I don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be a dated document. It was designed to be the framework for a government that would change with the times. While some of the language used may sound a trifle unusual to modern readers, there's little about the content that is firmly rooted in the century in which it was written. In my opinion, reading the Constitution remains the best way for anyone to learn about the American system of government as it was and as it still is. Still, although you won't find mention of pantaloons, powdered wigs, and muskets there, the body of the Constitution nonetheless was a product of a time and a place. Although the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery provides the definitive word on slavery's present legal status, there remain within the Constitution references to slavery which seem to acknowledge that the "peculiar institution" was an acceptable aspect of life in a supposedly free country.
Unfortunately, slavery is a black mark on many of mankind's early forays into representative government. Slaves could be found in the Athenian Democracy, the Roman Republic, and the Venetian Republic. It is as if it was relatively easy for people to take that first step and say, "Some people deserve rights and representation." To take the next logical step and extend equal rights and representation to all people, however, was extremely difficult, particularly when economic interests were involved. I can easily imagine some slavery defender of the past declaring, "But the slaves do the jobs that we don't want to do! Abolition will destroy the economy!" Americans can find some solace in the fact that slavery as an institution has been fiercely opposed from the very beginning of the United States. Even the writers of the Constitution disagreed vehemently on this issue. Still, it's impossible to call the pre-13th Amendment Constitution an anti-slavery document; you can at best say that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, but, considering that Section II of Article IV cavalierly affirms the rights of slave owners to have their "property" restored to them if an escaped slave moves past state lines, that argument can be taken only so far.
I suppose the Constitution must be considered a historical document as well as a political one. Just as slavery is an inextricable part of American history, so too it must be an inextricable part of the U.S. Constitution. Still, the most important thing to me is that slavery, though enshrined within the Constitution, was ultimately abolished by the Constitution as well. Although the battle for civil rights is an ongoing on, continuing to the present day, at least legal slavery was put to an end once and for all. The United States moved further along than Athens, Rome, and Venice did; it did take a while, but it's still something Americans can feel proud about.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Isn't All Taxation Income Redistribution?
I think the most interesting issue of this year's presidential campaign has been taxation. While both John McCain and Barack Obama have presented themselves as being tax cutters, McCain has consistently supported across the board tax cuts whilst Obama has emphasized that tax cuts should be geared towards those who need them the most and, at the same time, taxes should be increased for those who can afford to pay more in his view. On a number of issues, Obama and McCain hold similar views, but there is a real difference in their attitudes towards taxation.
The McCain position is essentially that taxes are a necessary evil and that America's current tax rates are too high. Though no one will ever able to agree on the perfect tax rate, I think it's indisputable that high tax rates make things difficult for a lot of people, from the middle class family trying to eek by to the small or large business that needs money to expand and hire new workers. McCain, like President Bush, sees cutting tax rates as one of the best ways to spur new growth. Compared to Obama, McCain is more concerned with getting past the recession, not surviving it. Ideally, McCain's tax policies would help the American economy zoom through the recession and start thriving again quickly, but there's certainly no guarantee this will happen. There is also a philosophical component to McCain's position which is based on the idea of America being a land of the free and also a land of limited government. Reducing taxes reduces the imposition of government on the people; at the very least, it gives people with money more freedom to spend that money as they will. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue puts pressure on government to slim down which jives well with McCain's call for a government spending freeze and his long-running crusade against wasteful government spending. It doesn't necessarily go so smoothly with certain of McCain's other positions, however, notably when it comes to foreign policy: one indisputable lesson of Iraq is that wars cost a lot of money.
