We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I always find it interesting to see how much politicians give to charity. Senator Joe Biden gave a paltry $995 last year, yet he made $2,450,042! And his $995 to nonprofits was over twice his normal yearly giving for the past 9 out of 10 years. Why do I say paltry? Because many teens I know give more money from their part time job income than he gave in his past average donations.  Biden made almost $2.5 million but gave such a little amount... amazing.

Actually, I am surprised at his Scrooge-ishness, because Biden says he is a Catholic. I would have thought he would have given his church more. (David Wade, a spokesperson, said the Bidens did give to their church, “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.” That could be the case. But why they wouldn't record these donations and put them on their tax return is beyond me, since that is such a standard practice. It raises the question, if you aren't claiming the entire amount, then why list any at all?)

I was thinking about stinginess vs. generosity again today when I looked at our church bulletin. I usually check the offering report for the previous week and often am pleasantly surprised at the dollar amounts listed. Our congregation almost always gives above the amount needed to stay on budget, and they do this without coercion.

The associate pastor does remind us from time to time that all we have is from God and that He allows us to keep around 90%. But there is no heavy handed tithe requirement or even a hint that giving more makes God love you more. The love is supposed to be coming from us to God in the giving, and it is evident in our church. Often people give more than the usual 10%. Many of these families are not wealthy and some are large, having 4 or more children.

Given that Al Gore and his wife gave a pittance, coupled with Biden's ridiculous amount, and the Obamas only recently gave above their 1% average, to me shows a selfishness. God instructs us to give Him the first of our fruits, not the left-overs. We are to trust Him to take care of us. (In fact, that was the subject of our sermon today, from a series on The Sermon on the Mount, Oct. 5, 2008)*

It's no wonder these politicians think people must be compelled by the government to give to social programs through taxes. They know they would not give voluntarily. From National Revue:

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.

But thankfully, plenty of Americans do give voluntarily, and they give a lot!

When the government taxes me more, it reduces my ability to give to the good works I think are worthy. Taxes also compel me to support programs I don't agree with or think are immoral, such as Planned Parenthood or ACORN. My "donation" in the form of taxes gets less bang for my buck because it must first travel through the maze of wasteful government bureaucracy.

If politicians like Biden, Obama, and Gore would give more to charity, maybe they would be less eager to increase taxes to pay for government social programs. Maybe then they would be more understanding of how higher taxes impacts voluntary giving. Obviously they have not tried it.

In case you were interested, McCain's giving, Palin's income and giving. 

*When my husband was laid off in 1982, we were concerned that we would not be able to meet our charitable donation commitments. Thankfully, we got through it.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

Links:

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

The big election buzz this week was Obama became the nominee.

I could not listen to his entire speech, but this part caught my attention:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

I think his statements show how little he understands conservatives and economics.

Most conservatives do not consider McCain as standing with Bush. I would say McCain has been a thorn in Bush's side on many fronts for years. (Most likely, I am still voting for McCain because he is really my only choice, but he is NOT this conservative's dream.)

Secondly, the phrase, "left our children with a mountain of debt." What does he think all of his spending programs will do? He supports National Health, help with college, Global Poverty Act, more biofuel, and Cap and Trade * to name a few.

Every new spending program saddles our children with more debt. So how is it that his new spending programs are OK and those of the past are not? (I am not in favor of many of those either.)

If he had come up with a plan like Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America to reform Social Security, Medicare, and the Tax Structure, and did not have all of these new government programs as his platform, then maybe I could swallow his "mountain of debt" statement.

As it stands, he is the pot calling the kettle black. 

*WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- "Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday said that if elected he would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that would sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links: