Category Archives: Elections

Obama’s Three Pronged Foreign Policy Platform

29 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, Foreign Relations, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The foreign policy debate went poorly for Obama. Polls placed him around equal to Romney on debate performance, but that simply will not cut it. In order to make up for the devastation of the first debate focusing on economy, Obama had to sweep the foreign policy debate by a huge margin. This is especially true considering that foreign policy is touted as Obama’s strong suit. Romney sabotaged Obama’s plans, though, by projecting a false level of similarity to Obama’s foreign policy platform and by purposely steering the debate towards the economy.

However, there may be a silver lining for Obama in regards to foreign policy. The foreign policy situations in the Middle East have lined up in such a way that Obama could make some key foreign policy decisions to revitalize his campaign.

Washington has currently reached the limit of sanctions in Iran. Already sanctions are crippling the economy and yet the result is that Ahmadinejad continues his nuclear armament while his citizens’ quality of life continues to dampen under these sanctions. In a recent poll from The Foreign Policy Initiative, 62% of Americans said that they would be willing to go to any lengths, including military action, to keep Iran nuclear-free. Obama should capitalize on this and launch a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

Syria has reached the breaking point. Although the majority of Americans currently oppose military intervention in Syria, this is largely because they have been fed rhetoric for months on why the situation in Syria makes military ventures like a no-fly zone more difficult than it was in Libya. Although the violence in Syria is much more intense than it was in Libya, the situations are relatively similar and it should be just as easy to launch military intervention. After all, by this point, even Russia and Iran have reduced aid to al-Assad significantly and the regime appears to be on its last legs. Thus, Obama should begin orchestrating a no-fly zone over Syria with cooperation from NATO allies.

Lebanon continues to be a major threat to Middle Eastern stability. Clashes between pro-al Assad forces and pro-rebel forces have leaked beyond the Syrian border and currently threaten the stability of Lebanon in the future. Hezbollah also offers a major obstacle to a Middle East Peace Plan involving a two-state solution. Military intervention in Lebanon will be the trickiest of the three as the United States does not have very strong grounds for such intervention. Though, Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia pulling for the U.S. to intervene in Syria would likely agree to reciprocate such intervention with assisting the United States in restoring order to Lebanon.

Throughout history, war has unified citizens and sparked nationalism. After all, even George W. Bush experienced approval ratings of over 90% just after declaring the War on Terror. Now, normally it would be completely unjustifiable for a presidential candidate to make a major decision that will impact the future of a country’s policy just days before an election. However, one key factor justifies Obama taking such action. Military intervention in Syria and Iran is almost guaranteed within a six-month timeframe anyways. After all, despite the most crippling of sanctions, Iran continues to pursue nuclear armament and Syria’s al-Assad regime has only increased the intensity of killing citizens. Lebanon seems relatively stable at the moment but its stability is being jeopardized in parallel to that of Syria albeit with a lag of about a year and a half. Thus, military intervention in Lebanon will soon prove vital as well.

About these ads

Limits to the Power of the People

20 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,


80 million Americans watched the first presidential debate and 65 million watched the second. Given the overlap, it is reasonable to assume that at least 2/5 of eligible voters watched one of the two debates. This is up from 2008 when about 52 million Americans watched the first McCain-Obama debate.

Many potential voters who did not watch either of the debates have likely done research on the candidates and are on the right path to making an informed vote. Yet, the issue of popular ignorance in the United States is one that cannot be ignored. It is inevitable in a democracy that a sizable percentage of voters will be inadequately educated on the issues. Also, with the bipartisan system of the US, there is always the issue of voters aligning themselves with a specific party without understanding the views of the specific candidate on the issues that will affect them.

The conundrum in this issue has always been that restricting the voting populace artificially goes against democratic principles. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why democracy was not prevalent until the advent of education for the masses: without an informed populace, the system simply fails. This is why the United States and democratic countries as a whole must re-evaluate their concept of democracy. The idea of democracy is not that candidates adopt illogical platforms that appeal to the undereducated populace. This has been the case in the United States for too long. In this election, for example, both candidates have agreed on energy independence and keeping jobs in America (i.e. discouraging outsourcing) Yet, upon further examination, it seems that opening the United States to outsourcing would open it up to new markets that would benefit the economy in the long run. Additionally, energy independence would be very costly to the government, would raise prices for consumers, and would hamper America’s alliance with oil trade partners such as Saudi Arabia.

