Category: Domestic issues

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Barack Obama Is Not a Socialist!

[digg-reddit-me]Data Points

  • My dad emailed me an editorial from Investor’s Business Daily – whose editorial page was described by the snarky, center-left online magazine Slate as veering “to the outer reaches of the right, making even the Journal‘s trademark business-friendly editorial line seem moderate.” The article my dad sent me stated that Obama is a “stealth socialist,” a kind of sleeper-agent for socialism, ready to unleash the forces of Marxism when he reaches the White House. (The same accusations flew around Bill Clinton in 1992.) The editorial alleges that Obama speaks in code to like-minded audiences, specifically citing the scary term, “economic justice.”
  • A friend of mine writes in his Facebook feed, “WAKE UP EVERYONE! HE IS A SOCIALIST!” including this picture of Stalin (a Communist.)

    I think he would have done better to include something like this picture. I thought of responding to this silly idea by pointing out that Palin and Stalin have most of the same letters in much the same order.
  • I’ve been having a long-running conversation with another friend – an “independent” voter who has been a supporter of McCain since 2000 – but who is very suspicious of the “far left” and “creeping socialism.” He believes that while Obama is not a socialist, he will allow those “far lefties” to gain influence and take away America’s freedom.
  • Sarah Palin, in her debate with Joe Biden, brought up the specter of socialist health care and then quoted Ronald Reagan saying that “freedom is always just one generation away from extinction” – a phrase he used to attack the very popular Medicare program as socialist (as Paul Krugman pointed out in a recent column).
  • The bailout and the various other proposals and actions by the Bush administration have been described in the pages of the financial journals as “socialism for the rich,” and there is a great deal of justifiable concern about the amount of leverage and power the government will have in the marketplace after this crisis has passed.
Continue reading “Barack Obama Is Not a Socialist!”
Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Foreign Policy Humor McCain Obama Politics The Clintons

A Warning to John McCain

[digg-reddit-me]John (may I call you John?):

I guess I was wrong about you planning a strategy of making Obama seem un-American after your last debate with him. ((On the site, I wasn’t specific about the timing – but in private conversations I was pretty sure when this would be launched.)) Apparently you’ve decided to launch this attack now.

Sarah Palin said yesterday that Obama had disqualified himself from being commander-in-chief, and today that Obama was “palling around with terrorists” and was “not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America.”

It’s hard to see how she can escalate the rhetoric from here. She can call him a traitor. She can call him a terrorist. She can call him a Muslim. She can say he hates America. These are the only ways to truly go further. Make no mistake – this is a scorched-earth strategy. This is a strategy that attempts to define America in a way that excludes many of it’s citizens. If this is not an explicitly racist strategy, it is as close as a mainstream candidate can get – a candidate I might add who does not seem to be personally racist himself.

If you win with this strategy, the polarization that will accompany your administration will make the polarization of the past fourteen years seem tame. Racial tensions will be exacerbated to a point they have not been since the late 1960s. As this strategy is not designed on a set of policy issues or an agenda, it likely will not benefit the down-ticket candidates much at all, resulting in a expanded Democratic Congress. The feelings in this Congress will likely be as raw as your feelings were after losing to Bush – as you lost to what was previously described to be one of the dirtiest campaigns in history. Remember – you almost became a Democrat in this period – and opposed almost everything Bush proposed (a fact which you’re building on now as you constantly invokes this period to call yourself a maverick). Your contempt for Bush was legendary. And your status as a martyr for the honorable campaign that refused to go negative gave you great credibility. ((Of course, you had gone negative – just not as bad as Bush.)) Now – imagine that voters elect a Congress of the party who expected to win the White House, only to have it denied them because of a national campaign that was explicitly designed to make their standard-bearer out to be a terrorist-sympathizing, un-American, menacing black man. Democrats will not just believe you cheated to win – but that you encouraged and played on the worst aspects of America in order to do so. And they would be right.

If you – a Republican apparently sympathetic to most of Bush’s policies – was driven to oppose Bush, to lead the charge against him even, by bitterness over your defeat – just imagine how much more bitter, how much angrier, Democrats would be if you were to win with a similar strategy. Imagine the deadlock. Imagine reaching out to this Congress.

