Rachel Maddow had a great interview with Barack Obama last night. Here's just 10 minutes of it.
Image by aflcio2008 via FlickrImage by aflcio2008 via FlickrImage by aflcio2008 via Flickr
My final pitch!
A friend of mine who is still undecided asked me to tell her in an email why she should vote for Barack Obama. She's middle class with a couple of kids. She already has health care that she likes. Her husband works in the transportation industry. I guess she's that elusive undecided voter! Here's what I wrote to her:
From a purely selfish standpoint, Obama will give you a larger income tax break than McCain. Period. This link will take you to a page that will show you how much it will be. Maybe you don't trust this coming from Obama's site. But, every single independent research group has backed this up. Fundamentally, McCain wants to give a tax break to everyone. But, that means huge (average of $700,000) tax breaks for CEO type compensations and small ($300) for families making around $40,000. Obama wants to give larger ($1,000) breaks to families making $40,000 and will actually raise taxes some on people making a lot.
On healthcare, McCain's plan will actually tax some people's health care benefits. Honestly, I don't quite understand whose or how. But, if your employer is providing health care, right now you do not pay income tax on it. Under McCain, you might. McCain proposes to offset this with a $5,000 tax credit. The problem? Most people with employer provided health care are pretty happy with it. This change will cause many companies to drop health care for their employees forcing them to go out on the individual market. This is great for young, health people. It's a disaster if you're older or have just about ANY medical condition. Group rates save you money and guarantee you coverage. So, if you like your health care now, you could very well lose it under McCain. Obama's plan is to offer the federal group plan to anyone not currently covered or who chooses it. He plans to introduce efficiencies into the system that will save anyone with their own coverage money. So, if you contribute to your health care insurance now (you probably pay some monthly amount), that will go down.
I could get into more details. But, let's look at the big picture. Obama believes that a strong middle class is the key driver in our economy. Without people like you and your husband covered by health care, with good paying jobs and able to send your kids to school, America will suffer. We need people who can afford to buy products to drive our consumer economy. He has a ground-up approach to building the economy. Take care of the worker bees and they can buy the products the owners make. McCain/Bush have the philosophy that if you take care of the job creators with tax cuts, credits, breaks, etc., they can hire more workers and pay them better. This is trickle down economics. We've seen in the last 8 years that it's not working. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. Job creation is shrinking. Companies take the tax breaks and, instead of providing jobs to American workers, send the jobs overseas where it's cheaper to produce the good that they then bring back and try to sell to who? The people they laid off can't afford to buy the products anymore.
Psychologically, I think the country is ready for a change. McCain knows that which is why he switched his positioning from being the experience candidate to an agent of change. It's also why he chose Sarah Palin. Now, he's back to the experience thing again. But, the country is in a funk. A big part of our economy is psychological. If people don't have confidence they won't spend money. If they don't spend money, the companies that employ them can't sell goods. If the company can't sell goods, they lay off the workers. That's the cycle we're in right now. The only way to get out of that cycle is to improve consumer confidence. Most people are giving Obama much higher marks on the economy than John McCain. Across the board, people have more confidence in Obama when it comes to healthcare, the economy and several other issues. And, by double digit margins in polling numbers, BTW. The sole area that John McCain leads in in those polls is national security where he led by 5% in the last poll I saw. I've had many customers tell me that they just can't wait until after the election because they're looking for a "change". I really think the country is collectively holding its breath waiting for the Bush years to be over. McCain is now trying to distance himself from George Bush. But, he told Tom Brokaw this past weekend on Meet the Press that he shares the same philosophy with Bush. When he was trying to get nominated as the Republican candidate, he bragged about how often he voted with Bush. In many ways, John McCain is four more years of the same. I think Barack Obama will give the country a psychological shot in the arm.
On the world stage, the world is almost unanimously rooting for Barack Obama. Both our allies and our enemies. The reasons for this are varied and complex. Some say that since our enemies want Obama in office, they must see him as weak and want to take advantage of America (like they did with Carter). But, as Joe Biden said, he has a spine of steel. I've read his book and his policy on foreign relations. While he will never be afraid to negotiate or to talk to an enemy, he's no dummy when it comes to national defense nor is he naive enough to believe that just a "good talking to" is enough. He plans to rebuild our military which has been weakened by the two wars we've been fighting and to retool it to meet the challenges we now face which are largely dealing with guerilla groups rather than with state armies. Obama would also show the world that America is ready to elect a minority which would raise the status of the United States' in their eyes tremendously. There are people in the world who are shocked that white people would even consider voting for black man. They think America still has the racial problems they saw in the 60s. This would be a momentous occasion for the status of us. Electing a black man with a Muslim name would show the world that, in America, we put the best person in the job, not the person with the right skin color.
Lastly, (trying to keep this short), we have a chance to make history and you have a chance to be a part of that. As it's looking right now Barack Obama may be our first non-white President. If you believe he's qualified (and only if you believe he's qualified), being able to say you voted for the first African-American President might be something you are proud of in the future.
I could go on. There's temperament (did you catch the debates? Who looked more presidential?) There's judgment (McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate). There's energy policy (drill baby drill is not a strategy). There are newspaper endorsements (Obama has a 2:1 advantage over McCain)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5ac44484-8fe5-4cc8-a848-68219407d26c)
Image by Getty Images via DaylifeImage by Getty Images via DaylifeImage by Getty Images via DaylifeKaren,
Not an excuse. But, a reason. My posts on John McCain being a redistributor and socialist are in response to these attacks on Barack Obama (see video below). I'm not saying McCain is bad for wanting to spread the wealth around. Nor is Sarah Palin bad for spreading the wealth around Alaska. To the contrary. I think it's a good thing. But, they are both accusing Obama of being something sinister for proposing things they have both supported- progressive income tax, refundable tax credits and "sharing the wealth".
Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies. [...] In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200. As Hendrick Hertzberg notes, "Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it ... but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."To quote Sarah Palin:
And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=77e6e8f9-b2c5-4f61-9780-a7f7350326b2)
Image via Wikipedia
Remind me again how Barack Obama is so much more of a "redistributor" than John McCain is? John McCain wants refundable tax credits, to limit Social Security to wealthier recipients so we can pay more to lower income recipients (how is that not spreading the wealth around) and plan to keep the progressive income tax system we have now without a major overhaul. Whether he's for tax cuts for the rich or against them, we can only guess since he voted against them before he decided he was for them.
