Reporting from the Daley Plaza Recess Tea Party

Today, at noon Central Time, Daley Plaza was the home of one of 435 tea party demonstrations against Obama Care. This particular protest was directed specifically at Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin declined to attend and the crowd let Durbin know just how they felt about his lack of attention to his constituency. This demonstration was promoted by John and Cisco of 560 WIND. The Thomas More Law Center was also a sponsor and they did the leg work in getting the permit.

The event drew about 500-1000 protesters and there were about 20 counter protesters from the Chicago Single Payer Network. The majority of the signs were hand made and they varied in style and substance. Because rallies like this always create an intersection between local, state, and national politics, the protest continued to intersect between all those political intersections over and over.

For instance, Patrick Hughes was a speaker. Hughes is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Congressman Mark Kirk. Kirk, himself a Republican, has become a scourge of the tea party movement with his vote for cap and trade. The mention of Kirk drew a plethora of boos from the crowd. After the scheduled speakers spoke, several folks from the crowd also spoke. One pointed out that Durbin, implicated in the University of Illinois clout scandal, would use his influence to put friends and family to the front of the line when health care would become rationed. Others pointed to cost overruns at the Illinois toll road as examples of broken promises. The bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were examples of national government programs that made this crowd distrustful of Obama Care.

It's also clear that this crowd wasn't buying this morning's oped by President Obama. Fears of tax funded abortions, health care for illegals, and government take over and rationing were raised over and over. In fact, in most ways, the ideas that were presented today were a microcosm of the concerns we've heard at town halls everywhere this month.

If this crowd is any indication, then for tea parties the main reform health care mantra is tort reform. Patrick Hughes suggested allowing insurance to cross state lines, ending mandates, but it was when he pronounced his support for tort reform that the crowd exploded. That was his political home run. He wasn't the only one. Each and every time tort reform was mentioned was the moment when the crowd was at its most ruckus.

One speaker described her own personal story. Her daughter has a very rare heart condition. She says that her daughter required specialized cardiovascular surgery. It was her private insurance that gave her a full menu of doctors to choose from. She continued to point out that every drug, every procedure, and every doctor was created in America "the best health care system in the world".

A representative from Chicago Single Payer Network was also given a minute to speak. He said that his dad was treated FOR FREE for several decades under Medicare. He said the only fair system is the government run system. The crowd pointed out that Medicare is broke and that his dad's free health care was really picked up by someone else.

I also spoke with a sympathizer of the Chicago Single Payer Network after the rally. They are a self professed "Marxist". They are not only for a single payer health care but against business entirely which is "dictatorial". They believed that it's flat out evil that Warren Buffett has billions while others starve. He didn't believe that Microsoft should belong to Bill Gates, and refused to acknowledge that Gates should be rewarded for the risk he took when he started Microsoft. Instead, he saw a world in which workers owned their own wealth. When I said that any worker could own their own wealth by being an entrepeneur, he said that he envisioned a society without business. It is a command society where the workers rule. It's important to note that the Chicago Single Payer Network is part of a coalition that includes the International Socialist Organization.

There's no question that single payer is part of an ideology that eventually leads our society toward socialism, a point made by several speakers. What's fascinating about this ideology is it's disgust for private business, entrepeneurship, and free markets. Think about that as you watch this video of Congressman Weiner.

null

The same disgust for the free market that the Marxist felt was felt by Weiner in this clip. Make no mistake. The public option is a trojan horse for single payer. Also, make no mistake, those that support single payer are rooted in the ideology of Socialism. It's just that some more freely admit it than others.

Coming Soon to the United States: Class War Nation

Witnessing the spectacle surrounding the bonuses at AIG, I have come to a rather frightening realization. This country is on the brink of conducting several very bloody class wars all at once. The AIG flap is one battle in a larger class war that pits Wall Street vs. Main Street. In a similar vein, you can look at this class war as management vs. worker or even upper class vs. middle class. Of course, that is not the only class war going on at all. The Treasury Department's loan modification plan went a long way toward creating mortgage class war between those that feel they have been responsible and those the same folks feel haven't been as responsible. Finally, the president has done an excellent job of stoking the traditional class war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by constantly demonizing the wealthy and also by tax policy that punishes them while giving away many things to those below them. There is even a class war being stoked by politicians for all ends between small and big businesses. As the recession deepens, expect the next manifestation of the class wars to be citizens versus foreigners. (especially as jobs go away and someone uses that to lament foreigners getting our jobs)

Class wars are among the most corrosive societal phenomenon ever created. They have lead to revolution. Karl Marx used them to push socialism. They were even a favorite of Adolph Hitler. There's no telling just how corrosive the current crop of class wars will be on the United States, but there is no doubt they will be bad. There is already an obscene amount of resentment and rage directed by one side of the class war to the other.

The AIG flap is just one manifestation. In fact, the tea parties are themselves a manifestation of the class war in which citizens are enraged as their tax dollars are going to fund those that they believe don't deserve it. With each bailout and give away, a certain segment believes that they are always the ones left out when cash is doled out.

What this will continue to lead to is further demonization of every opponent in each of these multiple class wars. Big fat cat Wall Street types will continue to be demonized. Those that took on more than they could afford to pay will also be demonized. The wealthy in general will continue to be demonized.

In his book, Slobbering Love Affair, Bernie Goldberg recounts a conversation he had with Pat Caddell. Caddell told him that the media has lost so much credibility that a loon could run on a radical agenda down the road by simply demonizing the media. In fact, we are now in the midst of several policy debates in which one or both sides is pushing their policy by demonizing one group or another. Such an environment will only lead to policy extremism. Furthermore, economic weakness is a perfect environment for extremists to exploit class warfare. When people are struggling, they are looking for someone to blame. That's exactly what has been happening as groups from all over have taken their place on the chopping block to be demonized for most of our problems.

This will lead to a series of successive policies in which demonized groups get theirs so to speak. The legislation penalizing AIG bonuses was the most obvious example. The massive increases of taxes on the "rich" is yet another example. Of course, the administration is planning on a series of new and massive regulations on most financial firms. Much of the legislation will have cheerleaders from those that believes its targets will be deserving of it. What we will do is lose all sense of perspective of good policy. Policy will no longer be formulated based on effectiveness. Rather, it will be viewed from the prism of how it can get behind those most sympathetic.

Our country likely doesn't appreciate just how terrible class warfare can be. That's because up until now it has never been so effective as to do serious damage. That will all end now. The next few years will be years in which finger pointing and demonizing will be the order of the day. Policy will be formulated based on all of this finger pointing, and our country will be much worse for it.

Republican's 2010 Playbook: Thinking Fourth Dimensionally II

It's rather remarkable that President Obama has shown himself to be every bit the radical that he appeared to be in the campaign. In fact, President Obama's entire domestic policy can be summed up by this Karl Marx quote.

From those with means to those in need

In fact, his policies are so blatantly full of income redistribution that even the sympathetic media can't pretend it is not happening.