But the timing of this attack gives me hope. It is both too late and too early. Those who believe smear emails have heard that Obama is a secret Muslim and hates America and all that. And those who listen to right-wing radio have too. But for many Americans, even as they may have been vaguely aware of such charges, have not heard anyone they trust make them – and they know charges like these have been in the background about every Democratic presidential candidate since at least Bill Clinton in 1992.

But now Palin is bringing them up. And these people have a choice to either trust her or not.

To trust her, these people first need to distrust several things:

  1. The media (who must be trying to cover up for Obama);
  2. Obama (who must be hiding his true self);
  3. The millions of Americans who voted in the Democratic primaries (because at best, they were fooled by Obama into thinking he was a red-blooded American like them);
  4. Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and many of the other Democrats who vouched for Obama (because if Obama really was a friend of terrorists not qualified to be commander-in-chief who is un-American – and these people have personally met him and subsequently vouched for him, they must at least partially agree with him);
  5. Themselves (because many of them thought Obama was authentic and inspired a feeling of pride in America in them – that it could produce someone like Obama).

It is the last step which is hardest. Because unless they have been ardently opposed to Obama from the beginning, they must admit that you were wrong – that they were made fools of – in order to believe Palin is right and that Obama stands opposed to what they believe.

They must also distrust their perception – because most people, seeing Obama debate you, saw that he held his own if he did not win outright. Obama was a steady, strong presence. He was confident. He was effective. He seemed very much a potential commander-in-chief. But Palin is telling them that when they saw this, they were wrong.

If this attack had been launched earlier – before most Americans had gotten to know Obama, I think it would have had a greater chance of succeeding. If it had been launched later, and Obama would not have a month to dispel the attacks, it might have swayed more people who would feel uneasy about electing someone who had been charged with such awful things. ((Would you trust someone accused of being a pedophile to watch your children? No – because it might be true. This same type of fear can easily lead people away from the candidate attacked most – unless he or she has a chance to dispel this and for you to come to trust your own judgment and to see the attacks as politically motivated.)) Which is why the timing gives me hope. It leaves just enough time for some well-justified backlash. And it clearly is a sign that you are growing increasingly desperate – as Obama is building a lead.

The fact that these attacks have not been launched by you until now that Obama is gaining ground will make some people distrust them. But the key point is this:

As Abraham Lincoln said,

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Palin and yourself – in trying to exclude people like Obama from your definition of “American” – are working against what all of us have been taught in schools – our textbook understanding, our Saturday morning cartoon understanding, our life-as-it-is-lived understanding of America. It goes against this idea of America as a combination of a melting pot, Horatio Alger, Grandma, apple pie, cowboys, Martin Luther King, Jr., FDR, Lincoln, JFK, TR, Reagan, a city shining on a hill, a place where we judge people by not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, a tolerant nation, a unique nation, a nation blessed by God, the nation that created jazz, baseball, and the Constitution, that sent men to the moon, that defeated the Nazis and the Communists, that fought a war against slavery, where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are protected, where freedom rings, where tolerance reigns, where what is right with America can cure what is wrong with America – this ideal America we aspire to and sometimes seem to almost reach.

Barack Obama represents a nation that united as one on 9/11. Barack Obama would never have existed in an intolerant America, in a non-diverse America, in an America that would not allow a poor child to succeed on his merits. The America that united, with pride and patriotism, with defiance and neighborly spirit on 9/11 is precisely the America that Barack Obama is part of.

John – you and Sarah Palin can attack this America only at your own risk. And you should be careful, lest you go down in history as a villain, instead of the American hero you once were.

Sincerely,

A former supporter of yours in 2000,

Joe Campbell

P.S. Why not be a good fellow and try to make up for your sins here and donate to a good cause?

Continue reading “A Warning to John McCain”
Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 Political Philosophy Politics The Opinionsphere

David Brooks’s Brand Loyalty

David Brooks has apparently had enough of the Republican party as most of us know it:

…let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality.

The frustrating thing about David Brooks is that, as reasonable as he may seem on occasion, he refuses to leave the Republican party because of what he imagines it could be – a national greatness party that balances individualism and collectivism, that has a relatively big government, that promotes good behavior.

