Change you can believe in, but not expect.

Like I was sayin… please don’t hold me to my word.

For the last year, the Obama campaign has be working feverishly to make sure that we understand that an Obama administration means that Change is coming, we can now all have Hope, and finally that all our prayers will be answered (at least if you don’t make too much money that is).

Now that the election is only a few days away, the Obama campaign is concerned that Americans will be upset if Obama doesn’t deliver. 

According to a Times of London story by Tim Reid, senior staffers are working on a communication strategy to let America down softly:

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair.

The adviser added that Obama was one of the first to realized that expectations may risk being inflated.  It seems that it didn’t dawn on anybody in the campaign that promising to ease everyone’s burdens would risk setting up some expectations.

Recently when asked about his first 100 days, Obama indicated that he would need more time to tackle issues like the war, health care, and global warming:

“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said.

Perhaps now we can expect great change and hope during the administration following Obama’s should he win.

Obama and the Incredible Shrinking Tax Base

Like I was sayin… soon there will be a new minority.

Both candidates are pitching major changes to the tax code.  Both candidates paint each others tax plans as bad.  However, the devil is often in the details.

One thing that I have always believed is that taxes need to be fair.  The very poor shouldn’t be overly taxed, but neither should anybody else.  Senator Obama and the democrats believe otherwise.

Senator Obama continues to push that he is cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  Firstly, only 62% of Americans actually pay income and payroll taxes.  Take out the evil top 5% and you are left with tax cuts for only 57% of Americans.  Secondly, the Obama plan doesn’t cut anybodies taxes.  His plan only increases tax credits and refundable items.  Tax credits are different than cutting the rates.

Tax credits work like this: suppose based on my income I owe $10,000 in taxes.  With kids and other exemptions, I might have $6,000 in tax credits.  That means that I end up only owing $4,000.  If my with-holding from my paycheck totals to $7,000, then I get a refund of $3,000.

Now lets say that I make a lot less and everything else is the same.  I owe $0 in taxes based upon my income, but I still have $6,000 in credits.  The IRS then sends me a check for $6,000 (plus anything that might have been withheld.  If the government took $2,000 out of my paycheck, then I get a check back for $8,000.  There are many people in America who pay no income or payroll taxes, but get tax refunds under the current plan.  Under Obama’s plan, those who pay no taxes will get more back.  In effect, they are taxing me to give it to somebody else.  That’s what’s called “spreading the wealth around”.

In addition, Chuck Rangle the chairman of the house Ways and Means commitee is proposing an additional “surtax” on those making over $200k.  That would push marginal tax rates on those making over $250k close to 50%.  That means on that 250,001st dollar, you get to bring home 50 cents.

I hate to have to say in addition again here, but Obama also wants to eliminate the cap on social security taxes.  Anybody making over $102,000 will see their payroll taxes go up.  This will change social security from an insurance program to a massive retirement plan that further “spreads the wealth around”.

Lastly, according to the Tax Policy Center, under the Obama plan the number of Americans paying income taxes will be reduced to 52%.  That means that only 52% of us, will be paying all the income taxes.  Soon, the majority of Americans will pay no income taxes at all.  America is moving to an erie place where a minority of Americans will be taxed so that checks can be sent to the majority of Americans.  All this coming from Obama who made several millions from books and gives almost nothing to charity.  Chuck Rangle is a gem too as he wants to raise taxes, but has been caught not paying all of his.

Americans need to decide if they want to be a nation with some with their hands out and others with their pockets turned out or a nation where hard work and success is celebrated.

Democracy, Obama Style

Like I was sayin… let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.

One of the main themes of a democracy (yes, I know we are a representative republic) is the right of the individual to vote in free and open elections.  One of the things that we also hold dear is the right to keep our votes private.  This is important as it removes the threat of intimidation.  You can tell me who to vote for, but you don’t have a way to know what I truly believe as my vote is private.

I was reading earlier this year that Obama and democrats want to “strengthen” unions by allowing unions to have people sign cards stating that they want to belong to a union.  Once enough people have signed the cards, the union is then the representative of the workers.

Now this doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, but the unions will have the workers sign the cards in public in front of other workers and union reps.  Essentially, they will march employees up to a table and have them sign a card if they want to join the union.  Refusing to sign would mean that they don’t want to join a union.  However, don’t even think for a second that being surrounded by pro-union workers and union organizers will sway anybody to sign the card….

