So there I was, sitting on the 20-year-old couch my parents gave me, watching Michelle Obama deliver her speech Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. During the satellite-aided banter Senator Obama exchanged with his wife and daughters after the speech, an odd thought popped into my head.
Is 7 years old a little young for a perm like little Sasha Obama was wearing? Or was it just a relaxer?
I’m pretty sure my sisters didn’t start their regular appointments with the hot comb until they were about 10 years old, though exceptions were made for special occasions (and having your father nominated for president might qualify).
The thought sent me on a flashback to a conversation I had on that very same couch when I must have been 9 or 10 and my younger sister was around Sasha Obama’s age. What my mother told us that day, right or wrong, seems more relevant to the current political discourse than much of what the pundits are saying during either party’s convention.
As was our routine, my mother, my sister and I were all watching TV as my mom braided my sister’s hair before school. We were laughing pretty hard at reruns of a comedy program called Dinosaurs.
That particular episode of the sitcom was about a political campaign. Earl Sinclair, the Homer-Simpson-esque patriarch of the show, was running for some fictional office against his evil boss, Mr. Richfield. I almost busted a gut laughing during one of the episode’s debates when Richfield explained how his policies would be based on “trickle-down economics.”
Rich people, Richfield said, tend to live in big mansions on hills. If you make sure rich people have all the money, then their pockets are bound to get so full that they have trouble containing it all. Richfield said that money would then tumble out of the pockets of the rich, onto the ground and ‘trickle down’ the hills to the poor people in the valleys. Everybody wins when you focus on helping the rich get richer, Richfield said.
To our young ears, the idea of winning people’s vote with such a ludicrous plan was pretty funny.
But during a pause in my laughter, my mother took advantage of what she saw as a teachable moment. “The thing is,” she said, “that stuff is real.”
“No way,” I replied. I couldn’t believe it. It’s just a joke, right?
They don’t express it quite like that, she explained, but some politicians really do push something a lot like that and even call it “trickle-down economics.” But there wasn’t too much time to discuss it; we still had to make it to Heritage Elementary on time.
These days “supply side economics” seems to be the preferred term, but the ideas proposed are basically the same as the “trickle-down” concept of previous political eras. Originators of the concept talk a lot about “marginal tax rates,” but these days the main point is the idea that those at the very top of the economic ladder are the ones that determine the overall health of the economy because they own the most investments in business.
Supposedly, cutting taxes for wealthy people and corporations will cause “the economy” in general to grow to the point that, even at a lower tax rate, the government will ultimately collect more revenues. So “supply side” advocates say less taxes for the well-off and even dishing out subsidies and credits for corporations will ultimately help the middle class indirectly.
In other words, the “rising tides lifting all boats” stuff. To me it seems kind of antithetical to a more familiar ethic about fighting for a day when the last will be first, and the first will be last. But I’m rambling again…
Anybody can find an economist that argues their point if they look hard enough. But whether you agree or disagree with any candidate's economic policies (there are probably very few of us that agree with anyone completely), too little media attention is focused on the substantial differences between the candidates on economic issues. And factually, there are real differences.
Bush pushed “supply side” pretty hard, and McCain, who once challenged elements of it, is pretty much on board with “trickle-down” tax policy now. Some call it a “pro-growth” policy. Others call it “regressive.” His tax cuts, certainly when discussing the direct effects, benefit upper incomes far more than lower incomes.
Obama proposes a more “progressive” tax plan, which means he wants to phase out the Bush tax plan and pay for government services by taxing millionaires significantly more and taxing computer store employees a bit less. His tax cuts go to lower incomes and his tax hikes go to very high incomes. Whether he’ll stick to that remains to be seen, but that’s what he’s put forward.
The organizations behind Independent candidate Ralph Nader and the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney submitted signatures to get on Ohio’s ballot last week. They both suggest economic policies that are more aggressively "progressive" than Obama’s and emphasize things like ending the legal “personhood” of corporations (long story, folks) and cracking down on corporate welfare.
When we clarify each presidential candidate’s positions on these things for the public, we get closer to what journalism is really about. We journalists need to educate ourselves about things like capital gains tax cuts so we can educate others. (A capital gain is basically a way to make money without conventional work and usually requires some supply of money on the front end – stuff like stock, real estate, etc.)
Without huge cuts in government spending – remember that Bush never saw a spending bill he didn’t like except when it involved extending healthcare to poor children through SCHIP – I think tax cuts like that just shift more of the tax burden on the poor and all of the people that work for a living. Perhaps more importantly, “supply side” subscribes to the premise that those at the top have to necessarily make all the decisions for us rather than empowering everyone to decide how the resources we all helped to develop should be used.
But that’s just my slightly informed opinion. The question is what do you think? Why?
Stuff like that probably matters more than the seven houses McCain owns or how Rezko helped Obama buy his land.
It might even matter more than the hairstyle little Sasha Obama was wearing Monday night. But she sure was cute.
