A letter-to-the-editor in response to the belief that Obama is a socialist

First, let me share with you the letter-to-the-editor to which I'll be responding:


"It was fascinating to see France elect Francois Hollande (Associated Press article, Monday Dispatch). He is an avid socialist who has used class warfare to sweep into office. Hollande is going to tax the rich at 75 percent to cure the economic woes of France.


Of course, it won't work.


Compare this with President Barack Obama, who is pitting the rich against the poor and wants to tax the rich to fix the country's problems.


Experts know that even by taxing America’s rich at a much higher rate, it would take 250 years to pay off this year's deficit. This is nothing but politics; it’s not a solution.


Socialism does not work. But, of course, Obama is not a socialist. Right?


KAREN HANAS


Pickerington"


http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/05/13/socialism-doesnt-work-there-here.html




Here is my response:


This letter-to-the-editor is in response to Karen Hanas' May 13th letter, entitled, "Socialism doesn't work there, here".


In her letter, Ms. Hanas attempted to compare newly-elected French president Francois Hollande to President Barack Obama. Hollande is a Socialist and in an attempt to aid France in overcoming their debt-crisis, has pledged to raise taxes on the uber-rich to 75%. Ms. Hanas uses this to compare Hollande to President Obama, who is as she says, "...pitting the rich against the poor and wants to tax the rich to fix the country's problems."


She continued by saying, "Experts know that even by taxing America's rich at a much higher rate, it would take 250 years to pay off this year's deficit...," before concluding that "Socialism does not work. But, of course, Obama is not a socialist. Right?"


First off, Ms. Hanas concludes that socialism is ineffective, but precedes that with numbers that would dictate otherwise. She makes it fairly obvious that it's her belief to raise taxes on the rich is socialism and that this doesn't work at erasing a country's deficit. Yet, she also states that if the rich in this country saw their taxes raised substantially, the deficit would be erased in 250 years. Sure, that's not an overnight solution, but then again, there's not going to be such a thing as an overnight solution with our massive deficit. It's not to say that this is the lone possible solution to erasing our deficit, but as Ms. Hanas' statistic illustrates, it will have to likely be one important component of it.


Next, I'm getting a little tired of Obama being labeled as a socialist. Approximately 64.968% of the time I hear this word spoken, it becomes painfully obvious that the speaker or writer doesn't know what it actually is, and yes, I just pulled that number out of my backside (figuratively-speaking, of course). Also, it seems that often times these individuals will label Obama and his presidency on a whole as being socialist because of one socialist idea or policy. This is a very misleading and simple-minded approach to things. Just because President George W. Bush signed TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) - what is deemed by most conservatives as a socialist program - on October 3rd of 2008, does that then mean his entire presidency was a socialist one? No, of course not. Just because Ronald Reagan raised taxes eleven times during his presidency, does that make him a socialist? No. Even if Obama raised taxes on the super-rich to the pre-Bush (W.) levels of 39.6%, they would still be less than the average throughout the following tenures: Eisenhower (91.1%), Nixon (71.7%), Ford (70.0%) and Reagan (48.2%). Were all four of these Republicans socialists? If not, then how is it Obama would be by slightly raising the taxes to a lower rate than the average of any of these before-mentioned Republican presidents?


Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America (the country's largest socialist organization), said the following after being asked if Obama is a socialist:


"There are many ways we can say that Obama is not a socialist, and that he is in fact governing as a centrist, but that doesn't necessarily get people to listen. Clearly the Republicans are saying it since that's all they've got to say. I don't believe they're going to stop making this charge.


It's good for me, we have more media attention as a result of this stuff than anything else in the last 10 years. When I announce our membership numbers, I'm contemplating sending Michael Steele a letter thanking him."


So, there we have it. By clamoring about Obama supposedly being a socialist, conservatives are bringing attention to the Democratic Socialists of America, their causes, and director Frank Llewellyn would like to thank each and every one of you.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm


http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/09/top-u-s-socialist-says-barack-obama-is-not-one-of-them/