Predicting Obama win, major ideological shift

I think it was last spring that I predicted Barack Obama would win the election. Assuming he does (realizing, of course, that the assumption may prove to be false), it would represent the greatest ideological shift and leftward lurch since LBJ was elected in 1964.

The impact of an Obama victory would represent a far greater ideological change than Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980, because Reagan still had to deal with a Democratic Congress. If Obama wins, we'll have a Democratic Congress and a fundamentally leftist president, and the senator from Illinois will become one of the most powerful commanders-in-chief in the history of this country.

As addressed by the Wall Street Journal recently, such an outcome would signify a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, further redistribution of wealth and unbelievable government expansion during a period of economic decline. If the Republican Senate minority loses any more seats, then its ability to filibuster effectively would be compromised. If that happens, it will truly be party time for the Democrats.

Obama has been quoted as saying that "we've been living beyond our means," yet plans $293 billion in new annual spending, including $100 billion for health insurance alone. Increased taxation revenue generated from the "very small percentage" of individuals and businesses making over $250,000 annually will not mathematically account for the proposed increase in spending. Won't this further complicate budgetary and national debt woes?

Yet the senator from Illinois also proposes tax "cuts" for the (approximately) 95 percent of Americans making less than $250,000. How is that possible when more than 30 percent pay nothing in federal income taxes? What Obama is really proposing is refundable tax credit as disguised welfare payments for people with incomes so low they already pay no taxes.

It's certainly debatable whether this concept is good or bad, but the expansion of welfare under the guise of tax cuts is semantically misleading and is nothing more than the transfer of money from one pocket to another. As a point of reference, it's interesting to note that President Clinton worked to curtail welfare expenditures.

I know some people will be outraged by the suggestion that $250,000 in today's world isn't really that much money — but it's true — particularly when it comes to business. If Obama's plan were to go through, you'd have certain individuals and businesses, already paying a graded federal taxation rate of up to 35 percent, paying even more, as if they aren't already coughing up a "fair share."

Will the economy grow if one sector of the population loses incentive to work harder because it's on the government dole while another sector loses significant disposable income? Perhaps those making $250,000 will work hard to make less money so they won't have to pay more taxes!

The expansion of entitlements under Obama would be best represented by changes in health care provisions. Indeed, we might end up with "Medicare For All," a concept that sounds wonderful, nobly idealistic, the right thing to do, just because it is, and anything beyond reacting concretely just isn't convenient. But here's an "inconvenient truth" for you: Something like two-thirds of the federal budget is spent just trying to pay for Social Security, the military, interest on the national debt and Medicare.

Obama wants to initiate a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, a gold standard of health policy analysis, the plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to this huge new entitlement. Like Medicare, which we've all gotten so very used to, this never would be repealed.

Commitments would start slowly to avoid causing immediate alarm. As U.S. health care spending flows into default government options, taxes would have to rise, or services rationed, or both. The next step would be single payer, which Obama already has said is his ultimate ideal.

From overhauling (not always inappropriately) the business climate, paying for the "green revolution," various special interest payouts, not to mention tax increases and health care expenditures, Americans voting for "change" might get a heck of a lot more than they imagined — something like a return to the heady days of welfare-state liberalism. If that's what the country wants, so be it. But even if so, America will once again have pointed fearlessly to the future with the election of an African-American, something that even a generation ago would have seemed inconceivable.

And let's not forget that many feared the worst in 1993 when the Democrats ran the entire government, and we ended up having an overall very good decade.

In light of the above, Harriet Allen asks, "Wouldn't Obama's plan to redistribute wealth "fairly" be termed a Barackracy?"

Lois Duchene says she enjoyed the column on aging. "At 58, I find humor in aging. I laughed when you mentioned CRS. At my house, we call it 'CSR' to emphasize the point that we can't even remember the correct sequence of letters anymore. Many years ago, my grandmother (Fannie Means) mistakenly called Alzheimer's Disease 'Thalhimer's Disease,' and we have been using that ever since. I guess it was funnier when there was a Thalhimer's here in town."

The letter from an ultra-conservative last week delineating the "Characteristics of Democrats" sent the left into a complete tizzy, for which I mostly bore the brunt. It got Rudge Calhoun's day, for example, off to an entirely bad start.

"I read the paper this morning and wondered why you are allotted space to run on about your political views. Today's column about October was very good and then you go print a list of comments as 'food for thought' …? I don't think so. It is the same stuff that floats around radical Web sites every day. Very funny. Just close enough to use to smear your opponent ... very funny.

"Rather than list Republican beliefs, which are changing before our eyes, how about a few things the Democrats have promoted: Social Security, Medicare, civil and voter rights, food and drug safety, minimum wage, public education, SEC, FICA. I would think you'd have more intelligence as a doctor and columnist than promote ignorance once a week."

Edward M. Gilbreth is a Charleston physician. Reach him at edwardgilbreth@comcast.net.