1) Bush announces financial meltdown.
Nothing has affected the campaign more than the announcement that the economy was on the brink of collapse, that we are in need of a bailout, and that major financial institutions were no longer in a position to lend. As Barack Obama then said over and over, "this is the final verdict on the policies of the last eight years". We can debate whether or not this is actually fair, but politically it is correct. McCain has been tied to the policies and they turned a few point lead into a multi point disadvantage.
2)McCain decides to back Bush's bailout in the first debate.
McCain stuck his neck way out and suspended his campaign. The Republicans appeared to be holding their ground against the bailout. The bailout was nearly as universally despised as the President that proposed it. Why in the world did McCain back it? We will never know. He had an opportunity to tie Obama to a bad bill and an unpopular President and instead he blinked.
3) McCain picks Palin
For about two weeks it was all Sarah Palin all the time. The Obama campaign couldn't have been more flat footed. For a week, they attempted to argue that Barack Obama was more experienced than Sarah Palin. Wow!! She vowed crowds. Her speech was tremendous, and she continues to be infinitely fascinating. All of this would matter a lot more had it not been for number 1.
4) Senator Obama opts out of public financing.
He took a little heat but just a little. In the end, it meant that he raised and spent four to five times that of Senator McCain. He has hit McCain in all sorts of niche votes: seniors and Hispanics, most prominently, where McCain can't counter. It has allowed his ground game to dwarf that of McCain. He was able to do an infomercial. If anyone in the MSM cared, some would call this unfair and hypocritical (given that he himself says he wants to "spread the wealth around"), but they don't.
5) Inflammatory sermons by Reverend Jeremiah Wright surface
They speak for themselves, and it was the first time the Obama juggernaut hit a road bump. Once they found their way into a loop, Obama's image was forever tainted.
5) Obama calls Pennsylvanians from small towns "bitter Americans"
Just as Obama was recovering from the Wright fiasco, he gets caught on tape in San Francisco disparaging those from small towns. Obama's campaign was in free fall. Three things saved him. 1) He had an insurmountable lead in the primary. 2) It was still in the primary. 3) It was nearly impossible for a Democrat to lose.
6) McCain wins New Hampshire
His campaign was left for dead following the debacle of the immigration bill in which he got into bed with Ted Kennedy. He was nearly out of money. He was flying coach and carrying his own bags. He made a desperate play for a state he could win, and it paid off. He never looked back and coasted to victory.
7) Hillary and Senator Obama go after each other in the Democratic debate hosted by Stephanopolis and Gibson.
If you are Conservative, there was never a finer moment than the mudslinging at this debate. Clinton accusing Obama of hanging with slumlord. It doesn't get any juicier. The scars haven't left completely, however the two sides toned it down afterwards and didn't allow this debate to send the campaign over the cliff.
8)
8)Senator Obama tells Joe Wuzelacher that he wants to "spread the wealth around"
Whatever chance Senator McCain still has, he owes it all to Joe the Plumber. By pronouncing that he wants to "spread the wealth around", Senator Obama allowed a whole new line of attack against him. Joe the Plumber has become a media darling/villain depending on where you turn. The election has turned as a result. The only question is will it be enough.
9) Obama wins Iowa
The "presumptive nominee" Hillary Clinton got beaten. Senator Obama first discovered that his base was tailor made for the caucus system. Suddenly, we not only had a race, but we had a race in which the first term Senator was the front runner.
10) Hillary beats Obama in New Hampshire.
My how fortunes change. Obama comes out of nowhere to beat Hillary in Iowa. Hillary turns the tables in New Hampshire, and it was on. It didn't end until the next spring.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
I Now Support the Flat Tax...and Here is Why
There is no doubt that the last couple weeks has sparked a debate over whether or not Barack Obama's tax proposal is in fact, income redistribution. One of the most common defenses of Obama's plan is to point out that our current tax plan is progressive. In fact, this is true. Our tax brackets are 0, 15, 25, and 33%. In other words, as you earn more, more of your money is taken from you in the form of income taxes. In fact, the defenders of Barack Obama's tax proposal are right. Our current tax system is another form income redistribution. Barack Obama is simply making it more extreme.
I don't believe in any idea that has at its roots income redistribution. Just because the current tax system is not as extreme as what Senator Obama wants, doesn't mean that it isn't a bad idea as well. In fact, any and all reasons for supporting a progressive tax system are purely political, not a matter of policy. The reason we have a progressive tax system is because taxes are in many ways doled out by ability to pay. That is total nonsense. Everyone should have the ability to pay their income taxes because taxes should be as low as possible. If our government is collecting, and mostly using, taxes for the right reasons then there need not be any reason for progressive taxes. A progressive tax system is another form of social engineering. It goes under the theory that some have less ability to pay taxes so we tax them a lesser percentage. Some, on the other hand, have more ability to pay taxes so we tax them more. That is far too close to Marx. The progressive tax code punishes people as they make more. As someone goes from making $50,000 to $60,000 to $70,000 more and more of their money goes to taxes. Those aren't wealthy people. Those are folks that are finally seeing the beginnings of economic success. Yet, their success is punished with less and less of their money being kept by them.
The flat tax, on the other hand, is rooted in sound economic philosophy. The flat tax simplifies the tax code. This will create less decision making based on the tax consequence. We have far too much decision making. The worst thing we can do is have an individual make a decision because its consequences will be a boon on their taxes. The flat tax would eliminate any and all such motivation.
The second argument against the flat tax is that it won't bring in enough revenue. First, I'm not sure that is so. Second of all, if it is, hallelujah. If the government doesn't take in as much revenue, then, maybe, finally, it will be time for the government TO SPEND LESS. Anyone bold enough to propose the flat tax will know full well that it must be implemented with serious cuts in spending.
The flat tax is the only tax that takes to heart what taxes are supposed to be, a necessary evil. The flat tax would unleash the power of innovators and job creators. It will simplify the tax code. It will force government to get back to only what government is supposed to do. It will make bloated government and entitlement spending significantly more difficult. Rather than focusing on social engineering, the flat tax will focus on the right thing, the necessary collection of taxes. Since we can't simply go from one to the other, any flat tax idea should always allow for any indivdual to file taxes under the current code as well. I like any flat tax rate under 20%.
