[According to the WaPo, its now OK to call Obama a 'Redistributionist. Unfortunately he's far more than that.
The founders worried about the rise of a self absorbed individual such as he, who respects no laws other than the ones he desires, coupled with an electorate that cares only for what it is able to vote itself out of the nation's treasury. So much so that the right to vote was restricted to only those that had the most to lose, those that had little to no skin in the game had absolutely no say. Since then, America has degenerated to the level now of mob rule.
Obama is still in a permanent campaign mode, his goal is now and has always been "President For Life Barack Obama" and he intends to stop for nothing until he reaches that goal. As a result, the Obama panderpalooza will continue unabated, no spending cuts to any of his constituent groups for he will need their votes and support to usurp the Constitution as well as be re elected for a now illegal third term. If the military be castrated by spending cuts and the nation left defenseless that will be fine by him. After all didn't he leave his ambassador and the other Americans defenseless in Benghazi in order to appease the Muslims by letting them shed American blood? Cuts inflicting financial pain or damage to any other group or constituency that opposed Obama will also be welcomed by Obama.]
"With the reelection of President Obama secured, Washington Post economics reporter Zachary Goldfarb finally identifies the bedrock belief that has driven the president for decade (or Obamas driving force, per the web edition). That bedrock belief is that the power of the federal government must be used reduce income inequality in America. According to Goldfarb, Obama formed this belief as a child and young adult living abroad, where he observed, in Obamas words, the vast disparity in wealth between those who are part of the power structure and those who are outside of it. (Apparently, Obama has been unable to distinguish the situation in the U.S. from that of Indonesia in the 1970s).
Conservatives have advanced this theory of what makes Obama tick since he became a serious candidate for president. But the media and others who make it their business to cover for Obama have insisted that hes really a mainstream pragmatist. But now Goldfarb admits that the Presidents pragmatism is just an approach to governing, beneath which lies his consistent and unifying desire to see income redistibuted.
Goldfarb acknowledges, for example, that although [the stimulus legislation] was not sold or viewed as an attack on income inequality, it was precisely that. So was Obamacare which, says Goldfarb, takes a shot at addressing income inequality by imposing new taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Goldfarb points to a study that estimates that Obamacare will add $400 to $800 to the disposable income of people in the lower middle class and below. The source of that money is surcharges [on] upper income earners.
As Goldfarb recognizes, however, these policies and others like them will not redistribute enough money to make satisfy Obama. Thus, according to Goldfarb, Obama looks to education to accomplish large-scale redistribution over time.
This may be partially true, but not in the way that Goldfarb describes. The measures Goldfarb mentions e.g., at least one year of college for every American student are laughable as means of bringing about income redistribution.
More likely, what Obama really has in mind is a leveling of the education system through national curriculum requirements and the use of regional bodies, dominated by cities and minority-dominated suburbs, to control local education. Stanley Kurtz has plenty to say about this in, Spreading The Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For the Cites, his must-read guide to Obamas second-term agenda. Kurtz shows how the federal government can empower regional bodies by conditioning federal grant money on their creation. Such regional bodies can then push for regional revenue sharing, consolidation of school districts, and other measures consistent with Obamas redistributionist agenda.
But whatever his precise means, Obamas underlying objective can no longer be doubted."
Does this mean it’s now okay to say that Obama is a redistributionist? | Power Line