As the two major parties wind down their respective campaigns to choose their nominee for the presidency, it should now be clear that the American public will have an unusual decision to make come the primary election date. Unless a third-party candidate emerges, the choice the public will have will be between a candidate that supports and encourages socialist policies 1 versus a candidate who supports and will continue fascist policies 2. Let me explain.
On the Democratic side the nominee will be either Barack Obama, the current-front runner, or Hillary Clinton, the original front-runner. The difference between the two candidates policies are slim to none with both pushing some form of universal healthcare, increased taxes to help the poor and more overall government spending.
Universal healthcare is the lynchpin in Obama's and Clinton's campaigns as there is this perceived need that everyone, whether they want or need it, should have some form of medical coverage. Ross Perot, during his 1992 presidential bid, made comments regarding social security to the effect that he thought there should be a means test to see who really needs social security. After all, did someone like him, a multi-millionaire at the time, really need to receive a check from the government for social security when he retires?
The same could be said about healthcare. There are people who are perfectly healthy and can get by paying for a once-a-year visit to the doctor out of their own pocket without having to shell out thousands of dollars a year for medical coverage they don't use. Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't want or need? To see how this socialist program would work, use former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's healthcare plan he forced on the taxpayers of Massachusetts.
As far as taxes go, that's par for the course for Democatic candidates. Whether they want to admit it or not, they want to raise taxes so they can redistribute that money. Having said that, it should be noted that what some are calling a tax increase would actually be the removal of tax breaks for some corporations, specifically big oil.
Right now, oil companies such as Exxon and Chevron, enjoy huge taxbreaks to drill and explore for oil. With oil at $100 per barrel, there isn't a need to give an incentive for companies to drill for oil. Thus, a repeal of the taxbreak would not be a tax increase but instead would remove a subsidy and put the tax rate back to where it was. Some might call that splitting hairs over the definition of a tax increase but it is an accurate description of what would take place.
Under Obama's and Clinton's plans, the rich would also pay more in taxes. How much the rich would pay is up for debate but at least one multi-billionaire has sided with increasing the tax rate on the rich and ultra-rich. Warren Buffet has commented several times that his secretary pays a higher tax rate on her salary than he does, and he does not think that is fair. His logic is that he makes so much money, he can afford to pay higher taxes whereas she cannot. Take his comments as you wish.
In a nutshell, that is how the two leading Democratic candidates would try to implement a socialist-style economic policy if elected to the presidency. Higher taxes on the rich, forced healthcare on everyone, subsidised by the government if necessary, and a greater expansion of the size of government to manage everything.
On the Republican side the presumed nominee, John McCain, would appear to continue the policies of George Bush by removing the last vestiges of privacy in ones personal life, continue to use taxpayer money to bail out banks, lenders and others who overextended themselves rather than let free market principles do what they may, continue the occupation of a foreign country for political purposes and wants the free market, backed by government intervention, to take care of the healthcare issue.
From his own words, McCain does not believe women should have the right to decide whether they want to continue a pregnancy (removal of privacy where the state knows better than the person), has publicly stated the government should intervene to slow or stop the subprime meltdown by using taxpayer money to prop up Wall Street firms and wants to continue to spend billions more American tax dollars occupying Iraq. Don't believe me on the last part? Here are his own words.
While McCain does not believe in socialized medicine, he does want the government to play a greater role in medical services, specifically reducing costs. How he plans to control the costs of medicine and procedures without dictating to companies what they can charge isn't made clear, but based on his other comments, you can be sure it will include more government spending and an expansion of government programs to monitor the situation.
Then of course there is the tax issue. McCain, like so many other Republicans, believes that if you lower corporate taxes, the money will miraculously trickle down to the workers. The tax cuts implemented by George Bush in 2001 and 2003 did allow for an increase in corporate profits but there was no comparable increase in workers salaries during the same. The only ones who have benefitted, in any meaningful way, are those making $1 million or more. Don't believe me? Take a look at this graph. Notice how corporate profits have substantially increased after the tax cuts but workers salaries have remained flat.
So there you have it. A quick, condensed version of your presidential choices for the upcoming election. On one hand you have a party candidate who thinks more spending and government intervention is the way to solve all our ills, while on the other side you have a party candidate who thinks expanding government and spending more tax dollars will solve all our ills. Great choices, huh?
While it's nice the various candidates think the government can solve our problems, using your tax dollars, whatever happened to "The government which governs best governs least" or "Most bad government has grown out of too much government"3? Regardless of the outcome in November, just remember, you can't blame me for the government you get because I voted for Kodos.1Socialism - Wikipedia
2Fascism - Wikipedia