Obamanomics Reaffirmed

During the 2008 Presidential Election I managed to scribble a few lines about the economics Obama would face upon his election, and with regards to his economic plans. Diana Furchtgott has managed to reaffirm my conclusions. Below her article is a list of a few of my articles and the ideals projected by others that I enlisted to support my opinions.

A Reality Check for Obama

 

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Pity President-elect Barack Obama. Today, only three days after his historic victory as the first African-American elected president, the Labor Department announced that the economy lost 240,000 jobs from payrolls in October and that the unemployment rate rose to 6.5%. This underscores the difficulties he faces in raising taxes on “the rich” to fund new spending.

Obama must recognize that his campaign promises are impossible to implement without making the economy sicker. The economy is weak and getting weaker, probably contracting now at an annual rate of 3-4 percent.

Obama’s promises include a combination of tax cuts and welfare for 95 percent of working Americans, an end to America’s foreign oil dependence, a costly healthcare plan, more education spending, and so-called pay equity for women. Much of this is supposed to be funded by levies on businesses as well as tax increases on those making over $250,000.

But, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Obama’s tax package would cost $2.9 trillion over the decade from 2009 to 2018. That includes increasing the tax rate on capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and raising the top two tax rates, 33-36 percent and 35-39.6 percent, on singles with taxable income exceeding $165,000 and married couples earning over $201,000.

The Tax Policy Center’s estimates do not include the effects of financial market chaos and the stock market decline, which has reduced taxable income. And with the economy worsening, tax increases on upper income earners would net less than the Center projected, increasing the 10-year deficit to over $3 trillion.

Here’s one small example. In 2005, the latest data available, the Internal Revenue Service recorded 3.5 million returns with $200,000 or more. About half those returns had capital gains income, which averaged $304,000, netting approximately $80 billion in taxes annually.

These revenues will be reduced by weak stock markets—as well as by disincentives to invest stemming from higher taxes. In addition, many Americans are losing jobs, meaning not only less wage and salary income to be taxed but increased government payouts for unemployment benefits.

As president, Obama will have difficulty paying for new projects such as an incremental $65 billion health care plan, a $30 billion addition to the Medicare prescription drug plan, and $37 billion in increased education and research spending—all estimates for one year.

The bill for some other proposals would go to employers, who are already struggling to survive the recession. Investments in alternative energy and electric vehicles, for instance, would be funded by requiring purchases of permits to emit carbon, estimated to raise $56 billion annually.

Obama would also require most employers to offer paid sick and maternity leave, vacation, and parental leave for school visits. Employers would be penalized for paying women less than men for “equivalent” jobs, however they are defined.

Of course, in a recession, federal deficits are desirable. The question is how to structure them to help the economy recover. By increasing taxes on upper-income earners, small businesses, and capital gains, President Obama would reduce incentives to work and invest. Additional requirements on employers would encourage them to open plants overseas, rather than in America, slowing job creation.

After the euphoria in the streets and the chants of “yes we can” have faded, the question will remain: do Obama’s promises make fiscal sense?

Diana Furchtgott-Roth can be reached at dfr@hudson.org.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, is a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor, and is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

original article: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/07/after-victory-a-reality-check-for-obama/ 

 

The Myth of Obamanomics

https://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/392/

Will Obama’s Collection Plate Come Back Empty: Fearful Investors May Seek Shelter

https://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/obamas-collection-plate-is-empty-savvy-investors-seek-tax-shelter/

Obamanomics

https://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/368/

economic woes

https://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/economic-woes/

 

 

 

McCain Delivers Remarks at a Hershey, Pa. Rally

CQ Transcript Wire

Tuesday, October 28, 2008; 11:48 AM

MCCAIN: It’s great to be back in Pennsylvania. We need to win Pennsylvania on November 4th, and with your help we’re going to win here, and bring real change to Washington, DC. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction, and we have to fight for it.

I’ve been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I’m elected President, I will fight to shake up Washington and take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I’m not afraid of the fight, I’m ready for it.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We’re going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

If I’m elected President, I won’t spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can’t do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I’m going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I’m not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I’m going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to fix our housing market, so that your home value doesn’t go down when your neighbor defaults, and so that people in danger of defaulting have a path to pay off their loan.

If I’m elected President, we’re going to stop spending $700 billion to buy oil from countries that don’t like us very much. Senator Obama will argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and against building new nuclear power plants in America. If I am president, we will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternatives — nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs.

We’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years, and that only because Joe the plumber asked him a question in Ohio. That’s when Senator Obama revealed he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.”

Now, Joe didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house, and he didn’t ask to be famous. He certainly didn’t ask for the political attacks on him from the Obama campaign. Joe’s dream is to own a small business that will create jobs, and the attacks on him are an attack on small businesses all over the country. Small businesses employ 84 percent of Americans, and we need to support small businesses, not tax them.

After months of campaign trail eloquence, we’ve finally learned what Senator Obama’s economic goal is: to spread the wealth. In a radio interview revealed this week, he said the same thing — that one of the quote, “tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about “redistributive change.”

You see, Senator Obama believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He said that even though lower taxes on investment help our economy, he favors higher taxes on investment for quote “fairness.” There’s nothing “fair” about driving our economy into the ground. We all suffer when that happens, and that is the problem with Senator Obama’s approach to our economy. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it … in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Senator Obama is running to be Redistributionist in Chief. I’m running to be Commander in Chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I’m running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I’m running to make everyone successful.

