The Nigh Seen Creeder

"Socialist" is the latest if-the-shoe-fits term that a conservative can't affix to B. Hussein Obama lest he or she wants to be called a racist. Others include "radical," "protectionist," "union stooge," "adherent of liberation theology," etc. Refer to Obama as anything but an "African-American agent o' change" and you're gonna get burned.

Leftists for years have been screaming racism whenever they're dealing with someone who does not share their political views. I have to give 'em credit, though, because it's been an effective rhetorical tool.

If a liberal's debating someone over the merits of, say, a flat-rate income tax, all he has to do is accuse his opponent of being a racist for supporting a flat tax. The debate immediately shifts from whether or not a flat tax makes good economic sense (which it does) to whether or not the accused is actually a racist. Caught flat-footed, the accused gets knocked off-message trying to explain that Bull Connor's not going to be revived to run the IRS if a flat tax is instituted.

That said, I and other conservatives have been calling Obama a socialist because, well, by his words and deeds he deserves to be called a ****in' socialist. First, here's just one of his deeds:

"Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda."

(Pic from a New Party publication, courtesy of New Zeal blog.)

If Obama didn't agree with the New Party's dreams for building a socialist utopia in these United States, why did he join? For a free T-shirt?

As for Obama's words:

He wants higher marginal tax rates. He wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. He wants to increase the payroll tax. He wants to keep the estate tax at 45 percent instead of allowing it to go to zero in 2010 (as it would under current law). He also wants to keep the corporate tax rate at 35 percent, which will ensure that the U.S. maintains one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. In addition, Obama has proposed phasing out a whole host of deductions and exemptions, many of which are in place to lessen the tax burden on small businesses.

So, what does Obama propose to do with all the supposed additional revenues that'll come pouring in once he's raised taxes? Well, he's proposed over $4 trillion in new spending.

Included in Obama's bust-the-bank new spending is a proposal to turn Social Security - for the first time in its history - into an overt welfare program.

Also, Obama wants to give billions of dollars of "tax credits" to individuals who pay little or no income taxes. (In econ books Obama's tax credits are referred to as "transfer payments." That is, transferring money from one group of people to another.)

Obama has said he wants to double foreign aid, most of which will no doubt go to countries in which the United States has no strategic interest.

And finally, Obama is four-square in favor of another big "stimulus" pay-out. Right now, Congress' new stimulus package is geared only toward those who've lost their jobs. If the bill languishes until after Obama becomes president (God help us), he and his allies in Congress will lard the bill up with additional goodies for practically every man woman and child in America -- excepting those who actually pay the bills, of course.

What Obama has proposed is a massive wealth-spreading scheme. A better way to describe it would be to say that he wants to take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need. If that ain't socialism, please tell me what is.