For Barack Obama, the end justifies the means when it comes to taxation. No one likes paying taxes, but there's a difference between the pang an American taxpayer feels when writing a check out to the IRS and the pain a burn victim feels as he is pulled out of the flames. Obama thinks that the good that can come out of government spending outweighs the ills of taxation; he believes that increasing access to health insurance and health care, cleaning up the educational system, and otherwise aiding the masses is more important than the free spending of the wealth one has earned. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to think that the ills of taxation are quite so severe as McCain believes. Lower taxes may encourage companies to expand, but big companies have also made the "golden parachute" into a household phrase. It's not only government that engages in wasteful spending; it's rife in the corporate world and among the wealthy as well. Obama essentially makes the argument that the rich and businesses should pay more in taxes because they can afford to do so -- profitable businesses will still be able to expand and make more profits and the rich will still be able to invest because there is so much wealth floating around, but by trimming the fat of the wealthy the country as a whole can benefit. I think whether this is really true or not is very situational. Some businesses and some people really probably can afford higher taxes without cutting back too much , but not everyone will be able to bear the increased burden so lightly. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated how easily even huge businesses can fail quite suddenly so we shouldn't treat a change in tax policy in any way but seriously. Let's also not forget that Obama is an anti-tax crusader himself when it comes to the middle class. First and foremost, I think Obama's tax cuts will make it easier for folks to survive the recession even if they have been hit hard by the mortgage crisis and credit crunch; I think it's more of a humanitarian gesture than an economic one. At the same time, those tax cuts should encourage consumer spending which is good for the economy and could help keep a lot of businesses afloat. Obama also seems to believe very much in the power of government spending to create jobs and boost the economy; for instance, he wants the government to take a leading role in the drive towards alternative energy sources and he also supports increased government spending on infrastructure (public works projects can create a lot of jobs and give a nice boost to the construction and related industries). To an extent, Obama wants to use government to provide the economic boost that McCain hopes his tax cuts will encourage the wealthy and businesses to provide. Personally, my biggest beef with Obama is that he is not more focused on the most important goals he wants to achieve when it comes to spending -- for instance, I really don't believe spending money on encouraging community service is something the government needs to be worried about right now.
Clearly, McCain and Obama aren't on the same page when it comes to taxation. On the other hand, they're not quite as different from one another as the McCain campaign wants people to believe. Obama has been repeatedly branded an income redistributor and a socialist (and perhaps by extension "un-American") of late because of his tax policies, but we've had the progressive income tax in America for a long time now. I don't think it's fair to call someone who wants to make an adjustment within a system of taxation that has existed through many such adjustments over many years an agent of radical change. In fact, McCain also wants to make adjustments to that system but in the opposite direction. McCain certainly doesn't seem to mind disproportionately relying on the taxation of the wealthy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he probably won't mind relying on it again if another war or two starts under his watch. Granted, McCain has spoken of the flat tax sympathetically in the past, but it doesn't seem to be a part of his current platform. As I see it, ALL taxation is income redistribution -- it always involves the government taking money away from individuals, away from families, and away from businesses and spending it in a way that the previous holders of the money can generally only influence indirectly. McCain may want to reduce the amount of income redistribution rather than increase it as Obama wants to do, but both presidential candidates are redistributers. I don't understand why the social spending advocated by Obama is often treated as if it was in some way worse than other government spending. Perhaps taxation for war spending seems less like income redistribution to some because the troops are fighting for everyone, but the fact remains that all war funds raised by taxation were taken forcibly and spent without the explicit approval of the taxpayer. While Obama does want a bigger government, I don't think any of his policies are really more socialistic in nature than some of the government's recent attempts to address the financial crisis -- AIG, for instance, has essentially been nationalized...a really, really, REALLY socialistic thing to do. I think Obama and McCain both make superb arguments for their respective views on taxation; I'd even go so far as to say their arguments have raised the level of discourse on this subject in American society for the time being. At the end of the day, though, they're both essentially income-redistributin', reluctant socialists, just like FDR and Ronald Reagan. McCain is being disingenuous by claiming to be something else.