I don't believe in any idea that has at its roots income redistribution. Just because the current tax system is not as extreme as what Senator Obama wants, doesn't mean that it isn't a bad idea as well. In fact, any and all reasons for supporting a progressive tax system are purely political, not a matter of policy. The reason we have a progressive tax system is because taxes are in many ways doled out by ability to pay. That is total nonsense. Everyone should have the ability to pay their income taxes because taxes should be as low as possible. If our government is collecting, and mostly using, taxes for the right reasons then there need not be any reason for progressive taxes. A progressive tax system is another form of social engineering. It goes under the theory that some have less ability to pay taxes so we tax them a lesser percentage. Some, on the other hand, have more ability to pay taxes so we tax them more. That is far too close to Marx. The progressive tax code punishes people as they make more. As someone goes from making $50,000 to $60,000 to $70,000 more and more of their money goes to taxes. Those aren't wealthy people. Those are folks that are finally seeing the beginnings of economic success. Yet, their success is punished with less and less of their money being kept by them.
The flat tax, on the other hand, is rooted in sound economic philosophy. The flat tax simplifies the tax code. This will create less decision making based on the tax consequence. We have far too much decision making. The worst thing we can do is have an individual make a decision because its consequences will be a boon on their taxes. The flat tax would eliminate any and all such motivation.
The second argument against the flat tax is that it won't bring in enough revenue. First, I'm not sure that is so. Second of all, if it is, hallelujah. If the government doesn't take in as much revenue, then, maybe, finally, it will be time for the government TO SPEND LESS. Anyone bold enough to propose the flat tax will know full well that it must be implemented with serious cuts in spending.
The flat tax is the only tax that takes to heart what taxes are supposed to be, a necessary evil. The flat tax would unleash the power of innovators and job creators. It will simplify the tax code. It will force government to get back to only what government is supposed to do. It will make bloated government and entitlement spending significantly more difficult. Rather than focusing on social engineering, the flat tax will focus on the right thing, the necessary collection of taxes. Since we can't simply go from one to the other, any flat tax idea should always allow for any indivdual to file taxes under the current code as well. I like any flat tax rate under 20%.
In Defense of Sarah Palin
I have had more than one conversation with liberal friends and acquaintances in which my counterparts have told me that Sarah Palin was the biggest mistake that John McCain made. Most of those folks are not far left but rather merely liberal. As such, while they would be natural opponents of Palin, they wouldn't necessarily have such a visceral reaction.
I have heard these folks describe her using such words as stupid, uncultured, a zealot, and utterly unprepared. They have pointed to several bad performances in interviews, her sharpened and vulgar attacks on Obama (palling around with terrorists is the one most mentioned), and what they view as out of the mainstream beliefs.
These friends and colleagues laugh when I suggest that Palin is the future of the Republican party and that I believe she will be our candidate in 2012 (if not then certainly in 2016).
There are several things that need to be made clear about Palin. First, I believe that the McCain campaign mishandled Palin in a nearly politically criminal manner. The problme was NOT that she had a couple of bad interviews. Every politician since the beginning of time has bad interviews. Every politicians says dumb things in interviews. So what. The problem is that they left the Couric/Gibson interview hanging without allowing her to do more to overcome how poorly she had done. The MSM did a gotcha game as they should have expected. So what. Why wasn't she all over television so that these gotcha moments could be countered with other interviews.
The reality is that Sarah Palin viewed by some as some sort of imbecile because she didn't identify what Charlie Gibson meant by the "Bush Doctrine", couldn't name three Supreme Court cases off the top of her head, and couldn't recite McCain's legislative work on regulation. So what. This would have been nothing more than a blip had she become a fixture all over television, radio and the internet. The McCain campaign had found their secret weapon, Sarah Palin. She was interesting, intriguing, and people were drawn to her. Then, she had a couple of bad interviews and they hid her away so that no one could get to her. Why? No one will be flawless each and everytime they are in front of a camera. The campaign should have let her make mistakes but move onto the next interview. Instead, they allowed two bad interviews to define her.
Second, as the Vice Presidential candidate, she is the attack dog. Of course, she will hit Obama hard. That's her role. The fact that some find her attacks offensive and over the top is a sign that she is managing her role as she is supposed to do. Of course, liberals find her characterization of the relationship between Obama and Ayers "palling around" offensive. It's a sharp attack, and supporters aren't going to like it. If she had treated Obama with kid gloves, liberals would likely have found her "charming". They still wouldn't have voted for her but she would have been charming. That, there is a visceral reaction to her is a sign that her attacks are as sharp as they should be.
Third, the MSM has done everything they can to demonize her. The level of hate and venom to the Governor is unprecedented when directed at the Vice Presidential candidate. Everyone from feminists, gun control advocates, to late night comedians have taken an extraordinary amount of pot shots at her. If you get the bulk of your news from MSM, then no doubt you will find Governor Palin some sort of a stooge. Of course, we all need to keep in mind that most of the people taking pot shots at her are political opponents. Some have made hay of the likes of Kathleen Parker and David Frum, both conservative pundits, that have come out against Palin. Yet, Palin is still almost universally adored in the Conservative movement. You are never going to please everybody, and Obama has plenty of detractors on the left. It's just that the media, in love with Obama, pretends they aren't there.
The same things that first drew Conservatives to Palin are still there. She is still quite charismatic. She still has about an 80% approval rating in Alaska. This didn't happen by accident and it didn't happen because she governed like some extremist. Often in debating said liberals, they downplay her accomplishments in Alaska by saying the state is small. It's as though cutting taxes, reducing government, and fighting corruption is somehow easier in a small state than somewhere else. I'm always reminded of a friend of mine who attempted to change cable companies in his condo. He joined the seven member cable committee. He went to every meeting including through the months of January-April, when he an accountant was in the middle of tax season. Try as he might he couldn't get the rest of the group to see that the cable company, RCN, wasn't the best choice. The point of the story is that change is hard anywhere: D.C., Juneau, or on the condo cable committee. The idea that Palin's accomplishments are inconsequential because they were done in Alaska is the height of elitism.
She is still the same infinitely fascinating hockey mom, turned PTA mom, turned city coucil woman, turned mayor, turned whistleblower, turned Governor who hunts, fishes, and once won a state championship in basketball on a bad ankle.
