Taxes are Certain

Excerpts of a 2001 interview Barack Obama did with Chicago public radio, in which he advocated "redistributive change" are airing on Fox News and online as an overwhelmingly negative socialist “redistribution of wealth” point of view. McCain and Palin are quoting (sometimes incorrectly) a portion of this interview in reference with his tax plan. Doubtful the media would expose the whole truth without spin. So, with that, some background: the context was a discussion of the Supreme Court, constitutional law and the civil rights movement. The interview on Chicago's WBEZ had nothing to do with taxes.

An excerpt:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society."

Obama's point - and what he called a tragedy - was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

But first and for the heck of it, let’s review the facts of both McCain and Obama’s tax proposals:

If you have income of more than $200,000 as a single person or $250,000 as a married couple, you will pay lower taxes under McCain's plan. McCain intends to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for higher incomes, while Obama wants to roll them back to Clinton administration levels. Largely because his tax proposals would leave tax breaks for the wealthy in place, McCain's plan would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Obama's, the Tax Policy Center found.

Obama's tax credits represent a tax cut to most workers who make less than $200,000. Obama's plan offers a $500 tax credit to people who work as a way of offsetting payroll taxes. This is the policy proposal that allows Obama to make accurate statements such as that he gives 95 percent of workers a tax cut. The credit is refundable, which means that if you don't owe any taxes you will get a check from the government. Obama also said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Obama proposes to let the top rate revert to 39% as planned. However, he is cutting taxes for people in lower tax brackets, as statistics show that they have actually seen their real income decline under Bush.

Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities throughout Chicago. Redistribution of wealth has been a primary item on the left progressive/liberal agenda, and has been accepted, to some extent, by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently? Most Republicans think that it’s not the government's job to redistribute wealth. But, is no one recognizing the wealth “redistribution” in programs and plans that boast the “right to health care”, or “ensuring that more Americans have the means to go to college,” or “making the rich pay their fair share of taxes” and so on?

Let’s rewind to the previous administrations for some perspective:

Over a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt broke up the monopolies, such as Standard Oil. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations and was against corrupt, illegal practices. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance. Did not Teddy Roosevelt “redistribute the wealth”?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14th, 1935. Social Security was the centerpiece of his New Deal Program and included benefits for the elderly, the retired and the unemployed. Did not Franklin D. Roosevelt “redistribute the wealth”?

From the mid-60s, the tax rate for people in the highest bracket (the wealthiest people) was 70%. In 1982, under Ronald Reagan, the highest tax bracket was 50%. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top tax rate on individual income to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. In 1993, under Clinton, the highest tax bracket for the wealthiest people was set at 39%. I think we can safely argue that wealthy people continued to prosper greatly under the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

In the 90’s, President Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus. Clinton reduced spending while increasing income taxes on the wealthy and corporations in 1993. Under Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new job were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month. In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years. As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 5 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. Sound familiar? Because of Clinton’s policies, we all contributed just a little bit more. We then all shared in the economic benefits of a balanced budget and world peace (peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, passed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).etc.).

In 2001 under George Bush, the top rate was reduced gradually to a final number of 35%. However, the law that made this change also included a provision that the change would be rescinded in 2011 unless Congress acts; in other words, the top rate will go back to 39%.

Many of the news stories that are dissecting the phrase “redistributing the wealth” are not reporting the entire truth of his plan (or now linking it to an interview that had nothing to do with taxes) or are using their own definitions. His plan is not to take from the rich and give to the poor, which is what McCain's campaign is implying (and very irresponsibly outright saying). It is to reverse the Bush tax cuts and let the top rate revert back to 39% as planned, in part so the government will have the funds to provide services that really only government can provide. We need government to maintain roads/bridges, (bridge callapse in Minneapolis), environmental disasters (Katrina), Health care (currently ranked #37 in the world), police, Social Security, etc.

I think Obama explains it best, so I’ll leave you with this:

“I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.…He (McCain) not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.” - Obama

Oh my God! Are you Serious?! Really!?

Sara Palin, really? I just want to tally a list of the Vice Presidential nominee’s views, quotes, experience, history and tactics thus far.

1. Just check out her views here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm. Notice that many of Palin's views have been reported as recently as September and October 2008 - as she did not hold any views on many of the issues until recently picked for the Vice Presidential ticket for the McCain presidency.

There is one view she has held for some time – abortion. Palin is prolife, and has stated the only exception for abortion is if the mother’s life would end (Jul 2006). The standard argument for overturning Roe is that "liberty" and "privacy" do not mean the same and that this interpretation amounts to forbidden judicial lawmaking. She feels that Roe should be overturned, but told Couric that she agrees the Constitution contains a right to "privacy" for individuals. Palin fails to explain her different view of this consitutional issue succinctly - or at all. When asked to name other Supreme Court decisions, she simply does not answer the question - simply because she can't.

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

2. McCain and Palin talk about unifying the country with a barrage of nasty insinuations and attacks, stoking anger and division. Shame on them, and particularly shame on McCain for choosing Palin, who is a huge set back for women.

With Obama rising in polls while the country struggles in the grip of a financial deadlock, John McCain's campaign is attempting to shift attention away from the troubled economy onto issues of Obama’s character and personal associations. Funny that a beauty queen has made the election so ugly.

In a speech in Colorado this week, Palin quipped, "…our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

Here are the facts: In the 1960s, Ayers was a founding member of the radical Weather Underground group that carried out a string of bombings of federal buildings, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, in protest against the Vietnam War. Federal charges against them were dropped due to FBI misconduct in gathering evidence against them, and they resurfaced in 1980. Both Ayers and Dohrn ultimately became university professors in Chicago, with Ayers, 63, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood where Ayers and Dohrn live. Beginning in 1995, Ayers and Obama worked with the non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge on a huge school improvement project. The Annenberg Challenge was for cities to compete for $50 million grants to improve public education. Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, and Obama was recruited onto the board. Also from 1999 through 2001 both were board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that gave money to various causes, including the Trinity United Church that Obama attended and Northwestern University Law Schools' Children and Family Justice Center, where Dohrn worked.

Review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved. Or, as Obama eloquently states, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood … the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago — when I was 8 years old — somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense." The McCain campaign did not respond Saturday to a request for elaboration on Palin's use of the plural "terrorists."

3. Two words – Bush Doctrine.

4. I only need here to quote a portion of the other CBS Evening interview with Katie Couric on 9/24/08.

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

5. Regarding the Alaskan Independence Party and her affiliation:

Her husband, Todd Palin was twice registered with the Alaskan Independence Party. Its motto is "Alaska First, Alaska Always" is a far cry from the McCain slogan "Country First." The Alaska governor is seen as a supporter of the fringe (AIP), which aspires to secession from the union. As Vice President of the United States, she would have to raise her hand, to swear an oath that she will uphold the Constitution of the United States. Such an oath would seem to preclude some of the other stated aims of the AIP, such as:

To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.

6. Then there was ‘bring your daughter to work day’, when in a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy, the governor who just got her passport last year, met her first world leaders in late September. The conversations were private, the pictures were public, meant to pad her resume for those concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs. She planned to allow in only photographers and one television crew, but she changed her position after at least five U.S. news networks protested. CNN does not send cameras into candidate events where editorial presence is not allowed. Americans deserve more than a picture book - we want, we need, substance.

7. Bridge to Nowhere......................nowhere.............nowhere...........

On a side note - check out this great mix by Z Trip - amazing. http://djztrip.com/obama/

The strength to be there

Where?

AIG is now in the hands of the U.S. government for a mere $85 billion. American International Group, Inc.’s tagline that remains on the beleaguered insurance giant’s website is now seemingly ludicrous. AIG, a world leader in insurance and financial services, was the leading international insurance organization with operations in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions. Fearing a bankruptcy and an ensuing global financial crisis, federal regulators seized control of AIG in an $85 billion deal on Tuesday. This touches all parts of the economy.

AIG will no longer be a part of the Dow Jones industrial average starting next week, ending the shortest term any company has spent in the blue-chip index since the Great Depression. Because of the financial sector's extremely uncertain conditions, Kraft Foods will take AIG's place.

Members of Congress and the Treasury have an exciting weekend planned. The Bush administration and the Federal Reserve have announced a new multi-faceted bailout plan that may cost at least half a trillion dollars. Yes, half a trillion dollars. In the biggest proposed government intervention in financial markets since the Great Depression, the effort could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to buy mortgage-backed securities, and other toxic debt.

