“Senator Obama said he wants to quote ‘spread the wealth.’ What that means is he wants government to take your money and dole it out however a politician sees fit. Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth… But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairy Man, I believe that they think that it sounds more like socialism. Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism. To me our opponent’s plan sounds more like big government, which is the problem. Bigger government is not the solution. Whatever you call his tax plan and that redistribution of wealth it will destroy jobs. It will hurt our economy.”—Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), October 19th, 2008.
Governor Palin won’t say it outright. And Senator John McCain (R-AZ) won’t utter the word specifically. Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist shies away from it. And Mitt Romney won’t say it either. That’s fine.
We’ll say it. Directly. Barack Obama is a socialist.
And let’s be specific: the direction that Senator Obama’s proposed policies will take the United States is one where the government increasingly subsidizes, regulates and then nationalizes one industry after another, consolidates government-control over the industries that have already been nationalized, and simultaneously disincentivize private investment in those same sectors of the economy.
In other words, the goal will be for the government to control the means of production. Sound familiar? It should. It’s a central tenant of socialism. After all, there’s more to socialism than simply redistributing the wealth of society—or “spreading the wealth,” as the Senator would say, or welfare, as we would say—although that is critical. The other end of the spectrum is the nationalization of entire sectors of the economy.
To wit, let’s review where we already stand. Education has been state-run for decades, and the university (and its valuable research) system is almost entirely financed via federally-backed student loans. Agriculture is heavily subsidized. Energy is overregulated, overtaxed, and restricted from increasing production necessary for the health of our economy. Banking has now been nationalized, and the mortgage industry has been for decades in reality (the GSE’s Fannie and Freddie account for more than half of all U.S. mortgages). Increasingly health insurance, via Medicare, Medicaid, and other state-run programs are being controlled by government.
And Barack Obama will not roll back any of it. Instead, he will consolidate control over each and every one of those sectors, and add to it. Let’s look at some of the Obama proposals:
1) Forced unionization via card check—Barack Obama wants to return strength to Big Labor, and one of the critical ground components to that is allowing unions to use the intimidating card check system to bully enough workers—a majority—into forming a union without there ever being a vote via secret ballot.
2) National Health Insurance—As if health costs had not skyrocketed enough since the advent of Medicare and other government-subsidized programs, Senator Obama wants to double down and create a National Health Insurance program that would dwarf all other entitlements currently offered by the federal government. He puts a $65 billion/year price tag on it, but that is almost certainly a (very) lowball estimate. In short, he wants to socialize 14 percent of the economy in one fell swoop.
3) Energy—Mr. Obama wants to fund the “green” energy and phase out American dependence on oil and coal. He does not support increased hydrocarbon fuel production—things like gasoline, home heating oil, coal power plants, etc. He thus wants to bury the smokestack industries and phase in a new, nationalized “clean” energy sector. He wants to make carbon dioxide a heavily regulated pollutant under law. He supports cap-and-trade, and would create a “Global Energy Forum” between the G8 plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. He even wants those who turn the heat up (past 72 degrees) or the air down. When he’s through, energy production and distribution will be run by the government.
4) Automobiles—While making new cars more expensive by mandating greater fuel efficiency, Senator Obama would subsidize this process to the tune of $3 billion. And assuming that American auto giants crash next year, would anyone be surprised if a President Obama decided not to heavily subsidize, if not nationalize, the entire industry?
5) Communications—Mr. Obama wants to, according to his own website, bring about “diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.” Can you say (Un)fairness Doctrine? This is government control over broadcast media, and yes that is a form of socialization. It’s called censorship.
That may seem like a short list—and these are but a few examples—but then again, there’s not that much else for government to get its claws into anyway.
So while everyone else may be loathe to call a duck a duck, here at Americans for Limited Government we will cling to every last bit of liberty that is left for private individuals. If the free market system is soon to become a “fleeting wisp of glory,” let’s at least be intellectually honest enough to say so.
Hence, at ALG, we will call Barack Obama what he is, because of his own proposed policies: a socialist.
Robert Romano is the Editor of ALG News Bureau.