Make no mistake. Sarah Palin is going to be a political force for years to come. She has arrived and she isn't going anywhere, win or lose tomorrow. Like any other political force, she will continue to irk her opponents for years to come. Just ask Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Whatever mistakes the McCain campaign has made one of them was NOT choosing Sarah Palin as the VP pick.
I have heard these folks describe her using such words as stupid, uncultured, a zealot, and utterly unprepared. They have pointed to several bad performances in interviews, her sharpened and vulgar attacks on Obama (palling around with terrorists is the one most mentioned), and what they view as out of the mainstream beliefs.
These friends and colleagues laugh when I suggest that Palin is the future of the Republican party and that I believe she will be our candidate in 2012 (if not then certainly in 2016).
There are several things that need to be made clear about Palin. First, I believe that the McCain campaign mishandled Palin in a nearly politically criminal manner. The problme was NOT that she had a couple of bad interviews. Every politician since the beginning of time has bad interviews. Every politicians says dumb things in interviews. So what. The problem is that they left the Couric/Gibson interview hanging without allowing her to do more to overcome how poorly she had done. The MSM did a gotcha game as they should have expected. So what. Why wasn't she all over television so that these gotcha moments could be countered with other interviews.
The reality is that Sarah Palin viewed by some as some sort of imbecile because she didn't identify what Charlie Gibson meant by the "Bush Doctrine", couldn't name three Supreme Court cases off the top of her head, and couldn't recite McCain's legislative work on regulation. So what. This would have been nothing more than a blip had she become a fixture all over television, radio and the internet. The McCain campaign had found their secret weapon, Sarah Palin. She was interesting, intriguing, and people were drawn to her. Then, she had a couple of bad interviews and they hid her away so that no one could get to her. Why? No one will be flawless each and everytime they are in front of a camera. The campaign should have let her make mistakes but move onto the next interview. Instead, they allowed two bad interviews to define her.
Second, as the Vice Presidential candidate, she is the attack dog. Of course, she will hit Obama hard. That's her role. The fact that some find her attacks offensive and over the top is a sign that she is managing her role as she is supposed to do. Of course, liberals find her characterization of the relationship between Obama and Ayers "palling around" offensive. It's a sharp attack, and supporters aren't going to like it. If she had treated Obama with kid gloves, liberals would likely have found her "charming". They still wouldn't have voted for her but she would have been charming. That, there is a visceral reaction to her is a sign that her attacks are as sharp as they should be.
Third, the MSM has done everything they can to demonize her. The level of hate and venom to the Governor is unprecedented when directed at the Vice Presidential candidate. Everyone from feminists, gun control advocates, to late night comedians have taken an extraordinary amount of pot shots at her. If you get the bulk of your news from MSM, then no doubt you will find Governor Palin some sort of a stooge. Of course, we all need to keep in mind that most of the people taking pot shots at her are political opponents. Some have made hay of the likes of Kathleen Parker and David Frum, both conservative pundits, that have come out against Palin. Yet, Palin is still almost universally adored in the Conservative movement. You are never going to please everybody, and Obama has plenty of detractors on the left. It's just that the media, in love with Obama, pretends they aren't there.
The same things that first drew Conservatives to Palin are still there. She is still quite charismatic. She still has about an 80% approval rating in Alaska. This didn't happen by accident and it didn't happen because she governed like some extremist. Often in debating said liberals, they downplay her accomplishments in Alaska by saying the state is small. It's as though cutting taxes, reducing government, and fighting corruption is somehow easier in a small state than somewhere else. I'm always reminded of a friend of mine who attempted to change cable companies in his condo. He joined the seven member cable committee. He went to every meeting including through the months of January-April, when he an accountant was in the middle of tax season. Try as he might he couldn't get the rest of the group to see that the cable company, RCN, wasn't the best choice. The point of the story is that change is hard anywhere: D.C., Juneau, or on the condo cable committee. The idea that Palin's accomplishments are inconsequential because they were done in Alaska is the height of elitism.
She is still the same infinitely fascinating hockey mom, turned PTA mom, turned city coucil woman, turned mayor, turned whistleblower, turned Governor who hunts, fishes, and once won a state championship in basketball on a bad ankle.
Make no mistake. Sarah Palin is going to be a political force for years to come. She has arrived and she isn't going anywhere, win or lose tomorrow. Like any other political force, she will continue to irk her opponents for years to come. Just ask Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Whatever mistakes the McCain campaign has made one of them was NOT choosing Sarah Palin as the VP pick.
Will We Know a Radical When We See One?
We are on the brink of making a historic choice. First and foremost, Barack Obama is on the cusp of becoming the nation's first African American President. Besides that, he will also be one of its most liberal to the point of radical. It is often surreal to watch Obama's radicalism flashed in front of people, and then to watch people defend it as though it isn't really there. The defense takes on many forms. There are two that are most prominent. First, Obama's radicalism is framed into something moderate or even compassionate. The most obvious example is his plan for income redistribution which is framed into a "middle class tax cut". The second is to flip the radicalism around, and use the attackers words against him. This was the most common technique in the fiasco regarding BAIPA. His defenders proclaimed it ridiculous and beyond the pale to accuse Senator Obama of supporting infanticide. As a State Senator, he voted multiple times against a bill that would have provided life saving treatment for babies born after a botched abortion, but yet it is his accusers that are beyond the pale if they dare call this supporting infanticide. Senator Obama has a radical policy, but it is his opponents that are beyond the pale for calling a spade a spade. Yet, on social, economic, and national security issues alike Barack Obama has openly favored radical ideas, and yet, his defenders continue to defend them as mainstream. Furthermore, all of these radical ideas go along with a laundry list of radical associations, and yet again, it is his opponents that are painted as beyond the pale for daring to make the connection.
1) The economy, income redistribution.
It is beyond debate that Senator Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That's been his plan all along. He believes that those that pay 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough. On the other hand, he also believes that those that don't pay any federal income tax (only the Social Security pay roll tax) are paying too much. This is boiler plate income redistribution.
