socialist

 Cato's Chris Edwards is correct.  Republicans are playing small-ball.  They have no real vision, so they've ended up with policy paralysis.  - Jon Henke

As I note in a recent New York Post op-ed Republicans are fond of implying that President Obama is a big-spending socialist. But the House GOP recently offered a spending cut plan that was able to find savings worth less than one percent of Obama’s budget.

As Tad DeHaven and Brian Riedl have also pointed out, the GOP spending reform effort is rather pathetic. It proposed specific annual budget cuts of about $14 billion per year.

Consider that the center-left budget wonks at the Brookings Institution put their heads together a few years ago and came up with a “smaller government plan” that proposed about $342 billion in annual spending cuts (by 2014). The Brookings authors note:  

These cuts are achieved by reducing government subsidies to commercial activities ($138 billion); by returning responsibility for education, housing, training, environmental, and law enforcement programs to the states ($123 billion) . . . by cutting entitlements such as Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare ($74 billion); and by eliminating some wasteful spending in these entitlement programs ($7 billion).

Thus, the Brookings scholars found cuts more than twenty times larger than the House GOP leadership cuts, and Brookings proposed its plan back when the deficit was about one-fifth of the size it is today. (Note that both the Brookings and GOP plans would also put a cap on overall nondefense discretionary spending, in addition to these specific cuts).

My point in the New York Post piece is that the GOP needs to challenge Obama’s big spending agenda at a more fundamental level. They need to do some careful research, pick out some big spending targets, and go on the offense. Why not propose to eliminate the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development? Why not sell off federal assets, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, in order to help pay down the federal debt? Why not open up the U.S. Postal Service to competition?

Obama won’t agree to these reforms at this point, but they would hopefully open a serious national debate about reforming our massive and sprawling federal government. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the congressional Republicans in 1994 didn’t win by splitting hairs with the Democrats over 1% of spending. They offered a more fundamental critique.

At least, GOP leaders need to offer up spending reforms as bold as those of the Brookings Institution.

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at The Cato Institute

Timothy Geithner has the ability to lie, cheat, and steal from America’s Tax Payers.  He has, or will be, approved by Socialist, Liberals, Democrats, and by some You Are What You Eat and the Company You Keep Republicans to head the Treasury Department.  The rich will be allowed to follow in his steps while the American Tax Payer will foot the bills for all the Geithnerizers that will be given a legal right to lie, cheat, and steal from people who work for a living.

As Judge Judy would say. “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it is raining.”

There is a lot of chatter on the wires about the 2001 radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court's role in addressing "political and economic justice" and redistribution of wealth.  Taken together with his "spread the wealth around" comments to Joe the Plumber, a lot of people are seeing a pattern. Many have begun to suggest that Obama is a closet socialist just waiting to spring a trap on an unsuspecting America.

Well, let's look at this analytically beginning with an accepted definition of Socialism.  For sake of a common source, I'll use Wikipedia.  I'm not a big fan of it for discussions like this, but since the people have collectively "spoken" and regard it is sound, it's common ground, I guess.  It's definition of socialism includes this:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.^[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Many people equate socialism with communism and Marxism, but those are really false analogies.  Communism is predicated on a classless society with no government.  To that extent, what we call communist nations are not actually communist at all.  There have been countries that attempted to create a communist state, but most ended up totalitarian regimes.  Even China, one of the stalwart adherents to communism, has realized they need to open the door to capitalism more and more.

So what's the difference between communist/Marxist, and socialist societies? Well, the answer to that is long enough to earn you an advanced degree in most colleges, but let's define it as a question of two things - revolution and control.

Under Marxist theory, a revolution would be necessary to wrest control of the means of production from the hands of the upper class.  That would be followed by a period of control by a type of revolutionary council, and then eventually the abolition of government in favor of the collective.  This latter period is where most Marxist states have gone wrong.  They get caught up in the fervor of being in power, and end up inviting a revolution.

Socialism, by comparison, doesn't necessarily require revolution.  In fact, many argue that despite the fear of an Obama administration, the US is already well on the road to socialism thanks to the collapse of Wall Street and the intervention of the Bush economic team.

All socialism requires, per the definition above, is either "complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

It is in the latter framework that we need to address the question of "Obama's socialism".  Obama's team has reiterated, ad nauseum, their claims that Obama is committed to the free market. In response to the 2001 radio interview, his team had this to say.