I find it difficult at times to see what keeps Brooks in the Republican party except brand loyalty.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 McCain Politics

A Wink and a Wagging Finger

Tom Perrotta explains the unique appeal of Sarah Palin in Slate:

[Sarah Palin] engage[s] in the culture war on two levels—not simply by advocating conservative positions on hot-button social issues but by embodying nonthreatening mainstream standards of female beauty and behavior at the same time. The net result is a paradox, a bit of cognitive dissonance very useful to the cultural right: You get a little thrill along with your traditional values, a wink along with the wagging finger. Somehow, you don’t feel quite as much like a prig as you expected to.

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 McCain Politics

Fun Fact About John McCain #12: He Wants to Tax Your Health Care Benefits

McCain wants to tax my heath care benefits!

Actually true. But wait, there’s more. As people won’t be able to afford individual health insurance plans…

McCain wants to open “up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking…”

An actual quote [PDF]. So – McCain wants to tax my health care benefits provided by my employer – so that my employer will eventually force me to get health care on my own – which will be easier to get because he will be deregulating the health insurance market and removing consumer protections that exist on the state-level – just like we did with banking in the past 10 years. This sounds like a brilliant idea!

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Politics The Opinionsphere

The Price of Panic

[digg-reddit-me]

Seeing this headline in the New York Post made me furious. The Democrats – and a number of Republicans – are insisting on some basic accountability measures and a pledge that they will be able to pass some sort of relief for those affected by the crisis who aren’t millionaires. Each of these requests is reasonable. The first request is absolutely essential. The Post‘s attempts to “stampede the herd” into accepting whatever it is Paulson wants are dangerous.

Everyone from Newt Gingrich to Paul Krugman to William Kristol to Matt Yglesias to NRO’s Yuval Levin has urged caution and some sort of oversight mechanism as the least.

The proposed bill would give Secretary Paulson authority to “take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act,” giving him extremely broad powers to unilaterally control the market in addition to the $700 billion. In addition to these dictatorial powers, Paulson would be granted legal immunity for all of his actions:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Although I doubt Paulson would use this crisis to personally profit – nothing in the law would prevent him. And if he did, no action could be taken against him. This is incredibly reckless.

This law would remain in effect for two years – which would allow Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury as well as Paulson to, in exercising authority under this law, do virtually anything and be immune from any consequences.

This is how the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress in the dead of night, with no one reading the weighty tome. This is how democracies are given away in a moment of crisis, in that Roman tradition of granting a temporary dictatorship over Rome until a crisis passes. Power is never given away easily – and so, in the end, the democracy with temporary dictators became a permanent dictatorship. In this age of terrorism and globalization, the crisis is never fully past us; and a new one is always on the horizon.

I don’t think anyone has any definite idea about what will work in this situation. And this is a time for pragmatism, not ideology. But even – and especially – in a crisis, there must be accountability and limits. This fear-mongering by the Post and other Republican puppets represents the worst impulse we can have at this time. We must act quickly but deliberately – because in our understandable haste, we might accidentally give away more than we intend.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Libertarianism National Security Obama Political Philosophy Videos

Jesse Ventura vs. The Black Swan

[digg-reddit-me]

[Jesse Ventura, former professional wrestler and governor of Minnesota, speaking at Ron Paul’s Liberty Rally in Minneapolis last week. For the rest of this Jesse Ventura’s speech, check out Fora.tv.]

You certainly didn’t see this in the mainstream media.

I don’t agree with Ventura’s points completely – but he makes a very compelling case for libertarianism. He does it by avoiding subtlety and going for the jugular – which is what you’d expect of gladiators in either politics or professional wrestling.

He speaks to the tremendous anger at our current political and economic system – the anger tapped by Ron Paul in his presidential run.

Barack Obama stands for the hope that our current political and economic system does not need to be overthrown in a revolution, but instead can be ameliorated through gradual and focused change. For example, if the middle class is being squeezed – then give them tax cuts, and ensure that they can get health insurance, and attempt to create new green collar jobs in America.

Ron Paul (and Jesse Ventura) both stand for the anger and revolutionary impulse to overthrow the existing order. Revolution is a word both Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura use in their respective books prescribing what we need to do. Ron Paul for example preaches the reinstitution of the gold standard, the abolishment of the Federal Reserve, and other revolutionary measures. These men have little time for such tinkering as Barack Obama proposes within our current system. As such, they see him and John McCain as equally part of the problem.