Yet, his defenders continue to insist that it isn't what it clearly is. Most of his defenders point out that his is doing nothing more than what Bill Clinton did. Better yet, they defend his plan by pointing out that our tax system is already progressive. Both defenses are totally out of context. First, Bill Clinton didn't also say he was going to raise the capital gains, corporate, and inheritance tax along with raising income taxes. Second, he didn't give a tax cut to those that pay no federal income taxes. Third, what Bill Clinton did is irrelevant. It's not an excuse to suggest income redistribution because someone else did it too. What kind of nonsense is this? Second, our tax system may in fact be progressive, however Senator Obama is specifically trying to make it even more progressive. There is a big difference between favoring a progressive tax system and looking at a progressive tax system and believing it isn't progressive enough. Finally, we also see Obama defenders get on television and call his tax cut a "middle class tax cut". Of course, that is so but what they conveniently don't say is that this tax cut comes as a direct result of a tax increase to those more wealthy than the middle class.
As I watch, Obama defenders defend his policy of income redistribution, I always wonder the exact wording of other radical ideas like Socialism under Marx. For those that defend Obama's tax cuts as "for the middle class", how is it that you thought that Marx sold his ideology? It isn't as though he proclaimed that government would control every part of everyone's life. Instead, Marx, too, said that he had a plan that would benefit the middle class. That's the problem. Obama pits one group against another in a blatant bit of class warfare and masks it in the nice sounding "middle class tax cuts". His defenders seem oblivious to this and continue to defend.
2) Social issues
There is no question that Barack Obama hasn't met an abortion procedure that he isn't in favor of. That is just the facts. He called Nebraska's outlaw of partial birth abortion a slippery slope.
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
A partial birth abortion only happens in the last trimester, six plus months into the pregnancy. There are two inherent problems with the argument that the health of the mother needs to be taken into consideration. First, "the health of the mother" is far too vague. Any abortion doctor can then perform a partial birth abortion because the mother says that she gets chronic headaches. Second, what's more important the life of the fetus or the health of the mother? Since when is one person's health more important than the life of another person?
Of course, Barack Obama doesn't stop at merely partial birth abortion. He goes so far as to advocate the killing of a baby even after it is born. He voted multiple times against BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) in the Illinois Senate. To me it is very simple. Babies were dying. Babies that were meant to be aborted but survived weren't being treated at hospitals in Cook County. The laws that were already on the books weren't protecting them. Barack Obama had an opportunity to save these babies, but instead, he was more concerned with ideology. His fear over the "slippery slope", again, caused him multiple times to vote against this act.
Now, Senators often make bad Presidential candidates because they vote so often and their votes can be taken out of context. In the case of BAIPA, this is exactly the defense that Obama's defenders take. They muddy the issue through a giant maze of procedural matters in order to make it seem as though the vote was really about something besides saving babies. All of this may in fact be so, but ultimately that's the problem. Barack Obama had a clear opportunity to save babies, and instead he chose to turn this into an ideological battle, and a battle to save abortions. In the end, protecting "reproductive rights" was more important than protecting babies. Rather than focusing on this truth, Obama's defenders focus on an endless stream of procedural matters involved with the vote, and then, they use those procedural matters, to proclaim with righteous indignation that it is beyond the pale to say that "Barack Obama supports infanticide". Here, we have a Senator that on more than one occasion voted against protecting infants born alive, and yet, it is his opponents that are beyond the pale.
3) Foreign policy
In a debate in April of 2007, Barack Obama made an astonishing statement. He said that he would meet with many of our enemies without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency.
He's never stepped away from this policy. He has tried to frame it better by proclaiming there would be preparations. Yet, ultimately, the problem isn't that he would jump on a plane and meet with leaders like Assad, Il, and Ahmadinejad before researching them and their nations. The problem is that he would do this without having the nations meet conditions beforehand. It is foolhearty and naive to believe that meetings on the Presidential level between ourselves and our neighbors will lead to anything but disaster. We need only to look back to Kennedy's meeting with Kruschev to see the disastrous results of Presidential meetings with no pre conditions with our enemies. Yet, Obama uses this very meeting as an example of the "positive" that can come out of it. Furthermore, he points to Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev as another example. Reagan never met Gorbachev with no pre conditions. In fact, the U.S. had beaten the Soviet Union into submission before he met with Gorbachev.
Rather than calling this foolish, naive, and radical policy what it is, his defenders muddy the issue and use all sorts of equvocations to try and defend what is truly an indefensible policy. Can you imagine the public relations coup that a photo of Ahmadinejad and Obama shaking hands would be for Ahmadinejad? Furthermore, the absurdity of this policy was proven when Iran set its own pre conditions prior to a meeting.
4) Radical associations
It really doesn't matter just how many there are, and how close some of them are. All of them, to his defenders, are totally irrelevant and trivial. Senator Obama can sit in the pews of a racist, anti American zealot for twenty years, and anyone that brings this up is a "racist" themselves and trying to deflect from the "real issues".
He can sit on two boards and make a blurb in a book for an unrepentent former terrorist, and his defenders will claim that the association is loose and tangential.
He can have a twenty year association with a group (ACORN) that is being investigated in more than ten states for voter fraud, and it is also referred to as tangential.
He can have as a neighbor, a friend, a business partner, and a top fundraiser, a convicted felon and crook, and this relationship will also be dismissed as tangential.
Each one of his associations is often defended by pointing to associations of others. For every mention of Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, there is a mention of McCain "relationship" with Pastor Hagee. Of course, Hagee merely endorsed McCain, and McCain was never a member of his church.
For every mention of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, there is someone pointing to John McCain's relationship to G. Gordon Libby. The difference is that Libby's crimes were siginificantly less violent, he served his time, and he apologized.
For every mention of Obama's relationship with ACORN, a defender points out that McCain made a speech in front of ACORN. Making a speech is not the same thing as a twenty year relationship that included: training their staff, defending them as a lawyer, having staff volunteer for his campaign, and finally currently paying them over $800,000 for "get out the vote efforts".
For every mention of Rezko, someone mentions McCain's ties to Charles Keating. First, the Keating five was over twenty years ago. Second, McCain only was at an inappropriate meeting, and most importantly, McCain not only apologized, but used the ordeal to begin a career long campaign against corruption. Obama dismissed his actions as "boneheaded". He proclaimed he knew nothing of Rezko's illegal activities. Furthermore, Rezko was Obama's neighbor, business partner, friend, and top fundraiser.