The combined effect of the two revenue-raising proposals, on top of Mr. Obama’s existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on households with income exceeding $250,000 a year, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers.

The problem the Republicans CURRENTLY face is that the mood in the country favors income redistribution and the amount of spending the Obama administration is proposing is so massive that it actually becomes difficult to put into perspective. Take this Rassmussen poll for instance that shows a healthy majority favoring Obama's proposal to raise taxes. Furthermore, this Politico story illustrates just how difficult it is for Republicans to gain traction against all this spending.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about — well, pretty soon no one has a clue what you’re talking about. And as President Barack Obama prepares to unveil his 2010 budget, that’s becoming a daily headache for Republicans.

After $787 billion for a stimulus plan, $700 billion for a financial markets bailout, and $410 billion for a proposed end-of-2009 spending plan, getting folks fired up about whether the 2010 budget is $3.6 trillion rather than, say, $6.3 trillion is not just a political challenge; it’s a cognitive one.

Human beings have a hard time differentiating between millions and billions and trillions, let alone the numerical subsets thereof. To most of us, it just registers as “a whole lot.”

As the mathematician Ronald L. Graham once said, “Our brains have evolved to get us out of the rain, find where the berries are and keep us from getting killed. Our brains did not evolve to help us grasp really large numbers or to look at things in a hundred thousand dimensions.”

The Republicans need to keep their cool and think fourth dimensionally right now. (the dimension of time or toward the future) As President Obama continues his crusade for a massive expansion of government and even more massive redistribution of wealth, the Republicans must once again become the party of fiscal discipline and tax cuts.

The reason that big government spending and income redistribution are so popular right now is two fold 1)President Obama is popular now and 2) they haven't yet taken effect. So far, all we have is promises: millions of new jobs, health care for all, energy independence, etc. At some point, we will be faced with reality.

If income redistribution and big government worked, Venezuela, Cuba and Europe would all be thriving. That they aren't is proof positive that such schemes are bound for failure. President Obama now owns all of the spending and soon enough he will own the economy. Come 2010, the astronomical spending can easily be put into perspective.

Let's say our unemployment rate will be above 8%. That would mean that the President would have spent an additional $4 trillion and added an addition $2 trillion to our deficit to grow our unemployment rate by half a percent. That's quite a lot to spend in order to grow our unemployment rate.

President Obama will be judged by the performance of the economy and it is very hard to see just. It looks like we will lose in excess of half a million jobs in February and for the indefinete future. The President's plans aren't merely bold but they are very expensive. Spending this much money demands superior performance. If the unemployment rate come 2010 is more than it was when he took office, that is simply unacceptable given how much money he has spent.

That's what the Republicans will need to pounce on. The folks are currently dizzy from all the spending because it is happening all at once. At some point, people will take a step back and add it all up. It will be nearly $800 billion in stimulus. It will be $300 billion in mortgage bailouts. It will likely be an added $750 billion at least in another round of bank bailouts. There will be another $634 billion for universal health care. There's still unclear sums for auto bailouts, energy independence, and education. That's all on top of normal spending which is increasing as well. The public should demand nothing less than economic bliss for such an obscene amount of government spending.

Frankly, the Republicans can and should hold the President accountable for nothing less. The dizzying numbers will come into focus. His radical economic agenda can then be judged. If and when our unemployment rate is still above 7%, the Republicans will need to ask forcefully how much his own tax cuts contributed to it. If and when the unemployment rate is still above 7%, the Republicans must ask how much his bold agenda contributed to it. If and when the unemployment rate is still above 7%, the Republicans must ask how much out of control government spending contributed to it.

Nothing contributes more to putting tax cuts and fiscal discipline back in favor more than a few years of out of control government spending and income redistribution. That's what we will have for the next two years. The Republicans philosophy may in fact be out of favor now, but give things time, soon the public will find those concepts back in favor.

Will the Tape Be a Game Changer

Definitely...maybe. First here is the tape again.




There are many ways to examine its effect. First of all, you go to the source. So far, it has had just over 1.5 million viewings on Youtube and approaching fifteen thousand comments. That is a stunning amount. Clearly, it has had an immediate impact. What remains to be seen is just how many viewings it will have in a week. If the video has had its run and we seen only a small gain from here then its impact from this angle will be limited. The magic number for me is ten million and one hundred thousand. If it gets ten million viewings and one hundred thousand comments, then it will have a serious impact on the campaign from the You Tube angle.

That's just one way to look at it though. The other way is how does this tape affect the news cycle. Let's take a look.


and...





Here is a sampling of the media coverage on the net. Finally, here is some anecdotal evidence. I wrote this piece comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx. Since this tape has come out I have had about three hundred looks at that piece. I normally get anywhere from one to ten. In other words, there is enormous interest in the idea that Barack Obama is like Karl Marx. Of course, what I don't know is if all the interest is coming from the right. Still, clearly this tape has an immediate effect and it has now dominated the media coverage.



That won't be enough to be a game changer. So, what John McCain needs to do is continue keep making this an issue. McCain has a them upon which to attack Obama incessently for the next seven days and he must take it. Joe the Plumber opened up this attack, and that's what makes this tape so potentially devastating. What it really does is reinforce a major vulnerability. By reinforcing his initial gaffe, the idea that Barack Obama wants to redistribute our wealth becomes that much clear to the voters. The rest of the campaign will be spent dissecting Barack Obama because that's what happens when you are in the lead.



Now, a couple of days ago, I suggested that John McCain repeat over and over this quote.



FROM THOSE ACCORDING TO MEANS TO THOSE ACCORDING TO NEEDS



Now after a couple of days, I think that is likely too loaded a line of attack. Openly comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx (the author of this quote) is something that might make some sense for a provocative blogger, but it is likely too provocative for a Presidential campaign. Rather the McCain campaign should continue to attack using the same line they have been using.

INCOME OR WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

That frankly is one of the most important concepts in Socialism or Marxism and so frankly it's much the same as calling him a Marxist only doing it in a more tactful way.



The most important thing the McCain campaign needs to verbalize in interviews, on the stump, and in commercials is this. Each and everytime a Democrat defends the Obama tax cut they proclaim that giving a tax cut to the middle class is not income redistribution. Cutting taxes for 95% of the people is not income redistribution.



The McCain campaign needs to make crystal clear that Barack Obama intends on getting the money for all of these tax cuts by raising taxes on those that are wealthy. This isn't merely raising the income tax. It is raising the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, the inheritance tax,
and a brand new payroll tax on the wealthy only (to go to fund the Social Security income of those that aren't as wealthy)

What Senator Obama believes is that those that already pay about 40% of their incomes toward don't pay enough and should pay more like 50%. Meanwhile those that pay ZERO in federal income taxes pay too much and they will pay less. That's the definition of income redistribution. If Senator McCain that point forcefully and does it over and over, he will make the sale that Senator Obama's plans are nothing more than income redistribution. (something that polls 84-13 against).

The Definitive Dossier on Obama's Marxism

The latest craze on the right blogosphere is this interview first dug up by Matt Drudge.
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Stop the ACLU also have details.


