Obama debates best way to socialize economy.

Whether the Obama camp first attempts to enact a government-mandated corporate carbon trading scheme or attempts to socialize healthcare, they’re really attempting the largest transfers of wealth since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

It would take all of your bandwidth for me to post right now all the fallacies behind carbon trading schemes disguised as a “cure” for a global warming problem that doesn’t exist. See Fred Singer, see Michael Crichton, see Lawrence Soloman, see John Coleman (Weather Channel founder), see Joe Bastardi (AccuWeather founder), see former president emeritus of the National Academy of Science Fred Seitz, or see the 31,000 scientists who’ve signed a petition stating “human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.”

Because there is a direct relationship between a nation’s wealth and it’s energy consumption, any attempt to tax via “carbon trading” companies and individuals is nothing more than an attempt to transfer wealth. That’s all it is. Government enforced carbon trading is nothing more than radical totalitarianism. Consider that guys like Sam Adams picked up their musket for a lot less. King George himself would have blushed at the mere suggestion.

As for the health care thing, we’ll we’ve seen this before with Hillary Care. Even the center left has learned (the hard way) that going to a single payer system — that is, socialization of one-seventh of our economy — is a tall order and the third rail of politics right behind Social Security. But even if they don’t pull it off they can still jack costs up, give us MRI and cat scan waiting lines like those in the U.K. or Canada, and create high increases in health care unemployment.

[Wall Street Journal] Already, the Obama campaign is debating which economic policy to push first after a victory: climate change or health care. Though the decision probably won’t be made until at least November, the discussion gives a sense of how Mr. Obama would govern.

Climate change could be the easier choice, his advisers say. There are already a number of bills in Congress that would set up a so-called cap-and-trade system: Emissions blamed for global warming would be capped, and companies would be able to trade permits that allow them to produce emissions up to a set limit. Sen. Obama could put together his own proposals relatively quickly by borrowing measures and language in existing bills.

He would have the government auction off all the permits, raising vast amounts of money — more than $100 billion a year as the program scales up — which he could use for other priorities, such as infrastructure spending. He already plans to commit $15 billion a year to alternative-energy programs to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He aims to cut U.S. emissions overall in 2050 by 80% from 1990 levels.

The Obama camp also believes it has a regulatory stick to force congressional action. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. While the Bush administration has taken a go-slow approach, a President Obama would shift into high gear, says Elgie Holstein, a senior Obama energy adviser. If Congress didn’t act on a cap-and-trade system, he says, Mr. Obama “wouldn’t hesitate to use Clean Air Act authorization to regulate” CO2 emissions, a step that could involve a huge increase in EPA oversight of industry.

Some other Obama energy proposals — a “windfall-profits” tax on oil companies and the tapping of the strategic petroleum reserve — may fall by the wayside, Obama aides acknowledge, if the price of oil continues to decline and energy is less of a front-page story.

Still, Sen. Obama faces stiff opposition among many in business. The National Association of Manufacturers opposed a cap-and-trade proposal that failed in the Senate earlier this year and would likely fight an Obama plan as well. The Senate cap-and-trade proposal “ended up being very detrimental to the economy and would put us in a position where we couldn’t compete internationally,” says Jay Timmons, NAM executive vice president.

The other major Obama priority, extending health-care coverage to millions of the uninsured, is even more daunting, conceptually and politically. Sen. Obama would create a new government health-insurance plan and subsidize those who can’t afford it, as well as issue regulations for private plans that wanted to compete with the government plan. He would require larger companies either to provide health insurance or to pay into a fund to help with the cost of covering the uninsured. The program would cost $115 billion a year, Sen. Obama estimates.

This hasn’t been proposed in detail on the federal level, so it could take many months to put together a specific plan, making it less likely to be the first priority. Obama advisers say the concept is similar to one started in Massachusetts under former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, a possible McCain running mate. In Massachusetts, many more people have signed up than anticipated, and costs are skyrocketing.

Sen. Obama’s health economists say the plan’s price tag would be partly offset by lowering health-care costs by $50 billion annually. Savings would come from computerizing patient records, improving preventive care and allowing drugs to be imported from overseas, among other measures.

Some health-care economists are dubious of the cost savings. Sen. Obama’s aides say they would find the rest of the revenue by reworking President Bush’s tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010. But that will make the health-care battle even more complicated.

Sen. Obama would raise the top two tax rates to 36% from 33% for married couples with taxable income of more than $165,000, and to 39.6% from 35% for those couples with taxable income of more than $357,000, says Leonard Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In addition, under Sen. Obama, the tax on capital gains would increase to 20% from 15% for wealthier taxpayers.

Add to that Obama’s payroll tax hike, which will affect the middle class, by raising the ceiling on which they’re taxed. That is, persons or couples filing jointly stop paying payroll taxes at $250,000. That may sound like a lot, but it’s hardly millionaires.

Remember too, this is income, not wealth. Guys like Obama and Biden don’t rely on their income, per se, but rely on their wealth. So they could care less about the taxation of income, and can afford to take the elitist high road of “we should be paying more taxes.”

Those who most suffer from the burden of higher payroll taxes are small business owners — “S” corporations and LLCs — who are really taxed as persons. This will obviously greatly affect their spending and budget decisions (that is, they’ll be laying people off. Period).