Yet, despite a never ending stream of radical associations, all are dismissed, by his defenders, as tangential. How many tangential radical associations can one person have before the sum total is something more than tangential?
So, there you have it. This is how a radical, that frankly makes no secret of his radicalism, becomes mainstream to about half, if not more, of the population. Rather than looking at the issue at hand, his defenders jump to defend. Each and every radical association, connection, and idea, is defended until most don't notice that the sum total of his radicalism can't be overlooked anymore. As such, we are on the cusp of voting in a radical.
1) The economy, income redistribution.
It is beyond debate that Senator Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That's been his plan all along. He believes that those that pay 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough. On the other hand, he also believes that those that don't pay any federal income tax (only the Social Security pay roll tax) are paying too much. This is boiler plate income redistribution.
Yet, his defenders continue to insist that it isn't what it clearly is. Most of his defenders point out that his is doing nothing more than what Bill Clinton did. Better yet, they defend his plan by pointing out that our tax system is already progressive. Both defenses are totally out of context. First, Bill Clinton didn't also say he was going to raise the capital gains, corporate, and inheritance tax along with raising income taxes. Second, he didn't give a tax cut to those that pay no federal income taxes. Third, what Bill Clinton did is irrelevant. It's not an excuse to suggest income redistribution because someone else did it too. What kind of nonsense is this? Second, our tax system may in fact be progressive, however Senator Obama is specifically trying to make it even more progressive. There is a big difference between favoring a progressive tax system and looking at a progressive tax system and believing it isn't progressive enough. Finally, we also see Obama defenders get on television and call his tax cut a "middle class tax cut". Of course, that is so but what they conveniently don't say is that this tax cut comes as a direct result of a tax increase to those more wealthy than the middle class.
As I watch, Obama defenders defend his policy of income redistribution, I always wonder the exact wording of other radical ideas like Socialism under Marx. For those that defend Obama's tax cuts as "for the middle class", how is it that you thought that Marx sold his ideology? It isn't as though he proclaimed that government would control every part of everyone's life. Instead, Marx, too, said that he had a plan that would benefit the middle class. That's the problem. Obama pits one group against another in a blatant bit of class warfare and masks it in the nice sounding "middle class tax cuts". His defenders seem oblivious to this and continue to defend.
2) Social issues
There is no question that Barack Obama hasn't met an abortion procedure that he isn't in favor of. That is just the facts. He called Nebraska's outlaw of partial birth abortion a slippery slope.
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
A partial birth abortion only happens in the last trimester, six plus months into the pregnancy. There are two inherent problems with the argument that the health of the mother needs to be taken into consideration. First, "the health of the mother" is far too vague. Any abortion doctor can then perform a partial birth abortion because the mother says that she gets chronic headaches. Second, what's more important the life of the fetus or the health of the mother? Since when is one person's health more important than the life of another person?
Of course, Barack Obama doesn't stop at merely partial birth abortion. He goes so far as to advocate the killing of a baby even after it is born. He voted multiple times against BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) in the Illinois Senate. To me it is very simple. Babies were dying. Babies that were meant to be aborted but survived weren't being treated at hospitals in Cook County. The laws that were already on the books weren't protecting them. Barack Obama had an opportunity to save these babies, but instead, he was more concerned with ideology. His fear over the "slippery slope", again, caused him multiple times to vote against this act.
Now, Senators often make bad Presidential candidates because they vote so often and their votes can be taken out of context. In the case of BAIPA, this is exactly the defense that Obama's defenders take. They muddy the issue through a giant maze of procedural matters in order to make it seem as though the vote was really about something besides saving babies. All of this may in fact be so, but ultimately that's the problem. Barack Obama had a clear opportunity to save babies, and instead he chose to turn this into an ideological battle, and a battle to save abortions. In the end, protecting "reproductive rights" was more important than protecting babies. Rather than focusing on this truth, Obama's defenders focus on an endless stream of procedural matters involved with the vote, and then, they use those procedural matters, to proclaim with righteous indignation that it is beyond the pale to say that "Barack Obama supports infanticide". Here, we have a Senator that on more than one occasion voted against protecting infants born alive, and yet, it is his opponents that are beyond the pale.
3) Foreign policy
In a debate in April of 2007, Barack Obama made an astonishing statement. He said that he would meet with many of our enemies without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency.
He's never stepped away from this policy. He has tried to frame it better by proclaiming there would be preparations. Yet, ultimately, the problem isn't that he would jump on a plane and meet with leaders like Assad, Il, and Ahmadinejad before researching them and their nations. The problem is that he would do this without having the nations meet conditions beforehand. It is foolhearty and naive to believe that meetings on the Presidential level between ourselves and our neighbors will lead to anything but disaster. We need only to look back to Kennedy's meeting with Kruschev to see the disastrous results of Presidential meetings with no pre conditions with our enemies. Yet, Obama uses this very meeting as an example of the "positive" that can come out of it. Furthermore, he points to Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev as another example. Reagan never met Gorbachev with no pre conditions. In fact, the U.S. had beaten the Soviet Union into submission before he met with Gorbachev.
Rather than calling this foolish, naive, and radical policy what it is, his defenders muddy the issue and use all sorts of equvocations to try and defend what is truly an indefensible policy. Can you imagine the public relations coup that a photo of Ahmadinejad and Obama shaking hands would be for Ahmadinejad? Furthermore, the absurdity of this policy was proven when Iran set its own pre conditions prior to a meeting.
The vice president for Iranian media affairs says Iran has preconditions of its own. He tells the Islamic Republic News Agency Americans are in dire need of re-establishing ties with the Iranian people and that Iran will only hold talks if “the U.S. moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”Those, of course, aren't merely preconditions but rather some lofty preconditions. It seems our enemies understand the power of leverage better than Barack Obama himself. The news from Iran should have been enough to make his defenders understand that his policy is naive to the point of radical. Instead, his defenders have tried to obfuscate the issue. They point to folks like James Baker and Henry Kissinger as suggesting the same thing as Barack Obama. Of course, both those gentlemen suggest low level meetings first, and not Presidential level meetings with no preconditions.
4) Radical associations
It really doesn't matter just how many there are, and how close some of them are. All of them, to his defenders, are totally irrelevant and trivial. Senator Obama can sit in the pews of a racist, anti American zealot for twenty years, and anyone that brings this up is a "racist" themselves and trying to deflect from the "real issues".
