In last week’s column, I posed the question of whether Barack Obama was a socialist or not, given the current definition of the ideology. I think the evidence is clear that he is.
Obama likes to boast that we, as a nation, have learned from our history. But, as he seeks to implement more socialism, have we really learned anything?
In the academic world it is common to hear defenses of the failures of socialism, most notably the oft-repeated statement that “true socialism has never been tried.” But alas, my dear friends, it has. As a matter of fact, it has been tried right here in America, during our earliest years, and it is being tried right now. Continue reading
Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many on the right say yes; most on the left say no. It is a major question that has pervaded our politics for the last four years with no definitive answer either one way or the other. But I think the answer is obvious, if one will only look objectively at the clear signs.
First of all, how do you define socialism? The historical definition is a simple one: government ownership of the means of production and the central economic planning that makes such an arrangement possible. Yet in the modern era, it has undergone a necessary re-evaluation.
In 1976, Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek, in an updated version of his influential book The Road to Serfdom, re-defined it for contemporary times: “Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.” Continue reading
A recurring theme throughout this campaign season has been the distribution of the nation’s wealth, stirred by President Obama and the Occupy movement. A new phrase has entered the American political lexicon: the 99 percent versus 1 percent.
Mitt Romney stirred up the political waters recently with remarks about wealth distribution and government dependency.
“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he told supporters at a private fundraiser. “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. [They believe] that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
Though what he spoke was truth, the Mainstream Media went wild. At the same time, a 1998 tape was released of then-state senator Obama speaking in favor of re-distributing wealth. Yet the media just yawned. Continue reading
On December 19, 1893, William L. Wilson, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, rolled out a new tariff reform bill, which passed the House on February 1, 1894 by a significant margin, 204 to 140. Tariff duties were modestly cut by 15 percent. However, to make up for any projected loss of revenue, the final House version of the bill included a provision for an income tax. The young Democratic congressman from Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, introduced the tax amendment and vigorously defended it. “There is no more just tax upon the statute books than the income tax,” he told the House.
Though not a new concept, a tax on incomes had been first enacted in 1862 to help finance the Civil War, and, despite the Constitution’s prohibition against direct taxes, federal courts had left it alone as a war revenue measure. The original act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the forerunner to the IRS, to collect the tax. It covered all incomes over $600 a year at two graduated rates. Income above $600 and up to $10,000 was taxed at three percent, while everything over $10,000 at five percent. In 1864 the top rate was increased to ten percent. When applicable, the federal government had actually withheld the tax from people’s income, such as government salaries, dividends and interest from bank stocks and bonds, as well as from railroads and other corporations. By the end of the war, some 15 percent of households were paying the tax. In 1872, the law expired and Republicans were content to leave it dead, as the tariff was continually pouring money into the federal treasury, making additional taxes unnecessary. Continue reading
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Barack Obama’s term in office, it simply cannot be argued that he has fulfilled any of his campaign promises. The soaring rhetoric of his historic 2008 run for the presidency was nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign. He said what he had to say in order to be elected. What puzzles many is the fact that he has as much support in the polls as he does.
His campaign promises, as well as those he made once in office, were legion and his failures to achieve those goals are nearly as numerous, much too lengthy to detail here, so let us look at some of the major ones. Continue reading
Confederate President Jefferson Davis remarked during the War for Southern Independence that “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory.” President Davis was referring to the political theory of states’ rights and how it was undermining the war effort, as state governments were constantly resisting repeated calls for cooperation with Richmond.
Should America fail, our tombstone should read: Died of Politics. As the nation stares a serious fiscal crisis in the face, most of the political talk in the last couple of weeks has centered around a Missouri US Senate candidate’s stupid remarks about rape, as the Democratic Party and its allies in the media attempt to tie the comments to every single Republican, including Romney and Ryan.
Our political culture has become so inundated with petty, partisan politics that it is becoming more and more difficult to get much-needed reforms enacted because any serious discussion of major policy changes is meet with the usual litany of demagogic attacks designed to scare one group or another in order to score political points. Continue reading
American history is filled with slogans. Our independence was forged, you might say, because of a powerful mantra that rang out across the colonies: “No taxation without representation!” It was on the lips of nearly every American who believed in liberty. In light of our betrayal by the Supreme Court on the Obamacare bill, I want to propose a new one.
Recently I gave a speech to the Jones County Tea Party group on the subject of the Mississippi lawsuit against Obamacare. Since I am an original plaintiff, they sought my views on the chances that our suit might have for success. For the record, I think we have a great case and a shot at having the Court overturn it, yet in light of the curveball the Chief Justice recently threw us, your guess is as good as mine.
So what if we do lose the case and Obamacare remains law? What if President Obama is re-elected or a President Romney fails to live up to his promises of repeal? We must not lose heart. We must resist. Continue reading
Serious political talk centered last week on the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that warned of an oncoming “fiscal cliff” if the Bush tax cuts expire and previously agreed to spending cuts are implemented in January. The CBO estimates that if those two things occur, then the economy could plunge into another recession. Unemployment would hit 9 percent and the economy would shrink by 0.5 percent.
Frankly, I see no fiscal cliff in the CBO’s report if the spending reductions are enacted or even if the tax cuts expired. A rise in unemployment from 8.3 percent to 9.0 percent and an economic slowdown of less than one percent is in no way an economic crisis. The good news is the deficit would be cut nearly in half.
But the CBO analysis is flawed, given its findings, for it is the continued accumulation of massive deficits and debt that will drag us over the cliff. Our economic history does not show that cutting spending during hard times will cause a recession. It didn’t happen for Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, or Warren Harding. Continue reading