Is income redistribution a bad thing?
Americans seem on the verge of finding out. In a carefully crafted speech intended to respond to criticism and what he considers misperceptions, Barack Obama addressed 80,000 of his sychophants at Invesco Field in Denver and outlined a plan for his presidency that promises a commitment to leveling the playing field. In a nation that has witnessed a widening gulf between classes, Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention of initiating programs that are undoubtedly socialist.
Obama promised to deliver better education by “recruiting an army of teachers” and paying for those determined young Americans who currently can’t afford to pursue college. The Democratic candidate for president also said everyone in the country would have improved health care. He swore during his acceptance speech of the party’s nomination that the nation would be off of oil from the Mideast within 10 years through government funding of alternative-energy development.
To pay for his it, Obama said he would do three things: increase taxes on the richest five percent of the population, siphon loopholes that will curtail corporate profits, and go “line by line” through the federal budget to eliminate excess. Through those measures, Obama says he will account for every dime of his policies.
Common sense says it will take more than that.
Redistributing wealth isn’t a bad thing, if adroitly executed. For more than a decade, economist Jeffrey Sachs has advocated a one-time levy on the richest two percent of Americans that would help solve national and global poverty. Whether Obama will have the opportunity to put his vision to work won’t be known until November 4, when Americans decide between him and Republican candidate John McCain.
What’s true is Obama is already a timeless figure, even if he isn’t the next president. He framed his Robin Hood plan in a speech that will be recalled in the annals of history. It touched on all the points Obama needed to address, punctuating his stature as a strategic communicator without peer at the moment. But between his attacks on McCain and the elite that have led the country to the dismal position it finds itself in, Obama made it clear he wants to change social issues.
Once Americans get over the warm and fuzzy feelings for him, they may wonder if those policies are not so much about change as an all-out redefinition of who they are.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.elevationpr.com/news/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right.
So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive. When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him.
They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.
When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!” But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away.
By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.
By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing.
By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.
By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.
You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change?
How will you carry it out?
What will it cost America?
Would we?