The Collegiate Times has ceased publication until Jan. 20, 2009.
Letter: Let's talk seriously about issues facing our nation
Monday, November 10, 2008; 10:11 PM
The 2008 election has been decided and the American people have chosen Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. However, there are still those who want to continue to paint him as a foreign object with "un-American" ideas. Let's cut to the chase.

This whole argument about socialism perpetrated by the right wing and its supporters is ridiculous when it comes to understanding President-Elect Obama's tax plan.  If you really want to talk about boogeyman/ Orwellian style of government, let's talk about how under the Bush Administration's Patriot Act, NSA agents have been eavesdropping on calls from U.S. citizens abroad, including our troops, engaging in pillow-talk with their spouses or significant others.  Let's talk about how parents have discovered that their toddlers' names are on the Terrorist Watch List.  It is true that Obama's tax plan would reverse the Bush tax code that favors the wealthiest Americans and corporations.  

Instead, he would rather return back to a similar tax code that was implemented under the Clinton Administration.  So this case would be an example of redistributing wealth to favor the middle/working Americans through taxation. The GOP calls this socialism. Was it socialism when the Bush Administration redistributed wealth to favor the wealthiest Americans and corporations when McCain was against it, citing that it didn't properly target middle-class Americans?  

Therefore, why should most Americans be afraid of reverting back to a progressive tax system, which, most would argue, benefited most working Americans and small businesses during the Clinton era?   

We all should have learned at some point between the eighth grade and our junior year in high school that our American economy is not a purely capitalist economy. Instead, it's a mixed economy.  Taxing, whether it's progressive, regressive or flat, serves as a means to distribute wealth in this vast American society.  Therefore, it is logically irresponsible to argue that progressive taxing is socialism when taxing in general is a socialist concept.  Maybe those Joe Wurzelbacher types, who conveniently like to skip out on paying taxes, should argue for no taxes and let the free market handle funding and regulating all of those things that we take for granted.  That would be the most logical argument. However, we would have to consider these questions:  What would life be like for Americans if Wall Street regulated our airline or wastewater treatment system?  How would our lives be if public education financed by taxpayer money did not exist?  Although public education needs to be fixed and reformed, what if education was only guaranteed to those who could afford it?  What if Virginia Tech was not a federal land-grant/state-taxpayer-funded institution and was a private institution instead? How would the wonderful research that is conducted here be funded?

I suggest that we seriously take advantage of the human and material resources on this campus to educate ourselves, instead of regurgitating surface level political platforms and old free-market ideas that have been recently discredited by the crisis on Wall Street and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who previously championed free-market/self-regulation of Wall Street.  It is absolutely normal to go through an identity crisis, but please stop taking it out on President-Elect Barack Obama.  That, my friend, is a bridge to nowhere.