The most important quote is right here.

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.

The reason that this is the most important quote is that it's the first time that Senator Obama has been quoted as believing that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to impose income redistribution. With up to four new Supreme Court Justices to be chosen in the next four years, this should send chills up the spines of all those that believe in limited government and the Judeo Christian founding of our nation.

Still, besides making this bold remark about the Supreme Court imposing income redistribution, nothing that Senator Obama says in this interview is new. In fact, he has frankly been rather open about his Marxism. As such, here is the full dossier of his Marxism.

1) From those with means to those with needs.

This is the center piece of Karl Marx' economic philosophy. It is the philosophy behind income redistribution. It is the philosophy behind his belief in Socialism. Capitalism, in the opinion of Marx, was flawed. It gave far too much to those at the top and left the workers, the proletariat, with the scraps of the economy. Marx believed that a better philosophy redistributed the wealth more fairly. As such, he created the economic philosophy of Socialism.

Barack Obama believes in this tenet. He said as much when he said, "when we spread the wealth it's better for everyone".

Beyond what he told Joe the Plumber, it's the center piece of his economic policy. He's said as much. He wants to raise taxes on the 5% that are most wealthy, those with means. In fact, when he defends his plan, he says "I want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans like Warren Buffet and myself, those with the ABILITY TO PAY." It isn't as though he is hiding his philosophy. He is flat out saying that he wants to take from THOSE WITH MEANS. Keep in mind that he doesn't merely want to raise income taxes on those making $250,000 and more. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and re institute the inheritance tax. He even wants to create a whole new payroll tax on those making $250,000 to pay for the Social Security benefits of those that are poorer. He wants to raise taxes on all traditional groups associated with wealth. Again, he is making no bones about his intention on taking "FROM THOSE WITH MEANS".

Then, he wants to use the higher taxes from "THOSE WITH MEANS", and cut taxes on everyone else. This includes giving tax breaks to 40% of the country that pays no federal income tax. He will give these folks all sorts of tax credits. In other words, he wants to give to "THOSE WITH NEEDS". Again, there is nothing hidden about his philosophy. No one should be stunned by Obama's Marxism. That has been the center piece of his economic philosophy since he first ran for President. He will take from the top 5%, THOSE WITH MEANS, and give that money to everyone else, THOSE WITH NEEDS.

2) New rights and other government policies.

In the second debate, Barack Obama created a right found nowhere in the Constitution, the right to health care. This is also classic Marxism. In fact, he follows the same "from those with means, to those with needs" philosophy in health care. How does he plan on providing health care to those that can't afford it on their own? He will mandate that corporations and successful small business HAVE TO PROVIDE IT or face a penalty. Once again, he is following the "from those with means to those with needs" philosophy. It is a short step from making health care a right, to making a living wage, housing, retirement, and all sorts of other things a right as well.

There's more. Barack Obama has stipulated that he wants to create a new regulatory framework. Why? It's because he believes we have a "winner take all economy". He wants to use government regulation to even the playing field. Again, this is not new. The new regulatory framework and an end to the "winner take all economy" have both been the center piece of his economic agenda since the beginning.

How does he plan on creating new jobs? He wants the government to lead in creating them.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

Having the government lead in creating new jobs is not new in his platform. It's also the way jobs are created in Socialist societies. Government spends money, consolidates more power, and they are the ones doling out the jobs. That's classic Marxism, Socialism, and its what Barack Obama has proudly said he wants to do as President.

3) Class Warfare.

I believe the Democrats themselves have perfected class warfare but Barack Obama especially. How often have we heard that Bush's tax cuts FOR THE RICH have cosolidated wealth in the few, stagnated wages for WORKERS, and has created an economy that passed most people by. Now, Bush cut the marginal tax rates on everyone THAT PAYS TAXES, and so when Barack Obama refers to the cuts as for the rich, what he is really saying is that anyone that pays federal income taxes is rich.

How often does he scoff at McCain's proposal to cut corporate taxes as a tax cut for wealthy corporations like the oil companies? Instead, he wants to create a windfall profits tax. If a company makes too much, he will tax that more than he taxes normal profits. Then, he'll take that extra tax and distribute it to those that aren't as well off. This is classic Karl Marx class warfare. Demonize the greedy capitalists, punish them, and distribute the punishment to the workers. Again, he has made absolutely no bones about this intention.

He does it on health care as well.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market

....In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

Attacking the capitalistic idea of mergers and demonizing it for creating the struggles of the workers is also classic Marxist class warfare. He even goes so far as to proclaim that he wants more government to solve it. Karl Marx, himself, couldn't have written the script better. Attack the system as favoring the big guy, and propose more government to solve it. It's classic class warfare followed by classic Socialism.

It's no different when discusses mortgages.

Here, in Nevada, we see how so many people are fighting for their American Dream. Because in so many ways, Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up

....Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away

the common folk were taken advantage of by the vultures of a naked capitalistic system that ran wild. That is the message, and of course, his solution will be a plethora of new government regulations. In other words, naked capitalism caused the crisis, and government regulations will resolve it. Laced throughout his economic proposals, is first the narrative that the system as it is now takes advantage of the little guy in order to benefit the big guy. Of course, the solution is always more government. Once again, it is classic class warfare politics.

4) His radical association.

You want to find context to the plethora of radical associations that Barack Obama has. It is in his Marxist philosophy. Is it any surprise he spent six years as a member of the Socialist New Party? Is it any surprise that his mentor growing up was the Communist Frank Marshall Davis? Is it any surprise that he has ingratiated himself with the Communist and Anarchist William Ayers? Look at the main page for the group ACORN, a group that Barack Obama has had a two decade plus year relationship with.

They want the government to mandate health care, affordable housing, and a living wage. This is all on their site. This group is quasi Marxist itself.

Furthermore, Barack Obama has had associations with radicals like Father Pflegger and Reverend Wright. He's also spent a decade in academia where Marxism is accepted as a legitimate economic philosophy. Again, none of this is new, and so frankly, to say that Barack Obama part and parcel a Marxist is to merely explore the record that is available to the public.

Epilogue.

Now then, let me counter several of the points that Liberals are like to make. First, they will point out that the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is not new. That's true, however Barack Obama wants to specifically make it more progressive to those at the top in order to make it less progressive to those at the bottom. Barack Obama thinks that those that already give about 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough, while those that pay no income tax are paying too much. A progressive tax system is one thing, but mandating a redistribution of wealth is something totally different.

Second, is Barack Obama a Marxist? No, he is not totally a Marxist. Liberals will point out that it is ludicrous to point out he is a Marxist since Marx believed in the nationalization of industry, total government control, and a totalitarian state. That's true. Barack Obama pays lip service to the free markets from time to time. He doesn't want to create a totalitarian state. He doesn't want full nationalization of industry. He does however subscribe to the philosophy of wealth redistribution. He does want to partially nationalize health care. He does want the government playing a much more significant role in job creation and in regulation. The point is not to make Barack Obama an exact replica of Karl Marx. The point is how close do we want our President to be to Karl Marx. I reject everything that Karl Marx believed in. I want a President that is as far away from Marx as possible. Liberals seem to believe that if someone only believes in some of Marx' teachings that it is no longer an issue. It would be beyond the pale to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx if our "only evidence" was his belief in wealth redistribution, government creation of jobs, more government role in regulation, and the partial nationalization of health care. I think that is far too much resemblance to Marx myself.

From Each According to Their Means To Each According to Their Needs: McCain's Last Play

In response to a recent post, I received this astute comment with an advertising idea for John McCain.

(voiceover)From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This was the philosophy of Karl Marx.

When a hardworking plumber, concerned about Barack Obama's tax plan, asked him why he was going to raise his taxes here is how Barack Obama responded.

(Cut to the video clip of Obama saying this)I don't want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone that is behind you. They have a chance for success too.

(voiceover)We don't need a President whose tax policies were inspired by Karl Marx, nor do we need a president who thinks he is Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. We need someone who understands our country and our history.

Barack Obama. . . Not ready to lead.

(John McCain voice over)I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

In fact, Joe Biden was recently asked about this Karl Marx quote in a recent interview.



If you think the comparison between the philosophy of Karl Marx and the policies Barack Obama, look at it this way.

What do you think it is when someone thinks that "when you spread the wealth around that's good for everybody". Of course, it's as Karl Marx said.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

Still not convinced...Let's try it this way. Barack Obama has promised to raise the taxes of the top five percent as much as an extra ten percent. Furthermore, he will raise the capital gains taxes on these same folks, re install the inheritance tax, and raise the corporate tax. What will he do with this money? He will give tax breaks to everyone below them.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

You still aren't convinced. Who does Barack Obama intend on giving a tax cut to? It's to the middle class of course? How does he plan on paying for this tax cut? He plans on raising taxes on the wealthy of course.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

If you still aren't convinced, just listen to Joe Biden himself from the very interview I have embedded

All we want is to focus on the middle class and to give them a fighting chance. That's why we focus all of our efforts on the MIDDLE CLASS and giving them a tax cut...while John McCain gives a tax cut to the wealthiest people and corporations.

Like I said again,

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

Barack Obama's tax policies, and frankly economic policies, are classic Marxian policies. From the blatant class warfare, to income redistribution, to his insistence thatjobs be created by the government, his economic platform is a reincarnation of Karl Marx.

John McCain needs to say it, say it, and say it again.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

On the stump, in interviews, and in every commercial they can spare...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When Barack Obama talks about giving the middle class a tax cut by raising taxes on the wealthiest what he's really saying is...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When Barack Obama says he wants to spread your wealth around what he's really saying is

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

When he proclaims that the last eight years has created an income gap that he will resolve what he's really saying is.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

McCain needs to say it again and again until he forces the media, like this Florida reporter, to ask it of the Obama campaign. That's because you can't get around this fact. What's the Obama economic philosophy...

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

...

Fairness: The New Euphemism for Socialism

In response to this piece in which I compared Barack Obama to Karl Marx, I received this comment.

I think that it is not so much Capitalism which is into question here.It is more the deviance of it represented by the Chicago school which is about a complete deregulation of the markets.When you think of it, is it fair to have someone make 100000$ a month just by buying and selling stocks??

Sure hard work is a value that you american cherish more that some other countries and it is one of the reasons why you have have become this great power. But this is not about earning money from your hard work anymore, this is only about how much money you already have and how much you can invest.

Now there is something else,when inequity increases above a certain level in a country, it is always a source of social troubles. What is the point in being one of the wealthiest country in the world on an average basis if you cannot provide your population with health care?? This has been done with success in many countries (In France for example) without destroying companies or jobs.

Embedded in this comment is several of the buzz words and ideas that Socialist thinkers use to create euphemisms for their plans. The most prominent euphemism is this idea of "FAIRNESS". How can one person make $100,000,000 while another only makes $25,000, that's not fair. How can one person afford to buy multiple homes while another can't afford health insurance, that's not fair.

In fact, the idea of "fairness" is at the heart of the progressive tax system.

Now, I know that there are tens of millions of people who believe, as I do, that a progressive tax is about fairness, about not just the ability to pay, but the degree to which a wealthier person benefits from our common possessions. That position, like any that disagrees with a Republican position, has been dubbed “elitist.”

If that’s the case, then I say “Pass the arugula!” As I’ve said before, I come from a long line of working-class people, civil servants and tradesman, and I’m in the lower end of that economic bracket myself. Where I come from, a man takes care of his responsibilities and doesn’t complain. He pays his taxes. And when he gets somewhere, he remembers where he came from.

I would love to hear from all of the other “elitists” out there, the teacher, the construction worker, the waitress, the meatpacker, who think that people ought to pay their fair share. People who understand that the burden of these hard times is not falling on those who earn over $250,000.00. It’s “elitists” like us that have carried the weight.

In fact, one comment in response to this article frames this idea of "fairness" perfectly.

The REALITY is this!!!! No matter what anyone says, an extra 2-3% to anyone making over $250,000 a year is a drop in the bucket. I'm willing to do my part and I'm a Democrat to boot. Elitist, NOT AT ALL. PROUD AMERICAN WILLING TO HELP GET AMERICA BACK ON IT'S FEET....HELL YES!!!!! Obama/Biden '08

Now, a less euphemistic means of describing this issue was done by the father of Socialism, Karl Marx.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)

There is of course absolutely no difference between the idea of fairness and the idea of taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need. Each is a bedrock of Socialism. The only difference today is directly quoting Karl Marx gets you nowhere. Rather, quoting his message with new and better terminology gets you elected.

The roots of Socialism is the idea of class warfare. The wealthy have means, and thus more must be taken from them. The middle class doesn't have as much and thus more must be given to them. The idea of class warfare and Socialism are alive and well in today's America. They have just taken on new more euphemistic terminologies like "fairness".

How Obama Has Ridden Class Warfare and Gimmicks to the Brink of the Presidency

In many ways, it is amazing that such a blatantly Socialistic economic proposal could put someone on the brink of the Presidency. In other ways, once you examine the dynamic that has brought Obama to the brink of the Presidency, his blatant income redistribution, class warfare, and Socialism is actually perfect political strategy. Here is why.

1) Barack Obama learned great lessons from Karl Marx.

Socialism, class warfare, and income redistribution has one very effective political tool...strengths in numbers. From the beginning, Barack Obama has been touting that his plan will cut taxes for 95% of the people. Barack Obama has been able to carry this simple message of economic populism

Economic populism, the staple of the Democratic left, demonizes Wall Street and glorifies Main Street. It rails against unequal distribution of wealth and warns, perpetually, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. From Andrew Jackson's frontier democracy to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, economic populism has powered the left.

Give credit where it is due. Barack Obama has effectively sold his message. He bemoaned the growing income gap, wage stagnation, tax cuts for "the rich", and a deregulation environment that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Furthermore, Obama has effectively framed those getting a tax increase as Warren Buffett and himself. In this way, Obama is not that much different than Marx. In much the same way, Marx bemoaned the capitalistic system benefitted the few at the expense of the many. He said the system was taking advantage of the proletariat and unfairly rewarding the bourgeoise. Obama is doing much the same thing.

2) Americans are economically illiterate.

Think about Obama's tax plan for a minute. He wants to raise taxes on the top earners by as much as 10%. Meanwhile, 40% of the population pays no income taxes, only the 6.5% payroll tax, will get a tax cut. (or in reality a tax credit since you can't cut below 0) This is his tax proposal. So, why is he leading? It's because far too many Americans are simply economically brain dead. They see a tax proposal that will cut their own taxes far more than the opponent, and the tax increase comes to someone else.

Most Americans can't make the simple connection. If you punish the job creators, there won't be as many jobs. Americans are simply not economically literate enough to understand that this is boiler plate tax and spend income redistribution. Americans lack of economic understanding is truly frightening really. Obama will lower no one's income tax bracket. Yet, he will raise the top two income tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and the corporate tax. Every single one of his so called tax cuts is a actually an obscure tax credit. That's his plan. Raise the top two tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and corporate tax and every single tax cut is in the form of an obscure tax credit. Meanwhile, he's proposed one trillion Dollars in new spending. Yet, the American people are willing to elect him the new President. Not despite making this the centerpiece of his economic agenda, but because of it. That's simply economically brain dead.

3) The McCain campaign has been totally incompetent in exposing the policy

The most obvious example of this is that Joe the Plumber has been more effective in exposing Obama's plans than the McCain campaign has. Until recently, we have heard nothing from the McCain campaign about the fact that Barack Obama plans on cutting taxes for 40% of the people that currently have an income tax rate of zero. Senator McCain should have been visiting successful small businesses all over the country and ask the owners what would happen to their business if Obama's tax plan went into effect. Why did he need Joe the Plumber to expose the obvious fallacy that raising taxes on the most successful hurts everyone? McCain has done little to point out that a series of targeted tax cuts, tax credits, and tax increases will complicate the tax code. In fact, I've never once heard McCain point out that Obama's so called tax cuts are actually nothing more than a series of tax credits.

4) Time and Place

The only time we have ever had a President swoop in with a promise for so much government expansion was in 1933. The similarities between FDR and Obama have a lot to do with the state of the economy. One would never be able to propose Socialism and income redistribution unless the economy isn't merely doing bad but on the brink of collapse. The reality is that our economy is on the brink of collapse and most folks blame the naked capitalistic system for getting it there. Barack Obama hasn't merely been effective in selling this economic populism, but he has sold it at just the right time.

Barack Obama's Class Warfare Politics

Class warfare is a tried and true political tool perfected by one Karl Marx. It's a tool that I believe the entire Democratic party has perfected. Yet, it appears that Barack Obama will use it as the center piece of his political strategy. The problem with class warfare is that while it may or may not be a good political strategy, it isn't rooted in any good policy. That's because pitting one class against another has no policy motivations. It is strictly a tool of politics. Here are the places where we can expect Obama to use class warfare as part of his campaign

1) Mortgages. On this issue Obama perfected it and has been using it since the beginning. Here are some examples.

There is a reason why this has happened. Over the past several years, while predatory lenders were driving low-income families into financial ruin, 10 of the country’s largest mortgage lenders were spending more than $185m lobbying Washington to let them get away with it. So if we really want to make sure this never happens again, we need to end the lobbyist-driven politics that made it possible.

and...

Here, in Nevada, we see how so many people are fighting for their American Dream. Because in so many ways, Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up

....

Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away

....

The foreclosure crisis has played out in painfully steady but predictable motion.While lenders were taking advantage of folks like Felicitas and Francisco, they were also spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Washington to stay on the sidelines. For President Bush, the answer was to do nothing until the pain out on Main Street trickled up to Wall Street.

Then, a few months ago, he rolled out a plan that was too little, too late. Instead of offering meaningful relief, he warned against doing too much. His main proposal for an economy that is leaving working people behind is to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, even though they don’t need them and didn’t ask for them.

The strategy is clear. Big powerful banks and mortgage brokers took advantage of poor helpless borrowers. This is classic class warfare strategy. You pit the powerful against the weak and put yourself on the side of the weak. Here, he takes it another step further. He even goes as far as putting his opponents, the Republicans, as being on the side of the powerful. Naturally, what follows is a solution that benefits the weak.

To stabilize our housing market and to bring this crisis to an end, I’m a strong supporter of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank’s proposal to create a new FHA Housing Security Program. This will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages, and to convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. This is not a windfall for borrowers – as they have to share any capital gain. It’s not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly – as they
will take losses. It asks both sides to sacrifice. It offers a responsible and fair way to help Americans who are facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford.

The Dodd/Frank is a bill I have talked about a lot. It is a $350 billion BAILOUT for borrowers that can't afford to make their payments on time. It is also one that I believe will eventually destroy our economy. That's because while it's billed as one to help the little guy, what it really does is help out the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. That's because all of these folks who can't afford their mortgage will get a brand new loan they don't deserve. They'll do it because the bill will be paid by everyone else. That's the irony of the mortgage class warfare played by Obama. While he makes out to be the little guy against the powerful, the real effect is to reward the irresponsible at the expense of the responsibe.

2) Health care.

On health care, Obama takes a similar approach. Here, he also pits the powerful against the weak. In this case, it is the powerful medical industry (insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, etc) against the weak, the uninsured.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market

....In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

So, as Barack Obama sees it, powerful companies create mergers and that hurts the little guy. His proposal to fix this is universal health care which will make sure that even the little guy has health care. That's because all the free health care will be paid by those that already have it.

3) Gas prices.

Here he again pits the powerful against the weak. In this case, the powerful is the oil companies and the weak are all the middle class folks that have to pay higher gas prices.

Of course, the irony is that his proposal will not pit the powerful health care industry against the little guy. It will actually pit those with means to get their own health care against those that can't. In one ads, Obama achieves everything any perpetrator of class warfare can ask.



He blames big oil for high gas prices. He puts his opponent on the side of big oil, and he makes sure to punish big oil and reward the little guy. This ad is in fact class warfare 101. Never mind of course, that windfall profits failed already when Carter tried them. Never mind, furthermore, that a windfall profits tax violates the spirit if not the letter of the 14th amendment which says all Americans are to be treated equally. Like I said earlier, class warfare is not a tool of policy, but politics. This ad is class warfare perfected.

4) Taxes

Here is the most obvious example of Barack Obama's class warfare. In fact, taxes are ripe for classic class warfare.

Barack Obama offered a plan to cut income taxes by $80 billion for workers, seniors and homeowners by boosting the take from wealthier Americans.

"It's time for policies from Washington that put a little wind at the backs of the American people," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a speech to the Tax Policy Center here.

Obama said the current system is skewed toward the benefit of the rich at the expense of the working middle class. The tax code is "too complicated for ordinary folks to understand, but just complicated enough to work for someone who knows how to work the system," he said.