Check out this clip from Morning Joe. They do a pretty good job of pointing out that Obama's proposed tax rates on the rich are not confiscatory (love that word) and really not so different than what have today and no different than what we had under Clinton. But, why bother with facts when you can spread fear and lies?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f399a184-2430-4902-9566-47ebe686d019)
The reputation of the United States as a world leader is one of the reasons I listed for my support of Barack Obama. It was #9 on my list. I was glad to see a writer for the New York Times pick up on it, too. I've heard some say that the popularity of Barack Obama around the world is cause to be concerned. Why would Europeans or Middle Eastern people want Obama elected? Personally, I think the election of a black man (or a woman or a Latino or...) would elevate America in the eyes of our friends and enemies tremendously. Check out this article. It expands on the idea I put forth in my post. Powell Gets It: Rebranding U.S. with Obama
From John McCain's own mouth. The former John McCain supported a progressive income tax. But, when Obama supports it, it's socialism. Not to mention John McCain's current plan does not eliminate progressive taxation.
Just a couple of days ago I posted an article explaining why I am a liberal Christian. I've also been engaged in a debate on one of my boards as to which system is more moral, communism or capitalism. I'm just not comfortable with the large gap between the have and the have nots we have. Capitalism works well because it's based on people's basic instinct of working for reward and for wanting the best for ourselves. You can't argue with the success of capitalism and consumerism when it comes to creating a robust productive economy. Communism doesn't work. When people are not accountable for their actions, they don't perform. Take away incentive and people stop working. That's why communism doesn't work. Capitalism is an every man for himself kind of system. Without checks from a central authority (read government), capitalism can result in a system where the less privileged are left behind and even exploited. I think a little "wealth distribution" is required. But, how much is enough?
I've been pretty critical of the way we treat the poor in America. Given the riches that most of us enjoy, I've said it's shameful that we allow so many to live in poverty. Just a couple of days ago the census bureau released a report that showed the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I was appalled. However, someone recently pointed out to me that it's easy to criticize what we do for the poor, if we have no good definition of what poor is or what basic level of living we think we agree that we should provide for everyone. He also pointed out something that I really hadn't thought about. Poverty is relative. What we call the working poor in America would be rich in other parts of the world (in many other parts of the world). According to the Census Bureau's numbers, the poverty level for a family of four in America is roughly $20,000. I think we'd all agree that living on $20,000 for a family of four would be a very difficult situation (that's an understatement). But, compare that to the per capita (per person) income of several countries.
- Burundi $88.82
- Eritrea $145.39
- Ethiopia $91.37
- Tajikistan $153.77
Of course these are extreme cases. But, check out this table of the per capita incomes of several nations. If you put our poverty level of around $20,000 on this chart, it far surpasses the average incomes of some places that I bet would surprise you. Our poverty level is more than the average person in the world makes.
I was watching 30 Days the other day and there was a family of illegal immigrants from Mexico on. You might wonder why people would cross the border and give up everything to live in crowded apartments with no chances of getting a good job, working as illegal day laborers and selling aluminum cans to make a living. When the guy who was doing the 30 Days went to see their former home in Mexico (basically a hut in the middle of a field with no running water, no electricity and a disgusting looking well several hundred yards away), he immediately understood. In comparison to where they came from, these people were living like kings.
Something to consider when we're talking about the plight of the poor in this country is access to the basics like shelter, food, sanitation and water. Honestly, no one in America is completely without access to any of these basics. In other countries, people are truly homeless, living in cardboard boxes or on top of trash dumps. In America, most of the people who are truly homeless (living without shelter) are mentally ill and we cannot force them into shelters until they are a threat to themselves or others. People who want to find a bed can. There is free food available to people who truly need it. People might not get what they want or as much as they want. But, we do not allow people to starve to death. However, around the world 30,000 children die a day from starvation, starvation related diseases and lack of clean water. That's one every 3 seconds. Diarrhea kills millions of children a year. Sanitation is something we take for granted. Every day about 1/2 of the number of children included in the 30,000 number above die from the lack of something as simple as clean water. Health care is another concern for the poor. We don't have a great national health care system for the uninsured (which is a very scary thing). But, again, even though the poor have a higher death rate and don't have great access to well care, no one that goes to a hospital is turned away for lack of money. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on single patients to keep them alive.
I was chatting with someone the other day who pointed out his sister is not able to work because she is mentally ill. He pointed out how close his sister was to not having access to shelter, food, medicine and health care. Her medications alone would be $700/month. But, there is a program that allows her to get them for $12.00/month. He said she would be without shelter, but the family helps pay her rent. He said she could be without health care, but she just got on the State health plan. The bottom line is she does have the basics. He pointed out she does not have Internet access though or the money to go to movies though and that life as a poor person still sucks.
I agree. Life as a poor person sucks. But, my question is "Just what are the basics?" I think we'd all agree that everyone should have access to food, clean water, shelter, clothing and medical care. But, what type of shelter? A house? An apartment? What type of food? Should poor people be subsidized so that they can enjoy an evening at a restaurant? How about entertainment? Is Netflix a bare necessity that we should provide to everyone?
I don't ask these questions to be facetious. As long as we have an incentive based system, there is going to be a gap between the have and the have nots. I long for the things that the next tier up from me can afford and I cannot. There are things I want to do that I cannot afford. There are things I'd like to give my children that I cannot give to them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I have a great life. But, there's always more I'll want and there will always be people who have so much more than I do. So, the question is not if there will be gaps between the classes but how large of a gap is humane and how large of a gap are we comfortable with?
Bottom line to me when I put America in perspective with the rest of the world is this. Things are not as bad as they could be for the poor. But, perhaps they're not as good as they should be.
What do you think?
(originally published 09/07/06)
As someone who used to be an Evangelical Christian, but always politically liberal, I’ve spent many years feeling like I was hiding in the closet. Among the people I hang around with, Liberals are often seen as almost Satanic. I am a staunch believer in personal freedoms. I am strongly opposed to any attempt to legislate morality. As far as I’m concerned civil and/or criminal law should have nothing to say about what you do or consenting adults do together, as long as it doesn’t harm another. These are some things I have in common with people who claim to be Libertarians. What I have come to realize is that I am also a Liberal when it comes to my view Christianity. Here’s what I mean.