The McCain position is essentially that taxes are a necessary evil and that America's current tax rates are too high. Though no one will ever able to agree on the perfect tax rate, I think it's indisputable that high tax rates make things difficult for a lot of people, from the middle class family trying to eek by to the small or large business that needs money to expand and hire new workers. McCain, like President Bush, sees cutting tax rates as one of the best ways to spur new growth. Compared to Obama, McCain is more concerned with getting past the recession, not surviving it. Ideally, McCain's tax policies would help the American economy zoom through the recession and start thriving again quickly, but there's certainly no guarantee this will happen. There is also a philosophical component to McCain's position which is based on the idea of America being a land of the free and also a land of limited government. Reducing taxes reduces the imposition of government on the people; at the very least, it gives people with money more freedom to spend that money as they will. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue puts pressure on government to slim down which jives well with McCain's call for a government spending freeze and his long-running crusade against wasteful government spending. It doesn't necessarily go so smoothly with certain of McCain's other positions, however, notably when it comes to foreign policy: one indisputable lesson of Iraq is that wars cost a lot of money.
For Barack Obama, the end justifies the means when it comes to taxation. No one likes paying taxes, but there's a difference between the pang an American taxpayer feels when writing a check out to the IRS and the pain a burn victim feels as he is pulled out of the flames. Obama thinks that the good that can come out of government spending outweighs the ills of taxation; he believes that increasing access to health insurance and health care, cleaning up the educational system, and otherwise aiding the masses is more important than the free spending of the wealth one has earned. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to think that the ills of taxation are quite so severe as McCain believes. Lower taxes may encourage companies to expand, but big companies have also made the "golden parachute" into a household phrase. It's not only government that engages in wasteful spending; it's rife in the corporate world and among the wealthy as well. Obama essentially makes the argument that the rich and businesses should pay more in taxes because they can afford to do so -- profitable businesses will still be able to expand and make more profits and the rich will still be able to invest because there is so much wealth floating around, but by trimming the fat of the wealthy the country as a whole can benefit. I think whether this is really true or not is very situational. Some businesses and some people really probably can afford higher taxes without cutting back too much , but not everyone will be able to bear the increased burden so lightly. The recent financial crisis has demonstrated how easily even huge businesses can fail quite suddenly so we shouldn't treat a change in tax policy in any way but seriously. Let's also not forget that Obama is an anti-tax crusader himself when it comes to the middle class. First and foremost, I think Obama's tax cuts will make it easier for folks to survive the recession even if they have been hit hard by the mortgage crisis and credit crunch; I think it's more of a humanitarian gesture than an economic one. At the same time, those tax cuts should encourage consumer spending which is good for the economy and could help keep a lot of businesses afloat. Obama also seems to believe very much in the power of government spending to create jobs and boost the economy; for instance, he wants the government to take a leading role in the drive towards alternative energy sources and he also supports increased government spending on infrastructure (public works projects can create a lot of jobs and give a nice boost to the construction and related industries). To an extent, Obama wants to use government to provide the economic boost that McCain hopes his tax cuts will encourage the wealthy and businesses to provide. Personally, my biggest beef with Obama is that he is not more focused on the most important goals he wants to achieve when it comes to spending -- for instance, I really don't believe spending money on encouraging community service is something the government needs to be worried about right now.