The best way to ensure that only informed voters hit the polls on election day is to create short tests for voters at each polling station that require voters to have a basic knowledge of each party’s stance on the economy, foreign policy, and social issues. The majority of the current voting populace would be able to pass these tests, but the truly uneducated voters would thus be prevented from skewing election results.

The Democrat party would likely be against such a policy as it would take away from their constituency. Their platform, of course, is most appealing to the working class poor who are most likely to be undereducated and uninformed of most policy decisions other than social welfare issues. However, there are ways that such a platform could be made equal for both parties. For example, such a test could be translated into Spanish for Hispanic voters who disproportionately side with Obama’s campaign. The U.S. government can also use mass media to create public service announcements disseminating unbiased information on both candidates. The goal of any democracy should be an informed electorate. Since that is impossible to ensure without intervention, democracies like the United States must impose voting requirements to make its voting electorate as informed as possible to end the power of popular ignorance.

Bin Laden is Dead and General Motors is Alive

16 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


“Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Joe Biden’s line succinctly explaining Obama’s supposed successes over the economy and foreign policy could not be more misleading.

Yes, General Motors is alive. Under Mitt Romney’s plan, though, GM would still be alive and the taxpayers would have had to pay 3 billion dollars less to ensure GM’s survival. Obama’s economic stimulus undoubtedly saved thousands of American jobs. This line purposefully aims to steer away from the main issues of the presidential debate. After all, hardly any Americans would argue that Obama’s economic stimuli failed to save thousands of American jobs. The main issue is whether or not those jobs merited nearly 1 trillion dollars of extra federal debt.

Regarding killing Osama Bin Laden, Obama’s personal role in the affair was miniscule. True, Obama agreed to launch the raid on Bin Laden. Though, his security advisers had unanimously supported this course of action.

Moreover, the decision, on hindsight, was not necessarily a logical one. After all, the chances of finding Bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound were roughly 50-50. A failed raid in Pakistan would have been a disaster. It would have aggravated tense U.S.- Pakistani relations. Pakistan would likely have kept NATO supply routes closed which would have cost the United States billions of dollars extra in the upcoming years pulling out of Afghanistan. Of course, there was the 50% chance of capturing and killing the most villainous terrorist in the modern era. In hindsight, though, this decision was rather meaningless. Even at the time, it should have been clear to the White House that Al Qaeda is an organized group with a formal leadership structure and thousands of members globally. The death of the leader of the organization did little to quell the fervor of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is currently at large in Libya where it is suspected that Al Qaeda was behind the killing of the US ambassador to Libya.

Obama has had plenty of successes during his presidency. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama supported, for example, was successful enough to get Romney on board for the most part. He has managed a full troop withdrawal from Iraq and has drastically reduced troop presence in Afghanistan. In the upcoming presidential debate, Obama should highlight and properly explain his foreign policy platform and successes. Instead of appealing to the populist pride over Bin Laden’s death, he should focus on his past successes and the benefits of remaining neutral in the Middle East, supporting the Arab Spring countries, and retaining strong economic ties to all countries regardless of their foreign policy differences from the United States.

Obama, Romney, and Oil Independence: The Terrible Trio

14 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , ,


In the highly bipartisan U.S. presidential election, both candidates have somehow managed to find a common ground… on the wrong side of the issue. Both candidates have portrayed themselves as patriotic and identifiable to the middle class by arguing that they will bring jobs to America. This argument is populist and appeals to the majority of voters do not understand how globalism benefits them. In fact, outsourcing jobs is better for the economy as it opens the U.S. economy up to new markets and reduces prices for American consumers or, in other words, the middle class.

Nowhere is the detriment of economic self-sustenance more prevalent to the United States than in the energy sector.

Although the United States recently experienced a boom in shale gas production, energy independence would require a great increase in oil prices. Domestic energy independence would depend upon the United States resolving to more expensive alternate energy. This seems like a noble goal. However, with the recent global shale gas boom, it is estimated that traditional energy sources will last for over 200 years at current consumption rates. It is not time to wean the United States off of fossil fuels and it never will be. That is because the ‘invisible hand’ of the markets will help to regulate the energy sector. That is to say, once fossil fuels are depleted to a certain level, alternate energy will be more cost effective by the theory of supply and demand. Thus, it is not necessary for the government to regulate energy at this point; the private sector will develop alternate energy technology at such time that alternate energy becomes profitable.