Diversity of Views
I believe in a wide diversity of views when it comes to Christianity (and other faiths for that matter). While I hold my beliefs dear, I also hold them tentatively- always aware of the fact I could be wrong about any particular belief. As someone put it to me the other day, I hold them with an "open hand". For that reason, I am loathe to say that you must believe “X” or “Y” to be a “true” Christian. This doesn’t mean I am not a committed believer or that I’m a backslider. I have thoroughly studied the scriptures and our Christian traditions. I’d venture to say that I’ve studied the scriptures, the history of the church and the history of the Bible more than most conservative Christians. I think that’s one of the reasons I am a liberal Christian. I believe that if one truly studies these things, with an open mind, one will come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the Great Big Book of Everything. And one will realize that the traditions we hold so dear today haven’t always been "traditional". Christianity did not spring up fully formed the day after Yeshua was resurrected. It evolved (and is evolving). So, if we were wrong in the past, we could be wrong now. Acknowledging this lack of certainty tends to make one more liberal and more willing to embrace diversity. If God spoke to the Bible writers over a period of thousands of years, why do so many Christians believe that God suddenly stopped speaking almost two thousand years ago? Why can nothing be "inspired" after what was canonized? I believe that God still speaks to us and that we each receive revelation that we must wrestle with. This is a very personal experience. I find it fascinating that people take the revelations included in the Bible as inerrant (but apparently not unceasing since no one gets any new ones), while Paul himself said “ we now see through a glass darkly”.
I've studied Buddhism (pretty extensively- I find much wisdom there). I don't think I'll ever convert because there's really nothing to convert to. Buddhism is more of a philosophy and a practice than what we in the West would think of as a religion. I meditate frequently. I've read the Tao Te Ching. I've read books on Paganism, Gnosticism and Kaballah. And, I've incorporated many teachings from outside of Christianity into my practice and my world view. I used to call this "religious stew" and condemned it saying that Christians should only practice orthodox Christianity and it was somehow "cheating" to take a little of this and a little of that and create your own spirituality. This has also been called cafeteria religion or Chinese menu religion. However, given that I no longer believe that Christianity has an exclusive hold on the truth or has had all truth perfectly revealed to it (and encapsulated neatly into our leather-bound Holy Bible), it would be foolish to ignore other sources of truth. When it comes to other religions or traditions, I tend to focus on what we have in common rather than what divides us. Spencer Burke said in his book "A Heretics Guide to Eternity" that religion separates us while spirituality brings us together. I agree and am much more interested in spirituality than in religion. I will not accept or reject an idea because it's part of Christian tradition or not part of Christian tradition.
Respecting a wide diversity of views is not the same as moral relativism nor does it mean I don't take my own views very seriously or that I don't believe I'm right about what I believe. It simply means I'm open to change and to the possibility of being wrong and am always willing to test everything, even those things that were handed down to me as absolutely "gospel".
My View of Scripture
I would classify my view of scripture as non-literal. But, I think this is a relative term anyway. No one (and I mean no one) takes all of scripture completely literally. People who claim they do don't stone their sons, they don't cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes, they don't greet each other with a holy kiss, most of them eat shellfish, most eat cheeseburgers, most wear clothing made of blended fabrics and on and on and on. All of these practices are either commanded by or banned by the Bible. But, "literalists" ignore them on a daily basis. The amount of literalism one reads the Bible with is a relative thing. I think people who say they are literalists are largely afraid of the "slippery slope". If they admit they don't take the entire Bible literally, the whole thing is subject to interpretation and the next thing you know, we'll have 30,000 Christians denominations. What's that? We already do have 30,000 Christian denominations? Oops.
But, seriously, I think it's healthier to admit that while the Bible is inspired and scripture is useful for teaching, etc. but it's not to be taken completely literally. I honestly don't think the Bible is perfect (inerrant either). Paul, the guy who wrote the bulk of the New Testament confessed he didn't know what was real and what was a dream (2 Cor 12:2), he said that he couldn't see things perfectly (1 Cor 13:12). So, why do people think the letters he wrote are perfect.? None of the writers of the Bible were perfect. Most people don't believe God used auto-writing (putting the writers into a trance-like dream state and dictating their actual words). So, why does anyone believe that the writers didn't put their own thoughts, feelings and even mistakes into the things they wrote down?
This may make you think I don't take scripture seriously (or seriously enough). I do take scripture extremely seriously. I don't think one can call oneself a Christian without doing so. Scripture is where we have our only concrete revelation of Yeshua, our Messiah. However, taking scripture seriously does not mean taking scripture literally. Nor does it mean that scripture must be inerrant or that scripture is all-inclusive. I believe that there was a progressive revelation of God from the Old Testament through the New. I view the Bible as man's attempt to record his experience of the Unknowable, Unseen, Living God. I do not view the Bible as a verbatim recording of the Word of God. I don't think the writers went into trances and God moved their hands. The words recorded in the Bible, even if they are the Word of God are filtered through the writers' filters of history, culture, personal biases, experiences, etc. So, while I see the Bible as the word of God or the word about God, I do not see it as the Word of God. Yeshua is the Word of God. I also do not view the Bible as a closed book. I believe that God is still revealing Godself today and that writings we have from inspired people today can be just as much the word of God as a letter Paul wrote 2,000 years ago (which I don't think Paul himself would have classified as "scripture").
I rely heavily on "higher criticism" of the Bible. I will often examine several translations (I am tending to favor the literal translations lately). I want to know who wrote the book, what the words originally meant in Greek or Aramaic. I want to know what the social context of the day was. I see the teachings of Jesus and the flavor of His teaching as the most important thing when it comes to the Bible. I also believe in using four pillars to determine Christian faith rather than simply "sola scriptura". Reason, tradition, scripture and experience are all important. In other words, if some doctrine derived from scripture doesn't make sense in terms of reason, experience and/or tradition (particularly reason), I'm going to examine that "scriptural" doctrine a lot more closely before I accept it.
My View of God
This is a difficult thing to put into words, the main reason being that my view of God is probably evolving more rapidly than anything else in my world. It started off thinking God was like the Greek image of God most of us were given in Sunday School. God was a big old white guy with a long flowing beard and a scowl on His face. He was muscular and gruff. He sat on a big throne wearing long a long robe and was pretty much unapproachable and unable to be pleased. God only knows why this God would have created us flawed creatures that He couldn't even bear to look upon. But, for some reason, He could tolerate us enough to send Jesus to save us. Instead of inflicting His wrath on us, He turned it on Jesus.
