In the interest of presenting all perspectives, I asked one of the most intelligent and articulate conservatives I know to present a counterpoint to our recent endorsement of Barack Obama. – MJR
You have to admit, this IS clever
by Jason Fischer, Special to the Legal Satyricon
First off, I want to thank the Legal Satyriconistas for extending an invitation to me for a counterpoint to their recent endorsement of Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama. In today’s political landscape, where polarization is the norm, it is increasingly important that healthy, two-sided, rational debate be encouraged. Also, I apologize for violating the five-hundred-word suggested limit, but I’m not sure I could have expressed myself properly otherwise.
Unlike the Satyriconistas, I am unashamed to say that I cannot get past voting against a candidate. Like many presidential races before, this one presents two candidates, neither being outstanding, but one being completely intolerable – to me anyway. I lack Mr. Blevins’ conviction to vote for my ideal candidate; otherwise I would probably pull my metaphorical lever for Ron Paul, but throwing your vote away is not a constructive response to the current problem (sorry, Beef). I will absolutely be voting for John McCain on November 4th, but not because I agree with his stance on abortion (which I don’t), stem cell research (no, again), same-sex marriage (three times), or government bailouts of financial institutions (don’t get me started). I am voting for Senator McCain because I know what he stands for, whether I agree with him on everything or not, and he has a verifiable pattern of performance. I know where his moral compass points, and I feel confident that I can tell you what actions he would take in a variety of situations. I am voting against Barack Obama because I don’t know those things about Senator Obama, and the foreshadowing that is available downright scares the bejesus out of me.
Ms. Christensen eloquently states that she is voting for Barack Obama because she thinks that he is smart, and she thinks he will make good decisions as president. I cannot agree with her assessment. I’m afraid that Ms. Christensen mistakes “well-spoken” for “intelligent.” From where I’m sitting, Senator Obama does not seem any more clever than average, and all of his decisions seem to be motivated by one thing – furthering his own political career. Since he cannot possibly have any further political aspirations if he’s sitting in the Oval Office, where will Senator Obama pull his inspiration from if elected? What mission statement does he have for himself?
I guess we could look to the promises that are being made now to paint a picture of what a Barack Obama presidency would be like. Let’s face reality here, folks. Presidential campaign promises are rarely worth the overpriced, recycled paper that they are printed on. The reality is that the executive branch has surprisingly little power to implement any real agenda. George W. Bush, while running for reelection, promised to fix Social Security in his second term, and we all saw how that worked out for him. Both his father and Bill Clinton promised not to raise taxes, but ended up signing legislative decrees that did the opposite. One promise that is getting a tremendous amount of airtime is Senator Obama’s “tax-cut-for-ninety-five-percent-of-Americans” claim. I think it is extremely helpful to review the “evolution” of this promise, as it has developed over the last several months.
Senator Obama began this “plank” of his platform with the idea of raising taxes on the top income earners in the country. He claimed that only those making over $250k would see an increase. This slowly evolved into the logical corollary that, if you made less than $250k, you would not see any increase in your taxes. So far so good, if you ignore the fact that capital gains taxes, which will be increased under the Obama tax plan, are not dependent on your income (i.e., everyone who has investment income will see an increase, including retirees who generally have that as their only income, and usually take a great deal less than $250k a year from their investment accounts). In its latest incarnation, we are now hearing about a tax cut for anyone making less than $250k/year. This claim should be met with a healthy amount of skepticism. My prediction: unless you are somewhere near the poverty line, you will see your tax burden rise to a level close to where it stood before the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Goodbye economic expansion; hello neo-socialism.
Now I’m as sick as the next guy of hearing about “Joe the plumber,” but I find it really interesting that he is being vilified for experiencing and expressing the aforementioned skepticism. How dare he, instead of blindly rejoicing about what Senator Obama was promising for him today, consider for a moment what Senator Obama’s promise might mean to him in a year or two? Such audacity, not about hope, cannot possibly be tolerated – unless, of course, you have any aspirations of improving your position in life.
I don’t know about the rest of the electorate, but I would like very much to break into the $250k/year club. What kind of incentive remains for me under a Barack Obama tax plan that intends to punish me for attaining that goal? Like any other socialist agenda, this fosters an attitude of complacency, rewards mediocrity, and encourages stagnation. We’ve seen this kind of thing before, in the late 1970’s – nearly 10% unemployment, over 13% inflation, oppressive interest rates, energy shortages, and other signs of general economic distress. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for showing us how not to run America. And an even bigger thanks to Ronald Reagan, for cleaning that mess up. “How?” you ask. By signing legislation that incorporated the largest tax cut in American history. There’s a reason that, in his 1984 reelection, Reagan won every electoral vote except those from his opponent’s home state and the District of Columbia.
I could go on and on about the negative aspects of Senator Obama’s plans to change America. The simple truth to me is that I don’t see a whole lot of good coming if Barack Obama is elected president. About the only light I see is (hopefully) a closing argument in the affirmative action debate that has divided this country for too long.
Jason Fischer is a student at Barry University School of Law, Class of 2009
By Email
By RSS Feed
Guys in high school used to be president of the Harvard Law Review all the time. It was no big deal.