One of the arguments for energy independence for the United States is that the Middle East is an unreliable oil source. However, the United States has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that it can revert to if it faces foreign policy woes in the Middle East. Moreover, relinquishing the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, as an oil source will have great diplomatic consequences for the United States. After all, Saudi Arabia, the United States’ sole Middle East ally except for Israel, has retained close ties with the U.S. only because of their oil treaty. If the United States decides instead to use domestic oil only, it will face a more volatile situation in the Middle East.

The presidential candidates must realize how energy independence does not benefit the United States. However, that does not seem to matter. As this election has shown multiple times, Obama and Romney are more worried about getting elected than they are about actually fulfilling their duties to benefit America.

The First Debate: The Turning Point in the Election

09 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , ,


An educated populace is the overarching goal of any true democracy. Voters should be informed on the issues in order to vote for representatives to lead the country as they see fit. Romney’s huge surge in popularity following the first presidential debate highlights this issue clearly.

The issue, of course, is that Romney experienced a 12 percent upsurge according to a report from Pew Research since the debate last week. 12 percent? Mitt’s share of the vote rose from 43% to 49% while Obama’s fell from 51% to 45%. This is completely unprecedented. In the past, debates have done little to change the votes of swing voters. The only time when it is possible to assume that debates played a role was in the Gore/ Bush election of 2000 decided by just 500,000 popular votes. The fact that a closely contested debate was able to supersede the months of campaigning shows a major problem in the United States’ political structure.

Despite harsh criticism, Obama’s debate performance was not as bad as it seemed. He articulated clear stances on major issues, spoke eloquently, and appropriately responded to Romney’s positions. He may have been less enthusiastic than Romney, but his performance certainly wasn’t enough to quantifiably ruin his campaign.

The fact that the first debate had such a great impact on Romney highlights two main issues regarding the presidential election: political apathy amongst voters and Romney’s great series of unfair truths that Obama was unable to respond to.

The rapid shift in momentum shows that many voters are having their political stances shaped by debates in which a huge number of half-truths flew around.

Mitt Romney was particularly guilty of this, though Obama deserves some blame for his 5 trillion dollar deficit argument against Romney that was pulled out of context and did not include cuts to federal healthcare that Romney proposed. Nevertheless, since Romney came victorious in the debates and the post-debate polls, it must be assumed that his half-truths overpowered those of Obama.

There must be a way for accountability in elections and specifically in the presidential debates that have excessive weighting. Moderators should be able to ask more instigating questions as opposed to opening up broad topics like healthcare in order for citizens to determine each candidate’s potential success. Obama was often unable to point out specific logical fallacies that Romney utilized simply because Romney offered too many points in each speech for Obama to rebut all of them.

Although there is nothing wrong in Romney gaining a majority vote, there is an issue with such rapid shifts in political stance. Political complacency is a huge issue. Americans are privileged with free and fair elections and should not misuse it.

Taxes: The Five Trillion Dollar Question

05 Friday Oct 2012

Posted by in Economy, Elections, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


The first presidential debate went quite clearly to Romney. Or so it seemed. Romney uncharacteristically avoided low blows to the president and connected well with the American voters. Obama seemed a polar opposite in both of these regards. Yet, it was Obama who provided more believable solutions.

In this debate, every issue ranging from Obamacare to green energy came down to the economy as opposed to principle. More specifically, each candidate’s tax plans came to light quite clearly.

For once, Romney distanced himself with the notion that he solely seeks to benefit the wealthy. Both candidates were able to come to the consensus that their economic policies should be measured by the impacts that they will have on the middle class. Both Romney and Obama planned to reduce taxes on the poor and middle class and increase taxes on the rich. Obama planned to do this directly while Romney hinted that he would do this by ending deductions for the wealthy to compensate for tax cuts on the middle class.