This view of God made me afraid of Him from the time I was about five years old until the time I was in my early 40s. I wanted to love God. But, I couldn't. You know the verse "Perfect love casts out fear." Well, you can't love someone that you fear so much. In counseling I began to develop a view of God as a loving Father. This was difficult for me. I never felt I could live up to pleasing my own father. So, how was I to please the ultimate Super Father. I tried and tried to convince myself though that He could love me and I tried to love Him back. As I began to study meditation and eventually Buddhism, I began to realize that Christianity had me too focused on the transcendence of God (the God "out there") and had me completely neglecting the immanence of God (the God among us and dare-I-say-it?) in us. As I began to focus on the immanence of God (read the Holy Spirit) the still small voice inside me, the spark in me, I began to be able to approach God in a much more intimate way. For the first time, I could see why God loved me because God was a part of me. For the first time I could hear "His" voice because instead of waiting to hear some booming voice from the sky, I paid attention to that small whisper inside of me. I later came to find my view was called Panentheism (God is in everything and everything is in God) and that view is shared by many Liberal Christians as well. I began to see God in everything and began to really enjoy my life here on earth basking in God's glory.
This view of God has blurred the line between the "supernatural" and natural for me. I think the supernatural is just what we don't know how to explain yet. I also no longer see God as a being. God is not just another bigger version of us. God is totally unique. God is "spirit". I'm just finishing up a book called "Why It's OK to Call God Mother". I'll share more of that with you later. The point is not that God is a woman as opposed to a man. The point is that, even though God is personal, God is not male or female.
Universal Salvation
Well, this is what this whole blog is about. For me, this is pretty much a given. I grow more convinced each day that God will ultimately reconcile all to Godself. That gives me the opportunity to focus on the here and now rather on the there and later. I still have great motivation to share the gospel because the gospel is now truly good news, not a veiled threat. I became a Preterist several years ago (belief that end-times prophecies have already been fulfilled). I don't worry about when Jesus will come back or how Jesus will come back. I don't look forward to the destruction of the "wicked". I long for the day when we're all reconciled back to God. But, I know that even now, salvation has been given to all even though all haven't received it yet or recognized it yet.
Social Issues
The past few days I've been debating politics on one of the boards I frequent. At least there are few liberals there with me. I am close to what many Libertarians say they support when it comes to social issues. I want the government out of personal decisions. That means no laws about what people can and cannot put into their bodies, no laws about what people can and cannot do in their own bedrooms, no laws about what women can do with their bodies. But, here's where I part ways with Libertarians. I think we have responsibilities to each other. I think the government is responsible for making sure there is a safety net for each person in our society. I don't believe in a "sink or swim, work or don't eat" philosophy. I don't believe that people should only get what they are able to earn. In a country as rich as ours, I find it shameful that so many live in poverty. I am all for a little "wealth redistribution" (as Libertarians call welfare), if that's what is necessary to ensure no one goes without the basics of life.
I tend to be more inclusive than exclusive wanting as much freedom and equality for everyone as possible regardless of gender, class, sexual orientation or whatever. For example, the gay marriage issue is raging right now. While I was initially against gay marriage, the more I think about it, the more I think I don't have the right to prevent others from doing what I might find distasteful or even morally offensive. Women have been held back in society and in the church, I'd like to see that changed. I think mankind was made in God's image, not just man.
Truth Seeking
I said many years ago that seeking the truth was the most important thing to me, more important than being a Christian. Seeking the truth has often tested my faith and a few times I thought blown truth seeeking had blown my faith right out of the water. But, my faith has always come back as strong as before. My world view has changed dramatically. My view of God has changed radically. My view of Christianity is very different than it was. Many would say I am no longer a Christian. They might be right. But, I know I am a beloved Child of God, Seeker of Truth and Follower of Jesus. That's enough for me.
(originally published 08/31/06)
I went to this website (link below) and took a test to determine how well informed I am about the issues. Here are my results.
Should we have a test like this that people have to pass before they cast their vote?
You Should Be Allowed to Vote |
 You got 15/15 questions correct. Generally speaking, you're very well informed. If you vote this election, you'll know exactly who (and what) you'll be voting for. You're likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up. |
Strong opinions? Me? LOL.
The video speaks for itself.
ABC Interview with Barack Obama
A while back I appealed to you to not vote for a candidate or a party but to vote for America.
This video was put together as an ad for Obama. But, these are real interviews, not actors. These are people who are voting for what they think will be best for their country. Good for them!
I'm not sure whether this is funny or not. You might find it funny or disturbing. No need to keep jumping on poor Sarah Palin. But, this is worth watching.
I rarely get to see a movie in the theater. Not only did I get to see W. in the theater, I saw it on opening day.
Josh Brolin does a great job portraying George W. Bush. He's got the walk, the squint and the Texas drawl down pretty well. Richard Dreyfus does a great job as Dick Cheney. Another standout in the cast was, Thandie Newton, the actress who played Condoleeza Rice. Toby Jones, the guy playing Karl Rove kind of stole the show for me as I watched him weaseling his way through the Bush presidencies, putting his stamp on Republican politics for years.
I was ambivalent about seeing W. First, I didn't know how they would make a comedy out of a biographical movie. The trailers made me think it would be a comedy. Secondly, I'm not exactly W.'s biggest fan. So, unless it was a flat out spoof, I wasn't sure I wanted to see it. And, I couldn't imagine how you could make the Bush presidency funny. Coming out of the theater, I was still a little confused. Some of the portrayal of W. was a little over the top. But, OTOH, he's a pretty over the top guy himself. Play him straight and you've got an over-the-top character. The movie starts with his life at Yale and jumps back and forth from the time he is President and we're in Iraq filling the gaps. The movie highlights his relationship with George H.W. Bush and how W. fails to live up to his father's expectations. The run up to the war with Iraq is portrayed as well as W.'s many business failures and failures to even hold a job. Bluntly, it's the story of how a mediocre student and a screw up with enough money and family clout can rise to become the President of the United States. IMO, not exactly an inspiring American tale. W.'s life is more of an example of how aristocracy still often triumphs over meritocracy in America. Oliver Stone does poke fun at W. with the parts of his life he chooses to portray. The movie doesn't go far enough to call it a hatchet job though. Stone didn't choose to portray just the failures in W.'s life. The turn around when W. quits drinking and is born again is an example of some of the triumphs of his life that are played straight.
Overall, the movie is pretty good. I walked out the theater kind of unsure about how I felt about it. It's not laugh out loud funny. It's not a serious biographical study. And, it's too soon for that with W. waiting out his final few days. It's in-between. It's somewhat funny. But, it's pretty accurate, at least from what I know of the history. Personally, watching the movie was like watching a train wreck happening again. I voted against W. in the previous two presidential elections. So, it was a train wreck that I tried to tell people was coming. The Bush 43 years have been even worse than I thought they might be. I don't think history will be kind to the Presidency of W. I've been complaining about him since he first ran for office. Since I'm with Conservatives most of the time, I used to at least get some push back on my opinions. Now, I pretty much get agreement. I'm to the point of starting to feel sorry for the man. W. is not an out-and-out assault on the W. legacy. But, I suspect there are some coming.
If I had to make a recommendation (and since going to the movies is such a rarity for me), I'd recommend waiting for W. to hit DVD. But, it's definitely worth a couple of hours to watch.
If I had to make a recommendation (and since going to the movies is such a rarity for me), I'd recommend waiting for W. to hit DVD. But, it's definitely worth a couple of hours to watch.
Take a couple of minutes and watch this great display of what American behavior should be all about. These people confronted a bigot at a McCain rally until the guy packed up his stuff and went home.
Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, the McCain campaign would not let the articulate Muslim man who confronted this bigot to speak on CNN. I'm confused. This video is from before he got permission. But, apparently, then he got permission and it was withdrawn?
McCain Camp Won't Allow Muslim Organizer to Appear
My friend Annie has criticized a couple of things Barack Obama has said saying they are divisive. He said something like "They'll say I don't look like all the other Presidents and they'll try to make you afraid of me." Annie said he couldn't possibly know this unless he was clairvoyant. Maybe he is clairvoyant. The last few weeks, increasingly the McCain campaign has been painting Obama as "other" and "scary" (and it's not just the liberal elitist media that has noticed). Moderate aned even Conservative Republicans are even becoming uncomfortable with the tone of the campaign.
Yesterday, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. The great oracle Tom Brokaw predicted that some might say this endorsement was about race. Today, as if on clue, the Conservative pundits quickly sought to minimize the enormity of such a famous Conservative and great military leader putting his stamp of approval on Barack Obama.
Gordon Campbell called Colin Powell a black Benedict Arnold for endorsing Obama, drawing Benedict Arnold in black face and said it was all about race saying:
"The only reasonable explanation for such a public political "about-face" in the midst of this important election is that Colin Powell, perhaps understandably, wishes to see someone who looks like himself in the White House," (emphasis mine) Campbell said.
"It's my opinion that General Powell has based his endorsement of Barack Obama on the color of his skin, not his qualifications, his experience or the content of his character."
The great comedian blowhard Rush Limbaugh echoed the sentiment.
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
"I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [General] and Secretary of State and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."
There has been a wave of conservative pundits and newspapers endorsing Obama. Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Hitchens and on and on. Newspapers that have never endorsed a Democrat have endorse Obama. But, Colin Powell endorses him and suddenly it's about race. Rush wants to know which white inexperienced liberal Powell endorsed. Which inexperienced white liberals have any of these other conservatives ever endorsed? How is that the point? Is Powell supposed to be so grateful for his appointments and that of his son that he never bites the hand of the Conservatives? Isn't it possible he earned that appointment and his four stars?
George Will (hereafter known as George "The Hypocrite" Will) actually wrote less than month ago about how erratic McCain had become; opening his article titled "McCain Loses His Head" with this quote: "Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama." Yet, Colin Powell could not come to this same conclusion without race being the only factor? George mentions Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton in the same breath with Barack Obama on national TV and minimizes his success by saying that he gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black?
Seems Obama is not only the "One", he's a prophet, too. He told you this was coming.
p.s.- When Annie made this comment the first time, I told her it didn't take a clairvoyant to see this coming. Sometimes I just hate being right. Unfortunately, this is not evidence of Barack Obama's powers of clairvoyance (it made a catchy title). It's evidence of his ability to learn from history and see what's coming.
This happened about 20 minutes away from where I live in Ohio.
A local California GOP women’s organization’s sent out a newsletter claiming that if Obama is elected, his picture will appear on food staps rather than dollar bills like other presidents. The email included a picture of “Obama Bucks” — a $10 food stamp surrounded by pictures of food.
The president of the organization, Diane Fedele, didn’t understand the charges of racism: “I didn’t see it the way that it’s being taken. I never connected. It was just food to me.” One African-American member of the club said that upon seeing the newsletter, she “cried for 45 minutes.” “This is what keeps African-Americans from joining the Republican Party,” she said.
Colin Powell weighed in on the campaign yesterday. He expressed his great fondness for John McCain after a 20 plus year relationship. However, in the end, he will be pulling the lever for Barack Obama. Following this clip are several other endorsements, many from unlikely sources, for Barack Obama.
Chicago Tribune,the first time ever that they endorsed a Democrat
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
Chicago Sun Times
Often in America's most difficult days, the nation has been blessed with extraordinary leaders who seemed just right for the times. We have in mind George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The times again demand an extraordinary leader. Our next president will take the oath of office in a country that is at war, heavily in debt, deeply divided and sliding into a recession. He will have to make hard choices -- the money won't be there for all his ambitious plans -- and he will have to work with a Congress so lopsidedly Democratic that it may be veto-proof.
Here in Chicago, we have been watching Barack Obama and sizing him up for some time. We knew him well before he introduced himself to the nation with his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
We saw the strength of character, the steady temperament, the intellect, the compassion, the ability to see through others' eyes.
The very title of Sen. Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, foretold what America will need in the circumstances under which the next president takes office.
Success will require audacity, in all the best meanings of the word: nerve, spunk, grit and, especially, boldness.
And success will require a president and a people ready to embrace hope, in all the best meanings of that word: A conviction that what we want and need can be had.
Barack Obama believes in the audacity of hope. He inspires it in others. He inspires it in us.
Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States of America.
Atlanta Journal Constitution
The contrast with the campaign run by Barack Obama could not be more stark. More than a year ago, when he was still a long shot without much money, Obama somehow managed to attract a staff talented and disciplined enough to defeat Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine in the Democratic primaries. It has since gone on to demonstrate a great deal of political discipline, skill and innovation, running a 21st century campaign that appeals to 21st century America.
Different challenges require different strengths. Obama has demonstrated a calm, thoughtful leadership style that fits this time and this challenge well. He has laid out a wiser, more measured approach toward foreign policy that elevates diplomacy and negotiation while reserving the use of force if necessary to protect this country and its allies in a dangerous world. He understands that international respect and admiration can't be forced at gunpoint.
Economically, Obama is better equipped to deal with a rapidly changing global situation, and his policies focus directly on the problems confronting the American working and middle classes. His tax plan, for example, proposes to cut taxes on 95 percent of American households while raising taxes only on households with an income of more than $250,000. That plan may have to be adjusted in light of a harsh new fiscal reality, but it demonstrates where Obama's instincts and values lead him.
The same is true of his health-care proposal. It requires a comprehensive approach, including financial assistance to help small businesses buy insurance for their employees. It would also require large employers that do not offer health insurance to help their workers with the cost of buying insurance on their own.
