Wednesday, October 22, 2008

If it walks like a duck...

Recently, many on the right side of the political spectrum have criticized Sen. Barak Obama's tax plan as 'welfare' disguised as tax credits. They correctly point out that many of the tax credits in his plan are for people who are not paying any taxes to begin with, which means they'll get even more of a 'refund' when they file.

Under Obama's plan, if the tax credit is for $2,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $300 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $1,700. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $2,000. When the amount you give back to a tax filer is in excess of the total they've paid, it's a handout - also known as "welfare."

Of course the campaign of Sen. John McCain jumped all over this, since it resonates with many voters.

In response to the traction the McCain campaign was getting on the issue, the Obama campaign has added a 'work requirement' to one of the components of their tax credit policy.

"They started saying this was welfare," said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."

So there you have it: to make our redistribution of wealth more palatable, we'll require some sort of work in order to be eligible .... never mind that other people are also working but will be expected to pay more so someone else can pay less - or get a handout. But this is not socialism....

Yeah, right.


Jay Ott said...

Here's the thing. Obama and his campaign keep trying to link McCain with George Bush and his "failed policies."

Like a broken record, Obama keeps hammering away on the point that, voting for McCain is exactly the same as voting for Bush and his so-called "failed policies."

Suppose Obama is right, I don't think he is, but let's temporarily grant him that and look at what Obama has to offer--Marxist socialism. "From Each according to his means, according to his needs."

I think Obama's position is fundamentally wrong on at least these two levels:

1. Hypocrisy: According to Obama, it's wrong to say his policies are socialistic, yet it's o.k. to for Obama to tie McCain to Bush.

2. Fairness based on natural rights and responsibility, not 19th-century positivism: Historically, socialism has never been fair and it never has "loved it's neighbor as itself" Socialists have usurped that law and replaced it with it's own that it's o.k. to steal from one neighbor to give to another neighbor. This is artifical since it makes people equal by force and by stealing from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots".

The bottom line is that we will either end up with a president that will, reverse Reagan's imperative contained in his first inaugral address that Obama seeks solututions that will NOT be equitable, with one group being singled out to pay the higher price.

Or, we will end up with a president who believes the fundamental rights of individuals not collective groups--of "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness."

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...

Timothy W Higgins said...


Parsing the language doesn't change the principle. Government checks for money not earned is welfare. Distribution of such monies is "redistribution of wealth", and hence socialism.

"...each according to his need."

Google Analytics Alternative