Shawn Braxton

graduate student,

Department of Sociology and Program for Africana Studies

You might be interested in... Related Topics: taxes, socialism, obama
Posted by: Stuart Mackenzie at 11/18/08 Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows. Flag Abuse
Posted by: 2pac at 11/18/08 The Illuminati run our country, this argument is fruitless. Disprove me and I'll come out of hiding. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 11/16/08 That isn't to say, of course, that welfare and charity should not exist. But the Constitution was not set up to handle the day to day workings of individual Americans - it was set up as a charter between the several state governments to allow them to work more freely and securely for the improvement of their citizens' well-beings. The founding fathers recognized the danger of the power of taxation and insisted in the Constitution (overturned by a later, grossly misguided amendment) that the federal government was never to be allowed to directly tax its citizens. So what we have in the present is a system which confiscates from some, redistributes to others, and hinders the progress of society all in the most blatantly unethical manner possible. We're governed now by no better than the likes of King George and his Parliament (such power-hungry would-be rulers exist on both sides of the aisle) transposed to a later time. We've begun to consign any semblance of freedom we have away to this government in the name of equality and justice in a truly Orwellian sense. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 11/16/08 Progressive tax codes hinder capitalism by penalizing those who create their own success. The ultimate rewards successful entrepreneurs find come only as a result of their own personal abilities to innovate, execute, market, and sell their products and ideas. Most people with large bank accounts have become so due to keen business sense and their abilities to develop products people actually want to buy and use. Penalizing such success is counter-productive, then, in that it creates a disincentive to innovate and achieve to one's best abilities. What's more, not everyone is endowed with the same ability to innovate - and to redistribute capital down to these such people with no practical reason for doing so almost guarantees a society which has capped its own innovative abilities. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 11/16/08 What is truly unfortunate is that, when discussing such issues as wealth distribution, many in favor of progressive tax codes overlook the fact that the US, despite its disparities in class, still maintains a society with more economic mobility than any other nation on the planet. It's tough to see if you look (like so many do) at the numbers which indicate that the poorer classes 'stay the same size' from year to year. But it's worth remembering that these statistics deal with size of population, and not with the population itself. Are the SAME people poor from year to year? That's a better indicator, of course, of how well (or unwell) our economic structure is faring. There are many rich people who become poor, and many poor people who become rich, and many from both ends of the spectrum who wind up somewhere in between and vice versa. You can't see that by looking at aggregated statistics. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/12/08 Shawn, one thing that you have right on the money is that our government requires more money to run, at least as it is currently structured. Perhaps when the government starts taxing its populace at higher and higher rates in a futile effort to keep up with unconstrained spending, the answer is to rethink the structure of the government itself, rather than keep going to the taxation well. Flag Abuse
Posted by: MG at 11/11/08 Shawn, I don't have time right now to respond to everything (maybe later), but it sounds like you're at least willing to try to learn. Even if you disagree, you don't fully know an issue unless you can argue it intelligently on both sides of the table, so its good you're taking an interest. I have not read the book Chris suggests, but I will have to check it out now too. I would highly recommend you check out Free To Choose by Milton Friedman. I think you'll be surprised at how much sense it makes to promote individual liberty. Chapter 7 of the book deals specifically with the consumer protection issue. If you want, I'll even let you borrow my copy. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 I wrote the article because I just thought that it was nonsense that people would suggest that Obama was trying to somehow do away with Capitalism. In my opinion, he's trying to save it. He is very much a Capitalist, and it is fundamentally disrespectful to those who are socialist to call him a socialist without understanding the socialist aspects of our economy that we all benefit from. However the mode of production is still capitalism. Those socialist components of our economy, particularly a progressive tax code, benefits capitalism. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 Chris. I will check out that book before I offer a critique of it. My beef with libertarian ideology (Particularly Conservative Libertarianism) is the whole notion of limited to no government intervention, with preferences for individual and special interests. In my view, it undermines the role of cooperation amongst individuals with particular interests (social organizations), and how they may collectively operate to produce and reproduce inequality. Individuals are not mutually exclusive from government or each other, and they act as agents to maintain particular political and economic systems. Now there are other branches and controversies in libertarianism. I would have to read Mary Ruwart to get an understanding of what school of thought within libertarianism she comes from, or is trying to create. Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies that can easily fit into other theories. I just disagree with the most popular/political platforms. Libertarians who lean towards Anarchism scares me a bit. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Marx at 11/11/08 Kill the industrialists! They are the cause of all of your problems! They hold the minority down, kill our beloved mother earth and starve the poor!! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris Emory at 11/11/08 I think you nailed it. "Capitalism cannot work if only one segment of economy is benefiting form the fruits of everyone's labor." The only way that anyone other than a worker, his employer, and his employer's customer benefit form the workers labor is though government force. This is exactly what subsidies are. They take money from everyone and give it to only one small piece of the economy. Any you are exactly right, with constant government intervention relocating labor fruits to those the 'hyper-partisan', special interest controlled government feels need it or should have it, markets cannot work. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 Capitalism cannot work if only one segment of our economy is benefiting from the fruits of everyone's labor. I do agree that there needs to be incentives for companies who create more jobs. However if tax cuts are going to be given, it should be used for the purpose of job creation instead of CEOs and executive boards using that surplus to pad their pockets. I know it may be an ideological and moral challenge to many, but taxes are going to have to be raised. Education has to be reformed and funded, bridges have to be repaired, and new jobs have to be created. More importantly, these wars have to come to end somehow. I'm not saying that some concepts of libertarian ideology aren't useful, but there is a such thing as overkill. We have to find some common ground that meets the needs of our current economic situation. Those who can more than afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes, need to be apart of that equation. We can no longer run away from this. The pervasive anti-intellectualism and hyper partisanship is stifling our economy and our minds. Before you know it, we're going to be like the people on the Movie Idiocracy, where people simply resort to watering the ground with Gatorade without seeds or water, expecting something to grow. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris Emory at 11/11/08 I really just want to reiterate how well Mary Ruwart explains with logic and examples the answers to all these questions you are asking. If you want to look at my copy for an important figure just ask. "I am highly critical of libertarian philosophy and politics" How so? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 Our older workers are having to forgo retirement in the face of deteriorating health, rising health care costs, and rising cost of living in general? Rich people are not the only one who have to sacrifice in this economy. Those who make between 250,000 to 300,000 aren't going to see much of an increase, but once you start getting towards a quarter of a million dollars and more, this is CEO pay. I mentioned that the current tax code targets individuals rather than corporations. CEO's are benefiting more from the tax code. That's why businesses such as Circuit City, can lay off workers in the Richmond area without notifying them before hand while their CEOs can make out easy. The top 1 percent consists primarily of the CEOs and the supper wealthy. I agree that the government shouldn't meddle, however there has to be responsible accountability and corporate execs and lobbyists should not be able to use government meddling as a charge to cover up unethical business/trading practices while pushing for more deregulation. If you are conducting business fairly, I don't think it is to much for the government to demand an adequate level of transparency, especially if those corporations are taking risks with people's investments. It's not just enough to just react when fraud has been detected. Fraud has to be prevented. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 Jason, I understand that taxing the rich more can be a moral issue based on principle. But the reality is that we had the ability to do so to a lesser extent 8 years ago when we faced an economic downturn and our national debt was at 5.8 trillion. Now it has increased 72 percent to over 10 trillion. Those tax breaks were a detriment along with the billions of dollars that we have spent each month fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (the latter which was arguably unnecessary). We conveniently forget to include those in our budget. To put it simple. We all have to give a little. Working class Americans are spending less, as indicated by our auto industry's record profit losses. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/11/08 Shawn, you do realize that both governments and corporations have a common denominator: they are comprised of people. Government regulation is fine when its purpose is to prosecute fraud and promote fair commerce practices. However, more often than not, it ends up meddling by instituting a neverending strand of subsidies. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 How is reducing the size of government (deregulation) going to advance consumer protections and environmental protections, which the Bush administration is now taking steps to push for more of. This notion that government is inherently evil and individuals are inherently good is a flawed theoretical assumption. Are those individuals who have inflated stock values because they didn't have the government to answer to inherently good? The government is made up of individuals who set the tone for our economy? If the government is allowing for private industry to set the tone for this economy at the expense of the average working person, how are we to argue that that private industry is the solution to the problem when we are already being negatively impacted by economic policies that they support? Instead of arguing about big government versus little to no government, shouldn't we instead be focusing a responsible ideological orientation toward economic policies that favor both working Americans and corporations? Although I am highly critical of libertarian philosophy and politics, I will take a look at the book you mentioned Chris, but I must admit that I have strong reservations. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/11/08 Shawn, first, let's not mix corporate taxation and personal taxation. Second, nobody's arguing that you should pay more taxes when you earn more money; the issue is whether they should have to pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their earnings in taxes. As I said, just because rich people can more easily afford to pay higher tax rates doesn't mean that it is right to force them to do so. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 Hmmm interesting. It seems that the tax code issue is a hot button subject. If the top earners of the country continue to see growth in income, like Exxon Mobile who just released a report of record profits all while people are still loosing jobs and unemployment claims are increasing, why are folks having a heart attack when someone suggests taxes are going to have to be raised on those who aren't being altered in any significant through this financial crisis. If businesses and retailers rely primarily on consumption by the population, how would double taxing all Americans be fair to the middle class and the working poor, who are trying to climb the income ladder and are the primary source of consumption? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris Emory at 11/11/08 You suggest taking advantage of resources and educating ourselves. So, I suggest you get yourself a copy of "Healing Our World In an Age of Aggression" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. It will answer all your questions much better than I can in a short online response. You can actually download an electronic copy for free on her website, but unfortunately it doesn't have the figures. Flag Abuse
Posted by: MG at 11/11/08 Shawn, to cover the long term entitlement funding gap, we should have double taxes on the entire population. This of course assumes old tax revenue numbers, which have by now declined. It also assumes doubling taxes wont hurt the economy, and therefor lower tax revenue further. Can any sane person really believe this is a viable option? The average American already pays over 50% of their income to government. How much more will there be left to take? You need to look at the real issue, which is unconstitutional and irresponsible government spending. Our unfunded liabilities due to social security, medicare, and medicaid bring the national debt figure to a stagering 40+ trillion dollar debt................And in response to these tax cuts for the wealthy (who the top 10% of income earners pay what, about 90% of taxes?). I would like to hear your arguments for a progressive tax system. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/11/08 Shawn B, I have no problem with people paying their fair share toward infrastructure, but just because the easiest way to get these contributions is to extract them from the richest members of society doesn't mean that it is the just way. Part of the reason that infrastructure is often neglected is because we spend so much time and money on all the other social programs and bureaucracy. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 If the theory suggests that these tax cuts would create more jobs and stimulate the economy, why hasn’t it happened? I know that people dislike the idea of a tax increase, but our infrastructure is crumbling to pieces. Economists almost universally agree that taxes are going to have to be increased, but not on those who are struggling to keep their heads above water and who haven’t seen their incomes increase over the past eight years. Who’s going to pay for the infrastructure needs? The top 1 percent have experienced an increase in their income and they also earn over 21 percent of all incomes. I think we need to have a civil conversation about that instead of trying to disrespect each other by trying to undermine each other’s intelligence. A society where the mode of production is Capitalism is not fundamentally altered just because politicians decide to change the tax code. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 In 2003, Bush’s tax plan came under fire from his former Treasury Secretary (Paul O’Neill) and 450 economists, who released a statements suggesting that his plan to give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals would not generate growth and would reduce the government’s ability to finance our infrastructure. You can find a copy of this letter at this link (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/econ_stmt_2003), which was signed by economists who were Nobel Prize laureates. O’Neil released a report in 2002, which suggested that the U.S. faced future budget deficits of over 500 billion dollars if taxes were not increased. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Shawn B at 11/11/08 To Mr. Squalus. For your info, sociologists study social stratification to a large degree, therefore we constantly analyze economic theories and their social implications. Many of the classic writers cited in sociology are political economists, such as Weber, who understood the importance of economic structures in society. In fact, many of the earliest economists, such as Pareto, were in fact sociologists. So to suggest that sociologists don't know anything about economics or economic theory is flawed. Most of the theories of sociology and economics comes from the same founding fathers. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jack at 11/11/08 What is the argument that this article is making? Let me summarize what I read: Don't knock Obama because Bush was terrible. All taxes are socialist so if we are going to tax, then lets go all out. Look at all of the stuff our government gives us therefore we must depend on it for everything. Now look at how the government just messed up so we should depend on it even more now. Almost every argument in this article is a fallacy ad hominem or of denying the antecedent. Bush was terrible, but that doesn't make Obama automatically better. Have you actually looked at Obama's policy? His tax plan gives tax refunds to people who do not even pay taxes in the first place. I understand the need for schools and sewers but Obama's plan was much closer to "if you vote for me, I will give you money (from rich people)." Enjoy your money comrades. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 11/11/08 The Bush tax plan is still a progressive taxation system. To say that his plan "favors" the wealthy is disingenuous. It would be more accurate to call it "less unfavorable" to the wealthy. Americans in the highest tax bracket still doled out a higher percentage of their taxable income than others. Flag Abuse
Posted by: William Squalus at 11/10/08 Saying that the free market has been discredited by by the crisis on Wall Street shows a total lack of understanding of what a free market is. The real failure is the government regulation of markets. Here is what the goverment can do to help the markets: 1) deregulate 2) let bad business's fail (NO BAILOUTS) 3 no more subsidies for any businesses. Doing those things would make our economy much stronger and we'd get out of this mess much sooner. You're right about one thing though- there is no need to take anything out on Obama, he's just another socialist in a long line of socialists. Flag Abuse
Posted by: William Squalus at 11/10/08 "This whole argument about socialism perpetrated by the right wing and its supporters is ridiculous when it comes to understanding President-Elect Obama's tax plan".................................................... "So this case would be an example of redistributing wealth to favor the middle/working Americans through taxation".................................................... So it is ridiculous to talk about Obama being a socialist, but lets talk about how great his wealth redistribution plan is! Shawn we all learned in second grade how easy it is to be embarrassed when you start talking about things you know nothing about. You really should look up what socialism is before you embarrass yourself again. Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. So saying that he will not raise taxes is technically correct, THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT. This will, however increase the amount of money that lower middle class people pay to the government. All his talk of sticking it to the man and increasing taxes on oil companies and energy companies will increase the cost of these goods and services. So in addition to massive inflation from the 2 trillion made up dollars that were just printed by the Fed, Obama wants to increase the cost of these goods and services further by taxing these companies. This means that people will pay the government more of their money and goods and services will cost more. Huzzah for change! Flag Abuse
Posted by: MG at 11/10/08 Part 2: Where is this deregulation that people keep telling me happened during the Bush administration? If only! I know of no significant deregulation………………………………………………………………… These financial woes, along with most other problems facing this country, are the result of government intervention. The solution? Why more government intervention of course! This is the typical cycle in Washington that we’ve seen time and time again. Step one: create laws and regulations that are unnecessary. Step two: Wait for unintended consequences that they were warned about, but brushed off as crazy. Step three: Propose new solution to the problem they created in the first place, whose solution inevitably worse then the problem they created……………………………………………………… If you really want to learn what caused this, you should start by learning about Austrian Economics and the effect the Federal Reserve has on the economy. The Community Reinvestment Act (gasp! More regulation!) would be another wise place to look. Here, I’ll even provide you with a link for some reading: http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html Flag Abuse
Posted by: MG at 11/10/08 Part 1: Whenever someone talks about the failure of American Free Market capitalism, it is a sure sign of their economic ignorance (or a sociology student trying to talk about economic issues, which pretty much implies economic ignorance). It’s been a long time since we’ve had anything that can be considered a truly free, lassie faire economy. Sure, relative to most other countries we are free, but this merely means we are one of the healthiest patients in the cancer ward. We still have cancer. …………………………………………………………………As economist Walter Williams has said, “There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. Here's my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy? Better yet, tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level.” –Walter Williams Flag Abuse
Add your opinion
Copyright © 2008 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | print edition | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» VT webmail
 » VT People Search
» My VT / Hokie Spa
 » VT Blackboard
» gmail