He can sit on two boards and make a blurb in a book for an unrepentent former terrorist, and his defenders will claim that the association is loose and tangential.
He can have a twenty year association with a group (ACORN) that is being investigated in more than ten states for voter fraud, and it is also referred to as tangential.
He can have as a neighbor, a friend, a business partner, and a top fundraiser, a convicted felon and crook, and this relationship will also be dismissed as tangential.
Each one of his associations is often defended by pointing to associations of others. For every mention of Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, there is a mention of McCain "relationship" with Pastor Hagee. Of course, Hagee merely endorsed McCain, and McCain was never a member of his church.
For every mention of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, there is someone pointing to John McCain's relationship to G. Gordon Libby. The difference is that Libby's crimes were siginificantly less violent, he served his time, and he apologized.
For every mention of Obama's relationship with ACORN, a defender points out that McCain made a speech in front of ACORN. Making a speech is not the same thing as a twenty year relationship that included: training their staff, defending them as a lawyer, having staff volunteer for his campaign, and finally currently paying them over $800,000 for "get out the vote efforts".
For every mention of Rezko, someone mentions McCain's ties to Charles Keating. First, the Keating five was over twenty years ago. Second, McCain only was at an inappropriate meeting, and most importantly, McCain not only apologized, but used the ordeal to begin a career long campaign against corruption. Obama dismissed his actions as "boneheaded". He proclaimed he knew nothing of Rezko's illegal activities. Furthermore, Rezko was Obama's neighbor, business partner, friend, and top fundraiser.
Yet, despite a never ending stream of radical associations, all are dismissed, by his defenders, as tangential. How many tangential radical associations can one person have before the sum total is something more than tangential?
So, there you have it. This is how a radical, that frankly makes no secret of his radicalism, becomes mainstream to about half, if not more, of the population. Rather than looking at the issue at hand, his defenders jump to defend. Each and every radical association, connection, and idea, is defended until most don't notice that the sum total of his radicalism can't be overlooked anymore. As such, we are on the cusp of voting in a radical.
Some Context on Bankrupting Coal
Is this the eleventh hour October surprise?
It remains to be seen. This is an issue that is difficult to judge. On the one hand, the McCain campaign would likely have loved for this to run in a loop for about four days. That would have been devastating. Of course, the MSM would have never allowed that anyway. In fact, I have only seen it on Fox News so far. That said, it will be heard by the coal community and it is rather large in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia. On the other hand, being released this close to the election, it also doesn't give the Obama campaign enough time to respond. We will see.
What the comments reveal is the utter nonsense of cap and trade itself. The Obama campaign claims these comments were taken out of context. They weren't. The more effective cap and trade is the more likely it will be to bankrupt and industry that doesn't conform to its guidelines. Here is how cap and trade works.
Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.
The problem with cap and trade is that it forces new behavior not through market forces but through government will. That is always dangerous. Cap and trade sets mandates for the amount of emissions and company's technology can emit, and then it punishes with extra fees any company that goes over. Furthermore, it gives rewards to those that emit less than is mandated. It forces a change in behavior set to an arbitrary government guideline, and the change is forced even if new technologies aren't viable or economically sustainable. Of course, in an aggressive cap and trade system, coal will go bankrupt. That's because coal won't meet the emissions standards, and it will be punished with exorbitant fees.
Once again, we are shocked by something that Barack Obama said even though it isn't really new. He hasn't hidden his agenda for aggressive cap and trade. It just appears the public hasn't yet processed what it will all mean.
Personally, I think there is a much better approach to being eco friendly. Rather than punishing bad behavior, I would reward good behavior. My plan is similar to my plan for energy independence. Set emissions standards, or better yet, isolate those technologies that are conducive for less emissions, and reward those technologies with a break in income tax, capital gains tax, and dividend tax. (or better yet make all those taxes zero) Doing this would unleash the market forces necessary to innovate to better technologies. Government mandates for changes despite market forces. That's the flaw in Obama's plan, and it's why in reality his comments were perfectly in context.
Of course, it should be noted that McCain also supports cap and trade so he would likely impose a system similar to Obama's.
It remains to be seen. This is an issue that is difficult to judge. On the one hand, the McCain campaign would likely have loved for this to run in a loop for about four days. That would have been devastating. Of course, the MSM would have never allowed that anyway. In fact, I have only seen it on Fox News so far. That said, it will be heard by the coal community and it is rather large in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia. On the other hand, being released this close to the election, it also doesn't give the Obama campaign enough time to respond. We will see.
What the comments reveal is the utter nonsense of cap and trade itself. The Obama campaign claims these comments were taken out of context. They weren't. The more effective cap and trade is the more likely it will be to bankrupt and industry that doesn't conform to its guidelines. Here is how cap and trade works.
Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.
A coal power plant in Germany. Due to emissions trading, coal might become less competitive as a fuel.
A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can
easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.[1]
The problem with cap and trade is that it forces new behavior not through market forces but through government will. That is always dangerous. Cap and trade sets mandates for the amount of emissions and company's technology can emit, and then it punishes with extra fees any company that goes over. Furthermore, it gives rewards to those that emit less than is mandated. It forces a change in behavior set to an arbitrary government guideline, and the change is forced even if new technologies aren't viable or economically sustainable. Of course, in an aggressive cap and trade system, coal will go bankrupt. That's because coal won't meet the emissions standards, and it will be punished with exorbitant fees.
Once again, we are shocked by something that Barack Obama said even though it isn't really new. He hasn't hidden his agenda for aggressive cap and trade. It just appears the public hasn't yet processed what it will all mean.
Personally, I think there is a much better approach to being eco friendly. Rather than punishing bad behavior, I would reward good behavior. My plan is similar to my plan for energy independence. Set emissions standards, or better yet, isolate those technologies that are conducive for less emissions, and reward those technologies with a break in income tax, capital gains tax, and dividend tax. (or better yet make all those taxes zero) Doing this would unleash the market forces necessary to innovate to better technologies. Government mandates for changes despite market forces. That's the flaw in Obama's plan, and it's why in reality his comments were perfectly in context.
Of course, it should be noted that McCain also supports cap and trade so he would likely impose a system similar to Obama's.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Horror in Huntsville II: Turf Wars and Sham Peer Review
Here is part one of the story.
In 2003, Dr. Stephen Taylor had been a sixteen year veteran with staff privileges at Huntsville Hospital. When he first arrived at Huntsville Hospital in 1987, he was an idealistic new surgeon that always spoke his mind about ways to improve patient care. His confrontational style likely rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and Dr. Taylor told me that he is also convinced that it lead to the wrong image, and ultimately what happened next. At the time in question in the beginning of 2003, there was a fracturing of the vascular surgery group. For about a year, he was working as part of a corporation, the Huntsville Heart Center Corporation. There were three vascular surgeons like Dr. Taylor part of the Heart Center, Dr. Fred Stucky and Dr. Ronny Johnson.
A hospital will given a doctor privileges. This means that said doctor can work as part of the staff of said hospital. The hospital itself, which gives them privileges is NOT their employer necessarily. In this case, Dr. Taylor was employed by the Huntsville Heart Center. Vascular surgery took second fiddle within the Heart Center to Cardiology. At the time, cardiologists, of which there were 24, were making an average of around one million Dollars yearly. At the same time, vascular surgeons, of which there were only three, made on average about three quarters of a million Dollars yearly at the Heart Center. After a dispute over money, the Vascular Surgery team split up, and Dr. Taylor formed his own corporation and continued to work as a privileged doctor at the Huntsville Hospital. (He also had privileges at a much smaller hospital, Crestwood Hospital)
At the time, there was a "chic" fairly new procedure that every doctor working on the heart was vying to be able to do, Carotid Stenting. This was a procedure that both Vascular Surgeons and Cardiologists were capable of doing, and it presented an enormous potential new income stream. At the time in question, no specialty had yet been approved to this procedure at Huntsville Hospital.
In April of 2004, Dr. Taylor was performing Carotid Endarterectomy. He needed to get at a valve deep within the vascular system and he needed to make a decision quickly in the middle of this procedure. He concluded that the easiest way to accomplish his goal was by using a Carotid Stent. The difference between the procedure, Carotid Stenting, and the technique that he used gets into all sorts medical technicalities. In this case, Dr. Taylor was making a decision which technique to use as part of a larger procedure. He was after the expert, as the Vascular Surgeon, and the procedure, Carotid Endarterectomy, was being done by him. He felt that the Carotid Stent was the easiest way to accomplish his goal.
This is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, the patient wound up later on having a seizure and eventually dying, though, Dr. Taylor told me that the seizure was in another part of th heart and not where he operated. As soon as he finished the Carotid Endarterectomy, Dr. Taylor informed the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Robert Chappell, of what he did. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary about the conversation and Dr. Taylor went on his way. Unfortunately, the patient ended up dying days later. In the immediate aftermath of the death, Dr. Taylor was NOT cited and was not disciplined.
Then, in September of 2003, he was informed that his privileges at Huntsville Hospital would be suspended. By October of 2003, his privileges were revoked entirely. He was eventually cited as a "disruptive doctor" and for performing an "unprivileged procedure". . He was cited by a committee of non Vascular Surgeons who deemed his action an "unprivileged procedure". Dr. Taylor attempted to argue that he was performing the technique of a Carotid Stent in a procedure he did have privileges for. Had he not fractured from the rest of the Vascular Surgeons, one of them might have testified on his behalf. As it was, Dr. Taylor was facing the entire weight of the Huntsville Hospital apparatus on his own. His privileges were never restored.
Furthermore, because of HCQIA, his citation eventually as a "disruptive doctor" is now found in every central databank. As such, whenever Dr. Taylor looks for work, his potential employer sees that Huntsville Hospital cited him as a "disruptive doctor". At the time of the incident, he was making $750,000 yearly. He now struggles to make $50,000 yearly. He has since filed for a divorce from his wife.
Furthermore, in 2005, he filed a law suit in Federal Court in Birmingham, Alabama. His attorney filed for a motion for summary judgment in 2006 with Federal Judge Virginia Patterson. That summary judgment has sat idle for over two years with no decision in sight. In 1997, Huntsville Hospital hired the Greeley Company, a hospital consulting firm. Greeley lists among its specialties, identifing and dealing with "disruptive physicians".
Huntsville Hospital is a force in Alabama. It is one of the five biggest employers in the state. Huntsville Health Corporation is a mysterious being. It is technically a part of the government of Huntsville, Alabama. While its board must be approved, but not nominated, by the City Council of Huntsville, that appears to be the only clear relationship between the two. It's unclear just how much the hospital makes, though nine digits yearly is a good guess, and it's even more unclear just who the profits go to. It is clear that being a member of the board is a powerful and lucrative position. Often times, members of the board are local business persons and power brokers, and it isn't clear just how much background any of these folks have in running a hospital.
Also, please check out other such stories like a doctor in South Carolina that was targeted for reporting on a serial killer nurse, a doctor in Texas targeted by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Texas Medical Board's systematic targeting of doctors, and of course the one that started it all the tragic case of obscene corruption at Atlanta's Grady Hospital. Please read them all and demand that action be taken so that the scourge of sham peer review ends.
In 2003, Dr. Stephen Taylor had been a sixteen year veteran with staff privileges at Huntsville Hospital. When he first arrived at Huntsville Hospital in 1987, he was an idealistic new surgeon that always spoke his mind about ways to improve patient care. His confrontational style likely rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and Dr. Taylor told me that he is also convinced that it lead to the wrong image, and ultimately what happened next. At the time in question in the beginning of 2003, there was a fracturing of the vascular surgery group. For about a year, he was working as part of a corporation, the Huntsville Heart Center Corporation. There were three vascular surgeons like Dr. Taylor part of the Heart Center, Dr. Fred Stucky and Dr. Ronny Johnson.
A hospital will given a doctor privileges. This means that said doctor can work as part of the staff of said hospital. The hospital itself, which gives them privileges is NOT their employer necessarily. In this case, Dr. Taylor was employed by the Huntsville Heart Center. Vascular surgery took second fiddle within the Heart Center to Cardiology. At the time, cardiologists, of which there were 24, were making an average of around one million Dollars yearly. At the same time, vascular surgeons, of which there were only three, made on average about three quarters of a million Dollars yearly at the Heart Center. After a dispute over money, the Vascular Surgery team split up, and Dr. Taylor formed his own corporation and continued to work as a privileged doctor at the Huntsville Hospital. (He also had privileges at a much smaller hospital, Crestwood Hospital)
At the time, there was a "chic" fairly new procedure that every doctor working on the heart was vying to be able to do, Carotid Stenting. This was a procedure that both Vascular Surgeons and Cardiologists were capable of doing, and it presented an enormous potential new income stream. At the time in question, no specialty had yet been approved to this procedure at Huntsville Hospital.
In April of 2004, Dr. Taylor was performing Carotid Endarterectomy. He needed to get at a valve deep within the vascular system and he needed to make a decision quickly in the middle of this procedure. He concluded that the easiest way to accomplish his goal was by using a Carotid Stent. The difference between the procedure, Carotid Stenting, and the technique that he used gets into all sorts medical technicalities. In this case, Dr. Taylor was making a decision which technique to use as part of a larger procedure. He was after the expert, as the Vascular Surgeon, and the procedure, Carotid Endarterectomy, was being done by him. He felt that the Carotid Stent was the easiest way to accomplish his goal.
This is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, the patient wound up later on having a seizure and eventually dying, though, Dr. Taylor told me that the seizure was in another part of th heart and not where he operated. As soon as he finished the Carotid Endarterectomy, Dr. Taylor informed the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Robert Chappell, of what he did. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary about the conversation and Dr. Taylor went on his way. Unfortunately, the patient ended up dying days later. In the immediate aftermath of the death, Dr. Taylor was NOT cited and was not disciplined.
Then, in September of 2003, he was informed that his privileges at Huntsville Hospital would be suspended. By October of 2003, his privileges were revoked entirely. He was eventually cited as a "disruptive doctor" and for performing an "unprivileged procedure". . He was cited by a committee of non Vascular Surgeons who deemed his action an "unprivileged procedure". Dr. Taylor attempted to argue that he was performing the technique of a Carotid Stent in a procedure he did have privileges for. Had he not fractured from the rest of the Vascular Surgeons, one of them might have testified on his behalf. As it was, Dr. Taylor was facing the entire weight of the Huntsville Hospital apparatus on his own. His privileges were never restored.
Furthermore, because of HCQIA, his citation eventually as a "disruptive doctor" is now found in every central databank. As such, whenever Dr. Taylor looks for work, his potential employer sees that Huntsville Hospital cited him as a "disruptive doctor". At the time of the incident, he was making $750,000 yearly. He now struggles to make $50,000 yearly. He has since filed for a divorce from his wife.
Furthermore, in 2005, he filed a law suit in Federal Court in Birmingham, Alabama. His attorney filed for a motion for summary judgment in 2006 with Federal Judge Virginia Patterson. That summary judgment has sat idle for over two years with no decision in sight. In 1997, Huntsville Hospital hired the Greeley Company, a hospital consulting firm. Greeley lists among its specialties, identifing and dealing with "disruptive physicians".
Huntsville Hospital is a force in Alabama. It is one of the five biggest employers in the state. Huntsville Health Corporation is a mysterious being. It is technically a part of the government of Huntsville, Alabama. While its board must be approved, but not nominated, by the City Council of Huntsville, that appears to be the only clear relationship between the two. It's unclear just how much the hospital makes, though nine digits yearly is a good guess, and it's even more unclear just who the profits go to. It is clear that being a member of the board is a powerful and lucrative position. Often times, members of the board are local business persons and power brokers, and it isn't clear just how much background any of these folks have in running a hospital.
Also, please check out other such stories like a doctor in South Carolina that was targeted for reporting on a serial killer nurse, a doctor in Texas targeted by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Texas Medical Board's systematic targeting of doctors, and of course the one that started it all the tragic case of obscene corruption at Atlanta's Grady Hospital. Please read them all and demand that action be taken so that the scourge of sham peer review ends.
The Ad McCain Needs to Make
In light of recent developments, here is an advertisment that McCain needs to put up immediately. Since I cut can't cut and paste videos like I would, please bear with me.
(voice over)
Senator Obama has made a lot of promises this campaign...
$65 billion-a-year health plan $15 billion in green energy spending$85 billion in tax cuts and credits A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid$18 billion a year in education spending $3.5 billion for a national service plan. According to the Hill , Barack Obama's spending proposals could add as much as $1 Trillion in new spending per year.
He's also promised a tax cut to every working middle class family...
How does he plan on paying for all this? He promises to only raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? How does he define wealthy? First he said it was anyone making $250,000 then $200,000. Fortunately, his surrogates are more truthful than the Senator.
(video should start at 28 seconds in)
(start about 25 seconds in and stop 40)
$250,000?...$200,000?...$150,000?...$120,000?...$70,000? Where will the tax cuts start and the tax increases end? The number gets lower and lower. That's because Senator Obama's plan doesn't add up. In the Senate, Senator Obama has voted 94 times to increase taxes and cut taxes for those making as little as $42,000 per year. Only the wealthiest 5% will get a tax increase, that just doesn't add up.
(John McCain voice over) I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
...
since it's likely you aren't going to see that ad, enjoy another that was desperately in need of eyeballs.
(voice over)
Senator Obama has made a lot of promises this campaign...
$65 billion-a-year health plan $15 billion in green energy spending$85 billion in tax cuts and credits A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid$18 billion a year in education spending $3.5 billion for a national service plan. According to the Hill , Barack Obama's spending proposals could add as much as $1 Trillion in new spending per year.
He's also promised a tax cut to every working middle class family...
How does he plan on paying for all this? He promises to only raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? How does he define wealthy? First he said it was anyone making $250,000 then $200,000. Fortunately, his surrogates are more truthful than the Senator.
(video should start at 28 seconds in)
(start about 25 seconds in and stop 40)
$250,000?...$200,000?...$150,000?...$120,000?...$70,000? Where will the tax cuts start and the tax increases end? The number gets lower and lower. That's because Senator Obama's plan doesn't add up. In the Senate, Senator Obama has voted 94 times to increase taxes and cut taxes for those making as little as $42,000 per year. Only the wealthiest 5% will get a tax increase, that just doesn't add up.
(John McCain voice over) I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
...
since it's likely you aren't going to see that ad, enjoy another that was desperately in need of eyeballs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