Again, that’s just my opinion.
~Geoffrey Dobbins
vice president, UCABJ
Is 7 years old a little young for a perm like little Sasha Obama was wearing? Or was it just a relaxer?
I’m pretty sure my sisters didn’t start their regular appointments with the hot comb until they were about 10 years old, though exceptions were made for special occasions (and having your father nominated for president might qualify).
The thought sent me on a flashback to a conversation I had on that very same couch when I must have been 9 or 10 and my younger sister was around Sasha Obama’s age. What my mother told us that day, right or wrong, seems more relevant to the current political discourse than much of what the pundits are saying during either party’s convention.
As was our routine, my mother, my sister and I were all watching TV as my mom braided my sister’s hair before school. We were laughing pretty hard at reruns of a comedy program called Dinosaurs.
That particular episode of the sitcom was about a political campaign. Earl Sinclair, the Homer-Simpson-esque patriarch of the show, was running for some fictional office against his evil boss, Mr. Richfield. I almost busted a gut laughing during one of the episode’s debates when Richfield explained how his policies would be based on “trickle-down economics.”
Rich people, Richfield said, tend to live in big mansions on hills. If you make sure rich people have all the money, then their pockets are bound to get so full that they have trouble containing it all. Richfield said that money would then tumble out of the pockets of the rich, onto the ground and ‘trickle down’ the hills to the poor people in the valleys. Everybody wins when you focus on helping the rich get richer, Richfield said.
To our young ears, the idea of winning people’s vote with such a ludicrous plan was pretty funny.
But during a pause in my laughter, my mother took advantage of what she saw as a teachable moment. “The thing is,” she said, “that stuff is real.”
“No way,” I replied. I couldn’t believe it. It’s just a joke, right?
They don’t express it quite like that, she explained, but some politicians really do push something a lot like that and even call it “trickle-down economics.” But there wasn’t too much time to discuss it; we still had to make it to Heritage Elementary on time.
These days “supply side economics” seems to be the preferred term, but the ideas proposed are basically the same as the “trickle-down” concept of previous political eras. Originators of the concept talk a lot about “marginal tax rates,” but these days the main point is the idea that those at the very top of the economic ladder are the ones that determine the overall health of the economy because they own the most investments in business.
Supposedly, cutting taxes for wealthy people and corporations will cause “the economy” in general to grow to the point that, even at a lower tax rate, the government will ultimately collect more revenues. So “supply side” advocates say less taxes for the well-off and even dishing out subsidies and credits for corporations will ultimately help the middle class indirectly.
In other words, the “rising tides lifting all boats” stuff. To me it seems kind of antithetical to a more familiar ethic about fighting for a day when the last will be first, and the first will be last. But I’m rambling again…
Anybody can find an economist that argues their point if they look hard enough. But whether you agree or disagree with any candidate's economic policies (there are probably very few of us that agree with anyone completely), too little media attention is focused on the substantial differences between the candidates on economic issues. And factually, there are real differences.
Bush pushed “supply side” pretty hard, and McCain, who once challenged elements of it, is pretty much on board with “trickle-down” tax policy now. Some call it a “pro-growth” policy. Others call it “regressive.” His tax cuts, certainly when discussing the direct effects, benefit upper incomes far more than lower incomes.
Obama proposes a more “progressive” tax plan, which means he wants to phase out the Bush tax plan and pay for government services by taxing millionaires significantly more and taxing computer store employees a bit less. His tax cuts go to lower incomes and his tax hikes go to very high incomes. Whether he’ll stick to that remains to be seen, but that’s what he’s put forward.
The organizations behind Independent candidate Ralph Nader and the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney submitted signatures to get on Ohio’s ballot last week. They both suggest economic policies that are more aggressively "progressive" than Obama’s and emphasize things like ending the legal “personhood” of corporations (long story, folks) and cracking down on corporate welfare.
When we clarify each presidential candidate’s positions on these things for the public, we get closer to what journalism is really about. We journalists need to educate ourselves about things like capital gains tax cuts so we can educate others. (A capital gain is basically a way to make money without conventional work and usually requires some supply of money on the front end – stuff like stock, real estate, etc.)
Without huge cuts in government spending – remember that Bush never saw a spending bill he didn’t like except when it involved extending healthcare to poor children through SCHIP – I think tax cuts like that just shift more of the tax burden on the poor and all of the people that work for a living. Perhaps more importantly, “supply side” subscribes to the premise that those at the top have to necessarily make all the decisions for us rather than empowering everyone to decide how the resources we all helped to develop should be used.
But that’s just my slightly informed opinion. The question is what do you think? Why?
Stuff like that probably matters more than the seven houses McCain owns or how Rezko helped Obama buy his land.
It might even matter more than the hairstyle little Sasha Obama was wearing Monday night. But she sure was cute.
Again, that’s just my opinion.
~Geoffrey Dobbins
vice president, UCABJ
No comments:
Post a Comment