The T-Files

Written by Tony Sarrecchia, Columnist
Originally published in the Sentinel
Tuesday, 07 October 2008

With less than a month to go before the most egregious presidential election in my lifetime is over (horrific because you know that either Obama or McCain will win), I am beginning to feel the Third Party Dilemma.

Since the last Bill Clinton term and the Republican insistence on spending $40 million to investigate the little Willy’s penchant for tarty interns, I have been happily voting for the only party that embodies the type of freedom the founders spilled blood to defend: the Libertarians.

This year, however, the more I read and hear about Senator Barack Obama’s financial plans, the more the Third Party Dilemma pokes its razor-like finger in my frontal lobes. The Dilemma goes like this: a vote for a third party helps the team who represents the antithesis to your beliefs. Therefore, in theory, my vote would go to a Republican; but if I vote for Bob Barr, I actually help the Democrats—who are far too Marxist for my wallet. The same is true with the Greens—a vote for a Green candidate helps the Republicans and hurts the more philosophically similar Democrats.

For the past two presidential cycles I gave the dilemma as much consideration as my congressional representative gave my input on the bailout—none. I didn’t like George W. I still don’t, but I think he stood up quite well to the challenges of his reign, and his approval rating is still higher than the Democratic Congress (26 to 17 percent favorable). I didn’t care if either Gore or Kerry won. Ironically, this year I am even less enthusiastic for the Republicans: I think John McCain treats compromise as if it were a good thing rather than a rejection of principle; and while Sarah Palin is certainly as qualified as anyone on the other team, she portrays herself as a little too average. Frankly, I do not want another C-student in the White House; we have had a C-student in the White House for the last eight years and the results have been decidedly underwhelming.

Then I look at the Obama economic plan and I listen to his economic philosophy. I read things like “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money.” That’s just Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need, ” with, dare I say, lipstick. Additionally, despite Obama’s apparent love for the middle class and promises to not raise income taxes on them, he has already voted for the 2009 Democratic Budget that increases taxes on individuals earning more than $32,000 and couples earning more than $64,000. If he is breaking his promise while he is still courting us, what will happen once we are married?

Under an Obama reign, every tax would increase, some to as high as 62 percent. Middle-income earners, those in the top 50 percent of all wage earners (adjusted income above $32,000) already shoulder 97 percent of the tax burden. Those making less pay only 3 percent of the tax burden. Obama’s plan would take money from the top 50 percent and hand it to the bottom 50 percent in the form of tax rebates. This is an unacceptable redistribution of wealth from the people who have more money to the people who have less. Remember, Obama did not say the rich, just those who have more.

As a libertarian, I find this type of Marxism as repulsive as being told by Joe Biden that it’s patriotic to pay more taxes. Yet casting a vote for John McCain is still difficult. McCain showed us that, by voting for the $800 billion handout, his support for the free-market is about as stable as a jelly-doughnut. I will pay close attention to the remaining debates and continue my independent research of the candidates. As of now, Bob Barr and the Libertarians still have my vote, but I just cannot shake this troublesome feeling.