Pledging to restore fundamental fairness to America's tax policies, Obama proposed a raft of reforms but didn't fully spell out how to pay for them.

So, once again, he achieved everything a perpetrator of class warfare could hope for all at once. He pitted the powerful against the weak, the rich against the poor and middle class. He attacked his opponent as being for the powerful by pointing out the current system is skewed to the wealthy. Finally, he proposed a system that would be more "fair".

What is fair. He will give a $1000 tax break to those making $75,000 and less. He will cut all taxes for seniors making $50,000 and less. At the same time, he would increase corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritence taxes, and taxes for the top two income tax brackets. Of course, this tool of class warfare that Obama calls fairness goes by another name, income redistribution.

Income redistribution refers to a political policy intended to even the amount of income individuals are permitted to earn.[ citation needed ]The basic premise of the redistribution of income is that money should be distributed to benefit the poorer members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor.[ citation
needed ] Thus, money should be redistributed from the rich to the poor, creating a more financially egalitarian society.[ citation needed ] Proponents of redistribution often claim that the rich exploit the poor or otherwise gain unfair benefits. Therefore, redistributive practices are justified in order to redress the balance.[ citation
needed ]This differs slightly from wealth redistribution or property redistribution, a policy which takes assets from the current owners and gives them to other individuals or groups

Income redistribution is classic Marx. It has never been shown to be anything but a failure as policy, but as a political tool it has all sorts of political benefits. Those two concurrent themes could be applied to much of Barack Obama's class warfare politics.

Obama's Economic Policy: Hubris or Worse

Here is Dick Morris' latest advice to John McCain about how to attack Barack Obama on the economy.

Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).

But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.

And, besides, when a candidate starts raising taxes, who knows where he will stop once he is in office?

McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama’s plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat’s claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.

The irony is that while an economist would carry credibility it really wouldn't take a professional economist to know that you never, ever raise any tax while the economy is weakening. Any Economics 101 class will tell you what the government, through fiscal policy, and the Federal Reserve, through monetary policy, can and should do during periods of economic weakening and also periods when the economy overheats.

In fact, one of the greatest things about economics is that it is all logic. Our capitalistic system is driven by the private sector. Thus, when the economy is weakening, we want it stimulated by more spending, investment, and capital from the private sector. The government does this by lowering taxes so that individuals AND businesses coulds spend and invest more and spawn the economy. The Federal Reserve can do the same thing by lowering interest rates which encourages borrowing to do the same. It is really that simple. During a recession you lower taxes and during inflation it is vice versa.

Now, Barack Obama has already proclaimed that our economy is in a recession. Yet, instead of lowering taxes across the board, as prescribed by simple economic fundamentals, Barack Obama's economic plan calls for targeted tax cuts. Here, he will cut taxes for some while raising taxes for others. He wants those making $150,000 and less to get a tax cut, while those over $250,000 to get a tax increase. Furthermore, he wants to raise taxes on capital and on corporations.

Targeted tax cuts were NOT the prescription to any recession in any economics class I took, and I took plenty. That's because targeted tax cuts are NOT the answer in a recession if you believe in capitalism. The problem with targeted tax cuts is that while they may stimulate parts of the economy they will stunt others at the same time. That is no recipe to expand the economy but rather for total disaster.

Thus, there can only be two reasons why despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, Barack Obama continues to maintain that targeted tax cuts are the answer. The first is that Barack Obama is full of hubris. In his long academic career, I am sure that Mr. Obama took as many economics classes as me. I am sure that he knows as well as I do that according to proper economic fundamentals the right way to do this is across the board tax cuts. If Obama is full of hubris, then he thinks he knows better than economic principles and fundamentals. He thinks his own view overrides basic economic common sense.

One of my favorite film directors is David Lynch. When he was making movies like Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet, the Elephant Man, and even more recently the Straight Story, he told bizarre stories full of crazy and interesting characters. More recently though, with films like Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, Lynch stopped telling stories and began to simply juxtapose a bunch of bizarre scenes together with nothing to really tie everything together. To me at least, a movie is a story told with moving images. The filmmaker can tell their story in any way they want as long as they respect the artform enough to recognize that they need to tell a story. When Lynch stopped telling stories, he became so full of himself that he felt he was bigger than the artform. He wasn't restrained by such trivial handcuffs as storytelling. To me, this was nothing short of filmmaking hubris. These two movies are among the worst that I have seen.

In much the same way, Barack Obama is performing economic hubris. He thinks that he is bigger than the science of economics. Even though longstanding and common sense principles say that during this period of economic weakness what the economy needs are across the board tax cuts, he thinks he knows better. Just as David Lynch thought he knew better than the artform of movie making, so to does Barack Obama.

There is one other possibility and this one is even more frightening. Barack Obama may in fact be a true believer in the sort of economic principles that believe in targeted tax cuts, Marxism. Targeted tax cuts are straight out of the Marx playbook. They are a perfect tool of class warfare and the sort of thing that Marx advocated. In fact, throughout Obama's economic plans you will hear him propose policies that favor the working class, the proletariat, at the expense of the business class, the bourgeoise. Furthermore, he advocates economic fairness and a we're in it together" economy both firm principles of Marxism. In fact, much has been made of Obama's time at the University of Chicago, the mecca of academic free market thinking. Of course, to say that the University of Chicago leads the way in academia's belief in the free market is sort of like finding five drunks and picking the sober one of the group. The fact is that anyone that has spent anymore than five minutes in academia will likely have been exposed to overwhelming Marxist thought. Thus, it is entirely possible that Barack Obama believes in his heart of hearts in some form of Marxism, like most of his former academic colleagues.

As such, I can only see two reasons for his conclusions on the economy, bad motives and even worse.

A Rather Revealing Piece from the MSM

Fred Hiatt is, in my opinion, a rather typical MSM pundit. It is not too hard to tell where his loyalties lie in this election. That said, he wrote a piece that was rather revealing in the manner in which he attempted to defend Barack Obama. He starts it with the boiler plate attack of the moment by the MSM on John McCain.

As a week of name-calling and rapid responses faded into history, political practitioners seemed to agree that John McCain had diminished himself and his straight-talk brand with negative ads and petty misrepresentations. Yet, surprisingly, a consensus also seemed to be forming that Barack Obama, at least tactically, had not come out on top.

Hiatt doesn't seem to mention which attacks were petty, and he certainly places a lot of weight behind the opinion of so called "political practioners"however this sort of analysis has become the M.O. of the MSM in the last week. What's more interesting is what Hiatt says next.

I was more struck by the preamble to that comment: by Obama's statements that McCain and the Republican Party are so bankrupt in policies that they can win only by spreading fear .

This resonates with an article of faith among many Democratic believers that has been so long and deeply held it is hardly considered noteworthy: that Democratic policies are so obviously superior, and so much more in the interest of a majority of voters, that only some form of chicanery can explain Republican election victories.

