By Peter Mannino

“Obama is a socialist!”

This seems to be the new line of attack from Sen. John McCain’s campaign ever since Sen. Barack Obama gave that wishy-washy answer to “Joe the Plumber” about “spreading the wealth around.” The Republicans are arguing that Obama is using taxes to “spread the wealth,” which is a main tent of socialism. Of course, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd points out, “The purpose of taxes is to spread the wealth.”

Not to be outdone, however, the Obama campaign is fighting back. Obama claims the McCain tax policy is slanted toward the rich to the detriment of the middle class, and that Obama is fighting for “Joe the Plumber,” while McCain is fighting for “Joe the Hedge Fund Manager.”

So whose tax plan is better? In the debate over tax policy, I find that too few people understand the basic philosophy behind both candidates’ tax plan, so I am going to try to explain it the best I can.

According to a report from the independent Tax Policy Center, McCain’s tax policies will give the largest tax breaks to the top one percent of Americans, while providing very little tax relief to low and middle income earners.

The basic idea behind his plan is this: provide tax breaks for the rich and corporations so they will have more money. They will then use this money along with their vast intelligence and creativity to invest directly into businesses. This money would be used to expand businesses and give more people jobs. This is what is known as “supply-side economics,” or “trickle-down economics,”-you help the people at the top and the benefit will “trickle down” to the people at the bottom. Theoretically, it could work.

Through the same Tax Policy Center report, Obama’s plan would raise taxes on the high income earners (meaning those making over $250,000 a year), providing the most tax relief to low-and-middle-income earners.

The basic idea behind his plan is this: provide tax breaks for the large majority of Americans. These Americans will then use this money by spending it on consumer goods. The more money these people spend, the more profit the business gains. The business can use this profit to create more jobs. The profit also raises the stock price of a publicly traded company or the value of a private company so that the high-income earners who were smart and invested in the company will profit from the increased business. This type of plan is based on “demand-side economics” in which you help the people at the bottom and the benefit rises to the top. This type of plan could work as well.

The basic logic behind both plans is sound. But when put into practice, which plan actually creates more jobs? For the answer, let us look to history.

The most recent incarnation of the McCain tax plan was under President George W. Bush. Despite what McCain claims, the basic philosophy behind his plan is the same as Bush’s tax policy. So how effective was the Bush policy at creating jobs? According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of new jobs created during the “Bush Boom,” as conservative commentators have called it, was about five million. That’s not too bad.

The last time we saw the logic behind the Obama tax plan was during the Clinton administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 million new jobs were created during the years of the Clinton administration, and the administration oversaw the biggest expansion of the U.S. economy in years. That’s pretty good.

So, in practice, which tax policy is better? Well, according to history, it would seem that Obama’s plan has the upper hand. If the Obama plan is socialism, maybe a little more socialism is what we need.

Peter Mannino is a sophomore political science student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].