HR 800 removes the right of workers to vote to unionize through secret ballot.  The argument goes something like “you can only tell a workers true intent by having them vote in public in the open”.  However, this turns the idea of the secret ballot on its head by declaring that workers voting by secret ballot are somehow susceptible to intimidation.

The Heritage Foundation has a good article describing the bill.  In essence, the bill has three main goals:

First,it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm’s workers has signed union cards, puttingan end to almost all organizing elections: “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.”

Second,the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter bindingarbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations. Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator’s ruling, and the contract would last for two years.

Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organiz­ing drive.

Those wishing to muddy the waters of the true intent of the bill indicate that after enough cards are signed, a secret ballot is then conducted.  However, the language of the bill seems pretty clear “if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization”.

President Bush has stated his opposition to the bill.  However, Senator Obama has made his intentions clear:

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers. . . . I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States. . . .” ~ Barack Obama

I can imagine a day in the not to distant future where a run away Democratic congress and a President Obama declare and end to stolen elections and voter fraud by having us vote with our friends and neighbors looking over our shoulder to ensure our vote matches our true intentions.  I hope for our sake “we the people” wake up and see the direction that we are headed as a nation.

The Audacity of Troop Pullouts

Like I was sayin… do as I say not as I say.

Senator Obama made a big splash with is overseas trip this summer.  He made several anti-free market speeches and even met with military and political leaders in Iraq.

It should be no secret to anyone that Senator Obama favors a speedy withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as he has said so publicly of the last few years.  However, apparently what he does behind the scenes is quite different.

In an article today in the NY Post, Amir Taheri details Obama’s lobbying the Iraqi government to delay an agreement troop withdrawals until after the US elections.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari:

He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

The article goes on to detail that:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

I find it hard to believe that an American presidential candidate would seek to derail Iraqi security negotiations for his own political gain, but then again, some people will do anything to gain power.  This is the type of thing that the candidate of change has been preaching against.

Once again we find our politicians saying one thing, but then doing another.

Obama was for the Bridge to Nowhere before he was for it.

Like I was sayin… people in glass houses…

The Obama campaign has been making a lot of noise recently about Gov. Palin’s support for the infamous bridge to nowhere before seeing the light and taking a stand against it.

The interesting thing is that both Senators Obama and Biden were for it even when given a chance to shift the funds from the bridge to Katrina relief.  Why on earth would the Obama campaign be pushing this story when they can be tied to being for it and even voted to keep it when given the chance to move the funds to help the victims of hurricane Katrina?

Given that most of the media won’t put this information out there, I believe that the Obama campaign believes that they won’t be called on it.  It will be interesting to see what the discussion happens in all the blogs.

A windfall vote tax?

Like I was sayin… if you can’t earn ‘em, buy ‘em.

The windfall profit tax has been making the rounds again recently.  If you are not aware, a windfall profit tax is a tax on profits that are “just too big”.

The dems have been pushing a windfall profit tax on “big oil” again recently.  I have had a lot of conversations around the watercooler lately and am amazed on how unfamiliar many people are with the facts.  For instance, the biggest evil out there, Exxon, has been earning record profits lately.  Huge numbers like 11 billion make headlines.  However, most people don’t know that the profit margin, what is left over after Exxon pays all it’s expenses, is only 10%.  That means for every dollar they earn in revenue, Exxon keeps roughly 10 cents.  The other 90 cents go to pay expenses.  That is above the average for other oil companies, but below the average for Computer, electronic, and pharma.  It is also worthy to note that of that 10 cents, Exxon gives 2 cents to the shareholders via dividends.

The scary thing is how do the dems define a windfall profit.  Earlier this year, dems supported a tax on oil companies that had profits that grew by more than 10% for any one year.  That is far below profit growth for many successful companies.  If I switch jobs and get a 10% increase in income, am I in danger for some some future “too successful tax”?

The American people have been somewhat luke-warm to the idea.  However, that may change.  According to some reports, Sen. Obama will make a windfall profit tax part of his energy plan.  To help make this more popular, he proposes giving $1,000 dollars to families ($500 for individuals) and having “big oil” pay for it with their “outrageous profits” through a new tax.  Wouldn’t it be better for the government to give us some of the billions of dollars they get from the oil companies via the taxes they already collect?

