    Lee: There really isn’t any disagreement. If you read the Klugman piece closely, he doesn’t dispute the rise in tax revenues but quickly changes the subject:

    “Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. …But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period.” And these are corporate tax rates not income tax rates, which is another fudge in the discussion.

    “At least 25 developed nations have adopted Reaganite corporate income tax rate cuts since 2001. The U.S. is conspicuously not one of them. Vietnam has recently announced it is cutting its corporate rate to 25% from 28%. Singapore has approved a corporate tax cut to 18% from 20% to compete with low-tax Hong Kong’s rate of 17.5%, and Northern Ireland is making a bid to slash its corporate tax rate to 12.5% to keep pace with the same low rate in the prosperous Republic of Ireland. Even in France, of all places, new President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 25% from 34.4%.” (Wall Street Journal)

    Isn’t just logical that a healthy economy takes money out of GROSSLY INEFFICIENT hands, (the Federal Government) and puts money into the most efficient hands,(the private sector)? Doesn’t a smaller government with low levels of taxation and strong economic growth lead to less poverty and rising standards of living?

    We need Government to monitor and regulate the private sector — which it grieviously failed to do on Bush’s watch. To take the recent economic disaster as an invitation to return to heavy handed government intervention in the private sector is precisely what got us into the mess in the first place: Barney Frank and others dictating to Freddie Mac Fannie Mae to boost subprime mortgages to 28% of their portfolios — Bush going along with his “ownership” society etc. opened a pandora’s box.

    Now the govt is in the insurance industry, the auto industry “bailing out” failure after failure. This is insanity or a liberal’s wet dream, take your choice.

    A tax cut raises revenue in the short run. Continuous tax cuts will starve government and force it to reduce its size — never a bad thing Lee. Unless you live in Washington and make your living off of main street’s misery.

    Reply
  8. Lee

    Krugman’s point is that other factors (population growth, e.g.) explain much of the increase in revenue. The per capita increase is much lower.

    But at least we’re getting to fundamentals here: conservatives want to “starve” the government because they think the private sector always makes a better use of resources than the government and that government should be restricted to bare bones functions like defense and police.

    Liberals, on the other hand, think that there are functions that can only be performed by government, such as ensuring a degree of equality, regulating industry, providing a social safety net, protecting the environment, etc. and that, left to itself, the private sector will give these values short shrift. So, a liberal denies that it’s always “logical that a healthy economy takes money out of GROSSLY INEFFICIENT hands, (the Federal Government) and puts money into the most efficient hands,(the private sector).” Sometimes money needs to be redirected to government in order to ensure access to the goods mentioned above. Government and the private sector have complementary, but distinct roles, and shrinking government and “outsourcing” to the private sector isn’t a solution to all our problems.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply