The Facts

The TPC (Tax Policy Center) has made a study of the tax plans recently released by Barack Obama and John McCain. They have also released a brief look at the core of the two plans. TPC says in the study that McCain has been mischaracterizing [added] Obama’s plan in that it would “raise taxes for all”. They say Obama’s plan would actually cut middle-class taxes by $1000 in 2009 while McCain’s plan would cut middle-class taxes by just $300. In McCain’s plan, the top 20% of taxpayers would get a 3% reduction, while the lowest earning 60% would get less than 1%. They also report that taxpayers making more than $2.9 million would get almost $300,000 in tax breaks.

According to the report, Obama’s tax plan would raise the debt $3.3 trillion over the next ten years and McCain’s plan would raise the debt by $4.5 trillion over the next ten years. However, there are several who dispute those numbers.

On more than one occasion, McCain has said Obama’s tax plan would raise taxes on “Americans of every background” and that it would be “the largest single tax increase since WWII”. But a New York Times article says “Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class.“

My View

Just so you know, most all of the groups that study the economy and tax laws say they regard the TPC’s assessment as highly reliable based on their past. It must also be noted that people on both sides of the political fence put much value in the TPC’s past reports. So it will be interesting to see how the spin misters handle this one. They will probably stay with their standard strategies; embrace it if it supports their agenda, and spin the hell out of it if it doesn’t.

Another thing must be pointed out here; when Bush proposed the tax cuts in 2001 & 2003, McCain called it a “give-a-way to the rich”. But now that he’s running for President, he seems to have become a true Republican, in that “only the wealthy deserve the governments help”.

The Facts

John McCain is in New York City today answering questions & making speeches in a town hall meeting. Unfortunately for any candidate, they are faced with uncensored questions from regular voters when they agree to this type of setting, rather than just reciting from a prepared speech that is designed to get applauds and cheers. In response to one question, McCain said he was very mad at oil companies for not using their record profits to invest in the future. But less than five minutes later, he was hyping the tax breaks that he, Bush, and most of the Republican Party want to give to oil companies and other big businesses.

My View

I have written so many posts on this “big business tax break” crap, it is becoming sickening; but not as sickening as hearing it over and over and over again from McCain and the others like him. They truly have to believe that the general human population is the most ignorant and stupid species on this planet.

McCain is telling us in one breath that he is mad at the oil companies for not reinvesting their record profits, and in the next breath he’s telling us that we need to give them tax breaks as an incentive to invest (trickle down economics). What the hell makes anyone think the oil companies will invest a single penny more if we give them tax breaks? It certainly hasn’t worked over the past 5 years since they were handed this free gift from a Republican President and a Republican controlled congress. The Republicans know that giving the tax breaks is not going to result in a single additional dollar being invested; they know, just like us, that this is nothing more than using the working man and woman’s tax dollars to repay big businesses for their political investments.

Furthermore, while “lobbying” for those tax breaks today for big businesses, McCain was slamming the recent farm bill that gives tax breaks to big farmers and horse stable owners; a bill pushed through by the Democrats. (Well, it just so happens I strongly agree with him; the Democrats are no better on this matter.)

So why doesn’t McCain take that same “consciousness, morality, & concern” he has about the farm bill and apply it to big business? Because he owes big business, not big farmers. That makes John McCain nothing more than a two-faced hypocrite.

The only thing McCain’s got going for him is the fact that he is the only one in Congress that hasn’t insisted on adding pork in past bills for his state. But that other money of ours he wants to give away is going to make pork pale by comparison.

The Facts

Now that Barack Obama has basically become the nominee for the Democratic Party, a new set of campaign “rules” are being tried out between the two parties. And on that note, Obama’s wife, Michelle, is back in the news this morning, but not for something she has said or done in recent days. The news is whether or not a spouse should be exempt from campaign rhetoric during the run to the General Election in November.

My View

Barack Obama said in an interview that the media and the opposition should remain “hands off” where his wife is concerned. This attitude is no different for any candidate, with maybe the exception of Hillary Clinton, whose husband, as an ex-President, is expected to always be open to criticism. In general, I certainly agree with that. However, when a spouse insists on making controversial comments during the campaign, he or she can not expect the critics to remain silent. Unfortunately for Michelle Obama, she has made several controversial comments.

Clearly we are in a new era of politics and election strategies, especially with both a woman and a black man being a major contender. Even with Clinton out of the race, not a lot will change on this issue. Combine that with some of the things Michelle Obama has publically stated and the doors are open. I, too, have raised an eyebrow or two over a couple of her comments, and I’m generally considered one who thinks spouses are off limits. So it’s no wonder many have zeroed in on her, most especially with the roles first wives have been playing for the past couple of decades.

So here’s my suggestion; if you don’t want to become a part of the criticism, you have to keep all your comments and remarks out of the controversial zone. As the old saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. We have lost our way in this country for many reasons, but one of the major reasons is that each and every one of us has adopted the attitude of “I can say what I feel, but no one else can”.

The Facts

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is considered to be on the list for Vice-President to run with Barack Obama. And as expected, the attacks have already begun. The first attack seems to be on Webb’s views relative to why the Confederacy fought the Civil War. He has expressed those views in the past, including in his book, where he says the Confederacy fought the war over state sovereignty rather than slavery. Critics strongly oppose that view.

My View

Before I began, lets get one absolute, non-arguable fact very clear; the victor always write the official history record; the defeated is never allowed to be involved in the recording. If at some time later, the defeated does try to correct any historical inaccuracies, it is always put down in lieu of what now has become “recorded” history.

What Jim Webb has argued is based on some pretty solid facts; only 5% of southern whites owned slaves at the beginning of the war (I doubt more than a few people today know this), and the slave owners in the north were not asked (or told) to give up their slaves, even after the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery lasted late into the 17th century in the northern states before it was abolished, and that was done without a war.

While even a single person held as a slave is unacceptable, I rather doubt that anyone would go to war over just 5% of people who owned slaves, especially in that particular time of our country. It would not have required an all out war to bring that to an end, as was proven later in the north. So what was it that caused Abraham Lincoln (and others) to go to war with the south?

That question was, and still is, often debated. All other suggested reasons for the Civil War are hotly rejected, mainly because any one of them would not speak very well of Lincoln, a US President, and the other power players during that time. And we Americans will not have our “hero’s” tarnished. Added to that, no civilized country wants to be thought of as going to war over any possibilities other than “making people free”.

The Facts

All three primary candidates running for President are advocating a summer tax recess on gasoline for the summer driving months. All of them are mentioning this in just about every single speech they make. Now each of them is saying that their way of doing it is better than the other person. But the fact of the matter is neither of them is in a position to make it happen.

My View

Talk about a political candidate using just about any subject in an attempt to convince the voters that they are the best person for the job. If a gas tax recess is all they have left to show us how much they care, then all three of them need to pack up and go home. Those that know the details on this tell us that the average person will save between $27 and $30 for the entire tax recess. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out for ourselves. The recess is for federal tax only which is 18.5 cents per gallon. Hell, I’m a very poor man living on a very limited income, and I’d pay each of them $30 just to shut up about it.

Can you imagine a presidential candidate trying to impress us to vote for them for a savings of $30? We have a $10 trillion debt, the US is bankrupt, and all three of them are throwing away billions of our tax dollars each year. And they’re talking about saving us 30 bucks. I’m really impressed!

The Facts

Barack Obama has finally acknowledged what Jeremiah Wright is. Today Obama said he was “outraged” by Wright’s recent comments and “saddened by the spectacle”. This was in reference to Wrights recent comments at the National Press Club this week.

My View

Why am I saying that Wright is maybe a good thing for Obama? It’s because I feel this could be a wake up call for Obama that the American people are not going to accept a President that defends racist comments by a black person no more than they would accept a President that defends those kinds of comment from a white person. Obama has said that a dialogue should be opened up to discuss racism in this country, and he’s right. However, he and others need to understand that the dialogue has to be a two-way process. I am not a Pat Buchanan fan, but he wrote one article that I certainly think we could all learn something from. There has to come a time when the current generations of whites are no longer blamed for what our ancestors did to the ancestors of the current generations of blacks. And there has to come a time to end the pay-back program for that travesty.

I still have reservations about how Obama really feels about Wright’s racist and anti-American comments. During the same press conference Obama said “What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing”. Obama went on to say that Wright made those comments “with little regard for me”. Notice that Obama said that it was those remarks that “particularly angered” him. I have to ask myself if Obama is more concerned with winning the presidency than he is with the fact that Wright is a racist and anti-American. And why did Obama wait until now to use such strong language against Wright? Wright really didn’t say anything more at the Press Club than he had already said; he just used different words. Maybe it took Obama this long to accept the fact that he is loosing ground in the presidential race because of Wright.

The Facts

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met last night in Pennsylvania for a debate prior to the primary there next Tuesday. The debate was aired on ABC and lasted two hours.

My View

Ho-hum! That is just about all you can say about it. I do not believe a single new thing came out of it, except maybe a small amount of additional details about what both candidates have been saying already. I looked at one poll this morning on CNN’s web site that asked would more debates help narrow down your choice for President and 88% of the poll voters said “No”. It’s obvious that all three remaining candidates have had their say on how they would perform the job as President, and hardly anyone except the news media is interested anymore in what more they have to say. As in the past, all the candidates are spouting off about what they will do once in office, but everyone knows they would have to be in office for 20 years or more with a lot of corporation from Congress to get all those things done. And most of them know that in reality they have to look at just 4 years of opportunity, therefore, they are going to focus on their pet project which, in most cases, will not really benefit the average American. So here we go again with not voting for someone, but against someone. Welcome to modern day Presidential politics.

The Facts

Today John McCain laid out the details of his plan for the economy that included how he planned to fix things if he is elected President. Some of the things he talked about was the excesses of traders & speculators, poor planning by politicians, tax problems, corporate greed among CEO’s who bring on our market problems then are rewarded with millions of dollars, the current recession, and squandering of our tax dollars by politicians. He said he will veto any bill that has earmarks in them; declares to eliminate corporate welfare; and revise the tax system to a simpler, flatter, and fair tax code. He also addressed the things he is proposing to help the economy between now and Election Day.

My View

Two months or so ago I wrote off John McCain as a viable candidate for fixing the problems brought on by the current Bush administration. The reason I did so was because he caved in to the five “big mouths” of the Republican Party; Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingram, O’Reilly, and Coulter. This extremist right wing group attacked McCain so bad that he bowed down to them. They were suggesting Republicans cross over and vote for Clinton in the general election. However, over time, he has reverted back to most of his basic beliefs.

McCain still insist on about three things that I do not agree with. First and foremost is his insistence that corporations need more tax breaks. He and others still taunt the 35% tax bracket that corporations are held to, but they never mention the fact that most corporations never pay that much. With the tax loopholes, “fuzzy math”, and deductions, they pay nothing close to 35%. Hundreds wind up paying no taxes at all. (In the near future I will be posting a very detailed report on corporate taxes.) The second thing I disagree with him on is how he really intends to pay for all the tax cuts. And finally, I have a real problem with his seemingly unwavering stance on the Iraq war. Not that I think he should just say ‘ok, that’s it; lets pull out’; but he has to set specific goals and a specific time line for achieving those goals. Then he must say if we haven’t got there when the time line runs out, we are out of there. Otherwise, the war will go on for 100 years and we will be no further along in achieving peace than we are now.

Having said all these things, I will say for the first time during this political campaign that I am eyeing McCain very close as someone I would support for President. However, I still reserve my final decision until a later date.

I think it’s very important for everyone to read John McCain’s economic speech. If you do, do so with your country in mind, not with your personal biases and/or your personal interest in mind.

The Facts

Charlie Black and Thomas Loeffler are senior advisors for John McCain. They are also very successful lobbyist and still very involved in lobbying. Each of them has made millions of dollars lobbying for foreign governments.

My View

I won’t say that I am watching the presidential campaign closer than anyone; in fact, there are many who are watching it closer. But I do pay a lot of attention to the campaign, and a lot more attention to what the news media is talking about. In this case, it is more of what the news media is not talking about. And what they are not talking about is McCain’s top advisors being foreign lobbyist. This fact has been “mentioned” a couple of times, and that is about it. Nothing like they did with Hillary Clinton’s advisor, Mark Penn, who is also a lobbyist for foreign governments.

The bigger problem here is that our candidates are using lobbyist as advisors, period. It doesn’t matter whether they are foreign lobbyist or domestic lobbyist, it is a blatantly conflict of interest. On the other hand, is it a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is described as “a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests”. And our elected official’s professional and personal interest is with the wealthy and powerful, not the ordinary citizen; and it does say “someone in a position of trust“. When was the last time a politician was trustworthy? So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed in McCain.

Read The Washington Times article about McCain’s advisers.

The Facts

Last Friday the LA Times published an article about Philadelphia “Street Money” and Barack Obama. The article says that Obama may loose support among blacks there if he doesn’t pay the money. The Street Money they were referring to is money paid to workers who get out on the streets, knock on doors and hand out leaflets for a particular candidate. The article quoted one former ward leader as saying “They view it that the white people are getting all the money for TV. And they’re the ones who are the foot soldiers on the street. They’re predominantly African Americans, and they’re not the ones who are getting that TV money”.

My View

Obviously, the key word here is “money”. “Pay me and I will get you votes; don’t pay me and you can forget the vote”.

I have said in many of my post that voting for a Presidential candidate is no longer about who can do the better job as President. It’s all about ethnicity (race), gender, and/or money. In this case it’s about money. The ward leaders are saying that it will cost the Obama campaign as much as $500,000. Those who are upset that they are not getting paid off are not concerned about the best person getting the job, only about their own pocket books. Therefore, you can only describe their attitude as “screw the country”.