The Treasury said it would use $50 billion to back money market mutual funds whose asset values fall below $1 a share. Separately, the U.S. Federal Reserve said it would lend even more money directly to financial institutions so they could purchase certain assets from money market funds. The Securities and Exchange Commission also imposed a temporary emergency ban on short-selling.

Meanwhile, lawsuits such as the City of New Orleans Employees Retirement System, an AIG shareholder, are suing AIG for mismanagement and “grossly imprudent risk taking”.

McCain’s now repeated remark about how “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” said in the same week of the most serious financial crisis in generations, are sounding like a thundering DJ dancehall song...'the fundamentals of the economy – of the economy – the funda-funda, are strong – strong – strong'. On Tuesday, he commented, “I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG, we cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else.” Oh wait. McCain quickly changed his tune, saying the government was “forced” to rescue AIG because of “failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street.”

Obama’s proposals for the failing economy include protection for homeowners in peril of foreclosure and increased regulation, which is more specific than McCain’s. Obama blames the crisis on “an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary.”

McCain supports George W. Bush’s idea of channeling at least some Social Security funds into “personal accounts” that individuals would invest on Wall Street. Some of that money would have been entrusted to firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

Uh oh.

Ground Hero

Seven years ago, al Qaeda terrorists used hijacked airplanes to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- the twin symbols of America's financial and military might. Another hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

Thousands of families and friends lost their loved ones with this arbitrary mass murder which provoked awe, anguish and anger in all of us. As we have sought to grapple with one of the worst ever challenges to not just the U.S., but to humanity, September 11th is now about commemorating, learning, respecting and connecting. The perpetrators of these and other desperate terroristic acts must continue to be brought to justice, and we must tackle the causes that give rise to forces of hatred and violence. We have seen how heinous & violent people can be, but on that day and following, we have also witnessed inspiring displays of heroism, compassion and humanity.
This crisis involved issues of national security, public safety, economics, murder and foreign policy. Using some restraint, our response should have been equally as multifaceted. World scale contempt has formed through terrorist organizations, various world leaders & administrations and hasty reactions, where seeing others as less real than we are and with our wanting to be superior. The answer to indiscriminate hate will never be more indiscriminate hate.

It is crucial to understand that we live in a different world since September 11, or at least seemingly different to us civilians that were ignorantly blissful to the political, terroristic and religious strife that has existed around the world. It may be a long while before we regain the personal freedoms that we have lost in the name of national security.

As the 2008 presidential elections wade through the last several weeks and we commemorate the many lives lost, let us hope the candidates will seek a world in which security is gained through international cooperation, and social justice and not merely through revenge.

In honor of the innocent victims and their families of 9/11/01 and to those who have lost their lives since, in the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq and to quote an Irish proverb: "Death leaves a heartache no one can heal. Love leaves a memory no one can steal."

Lipstick on a pig

"John McCain says he's about change, too, and so I guess his whole angle is 'Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics – we're really going to shake things up in Washington!' That's not change ... you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

John McCain's campaign immediately jumped on Barack Obama's comment that McCain's policies are like lipstick on a pig, arguing they were directed at Palin - who made a lipstick joke during her GOP convention speech last week.

Suddenly, common idioms are sexist?

If having heard his speech for just one minute, having any knowledge of the expression and the premise of Obama’s campaign, one wonders how the American public can be so obtuse. Or are they? The conservative media is trying to exacerbate the increasingly dishonorable campaign McCain has chosen to run.

In fact, his preceding comments consisted of a list of Sen. John McCain's policies that Obama said were not unlike President Bush's. Palin or her hockey mom lipstick "joke" were not mentioned.

Hillary did not counter or bicker when Senator McCain himself used the same idiom about Senator Clinton’s health care plan just last year. Perhaps we should educate the conservative media and the McCain campaign on the expression itself?

Pay attention now, putting "lipstick on a pig" describes the process of dressing up dodgy idea or thing to make it more appealing. If people put lipstick on a pig, they make superficial or cosmetic changes, hoping that it will make the product more attractive. Notice the words “product”, and “it”. By sheer definition, this usually does not refer to a person, as the Republicans so quickly accused Obama of meaning. Or, so they are trying to convince the American public.

As another reliable sample of traits in the McCain campaign pattern of deceit, this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to disparage.

McCain’s campaign has suddenly adopted the Democrats mantra of change. But how can you speak of such change when having supported Bush over 90% of the time?

Disgruntled pig farmers are yet to be heard from.