the elevator pitch

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.

(more…)

Tweet This Post