Obama's economic plan: Closing the gap between rich and poor (NY Times)

[fiorello]

Obama supporters: Please give this wide distribution! It's from the NY Times, and it made me wildly enthusiastic about Obama.

This is especially important because Times columnist Paul Krugman has claimed that Obama's economic plan is 'centrist' and 'tilted to the right'.

Paul Krugman is great, and I take his view very seriously. I kept looking for a response. Here it is!

Quoting:

In an hourlong interview outlining his economic views, Mr. Obama praised the Clinton administration for reducing the deficit and setting the stage for the ’90s boom. But he said Mr. Clinton had failed to halt a long-term increase in income inequality that had left the middle class feeling squeezed.

If elected, Mr. Obama said he would to try to forge a popular mandate for policy changes that could reverse a generation of slow wage growth and outlast any one administration. At the top of his list would be shifting the tax burden more toward the wealthy and making investments — in health care, alternative-energy research and education — that would cost a significant amount of money but could ultimately lift economic growth.
...
Although Mr. Obama’s economic approach comes wrapped in his conciliatory rhetoric, it is in some ways more aggressive than that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He has called for shoring up Social Security by raising payroll taxes on very high earners, while she has not. He also favors a permanent tax credit of up to $1,000 for families in the bottom 90 percent or so of the income distribution, which makes his package of middle-class tax credits significantly larger than hers.

Clinton advisers say Mr. Obama has been unrealistic.... His approach puts him somewhat to the left of the Clinton administration but broadly in line with the Democratic Party now.

Indeed, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton hold similar or identical positions on a host of economic issues, and Democratic economists not aligned with either campaign often speak positively about both.

But the two candidates offer strikingly different strategies for achieving their economic agendas.... Mr. Obama also talks about overcoming special interests, but he proposes to do so by changing the terms of the debate, energizing disaffected voters and forging a new majority in favor of his programs.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html

[papau]

1. LOL - David Leonhardt of web design/wine tasting fame reviews economic positions -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/business/26leonhardt.html

Factoid for both Obama and Leonhardt:

the only tax cut that gets money to the middle class and lower class and poor is a payroll tax cut -

take that money from the payroll tax wage cap removal and reduce the employee payroll tax rate by 1.5% and I will be impressed. That increase in funds coming in - if just used to subsidize a greater real deficit of corporate welfare is just a circle of rich paying more and getting more.

The wage cap should be removed - and trust fund assets invested in something other that Federal government bonds - but it is what you do next that determines if the move is more in favor of the middle class/poor than Hillary's plan - which by the way does not exclude a no wage cap change - She just puts the idea in front of a commission to study and awaits their response - it is not off the table for Hillary.

A tax credit is indeed a better option than a tax deduction - but he does not go all the way and make it refundable.

And where does David Leonhardt get the idea that fighting special interests is a plan solely owned by Obama -

Good grief - this fellow simply rewrote an Obama handout.

This is no response to Krugman - it is uniformed pap - like mush that Obama is putting out as undefined "hope"