Obama Filling Town Hall With Actors

Apparently, President Obama is tired of getting tough questions at his town halls.  In order to help make the Obama town halls go more smoothly, the next Obama town hall will be filled with actors.

Instead of filling the town hall with actors, why not cardboard cut outs.  They could pipe the questions in or have Obama ask himself the questions.

Does anyone remember the President calling out Hillary Clinton for having questions planted in the audience?  As bad as that was, having the audience full of actors is even worse.

If the President doesn’t want to get tough questions, then he shouldn’t have town halls.  All politicians attempt to control the people who are in their town halls, often calling on pre-selected people.  However, having the audience filled with actors makes the town hall nothing more than a work of fiction.

America deserves better.

Obama Administration Way Off on Unemployment

Like I was sayin… it could always be worse.  The Obama administration told us earlier this year that if we didn’t pass the stimulus package, unemployment could get as high as 8%.

On Friday, unemployment hit 9.7%.  This is a 26 year high.

The Conservative Patriot HQ has a great post that shows a chart that shows the Obama predictions along with the actual unemployment numbers.

Perhaps the government needs to allow us to keep more of our money rather than thing they should write us checks and increase the deficit and national debt.

Obama: Taking aim at Success

Like I was sayin… Life is so unfair.

Unless you live under a rock, you have heard that the Obama administration has put a cap on salaries for executives of companies that get a bailout from the tax payer.  This cap is currently set at $500k.

It would seem to make sense that if somebody so badly manages a company that the tax payers have to bail the company out, those managers shouldn’t be rewarded for failure.  Most people get rewarded when they do a good job and get penalized for a poor job.  I agree that those companies that need help should be penalized.

However, I am concerned about some of the things that Obama said during the announcement of the cap.  In part of the speech Obama says:

For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste — it’s a bad strategy — and I will not tolerate it as president.

This part of the speech is of particularly great concern.  It is aimed not at executives at failing companies, but executives at successful companies that have very generous compensation packages.  And as president, Obama will not tolerate it.

As a free market-capitalism loving American, I am very concerned about he ramifications of what can happen next.  I would hate to think that I live in a country that believes that if the economy is in recession, it is wrong for me to make a lot of money. 

Again, I don’t take issue with penalizing the managers of companies that need to be bailed out, but it would seem that Obama is indicating that further changes are needed to executive compensation in America.

Finally, these guidelines we’re putting in place are only the beginning of a long-term effort. We’re going to examine the ways in which the means and manner of executive compensation have contributed to a reckless culture and quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn have wrought havoc in our financial system. We’re going to be taking a look at broader reforms so that executives are compensated for sound risk management and rewarded for growth measured over years, not just days or weeks.

“This is only the beginning of a long-term effort…”  It would seem as though Obama believes that the government should decide how executives are compensated rather than the owners of the companies.  Is this the first step in the long march toward the government deciding what pay scales are correct for which jobs?

We should all be concerned that one day the government may take an interest in how much each one of us makes each year and deciding what is fair.

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.