An article from the Seattle Times and takes a good simplified look at Obama’s economic positions.

Barack Obama calls himself an economic pragmatist. In a long interview with The New York Times he says he is for “what works” — a statement safe but not revealing. What he often sounds like, though, and what we would like him to be, is a market populist — a champion of a bubble-up capitalism in which wealth creation is spread among more people.

A philosophy like that has to keep a close eye on what works. With each economic proposal, Obama should ask: Does it promote jobs or snuff them out? Does it promote education, job training, research and other ways for people to raise the value of their work?

Democrats have been good on the education part. Obama is for increasing the tax credit for college tuition, and it is a fine idea. He also has an intriguing idea to lower the job-killing payroll tax: a credit for the first $8,100.

Democrats have been less good on other taxes. Obama has proposed to raise the top personal income tax from the current 35 percent to 40 percent or so, to raise the capital-gains tax from 15 percent to 25 percent, and to freeze the top rate of the estate tax at 45 percent of assets.

Obama’s populism should focus instead on the distinction between kinds of business, asking of each proposal: Does it tend to concentrate wealth in behemoth corporations or spread it in smaller, more flexible and family-owned business? Does it promote long-term investment instead of quick gain?

Republicans, the presumptive pro-business party, have too often become the pro-big-business party. Here is where Obama can stake out a difference. If he has to raise taxes, raise them on passive earnings rather than active business. He proposes, for example, to make publicly traded partnerships pay corporate income tax. Whether this is a good idea we are not sure, but the thought is correct: It does less harm to squeeze a passive investor than an active owner.