Clearly, McCain and Obama aren't on the same page when it comes to taxation. On the other hand, they're not quite as different from one another as the McCain campaign wants people to believe. Obama has been repeatedly branded an income redistributor and a socialist (and perhaps by extension "un-American") of late because of his tax policies, but we've had the progressive income tax in America for a long time now. I don't think it's fair to call someone who wants to make an adjustment within a system of taxation that has existed through many such adjustments over many years an agent of radical change. In fact, McCain also wants to make adjustments to that system but in the opposite direction. McCain certainly doesn't seem to mind disproportionately relying on the taxation of the wealthy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he probably won't mind relying on it again if another war or two starts under his watch. Granted, McCain has spoken of the flat tax sympathetically in the past, but it doesn't seem to be a part of his current platform. As I see it, ALL taxation is income redistribution -- it always involves the government taking money away from individuals, away from families, and away from businesses and spending it in a way that the previous holders of the money can generally only influence indirectly. McCain may want to reduce the amount of income redistribution rather than increase it as Obama wants to do, but both presidential candidates are redistributers. I don't understand why the social spending advocated by Obama is often treated as if it was in some way worse than other government spending. Perhaps taxation for war spending seems less like income redistribution to some because the troops are fighting for everyone, but the fact remains that all war funds raised by taxation were taken forcibly and spent without the explicit approval of the taxpayer. While Obama does want a bigger government, I don't think any of his policies are really more socialistic in nature than some of the government's recent attempts to address the financial crisis -- AIG, for instance, has essentially been nationalized...a really, really, REALLY socialistic thing to do. I think Obama and McCain both make superb arguments for their respective views on taxation; I'd even go so far as to say their arguments have raised the level of discourse on this subject in American society for the time being. At the end of the day, though, they're both essentially income-redistributin', reluctant socialists, just like FDR and Ronald Reagan. McCain is being disingenuous by claiming to be something else.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Detail Man and the Populist
Tonight's vice presidential debate pitted two campaigns against each other that have moved in very different directions of late. Obama/Biden has been surging as banks have failed and the stock market has tanked. Meanwhile, McCain/Palin has been struggling as McCain quasi-suspended his campaign last week to supposedly focus on the financial crisis and Palin has come under fire because of a pair of uncomfortable interviews with Katie Couric. A great deal of scrutiny has been placed on Palin lately, with some pundits even going so far as to call on her to step aside from the campaign. Sarah Palin, thus, had much more to prove tonight; Biden, on the other hand, needed only to attack McCain and praise Obama to fulfill his duties. In my view, both succeeded in their missions.
Following the Republican Convention, Governor Palin has come across to me as more unprepared than incompetent. I suspect that even the most "experienced" of politicians must struggle to remember the specifics of bills and voting records; Palin has reminded me of a student who hasn't studied for a test rather than one who couldn't find a way to pass even if she had studied. Apart from this unpreparedness, I think she has also been a little too eager to spin rather than answer questions directly; she certainly should have been able to speak freely to Couric about where she gets her news from, for instance, but she probably got afraid that she'd mention some news source deemed too liberal by the conservative establishment. Of course, it's also likely that she gets a lot of news updates from her staff -- still, I imagine she's looked at a few national newspapers in her time that she could have mentioned...at least I hope she has. The one positive to emerge from Palin's bad press is that there were no expectations on her going into this debate. As long as she didn't sound too uncomfortable or say anything too ridiculous, she would exceed many people's expectations. I didn't really notice any glaring gaffes from her in tonight's debate. While she didn't address every topic raised directly, she had a lot to say and she did a fine job of projecting warmth and confidence. She didn't seem scared or unprepared; she sounded like a perfectly suitable vice presidential candidate, in fact.
That said, I think Joe Biden clearly won this debate. Palin may not have sounded unprepared, but Senator Biden was if anything overprepared. He has a habit of making reference to specifics in debates, but his discussion of particular bills, voting records, and even the constitutional role of vice presidents tonight suggested an almost encyclopedic knowledge of American politics. He was impressive, and Palin struggled to score points for her team on the issues because Biden seemed to be ready for just about any argument. In stark contrast to the sharp back and forths of the first McCain and Obama debate, this vice presidential debate was a considerably gentler affair, and the attacks were largely focused on the presidential candidates. Palin seemed to thrive in this gentler atmosphere; in particular, she did a very good job throughout the debate of appealing directly to the proverbial average American. For instance, she stated very directly that the blame on the mortgage crisis should be placed squarely on predatory lenders, not the regular folks who bit off more mortgage than they could chew. She tried to articulate some of the anger that the victims of the crisis feel by essentially declaring that the American people won't be fooled again and unregulated financiers will never be allowed to run amok again. Palin seems careful not to promise too much, though; as much as she wanted to demonstrate that she empathizes with the common man and woman, she largely steered clear of making specific policy commitments geared towards the masses. In that way, she may not seem to fit the classic model of a populist candidate, but she has definitely been more of a people-oriented than issue-oriented candidate so far. While Palin did an excellent job of presenting herself as a warm and caring person, she had a harder time defending her running mate against Biden who seemed to know about just about every congressional vote Senator McCain has ever made. She couldn't effectively respond to Biden when he mentioned McCain's past opposition to alternative energy or McCain's agreement with Bush on the "important issues," for instance. Her very pro-regulation stance in the debate seemed to be at odds with McCain's past positions, which Biden also criticized repeatedly. I'm not sure what to make of this other than possibly that the financial crisis has made McCain more in favor of regulation of the financial industry than he has been in the past.