Those are new approaches, crafted by a new generation of leaders drawn to Obama by the chance to write their own chapter in the American story. Their time has come. His time has come. Obama is a leader of rare potential, and that's precisely what the job of our 44th president demands.
Denver Post
A lukewarm endorsement, stating it's the economy.
Washington Post
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.
Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
Los Angeles Times
Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity....
He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court....
Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.
Michael Smerconish
"I've decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. (emphasis mine)
Jewish Rabbis
"We have put our credibility as rabbis who love Israel on the line to publicly endorse Senator Obama for President because of the smears and lies coming from the other side," wrote the rabbis.
"Never before in the history of the United States has a group of rabbis come together on this scale to work on behalf on a candidate for president."
San Francisco Chronicle
Throughout a campaign that has been intense - and at some points ugly - Obama has kept his composure and maintained a vision of optimism that has drawn an unparalleled wave of young people into the political process. His policies and his persona have offered hope to a nation that is deeply polarized, swimming in debt, mired in war and ridden with anxiety. He taps into that treasured American reservoir - patriotism - with his calls for sacrifice and national service.
Barack Obama is the right president for these troubled times.
El Diario, NY
Our next president must have the capacity, judgment and vision to restore confidence, both here and abroad. El Diario/La Prensa endorses Senator Barack Obama as the leader ready to redirect the United States of America towards its promise.
Senator Obama wisely opposed Bush's misguided and immoral charge into Iraq... Senator Obama has correctly identified that trickle-down economics are not addressing the inequities Americans face... Senator Obama has committed to investing in schools and to making higher education more accessible... Senator Obama clearly outlines a far superior plan that will take a smarter approach to immigration, including bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows... Two defining moments of this election cycle have been Senator Obama's declaration that health care is a right and his speech in Philadelphia on race relations... We were also impressed by Senator Obama's advocacy for women... Our nation needs leadership that is strong, steady and focused on the common good. On November 4, cast your ballot for Senator Barack Obama.
David Brooks, NYT
And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather -- already has gathered -- some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather -- already has gathered -- some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
Reason #5796 why I can never be a "Conservative". I somehow got subscribed to a conservative email list and I've been getting "stuff" like this in my inbox.
"I have been made victorious through terror."
-- Muhammad, founder of Islam
Dear Fellow Conservative,
The truth is usually pretty simple, but as I'm sure you would agree, finding it in the mainstream media is next to impossible.
Nonetheless, I've found the cure... it's the well regarded conservative news weekly, Human Events -- the publication I've been proud to call my editorial home for almost 10 years.
Since 1944, Human Events has helped bust the conspiracy of furious spin the liberals use to keep us "regular" Americans misinformed.
I am proud to be the Legal Correspondent for Human Events, and I'm proud to be among the hundreds of thousands of people who read Human Events. I urge you to do the same by subscribing today.
Together, through my columns and your commitment to stay informed, we can change minds by telling the truth -- loud and clear.
If you subscribe to Human Events now, you'll also reserve a FREE copy of Robert Spencer's courageous new book, The Truth About Muhammad. (subtitle Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion)
Subscribe to Human Events today - and let's keep the liberals on the run and conservative ideas charging ahead. Click here.
Thanks,
Ann Coulter
Legal Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS
P.S. Here is how to tick off a liberal...just subscribe to Human Events today! (And you'll receive a FREE copy of The Truth About Muhammad - a $27.95 value.)
P.P.S. Make a liberal even madder by subscribing for 70-weeks and also get bestselling book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) in a hardcover edition not found in stores -- absolutely free.
For instant service, call us toll-free at 888.GO.RIGHT (888.467.4448).
Click here to get started today.
It was inevitable. The "tax and spend" message the Republicans trot out every four years wasn't working too well. Now, they have upped the ante and have from McCain's own lips, we have the implication that Barack Obama's policies are socialistic. McCain supporters have even gone so far as to call Senator Obama himself a socialist. I suspect many of them don't even know what a socialist is. But, that's another story.
Contrary to what some believe the United States was not set up to be a pure direct democracy (we are rather a republic with a representative democracy. Nor was the United States set up to be a pure capitalistic society. While there are those who seem to worship at the altar of capitalism, the United States has always realized that there is a role of government to play in protecting the weak and making sure the playing field is level. The founding fathers argued about how big a role government should play but, they agreed that they wanted to make the United States a land of opportunity for all and that sometimes government intervention would be required to keep the market fair and to correct market forces when they (inevitably) run amok. If those who call Senator Obama a socialist would read Chapter 5 titled "Opportunity" in his book "The Audacity of Hope" they would (assuming they didn't believe he was covering for his hidden socialistic beliefs) come to realize that he is not a socialist. He talks about the role of government, the thoughts of Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton and others, the history since the New Deal, why conservatism became so prominent during the Reagan era and what we need to do to meet today's challenges. He fully recognizes that there are times when the government is called for and there are times when the private sector can do a much more efficient job.
If capitalism and socialism are endpoints on a continuum, the United States falls somewhere along that continuum. While socialism has become a dirty word, the fact is that we are not society that believes that free market forces should be allowed to run with no constraint nor are we a society that believes "only the strong survive". We help the weak and the disadvantaged. It's part of the fabric of our country.
John McCain's recent ads make the claim that Obama's tax plan amounts to "welfare" (another dirty word). The claim is based on an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch- need I say more?), about refundable tax credits. Senator Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. By the way, you should know these types of tax credits are not anything new. The Earned Income Tax Credit has been in place since1975. Obama is simply proposing additional tax credits for low income families. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. The Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That part is true. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."
OK. So, you want to call a refundable tax credit welfare? That's your right. Here's the thing though. Here is the hypocrisy in McCain's ads. McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. That's right. The exact type of tax credit that Obama is proposing. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:
McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . . [E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.
McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If a tax credit were not refundable, it would be worth nothing to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to those who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama and McCain both make their tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.
The Wall Street Journal editorial goes further by misstating a fact and insulting families who do not make enough money to pay federal income tax. They call those people "nontaxpayers". To call a working person a "nontaxpayer" is both a lie and an insult.
Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
Anyone working pays federal taxes. Payroll taxes for social security and medicare amount to 7.65% of every dollar earned for anyone making less than $102,000/year. Everyone pays federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill. The proposed tax credits by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are in effect tax cuts, tax rebates or tax credits, whatever you want to call them. But, they are not welfare. Just because a family might get back more on their 1040 than they paid in income tax does not mean that they are getting back more than they paid in, when you consider all of their federal taxes.
John McCain has not proposed that we radically altar the progressive income tax code. Both Obama and McCain are basically leaving the income tax structure the same. So, if you think that making the rich pay a higher rates than the poor is socialistic, you have to call his plan socialistic, too. His critics are calling Obama's tax plan socialistic because he proposes raising the marginal rates on those making more than $250,000/year. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Obama's plan only bumps the rates on the top wage earners a little to rates that are a long, long way from historic highs or even historic norms. To call his plan socialistic because he is calling for a reduction in the cuts the very rich have enjoyed in recent times (or calling for a slight increase, depending on how you look at it) means we have had a much more socialistic tax code in the past because the rich have paid much higher rates before.
It's silly season and it's going to get sillier in the next couple of weeks. Let's not be fooled again. Stay informed.
Peace,
Brian
Real quick.... Obama was cool, calm and collected. He was criticized again for playing it too cool. But, that's just who he is. He looked Presidential and in control. I loved his answer to the Sarah Palin being qualified question. It showed his intelligence. Anyone who was tuned in has already formed an opinion about Sarah Palin. He would gain nothing by jumping on her qualifications. He suckered McCain into bringing up Ayers then addressed the whole nonsense brilliantly.
John McCain, on the other hand, was not quite as brilliant.
In case you didn't see this, I include it here.
Amazingly, I now have people who at first were upset that Obama was going to raise taxes on the middle class (or so they believed) now upset that his tax plan is actually "socialism" and basically class warfare. And, most of the people telling me this are the people who are supposed to be trickled on by the Bush and McCain plans! They tell me I've been bamboozled into buying into a socialist agenda and that this is just another step in a plot to make America a socialist country. Well, I haven't been bamboozled at all and I'd like to tell you why I think Obama's plan is more fair than John McCain's. As I said in an earlier post, there is a fundamental difference in the philsophy behind the two men's plans. Starting where we are today (without revamping the whole system), Obama wants to increase the marginal tax rates on the most wealthy so he can decrease the marginal tax rates on the middle class. I'll even concede the argument that Obama's plan amounts to an increase in taxes for the wealthiest even though it's simply not true (and I'll show you why later- histiorically the rates he's proposing are pretty low). For the sake of argument, let's say it is true.- Obama's plan is a tax increase on the wealthy. I still say "Big whoop". John McCain, OTOH, wants to give huge tax breaks to the most wealthy because they are the "movers and the shakers" providing the jobs to the peons of society. And the peons are defending John McCain's plan. How ironic is that?
Wow. Where to start? First of all, people have been throwing statistics at me showing how the very tippy top percentage of people pay a huge share of the income taxes. Oh, poor rich people. Excuse me while I grab a tissue. I'm being told that they're paying way more than their share. Let me show you how looking at statistics too simplistically gives you an extremely false picture of what is going on and what is fair. I'm going to make some very broad assumptions here and do some rounding just to make a point and keep the numbers simple. The average CEO now makes about 400 times what a production worker in his company makes. He actually makes in a day about what one of his workers makes in a year. Let's assume we have a land where all the companies are made up of one CEO and 399 worker bees. Let's call it Fairtaxland. The worker bees make $40,000 a year. That means the CEO is pulling down $16,000,000 a year. Because we want to be fair, in Fairtaxland we have a flat income tax. Everybody pays 10% of their gross. No deductions. No loopholes. Just what did you make? Send Uncle Sam 10%. So, the worker bees each shell out $4,000 a year. And, the poor CEO has to pay out $1,600,000/year. The CEOs in our land represent just 0.25% of the population. But, of the total revenue collected from each company, the lone CEO pays $1,600,000 while the rest of the workers (99.75% of the population) pay $1,596,000. In this illustration, 0.25% of the population pays 50% of the taxes. If you read this headline "In Fairtaxland, 0.25% of the population pays 50% of the taxes" would you be outraged? As I said, this is a simplistic example. In America, we have people making hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars a year. Oprah Winfrey makes more in an hour than the average workers makes in a year. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet make more than a lot of countries. Of course, they are going to pay a huge percentage of the income tax revenue because they're making gobs and gobs of money. G-d bless America!
Let's take the illustration just a little further. The worker bees making $40,000 have to spend (let's make a number up) $24,000 just to pay for basic needs. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. That leaves them with $16,000 in "disposable income". The $4,000 they pay in income tax represents 25% of their income not dedicated to basic living expenses. Let' s allow the CEO twenty times their non-discretionary spending. We'll give him $480,000 in basic living expenses. That leaves him with $15,520,000 of disposable income. His tax burden of $1,600,000 is roughly 10% of his "disposable" income. Again, that's allowing him twenty times the living expenses of his average worker or 12 times their total gross annual income. So, as a percentage of their disposable incomes, the worker bees are paying at a rate 2.5X what the CEO is paying. [Disclaimer again- I'm not claiming these numbers are accurate and taxes are not optional. So, they really should be included in basic living expenses. I'm trying to keep this simple] I'm simply trying to illustrate why you can't just look at some of the stats people throw at you and feel sorry for rich people and their tax "burden". That guy making $16,000,000 a year is not going to even notice an additional $4,000 or $8,000 or $12,000 of his income. Money that would make up the entire tax burden of several of his employees.
What I have just shown above is first of all that you have to understand statistics before you start falling for dramatic numbers like X% of the American public already pays Y% of the tax revenue. They should! Some of them are making ungodly amounts of money. Even in our imaginary Fairtaxland, without a progressive tax rate, if you make 400X more money than the Average Joe, you're going to pay a bigger percentage of the tax burden. Just one quarter of one percent of the population pays 50% of the taxes. What I attempted to illustrate in the paragraph about discretionary spending and living expenses is the reasoning behind progressive taxation. It's more "fair". If someone is making more than he can possibly spend in a year (or a lifetime), it's reasonable to expect him to pay a little more in taxes.
The next thing that a lot of people don't really seem to grasp is "marginal tax rates". The rich don't pay 35% on every dollar earned. That is their "marginal" tax rate. For the very poor, the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate are the same. For the very rich, they are very different. The rich pay the same rates as the poor on the first $8,000 as the poor, then they pay the same rate on the next $24,000 as the middle class, then they pay the same rate on the next $45,000 as the upper middle class and so on and so on. While 35% sounds like a lot, their effective rate (the rate you get when you blend all these and then divide it out) is actually a lot lower than that number.