Romney did not manage to get into many details on how he could maintain a balanced budget under his proposed tax cuts. He briefly touched upon repealing certain deductions, but he failed to explain which deductions he would remove and, more importantly, who would benefit the most from these revised tax policies. At first glance, eliminating deductions seems to be most detrimental to the rich but, then again, it could be hurting the middle class and small business owners. After all, until yesterday’s debate, Romney appeared to simply focus on maximizing opportunities for the so called ‘job creators’ (the super wealthy). He appeared a firm believer in the trickle down economic system, so it is unclear where on the economic spectrum he would repeal these deductions.

Obama’s tax plan was far more straightforward and consistent with both his party stance and the measures that he has already enforced and proposed as president. He provided ample evidence of how his tax policies had best served the middle class and small businesses.

Although Romney won the debate according to most polls and proposed very moderate policies, “the devil lies in the details” as Romney himself recently said. His most glaring flaw is a failure to explain his policies and the impacts that they will have on the American people. This is a natural disadvantage to challenging a standing president; Obama has the benefit of citing specific bills that he helped pass to illuminate a detailed set of his policies. Yet, Romney has little past experience barring a short stint as Massachusetts’s governor to show his platform. Since that term, though, Romney has doubled back on his political platform several times.

In short, Romney must stop oversimplifying his platform in order to glorify it. Instead, he must suggest the policies that his party would actually agree to and that would potentially be beneficial to both parties’ platforms.

Black Gold: Romney and Obama’s Misadventures with Oil

27 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by in Economy, Elections, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,


Image

Teer, Chad. Oil Platform. Digital image. Wikimedia Commons. N.p., 22 Oct. 2004. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. .
Oil appears poised to have more political power than any commodity has ever had in the past.

In terms of oil prices, the United States has nothing to complain about. Though gas prices are creeping up to nearly US $4 per gallon, this is cheaper than nearly every nation in the world barring oil-producing countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, where gas prices hovers below US $1 per gallon. In much of Europe and Asia, gas prices are generally at least US $7 per gallon. Nonetheless, despite the relatively low price of oil in the United States, it is sure to play a huge role in the upcoming presidential elections.

Sparking nationalism characteristic of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney recently declared that if elected president, he would steer the United States on the path to becoming energy independent nationally or at least make the US dependent only on energy from North America by 2020. While such a plan is potentially feasible, it does not factor in at all with Mitt Romney’s platform. After all, Romney is strongly in favor of a completely privatized energy sector determined by supply and demand. The only way to substantiate these claims would be for Romney to launch a new campaign platform based on alternate energy. Since alternate energy is currently more costly than conventional fossil fuel sources, though, Romney’s claim seems contradictory and to be little more than a political move to gain votes from moderate voters. After all, even with increased offshore drilling, an idea proposed by Romney, the United States only possesses 2% of the world’s oil reserves. It’s consumption is proportionately much higher, and thus Romney’s claim does not seem to have any semblance of feasibility, barring the possibility that the United States quickly drains all of its oil reserves in order to fulfill Romney’s political goals.

Oil will likely impact Obama’s campaign to an equal, if not greater, magnitude. A White House source recently leaked information that Obama was strongly considering using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a 695 million barrel emergency oil supply, in light of rising gas prices. In the past few presidential terms dominated by the GOP, the trend has generally been to avoid dipping into the SPR to reduce gas prices and instead rely on Saudi Arabia to produce a greater amount of oil to return stability to the markets. The fact that Obama would consider using the SPR reserves instead of first calling upon Saudi Arabia to fulfill its oil for protection alliance with the United States shows Obama’s attempt to slowly but surely distance the United States from its greatest Middle Eastern ally at the moment, barring only Israel. This development will highlight to voters Obama’s vigilant, bordering on mistrustful, relations with much of the Middle East.

Seemingly, oil is a topic at the forefront of Americans’ political stances, and with good merit; oil prices have nearly tripled in the past ten years, far ahead of inflation rates. The issue of oil will only become more prevalent as oil reserves gradually dry up and oil prices increase; even the sanctity of oil deals with Saudi Arabia will not save the US from this inevitable development. Moreover, the power dynamic in the Middle East has shifted quite drastically over the past two years. In the wake of the Arab Springs protests, many new anti-US, Islamist regimes have sprung up. Clearly, the United States faces many issues in the Middle East, including the over-reliance on Saudi Arabia for oil, which complicates the issue of gradually diminishing oil supplies. We can only hope that Obama and Romney’s recent moves are truly representative of their campaigns, but it seems likely that the two presidential candidates are simply playing dirty politics to gain votes, a trend all too familiar in American politics.