I thought Palin made two effective attacks on Obama/Biden, and both were related to foreign policy. First, she attacked Obama's characterization of the American mission in Afghanistan as air-raiding villages and killing civilians. That remark, though made by Obama while he was explaining why he wants to change America's policy in Afghanistan (he's actually in favor of much MORE American involvement in Afghanistan), does paint a rather ugly picture of the American military. All wars are ugly, but unless Obama decides that he wants to cease involvement in Afghanistan I strongly suspect civilians will continue to be killed unintentionally there. Palin's second effective attack was actually directed against Joe Biden who seemed to be trying to paint himself as a dove who had never really supported the Iraq war. I heard the same Democratic debates that Palin referenced in her attack, and I also don't believe Biden and Obama were originally on the same page when it comes to Iraq. "Joe Biden" and "dove" don't belong together in the same sentence! Granted, it is true that Biden and McCain haven't supported the exact same strategies and/or tactics in Iraq, but Biden has never been a leader of the anti-war movement. Palin's other attacks weren't nearly so effective, and one was particularly poor. Her attempt to criticize Obama for voting against a war funding bill backfired badly on her when Biden pointed out that McCain had also voted against a (different) war funding bill -- neither senator really wanted to leave the troops stranded, but they both used their votes to make opposite political statements regarding timelines for withdrawal at different times. Neither of them has any business righteously chastising anyone on that issue...Biden, though, just might because he voted for funding even when Obama didn't. Palin was foolish to bring this topic up. Another bad moment for Palin came when she suggested it might be be nice if the vice president could have more power -- I don't think that's something even Republicans want after eight years of the shadowy Dick Cheney, and Biden was quite eloquent and erudite when he discussed the proper role of a vice president (and criticized the aforementioned shadowy Cheney).
While Palin's comfortable performance should reassure those McCain faithful who are skeptical of the Alaskan governor's fitness for office, Biden's better showing may win over some more undecided voters to his ticket. Most pundits say that vice presidential debates tend not to have much impact, and I'm not sure this one will be any different. Palin, though, was the "story" many people had on their minds before the debate; as such, her decent performance may very well prove to be more valuable for her campaign than Biden's superior performance is for his. Palin definitely didn't provide the disaster that I'm sure many Obama supporters were hoping for...the governor is probably going to get her first good night's sleep in a while tonight.
Following the Republican Convention, Governor Palin has come across to me as more unprepared than incompetent. I suspect that even the most "experienced" of politicians must struggle to remember the specifics of bills and voting records; Palin has reminded me of a student who hasn't studied for a test rather than one who couldn't find a way to pass even if she had studied. Apart from this unpreparedness, I think she has also been a little too eager to spin rather than answer questions directly; she certainly should have been able to speak freely to Couric about where she gets her news from, for instance, but she probably got afraid that she'd mention some news source deemed too liberal by the conservative establishment. Of course, it's also likely that she gets a lot of news updates from her staff -- still, I imagine she's looked at a few national newspapers in her time that she could have mentioned...at least I hope she has. The one positive to emerge from Palin's bad press is that there were no expectations on her going into this debate. As long as she didn't sound too uncomfortable or say anything too ridiculous, she would exceed many people's expectations. I didn't really notice any glaring gaffes from her in tonight's debate. While she didn't address every topic raised directly, she had a lot to say and she did a fine job of projecting warmth and confidence. She didn't seem scared or unprepared; she sounded like a perfectly suitable vice presidential candidate, in fact.
