Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MAN DATE.
It's been odd watching the McCain campaign warn darkly against redistribution. Redistribution -- which McCain says "means taking your money and giving it to someone else” -- is what the government does. It collects taxes and uses them to buy things, or give people money. Put even more simply, it collects revenues and then distributes them. As such, I rather like Jon Chait's summary of the McCain campaign's recent message: "McCain: Obama Wants to Have a GOVERNMENT in WASHINGTON!"
But conservatives may end up ruing this descent into ideological war. Two months ago, it wasn't exactly clear what an Obama win would "mean." But as McCain has worked to transform this election into a referendum on liberalism, it's increasingly becoming...a referendum on liberalism. Ambers comments:
It might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies. If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative....Obama has been talking about the larger GOP governing philosophy for a while now, but until recently, the race hasn't seemed like as much of a referendum on Republicanism; it's been more of a referendum on the Bush years. What changed? The GOP went all in on an ideological war.If Obama wins, it's going to be very easy for folks to claim that the old conservative pressure points of taxes and government have dulled, and we're entering an era in which economic instability and widening inequality necessitate a more assertive role for progressively-conceived governance. Indeed, one of my long-running criticisms of the Obama campaign was that they weren't campaigning so as to build an ideological mandate. John McCain, helpfully, has solved that problem. My hunch is conservatives will not end up thanking him.
COMMENTS (9)
Redistribution -- which McCain says "means taking your money and giving it to someone else” -- is what the government does. It collects taxes and uses them to buy things, or give people money. Put even more simply, it collects revenues and then distributes them.
This is a stupid argument. What Obama's detractors despise is the unnecessary re-distribution of income for the purpose of egalitarianism. After all, that's the goal of socialism.
Distributing tax revenues for national defense, roads, etc. is simply not the same.
Posted by: El Viajero | October 27, 2008 4:46 PM
And what do you consider redistribution of tax revenue to corporate entities?
Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
And the $700 billion bailout? That was kind of a wealth distributor, too. Government gives out money all the time.
Posted by: verplanck colvin | October 27, 2008 5:08 PM
And what do you consider redistribution of tax revenue to corporate entities?
I am in full agreement with you.....equally bad.
Posted by: El Viajero | October 27, 2008 5:15 PM
Waggishly perhaps, I think the question would be better framed as 'taxing and buying' rather than 'tax and spend'. Then we more naturally ask, 'what are we buying?'.
In the Republican case then, the answer is endless wars and preparations for wars, security for exploitation of the world's resources, prisons,.... and a little bit of education and infrastructure.
Posted by: Bruce Johnson | October 27, 2008 5:47 PM
This same exact thought occurred to me the other day. In addition to McCain engineering a mandate for socialism, Republicans have also defined the inevitable Democratic victory as a win for al Qaeda. It didn't have to be that way.
Posted by: Grumpy | October 27, 2008 6:44 PM
The McCain folks are making a slightly different argument than you suggest. They are suggesting that anyone who doesn't make enough to pay taxes will instead get a check from the government. If that were true (and I'm not convinced it is) then you could reasonable call it income redistribution. However, there are two weaknesses with that line attack. First, pointing out that 40% of Americans don't earn enough to pay taxes can't make anyone feel good about the state of the working class. Second, at a time when the disparity between the rich and the poor is at historic levels criticizing income redistribution falls on deaf ears.
Posted by: Adagio | October 27, 2008 9:01 PM
"This is a stupid argument."
ROFL.... Says the master of stupid arguments.
"What Obama's detractors despise is the unnecessary re-distribution of income for the purpose of egalitarianism."
You will be pleased to know, then, that this is not Obama's plan, any more than it has been the plan for the past hundred years or so. You will also be pleased to know that McCain is on record as agreeing with Obama that this sort of "redistribution" is desirable and is not socialism, just as you will be pleased to hear that McCain voted against the very tax decreases that Obama will end, thereby putting him in agreement with Obama yet again.
"After all, that's the goal of socialism."
ROFL.... Dear heart, you really shouldn't use words you don't understand.
Oh, and thank you for confirming that you are still the master of stupid arguments.
Posted by: PaulB | October 27, 2008 9:10 PM
A redistribution of wealth is not only part and parcel of what government does, it's the entire function of an economy. It is unavoidable unless we are all hermits. Government policy has an effect of who gets the better of many transactions. So the question boils down to "Who do you want favored?"
In a democracy, the majority wins. So unless they're hoodwinked, lied to, or don't vote, their interests will be favored. A large enough majority believes Obama will favor their economic interests better than McCain that it trumps anything else he can flail at.
Posted by: jsquire | October 28, 2008 8:13 AM
Man Date
By the title, I thought this was a post on Barney Frank
Posted by: The Redistributor | October 28, 2008 12:36 PM