Obama: Redistribution of Wealth
Back in 2001, Barack Obama was quite honest about his wish to “spread the wealth around.” The following audio is, I believe, important for all those who are fiscal conservatives (to a more or lesser degree) and who believe that U.S. Constitution actually serves an important purpose.
From it:
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 invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
He also said that: “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistribute change through the structure of the court.”
Note the words he uses. “Redistributive change.”
Change you can believe in.
Red State worded it quite well: “The erudition of the opinions Obama expressed do not make them any less radical.”
Listen to it:
The most fascinating thing about this entire episode and these revelations is that Americans will vote for Obama nonetheless. This means they may either support redistribution of wealth, which means that America experts such as myself will have to review their previously held assumptions, or simply do not believe that Obama actually wants to do what he has said his goal to be on numerous occasions.
Isn’t Obama also historically wrong? Affirmative action programs began from the civil rights movement. Johnson’s Great Society programs were also inspired by civil rights struggles.
JFG;
I listened to the first recording at the WBEZ website. I wasn’t particularly reassured or “set straight”
For better or worse it appears Sen. Obama will be our next president. There is enough in his early political career to suggest he was decidedly to the left of center. Since his Senate election he has maintained a pretty liberal voting record while at the same time generally speaking in less left wing rhetoric. Now we should be clear, for the past two years his campaign has overwhelmed his senate voting record (i.e. often absent) so we can’t say for sure that he continued in his movement the center. Even without tapes listed above or statements of “spreading the wealth” Sen. Obama’s politics are too far from the center for my taste. I haven’t seen anything reassuring in that respect. (I take campaign rhetoric for what it is: campaign rhetoric). But only his presidency will clearly tell us if he has moved toward the middle.
Re: redistribution of wealth
All taxation is wealth redistribution. Every rational player realizes the need for taxation (wealth redistribution). The disagreements in mainstream, developed world politics are about how much wealth redistribution there should be. To latch on to this one phrase from Obama and to somehow pretend that McCain’s tax plan is not going to redistribute wealth is just silly and does not further the actual argument.
“To latch on to this one phrase from Obama and to somehow pretend that McCain’s tax plan is not going to redistribute wealth is just silly and does not further the actual argument.”
You silly and simplistic like “four more years of the Bush administration?
Critisizing a campaign theme as “simplistic” is like stating that American Idol is not “high art” No sh*t!
And as for the gist of the “redistribution” argument. I believe there is a legitimate discussion how much redistribution. This is a variation on the “we already have progressive taxation so what’s the big deal”. Well a worthwhile discussion would be whether it a good policy idea to have 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all taxes or have that same percent pay 60%? or 80%
There’s also a huge ideological difference between ’spreading the wealth’ directly from one taxpayer to another citizen who has a positive net tax liability, vs. paying taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government.
We already have a progressive system of taxation and social safety nets. Any further wealth redistribution to an individual or family is not even a wise ‘investment’, as the new left likes to call these things, because such individuals/families would fare better having pro-growth economic policies during a period of economic stagnation so that they have a much better chance of finding or keeping a job. Which benefits the working poor more- to continue at least being able to work (and hopefully rise to higher paying jobs over time) or to get a once a year check for $500 from the federal govt?
C3,
I did not criticize it for being simplistic, I criticized it for being silly and not making a real argument.
“I believe there is a legitimate discussion how much redistribution. ”
Absolutely, and that is the argument that should be made rather than simply calling one candidates policies redistribution when both candidates policies will inevitably redistribute wealth.
“We already have a progressive system of taxation and social safety nets. Any further wealth redistribution to an individual or family is not even a wise ‘investment’…”
That is an example of a much more honest way to begin the discussion.
Come to think of it, his statement is not only wrong from the standpoint that there were affirmative action programs and Great Society programs to deal with poverty. Also, people’s problem with the Warren Court was not it telling government what they can’t do, but the fact that they told the government what they had to do–like, school busing. So I’m wondering what version of history Sen. Obama lives in.
Grewgills,
There is a difference on how you justify your policy. You may think government should have fair tax policies that don’t overburden one class over another; and that public money should go into services that are available for everyone, not just poor or rich. Or you may think the government has a license to do whatever is necessary to address economic inequities. So don’t gloss over the difference. Right now the debate is pretty shallow, but the whole election has been pretty shallow.
“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’”
– Thomas Jefferson
This is the exact thing this country fought a war over against the Brits. The idea of taxation withut representation. The idea that the courts could “decide” where our money goes and the government has the right to take it. Obama is making that argument here. That the govenment would have the right to take our money for something like repreastions for example- not metter if your family didn’t get to this country until 1970 or not you would have to pay! This is a pretty major point of perspective for a President which we are electing. I think we need to hear more on this not less. The media has been ignoring this.
“You may think government should have fair tax policies that don’t overburden one class over another; and that public money should go into services that are available for everyone, not just poor or rich. Or you may think the government has a license to do whatever is necessary to address economic inequities.”
Or like most of us your position may fall in between those poles or differ depending on the specific programs.
“Right now the debate is pretty shallow, but the whole election has been pretty shallow.”
No argument there. Unfortunately that has been the case in every American election I have witnessed and is not likely to change any time soon.