WulfCry Weblog

Law school has pretty much hammered into me that assertions need support, and every sentence needa a footnote. That isn’t such a bad thing, except that I tend to have little time to research / write on a topic, and ADD (combined with the use of different computers for different tasks) demands that I lose my sources between the research and writing periods of an entry. I decided that if I was ever to post on this site again, I’d have to bend the rules and take a page from my older brother’s handbook, and put the burden on the reader to find sources to refute my assertions. So here goes: And If you question any of my assertions, email me (or comment) and I will give you the source(s).

Gods know I’ve gotten some flack for being an economic conservative (of the “spend less” kind, not the laissez faire kind; see below) and suporting Barack Obama. There are absolutely some policies of his with which I disagree. His education plan, for example contains some government programs that I think would be better served by placing more reliance on the family unit. But I think he has a far better chance of reaching across the isle and acting for America than either McCain or Clinton. In addition, He is far more likely to be less hawkish than either of them, and less likely to serve corporate interests than Clinton. Don’t get me wrong, my belief in the need for a viable third party makes me half hope McCain or Clinton will win, only because their victory will show the American people how establishment candidates will be more of the same Washington Party (term stolen from Charles Goyette). But the issue that stands out to me the most is the economy.

Clinton is too beholden to corporate interests to make a change, and McCain too dependent on the Republican base to try for any meaningful resistance (let alone the fact that he has endorsed Bush’s tax cuts with the sole reservation of spending). But change in overall economic policy is needed, beyond just spending cuts. Recently, the median income has only risen an average of 1% per year. Income rates for college graduates has actually fallen. Being poor, I would like to blame the rich, but the top percentile (no, not the top decile) of earners has a rate of growth comparable to the median. Only the top 1/2 of 1% has seen any real growth. That means that any real growth.

The logical conclusion is that the rise we have seen in GDP (and there has been) is a product of those 1/500, or corporations. Now a laissez faire market tends to lean towards trusts (monopolies), and the tepid growth rates for the average worker (and even professionals) tends to belie the fact that savings in corporate earnings translate to higher wages. Yet the positive impact of corparate investment (on both technological progress and unemployment) also makes me pause to increase corporate tax rates. The solution, then seems thus:

1.) Increase enforcement of antitrust laws. THis should be coupled with both restrictions on mergers and support for small businesses. After all, small businesses are more dependent on good help, and are more likely to pay a decent wage.

2.) Increased taxes / regulations on the highest 1/2 of 1%. CEO’s do NOT need to make that much money, and old money lends itself to an aristocracy.

3.) Protection of American industry. Globalization is GREAT for the poor in other countries, but I can’t help but see what it does to the working class at home. As someone who’s worked in customer service, an industry increasingly shipped overseas, I can see the harm it does to American workers. Besides, what would’ve happened in World War II if all our steel mills were in China? Or Japan? We have to be self-sufficient, and we ave to make sure American Workers have a living wage. Neither of those happen when our workers compete with those willing to take $1 per hour to people working 70 hours per week. The result is that crucial industries move beyond our control, and our standard of living stagnates.

For the reasons stated above, Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to fix this.