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than 200,000 dollars you’ll benefit — but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year.” It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can’t let that happen.

My opponent’s massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes.

This is the fundamental difference between Senator Obama and me. We both disagree with President Bush on economic policy. The difference is that he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high.

If we are going to change Washington, we need a President who has actually fought for change and made it happen. The next President won’t have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Senator Biden warned that Senator Obama would be tested with an international crisis. I have been tested. Senator Obama hasn’t. Senator Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis and I have a little personal experience in that. I was on board the U.S.S. Enterprise, and I sat in a jet cockpit on the flight deck waiting to take off. We had a target. I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested.

We know Senator Obama won’t have the right response to that test, because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world’s worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint. He’s been wrong on all of these. When I am president, we are going to win in Iraq and win in Afghanistan, and our troops will come home in victory and honor.

Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s one week to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap … someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight. Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington. Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.

Original article can be found at www.washingtonpost.com

 

 

 

 

The Myth of Obamanomics

Barack Obama continues to state he will only tax incomes over $250,000 and that 95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut. Does it make sense to you that Obama will increase spending by more than a trillion dollars? Increase taxes on business? Will those ideas be good for the economy? If you think about it for just a minute you will agree that it does not pass the common sense, the smell test.

The following data comes from the IRS for the year 2003 and reveals the number of businesses with revenue over $ 250,000 in 2003. From IRS statistics in 2003:

Revenue Range	Number of businesses
$250,000 – $500,000	1,331,692
$500,000 – $1,000,000	932,914
$1,000,000 – $2,500,000	686,257
$2,500,000 -$5,000,000	263,211
$5,000,000 – $10,000,000	143,693
$10,000,000 – $50,000,000	124,568
$50,000,000 – Above	32,040

 

Many of you work for a company that falls into one of the above categories. Let’s take a little time to examine the practical consequences of Obama raising taxes on these companies: Obama states that he will raise taxes on incomes above $ 250,000. Now look at the number of businesses affected above. Now keep in mind that when businesses pay more taxes, they must make up for their losses somehow, traditionally they resort to one or more of the following ways of offsetting their losses:

·        Increase the price of their products or services, thus affecting consumers.

·        Cut other costs such as salaries, jobs or investment in new technologies such as energy.

·        Move to a country with less tax.

·        Some companies will go out of business due to profits declining, increased taxes and lower sales, when prices increase.

Corporations are primarily taxed three ways. They are taxed on corporate income, on dividends, and on the sale of stock. If you are a retiree and own stock, you will have less money because the corporation will have less profit and if you sell the stock you will pay more tax on the sale.

Government is extremely inefficient. $ 1,000 taken from a business will remove money that drives the economy, creates more jobs and ultimately brings more revenue for the government. That $ 1,000 will be wasted in government bureaucracy and overhead.

Obama is using this old lie to appeal to his core support that is promised everything by politicians that use them to win elections.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took part in a debate several months ago hosted by Charlie Gibson. Gibson asked Obama about his plan to raise the capital gains tax. Then Gibson pointed out that studies have shown that lowering the capital gains tax increases government revenues and is good for the economy. Obama began stammering and stuttering and in one of the most revealing moments of the election, Obama’s lack of understanding of the economy and taxes was made clear. Obama was unable to rely on a canned teleprompter response.

Obama is just another modern day snake oil salesman. If you let him steal this election, Obama and the out of control Democrat congress, will ruin this economy and this country.

Does Obama scare you? http://obamaimpeachment.org

Shooting with Both Barrels

 

 

By Andrew Busch

 

At this point, the prognosis for John McCain’s campaign is uncertain at best. Several polls show a marked tightening in the race, some with McCain even within three or four percentage points, while a slew of others show Obama with a six, nine, ten, or even fourteen-percentage-point lead. McCain has caught some big breaks recently, including the emergence of Joe the Plumber’s pointed question and Joe the vice-presidential nominee’s mouth. Obama has more cash to finish out the race, however, and has the benefit of the major media generally working for him as well.

One can stipulate that McCain might still win, but that, at this moment, the odds are against him. This situation calls for a double-barreled approach by McCain. On one hand, he must continue to doggedly pursue victory up to the last possible moment. On the other hand, he has an obligation to structure the last week of his campaign in such a way that he lays the best possible groundwork for a Republican resurgence in the event that he loses. He should concentrate on themes that serve both purposes.The tax-and-income-redistribution theme on which McCain is hammering is one example of a theme that meets both criteria. It advances McCain’s electoral prospects in the short term, and it boxes Obama in and sets the Republicans up for a counterattack if Obama becomes president. Having been forced to defend his tax increases as limited to a small number of super-rich taxpayers, he will now be under enormous pressure to keep them limited—and, if he doesn’t, Republicans will be able to say “we told you so.”There are at least two other obvious messages that could serve as McCain ammunition in both barrels.

First, McCain would emphasize what makes America special: limited government, entrepreneurialism, a uniquely American understanding of human dignity rooted in liberty and responsibility. We love our European friends, he might say, and we have deep respect for the common roots of our civilization. But we do not want to be just another European social democracy. Most of our ancestors willingly gave up Europe for America. Why would we want to give up America for Europe? Then McCain can tick off the particulars of Obama’s tax plan, his views on redistributionism and social welfare and health care, his views on regulation, his very European contempt for the values of the American middle and working classes. The alternative — McCain’s alternative — is an approach that tries to solve America’s problems without sacrificing America’s values. This election will decide if America remains a unique land of freedom and opportunity. If we lose that America, we will likely never get it back.

