Legal Commentary

WALLACE: In your radio address yesterday, you raised the "S" word, socialism.

MCCAIN: Sure.

WALLACE: But you did it indirectly, so let me ask you for some straight talk. Do you think that Senator Obama is a socialist? Do you think that his plans are socialism?

MCCAIN: I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth. He said it himself, "We need to spread the wealth around." Now, that's one of...

WALLACE: Is that socialism?

MCCAIN: That's one of the tenets of socialism. But it's more the liberal left, which he's always been on. He's always been in the left lane of American politics.

That's why he voted 94 times against any tax cuts or for tax increases. That's why he voted for the Democratic resolution, budget resolution, that would impose taxes on ? raise taxes on some individual who makes $42,000 a year.

That's why he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate.

WALLACE: But, Senator, when we talk...

MCCAIN: So is one of the tenets of socialism redistribution of the wealth? Not just socialism ? a lot of other liberal and left wing philosophies ? redistribution of the wealth? I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth creation by Joe the Plumber.

WALLACE: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that's being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn't that socialism?

MCCAIN: That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington.

And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home.

They're bailing out the banks. They're baling out these institutions.

WALLACE: But you voted for that.

MCCAIN: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank.

During the ? during the Depression, we had a program to take care ? where they went out and bought homeowners' mortgages, and then over time they even made money as the values of homes began to increase.

If we don't turn ? the housing market was the catalyst ? the greed and excess, and Fannie Mae and Freddie, which some of us proposed legislation to rein in ? the Democrats were in charge of Congress for most six ? for the last couple of years, and they did not act, and so ? and Senator Obama did not act.

But the point is that, of course, when a ? when a ? that's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people.

It wasn't Main Street America that caused this. It was Washington and Wall Street.

. . . .

WALLACE: You say that Obama's tax plan amounts to welfare because he'll give refundable tax credits ? in effect, checks ? to 40 percent of Americans who don't pay any income tax.

MCCAIN: Federal income tax, yes.

WALLACE: Right.

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: Obama points out that no one will receive one of these refundable checks if they aren't at least paying payroll taxes, Social Security taxes.

And your health care plan would also give these refundable checks to that same 40 percent who don't pay income taxes, federal income taxes. So if his plan is welfare, isn't yours?

MCCAIN: Well, it's ? the difference is that we need to provide ? it's a fundamental requirement to give people the chance to have affordable and available health insurance, or the option is to go into a big government program such as we have in Canada, in England and others.

Americans right now are without health insurance. They need to get it.

* * * * *

To summarize: a key tenet of ocialism is redistribution of wealth. However, a 700 billion dollar bailout of banks and Wall Street firms is not socialism. Rather, it is "help[ing] those who need help, who can't help themselves," which is not socialism (because it is not redistributive?). Giving tax credits to people who pay payroll and Social Security taxes under Obama's health care plan is welfare (indeed, why isn't it socialism as well?). However, giving tax credits to individuals under McCain's plan is not welfare (and presumably, is not socialism either).

As far as I can see, according to McCain, "socialism" and "welfare" are thus defined as "redistributive policies that my opponent favors." Redistributive policies that I favor-- like using taxpayer money to buy up old mortgages and subsidize new ones-- are neither socialism or welfare; they are helping people. Where both my opponent and I have supported the same redistributive policies (like the recent bank bailout bill), they are socialism or welfare when he proposes them and not socialism or welfare when I propose them.

The insanity of McCain's remarks comes from two important facts about American government. First we live in a regulatory and welfare state in which one of the most important tools of government is taxation and spending, which are almost of necessity redistributive in character and/or effect. Second, at least since the time of the the New Deal Americans assume and expect that government will engage in redistributive policies to solve social problems and deal with crises. The bank bailout and health care reform policies are only the latest examples of techniques of governance that have become as American as apple pie.

McCain cannot really turn his back on the basic features of American governance in the post New Deal era; at most he can argue about the different ways that government should engage in redistributive taxing and spending policies to promote the public interest. Thus, his use of "socialism" and "welfare" are completely disingenuous, little more than scare tactics designed to obfuscate basic political assumptions about governance that both major political parties share.

Full post as published by Balkinization on October 20, 2008 (boomark / email).