Mr. Hiatt would likely be surprised to know that just about everyone with a firm political philosophy finds those of the opposite philosophy to be an individual bankrupt of ideas. It isn't merely those that occupy the space on the left that are convinced the other side ideologically bankrupt and can only win through underhanded and dirty tactics. As I always say, in any debate both sides think they are right. If I thought the other position was correct I would take it. No one takes a position because they don't think it is wrong. In other words, what Barack Obama did wasn't merely old school for liberals but frankly old school for all politicians.

Then, he says something even more revealing.

Middle-class voters who believe passionately that life begins at conception, for example, may find it insulting to be told that if they vote for a candidate who opposes abortion and favors tax cuts for the rich, they are being bamboozled. Even middle-class voters making their decision primarily on economic grounds may resent an assumption that they should vote for whoever promises the most tax breaks for their bracket, rather than weighing arguments about economic growth and societal benefit. This year, voters may not want to hear that concerns about Obama's relative paucity of national and international experience must stem from fear of his race or unusual name.

Now, maybe Hiatt doesn't realize it, but in effect, he just admitted that in his own opinion Obama's tax policy is nothing more than class warfare. After all, if a voter should "weigh arguments about economic growth and societal benefits" over merely someone that promises them something at the expense of someone else, isn't that statement in and of itself an indictment of Obama's tax plan. Of course,I have been saying for a while that Obama's tax plan is a political motivated bit of class warfare not rooted in any good policy. It's just good to get someone in the MSM admit it as well, even if they didn't mean it. Furthermore, it's good to know that some in the MSM recognize that there are those out there that simply see life as an important issue and aren't scared into voting for a candidate through demonized zealotry.

Then, Hiatt says his most interesting thing.

Which brings us back to the question of how Obama should respond to McCain's negative campaign. Not long ago, the Democratic candidate rejected the Republican's offer of weekly, informal town hall debates. That was the smart move, most consultants said: The town hall forum is best for McCain, a wooden speaker who can't compete with Obama on the stump, so why would Obama play on his turf?

But by questioning Obama's substantiveness, McCain has begun to diminish the advantage of Obama's skill in rhetoric; and besides, there's no reason to think Obama -- who, after all, is deft, eloquent, quick-thinking and supremely well informed -- wouldn't be every bit as skilled in town halls as McCain. The forums would return attention to the issues, where Obama believes he has a clear advantage. And if McCain sought to use them for personal attacks, he would at least have to bear full personal responsibility for doing so.

Just after Obama clinched the nomination, he received a phone call from McCain. "He called me to congratulate me," Obama said the next day. "I had called him after he had won the nomination. We joked about the fact that, if you'd asked the pundits a year ago who were going to be the two nominees, it wouldn't have been me and John McCain.

"And we pledged to have a substantive debate, a debate that's not personal but is about our respective visions for the country."

Now, there is no doubt that McCain isn't the speaker that Obama is. Yet, if that's true, why in the world would townhall debates be McCain's "turf" as Hiatt suggests? Hiatt never explains, and in fact, he goes onto explain that this is exactly the forum where Obama can get back to the issues where he has "a clear advantage" according to Hiatt. Why then is Barack Obama not taking the challenge? After all, according to Hiatt, he is just as quick on his feet, and certainly he is right on the issues.

Maybe, just maybe, he isn't all that Hiatt thinks that he is and that's why Obama's handlers won't allow him into the debates. Hiatt calls the townhall debates Plan A, but likely they were never in the plans. That's because Barack Obama isn't so witty and charismatic when his lines aren't already prepared. This might be a good idea if Barack Obama really had a "clear advantage" on the issues, and that's likely why he refuses to agree to such a format. As such, I think Fred Hiatt will be waiting an awfully long time for Barack Obama to take his advice.

Anatomy of Class Warfare

Playing class warfare has become an artform in the last twenty years. The elements are almost always the same. First, you take on a populist message. You are for the little guy. Then, you find an individual or group to demonize and you demonize them. Finally, you blame the system that caused it. What happens is that through effective class warfare, you turn an argument for Socialism into one of populism. Now, let's take a look at this article from the Nation. Right from the start, the article plays class warfare. Here is the title...

The Rich and the Rest of Us

So, right away, it is a text book example of two of the three techniques in good effective class warfare. Right away, the article takes on the populist message. The authors are on the side of the little. Second, it immediately demonizes the wealthy.

It doesn't take the article long to effectively use technique number three.

Over the past three decades, market-worshiping politicians and their
corporate backers have engineered the most colossal redistribution of wealth in
modern world history, a redistribution from the bottom up, from working people
to a tiny global elite.

This special issue of The Nation exposes the widespread costs of this
rising inequality and offers a blueprint on how to reverse course. We will never
achieve social and economic justice for those at the bottom of our economic
pyramid until we tackle wealth concentration at the top.

Just like all tools of class warfare, it is naked capitalism and free markets that are always to blame for the ills of the poor. The wealthy are unfairly over rewarded in such "naked" systems and their obscenely unfair rewards come at the expense of the poor.

Now, what this piece does, much like all that practice textbook class warfare, is to twist around the manner in which free markets and capitalism work.

Doug Henwood begins the issue by placing our current extreme inequality in historical context. We now live, he writes, in a second Gilded Age. Today, as in the robber baron era a century ago, the gap between those at the top and the rest of us is simply staggering. The richest 1 percent of Americans currently hold wealth worth $16.8 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than the bottom 90 percent. A worker making $10 an hour would have to labor for more than 10,000 years to earn what one of the 400 richest Americans pocketed in 2005.

Now, there is no doubt that capitalism always favors those at the top. That's because the basis for capitalism is competition. Competition goes by the old adage

there's no points for second place

So, of course, those at the top benefit benefit overwhelmingly compared to those at the bottom. Ultimately, that's what capitalism is...a race to the top. What those that demonize capitalism don't say is that the race to the top ultimately also benefits everyone as well. While they went on to painstakingly mention that our income gap continues to grow, what they didn't mention is the overall growth in overall wealth the entire nation has had. The U.S. has more GDP than the next four nations combined. So, while our newfound wealth may in fact have benefitted those at the top in an overwhelming way, the bottom line is that we have also seen an enormous growth in wealth compared to every other country.

Now, while the authors demonize capitalism and everything related to it, their solutions are nothing more than boiler plate central government controls.

To reverse this reckless course, we need to change our nation's dominant political narrative and restore faith in the critical role that government must play to protect the common good. But we can't stop there. We need to confront directly the threat posed by this inequality.

Of course, when government plays a critical role for the common good we call that Communism.

In fact, the piece goes further than that...

We need to heed the lesson imparted by those who reversed the first Gilded Age: over the first half of the twentieth century, organized labor and other populist and progressive social movements advanced a program that explicitly aimed to reduce concentrated wealth and power. They and their successors fought hard to lift up the bottom and bring down the top, through efforts as varied as the original GI Bill and high tax rates on high incomes. Thanks to their efforts, our nation went from the Gilded Age of Newport mansions to a postwar era that celebrated a thriving middle class, full of economically secure families who owned their own homes and could afford to send their kids to college. Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, in their contribution to this special issue, show us how we can do this again. They lay out a practical guide on how to reduce our ignoble concentrations of wealth, a necessary step toward realizing efforts to reduce poverty, invest in green energy systems, rebuild our infrastructure and expand educational and economic opportunity for all.