Such a message would serve two purposes. It would tie together a number of disparate strands of McCain’s argument, setting the context for the last leg of the campaign and the vote itself. If the stakes are really this big, someone should make sure Americans know it before they vote — not piecemeal, but in broad brushstrokes. And if Obama wins, it will be easier to rally Americans if they have heard this argument before and can put the pieces of President Obama’s program into the proper frame.

A second line of argument also suggests itself as a solution to McCain’s continuing problem of being tied by voters to President Bush. With Bush’s approval rating below 30 percent, McCain needs to make a stronger separation from the incumbent, akin to Hubert Humphrey’s famous 1968 Vietnam bombing speech, but in doing so he must be careful not to alienate conservative voters. This might be accomplished best not by McCain emphasizing how he deviates from Bush’s policies (though he can safely distance himself from some of those policies), but by McCain implicitly separating himself from Bush’s presidential style by way of attacking Obama. After all, presidents can influence the economy, but they cannot control it. They can influence foreign affairs even more, but they still must ride events. The one thing presidents really control is how they use the office of the presidency.

McCain can say: We need a president who talks with the American people, not another president who talks at them. We need a president who has confidence tempered with some humility, not another president who cannot admit when he is wrong — let alone one with a messiah complex. We need a president who will use his veto pen to check the excesses of Congress, whether Congress is controlled by the other party or by his own. We need a president who will control the spending of taxpayer dollars, not another president who works to blow up the federal budget. We do not need the third president in a row whose fame is derived from setting fundraising records. But we do need a president who gives Americans confidence that he will safeguard the rule of law and their civil liberties. Already, Obama’s campaign and his supporters in ACORN have benefited from campaign finance violations and have organized voter registration fraud; Obama’s campaign has threatened legal action against television stations that run ads that he doesn’t like; Obama has promised to take away the right to a secret ballot in union elections; congressional Democrats have signaled that they intend to shut down talk radio because they do not like its message; Obama himself has basked in the development of a cult of personality, replete with the mindless chanting and glassy-eyed children’s chorales touting the glories of The One, as if Obama were Kim Jong Il. What will Obama and his allies be like if they actually obtain unchecked power?

Here McCain would return to one of Obama’s greatest vulnerabilities, the well-deserved public perception that he thinks too highly of himself, but with a twist. It is Obama, not McCain, who would represent an extension (and aggravation) of what many voters see as the most problematic elements of the Bush presidency. (Indeed, Obama seems inclined to go well beyond all but the most outlandish caricatures of Bush on these grounds.) At the same time, McCain would be laying the groundwork for resisting the misuses and, more important, abuses of executive authority that may well come in an Obama presidency. Voters will have been given a framework within which to assess such abuses as they arise. They will have been forewarned and put on alert. A new narrative will have been put into play that could come to define Obama’s administration, if one takes office, should his presidency parallel his campaign. The argument, made now, may help save this election. If it doesn’t, it could help win the next one. 

 

— Andrew E. Busch is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

It Is All About The Money

Obama vs. McCain: It’s About the Money

As the financial crisis has worsened and the economy has deteriorated, basic pocketbook issues — taxes, jobs, retirement — have taken center stage in the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

When the new president “comes to town in January, he’ll have to work on the short-term stimulus to the economy, and the longer-term plans may get deferred,” says Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte Tax. “But the issue isn’t the economic-recovery package and what the budget looks like in 2009, but what it will look like come 2012.”

With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, Sunday Journal takes a look at the candidates’ positions on the issues that will most affect your family’s finances. We culled information from party position papers on Web sites, speeches and nonpartisan third-party reports.

Short-Term Economic Relief

To respond to voters who want immediate economic help, both candidates have proposed specific plans on how to jump-start the economy in 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Obama proposes a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to families ($500 for individuals) and penalty-free withdrawals of 15% from 401(k)s and IRAs up to $10,000. He also wants to temporarily suspend minimum distribution requirements for retirement accounts.

Sen. McCain proposes cutting the capital-gains rate on stock held for more than a year to 7.5%. He also would increase the amount of stock loss that is deductible against ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000, and would tax withdrawals by seniors from IRAs and 401(k)s no more than 10%.

Income Taxes

Both candidates pledge to lower taxes overall, but the key point to the debate is who will be paying the bills.

Sen. Obama favors tax cuts for middle-class workers and tax increases for top earners — families that make more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 a year. He wants to extend most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, but raise the top two marginal rates to 36% and 39.6%.

Sen. Obama wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year and to provide a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of 6.2% of the first $8,100 in wages (about $500) for individuals earning less than $75,000 a year. Outside analysts estimate that the top 1% of wage earners would see an average tax increase of $19,000.

Sen. McCain wants to permanently extend all 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 gradually over several years to $7,000 and keep the top tax rate at 35%, leaving “upper-income taxpayers” with “the most to gain under McCain’s plan,” according to a report by Deloitte Tax. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 1% would see a tax cut of more than $125,000.

Estate Taxes and AMT

Both candidates support extending the Alternative Minimum Tax’s 2007 “patch” exemption levels and index for inflation, and changing the federal estate-tax law to make the $2 million per-person exemption ($3.5 million next year) portable or transferable from one spouse to another.

Sen. Obama wants to freeze the 2009 estate-tax structure, which taxes roughly 0.3% of estates — those valued above $3.5 million per person — at a top rate of 45%. According to Deloitte Tax, a $5 million estate would pay a tax of $675,000 under this plan.

Sen. McCain has proposed a 15% estate tax (down from the current 45%) on roughly 0.2% of estates, those valued at more than $5 million per person. A $5 million estate would pay nothing under this plan, Deloitte Tax notes.

Health Care

According to a report by the nonpartisan health-policy analysis and consulting firm Lewin Group, a unit of insurer UnitedHealth Group, average spending on health care in 2010 will be $4,407 per family. Both candidates want to expand access to affordable health care.

Sen. Obama proposes income-related subsidies for health insurance through a new national exchange, along with expanded access to Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and mandatory care for children. He would require employers that don’t offer health coverage to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the national plan, with small businesses being exempt (and eligible for refundable tax credits on 50% of premiums).

Under this plan, premium payments for families would fall by about $185 and direct payments for health services by $253. The Lewin Group projects the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.6 million people in 2010, from 48.9 million.

Sen. McCain wants to replace the current income-tax exemption for health-insurance premiums paid by employers with a refundable tax credit of $5,000 per family ($2,500 for individuals). Any unused credit could be deposited into a Health Savings Account. His Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP) would allow people denied coverage to obtain insurance through state-run high-risk pools administered by private insurers, according to a report issued by the Joint Center for Political Economic Studies. Sen. McCain wants to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which could reduce the effectiveness of state regulations.

Under this plan, premium payments for families would increase by about $379 and direct payments for health services by about $105. “This would be more than offset by a net increase in tax subsidies of $1,570” and wage gains resulting from employer savings, the Lewin Group says.

The Lewin Group projects that the McCain plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 21.1 million people.

Investments

Both candidates offer plans to support small businesses, but they offer different strategies for capital gains, dividends and retirement savings that will affect investors.

Sen. Obama wants to eliminate all capital-gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses but raise the top long-term capital-gains rate on securities and qualified dividends from 15% to 20% for families making more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals). He wants to tax carried interest as ordinary income.

Sen. McCain calls for maintaining the 15% top tax rate on dividends and long-term capital gains.

Retirement & Social Security

Both candidates have moved to temporarily suspend the requirement that people over age 70½ tap their retirement accounts, but neither candidate has offered a substantial long-term plan to overhaul the way Americans save for retirement.

Sen. Obama wants to institute a 2% to 4% payroll tax on incomes above $250,000, split between employer and employee. It would take effect in 10 years or more. He also proposes a retirement-security plan to automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan.

Employers that don’t offer a retirement plan would be required to enroll employees in a direct-deposit individual retirement account. Sen. Obama also proposes a saver’s credit to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families earning less than $75,000.

Sen. McCain favors privatizing Social Security in programs that allow younger workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into personal accounts invested in the market.

 

Obama-wood of Chicago Forest

The Elephant in the Room:

Chicago Robin Hood’s plan

By Rick Santorum

Socialism! That’s tough talk from a Republican candidate who just voted to give the government $700 billion to buy banks, proposed a wholesale bailout of overleveraged homeowners, and favors a huge new government bureaucracy to limit greenhouse gases.

But John McCain isn’t the only presidential candidate supporting these measures. Barack Obama sees him that $700 billion and greenhouse bureaucracy, raises him another trillion in government spending, and places a side bet on class warfare.

Combine a victory of either McCain the populist or Obama the liberal with public fear stemming from the economic quake, and the result will be greater government involvement in our economy. The only decision voters will make Nov. 4 is how much more.

While McCain and Obama are both liberal on other issues – such as importation of prescription drugs and, to some extent, immigration – they differ philosophically on taxes. McCain believes in low tax rates, limiting the size and reach of government and structured to encourage private wealth creation. Obama wants to shift the tax burden further to higher-income individuals and businesses, to increase the size of government and, as he put it recently, “spread the wealth around.”

Limited government and wealth creation versus big government and wealth redistribution: There’s much more than a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates on these matters of principle.

A central theme of the Obama campaign is that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes and that the “middle class” needs tax relief. (Am I the only one bothered by Obama’s overuse of the word class instead of income here?) He has been spreading this class-warfare message for some time.

Obama says that he wants to tax only those households that make more than $250,000 a year and that he wants to give everyone else a tax cut. He would increase federal taxes from 35.9 percent to 55.2 percent on every dollar earned over $250,000.

Obama also proposes doubling the tax on dividends for these taxpayers. The problem here is that most of these $250,000-plus couples are small-business people who are creating almost all of the new jobs.

As for all those “middle-class” tax cuts, there aren’t any. The bottom 40 percent of taxpayers don’t pay federal income taxes. So cutting income-tax rates won’t help these lower- and middle-income folks.

Obama’s solution: Create and expand tax credits for these people, thereby redistributing other people’s tax payments to them. This Chicago Robin Hood would take from the rich and use it to give 40 percent of Americans a check.

However, you get a check only if you are doing certain things that Obama thinks you should be doing, such as going to college, owning a home, sending your kids to day care, or buying a “clean car.”

In addition to wealth redistribution, socialism involves transferring ownership of private property to the government or the workers. No current proposal will advance this cause more than Obama’s “card check” bill.

This legislation would eliminate a worker’s right to a secret ballot in union-certification elections. Instead of federally monitored elections with private voting, union organizers would only need to get 50 percent of a company’s workers to sign a card in favor of union organization. The bill would allow union officials to go to a worker’s house up to four times to “persuade” him or her to sign a card.

This would do more to make us uncompetitive, and it would destroy even more jobs than Obama’s tax increases.

Then there is Obama’s play-or-pay health-care plan. It requires employers either to provide a government-approved level of health-care benefits or to pay a new tax for government-run health care for their employees. Call this what you will, but it’s not a system that values consumer choice and private enterprise.

With the near certainty of overwhelming Democratic control in both houses of Congress, a vote for Barack Obama will most certainly be a vote for change – sweeping, dramatic, liberal and even radical change.

McCain is no conservative, but a vote for him is, at least, a vote for a check on such excesses – a moderating, measured, middle-of-the-road, and much-needed check.

Link to original article courtesy of www.philly.com

Michael Kranish and The Boston Globe; Utterly Laughable

Not long after I pointed out the falsehoods in Kranish’s article, he found it necessary to delete my comments, and render the comments section closed. Luckily, I bookmarked the column and salvaged the comments. It’s evident that his liberal bias and lack of object-ivity are self serving and allied with the main stream media’s love affair with BaraQ Obama. For my take on the article, be sure and scroll to the end.

Details of tax-credit debate can get lost in the slogans

Calls of ‘failed philosophy,’ ‘socialism’

 

By Michael Kranish

Globe Staff / October 22, 2008

WASHINGTON – As John McCain’s campaign attacks Barack Obama’s tax plans as “socialist,” the Arizona senator is posing a provocative question at rallies: “How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now?”

The answer explains much about what has become a complicated debate over tax policy in the presidential campaign.

McCain is correct when he says that 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes, analysts said. But the missing nuance is that many Americans who don’t pay income taxes still pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Obama proposes to cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans (though he sometimes leaves off that “working” qualifier), which means that his plan includes those who are charged payroll taxes but don’t earn enough to owe income taxes.

At least 27 million American owe no income tax but do pay the 7.65 percent payroll tax, with another 7.65 percent paid by employers. In addition, more than half of all workers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

“When Senator McCain calls me a ‘socialist’ and says I want to give a tax cut to people who don’t pay taxes, he knows that’s not true. My middle-class tax cuts are for people who work and pay taxes,” Obama said in Miami yesterday. “Apparently Senator McCain’s decided that if he can’t beat our ideas, he’ll make up others and run against those.”

William Beach, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, said that he wouldn’t characterize Obama’s tax plan as “socialist,” calling it a “redistribution of income.” But he noted that neither candidate wants to end the progressive tax system under which wealthier people have higher tax rates.

McCain has also complained that Obama wants to give tax cuts to people who pay no income taxes by providing refundable tax credits. McCain is correct that Obama wants to greatly expand the use of such credits. For example, Obama has proposed offsetting the Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of income with a maximum tax credit of $500 for some workers. Obama also has proposed tax credits for education and expanding an existing credit for lower-income workers.

The McCain campaign calls such credits “welfare” because it could mean the government sends checks to people who owe no income taxes.

McCain, asked Sunday on Fox News Channel, whether he thought Obama was a “socialist,” said that Obama’s tax plan matches “one of the tenets of socialism” because Obama has said he wants to “spread the wealth around.”

Yesterday, McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, repeated the assertion in stronger terms, telling a rally in Nevada, “Now is not the time to experiment with socialism.”

Democrats have responded by noting that McCain also supports some tax credits that could go to people who don’t pay income taxes. For example, McCain’s campaign website says that under his healthcare plan “every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit – effectively cash – of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.”

McCain has said his tax plan is focused on “wealth creation,” a reference to McCain’s support for extending all of the Bush administration’s income tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them only to individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000.

Campaigning in Florida yesterday, Obama ridiculed McCain’s tax cut plan, calling it a “failed philosophy” that gives “more to those with the most and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

Until recently, most of the focus on the two competing tax plans has been on Obama’s opposition to tax cuts for those at top income levels. But the McCain campaign’s charge that the Obama plan creates a new level of “welfare” has put new emphasis on Obama’s tax measures geared for lower-income workers.

Currently, lower-income workers can receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is paid to workers regardless of whether they make enough to pay income taxes. The credit has long had bipartisan support because it is viewed as encouraging people to go to work, but some conservatives have argued that Obama’s effort to expand the credit goes too far. Now, a family of four earning $24,000 a year gets a tax credit of $3,716. That would go up by $421 under Obama’s plan, said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center.

Article courtesy of the Boston Globe

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

You can find the original article with comments and the article without the comments at the URL’s listed below:

 

http://people.boston.com/articles/?p=articlecomments&activityId=7020291229449272754

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/22/details_of_tax_credit_debate_can_get_lost_in_the_slogans/#commentAnchor

It my estimation I wrote:

 

Michael Kranish that was a good attempt at bending the facts when you said, “. . . At least 27 million American owe no income tax but do pay the 7.65 percent payroll tax, with another 7.65 percent paid by employers. In addition, more than half of all workers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes . . .” The reality is that the 7.65 percent you refer to is FICA, it is the only payroll deduction that gets matched by employers is FICA [social security]; so as much as you would like to fool your readers into believing that money is a source of tax revenue, it is merely a bold faced lie or you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Likewise, the statement that “. . . more than half of all workers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes . . .” is just another line of krappola; that money is not a source of revenue, as it is refunded at the end of the year when a person’s income tax is figured. Another thing you neglect to mention is that if a person makes $10,000 or less per year they pay ZERO income tax. Nice try, but just because you say so in a quote from the Tax Policy Center . . . doesn’t make it factual. In fact while you’re quoting the Tax Policy Center, here is another fact from them: Obama states that he “. . . will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families.” The Tax Policy Center says that when retirees and children are included only 81% of Americans would get a tax cut under Obama’s plan. The reality is that our tax code has always been of a Marxist sort; in that a portion of our taxes has always went to support those less fortunate. Still, Robin Hood’s [Obama] plan to steal from the rich and give to the poor is an out and out Marxist ideology underwritten and supported by Maoist tactics. The plans major shortfall is that it undermines the desire for Americans to go the extra mile in growing their businesses.

 

And so EGGHEAD replied:

 

you clearly need to read before you spout off. Payroll taxes are not income taxes and refer to FICA and Medicare taxes, which are taxed at a regressive rate. 7.65% of my family’s gross income is much easier for me to give up than 7.65% of someone living near the poverty line. You should read before you write. Gettyleigh,
you clearly need to read before you spout off. Payroll taxes are not income taxes and refer to FICA and Medicare taxes, which are taxed at a regressive rate. 7.65% of my family’s gross income is much easier for me to give up than 7.65% of someone living near the poverty line. You should read before you write.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . , In my best “Droopy Dog,” I thought “now you’ve made me mad!” But to no avail . . . Kranish had already shut down the comments section . . . as I suspect Kranish is actually the EGGHEAD . . . he might as well suffer my wrath in the here and now! My reply to the EGGHEAD is:

 

Egghead sums it up egghead . . . and I mean that in the negative vernacular. Your right payroll taxes are not income taxes. And I welcome you to illustrate where I inferred that they were. Contrary to your belief, payroll taxes do not exclusively refer to FICA and Medicare. Inclusive are the federal, state, and, local TAXES, which are in fact TAXES. Likewise, they are not regressive, as they are computed at progressive rates depending on your gross wages (*pages 38-39*). As I previously stated, **7.65%** is the percentage rate at which a person is required to contribute to **social security** and is matched by their employer. Should you be interested, the **Medicare rate is 1.45%**. It is exactly what Michael Kranish is speaking of; and it is not a tax Egghead, it is a contribution to a retirement and disability fund should you become unable to work prior to your retirement. In any case, the federal, state, and local payroll taxes are an amalgamated entity, along with your income tax, when figuring out your taxes at the fiscal year’s end. As someone who prepares taxes, quarterly statements, and calculates payroll deductions and actually done payroll for a business, I implicitly am aware of the intricacies of taxes and payroll deductions. In my previous post I merely expressed that the taxes Kranish spoke of were not a source of revenue. However, since you are the Egghead that you are, I will spell it out for you: at the end of the year, along with FICA and Medicare, there is a specified amount of income tax the IRS expects you to pay . . . its based on your [AGI] “Adjusted Gross Income.” Depending on the amount of dependents you claim on your W4 statements, you pay “X” amount of dollars out of your paycheck towards federal, state, and local taxes, if all are applicable in your state of residence.  Based on your AGI, you fall into a specific tax bracket, dependent on that amount. Your insinuation that you pay a flat rate of 7.65 is pure idiocy. Why do I infer that it is idiocy? Because the information is public knowledge; and rather than be informed you would rather run your mouth without taking the time to research the facts. See *IRS Publication 15* EGGHEAD and enlighten yourself to the realities of the tax code where payroll and income taxes are concerned. P.S. if you had a clue, you’d know that we contribute nearly 1/3 of our hard earned money already . . . so yea, I’d been willing to shell out 7.65% if that were all that there was to it too.

 

*http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf*

 

**http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/FICA-Tax/**

 

 

http://people.boston.com/articles/?p=articlecomments&activityId=7020291229449272754

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/22/details_of_tax_credit_debate_can_get_lost_in_the_slogans/#commentAnchor 

 

 

 

Obamanomics

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how big our federal government is. It was never meant to be this way. The thirteen colonies merged for the purpose of having a strong centralized government that existed only to serve the states, and to have limited powers that benefited the good of all states. Initially, the government was to run the Postal service, the U.S. Mint, and a Federalized Military for our protection; even the military is questionable considering the powers defined by the second amendment concerning a well armed militia. In short, government at the state level was to be the boss of federal and local governments. How we got turned around is a matter of sequential circumstance and arguably out of necessity; yet we may not be in our current economic crisis if individual states presided over what was in their best interests, instead of being told what was best for them by the federal government. There would certainly be more accountability, as it would be a shorter distance to drive to lynch a corrupt politician.

In any case we need to question where our government is going, and who will be at the helm of the flagship of our republic. It is our duty to examine the tax dollars that our government plans to spend on socialized programs such as national healthcare; monies that will undoubtedly come from taxpayers one way or the other. It is no secret that the money the government uses to pay for military expenses, welfare, civil servant salaries, government works programs, disaster relief, etc . . . is based on the money the government expects to collect from taxpayers and businesses. This money is not just sitting around waiting to be spent; it is a projected amount that we expect to collect. Since abandoning the gold standard, our deficit has grown exponentially, and should be of great concern as this debt will inevitably be passed on to the next generation of Americans.

Subsequently, we have all entered into the implied contract that we will make a better life for our children, and their children, and their children’s children. Leaving them with an individual debt of roughly 33,000 dollars each is something we need to address; it is something neither candidate has really focused on in their campaigns. Still, sometimes actions speak louder than words; the progressive idea of throwing money at all our problems surely won’t reduce our deficit. Especially now, that we have committed 700+ billion dollars to rescue all these corporations and defaulted home loans. Not to mention the 85 billion we spent bailing out AIG and the money for the other corporations we already helped and the 153 billion passed out under the guise of an “economic stimulus package” that didn’t help the economy one bit. The bottom line is we have a 10 trillion dollar plus deficit. Forty percent of which, is owned by foreign interests.

We need to ask where the Democratic Presidential hopeful is getting all this money he has committed to tax cuts, tax credits, education benefits, healthcare benefits, and other social reforms and how this will help to reduce the deficit. At the Saddleback debate, he said people making less than $150,000 will see a tax cut, those making over $250,000 will see an increase in taxes; he never mentioned the fate of those who fall in between. Also, Obama states he will cut taxes for 95% of all working families. The Tax Policy Center says that when retirees and children are included only 81% of Americans would get a tax cut under Obama’s plan.

We should also keep in mind that Clinton said he was going to cut taxes during his initial run for the White House, and he raised them in 1993 to 39%. Politicians habitually make unrealistic promises that cannot be enacted without the approval of congress. Because of our economic circumstance, there is a good chance he’ll do the same as McCain and leave taxes in their present state. It is no secret that our economy is in rough shape. However, we should be concerned that not once has Obama mentioned a time frame in which he expects to balance our federal budget. Shouldn’t a detail of such magnitude be included in any good economic proposal? It’s understandable that we may be in the red for a few years, but he needs to at least make an effort. Anything else is a direct indication of what kind of president he will be. This is typical Obama-speak, lying by omission; if he doesn’t state his intentions, he will not have to account for them at a later period in time. How hard is it to nail down the expected amount of revenue and project the amount you intend to spend? It may not be balanced immediately, but one should at least have a plan and divulge it if they expect to be elected to the highest office in the land. McCain has predicted it will take him until the end of his term to get a grip on the budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation says Obama has proposed nearly $350 billion per year in new spending; in all actuality his budget is looking closer to $850 billion. No matter the amount, at this point in time, the entire corporate tax code only raises about $350 billion annually. Even if Obama doubles the taxes on those making $250,000.00 or more he would still fall short of his goal. Not to mention, in our current economic downturn the tax base will not reach the projected $350 billion. So, it’s unrealistic to think the extra tax dollars collected will be enough to pay for all these things, and it’s unrealistic that he will be able to achieve all the promises he has committed to. For certain he knows this, and is aware that honoring all his promises is not a feasible proposition; so he is in fact, just stringing everybody along. More of the same is that, not only has he committed his administration to providing all those benefits to the voters and raising taxes on businesses, but he committed to raising the minimum wage again after it was just raised a few months ago.

His claims that he is going to gain tax dollars by making businesses pay capital gains tax is pure nonsense, because businesses don’t pay capital gains taxes, they pay income taxes. Further, by raising taxes on businesses and raising the minimum wage, it just makes it that much harder for small businesses to remain in business. In the end, his plans to tax those making $250,000 is just going to inspire people to duck the tax by stopping short of those earnings, and impede commerce. People aren’t idiots; it will especially affect start-up businesses, as they will choose to not put the extra effort forth if they know they will not benefit from it. Likewise, people are notorious for getting over on the system, where is the incentive to bump earnings into the next tax bracket and have the hassle of dealing with more employees if you’re comfortable where you are at? What he is creating, is an insurmountable hump that will deter people from growing their businesses beyond $250,000 in yearly gross sales.

Otherwise, a business cannot be viable if there is not enough cash flow to keep it solvent. By adding more overhead in the form of another wage increase, and a reduction in cash flow from an increase taxes, margins of profit start shrinking, which in turn reduces cash flow. Small businesses are the heart and soul of America; more people are employed by small businesses than large businesses. In order to stay in business, they would have to raise their prices, which would in turn be passed on to the public. So nobody will truly benefit from his economic plan in that aspect.

Raising the minimum wage might increase the amount of money in your paycheck, but the IRS will just take more tax to build their coffers. Again, Business owners are the only ones who get hurt. If the business fails, and the people are left unemployed, another burden is placed on the tax payers in the form of unemployment or health & welfare assistance. As for his healthcare plan, he claims it will not be socialized; yet, when the insurance companies no longer are in the loop, because everyone jumped on the government bandwagon, the feds will either have to oversee it themselves by forming a new federal agency or sub-contract it out to others. Either way, wastefulness and sloth, at the expense of the taxpayer, will be the ultimate outcome. All we have to do is look around us to see the many fine examples of government run agencies, and programs that are subsidized by the government to evidence the inefficiency of such organizations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a few great examples.

Additionally, Obama wants to restrict trade. Restricting trade is idiotic, as the value of the goods we export is almost 95% of what we produce. His fiscal philosophy, cast from the JFK administration, may have been great during JFK’s short tenure, but in our current dilemma we cannot afford to go that route. Obama’s economic plan looks like Swiss cheese. Take note that in the Tennessee debate in, he dodged the question, when asked what he would sacrifice. What scares me most about lawyers who seek the presidential office is that they are indoctrinated in the ways of twisting the truth and the law in a most convincing way; undoubtedly Obama fits the bill, as he lacks transparency on economic matters. How can we elect a guy that will not be upfront on the issues?

Barack Obama continues to state he will only tax incomes over $250,000 and that 95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut. Does it make sense to you that Obama will increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, increase taxes on business and that will be good for the economy? If you think about it for just a minute you will agree that it does not pass the common sense test.

The following data comes from the IRS for the year 2003 and reveals the number of businesses with revenue over $250,000 in 2003.

 

Revenue Range	Number of businesses
$50,000,000 – Above	32,040
$250,000 – $500,000	1,331,692
$500,000 – $1,000,000	932,914
$1,000,000 – $2,500,000	686,257
$2,500,000 – $5,000,000	263,211
$5,000,000 – $10,000,000	143,693
$10,000,000 – $50,000,000	124,568

 

Many of us work for a company that falls into one of those categories. Now let’s examine the practical consequences of Obama raising taxes on these companies. Obama states that he will raise taxes on incomes above $250,000. The above statistics approximate the number of businesses that will actually be affected. What does all this mean? In short, when businesses pay more taxes, they must do one or more of the following:

·        An increase in the price of products or services may affect a business’ ability to maintain their current number of employees, thus it has the potential to affect consumers, who would see a raise in the costs of goods and services? It may cause businesses to cut other costs . . . such as salaries, jobs, investments in new technologies, manufacturing processes, or efforts to invest in green energy sources.

·        They may move to a country with a lower tax rate, or outsource jobs to cheaper labor sources outside of the U.S.

·        Some companies may simply go out of business. The potential for a domino effect set off by declining profits, increased taxes and lower sales will be present under Obama’s tax plan.

·        Corporations are primarily taxed three ways: once on the corporate income, next on dividends and then on the sale of stock. If you are a retiree and own stock, you will have less money because the corporation will have less profit and if you sell the stock you will pay more tax on the sale.

 

It is a given that our government is extremely inefficient. An extra $1,000 taken from a business will remove essential money that drives the economy and it will reduce the number of available jobs, which ultimately bring more revenue to the government. In the end, we need to question how much of that $1,000 will be wasted in bureaucratic overhead, when it would do better if it were directly infused into the market without government intervention. That line of reasoning must be taken into account when it comes to stimulating a sluggish economy.

Something else we need to question is the idea that Obama has a greater command of the economy than McCain. Is in not factual that they both consult financial experts before they make economic policy? Do they not both rely on their Secretaries of the Treasury and their Chairpersons of the Federal Reserve? During the democratic primaries Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took part in a debate hosted by Charlie Gibson. Gibson asked Obama about his plan to raise the capital gains tax. Then Gibson pointed out that studies have shown that lowering the capital gains tax increases government revenues and is good for the economy. Obama began stammering and stuttering and in one of the most revealing moments of the election, Obama’s lack of understanding of the economy and taxes was made clear.

Obama was unable to rely on a canned teleprompter response and his lack of economic prowess was exposed. Since then has he gained that much understanding, or is he relying on his advisors? Obama is just another modern day snake oil salesman. If we let him steal this election, Obama and the out of control Democrat congress, will ruin this economy and this country. If we allow the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives come under the control of the Democratic Party we are writing a blank check that we cannot simply call the bank to stop payment.

 

Top 10 Reasons to Blame Democrats for Soaring Gasoline Prices

By William Tate

This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats’ actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

10) ANWR  If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress’s 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day–5% of the nation’s consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.

 

9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: “Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.” 

A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast,  wouldn’t that have been a good thing?

 

8) Insistence on alternative fuels  One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that “calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards.”  By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump. 

 

7) Nuclear power   Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world’s largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

 

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the “River Bend” plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. 

 

 Need I say more?

 

6) Coal   “The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world,” writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world’s known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and–at current prices–a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants. 

 

5) Refinery capacity  “High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010,” according to Peak Oil News.  And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years,  the Dems’ environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. 

 

4) Reduced competition  With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers — Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco — happened on Clinton’s watch.  The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton’s two terms.

 

3) The Global Warming Myth  At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari “described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions … to address both issues simultaneously”.   As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005  –the year that trading  was initiated–and this year  –when the trading expanded dramatically — saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number…

 

2) Speculation  “Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices … it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation,” writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.  According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically “were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States… The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.” The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office. 

 

1) Defeat of President Bush’s 2001 energy package   According to the BBC, “Key points of Bush(‘s 2001) plan were to:

 

-Promote new oil and gas drilling

 

-Build new nuclear plants

 

-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:

 

 

“President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of ‘energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.

 

Mr. Bush’s plea for a new dialogue came as his administration published the report of an energy task force containing scores of specific proposals… for finding new sources of power and encouraging a range of new energy technologies.” [The Bush plan] “mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.”

 

 

 

 

 

The article went on to quote some rather prescient words from the President, “this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California” if his plan was not adopted in 2001.

 

The Times account continued:

 

“Mr. Bush talked not only of blackouts but of blackmail, raising the specter of a future in which the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign oil suppliers…Mr. Bush was praised by many groups for laying out a long-term energy policy. His report contained 105 initiatives…”

 

Just as President Bush’s predictions have been born out, the article quoted from that most sage of Democrats, former President Jimmy Carter:

 

“World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful,” he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said “exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.”

 

But, as a later Times article notes, “the president’s ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan.”

 

In other words, Democrats refused the President’s plea to “break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.”

 

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump … or the voter’s booth.

 

William Tate is a former award-winning journalist and the author of the new novel, A Time Like This  (www.atimelikethis.us/)