President Obama’s political spinners didn’t much like it when David Brooks cried foul and proceeded to call out the radicalism of the candidate for whom he had held such fond hopes. In fact, they essentially commandeered his next column to assure New York Times readers that the president was really moderate in outlook and not extreme in policies. Righhhht.

Michael Barone has a different take on what’s afoot:

The Obama tax plan, combined with major state tax plans, puts not a three in front of the high earners’ tax rate as the Clinton plan did, it puts a four or a five in front of it. And at that point, I fear, the animal spirits of high earners are going to be directed away from productive investment and toward tax avoidance and tax shelters. Away from creating new enterprises that can provide avenues upward for any and all, and toward gaming the system for the well-connected and shrewd insiders. Away from an economy that grows more than anyone imagined and toward an economy where system-gamers take shares of a static pie away from the rest of us. Is that where we really want to go?

Aside from the taxes there is cap-and-trade. And nationalized industries. Plus a mammoth healthcare plan.

If he gets his way, the cumulative impact of Obama’s policies will be earth-shaking. But isn’t that what the very same spinners declare when they label his agenda “bold” and “groundbreaking”? While a New York Times columnist might be chased off the scent or momentarily dazzled by their “sophisticated” case, people who have money at stake can see what’s going on. The investors, employers, and economic analysts don’t much care about the “tone of friendly cooperation.” They, like Barone, see the dynamic energy and capital being sucked out of the private sector. And they answer Barone: “No, that is not really where we want to go.”