There’s a Difference Between Commerce and Coercion
I don’t think that Marc Ambinder is entirely serious about this post. He suggests that the McCain/Palin ticket can’t really criticize Barack Obama for being a socialist because:
Palin taxed oil company profits and cut $1200 checks for every Alaskans.
That’s spreading the wealth. Redistributing some money.
The McCain campaign talks about Palin’s executive experience.
So Obama might have socialistic inclinations… Palin’s gotten it done.
No, that’s not “spreading the wealth” as Obama put it, for two reasons.
First, the people who received the checks in Alaska actually own the oil the companies are extracting. Palin acted as a responsible trustee of someone else’s property, which is exactly what a Governor is supposed to do.
Second, Palin did not prefer one group over another when the government distributed the checks. Every legal citizen of Alaska got those checks. She didn’t choose winners and losers like Barack Obama has said repeatedly he will do. Everyone owns the oil so everyone benefitted from the better deal.
Barack Obama does not own Plumber Joe’s wages. It is clearly socialism for him to take those wages and give them to someone he feels deserves them more than Joe. That is exactly what Obama proposed on Joe’s front lawn.
That is also nothing at all like what Palin did in Alaska. Obama proposes socialism. Palin conducted a business deal on the behalf of the owners of Alaska’s oil. The difference between the two is the difference between commerce and coercion.
I hope, given the snarky tone of his post, that Ambinder was just having a little bit of fun. Otherwise, I suggest he take a walk down the hall to Megan McArdle’s office and have her explain the difference between the two.
Other Posts of Interest:
- Could He Pick Sarah? I Sure as Heck Hope So!
- Barack Obama Channels Karl Marx in St. Louis
- What Is This A-Las-Ka?
Category: Sarah Palin, The Economy and Your Money, The Obamessiah
Well stated, Jimmie. This Alaskan couldn't have said it better herself.
Can you cite some references to back up your story. Something doesn't quite sit right with either what you are saying, or the way you are saying it.
How is it that every single Alaskan citizen received a check? You stated that they all owned the oil. How is this possible? The oil belong to the common wealth of Alaska? Or to a citizens group of Alaskan residents? BTW, I am not entirely sure what you mean by a "legal citizen of Alaska". Every Alaskan is a legal US Citizen, they are residents of Alaska. As such, how is it they are more entitled to the revenue from the oil then say someone in Arkansas? Because it is under the ground where they have a house? By that logic, those in NYC should have as much right to the profits from the subway system. Please clarify…
Lastly, regarding the statement that Obama wants to "spread the wealth" to clarify, it isn't what McCain is making it out to be – it isn't taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". It is clear if you read his statement, and compare it in light of what he stated at the debates, and through most of his entire campaign, "Joe the Plumber" needed the break before this year. He wants to ensure that the "wealth" isn't limited ONLY to the "elite fat cats" like it has been in years past (like 30 or so years). It is time that people like "Joe the plumber" get a chance to share in the wealth – and that is what he wants to ensure happens. As anyone with a modicum of business understanding knows – a small business is a vehicle. A business cannot be taxed. Only the individuals can be taxed. If a small business grosses 1/2 Million the expenses associated with that business may leave the business owner with little to no profits, and may not provide enough income for taxation purposes. IT happens quite often.
So with that in mind, the idea of "spreading the wealth" isn't a cavalier Robin Hood-esque pandering to the "lower class" – it is a realistic solution for building businesses heading into the economic situation we are now in. We have seen over the last 8 years – the "trickle down" theory isn't getting us too far. In the case of corporate enterprises – the trickle down is getting diverted mid-stream and the stimulus is heading overseas. The taxpayers – the ones not getting the top end breaks in the $1 Million plus category – are bearing the burden while simultaneously NOT receiving the spoils of their sacrifices.
In short, if it comes down to "Joe the Plumber" getting a share of the wealth by not being taxed until he makes more then $250,000, or giving the execs at Exxon-Mobile loopholes to hide their obscene wealth – while simultaneously raking in 10's of Billions of dollars PER QUARTER on the backs of those same taxpayers – I must say I would have to agree with Obama- it is time to spread the wealth so the little guy – "Joe the Plumber" – can realize a life-long shot at making it. Making it into the realm of those that get taxed. Finally being able to achieve the goal of being put into a higher tax bracket. Where he is at now, he can't get there from here – at least not without a lot of good fortune. He might as well save his pennies, keep working for his boss, and play the lottery – that also relies on good fortune.
@fireweed –
First off, Palin and every other Alaskan did not have rights to that oil. The oil companies bought out the land rights to those areas legally, and so the oil is the oil companies oil, not Alaska's oil. So really all that Palin did was tax a company to promote welfare for her citizens. Now i don't think this is a bad idea, but that is socalism what she did.
Secondly, "spreading the wealth around," isn't socalist because socalism requires a general and non specific way of doing things. If a socialist government takes money from people, they take it from everyone. Obama, by "spreading the wealth around," is only trying to help people who don't have a life filled with champaign and caviar, and limit the amount that the top earners profit off the misfortune of the lower income classes.
Thirdly, "Joe the Plumber," is not having his wages taken from him. He'd actually have it supplemented by the likes of Obama, and McCain who make more than 250k a year. Also, as JTP is in no position to buy his boss' company which doesn't make over 250k a year, he doesn't have to worry about Obama's recindment of Bush's tax cut on the wealthy. JTP is also seemingly a republican plant, and trying to use a guy who owes back taxes as the posterboy for your campaign on taxes is not a smart move.
The basic point to this whole thing is that Ambinder is right. Palin treated everyone the same in giving them back tax money they didn't even pay, and she did it across the board, just like socalist doctrine says it should be done. Obama talks about narrowing the gap between a corrupt CEO salary, and a two job single parent salary. If you really think that Obama's plan is socialism and not equalization, then possibly you happen to be one of the 5% of American's that would benefit from McCain cutting taxes on your bloated salary, and not part of the large portion of America that would be helped out by Obama's plan multiple times more than McCain's.
maximumgravity and Jake – you're both incorrect, though Jake actually answered the question. The oil belongs to the citizens of Alaska because they, as citizens of Alaska, own it.
As for Obama's plan not being socialist, well, I can't help you there. If you don't think that taking money from people to give it to others to satisfy your idea of what is fair isn't socialist, then you really don't know what the basic tenet of socialism, as expressed by Karl Marx, is.
Wow, this is dumb. How do you figure he's a Republican plant?
"First, the people who received the checks in Alaska actually own the oil the companies are extracting. "
Explain to me how public ownership of the means of production isn't socialism. Isn't that the very definition of socialism? Also can you explain how McCain's plan to take money from the majority of Americans and give it to rich people like me isn't redistributing wealth? The fact is, if the government taxes anyone and spends any money, it is necessarily redistributing wealth. The only difference between the two parties is how they redistribute that wealth. Republicans want to take money from poor people and give it to the wealthy. The Democrats want to do the opposite. The interesting thing here is that you want to pay higher taxes so you can give your money to me. Thanks, but I don't need it. Nor does that money even help me. If people can't afford to buy my products, then I make less money. And let's be clear about this, I get some royalties on products I've designed. I really want more people to be able to buy my products. I'd rather make more money and be taxed more than make less money and be taxed less. Higher taxes for me and lower taxes for you are in my interest. And given that my products are medical products, it's really in my interest for more people to have health insurance. McCain's plan to throw 20 million people off of health insurance will hurt my industry. But not as bad as you might think. I can still sell my products to Europe, where people can afford to buy them. And the emerging market for medical products in India looks promising as well.
Jake, you're right, but you're missing a very important point. Lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the wealthy doesn't just help the middle class. It helps the wealthy as well. By increasing the disposable income of most Americans, we increase consumption overall. And it is us wealthy people that benefit the most from increased consumption. Everyone wins from this plan. In McCain's plan, everyone loses. Yes, my tax rate will go down a little, but I'll be making less money to start with. And everyone else will keep less money. And I'll employ fewer people to make my products because fewer people can afford to buy them. Henry Ford had it right. Well, except for the Nazi thing. But if Republicans can forgive Prescott Bush, I can forgive Henry Ford.
Because oil isn't the "means of production" but the raw material. If Alaska owned the oil companies themselves, they'd own the "means of production".
Secondarily, the money gained from the voluntary business transaction between the oil companies and the trustee of the resources was distributed equally, without preference. It wasn't distributed according to "need" or the Governor's whims.
I'm sorry. You can't twist the two situations to make them equal, no matter how hard you try.
You are also misrepresenting what McCain's plans are. He won't "throw" anyone off of health care. That's an Obama talking point that simply is not true.
"Because oil isn’t the “means of production” but the raw material. If Alaska owned the oil companies themselves, they’d own the “means of production”."
But the public ownership of raw materials really isn't any different. In America (unlike the Emirate of Alaska), resources are privately owned. I know that, because I own some. But you think our resources should be publicly owned, just like in the socialist countries of Europe. I include raw materials in the "means of production" because usually, corporations that use those materials own them to start with. Look, I grew up in a steel town. And Bethlehem Steel didn't buy iron ore, coal, and limestone from the government. They owned those mines and operated them by themselves. Hell, sometimes they even owned the towns. That's private enterprise. The Alaskan system isn't like that. It's socialism. It is the public ownership and control of resources. And, under Palin, they've been chasing the oil companies away with high taxes. Let's just compare my state with Alaska over the past two years. At the start, Alaska only barely exceeded Colorado in energy production. Now, Colorado exceeds Alaska in energy production by a pretty large margin. Alaska's production dropped significantly, and Colorado's production expanded significantly. We have a Democrat as governor, and Alaska has Sarah Palin. And in Colorado, energy resources are privately owned. In Alaska, they are publicly owned. Which system works better?
And I notice you won't even come close to trying to answer the redistribution question. But you still want to redistribute your wealth to me. I can't imagine why you would want that. I've explained why I want to give more money to you. It comes back to me anyway. But why you would want to make both of us poorer is really a mystery.
You're misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that the oil of Alaska should be publicly-owned. I said that it is publicly-owned. I'm making a statement of fact. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Indeed, Alaska has not been "chasing off" oil companies. Oil companies have been operating there at a booming rate. And Canada just negotiated with Alaska to run a pipeline through it. So you're incorrect on that count, too.
Here's the different between Barack Obama and me. I want to decide for myself where I spend my money whether I get something out of it (commerce) or I give it to someone I believe should have it (charity). He wants to take it from me and give it to whomever he sees fit.
This subject isn't difficult, tom.
"So you’re incorrect on that count, too."
Oh really? Then why is oil production in Alaska declining? I find it rather strange that you would equate "booming" with "declining." But then again, conservatives have their own definitions for words, so I shouldn't be surprised. If you really want to see booming, take a look at natural gas production in Colorado. Or wind production, for that matter.
"I said that it is publicly-owned."
Fair enough, but it's still socialism. And you're right, I don't like it.
"He wants to take it from me and give it to whomever he sees fit."
No, he wants to give more of it back to you. And I'm really surprised that you don't want to take it. Instead, you want to give it to me. But that's okay, when Obama is president, you will still have the right to overpay your taxes and refuse to take Obama's tax cut. And I'm sure you'll be happy to do it.
"And Canada just negotiated with Alaska to run a pipeline through it."
Umm, no. A private Canadian company negotiated the right to build the pipeline. That doesn't mean they'll actually build it. And if they don't build it, Alaska will pay them $500 million to not build it. And let's face it, they probably won't build it. To bad I couldn't get some of that action. I'd be willing to not build a pipeline for only $1 million. That would be a bargain for Alaska.
Jimmie said: "He wants to take it from me and give it to whomever he sees fit."
So by this I assume you make over $250K, else you won't be paying taxes. If that is the case, then great for you, you are fortunate, and probably worked hard to get there.
However, this flys in contrast to your other statement:
"I want to decide for myself where I spend my money whether I get something out of it (commerce) or I give it to someone I believe should have it (charity)."
Then you must pay NO TAXES now, or else you believe the entire tax system is a "charity"? Your support of McCain is just as fostert stated – taking from the poor and giving to the rich just so you can choose to give them more money in commerce of your choosing. However, as fostert also pointed out, the flaw with the "taxing the poor and giving to the rich" ideology is that there is no money left to give in commerce.
This is FACT. Check the consumption of oil in the US this past summer with the year before. Find out why the OPEC nations were hammering the oil companies this summer – consumption was down, ergo sales were down – they were pricing the commodity out of the market. When it isn't about pricing anymore, but instead people have no money, that is called "depression". We will find out Jan 1 what the holiday season will do to consumer spending. Think McCain will patronize the socialist for another blank check to bail out retailers???
Fact is, when the middle class doesn't have enough economic stimulation, those sitting at the top of the roost don't feel the love "flowing up" from consumer spending. There is only one way to get the middle class spending – and it isn't by buying houses (McCain's fundamental flaw of the economy). It is by allowing the middle class to keep their money and spend it as they see fit. They are the consumers en masse. There are only so many houses, boats and cars that the wealthy 1% can buy – and it isn't enough to support the economy and the entire financial infrastructure of the US. The PEOPLE need to be spending en masse. Tax cuts for the wealthy only represent about 5% of the total population. If 5% can carry and GROW the economy – then yes – give them the money. Fact is they haven't been able to since the 1950's. It saw its demise at the end of the 1980's. It has just taken almost 30 years for the lobbyists to get their d!cks out of the politicians pockets to allow the economy to rebound and slow inflation. Most people today are making about the same money they made 10 years ago. Costs have gone up exponentially in just the last two years. Lowering the amount the middle class gets to keep in their pockets is going to have the opposite effect, and we will see a collapse in the economy…oh wait, that happened three weeks ago….
maximumgravity – You do realize that he's going to levy an additional tax on your for health care, among other things. That will hit people making as little as 42,000 a year, which is where I am right now.
I don't want him deciding winners and losers. We learned form Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hos utterly disastrous that is.
Jimmie, c'mon, you seem like an intelligent guy, does what your saying even make sense? Where do you get this sort of information? Have you read Obama's helath care plan?
You acknowledge that unless you make over $250K, you won't have taxes increased – except for out of the clear blue this ominous "healthcare tax hike" on those making $42,000. Does this even sound logical, let alone factual??? The funding for healthcare comes form letting the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250K expire. That's it. No nre tax on those making $42K to fund health care.