MM
2008-10-23 14:23:17 UTC
Does Anyone Buy McCain’s Mindless Arguments About Socialism?
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/983
Wednesday October 22, 2008
Sarah Palin update, below.
Appearing on Countdown Wednesday, Chris Cillizza reported that the
McCain camp’s internal polling showed its focus on Joe the Plumber and
criticizing Obama on “spread the wealth” and “socialism” was working
with some groups. I don’t doubt that; the Republicans have always told
their readily deceived faithful that taxes and the government services
they support are inherently evil, so the less the better. No thought
required.
But I don’t believe most Americans actually think what we need now,
when the government is bailing out banks and bankers, is lower taxes
on the most wealthy and less government intervening on the side of
those who now realize they’ve been royally screwed during the Bush
era.
It’s even more difficult to believe most Americans buy the ridiculous
argument that taxing some to help others should be demonized as
“socialism,” or that “spreading the wealth” is somehow un-American.
McCain may find it “disgraceful” that current employees pay payroll
taxes to allow current retirees a modest security, but the vast
majority of Americans overwhelming support Social Security, just as
they support Medicare/Medicaid and SCHIP. They pay taxes to support
schools even when they don’t have school age kids, and they pay taxes
for police and fire departments even when they don’t need them at the
moment.
People understand this; they aren’t stupid, but McCain’s central
argument is that either Americans are stupid or they want government
to disappear except to build armies and wage wars.
But what about something McCain claims he supports? For example, how
would McCain’s energy policy work if his philosophical claims applied?
McCain wants lots of new nuclear power plants. But without substantial
government subsidies, there would be no nuclear plants in the US and
no new ones would be built. Every current US nuclear plant exists only
because there were direct government subsidies for, and limits on
catastrophic insurance costs. Nuclear waste R&D, handling and disposal
costs are funded by government. Plans for new nuclear plants all
depend on government loan guarantees for investors or guaranteed
utility rate-base treatment or both.
The same is true for coal plants, old ones, new ones, dirty ones or so-
called “clean” ones. Coal plants have always been heavily subsidized,
and new plants using new carbon reduction strategies will likely need
tax breaks and loan guarantees or they won’t be built. And government
has given coal barons huge benefits by allowing coal mines and coal
plants to pass the external costs of coal onto others through
increased miners’ deaths and diseases; massive environmental damage
during extraction and global damage from the emissions. In the future,
we’ll have to pay enormous sums to displace existing coal plants or
reduce their carbon emissions.
Want to drill more? We’ve historically had huge tax breaks for oil/gas
depletion, investment credits and other subsidies for producers, along
with favorable treatment in allocating drilling rights and royalties.
How about wind, solar and other renewables? Huge sums of public monies
went into R&D. Virtually all of the existing wind turbines and solar
electric facilities exist only because they received large tax
investment and/or production cost tax credits. New ones won't be built
without those credits. Developers will also benefit from socializing
the costs of transmission to get the power to load centers. There will
be only a tenuous connection between those who benefit and those who
pay these costs.
So McCain is talking nonsense, and it’s time for the media to start
calling him out. Much of what we do in today's economy, and everything
we want to do in the future, including McCain’s own energy proposals,
require that we tax people now or later and socialize those costs,
while spreading the benefits.
It’s called “promote the general welfare,” and, Sarah, it’s in the
first paragraph of the Constitution. The rest of America already knows
this.
Update: On NPR this a.m. I heard Sarah Palin describing Obama as
"Barack spread-the-wealth Obama." Does she understand anything?
The interesting thing about Gov. Palin is that she lives in a state
with a strong tradition of honoring what the Mexicans call “el
patrimonio,” which roughly means the inheritance of the people of the
land’s wealth. It belongs to the people, not the corporations that
develop it. Under that tradition, Alaska extracts what others would
call "excess profits" taxes from oil/gas industries — hence from
owners and shareholders — and restributes that wealth by literally
writing wealth rebate checks to Alaska citizens. The concept is
indistinguishable from socialism and the practice is surely spreading
the wealth.
And it’s the only reason she can afford to balance a state budget
without raising income taxes, while most other states are struggling
through the recession.
