Barack Hussein Hollande?
Published in Le Figaro Blog
(France) on 26 October 2012
by Pierre-Yves Dugua (link to original)
If I listen closely to Barack Obama, to solve the problems of America we must increase taxes on the rich, regulate the price of health care, increase regulation on the banks, punish speculators, subsidize new technologies, hire teachers and build bridges, roads and high-speed rail lines.
I already know this country. It’s called France. And that’s the reason I sincerely doubt that these socialist-democratic solutions work in America, while in France and around Europe, they have failed. Their principle success is in their ability to increase public debt. They do not create sustainable growth. They discourage risk-taking and the creation of private sector jobs.
The White House’s obsession is the redistribution of wealth and the punishment of millionaires. “Tax the rich” is Obama’s big proposition. Don’t look any further; there isn’t anything more detailed. However, in Europe fiscal redistribution has been the norm for at least the past 40 years. What’s the result? Have we reached equality, since we’ve been redistributing? By reducing the number of rich, are we really boosting the middle class? Are we really reducing poverty? And at what price, in terms of growth, innovation and competition lost?
If France had known a stronger growth, if the number of poor had diminished, if the middle class felt richer, if innovation — subsidized by officials who know better than the private sector what the future technologies will be — created jobs, if unemployment reduced, if the French youth felt happier and more optimistic, I would say: hooray! The French model works. We must copy it.
Unfortunately, I don’t see these tendencies develop in France. I see instead long-term unemployment get worse. I see a public school system that is unable to reform and that produces diplomas that are not adapted to the job market. I see a marginalization of millions of young people, who are dependent on public subsidies and without employment or perspective for continuing education and training. I see a young generation overwhelmed by taxes for years to come due to the weight of public debt contracted to finance “social advantages” of their elders. I see a president, elected in May on social-democratic issues, whose popularity rating has fallen below 40 percent.
And I don’t understand. I am speechless. How could a substantial majority of French people wish that solutions that have failed in their country be put in place in America? Why do they reject Francois Hollande but welcome Barack Obama?
There is a “psychological” explanation to French Obama mania: The Frenchman would transfer his hope to America. Incapable of electing a young black president in his country, the Frenchman would reassure himself by “voting” for a young black man in another country. In truth, it doesn’t cost anything.
There is media explanation: The substantial majority of what the French know about America and about Barack Obama comes from stories caricaturing America, glorifying the Democratic Party and denigrating the Republicans.
There is also the cultural-historic explanation: The Frenchman has never been a capitalist. He doesn’t like the market. Even on the right in France, there are no liberals. Mitt Romney, for the French, is a dangerous extraterrestrial because he comes from a world of finance. In addition, he was a missionary. Worse: he was a missionary in France! Therefore, he’s crazy. To say, as Mitt Romney said, that private initiative creates growth while well-intentioned regulation often leads to the discouragement of hiring is politically incorrect.
Barack Obama, on the other hand is a career politician, an intellectual, ignorant and especially scornful of the world of business. His profile is therefore much more “French.” That is the problem!
I already know this country. It’s called France. And that’s the reason I sincerely doubt that these socialist-democratic solutions work in America, while in France and around Europe, they have failed. Their principle success is in their ability to increase public debt. They do not create sustainable growth. They discourage risk-taking and the creation of private sector jobs.
The White House’s obsession is the redistribution of wealth and the punishment of millionaires. “Tax the rich” is Obama’s big proposition. Don’t look any further; there isn’t anything more detailed. However, in Europe fiscal redistribution has been the norm for at least the past 40 years. What’s the result? Have we reached equality, since we’ve been redistributing? By reducing the number of rich, are we really boosting the middle class? Are we really reducing poverty? And at what price, in terms of growth, innovation and competition lost?
If France had known a stronger growth, if the number of poor had diminished, if the middle class felt richer, if innovation — subsidized by officials who know better than the private sector what the future technologies will be — created jobs, if unemployment reduced, if the French youth felt happier and more optimistic, I would say: hooray! The French model works. We must copy it.
Unfortunately, I don’t see these tendencies develop in France. I see instead long-term unemployment get worse. I see a public school system that is unable to reform and that produces diplomas that are not adapted to the job market. I see a marginalization of millions of young people, who are dependent on public subsidies and without employment or perspective for continuing education and training. I see a young generation overwhelmed by taxes for years to come due to the weight of public debt contracted to finance “social advantages” of their elders. I see a president, elected in May on social-democratic issues, whose popularity rating has fallen below 40 percent.
And I don’t understand. I am speechless. How could a substantial majority of French people wish that solutions that have failed in their country be put in place in America? Why do they reject Francois Hollande but welcome Barack Obama?
There is a “psychological” explanation to French Obama mania: The Frenchman would transfer his hope to America. Incapable of electing a young black president in his country, the Frenchman would reassure himself by “voting” for a young black man in another country. In truth, it doesn’t cost anything.
There is media explanation: The substantial majority of what the French know about America and about Barack Obama comes from stories caricaturing America, glorifying the Democratic Party and denigrating the Republicans.
There is also the cultural-historic explanation: The Frenchman has never been a capitalist. He doesn’t like the market. Even on the right in France, there are no liberals. Mitt Romney, for the French, is a dangerous extraterrestrial because he comes from a world of finance. In addition, he was a missionary. Worse: he was a missionary in France! Therefore, he’s crazy. To say, as Mitt Romney said, that private initiative creates growth while well-intentioned regulation often leads to the discouragement of hiring is politically incorrect.
Barack Obama, on the other hand is a career politician, an intellectual, ignorant and especially scornful of the world of business. His profile is therefore much more “French.” That is the problem!
Dugua seems to be talking blindly here.
Let’s assume for the purpose of this argument that the ideal top income tax rate is 40% for the entire world, and that we both believed that rate to be the correct rate.
America’s current top rate is 35%. France’s is now 75%. If we want to see 40% for both countries, American would have to RAISE it’s taxes and France would have to LOWER it.
Obama proposes raising the top marginal income tax rate from 35% to the Clintonian 39.5%. If Obama were in France, that means that if he’d want to be consistent, he’d be advocating for a massive 35% reduction. As far as I can tell, that’s even far to the right of Sarkozy.