All the ridiculous talk lately about whether Obama’s tax plan constitutes socialism has me on a quest. But first, I need to define socialism because far too many people are confusing socialism with totalitarianism (which we have come dangerously close to under George W. Bush), fasism and communism. So here are some definitions. Socialism is defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary as: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 2. 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; and 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Looking at the first definition, does Obama’s tax plan fit the model? No. The tax plan does not advocate the ownership or administration of production and/or distribution, whether by co-op or directly by the government.
So far, so good, but how about the second definition of socialism? No. There has not even been a hint of government seizing private property anywhere in Obama’s tax plan.
And finally, the third definition of socialism – does Obama’s tax plan provide a trasition between capitalism and communism? OK, well, that requires that we define communism. According to Miriam Webster, communismis 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. So honestly, does Obama’s tax plan, in any way, look like a transition stage to an ownerless, totalitarian government? NO. His plan calls for an increase in the amount of TAXES paid by the top 5% of income earners in our country... you know – those guys that can afford to find every tax loophole they can get and end up paying next to nothing anyway; the ones living off of investments (other people’s production) without ever having to really work themselves anyway. But is property being seized? No. Income is being taxed just like for the rest of us.
So where has all this talk of "socialism" come from? It began with "Joe the Plumber" and Obama trying to explain that those who are able to afford a luxury lifestyle have the luxury of being able to afford more of the load that is born by our collective society (you know, things like roads, air traffic control, port authority, FDA, EPA, FEMA and a whole alphabet soup of organizations.) In his explanation, Obama said that we need to spread the wealth around. That may have been an unfortunate statement, but not an inaccurate one. The truth is that we are always operating under "redistribution of wealth." That's what happens every time we buy something or hire someone to do a job for us. The real question is where is the wealth ending up at? Is it going primarily into the hands of the wealthy who will hoard it and thereby take it out of circulation? Or is it going into the hands of small business owners, middle class, etc, who will be more likely to spend it and thereby keep it in the financial pool?
Our country has had a massive redistribution of wealth over the past decade, it’s just not been in our favor. There is a wonderful website that I have blogged about before called The L Curve, which gives a wonderful visual of the distribution of income in the US. Here is the text that goes with the graph:
The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.
Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)
--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.
--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.
--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.
--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!
According to the site, this is just the distribution of income. That is not wealth. Wealth is even more skewed in our country. Here is what they have to say about wealth;
If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)
So there is already massive redistribution of wealth in our country and it all favors those at the very top. But does having those that can pay more actually pay more encourage a welfare state? Here is what the site has to say about that:
Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a systemic, not an individual problem. There is plenty to go around, but it doesn't adequately go around. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to fight over the crumbs. (If you are mathematically inclined, check out a recent study of the income distribution that identifies two distinct income classes in the US with different mathematical bahavior.) True, it has been this way through the ages, but that doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a system. I believe we can do better.
I agree with him. We can do much better. Not by robbing people as many Republicans are suggesting that Obama’s tax plan amounts to. Here is another interesting point from the website:
Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes over a hundred thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%.
Meanwhile, the taxes that we are paying are primarily going to fund interests of that top 5%. The wars are fought for and paid for by the rest of us in order to secure their interests abroad. The domestic infrastructure is funded by the rest of us in order to facilitate the interests of the top 5%. Sure, we may use the interstate to get back and forth to our jobs or to travel to family out of state a couple of times a year, but who does that system primarily serve? Obama’s plan doesn’t rob the top 5%, it just makes the burden more equitable.
Now, before we start thinking that this is a Democrat vs. Republican thing, let take a look at one of John McCain’s self-proclaimed heroes – Theodore Roosevelt, a beloved Republican standard bearer. Do you remember Teddy the "Trust-buster"? This is what Teddy Roosevelt said in his "New Nationalism’ speech in 1910:
We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. ... The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and ... a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
So is Teddy Roosevelt a socialist? I don't think so. There is a great article in Slate.com on this very topic. Here is a bit of that article:
T.R. justified progressive taxation straightforwardly as a matter of equality. In his 1907 State of the Union address, Roosevelt said:
Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows [italics mine].
Hopefully this will put to bed the socialism argument from the McCaniacs.
You know, Obama has been compared to a great Republican president, Abraham Lincoln for their similarities, but I honestly hope that Obama might incorporate a bit of this other great Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt in his policies.
I have crossposted this at South Denton County Democrats, SoDeCo.