In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Actually, that's not what he said.  If you listen to the interview, he said that he could easily develop an argument that the court's could carry out the task of ordering redistributive policies, but that the administrative overhead would be too great for the courts so such change must come through Congress.

He also, quite specifically, never said he opposed redistributive policies, only that they must originate in legislation, not court doctrine.

So where is Congress on this?  Even Nancy Pelosi, a devout liberal, is on the free market bandwagon, right?

We are all believers in the free market -- it's part of our democracy. We know that the free markets create jobs, create capital, and create wealth -- that's very important. But recently, left unregulated and undisciplined and unsupervised, they create chaos.

Well, frankly we don't know if that's true because we don't have a free market.  We have a regulated market. "Free markets" by definition, are free of outside influence.  All transactions are between buyer and seller.  When you introduce even basic constraints - say fraud protection, lemon laws, etc. - you no longer have a free market.  Pelosi's comments seem to indicate that she's in favor of a regulated market.

So which does Obama favor?  A free market or a regulated market? From his statement about the plan for government taking ownership stakes in banks, it appears to be the latter:

[T]he plan appears to extend a broader set of guarantees to banks without requiring any additional regulation, which represents more of the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess.

Ok.  So Obama wants government regulation.  So what's wrong with that?

Well, let's look back at that "widely accepted" definition of Socialism.

[O]thers advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

We now have government with a sizable ownership interest in banks, insurance, and securities.  We're also heavily involved in an automotive bailout.  You can argue the current wave of nationalization started under Bush - which is true - but it's not like Obama has opposed it.

Further,  I suspect we'll start to see justifications for expanding that reach into energy and telecommunications.  The government is encroaching more and more on the people.

While it is not yet the complete nationalization of the means of production, it's getting a lot closer.

Obama is in support of the government role in banks, wants more regulation (read: control) of the market.  His cheerleaders in Congress want the same.  He has talked openly of using government power to "spread the wealth" around.  He has made coherent arguments that redistributive policies must come from government. (That alone leads me to believe he has spent a good deal of time thinking about it.)

With all that, I ask you, is there honestly anyone alive who can make that claim that the term "socialist" doesn't apply here?

America, the land of the free as we used to know it,  is at risk of becoming just a memory should Obama win big and carry his liberal Democrat friends with him into office.

National Journal rated Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007. Obama in his state Senate years was careful, via cowardly 'present' votes, to hide his
liberalism, but he still has a stark record of extreme positions - so extreme on abortion, he voted against a bill to protect born-alive victims of botched abortions; so extreme
on gun control, he supported the DC gun ban that was ruled Unconstitutional (of course, Obama's favorite Justice Ginsburg voted against the 2nd amendment in that case).
Voting against death penalty for gangland murderers. Obama's record is liberal:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-ratings-and-record.html
Proabortion extremist: Planned Parenthood - 100% Support, National Right To Life - 0% Support,  NARAL - 100% Support
Population Connection - 100% Support (These are the ‘Zero Growth’ freaks)
Anti-taxpayer tax-and-spend liberal: Americans for Tax Reform - 0% Support, Citizens Against Government Waste - 13% Support
Very Liberal: ACLU - 83% Support ,
Anti-gun-owner:  Gun Owners of America - 0% Support, NRA - “F” Rating
Pro-amnesty open-borders extremist: Federation for American Immigration Reform - 0% Support US Border Patrol - 8% Support
Supports Big Unions: Unions - 82% - 100% Support, NEA - 100% Support

The Democrats are the STATUS QUO party in Congress. Since liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker after 2006 elections, the price of oil rose, the stock market fell,
unemployment rose, the economy sputtered. The Democrats' threats of tax increases and their attacks on businesses and markets and energy producers have had a toll on the economy.
The Democrats tried and failed to lose the war in Iraq, but they have managed instead to break promises to cut earmarks (they made it worse), and have spent over $1 trillion
and counting on bailouts this year alone. They want more - money from the taxpayer to new govt welfare cases, with a slice for their special interests on the side;
Like the 'alternative energy bill' that somehow included $50 billion in new taxes yet had a hidden $1 billion gift to trial lawyers.