That’s where I have to part ways with these two men. I admire them and their passion. But I mistrust any ideology to give me all the answers. As for tinkering – I think, in many ways, that is the best we can do.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a scholar who predicted the latest financial crisis, speaks of “tinkering” as the ideal form of change because we shouldn’t “disturb complicated systems that have been around for a very long time [as w]e don’t understand their logic.” As Brian Appleyard described Taleb’s views in the Sunday Times:

Taleb believes in tinkering – it was to be the title of his next book. Trial and error will save us from ourselves because they capture benign black swans. Look at the three big inventions of our time: lasers, computers and the internet. They were all produced by tinkering and none of them ended up doing what their inventors intended them to do. All were black swans. The big hope for the world is that, as we tinker, we have a capacity for choosing the best outcomes.

“We have the ability to identify our mistakes eventually better than average; that’s what saves us.” We choose the iPod over the Walkman. Medicine improved exponentially when the tinkering barber surgeons took over from the high theorists. They just went with what worked, irrespective of why it worked. Our sense of the good tinker is not infallible, but it might be just enough to turn away from the apocalypse that now threatens Extremistan.

By this logic – revolution is dangerous because it fully commits us to a change, a change which can result in enormous negative consequences. The American Revolution was a kind of beneficial black swan – that ended up producing a unique, stable, and free form of government. The French Revolution on the other hand unleashed a Reign of Terror and totalitarianism – all justified with the same values as the American Revolution. Tinkering allows us to experiment and see what works best and to adopt those measures that work best. It is precisely this determination to tinker that imbues Obama’s plans – from health care to energy policy to education. It’s why Obama’s health care plan works with the current system, creating incentives to fill gaps, rather than mandating an overhaul as the Clintons attempted in 1992 or attempting to push everyone out of the current system as McCain proposes now.

I admire Jesse Ventura for his inspiring rhetoric – and we always need scourges who point out how our society fails to live up to it’s ideals. But if there is anything redeemable in America, if there is any hope that through some determined tinkering we might make things better, then revolution is not yet the answer. Barack Obama and John McCain are not equally part of the problem. Obama seeks to tinker with our economy and government to protect the middle class and to soften the jarring forces of globalization; John McCain seeks to double down on Bush’s policies based on an ideological faith that markets will, on their own, produce goodness and light.  Although Jesse Ventura doesn’t know it, he’s fighting the Black Swan – that knowledge that we do not understand the world as well as we think we do, and revolutions fail far more often than they succeed. That’s why we need a tinkerer in the White House come January 2009 – and not yet another ideologue.

Continue reading “Jesse Ventura vs. The Black Swan”
Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

Obama v. McCain on Health Care

Obama sees his health care plan as part of an attempt to soften the effects of globalization.

His plan calls for every American who wants to preserve their health insurance plan to be able to keep it. His plan even includes incentives that reward employers that do provide health insurance and penalizes employers that do not (with exceptions for small businesses.) In addition to this, Obama’s plan will open up the government health care plan used by members of Congress to allow consumers – in a free market – to opt into it. Obama’s plan is designed to create incentives within our current system to gradually close the huge holes in insurance coverage and over time bring down costs. It’s a conservative plan, in the best sense of that word.

John McCain’s health care plan is radical. McCain says he wants to:

Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage

In other words, McCain wants employers to stop providing health insurance coverage. He proposes to include the cost of health care in each employee’s taxable income – and to offset this by offering a $2,500.00 tax rebate for individuals and $5,000.00 for families. This isn’t enough to purchase health insurance coverage in many states, so in addition, McCain proposes to effectively deregulate the insurance market and allow insurance to be sold across state lines – eliminating the consumer protections states provide, including protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

The theory behind the McCain plan is that we already have too much health insurance coverage and are going to the doctor too often because we don’t have to pay every time we do. So he proposes that every individual – or family – purchase individual or family health insurance – a radical change, and one that places much greater power in the hands of the insurance industry. As a matter of fact, it would be accurate to say it is exactly what the health insurance industry is asking for.

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics Videos

McCain Ad Echoes Smear Emails

[digg-reddit-me]Is it just me, or is it a bit eerie how closely McCain’s ad (just released today) mirrors the Obama smear email that started going around a few days ago – based on it’s earliest posting on the internet?

Breakdown of the Ad

It starts with the “Celebrity” attack that worked so well a few weeks ago.

This time, the image of the Obama crowds with blue banners morphs into old white men with a red Capitol Building in the background. The image is reminiscent of Communist propaganda posters of the 1940s or 1950s. Over this image, and the text appears – “Old ideas” while the narrator intones: “Old ideas masquerading as change.” This is the same charge a co-worker of mine made more crudely, and the right-wing talk radio bloviators make repeatedly day after day – Obama is just the same old liberal ideas packaged with a brown face and nice words.

Next in the ad, the actual claims come:

“Obama and his liberal allies promise higher taxes on your income.”

Not true if you’re making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, if you make less than $111,000 Obama promises higher tax cuts than McCain does – because he believe the middle class has been hurting in the Bush economy. Obama is actually promising higher tax cuts for 90% of Americans than McCain is – so McCain’s ad is deliberately misleading those 90%. McCain has made this claim in several of his ads before – and continues to despite it’s inaccuracy.

“Your life savings.”

Even less true than the claim above. Obama does not plan on changing the law to further tax life savings – but he does propose this measure to encourage individuals and families to save:

Obama will ensure savings incentives are fair to all workers by creating a generous savings match for low and middle-income Americans. His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000.

“Your electric bill.”

Partially true for both McCain and Obama. This ad again directly echoes the smear email by saving that Obama plans on taxing your “electric bill”.  The only “tax” that this could be referring to is the “cap-and-trade system” proposed by both McCain and Obama which would impose a cost on businesses’ carbon emissions. Although neither McCain nor Obama call these costs “taxes” they can reasonably be called that. Further, Obama, though not McCain, plans to offset any potential increase in costs for consumers with a refund from a windfall profits tax.

“They oppose offshore drilling.”

False. Obama does not oppose offshore drilling – but he does not believe the small amount of oil we have in those few protected areas off of our coasts will significantly effect either gas prices or our dependence on foreign oil. As he has been saying for over a month, he is open to offshore drilling – but only as part of a package that tackles the real issues. Since the 1970s, McCain and other Congresspeople have been saying that we need to end our reliance on foreign oil – and they have done nothing to accomplish that. Obama believes we need to create incentives and push for federal funding in concert with market forces to establish a green energy industry in America. This is the only solution that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. “Drill, baby, drill” is a chant for morons.

“It’s not change. It’s more of the same. Obama and his liberal allies: Not Ready to Lead.”

The final claim is obviously meant to echo the Democratic attacks on McCain – pointing out that he supported Bush more than 90% of the time, professed his fealty to Bush on all “transcendent issues”, and advocates doubling down on Bush’s disasterous economic and foreign policies. McCain is charging that Obama does not offer anything new – which is a hard charge to rebut because while Obama claims that McCain and Bush have similar economic and foreign policies – a position that can be checked – McCain is not specifically linking Obama to anyone. What is true is that Obama is supporting an emerging Democratic consensus on a number of issues – a consensus that has only gradually emerged as the Bush administration exacerbated long-term trends that are destabilizing the country. In addition, Obama’s campaign does have some new ideas – with Samantha Power, Lawrence Lessig, and Cass Sunstein acting as key advisors to the campaign, and influencing his foreign and economic policies.

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

Lies About Obama’s Tax Plans

[digg-reddit-me]I just received another one of those mass emails being used to spread lies about Obama. I’ve interspersed the text of it with data contradicting the claims:

INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES

Spread the word…..

This is something you should be
aware of so you don’t get blind-sided.
This is really going to catch a lot
of families off guard. It should
make you worry.

Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000
per home (couples) McCain does not
propose any change in existing
home sales income tax.

OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you  will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your
home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you
make from your home will go to taxes. This  proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income  from their homes as part of their retirement income.

This claim about Obama taxing profits on home sales comes from nowhere. Any gains on the sale of one’s principal residence is not taxed under section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code. Neither McCain nor Obama has proposed to amend this section.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN 15% (no change)

OBAMA 39.6%

How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds,
college funds, life insurance, retirement  accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now  be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that ‘higher
tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet  do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.

As for Capital Gains taxes in general, Obama is proposing to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for those American families making more than $250,000.00 per year or singles making over $200,000.00 per year. Those families or singles making less than these respective amounts will not have a tax increase. Further, IRAs and college funds are exempt from taxation entirely – and neither candidate is proposing to change this.

