There have been a lot of exclamation of "socialism" during this election year toward the democratic candidate and I will have to be honest that I am having a hard time swallowing that pill. Now, admittedly, I am an independent voter who will be supporting Barack Obama for this year, but I gotta say that the proposals that are being put forth are far from the typical "socialist" or "communist" visions that these name tags inspire. Below are the positions I have heard most often referenced as "socialism" and would like to put forth a bit of discussion and history to each:
- Redistribution of Wealth
- Universal healthcare
- Publicly Funded Education
The Redistribution of Wealth
This topic seems to be the biggest hitter for the call of "Socialist", but I think it is a bit of a stretch. Redistribution of wealth has been a part of the American economy since 1861 with the passage of the 1861 tax act that created a progressive tax system for the US. While one can debate the merits of such a system, it was not stemmed from socialist inputs. The ideology behind such a system has been traced back to Adam Smith, the father of modern free market economics. The tax policies proposed by this year's democratic candidate proposes no changes to the framework of our tax systems, but rather the percentages of taxation for different income levels, something that both political parties have done since the systems inception. In addition, the tax rate increases he proposes are nowhere near historical levels and are similar to those in the early 80's with Ronald Reagan. Even at current levels of taxation, the top 1% of the income bracket still pay significantly less due to low capital gains taxes (vs. payroll taxes), loopholes, and tax shelters. Just ask Warren Buffet.
When you look at our country from an income disparity perspective, we are one of the highest disparities when compared to other democratic industrialized nations, much closer to China than to any Western European countries. When looking at a history of our income disparity, the gap between rich and poor has widened since WWII, while similar countries have either remained the same or fallen, again, except for China.
And one last thing, I often see the phrase "why are you punishing people who work hard by raising their taxes?" I must remind those folks that the folks who are near the bottom of the income scale also work hard. Those that make over $250,000 are not the only ones. My wife is a good example of those who work hard and make little. She was a preschool teacher and later a preschool director and sadly could barely make ends meet, not to mention have any money available for "luxuries" like health insurance. Now throw a child and the cost of childcare in the mix that many single mothers need to endure and then ask me if they work hard enough..
Universal Healthcare
If the institution of a universal healthcare system means that the country is immersed in socialism, than the democratic countries are most certainly outnumbered by Socialist regimes. The US is the only wealthy industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system. Virtually all of Europe, the largest countries in South America, and a number of countries in Africa and Asia have all deployed different flavors of such a system. I can certainly see benefits in debating the merits of implementing universal healthcare, but calling those that support it as "socialists" in the Karl Marx-sense is certainly off-base. I think the challenge with universal healthcare is around the economics and operational aspects of it rather than the need for it. I think that the one thing we can all agree on is that our current system is certainly broken and we have some of the most expensive and inefficient healthcare in the world.
I think an important concept that is often overlooked in Obama's plan is that the universal healthcare system is to be universally available to all, not universally mandated. Citizens will have the right to choose between plans and those who are happy with their current healthcare system are welcome to keep their plan. This is more similar to how our current mail system works (USPS vs. Fed Ex, etc.) rather than the traditional socialist's view of solely government run establishments.
Publicly Funded Education
The main difference between the two candidates here are really around the use of school vouchers that I have already discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat here. I hardly think that government funded education would be classified as "socialism" since we have had this model since the colonial times and public funding of school was supported by our founding fathers.
The support for the expansion of the charter school programs is clearly not a socialist idea either. It opens up schools to be managed by non-government agencies and does allow some level of choice and competition between schools without allowing schools do cream scrimming of students through scrupulous acceptance practices.
In regards to funds being funnelled to make higher education more affordable, that is something that just makes sense to me. Having a well-educated populous is one of the cornerstones that made us a world leader and we should continue to invest money into making education accessible to all. Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is no benefit in keeping those who have the desire and capability but cannot afford school out of school. In addition, the amount of debt that one obtains going to higher education has a significant impact in the career selection, and this I speak from experience. Being head of a household that still has over $30,000 of college debt, I can assure you that a career in teaching or in the science field was the farthest from my mind when I left college. My biggest question was, what job can I get that will pay enough to afford the loan repayments? I don't think this is a decision on whether this is a socialist idea or not. It is a decision we should all support for the general benefit of this country.
Posts
6 comments:
Obama was the most liberal senator until the campaign. He then moved to the right in order to gain the independent votes. We do not know this man or what he stands for. His associates from the past favored Nazi ideology and socialism. His election is just one step closer to a one world government. Our history has been leaning in that direction for a very long time.
My friend from Sweden moved to America to get away from the form of government that Obama is proposing.
Dale, I appreciate your doing your homework. The independents are the ones who determined the outcome of this election. Intellectualism is good, but often chooses the wrong path of morale relativism where there is neither right nor wrong. In my opinion, the independents do not have a foundation for their belief system. They flip-flop with the media.
Sorry, guess we will have to continue to agree to disagree. If you continue to do your homework and watch the events unfold, I just know that you will become a strong, convicted Republican! I love you.
i thought that was a wonderfully researched post and you provided some very strong arguments. if only i would have had the USPS argument before election day ;-)
i'll say i completely disagree with nabi. you already showed that we aren't moving towards a socialist government, no matter how many people want to try and say we are. there's a fundamental difference and even the presidential candidate from the socialist party will tell you that. trying to say anything different is just drinking the republican stump speech koolaid.
Nabi, I appreciate your comments, but I must say I am not a fan of the political party system (and might be a topic of some future post) so I don't think "republican" is in my future. However, I'll have to ask you, if the world were republicans, would that be considered a "one world government"? ;-)
I believe in a bipartisan government. Unfortunately,our government is now controlled by the democrats---with a few exceptions-- like Mississipi and Texas. We knew that McCain could reach across the table because of his history in the white house. We don't know 'bout 'bama. According to his record--????. You'll have to read your Bible and study prophesy to understand what a one world government means.
nabi, you should be delighted to hear then that Obama is planning on having republicans in his cabinet.
Absolutely! Unfortunately, That is not what I heard on the news yesterday! He has already appointed another strong liberal and booted Liebermann--conservative democrat-- in retaliation.
I just love debating with you guys! Trust me, I am in strong support of our oval office and I think Republicans (Bush, McCain) are responding in a very positive direction.
Post a Comment