Jason – thank you for providing a thoughtful, articulate response. If anyone wonders how true progress is made, over time, it’s by way of this kind of social and political discourse.
I have a couple of thoughts stemming from your editorial. First, Joe the Plumber. You’re right, he has every right to, nare I say a duty to, ask how any presidential nominee’s plan will affect him. That he’s then vilified in the media for doing so is sad. But I think this is less a result of Senator Obama’s actual politics than it is the fact that they, and we, have allowed political news to become, basically, info-porn. It’s masturbatory. The Joe the Plumber volley of news stories is just that, story, not intended to really enhance the debate or facilitate a deeper understanding of either candidate’s political proposals. But, frankly, we all share the blame for the sad state of American journalism. Not because they’re the “liberal media” – which is just more silliness. In truth, you could just as easily point to the wildfire of conservative talk shows as the beginning of the end for serious journalism. In reality, it’s because we, the public, don’t demand more as media consumers. We’re all too willing to listen to pundits yell at each other in thirty second sound bites, and let it be called “news.” We get our collective rocks off because we (apparently) find it entertaining, they sell more advertising, and none of us get any wiser. To me, this is the human-nature rub in free-market self-interested actor ideology. It’s not in our best interest to have, as the predominant form of journalism, Bill O’Rielly and Keith Olbermann scream it out on national television like a couple of fifth graders. It doesn’t make us smarter, more informed voters. So, while I agree that there’s an audaciousness to how Joe (and countless others) become political collateral damage, it’s an audacity we all must take responsibility for.
Second, for me, the “more tax/less tax” debate as it get played out in the campaigns is about as useful as the “tastes great/less filling” argument. I think recent events have made clear, if it wasn’t clear before, that there’s no simple way to save and grow an economy. I don’t want to pay more in taxes. Nor do I think that the U.S. economy (or culture) can support a Sweden-eque super-high tax plan. I also don’t think that’s what Obama is proposing. In any case, the issue for me is wages. Higher wages means more tax revenue without raising taxes. Higher wages means that people will invest in long-term earning assets, like property. Higher wages means that people will invest in the market. Higher wages means people can afford health care, and to retire. I don’t like welfare, and I regret that it has and continues to be a necessary evil. But there is a remedy, and it’s not lower taxes. So, while I like the idea that the market will manage everyone’s wealth in theory, it’s just never proven to be true. No economy, in no country, at no time has been able to achieve livable wage levels without some kind of regulation. Here in the U.S., we’ve done it historically with a mix of federal and state minimum wage standards and unionization. Today, unions have become weak and the current minimum wage is so far below a livable level that it’s basically irrelevant. I would love to see everyone working to earn their share, and not resort to state or federal aid, but working has to result in rewards that keep you in your home and out of poverty. We can either raise wages, or increase taxes on the wealthy, but any way you cut it, there has to be a redistribution of wealth. It seems logical to me that if you are a strong free-market proponent, you’ll favor higher wages over higher taxes. Puzzlingly, most conservatives seem to want to mostly deny the problem all together (instead offering a “trickle down” promise that has a distinct 40-acres and a mule kinda feel to it). For my money, I think there’s a much better chance of seeing increased wages under an Obama presidency than under a McCain presidency.
Finally, I think being well-spoken is one very good indicia of being smart.
(Oh, and I jest a little here, but I always find it a little funny and ironic when conservatives (not just you) advocate the “devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know” stance, since you’re also all big proponents of meritocracies).
Again, thanks for the commentary. I hope there’s more of it here on LS for the election and beyond.
I just have to say that despite my efforts to run a sophomoric, irreverent, and quasi-pornographic blog, my contributors seem to have taken control of the beast and turned it into a goddamned decent read full of polite and meaningful discourse. Fuck! :)
Actually, we don’t really have anything meaningful to say, we all just want to foil you once again.
Drat! Foiled again!
I applaud the esteemed Professor’s opening up the blog for a counterpoint, and I think Jason did a fine job in providing one. The one thing in Jason’s response that I found a little puzzling was this argument:
“I don’t know about the rest of the electorate, but I would like very much to break into the $250k/year club. What kind of incentive remains for me under a Barack Obama tax plan that intends to punish me for attaining that goal? Like any other socialist agenda, this fosters an attitude of complacency, rewards mediocrity, and encourages stagnation.”
If the fear of paying a little extra in taxes keeps anyone from trying to make more than $250k/year, then I honestly think that person doesn’t deserve to make that much! I’m saying this respectfully, but COME ON! Are you going to have no other incentive to make more than $250k? It’s honestly the premise of low taxes that makes someone bust their balls and work hard? I just think it’s a little far-fetched to try and paint a picture of a society so outraged and demoralized at the thought of a post-$250k tax increase that they just start spinning in their Aeron chairs all day not working.
Great posts all around – seeing the Satyriconistas shine over the last week or two has been nice.
[...] suppose that it is no great surprise. There are legitimate reasons to vote for McCain or against Obama, as the case may be. Jason Fischer put forth an excellent case and never descended into [...]
The idea that a progressive tax rate penalizes success is just dumb, but hey if you want to take your ball and go home, don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out. Here, this guy says it better than I:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-m-abromowitz/the-plumber-cant-fix-the_b_137818.html