On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Michael Perelman wrote:
> How much of the subprime mess is due to income inequality? Solving that
> disgrace would not turn things around immediately, but it would be a
> great start.
Funny you should mention. That was Obama's prime theme in a hour long interview with the NYT this weekend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html
I found his details of how to accomplish it very unconvincing it though. The one concrete idea was to raise the FICA roof, which is fine with me. And he actually goes on to say that:
"We have to disaggregate tax policy between the wealthy and the working
class or middle class," he said. "We have to be able to say that we are
going to at once raise taxes on some people and lower taxes on others."
He added: "This has been one of the greatest rhetorical sleights of
hand of the Republican Party, and it has been a great weakness of the
Democratic Party."
Give it too 'em B-Rock -- except how on earth could that be reconciled with a stance of non-partisanship?
My gut feeling the only weight behind this is economist wonkery -- it makes fiscal sense on paper -- and campaign pandering to his weak point (low income voters) and that it will melt almost in the resistance that it will obviously call out.
Unless he's entirely the opposite of the guy he's been presenting himself as.
The rest of his proposals are vague, and the funding is going to come from closing loopholes, aka magic. Sounds to me like like a dead budget standing.
He really seems to go both ways on the deficit in this interview. On the one hand, he's talks the talk of not being a slave to austeriy, and on the other hand, he praises the same under Clinton -- when it was much less necessary in booming times and low oil. He says he'd do things differently, but his only concrete proposal is raising taxes on the rich -- and the one thing you have to give Clinton credit for was that he raised taxes on the rich.
In short, I hate to say it, but it smells like vaguery and mendacity.
And then lastly there's his list of economists at the end. His idea of the left is Robert Reich. He wants to bring back Rubin.
He sure did charm the interviewer though who writes as if Obama was, once again, a charging ahead populist who's almost daring in his willingness to skirt the edge.
So I guess his one undeniable virtue -- his charisma -- works one on one as well as at a podium
Michael