Mitt Romney’s Discord with American Voters

02 Thursday Aug 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


An interview that I conducted with a former partner from Bain and Company raised some interesting new perspectives about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former partner recalls from his business interactions with Romney that Mitt was “very convincing, always had a positive appeal, and seemed very sincere in talking about business as well as opportunities that Bain Capital was going after.” Convincing, positive appeal, sincere. Is this the same Mitt Romney who seems to have a knack for managing to make each and every speech off-putting to Americans? Although many of Romney’s proposed policies are in line with Americans’ interests, he will likely be unable to enforce or enact any of them unless he can shape up his public image to gain votes and win the presidential election.

Economically, Romney is extremely distanced from his voters. In the midst of the Occupy Wall Street and general anger from the middle class over economic inequality, Romney’s wealth may serve to hurt him. Obama, by the way, is also extremely rich. However, unlike Romney, Obama does not have a habit of constantly bringing this fact up. Romney has tried to leverage his wealth to demonstrate his business experience and show that he can turn the economy around better than Obama has. Instead, though, Romney should demonstrate his business leadership through examples of key business decisions he made to turn companies around in order to gain public support.

Furthermore, Romney does not appear to be listening to the American people in terms of foreign policy. His recent international tour has been a complete and utter failure. Romney denounced America’s greatest ally, Britain, by declaring that the nation lacked the proper finances to undertake the costly project of hosting an Olympics Games. Further on the journey, Romney denounced Obama’s ‘appeasement’ of China and openly planned to initiate a trade war with Beijing if elected. Perhaps most damaging, though, was his promise to support Israel in any option taken on nuclear-armed Iran, which would most likely end up being a military option. Romney must realize that the United States is becoming increasingly liberal and gunboat diplomacy is no longer attractive in a president. Obama was elected to a large extent because he was the only candidate seeking an end to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, Romney appears to be in complete discord with basic human empathy. While Obama responded to the Aurora shootings by cutting short his trip to Florida and making a public speech urging all Americans to pray for the Aurora victims and their families, Romney seemed distant and unable to connect with voters in the crucial difficult time. His speech to the victims of the shooting and their families seemed insincere and actually served counterproductive by establishing him as an uncaring leader.

While his personality does not determine whether or not he will be a good president, it is the only glimpse into the leader that the public has. In that sense, Obama has the advantage in that the public can refer to his actions as opposed to his charisma and speaking skills to determine their vote. Romney, on the other hand, is not so lucky. In order to wing the election, he will have to convince not only his millionaire Bain colleagues, but also the middle and lower classes that his proposed policies have their best interests in mind. The only way to do this will be to improve his public image by connecting with his voters.

Romney’s Regression to Bush

29 Sunday Jul 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


Image

Mitt Romney’s constantly changing policy stances makes it difficult to determine for sure his foreign policy if elected president. However, all evidence points to an antagonistic foreign policy under Romney.

Recent developments in his campaign indicate that if elected as president, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance and actions will likely mirror those of George W. Bush. Like Bush, Romney appears likely to improve relations with Israel at the expense of souring relations with Europe, the Middle East, and China.

Europe seems likely to be a battleground for Romney, as he seems to be a hardliner regarding austerity. He has already, before even assuming presidency, managed to ruin relations with Britain by deeming the nation unable to host the Olympics due to high debt. Romney’s feeble attempts to retract his statement and instead endorse the London 2012 Olympics failed to rectify the damage. While this will likely help him to gain German support under the pro-austerity chancellor Angela Merkel, it comes at the expense of souring relations with anti-austerity, pro-growth Mediterranean models. These nations have seen economic woes beginning with the financial crisis of 2008, problems which have only been exacerbated by the ECB’s hardline austerity programs designed at balancing the PIIGS nations’ budget.

While Europe will likely be an ideological battleground for Romney, the Middle East has the potential to be a physical battleground; already heated tensions between the United States and the Middle East seem likely to reach a boiling point under Romney’s conservative leadership. Romney’s alleged unwavering support of Israel is quite believable considering his close friendship with Israeli leader Benyamin Netanyahu. Romney’s plan to support Israel in any course of action against Iran in light of Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program is quite risky considering Israel’s earlier plan to engage Iran militarily. Heated Israeli-Iranian tensions over a Bulgarian bomb that killed 5 Israeli tourists, allegedly an Iranian terrorist operation according to Israel, indicate a likely American backed Israeli military operation in Iran aimed at disarming the nation militarily.

China seems to be quite contentious for Romney. While Obama has sought to improve relations with China, hoping to double trade with China in just 5 years, Romney seems keen to disengage with China in light of its political developments. Romney seems keen to punish China for unconfirmed intellectual property stealing, computer hacking, and currency manipulation. China is a key ally to the US economically, though the political alliance between the nations is constantly strained. Attempting to break off ties with China for political reasons will undeniably have consequences on a grand scale for the struggling American economy.

As a Republican candidate, Romney’s conservative military policy of engagement is to be expected. If Romney gets his way, though, he will likely end Obama’s peaceful diplomatic relations in favor of gunboat diplomacy, or an antagonistic foreign policy. As an ostensible mimic of the Bush Administration, Romney will likely even reverse Obama’s foreign policy progress. It seems quite feasible that Romney would reverse Obama’s decision to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 in the longest and most unpopular war in US history, barring the Vietnam War. In my mind, Obama wins hands down in terms of foreign policy and the extent of military. However, economic policy will be equally important. If Romney hopes to win this election, he will need to convince the American voters of the benefits of either his foreign policy or economic policies, the former of which does not seem possible. As such, Romney should focus in the coming months on solidifying in the minds of the American people his ideas that of the superiority of the private sector and how his business experience will be an asset in the White House.

Obama, the Federal Government, and Taxes: The Terrible Trio

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


Even with deregulation and tax cuts since the Reagan administration, Americans have been complaining that taxes are too high. Yet, they also complain that income inequality is too high. In essence, they want a Socialist welfare state without the burden of having to finance it. Interestingly, though, Americans have it better than most of the world. American taxes are actually extremely low. As of 2011, federal taxes, at 14.8% of GDP, were the lowest in the US since 1950. Of 40 developing countries in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), taxes in the US were the fifth lowest. Additionally, the United States has great public institutions. Its public education system is tied with Switzerland as the best in the world.

Romney’s allegations that Obama believed in excessive power of the federal government were taken completely out of context.

Obama has recently come under fire form Republicans for proposing higher taxes on the upper class. Romney took out a selected quote from the speech Obama made and overplayed it in the media. Out of context, Romney has continually reminded voters that Obama said, “If you’ve got a business-you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” This quote struck discord with the America, a country that has always believed in the power of the individual and limiting the power of the federal government in order to keep it in check. The “American Dream,” a key feature of American history, especially from the 1950s- 1970s, was based on this principle of the individual. The American Dream focused on the potential for each American to achieve upper socioeconomic mobility and for each successive generation to be more economically prosperous than the last. In fact, though, Obama’s quote was taken out of context by Romney. Below is an excerpt of Obama’s speech in which he explains his basis for increasing taxes on the rich.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.

 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president—because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

 

In context, Obama’s quote is much more logical and appealing to voters. His point is not to limit the idea of personal power but rather to bring light to the Obama’s argument that the rich deserve to pay higher tax rates in his election has centered on the idea that the rich benefitted more from the social institutions, such as infrastructure and education, than did the poor. However, Obama’s idea is flawed. Granted, it sounds more logical than Romney would have portrayed it. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that the poor benefit from tax-financed public goods more than the rich do. After all, the middle and lower classes are much more likely to attend public schools and state universities, both of which are financed through tax money. On the other hand, the rich are far more likely to attend prestigious private schools and private universities. The fact of the matter is that the rich pay far more than their fair share of taxes. In fact, while the top 5% of Americans by economic might generated roughly 32% of GDP, they paid nearly 60% of total income tax.

The principle of incremental income tax and successively increasing tax brackets is an old institution in the United States based on the idea that the rich can afford to give up a greater share of their wealth for common good. While this type economic model would fit a Social Democracy like Sweden or Denmark, it has no place in a capitalist society like the United States. In fact, the United States should impose a flat income tax in order to maintain fairness and the favorable business climate for the rich that makes a capitalist society thrive.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers