Over at Outside the Beltway, Alex Knapp tries to offer a defense of the 2001 Obama radio interview that is just now coming to light. Alex maintains that Obama is not a socialist, and in fact is defending the separation of powers. There's just one problem - Alex leaves out the most important line from Obama.
Obama said:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
The context of his words is important. For example:
I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples...
then the second part of his statement:
...but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
So he's saying that the court succeeded in one area, and thus "failed" in a second way. They failed in redistribution of wealth. That is the clear intent of the statement. Succeeded in this manner, failed in that one.
He then goes on to say that the courts aren't the right place for issues of redistribution of wealth, because they are administrative issues difficult for the courts to oversee.
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
Alex posts that section, but missed part of his quote - the one where Obama says that the legal justifications for redistribution of wealth are easy to find.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
Obama clearly says the court could come up with reasoning to justify the redistribution of wealth, but it's not popular politically. The only way to redistribute wealth is to do so through the executive and legislative branches, so that the public will accept it. What does that mean? It means the court can redistribute wealth, a reading at odds with the foundation of the Constitution as it is written.
Alex's next point is even worse. He says that Obama's ideas on wealth redistribution are mainstream and moderate, and amount to some small changes in the tax code.
Barack Obama has been clear–throughout his political career, as well as in his books–that what he means by a “redistribution” is not a radical socialist agenda, but rather a tax code that is a bit more progressive–with the middle class having their taxes cut and wealthier people getting their taxes raised back to Clinton-era levels, a larger government role in health care, and a bigger role for government in creating economic opportunities. Now, you can definitely quibble with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are clearly not socialist, and there’s nothing in Obama’s political record which pushes towards anything but a moderate Democratic economic policy agenda.
Two problems with that. First. The legal reasoning behind an income tax is already in the Constitution. The choice to make it a flat tax or a progressive one isn't in the text, and no one is challenging the authority of the Congress to make the income tax progressive. If this is the case, what exactly are "the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society" Obama wishes to addres.
If, as Knapp tells us, Obama is only talking about minor changes in the tax code, what legal theories do the courts need to come up with you make them? The answer is Obama isn't talking about moderate Democratic policies - he's talking about "redistributive change," a policy that socialist governments follow in which they tax the wealthy in order to pay for entitlement programs and cash payments to the lower and middle class, in what proponents call social justice, and most Americans call welfare payments paying off blocs of voters to ensure election.
Obama's tax cuts to the middle class are all refundable, which means that in essence, he's using the Income Tax to write checks to the lower and middle class votes. He's taking money from the top brackets, and using it to write checks to voters who pay no income tax. You can call that moderate, and minor, but it's about as clear of a case for socialism as you're ever going to get.
So two things. First - Obama does see a legal case for taking wealth from some citizens and giving it to others. But he thinks it's more effective and popular to do so through another branch - say the executive and legislative ones, which he might soon control. Second - redistribution of wealth is not the same as a progressive income tax. Asking the wealthy to pay more to build roads, bridges, and defense is defensible. Increasing taxes on the wealthy to fund entitlements to low income and middle class voters, on the other hand, is by every definition socialism.
Great writeup, I just wish the MSM would pick up on this a little more. Its sad where the media is headed.
Posted by: Rock Campbell | 10/29/2008 at 12:00 PM
Yawn.
Posted by: Yankton | 11/01/2008 at 11:27 AM