You’d think our media could ask her about that, but . . .
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/983
Wednesday October 22, 2008
Sarah Palin update, below.
Appearing on Countdown Wednesday, Chris Cillizza reported that the
McCain camp’s internal polling showed its focus on Joe the Plumber and
criticizing Obama on “spread the wealth” and “socialism” was working
with some groups. I don’t doubt that; the Republicans have always told
their readily deceived faithful that taxes and the government services
they support are inherently evil, so the less the better. No thought
required.
But I don’t believe most Americans actually think what we need now,
when the government is bailing out banks and bankers, is lower taxes
on the most wealthy and less government intervening on the side of
those who now realize they’ve been royally screwed during the Bush
era.
It’s even more difficult to believe most Americans buy the ridiculous
argument that taxing some to help others should be demonized as
“socialism,” or that “spreading the wealth” is somehow un-American.
McCain may find it “disgraceful” that current employees pay payroll
taxes to allow current retirees a modest security, but the vast
majority of Americans overwhelming support Social Security, just as
they support Medicare/Medicaid and SCHIP. They pay taxes to support
schools even when they don’t have school age kids, and they pay taxes
for police and fire departments even when they don’t need them at the
moment.
People understand this; they aren’t stupid, but McCain’s central
argument is that either Americans are stupid or they want government
to disappear except to build armies and wage wars.
But what about something McCain claims he supports? For example, how
would McCain’s energy policy work if his philosophical claims applied?
McCain wants lots of new nuclear power plants. But without substantial
government subsidies, there would be no nuclear plants in the US and
no new ones would be built. Every current US nuclear plant exists only
because there were direct government subsidies for, and limits on
catastrophic insurance costs. Nuclear waste R&D, handling and disposal
costs are funded by government. Plans for new nuclear plants all
depend on government loan guarantees for investors or guaranteed
utility rate-base treatment or both.
The same is true for coal plants, old ones, new ones, dirty ones or so-
called “clean” ones. Coal plants have always been heavily subsidized,
and new plants using new carbon reduction strategies will likely need
tax breaks and loan guarantees or they won’t be built. And government
has given coal barons huge benefits by allowing coal mines and coal
plants to pass the external costs of coal onto others through
increased miners’ deaths and diseases; massive environmental damage
during extraction and global damage from the emissions. In the future,
we’ll have to pay enormous sums to displace existing coal plants or
reduce their carbon emissions.
Want to drill more? We’ve historically had huge tax breaks for oil/gas
depletion, investment credits and other subsidies for producers, along
with favorable treatment in allocating drilling rights and royalties.
How about wind, solar and other renewables? Huge sums of public monies
went into R&D. Virtually all of the existing wind turbines and solar
electric facilities exist only because they received large tax
investment and/or production cost tax credits. New ones won't be built
without those credits. Developers will also benefit from socializing
the costs of transmission to get the power to load centers. There will
be only a tenuous connection between those who benefit and those who
pay these costs.
So McCain is talking nonsense, and it’s time for the media to start
calling him out. Much of what we do in today's economy, and everything
we want to do in the future, including McCain’s own energy proposals,
require that we tax people now or later and socialize those costs,
while spreading the benefits.
It’s called “promote the general welfare,” and, Sarah, it’s in the
first paragraph of the Constitution. The rest of America already knows
this.
Update: On NPR this a.m. I heard Sarah Palin describing Obama as
"Barack spread-the-wealth Obama." Does she understand anything?
The interesting thing about Gov. Palin is that she lives in a state
with a strong tradition of honoring what the Mexicans call “el
patrimonio,” which roughly means the inheritance of the people of the
land’s wealth. It belongs to the people, not the corporations that
develop it. Under that tradition, Alaska extracts what others would
call "excess profits" taxes from oil/gas industries — hence from
owners and shareholders — and restributes that wealth by literally
writing wealth rebate checks to Alaska citizens. The concept is
indistinguishable from socialism and the practice is surely spreading
the wealth.
And it’s the only reason she can afford to balance a state budget
without raising income taxes, while most other states are struggling
through the recession.
You’d think our media could ask her about that, but . . .