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $31,250

OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K – tax $8,400
Single making 50K – tax $14,000
Single making 75K – tax $23,250
Married making 60K – tax $16,800
Married making 75K – tax $21,000
Married making 125K – tax $38,750

Under Obama your taxes will
more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty  straight forward.

This claim is worse than all those above – because Obama is actually proposing to lower taxes for all of these groups listed. Here’s a site which provides an Obama tax cut calculator. I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but it seems to be based on the Tax Policy Institute’s analysis of both candidates’ plans. The email also inaccurates states that Obama plans to revert to “pre-Bush tax cuts” which is only true for those making over $250,000.00. As Obama said in his speech on Thursday night:

I will cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

Sarah Palin in her speech this past Wednesday made the same claim the Republicans keep making:

Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan. And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

As Politifact.com writes – Palin’s claims are deliberately misleading. This email is worse than misleading – it is entirely fase.

This little list conveniently does not include those making over $125,000.00. It is this group of people – especially those making over $250,000.00, and even more, those making over a million dollars a year – to whom the profits of the past eight years has gone. The economy has been growing for eight years while the income of those in the middle class has decreased by approximately $2,000.00 when accounting for inflation since Bush took office.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses,  farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families  for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax.
Those willing their assets to loved
ones will not only lose them to
these taxes.

As for this section – again, falsehoods galore. According to FactCheck.org:

The claim that Obama proposes to “restore the inheritance tax” is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush “repealed” it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.

Again – this email is counting on people accepting its’ allegations without checking them and hoping that stereotypes about liberals are strong enough that people will accept these charges.

NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

* New government taxes proposed on
homes that are more than
2400 square feet

* New gasoline taxes (as if
gas weren’t high enough already)

* New taxes on natural resources
consumption (heating
gas, water, electricity)

* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least….

This section is even more fanciful than the rest. Obama has never proposed taxes on water. He isn’t proposing to increase gasoline taxes. He isn’t proposing to increase taxes on retirement accounts. The taxes on homes with more than 2400 square feet – neither the number nor general idea can be found anywhere aside from in references to this email.

The one thing that is partially true is that Obama – and McCain – are proposing to create a “cap-and-trade system” which would impose a cost on businesses’ carbon emissions. Although neither McCain nor Obama call these costs “taxes” they can reasonably be called that. Further, Obama, though not McCain, plans to offset any potential increase in costs for consumers with a refund from a windfall profits tax.

* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same  level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

This final claim is way over-the-top. Obama’s plan calls for every American who wants to preserve their health insurance plan to be able to keep it. His plan even includes incentives that reward employers that do provide health insurance and penalizes employers that do not (with exceptions for small businesses.) In addition to this, Obama’s plan will open up the government health care plan used by members of Congress to allow consumers – in a free market – to opt into it. Obama’s plan is designed to create incentives within our current system to gradually close the huge holes in insurance coverage and over time bring down costs. It’s a conservative plan, in the best sense of that word.

John McCain’s health care plan is radical. McCain says he wants to:

Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage

In other words, McCain wants employers to stop providing health insurance coverage. He proposes to include the cost of health care in each employee’s taxable income – and to offset this by offering a $2,500.00 tax rebate for individuals and $5,000.00 for families. This isn’t enough to purchase health insurance coverage in many states, so in addition, McCain proposes to effectively deregulate the insurance market and allow insurance to be sold across state lines – eliminating the consumer protections states provide, including protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

The theory behind the McCain plan is that we already have too much health insurance coverage and are going to the doctor too often because we don’t have to pay every time we do. So he proposes that every individual – or family – purchase individual or family health insurance – a radical change, and one that places much greater power in the hands of the insurance industry. As a matter of fact, it would be accurate to say it is exactly what the health insurance industry is asking for.

Conclusion

So, there we have it. An email full of lies deliberately designed to mislead those Obama’s plans are designed to help. Obama’s plans – which are the fruit of a kind of Democratic consensus that has emerged in the past ten years on how to deal with the destabilization that has come from globalization. Obama is asking that those individuals who have gained the most from our society and economy should give a bit more in this time of need. All McCain and Palin and the Republicans offer is more tax cuts for the richest indivudals and the biggest corporations (tax cuts that go further than Bush’s tax cuts in favoring the wealthy) – for which their only defense is to make the false claim that Obama is planning on raising everyone’s taxes.

Continue reading “Lies About Obama’s Tax Plans”