The Case for Obama cont: It's the economy, stupid!

I'm going to jump directly to my case for Obama's economic plan/taxes by displaying some emails my well spoken brother, Kip and I exchanged the other day. It points out some of Obama's economic philosophy, and mine as well. It started with a funny cartoon Kip sent me...with a note.

Todd, I have attached a picture that gave me a nice chuckle. And then something unexpected crossed my mind. You. I was suddenly very curious what you would think of this. So I'm sending it to you. With a request. In a true sense of trying to broaden my understanding, I would like to get your feedback on this: Is the basis of this cartoon true or not. And why. Can't wait to hear from you. :)

-Kip

My reply...

Kip, Ha ha! That’s pretty funny. I’ll do the best I can to answer your questions.

1. Feedback?
2. Is the basis of this cartoon true or not?
3. Why?

Below is my feedback, that addresses the cartoon and why I think like I do:

I’d guess the basis of the cartoon is that democrats want to redistribute (steal) wealth from those who work hard and give it to those who don’t. This is definitely the stereotype. Like most stereotypes, there is some truth to it, but at the same time oversimplifications and of course, taking a view to its extreme-then arguing against that extreme view.

Here is my take: There is a spectrum of thought, as you know- total Communism on the very far left side and total Free Markets with no regulation at all, save perhaps John Smith’s moral imperative, on the far right.

Somewhere in between is where our capitalism has always resided. It has never been a free market or socialistic system, but has always contained elements of both. The argument isn’t and hasn’t been socialism or free markets, rather, how far do we fluctuate in the middle. Two areas of thought battle for this middle ground.

One, that economic growth is created from a strong, wealthier middle class. Because of their massive number, they have immense purchasing power. Not necessarily in the price of the items they purchase, but in the sheer quantity. These purchases spread wealth, create jobs and trickle throughout the economy. Hence, less of the tax burden should be carried by them. Only very far leftist Democrats believe in helping out those who don’t have jobs. Most want to lessen the burden on the middle class, working folks.

Two, the traditional Republican “trickle down” theory. Meaning, economic growth is created by a wealthier upper class. So you eliminate the burden that the rich pay. It is indeed very high. The top 5% pays about 60% of the taxes. So, you minimize their tax burden and their money trickles down, in the form of purchases, investments and jobs.

There are many intelligent economists on both sides. In fact, I was surprised to find that there are more Dem economists than Rep, despite the reputation. One of my favorite voices in this realm is Warren Buffet (technically not an economist, I know) - who has made the argument for a long time that trickle down, although it makes sense in theory, doesn’t really trickle down in real life. His numbers show that the behavior of the very wealthy Americans doesn’t change as their taxes go down. Also, it has been argued that with a new global world the trickle doesn’t land in the U.S. but in foreign investments and company growth. Warren also argues that as most of the top 5% get such a large portion of their income from capital gains, rather than a salary, that they end up paying much less (15% capital gains tax) than their secretaries (25-35% income tax) each year. He argues that this is currently redistribution in one direction- up!

Another one of my favorite voices, George Will, a very conservative columnist, points out the leftist economist argument- that redistribution of wealth is already what 95% of our government currently does. But again, in one direction- up! He points to an example of a few very wealthy sugar growers who get subsidies from the gov. that amount to billions of $ per year for the taxpayer. He calls it millionaire welfare.

Hence, many on the left argue that eliminating Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthy is just a way of eliminating the upward redistribution of wealth.

I argue somewhere in the middle. In theory, I think a flat or fair tax is more, well, fair. But, currently, with our debt and spending habits, I have a hard time thinking a government can or should eliminate some of its biggest revenue streams. If they can control spending, then they can work towards making taxes the same rate for everyone. I don’t see that happening, so I say tax the wealthy, and lower the taxes for the middle class.

There’s my two cents…but I’m still learning…

All that said, I still love the cartoon. :)

-t

The Case for Obama cont: Got Mad Skillz, Yo

A president should be someone special. Have abilities and traits that are not normal. Not superman, but not the everyday man either. As they are interviewing for the most powerful position on the planet they should be anything but ordinary. They will sit at the head of many conference room tables, surrounded by the brightest and smartest people in the world, and they had better be able to demand respect, process advice from various sources, well intentioned and not, and calmly make reasonable decisions, amidst fear and uncertainty. Obama is well suited for this role by consistently displaying the following traits:

Intelligence:
A degree in Political Science with an emphasis on Foreign Relations from Columbia. Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and President of the Harvard Law Review. Taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School.

In his book, Audacity of Hope- BTW, it's not a memoir, but an book about his social and political views. Anyway, while reading it, five or six times I put the book down and said to Annie, "This is the best written description of constitutional issues I've ever read". Then I would bore her to tears by paraphrasing a portion I had just read. His grasp of foreign, economic and social policy is consistently tempered with historical perspective, precedent and a thorough understanding of the law and constitution.

Temperament:
Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, in a less than complimentary article about Obama concedes that, "Nonetheless, he has both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

Two hugely important issues demonstrate how Obama has shown a conservative nature, one that thinks out the issues and puts aside fear before acting.

1. War in Iraq- everyone else rushed in, Democrats included. Obama studied out the issue for himself and came to a much different conclusion. One who takes council from his reason rather than his fear tends to inspire me. He asked for more evidence, said we were getting in prematurely. Turned out to be exactly right.

2. Economic Crisis- McCain was touting a different strategy every day while Obama's demeanor was collected, methodical and deliberate. This temperament instills confidence and can help keep the nation calm during crazy times. This is especially important with such a fickle stock market, that often rides the roller coaster of panic and hysteria.