The Democrats' earlier support for the creation of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), sowed the seeds for subprime lending. Barack Obama, did legal work on behalf
of ACORN to sue banks to force them to engage in subprime lending. that subprime lending ballooned, and the leaders in it, like Countrywide, gave sponsors like Sen Chris
Dodd, sweetheart deals as thank yous; when Republicans warned about Fannie Mae supporting these risky schemes in 2005, the Democrats stopped them. The chicken's have
come home to roost on the flawed idea of giving homes and mortgages to people who cannot really afford them. Democrats instigated this financial crisis as much as anyone
else.

But these policy errors and bad actions are just the preview. Here is what the Obama/Democrat majority will deliver:

• Regulation overdrive that will kill jobs
• Special interest giveaways to groups like ACORN
• Government takeover of health-care, shifting as many a 50 million more people into a Government run plan (See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!)
• pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill the Pelosi Congress passed, and the $1+ TRILLION in bailouts this year; Pelosi wants another bailout for $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion for wall street, $300 billion housing bailout and $100 billion govt check giveaway - when will it end?
• Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions and 'Freedom of Choice' Act, which will override state desires to protect unborn life
• Amnesty for illegal aliens, and drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which Obama supports
• No drilling in ANWR or offshore, and an anti-energy policy that won't allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices
• Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover (who created a depression out of similar policies)
• Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%. Now in the general election, Obama has flipflopped on it, but he will surely flipflop back in order to make taxpayers pay for his $800 billion in spending promises that he can't keep without higher taxes.
• Job-killing 'cap-and-trade' CO2 regulations
• Attacks on free speech, with "fairness doctrine" attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech( Missouri DAs investigating people who say bad things about Obama)
• Attacks on the ballot box,  by ending the secret ballot for union elections, and by opposing voter ID laws
•  Gay marriage:  Obama opposes Cali prop 8, in effect signalling that he supports gay marriage, andObama and the Democrat platform calls for the repeal of DOMA to take gay marriage nationwide;  they will enforce ENDA, gay rights in the workplace and a tort lawyers dream and HR dept nightmare, and the result will be attacks on religious organizations and groups that dare to take an opposing moral position; gays openly in the military
• Appointment of liberal activist Judges, who will be handpicked to overrule the people and legislate liberal social policy from the bench.
•  

Here's what the WSJournal says is in store with that Obama/Democrat majority, with more details on :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

- Medicare for all.  ... A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. ...

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. ...

The unflappable demeanor of Senator Obama makes it seem like he is a 'nice guy'. But Obama is lying about himself. Obama is raised and trained on Alinsky leftism; Obama had a Communist mentor Frank Davis Marshall; Obama showe an extreme racial consciousness bordering on animosity in his memiors; Obama was the colleague of radical Bill Ayers (and the point is not that Ayers was a terrorist bomber in the 1960s, the point is that Ayers is as radical
today in his views as he was back then, toasting socialist despots Huge Chavez just last year); Obama for 20 years sat in a Black Liberation Theology church who pastor preaches a political worldview based on the radical Black Panthers. The real Barack Obama has been steeped in the most radical and extreme left ideology of any person to have a chance at the White House.

Any voter who doesn't know the real history of Obama has let the Obama campaign and media bamboozle him or her. Obama's campaign is a $500 million hollywood production, a fiction designed to bamboozle foolish uninformed voters, and the liberal media is complicit in
keeping people as uninformed as possible of the real Barack Obama. As part of that fiction, Obama's left-liberal positions and views have been airbrushed aside, and he's
running on focus-group-tested pablum.

Normally, political realities will restrain such an extremist, but the liberal Democrats think they have the kind of majority coming that will reshape things further. Only twice before has a President on the Democrat side won with overwhelming majorities. In the 1930s and 1960s. Both times we got the most signification shifts towards big Government in our history - The New Deal and the Great Society. Our problems will not be solved by more Government - we need LESS Government. Our only chance to stop this radical and dangerous shift is to vote against every Democrat and for Republicans in the coming election.

If you want to save America ... you have one duty -  spread the word and warn others: Maybe it is too late to stop the manifestly unqualified and extreme Barack Obama from becoming President.  But in that event, we don't have to give Obama a liberal Congress to go with it!  The change we need is to defeat the Democrats in Congress. Defeat Nancy Pelosi and her earmark, pork-barrel, corrupt trial-lawyer leftwing-special interest ACORN-supporting buddies in Congress.

I've been wondering why some democrats have been sounding positively conservative in their wrath at the thought of the mother of all government handouts, when it would seem to be right up their 'help save the world' street.

