Under the president’s plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation’s economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation’s entitlement programs — including a “down payment” toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade. Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation’s debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation’s GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.

Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today’s economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations — and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).

Continue to read on The Wall Street Journal Opinion Article

This article is written by Mr. Paul Ryan, from Wisconsin, who is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. It talks about the Republican’s alternative plan to Obama’s “European-style big government” that “works to accomplish four main goals: 1) fulfill the mission of health and retirement security; 2) control our nation’s debts; 3) put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 4) preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.”

They call it “stimulus” legislation, but the economic measures racing through Congress would devote tens of billions of dollars to causes that have little to do with jolting the country out of recession.
…
Yes, there are many billions of dollars in “ready-to-go” job-creating projects in President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus bill. But there are also plenty of items that are just unfinished business for Congress’ old bulls.

Analysis: Stimulus bill that’s not all stimulating

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill’s $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress’s justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.
Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, expresses what my feelings are on the subject: He says,

“The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem, but their problem,” Shelby said in a statement this week. “I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers in such a way that allows them to continue and compound their ongoing mistakes.”

The Weekly Standard has a good opinion article on the topic.

As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

“McCain Girl.”

“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.

Then it got worse. …

Continue reading, Tolerance fails T-shirt test.

She ultimately turned her experience in as a history report. And then as a class they discussed the issues of intolerance:

… she turned her journal into a report for her history teacher, earning Catherine extra credit. We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.

“That’s what we discussed,” Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. “I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you’ve done? The students were kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah.’ I think they got it.”

In order to be more scientific, this would have needed to be a coordinated effort throughout the country. For example, with this single test, we don’t know what the reaction would have been had Catherine worn the Obama t-shirt first. An interesting experiment still.

A closer look at the Obama and McCain tax plans for the reveals that it is not just the “rich” taxpayers earning more than $200,000 that would face higher rates under Obama than under McCain’s tax proposal.

The reason for this is simple: McCain expands the exemptions families can take under both the regular and alternative minimum tax schedules. Obama offers nothing new to this group. Our analysis shows that for an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $50,000 or more, a household would face a higher rate under Obama’s tax plan than under McCain’s. That is hardly a “rich” household. Adjusted Gross Income is the pre-exemptions and deductions income reported on tax forms, and many middle class households would have AGI of at least $50,000.

Continue reading on The Foundry.

During this election year let’s be reminded of these words:

* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.

* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away people’s initiative and independence.

* You cannot help people permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.

Do you recognize the author?

It was Abraham Lincoln

Very, very wise words, written years ago and we still don’t get it…..

I’m really worried that too many young people will look at the superficial Obama, the well-spoken man who promises much, and yet fail to understand that taxing and creating a larger central government are not ways to improve the economy. If Obama does win, I’ll at least be fortunate enough to be earning a small salary as a resident for his single four-year term and, therefore, not have to distribute as much of my hard work to the large number of Americans that contribute little but expect the government to provide everything for them. One can only hope that he is promising this redistribution only to get elected and then back down to a moderate view. Unfortunately, that may not be the case and it may take four years for the American people to realize the fallacy of their ways. Hopefully, McCain will be able to get the message out on the drastic difference between him and Obama on health care, the economy, and the military.

Sadly, here’s a YouTube video of a typical starry eyed Obama supporter, saying “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he’s gonna help me.” Just what does she think Obama will do? Give her free money, free health care, free gas? The money has to come from somewhere. What slippery slope towards socialism are we being led down?

One of the most interesting questions at last week’s debate was from a woman asking what sacrifices John McCain and Barack Obama would ask of Americans “to get out of the economic morass.”

The questioner alluded to World War II, the hallmark usually cited by people miffed that the war on terror doesn’t involve meatless days. Of course, our troops do not lack for meat and, what with blue bins, every day’s a mandatory scrap-metal drive, so WW II’s hardly a relevant template.

McCain’s answer, then, was encouragingly blunt: “There are some programs we may have to eliminate.”

The federal budget has become a $2.9 trillion buffet with delicacies for everyone — the nonpartisan Tax Foundation last year estimated that 67% of American households are treated to more in government spending than they ever pay in taxes. If you’re talking shared sacrifice, the only realistic starting point is government spending.

Obama, meanwhile, said that maybe you should get a higher-mileage car. Any ex-Hummer dealer could tell you that most people did that without Obama’s help.

Then Obama went on to say this shared sacrifice would entail a tax cut for 95% of us.

Bluntly: No. First, it’s not a tax cut if you’re already paying nothing, net, to the feds, as 40% of households do. It’s a refundable credit, which means Uncle Sam takes money from someone else and gives it to you. The old-fashioned word for this is “welfare.”

More practically, you’re not going to get even that. The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch calculates that Obama has proposed $990 billion in new spending for his first term. The equally nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union pegs Obama’s promises at $293 billion a year, three times its estimate for McCain. None of this accounts for the cost of rescuing our economy. So, no, 95% of us won’t get a nicer cut of federal pelf. …

Continue reading on JSOnline, Sacrifice and big promises.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s mantra for change in economic policies amounts to this: a huge increase in redistribution of income at the hands of the federal government. While Obama refers to this as a “net” tax cut, raising taxes on the top 5 percent and lowering taxes or increasing outright benefits for the other 95 percent simply amounts to an indisputably massive increase in redistribution and ultimately very little meaningful change.

To hear Obama and other Democrats describe our current policies, one might think that we do very little to help the poor and disadvantaged. But Americans already transfer more than a trillion dollars a year to low-income households. That’s a lot of money. Before we endorse Obama’s agenda of more of the same, shouldn’t we ask him what benefits a trillion dollars a year have yielded so far? Has that money reduced dependency? Has it solved the problems associated with poverty and inequality? Are more disadvantaged children being raised in stable two-parent families today than 50 years ago?

…

Since Obama believes that “in America, prosperity has always risen from the bottom up,” he should be genuinely concerned with imposing higher marginal tax rates on non-rich Americans. But economists will be more concerned with the higher rates on that top 5 percent because we know that the “rich” play a crucial role in financing the economy’s investments and new business start-ups and in producing the technological innovations so critical to improving our prosperity. Higher marginal tax rates on the “rich” are certain to reduce the contributions they make to the well being of all Americans.

Increasing marginal tax rates as Obama proposes may in the short run improve the material well-being of lower income Americans (at the expense of higher income Americans), but in the long run it will lead to slower economic growth and lower incomes for most people in the future. Economic research suggests that our current redistributive policies have already reduced the average American’s before-tax income by 25 percent. This is the hidden cost of redistribution that is well documented in economics literature, but rarely acknowledged in media discussions. That cost will become larger in the future if Obama’s economic agenda is put into place.

Continue reading, Obama’s Economic Agenda: This Is Change?

Obama has a bad record when it comes to taxes:

1.

It looks more and more like Joe the Plumber was on to something about taxes, though you wouldn’t know if from most of the polls and media. The Heritage Foundation has the details in our new study: If a President McCain got his way on tax reform, Americans could expect to see jobs, the economy and their own disposable income grow much faster than if a President Obama were to push through his proposals.

As this chart shows, the economy would grow by $320 billion more in 10 years under John McCain’s tax plan than under Barack Obama’s, adjusted for inflation. More than twice as many jobs would be created by the McCain plan — 3.43 million, compared with 1.58 million under the Obama plan…

Continue reading on Cato-at-liberty…

2. Transcript of Democratic Debate

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. [. . . .]

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.