Courtesy Obama for America Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama image:40704:8::0

Now, I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. If I did pretend to I'm sure someone who does in fact have the answers would shoot me down. And even more importantly, I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers for fear that some readers here may take my words to heart and then themselves be shot down - and that would just not be cool at all. So for the sake of honesty - which of course is the best policy (unless you're a CEO or running a nation) - I'm just going to offer my opinion.

Appearing in the Wall Street Journal this morning (Saturday, June 21 2008), Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell suggests that if the Bush tax cuts were scrapped, the U.S. "(would) go into a big recession, a nosedive" which, naturally, "would be devastating to the world economy."

Okay, that's good and well and probably true. In my opinion he's right. You can't reverse massive tax cuts that are - in a very real way - propping up a troubled economy. And not just any economy, an economy that is responsible for much of the world's trade.

But from there on I find the commentary a little sketchy. You see, according to Mundell's argument from there on out, this opposition to the Bush tax cuts means that Barack Obama should not be elected; and that's where I get lost - or rather, would like to tell Mundell to get lost. Is he telling me that Obama (and his guys) can't come up a better taxation policy than Bush (and his)? Is that based on anything? Cause if you were to look at a few variables (like IQ, for example) I think that there is a good chance that Obama's plan might just be better.

But back to Mundell's opinion. He believes that if Obama did reverse Bush's tax cuts that that action alone would send the U.S. economy in a downward spiral worse than Trent Reznor on a whole lot of downers - yikes, right? But when I quickly searched for 'Obama on Taxes' via Google, I found more to the story. Well I guess I could say it quickly; it is because Obama would not just do that alone (repeal Bush's taxes) that Mundell's assessment is ... I don't know ... closer to useless than not.

Sure, Obama does oppose Bush's tax cuts. But to say that because Obama doesn't approve of Bush's tax cuts - tax cuts which clearly favor the wealthy - means that he will scrap them altogether without reconstituting a new way to generate similar amounts of money is - in my opinion - absurd (and thus closer to useless than not).

Contained in the pages found through a quick Google search - which led me to an article at ontheissues.org - Obama does openly admit to his opposition of the Bush tax cuts, but in the next breath offers a way to reverse the tax cuts without destroying the U.S. economy (and thus more to the story).

Obama suggests that for wealthy Americans, tax rates should be rolled back to the levels they were at during the Clinton administration. He argues that these tax levels were not oppressive to America's most wealthy - and he is right.

With a roll back to Clinton levels of taxation towards the rich, Obama argues that further tax cuts can be made to help alleviate the monetary pressures placed on the poorest of the poor in America, as well as those with only moderate incomes - and he is right.

To bring to light a quote by Obama - one that he borrows from Warren Buffett - "The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair." He is right there too.

And with higher taxes demanded from the richest of the rich, surely the U.S. economy would not fall into an all out tailspin. In fact, with more relief for the most disadvantaged, wouldn't the economy be better off? I mean, doesn't greater participation mean greater success?

Now I certainly do not mean to slam Robert Mundell, the man is a genius - he knows his stuff. But by the same token, he is also rich. He has a vested interest in seeing tax rates stay low for the wealthy. Sure, he may not be American, but - again in my humble opinion - don't tax rates often follow the lead of the most successful? Won't the tax rates in America become the primary basis (or primary influence) of international tax rates?

In fairness, maybe Mundell is just not familiar with Obama's tax plans. Or maybe the Wall Street Journal edited the piece in such a way to paint Obama as the economic anti-Christ of America and the whole wide world. Or maybe Mundell does not want to even suggest that rich people like himself should have to pay more taxes in order to help lower the taxes placed on the poor.

What I do know is that Obama is not an idiot. I will take it a step further and say that Obama is intelligent. And with that said, I am confident that Obama is far-sighted enough to understand that the simple and utter removal of the tax cuts made by Bush would in fact cripple the American economy.

So before I go and take the words of one economist to heart, regardless of his brilliance, I am going to first review the words of the man who he is shooting down. And the more I see Obama's ideas, the more they make sense to me.

In short, my opinion is that Mundell went far too far in his damning and narrow-minded assessment of the policies that Barack Obama has put forward. Mundell only considered Obama's disdain for the Bush tax cuts without ever assessing Obama's counter proposal, which - again in my opinion - is one that would not only not damage the U.S. economy, but would in fact help it in both the short term and in the long run.

As always, I'd love to know what you think. Is Mundell correct in his assessment? Or is his opinion 'closer to useless than not'? Are Obama's ideas towards taxes intelligent and desirable? Or are they misguided and faulty? And is he in fact the economic Anti-Christ?

Thanks for reading and I look forward your thoughts.

GRMM