Any successful mobilization against plutocracy must first dramatize the high price that wealth concentration exacts from the rest of us. In her contribution Barbara Ehrenreich laments a consequence of extreme inequality that few of us have adequately recognized: the plutocratic monopolization of our nation's beautiful places. Gabriel Thompson tells the story of extreme inequality in one neighborhood--juxtaposing the hedge-fund titans who occupy the top floors of two Manhattan office buildings with the low-wage workers who guard their doorways and deliver their lunches.

Now, of course this is classic Marxian class warfare (the kind I talked about here). It isn't all right to simply demonize the system, those that benefity, but you also find a symbol of each and demonize the symbol. In this case it is those evil, evil private equity managers. Now, you aren't going to find any tangible or specific solutions. What you are going to find is an indictment of the current system and ultimately a call to arms to transform the system.

This is of course classic class warfare techniques. The authors, much like Marx himself, prey on the natural envy of the working class. Of course, every working class stiff has a natural envy for the private equity fund managers. A message in which the system that made them fat while the stiff is poor is going to resonate. Of course, it is no different than the message that Marx employed in the 1800's. What were the merchants and bankers of that era are all updated to the private equity fund managers. The system that creates the discrepancy is the same and so are the solutions. The message is no less dangerous.

The greatest irony is that the authors use the very capitalistic system that they condemn in order to earn a handsome living condemning it. In fact, the very idea that news and commentary could ever be transmitted electronically over a world wide network could only come about through the very capitalistic system that encourages exactly that sort of entrepeneurism. The authors are benefitting greatly from that system, and yet, they have the chutzpah to condemn it.

Barack Obama = Karl Marx With a Twist (UPDATED)

One of the more insightful analyses of Obama's latest gaffe came from Bill Kristol. Among many things that Kristol pointed out, he quoted this from Karl Marx...

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

This quote is of course awfully reminiscent of Obama's own gaffe.

I don't want to be overly provocative and make leaps just for the sake of leaps. In fact, Obama's latest gaffe is just one piece of what I will show to be a fairly sophisticated puzzle that makes Obama's domestic agenda really nothing more than Marx updated for the 21st century. For instance, it has recently come to light that Obama's father wrote some economic theory that was itself quite Marxian. Still, trying to paint Obama with Marxist brush because of an offhanded comment and writings of his father is not only unfairly provocative, but simply unfair. In fact, the most evidence comes from Obama's own policy proposals.

Attacking capitalism comes first and foremost by attacking its roots: capital. Capital is the lifeblood of capitalism because it is the engine that drives the competition necessary to sustain capitalism. Capitalism is founded on the principle that ultimately competition benefits everyone. Competition is spawned by investment. The income that a company sees now is the fruit of years of investment of capital. Thus, in order to stunt capitalism you need to punish capital investment. Of course, in modern times the best way to do that is to tax it. Of course, one of Barack Obama's priorities is to raise the capital gains tax.

Barack Obama yesterday said he'd raise the capital-gains tax as president - but
softened his estimate on how much it would go up.

"I haven't given a firm number," Obama told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, speaking of how much the levy would rise over the current rate of 15 percent. He "guessed" it would be "significantly lower than" the 28 percent it was under President Bill Clinton.

Another principle of Marxism is the consolidation of power in the hands of government, and by extension, the government creating economic wealth and growth rather than the private sector. So, let's look at his job's plan.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

Keep in mind that this government spending will be paid for by among other things, increasing capital gains taxes. In other words, Barack Obama would punish capital investment in order to create jobs through the consolidation of power in the central government. More government spending is a nice way of saying that a politician wants to consolidate more power in the hands of government.

Obama's consolidation of power in government only begins with his job's plan. His whole economic agenda has a plethora of new government regulations.

To renew our economy — and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again — we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people,” Obamasaid.

“We do American business — and the American people — no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks,” he added.

Now, a "21st century regulatory framework" is another euphemism for more government regulations. Keep in mind that inherent in Marxism is a fear of capitalism and the free market. Marx believes that capitalism was doomed to failure and that it was government's job to not only manage it but frankly to control it. Obama also has an inherent fear of the free market because in every proposal he wants to manage and control it as well.

Nowhere is this more clear than in health care. Here, Obama simply wants to throw the free market away entirely in favor of socialized medicine. Clearly, he sees the deficiencies of our health care system being fixed not by the free market but by a health care system run and controlled by the government.

Also, Obama seems to have a knack for rhetoric that shows nothing but contempt for capitalistic principles and affinity for Marxist principles. Here are examples of each.

There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market.

...

In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.

Now anyone that thinks that stronger government role and more regulations are what works is someone that has roots in Marxism. Furthermore, anyone that sees mergers and acquisitions as inherently bad is someone that has a natural disdain for capitalism.

Then there is the inherent belief of Marxism. Marx believed that capitalism punished the working class while consolidating power in the bourgeoise, the wealthy. Marx envisioned a system in which the wealthy were punished in order to provide for the working class. That is exactly how Obama sees the world.

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich

These so called targeted tax cuts are nothing more than Marxism updated for the 21st century. (for a great explanation of how targeted tax cuts are Marxist and other principles check out the book Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies) Obama's robin hood economic philosophy is really nothing more than an updated version of Marxist principles.

Finally, there is the twist: free trade. Marx was himself a big free trader.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of free trade in the 19th century. In every country where manufacturers talk of free trade, they have in mind chiefly free trade in corn and raw materials in general. To impose protective duties on foreign corn is infamous, it is to speculate on the famine of peoples.

Cheap food, high wages, this is the sole aim for which English free-traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already spread to their brethren on the Continent. Generally speaking, those who wish for free trade desire it in order to alleviate the condition of the working class.

But, strange to say, the people for whom cheap food is to be procured at all costs are very ungrateful. Cheap food is as ill-esteemed in England as cheap government is in France. The people see in these self-sacrificing gentlemen, in Bowring, Bright and Co., their worst enemies and the most shameless hypocrites.

That is an excerpt of a speech Marx gave on free trade. Marx saw free trade as giving to the working class. He saw free trade as providing the workers with cheaper goods.

Obama sees free trade as taking away from the working class. To Obama, free trade is an extension of another capitalistic ill...competition.

Thus, if Obama has his way, we wil have a society that punishes investment. It will be dependent on government. It will be a government that consolidates significant economic power and with it creates new regulations. Furthermore, we will have an economy isolated from the rest of the world. Like I said, Barack Obama is Karl Marx with a twist, a very troubling twist.

UPDATE:

For more posts of Obama's Marxist and socialist leanings check out some other pieces, like this comparison between Barack Obama and the Socialist Party in America on the issues, his eloquent socialism, his use of class warfare politics, and finally here is the definitive dossier on his socialism