Much has been said lately regarding Barack Obama’s ideological link to socialism. In the aftermath of the “Joe the Plumber” incident Obama has been subjected to closer scrutiny, if not from the establishment media, certainly from Americans who get their news from alternative sources.

Once again, the Illinois senator finds himself having to mount a defense against those who have quite reasonably questioned his ideology, and once again Obama’s own words have provided Americans with a clearer picture of what an Obama presidency might resemble. 

In a rediscovered 2001 radio interview (transcript) on Chicago’s WBEZ-FM, Obama appears to advocate the reparative redistribution of wealth, the expansion of government and a revisionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, if not through the courts then certainly through legislation. Talking about the Warren court and its role in the 1960s civil rights movement, Obama opined that the court “wasn’t that radical,” and that it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” 

Talk of reparative redistribution of wealth coupled with a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution by a presidential front-runner would have seemed impossible a few generations ago. Not so in 2008. The interview, lately much discussed in the media, only gives a hint of what a Obama presidency might entail. As his website ambly details, Americans appear to be poised to elect our first-avowedly socialist president should Obama win the White House.

One thing that can be said about the Obama campaign is that it is entirely open and descriptive about the candidates' goals should he reach the nation's highest office, unlike the McCain camp. From education to healthcare and the economy and far beyond, the Obama-Biden website amply details the plans that the Democratic candidates have in store for the American people.

Economy
Under an Obama presidency, a very strong effort will be made to heavily tax those described as "wealthy" and transfer that money elsewhere. On the campaign's website, the Bush administration's tax cuts are attacked as "tax cuts for the wealthy instead of the middle class." The site goes on to complain: "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class."

Setting the fact aside that the Bush adminisration used inflation to fleece the poor and middle class in order to finance ballooning government, an Obama administration would rely on direct taxes, with large increases on the wealthy because they plan to use federal money to fund a variety of new programs. These include:

• Provide "a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees."
• Provide "$25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school re­pair."
• The Obama campaign site promises: "Obama and Biden will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies."
• An Obama administration would "double funding for the federal Manufacturing Extension Partnership." For reference, this program which uses taxpayer money to fund supposedly private business, received $105 million in 2007 and $90 million in 2008.
• To create a supposedly "clean" economy, "Obama and Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure...."
• The campaign notes: 'The Obama-Biden plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs...."
• Obama and Biden will attempt to create a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to expand "existing federal transportation investments." The bank "will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years."
   

Total outlay for this sampling of Obama's planned economic programs: At least $260.2 billion.

Education
As President, Obama would seek to further expand the federal role in education, something that is no where authorized by the Constitution. After decades of gradual expansion of the federal role in education under Republicans and Democrats alike, the public at large may have gotten accustomed to the idea that federal bureaucrats and regulations increasingly shape policy in the nation's schools.

Despite the acceptance of this in the abstract, the concrete reality that should be kept in mind regarding federal activity in the field of education is that it equates to transferring both responsibility for and control over education from parents and parentally controlled local teachers to distant and relatively unaccountable bureaucrats and regulators that may have agendas that are radically different than those typically of importance to the average parent.

With this in mind, according to the Obama-Biden campaign's website:

• An Obama administration will expand the federal role in pre-kindergarten education with a Zero-to-Five Plan. "Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants," says the Obama plan for education. Under this plan, "Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants for states to use in moving toward creating 'universal pre-school'."
• The Obama plan will also "quadruple Early Head Start" and will fund "affordable and high-quality child care."
• The Obama administration would also expand the federal role in education created by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Calling this part of the plan "reform," the campaign website notes that the intended reform "starts by funding the law," meaning increased federal education expenditures.
• Obama would seek funding increases in a variety of other education programs, including doubling funding for the Federal Charter School Program, provide federal funds for drop-out intervention programs, double funding for after school programs, and a variety of other programs.

Total outlay for the Obama education plan: not specified by the campaign, but it sounds expensive.

Environment
The Obama-Biden plan for the environment contains spending plans and program creation goals that would find favor with even many of the most radical of environmentalists, including one of the most ambitious (or draconian depending on your perspective) plans to combat global warming yet proposed. Some details:

• Cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This seems to be a carbon copy of the British plan championed by UK climate change secretary Ed Miliband. The apparent similarity of the plans raises the uncomfortable question of the relative independence, or lack thereof, of the United States and the UK vis-a-vis one another under an Obama administration. The same could have been said with regard to both the Clinton and Bush administrations and their cozy relationships with the former Tony Blair-led UK government or even the Reagan-Thatcher relationship of the 1980s. As far as the 80 percent plan itself, it is seemingly at least as ambitious as the general European Union plan to cut emissions 20 percent by 2020. Of that plan, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi recently suggested it might be too onerous for business. "Our businesses are in absolutely no position at the moment to absorb the costs of the regulations that have been proposed," he said.
• Create a Federal "Green Jobs Corps." This new federal entity "will create an energy-focused youth jobs program for disconnected and disadvantaged youth. This program will provide participants with service opportunities to improve energy conservation and efficiency of homes and buildings in their communities." Sounds good. But also doesn't sound like anything the Founding Fathers intended to be undertaken by the federal government under the Constitution. It also sounds expensive.
• Radically expand the federal role in energy distribution through federal building of a "smart grid." According the the plan, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate 21st century energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering and distributed storage." A free market advocate would point out that new technologies are best driven by demand in the marketplace, rather than through bureaucratic diktat. Besides that philosophical point, why should the federal government put the burden on taxpayers for such expenditures?
• Obama and Biden will seek to increase fuel economy standards for cars and "provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers," to the tune of $4 billion [PDF Download]. As with the previous point, the free market is the best means to ensure that vehicles produced by auto manufacturers meet the needs of the commuting public. In addition, the loan guarantees and tax credits amount to a form of corporate welfare.

Environment program outlays under Obama? Billions? Trillions? It's anyone's guess.

Health Care
The Obama-Biden plan for health care will put the federal government increasingly in control of decisions previously made by private businesses. The plan also seeks government funding for health care costs previously paid for by private businesses and corporations, essentially making all American taxpayers financially responsible for health care costs, regardless of whether or not they wish to contribute financially to the health care needs of others. Some details include:

• Requiring "insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Insurers may not cover pre-existing conditions now in order to protect themselves and their clients from rising costs associated with those conditions that could rapidly make premiums even much more expensive than they are. Requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions not only interferes with the natural right of private individuals and businesses to freely enter into contracts but also will lead to increased — not decreased — costs.
• "Covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs [businesses] pay in return for lower premiums for employees." However commendable this may seem, it nevertheless is a forced redistribution of wealth. It is unavoidable that this will be an expensive federal program, that, like every other federal program, will expand over time. As such it will be funded by taxpayers, who will see the federal hand taking money from their wallets to give to others, in this case as subsidies to businesses to offset health care costs.

Total federal outlays for the Obama-Biden health care plan: $50-$65 billion according to the website. The costs will be covered, you guessed it, by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

As this brief analysis indicates, the Obama-Biden plan as described in documents and pages on the campaign website amount to, essentially, a modern socialist encyclopedia.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a tremendously talented speaker, and perhaps an inspiring leader. That does not mean that his policies are in keeping with the vision of limited government given form by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Rather, like most of those who have either sought the Presidency or actually occupied the White House, from either of the two major parties — and this includes John McCain as well — he seeks a radically expanded role for the federal leviathan in Washington.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments