Barack Obama and Joe Biden are quick to point out that they'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This talking point sounds nice, but isn't even close to being accurate. For instance, to get a tax cut, one would have to pay taxes in the first place, right? Not according to Obama's plan. Let's say that taxes are cut by $500. If you pay $2000 in taxes currently, you'll see a tax cut and pay a net $1500. Easy math right?
Well, what happens if you only pay $400 in taxes? You'll receive the same $500 check, therefore getting a $400 tax cut, and then a $100 handout from the government.
And those who don't pay taxes? They'll just get another handout from the government - not a tax cut, but a budget increase. IPI sums it up very well:
Obama’s tax plan would increase marginal tax rates for just about every major federal tax. So how is it he claims to be a tax-cutter?
Obama combines these comprehensive tax increases with a slew of refundable tax credits primarily for low- and moderate-income workers, which he calls middle-class tax cuts.
“Refundable” means that if the worker doesn’t have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit. So if the tax credit is $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in income taxes, the credit covers the $200 tax bill and the government sends the taxpayer a check for the remaining $800.
If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would send him a check for the whole $1,000.
Under Obama’s tax plan, these refundable tax credits are targeted to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. The latest CBO data shows the bottom 40 percent of income earners already pay no federal income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system (i.e., taxpayers) equal to 3.8 percent of all federal income taxes, because of already-existing refundable tax credits.
Such “tax credits” are really government spending programs. Call it the New Tax Welfare. Obama’s refundable tax credits would involve government checks for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare and just outright giveaways.
When Obama says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent, and more, this will be another check from the federal government, not a reduction in tax liability. Another increase in government spending rather than a tax cut.
The Obama tax plan is the opposite of tax reform, which involves lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. This plan doesn’t cut taxes, it increases welfare.
I was very impressed with Sarah Palin tonight, as she performed much better than expected. With all of the low expectations, she really hit one out of the park tonight.
I'll have my full analysis later, but for now, here's the full and unedited audio for your listening pleasure...
John McCain possibly threw away the election today. He overlooked a prime opportunity to differentiate himself from Barack Obama and other politicians by fighting against the bailout.
It was the perfect opportunity. McCain could have taken a role of true leadership and went against the party, showing his maverick side, while also going against President Bush on one of the most important issues of our time.
McCain now looks like a hypocrite. He's run his campaign on fighting against pork barrel projects and government waste, and has issued a warning once he takes office with Governor Palin. However, by supporting the same bailout as originally offered, except with many pork barrel bribes for each sides, McCain has shown he isn't as much of a fighter of earmarks as he claims, and is just as bad as his opponents.
Obama has always trounced McCain when it comes to economic issues in the polls, right or wrong. By going along with Obama on the sham, he gives no reason to change that perception. Especially when an overwhelming majority of Americans are agains the bailout.
It was nice knowing you this election season John. Don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for you when faced with the alternative of Obama. But unless you pull a miracle out of your ass, I expect you to fade into a political footnote.
The Gwen Ifill story has turned into a total debacle. By writing a book about Obama, positive or not, it creates a conflict of interest in moderating the Vice-Presidential Debate tonight.
First, she has been called out by the right for having a bias, and it doesn't help that the same accusations were levied toward her after moderating the 2004 debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney. Second, by not informing the debate commission about her book in advance, it can only appear that she was trying to cover things up.
The problem however is that no matter what happens in the debate tonight, Ifill will be seen as having biased questions. Should Biden appear to wipe the floor with Palin, it will only add fuel to the fire that she is favoring the Obama camp. However, should Palin appear to do well, liberals will simply respond that she was pressured into favoring Palin as to save her own skin, and therefore try to downplay any positives shown by the Alaska Governor.
Ifill should have informed the commission regarding the book, but that is too late now. There will be no winner in this debate, other than partisan politics now.
If things weren't so serious, all of the bailout issues would be comedic gold. All of the issues going on just prove how out of touch the politicians on both sides are with the American people.
The first bill failed due to extreme opposition from the American public, with many constituents calling or writing their disapproval of the bill. So, rather than improving the bill, they "improved" the bill according to congressional standards. As reported by Politico, the bailout "keeps growing." The problem with the growing bill is simply not that it is growing, but that the added features aren't related to the economic crisis at all:
And tucked away in the tax provisions is a landmark health care provision demanding that insurance companies provide coverage for mental health treatment—such as hospitalization—on parity with physical illnesses.
So rather than try to improve on the bill, earmarks were added to both sides. Sure, lets just bribe those who voted against the bill to make the deal irresistable. The bill itself is what's at fault here - not sweetheart deals to get the votes required. If anything needs to be changed, it is the core $700 billion deal.
Edward Cardenas, press secretary to U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township, said a majority of callers are still against the bailout bill, but not like before Monday's huge drop in stock prices.
"This is definitely the strongest response (on an issue) we've had in some time," said Cardenas, whose boss, Miller, is one of the nine Michigan House members who voted against the bill.
Jameson Cunningham, press secretary to U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter, R-Livonia, said their office has received up to 1,000 phone calls a day.
"The calls are still a solid majority against (the bailout bill)," said Cunningham, whose boss also voted against the bill Monday.
As someone who grew up in Livonia, 1,000 calls per day is HUGE. That is anywhere from 5-10% of average voter turnout in the city in any given election. For that many people to be vocal about it is astounding. I'm vehemently against the bailout, but simply don't have time to waste my breath talking to my representatives, instead venting here and by word of mouth.
If that's not enough, extremist George Soros thinks the bailout won't go far enough and believes a more socialist route is beneficial. McCain and Obama either don't have a financial clue of how to fix the bailout by trying to draw up support for it, or are simply trying to give the impression that they are trying to do something. When the bill has soared from the original three pages, to forty-two pages, to the current four-hundred fifty-one pages, no good can come from it.
As I type, Drudge reports that the Senate version of the bill has passed. Here's hoping the house doesn't fall for the bribes being presented and actually listens to the American people. As stated previously, I will no longer support any representative who votes for the bill - Republican or Democrats alike.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are quick to point out that they'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This talking point sounds nice, but isn't even close to being accurate. For instance, to get a tax cut, one would have to pay taxes in the first place, right? Not according to Obama's plan. Let's say that taxes are cut by $500. If you pay $2000 in taxes currently, you'll see a tax cut and pay a net $1500. Easy math right?
I was very impressed with Sarah Palin tonight, as she performed much better than expected. With all of the low expectations, she really hit one out of the park tonight.
John McCain possibly threw away the election today. He overlooked a prime opportunity to differentiate himself from Barack Obama and other politicians by fighting against the bailout.
The Gwen Ifill story has turned into a total debacle. By writing a book about Obama, positive or not, it creates a conflict of interest in moderating the Vice-Presidential Debate tonight.
If things weren't so serious, all of the bailout issues would be comedic gold. All of the issues going on just prove how out of touch the politicians on both sides are with the American people.
