Hillary and Obama differ on economics
May 5, 2008 – 11:49 pm by JohnSo claims David Leonhardt of the New York Times. Well, obviously that is completely stupid. He writes,
For all the similarities between the two Democrats, there is also a core thematic difference between them. Mrs. Clinton tends to favor narrowly focused programs, like the gas-tax holiday, that speak to specific voter concerns. By suspending the tax and replacing it with a new tax on oil companies, Mrs. Clinton told a rally in Hendersonville, N.C., on Friday, she was standing with “hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills.”
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, leans toward broader programs meant to help nearly all middle- and low-income families. At a steel factory in Northwest Indiana on Friday, Mr. Obama called the tax holiday a “gimmick” and said he instead favored a cut in the payroll tax, which finances Social Security, of up to $1,000 for middle-class households “to offset the costs not only of gas, but also of food.”
The dueling instincts do not explain all the differences between the two Democrats. They also disagree about a health-insurance mandate (Mrs. Clinton favors one) and the capital-gains tax (Mr. Obama has indicated he would raise it more than Mrs. Clinton would). Mr. Obama is open to increasing the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax; Mrs. Clinton has been critical of that idea.
But their contrasting approaches do extend to a range of issues, including the current economic slowdown, the mortgage crisis and retirement savings. The contrast has been present since before the primaries began—when Mr. Obama announced his middle-class tax cut, for example, and when Mrs. Clinton took out a whimsical television advertisement in which she was labeling Christmas gifts as if each were a specific policy proposal.
If I were going to write a satirical piece for The Onion exemplifying the qualities that lead intelligent and informed Americans to despise journalists so much, I couldn’t have dreamed of writing anything so perfectly vacuous. This mindless drivel is what passes for political analysis in the top newspaper in our country. Print journalists and the people who value their opinions are willfully ignorant morons who should have no input into the societal systems that govern anyone else’s life.
Neither one of the candidates wants to end taxation altogether; one wants to give consumers a gas-tax break (by shifting the tax to oil companies!) and the other proposes a broader but still tiny tax cut of another kind. Their plans for inflicting socialized medicine on innocent and defenseless Americans differ slightly in the details, with one leading more quickly than the other to complete State control of health care, but both agree that the State has a just and proper role in this industry that needs to be expanded, and soon. They both agree that Social Security is good and necessary, and should never be seriously reformed or abolished, but they disagree on how much of our income should be taken to fund it. This article tells us they differ on their plans regarding “the current economic slowdown, the mortgage crisis and retirement savings”; let me guess: they both propose government fixes that involve the government doing more of something, not less of everything.
Anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary seriously differ at the root of their economic philosophies should reflect for a minute and consider the multitude of drastically different positions that have been put forth, both recently and over the centuries. A little more of this type of government vs. a little more of that type of government consists of a difference in the details, not a difference in philosophy. Their philosophy is that the individual is subordinate to the State, and tax-funded State programs implemented by politicians and bureaucrats are the solution to everything. They both adore the State and they want to control it. There is absolutely zero difference in their philosophy. They are both complete socialist Statists.