I heard Donna Brazil on 'This Week' with George Stephanopolus, reccommend that the democrats in congress NOT rubberstamp this bill, because the taxpayer money used to fund this bailout could tie the Obama hands on universal helathcare and any other (socialist) agenda that he may want to push through in his administration if he wins.  (If she went on the record with that comment, we all know it's a concern for the New Democratic, read socialist, party)

How very interesting.. but true. How do you fund universal anything with the tax payers money when they are already paying almost a trillion dollar's worth of rescue money to the financials? Only with a tax hike so massive that EVERYONE would have to pay the price, including the middle class Obama's trying to court so desperately. 

It will be very interesting to see if the democrats move a bill this potentially damaging to their cause through congress without trying to load it up with conditions, add ons or excessive showmanship designed to damage republican chances downticket this November.

I guess this bailout will put limits on both candidates.. will McCain be able to keep his word about extending the Bush taxcuts?

We are living in interesting times.

Obama's 7 Habits of a Highly Defective Liberal * 1 Most liberal voting record in US Senate * 2 Extreme radical ties * 3 Soft on national security * 4 Ambitious deceptive flip-flopper * 5 Sleazy financial hypocricy * 6 Accomplished nothing as a leader * 7 Divisive empty rhetoric * visit the site for links about each habit and the link to Obama's disgraceful trail of 50 DOCUMENTED LIES The Mad Irish Man's Conservative Consortium Shared with the My Fellow McCain Victory 08 Bloggers at 84 Rules,Adam J Schmidt,Agkyra,Agora politikos,Ahwatukee Musings,America For John McCain,Americas Best Choice,Armchair Everything,ARRA News Service,Asian Americans For McCain,Asymmetric,AzaMatterofact,Basils Blog, Blogs For John McCain's Victory,Blogs For Victory,Blogs4McCain, Blue And New,Blue Grass Red State,Blue Star Chronicles,Born Again Redneck,Brainster,BroadSideoftheBarn,But I Am A Liberal,California For McCain,Campaign2008VictoryA,Catskill commentator,Chas' compilation,coleCurtis-The McCain Monitor,College Republican Federation of Virginia,Conservative For Change,Curtis Schweitzer,DC Republican,Deomocrats & MediaSpin Vs. Facts,Democrats For Sale,Election 2008,Election Night HQ,Elyery Landavazo,EvangelicalsForMcCain,Falling Panda,Faultline USA,Frog Blog Of Louis la Vache,Generation X Dad,Georgians For McCain,GOP Convention Blog,Hoosiers4McCain,How I Lost My Heart,Il rumore Dei mie Venti-RDM20,Independent Jim,Iraqi For John McCain,Johnny Miller blog,Lee Volger's Political Points,Les Recettes de Louis la Vache,Liberal Republican,Liberalstein Political Limozeen,Libertas01, M-J in the Republic,MacPac08,The Mad Irish Man's Conservative Consortium,The Mad Irish Man On TownHall.com, Marathon Pundit,Mass For McCain,McCain Blogette,McCain Blogger Resources,McCain Blogs,McCain Jewish Coalition of Illinois,McCain Mondays,McCain Online Volunteer,McCain States,McCain Talk,McCain Volunteer,McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group,McCainiac,McCainocrats,McCainVictory08,Metaxupolis, Michael Johns,Missourians for McCain,Moms for McCain,My vast right wing conspiracy,MyMcCainBlog,Myth Debunker,New Jersey for John McCain,New Mexico for John McCain,NH4McCAIN,NJ for McCain,NY for McCain,Official McCain Blog,Ohio for John McCain,Oklahoma for John McCain,Only Electable Conservative,PA Educators for McCain,Pajama Pack,Pardon My French,Partisan American,Pennsylvania for John McCain,Pink Flamingo,Pirate's Cove,Politico Mafioso,Porter County Politics,Primary Cuts,Provocateur,Purple People Vote,Real World Libertarian,Reality Bytes,Right Wing Nation,Right Wing Sparkle,Rudy Supporters for McCain Blog,Rudy Supporters for McCain Yahoo Group,San Francisco Bay Daily Photo,Sanity 102,StandUpForMcCain,Steve Maloney GOP,Thought Stew,Todd Biggs,Tree Hugging Republican,Unite McCain Campaign,Vets 4 McCain,Vets For McCain,Virginia 4 McCain,Voting McCain 08,watersblogged!,Why McCain?,Wisconsin4McCain,With Both HandsSheridan Folger,