That said, I think Joe Biden clearly won this debate. Palin may not have sounded unprepared, but Senator Biden was if anything overprepared. He has a habit of making reference to specifics in debates, but his discussion of particular bills, voting records, and even the constitutional role of vice presidents tonight suggested an almost encyclopedic knowledge of American politics. He was impressive, and Palin struggled to score points for her team on the issues because Biden seemed to be ready for just about any argument. In stark contrast to the sharp back and forths of the first McCain and Obama debate, this vice presidential debate was a considerably gentler affair, and the attacks were largely focused on the presidential candidates. Palin seemed to thrive in this gentler atmosphere; in particular, she did a very good job throughout the debate of appealing directly to the proverbial average American. For instance, she stated very directly that the blame on the mortgage crisis should be placed squarely on predatory lenders, not the regular folks who bit off more mortgage than they could chew. She tried to articulate some of the anger that the victims of the crisis feel by essentially declaring that the American people won't be fooled again and unregulated financiers will never be allowed to run amok again. Palin seems careful not to promise too much, though; as much as she wanted to demonstrate that she empathizes with the common man and woman, she largely steered clear of making specific policy commitments geared towards the masses. In that way, she may not seem to fit the classic model of a populist candidate, but she has definitely been more of a people-oriented than issue-oriented candidate so far. While Palin did an excellent job of presenting herself as a warm and caring person, she had a harder time defending her running mate against Biden who seemed to know about just about every congressional vote Senator McCain has ever made. She couldn't effectively respond to Biden when he mentioned McCain's past opposition to alternative energy or McCain's agreement with Bush on the "important issues," for instance. Her very pro-regulation stance in the debate seemed to be at odds with McCain's past positions, which Biden also criticized repeatedly. I'm not sure what to make of this other than possibly that the financial crisis has made McCain more in favor of regulation of the financial industry than he has been in the past.
I thought Palin made two effective attacks on Obama/Biden, and both were related to foreign policy. First, she attacked Obama's characterization of the American mission in Afghanistan as air-raiding villages and killing civilians. That remark, though made by Obama while he was explaining why he wants to change America's policy in Afghanistan (he's actually in favor of much MORE American involvement in Afghanistan), does paint a rather ugly picture of the American military. All wars are ugly, but unless Obama decides that he wants to cease involvement in Afghanistan I strongly suspect civilians will continue to be killed unintentionally there. Palin's second effective attack was actually directed against Joe Biden who seemed to be trying to paint himself as a dove who had never really supported the Iraq war. I heard the same Democratic debates that Palin referenced in her attack, and I also don't believe Biden and Obama were originally on the same page when it comes to Iraq. "Joe Biden" and "dove" don't belong together in the same sentence! Granted, it is true that Biden and McCain haven't supported the exact same strategies and/or tactics in Iraq, but Biden has never been a leader of the anti-war movement. Palin's other attacks weren't nearly so effective, and one was particularly poor. Her attempt to criticize Obama for voting against a war funding bill backfired badly on her when Biden pointed out that McCain had also voted against a (different) war funding bill -- neither senator really wanted to leave the troops stranded, but they both used their votes to make opposite political statements regarding timelines for withdrawal at different times. Neither of them has any business righteously chastising anyone on that issue...Biden, though, just might because he voted for funding even when Obama didn't. Palin was foolish to bring this topic up. Another bad moment for Palin came when she suggested it might be be nice if the vice president could have more power -- I don't think that's something even Republicans want after eight years of the shadowy Dick Cheney, and Biden was quite eloquent and erudite when he discussed the proper role of a vice president (and criticized the aforementioned shadowy Cheney).
While Palin's comfortable performance should reassure those McCain faithful who are skeptical of the Alaskan governor's fitness for office, Biden's better showing may win over some more undecided voters to his ticket. Most pundits say that vice presidential debates tend not to have much impact, and I'm not sure this one will be any different. Palin, though, was the "story" many people had on their minds before the debate; as such, her decent performance may very well prove to be more valuable for her campaign than Biden's superior performance is for his. Palin definitely didn't provide the disaster that I'm sure many Obama supporters were hoping for...the governor is probably going to get her first good night's sleep in a while tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)