Lastly, as to the word "socialism" being bandied about. Absurd. I have two points. First of all, a little socialism is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. But, socialism would be if we capped people's incomes at a certain amount and took the excess and gave it equally to bring everyone up to same level of income. I'll concede that progressive income tax rates are more socialistic than a flat tax. But, they are a long, long way from socialism. We have a blend of economic and political systems in the United States. Secondly, progressive tax rates are as American as apple pie. There are some who seem to worship at the altar of capitalism and "free markets". I can almost hear Gordon Gekko saying "Greed is good.". Well, greed is good. America is a shining beacon, due largely to greed. Capitalism has allowed us to build a nation that is rich enough to help its poor, to protect its citizens and to reach out to the world. Hallelujah. But, contrary to what some would like to believe, America has never been a land of unfettered Capitalism or even a pure Democracy for that matter. Things like anti-trust laws are not purely capitalistic. Without getting bogged down in details, the government has always done things to help the capitalistic system along, to protect the weak the from the strong and create opportunity for a mericracy rather than an aristocracy. Our Founding Fathers fought some of these things out and we may still disagree on some of them. When our economics systems get into trouble, the government steps in to help, as we just saw with the $700B bailout, even some of the staunchest "Conservatives" want some government intervention when the market goes off the rails. Capitalism must be constrained by regulation and sometimes helped along by government programs doing what the government does best.
Obama's tax rates on the wealthy are not some dangerous social or economic experiment, BTW. Historically speaking, they're not even all that high. Since the 1920s, we've had marginal tax rates as high as 90% and most of the time they've been, much, much higher than they are right now. (see the chart below).
Nobody likes to pay higher taxes, including me. But, you know what? I'd love to hit Obama's top bracket and be able to complain about all the taxes I'm paying. If my customers have more money in their pockets, thanks to his tax cuts, just maybe I will hit that bracket. Barack Obama, under his own plan, will pay higher taxes. I'm sure that's not something he's thrilled about doing. But, let's call a thing what it is and let's look at what is the most fair plan for everyone and the best plan for the economy as a whole. If we have disagreements about which philosphy is better, that's OK.
I am not voting for the guy who promises me the biggest tax cut. In fact, (knock on wood), I'll be paying more in taxes if Obama wins. At least I hope so. I'd like to make it all the way up to his highest bracket. That'd be cool.
It's no secret that Obama wants to allow the tax cuts on the wealthy to expire and to give larger tax cuts to those making less than $250,000 a year. What a lot of people don't understand though is Barack Obama wants to give much larger tax cuts (up to almost 3 times as much) to people making less than $100,000. Here's a widget the Obama campaign put out today so that people can calculate their own tax savings under McCain and under Obama. If you're making more than $250,000/year, don't bother with the calculator. Get ready to do your patriotic duty and pay a little more than you're paying today.
I have to admit I'm pretty stressed out right now. We're coming down to the last few weeks of this election and it's still a tight race. On top of that, the economy is on the brink of collapse (or is collapsing) and we're still largely talking about silly stuff. On the one hand, I am disgusted by politics, while on the other hand, I find myself obsessed by politics. I have often wondered why anyone would want to be President. Some very smart men and men of integrity wouldn't take the job (or at least wouldn't put themselves through what it takes to get it. Colin Powell's name immediately leaps to mind. We treat the Presidency like it's some sort of prize. The candidates are competing for our votes like it's a Miss America contest. We act as though we're going them a great favor by giving them our votes. But, particularly this quadrennial, with two shooting wars going on, the makings of another Cold War brewing, the economy in the toilet and a crisis of confidence in our Congress and our President, I wonder all the more why we declare the guy who gets the job the "winner". Perhaps we should consider sending a "Thank You" card to whoever wins and showing them a little gratitude for taking the job. The next President I think could very easily be a one term President. He'll face a Herculean task trying to turn us around and I think will either be hugely popular or hugely unpopular. Big time risk.
I am encouraged that I see what seems to me to be a lot of people looking past partisanship this time around. I see people deciding not based on who they want to "give" their vote to but on who they think will be best for America. I know life long Republicans who are voting for Obama and who are doing everything in their power to make sure he gets elected. I know life long Republicans who are still on the fence; but, they are giving Obama a shot. And, I know one life long Democrat who is switching over to vote for McCain because he thinks McCain is much more likely to start a war with Iran (a war he thinks we should already be fighting).
The last few days, the endorsements for Senator Obama are coming in hot and heavy. Some are glowing endorsements, like the one from the The New Yorker that is the longest and most eloquent endorsement I've ever read. But, what is amazing is the number and the caliber of Conservatives/Republicans who are either endorsing Obama, abandoning McCain or both. Check out this video clip:
In this stampede there might be a certain element of rats off a sinking ship going on here. Maybe because Obama is inching ahead in the polls, they want history to show they were on the winning side. But, I'd like to believe these are people who realize they cannot maintain their integrity and their intellectual honesty and say that John McCain is the best man to run America right now. Some of these people speaking up are doing it at great political and social peril.
I have to give Kathleen Parker credit for writing standing up and writing this blog post before people started abandoning Sarah Palin in droves. That took guts. Christopher Hitchens gave Obama less than a glowing endorsement. But, he just could not keep silent about the lack of leadership he has seen from John McCain and the behavior of Sarah Palin. Christopher Buckley just resigned his job at the National Review (founded by his father and part-owned by him) over an endorsement he wrote for Obama on another site. He is yet another Conservative who has read Obama's books, watched his temperament and judgment over the last several months and decided to go with Obama even though he disagrees with some of his politics.
There are some whispers now that this election may be a landslide for Obama. I have to admit, in a sense, I would hope it is. But, not in the same sense as I like to see the Buckeyes handing a defeat to that team up North (Michigan for the uninitiated). Wouldn't it be cool to have a President with a true mandate? Wouldn't it be cool if we could all (or at least most of us) come together behind a President and give him support and have him lead us through these trouble times? Wouldn't it be cool to send a resounding message to the people who have dug us into this mess over the last 8 years that there are serious consequences to pay? That's why I'd love to see a clear message sent to Washington in the next few weeks.
As we come down to the last few weeks of this fascinating campaign, I'd like to encourage you to do this. Take a good honest look at both men, their plans, their judgment, their character. Ask yourself that, G-d forbid, if anything should happen to them do you feel their Vice Presidential candidate would be up to the task? Then, don't vote for Barack Obama. Don't vote for John McCain. Don't vote for the Democrat. Don't vote for the Republican. Vote for America. Vote for the world.
p.s.- I am reading Senator Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" right now. I never, ever thought I would read a book about politics. But, the book is brilliant. Whether you're an Obama fan or not, if he wins the election, I highly recommend picking up the book. It's a great insight into how he thinks, how much he understands politics, history and people and how much he cares about serving.