It will be interesting to see how many people support the “vote for me and I will give you $1,000″ candidate.  Yet another example of the “politics of change”.  He says that he doesn’t look like past presidents, but he sure sounds like past politicians.

It’s Time to Soak the Rich

Like I was sayin… sometimes less is more.

You have been hearing it all the time lately.  John Edwards spoke of two Americas and Barack Obama is promising to make the rich “pay their fair share” of taxes.

Recent data from the IRS shows an interesting way to make this happen.  In 1990, long before the dreaded Bush tax cuts that allowed millions of Americans pay less in taxes to a bloated government, the top 1% of earners only paid 25% of the taxes.  Since the Bush tax cuts, what do you think they pay now?  21%? 19%? 15%?  In 2005, the total share of the tax burden on the evil 1% has changed from 25% in 1990 to 39% in 2005.  That’s right, since the tax cuts, the top 1% has seen their tax burden increase.

Ah, but surely the tax breaks must have gone to the rich as we hear our democrat leaders declare all the time.  Perhaps the top 5% got all the tax break…  Well, in 1990, the top 5% paid 44% of the total tax burden and in 2005, they paid 60%.  You are reading that correctly.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of the taxes.

Surely the poor got soaked in all this because the media and the democrats keep telling us that is what happened.  However, the bottom 50% of earners paid only 2.9% of the taxes which is the lowest percentage ever.  That means that the top 50% of earners pay 97.1% of the taxes.

It seems that when you cut taxes across the board, “the rich” end up paying more of the total tax burden.  I for one say we stick it to them again by another round of tax cuts.  Heck, let’s really show them by cutting taxes across the board AND cutting spending.

Right Turn Clyde

Like I was sayin… most people wouldn’t like you if they knew what you really thought.  Apparently, Barack Obama feels the same way.

There have always been several things that bothered me about Sen. Obama, his total support for gun control, support for the “fairness” doctrine, commitment to pull out of Iraq without regard for thesittuation on the ground, and many other positions.

Not suprisingly, his support of these ideas and others allowed him to cater to the far left of the dem party and win the dem nod for the White House.  However, America isn’t far left even though I am afraid the left blinker is stuck on (which I will write about in a few days).  With his eye on the White House, Obama is singing a different tune on many past positions.

Dick Morris pointed out in a recent article many of these new-found convictions:

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• He now opposes late-term abortion.
• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

The upsetting thing is that this leaves many Americans wondering where does he truely stand.  Some of my friends on the left say that he is just saying those things to get elected (which many, oddly enough. think is ok).  The independents that I know that support him say that he only had far left leanings to get the nomination and now we see the real Obama (which oddly enough, they too, think this is ok).  The friends that I am still keeping aren’t voting for him anyway…

Over many years, a person can change their opinion on an issue, but most don’t change over the course of a few months.  I believe that Obama will govern from the far left (even if he doesn’t want to to so, see here).  This would leave America far weaker position in terms of the economy and our adherence to the constitution.

If you support or are leaning toward voting for Obama in November, you have to ask yourself which Obama are you voting for or even more importantly… which one will you get?

Oil Oil Everywhere, But Not a Drop to Drill”

Like I was sayin… some people just don’t get it.  On Wednesday this week, a democrat lead house sub-committee killed a measure to allow for exploration in the waters off the American coast.

The measure put forth by Rep. John Peterson, R-PA, would have allowed drilling in the waters 50 to 200 miles off the American coasts.  The measure was defeated in a 9-5 vote along party lines.

According to Rep. Peterson, “There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs”.  However, Democrat David Obey, D-Wis countered “We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems”.

The issue is that we aren’t doing anything to alleviate the cause of the problem.  The record oil prices are caused by increasing world demand and speculation through oil futures trading.

With several developing countries growing at a record pace, their demand for energy is driving up the price of oil.  We need to attack the problem in several ways.  First, we need to increase the supply of oil and increase capacity to refine it.  Most of the known American oil reserves have been legislated off-limits by congress in an effort to appease environmentalist donors.  With increased world supply, the price comes down.  Also, the news that America will be adding supply will drive OPEC to increase production in an attempt to lessen the pressure on congress to reverse course.  We’ve gotten so worried about drilling for oil that several foreign countries have started drilling off of our coasts since we won’t.  Today, several countries including China and India are drilling for oil within a hundred miles off the Florida coast.  This area is off limits to American companies.