Experience:
12 years teaching the constitution. Understands it thoroughly. More of a statesman than an executive. Reminds me more of some of the founding fathers and/or Abraham Lincoln, than an executive. Over 800 bills sponsors/co-sponsored in Illinois State Senate. Over 100 in US Senate.

All this said, I admit this is his weakest trait, but sufficient, with all others considered. If you think about it, it's the first trait to go when you want someone new in power.

Judgment:
See Iraq/ Economic crisis comments.

Also, he selected a very strong, intelligent (despite his continual gaffs) running mate. Someone who can challenge him. I respect that.

Finally, I like a guy who will look at both sides of an issue before plunging into the political fray. This endorsement by one of his old colleagues who often disagrees with him speaks volumes. Here is a taste:

"This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. He took the law exceedingly seriously, and he wanted to get the statutory and constitutional provisions right. This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view."

Well Articulated:
This one needs no explanation. Let's just say that back when I didn't support Obama, I wished that my candidate spoke and explained complex human and political issues as well as he did. A leader must be able to persuade and earn respect through his words- they are incredibly powerful, especially now when a leader is likely to have a camera in their face 24-7.

Finally, Powell's endorsement below better articulates many of my points. I don't agree with everything he says, but thinks it's well said:

The Case for Obama: An Overview

I try and keep my posts fairly light, but I will indulge in some slightly deeper waters over the next few weeks by making a case for Barack Obama. Every few days I will try and expound and explain the reasons that I currently lean towards Obama.

Before I start, please know that I am an Independent, but I will not insult your intelligence by claiming that I am not biased or 100% objective. I'm human and I'm sure their are flaws to my arguments, but I'll do the best I can. Please note, I have come to his camp, and away from a lifetime of Republican mantras, kicking and screaming over the last 6 years. Still, I may not actually vote for Obama because of some issues that I will get to later. But, I am really leaning heavily his way. I realize that I am a minority in suburban Utah, but this is something I take seriously, because I believe that politics should not be a mere hobby that one likes or doesn't like, but rather, each citizen's duty. I will try and be as upbeat and optimistic as possible, because I believe politics is, despite it's awful reputation, an honorable endeavor that requires compromise, nuance, character and a lot of intelligence.

As a preview, below are the 7 topics I will address, one with each future post. Unless I get lazy, disenchanted or forget. I reserve the right to add or subtract as I am still learning as I go. You will probably see that I go against many of the cliches and brands that have been established and repeated so often. Hopefully, I offer a perspective that others can respect, whether they agree or not.

Now I will proceed with my case, with a look of utter soberness on my face, and maybe only a little condescending tone from time to time...if you're lucky.

I like Obama, because:

1. Skills- The Obama/Biden ticket has mad skills, abilities, intelligence, experience and judgment. One example; Ronald Reagan was known as the 'Great Communicator' and it served him well. Barack is just as good. DO NOT underestimate the importance of this in our modern communication-crazed society. Both at home and abroad.
2. Character- Having studied Obama's life probably more than the next 500 Americans combined, I believe he is a man of courage, honesty, patriotism, family loyalty and faith. He is not perfect, and plays in a sometimes ugly game, but overall I've been greatly impressed.
3. Health Care- This one is very personal to me and my family. His plan looks much like what Mitt Romney did in Mass as Gov. It is not communism- but a solution that will work while keeping businesses competitive. Having worked at United Health Group, I don't claim to be the authority, but have some insight into how insurance companies own our Government. A drastic change is needed.
4. Foreign Policy- Barack Obama has shown solid judgment in what I consider the biggest blunder by the US government in the past 30 years, the war in Iraq. Also, Joe Biden is as knowledgeable, in my view, of the middle east region than any public figure in the past 20 years. I pulled those figures from thin air, so don't even try and dispute them!
5. Economy- The US can't do jack-squat throughout the world if we are broke. Warren Buffet is now advising Barack Obama about the economy, and will play a big role in his cabinet, I predict. Buffet is my economic hero and reading his books have taught me more about taxes and the economy than probably any other source. Buffet knows his stuff, and he supports and advises Obama, and boy do we need it!
6. Energy- Obama has made a nice evolution (I don't mind politicians changing their minds when needed, like some might) and will support off shore drilling (under conditions), nuclear power, other alternatives and can mobilize the country behind a goal of becoming energy independent in 10 years. He has the ability to change the way Americans think about energy, and bring them together behind a common purpose, like nobody since Reagan or JFK.
7. Religion- Religious topics (and issues very sacred to me) are being callously exploited, intentionally or not, by Republican leaders to obtain/maintain power. One example; Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. Otherwise it would have been long ago, as Republican appointed judges have been far more prominent than Democrat appointed judges. Legal precedent will always prevent it. I think it's just used to rally us behind a candidate, that has no ability or intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, that we otherwise wouldn't support. Don't try and sell me a bill of goods by flaunting something that I value dearly. It offends me greatly.

All this being said, I may not even vote for him, despite believing he's the best choice and my supporting so many of his positions. I still feel a moral urge to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and unborn children. Even though I believe it will do no good, but just on principle. Is it worth voting for someone that I disagree on almost everything, save those two issues, when I don't believe they will do anything to fight for them and feeling that we've already lost most of those battles long ago?

It's a quandry...

There's my overview. When I have time, I'll try and make the case for each in more detail. Being the impetus, I'm sure, for anyone who actually reads my pontifications, to promptly wish for death to end the nonsensical tedium.