The Tax-Cuts-For-The-(1%,99%) Election

Paul Krugman calls it "The Class Warfare Election", and who am I to deny it. Please look at Krugman's chart, comparing the change in effective tax rates under an Obama presidency and under a Rmoney presidency, according to their own proposals. This isn't rocket science, and it isn't about whether Obama is an OK guy compared to Rmoney. (He isn't, based on his civil liberties record alone. But please look at Krugman's chart.)

Obama would raise taxes on the 95^th percentile of income, with modest tax increases by income. Rmoney, starting with the 20^th percentile of income and moving upward, would cut taxes for everyone, more or less in direct proportion to their income, the highest-income folks getting the highest percentage cuts. Such a plan means, inevitably, cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aid to states, and other safety-net programs to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a sort of "reverse Robin Hood" program... rob the poor; give to the rich. And this is only what the two candidates have openly announced.

Here's Krugman's conclusion:

So like it or not, we have an election in which one candidate [Obama] is proposing a redistribution from the top — which is currently paying lower taxes than it has in 80 years — downward, mainly to lower-income workers, while the other [Rmoney] is proposing a large redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the top.

It's your choice. You can't control what either candidate does in the international sphere, or what Obama does regarding civil liberties... probably about what Rmoney will do. So what are you going to vote on? I'm going to vote on two things: economic policy and women's rights. YMMV, and I won't criticize you if it does. But those two issues are sufficient to tip the scales for Obama, in my opinion. Yes, I hate having a choice like that.