We also need a longer term strategy beyond increasing supply and becoming less dependant upon foreign sources of oil.  America needs to become better at conserving oil.  This would take several steps.  First, we need to utilize nuclear energy as a source of electricity.  America is 19th in the world in the production of nuclear energy behind most of Europe.  We also need to stop burning diesel fuel in oil heating units.  This method is very inefficient when compared to electricity and natural gas.

We also need to further develop hybrid technology that allows Americans to have the types of vehicles they want or need while improving fuel efficiency.  I prefer to drive SUVs and would just as soon drive an SUV that gets 30 mpg as I would drive my current 20 mpg model.

Lastly we need to develop new sources of fuel vehicles that eliminate the need to use gasoline.

The issue is that many people in congress believe that we need to do all of one and not attempt any of the others.  It will be a long time before we have a fuel cell M1 Abrams tank or 747.  By developing our own sources of oil, we will be sure that our need will not outpace our domestic supply.  We would also be able to reduce the demand for gas through cars and light trucks with better fuel economy.  This combined with the extra supply would allow us to ensure that we have sufficient oil supply to support military and heavy transportation needs.

Finally, when we have the technology to use new fuels to fuel our vehicles, we will not need to rely upon oil to fuel any of our vehicles.  However, again we can’t hope and pray that this technology is available in the future why we continue to suffer with our current lack of action to address the other ways to reduce prices.

Finally, newer rules that allow for more speculation in the oil markets have allowed speculators to drive the price of oil up.  I have seen references to the fact that based upon historic supply/demand models, oil should be somewhere in the $70 to $80 range right now.  However, speculators trading oil futures have driven the price up.  In the past, mostly only oil companies could trade futures which allowed them to forecast and control future prices.  Another big difference in the futures market is that you can trade on a 5% margin.  This creates a huge upside for those that stand to profit from rising prices.  Although I am usually against government interference in the market place, some regulation in this area would help keep speculation from being responsible for huge jumps in oil price.

Change We Can Ruin the Country With

Like I was sayin… change isn’t always good.  Senator Obama has an ambitious plan to bring change to America.  However, several of those changes will make things much worse.

One of the keys to understand how America will suffer under an Obama administration coupled with a Dem congress is to look back to the debates.  Obama was asked if he supported the raising of the capital gains tax even though raising the tax would bring in less revenue to the government.  He indicated that it was the right thing to do if you look at it through the lens of fairness.  What he is really advocating is that we should take more money away from “rich people” even if it means the government takes in less money.  Apparently it is better for some people to have less even if it means nobody benefits.  This is some sort of insane leftist thinking that will raise taxes to the point that the government takes in less money and sees that as being a good thing.

He is also on record as advocating raising taxes on the evil oil companies.  Many people who are sick of paying “too much” for gasoline nod their heads like lemmings.  Many people don’t understand that there isn’t really any such thing as corporate income tax.  All business taxes are passed on to the consumer.  If you raise taxes on oil companies, you either get higher prices or less oil (and then higher prices).

Obama also likes to push ending the Bush tax cuts (which is really just raising taxes).  One of the things the Bush tax cuts did was to increase the child credit by $500.  I am amazed at the people that support ending the tax cuts, but don’t realize it means they will pay an extra $500 a year per child in taxes.

With the rest of the world getting ready to pass America by, we as Americans need to wake up and become competative in the world.

First, we need an energy policy that makes sense.  America gets around 20% of its energy from nuclear energy.  This ranks America 19th in the world behind the UK, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, and France to name a few.  We haven’t build a nuclear plant in years and we are beginning to lag behind the rest of the world.

We also have our oil policy totally wrong.  America has enough known oil supplies in the ground to run America for over 60 years without using any foreign sources of oil.  We also haven’t added any new refineries in years.  It has gotten to the point that other countries have started drilling off our coasts to get oil that we refuse to get.  Oil isn’t the solution in the long term, but we need to reduce our dependence on countries that do not support America or worse support those that would do America harm.

America is the greatest country on earth, but will soon find itself somewhere in the top 10 if we do not wake up and start making common sense actions rather than pursue populist policies that do not address short or long term issues.

Yes America needs change, but the change candidate isn’t bringing the change that would build America up, but rather would continue to push America toward its eventual ruin.