President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
From the Washington Post
Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!! In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!! This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric!!!
Now that you viewed/listened to the video read the following analysis by Bill Whittle titled
Shame, CubedHere he analyzes Obama's comments, as spoken, in context, and provides some much needed perspective.
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.
This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
We’re just getting started.
Washington Post Says, Deregulation and Free Markets are NOT RESPONSIBLE For This Financial Meltdown?
Is Capitalism Dead?
The market that failed was not exactly free.
Monday, October 20, 2008; A14
IS THIS the end of American capitalism? As financial panic spread across the globe and governments scrambled to contain the damage, reality seemed to announce the doom of U.S.-style free markets and President Bush's ideology. But this is wrong in two ways. The deregulation of U.S. financial markets did not reflect only the narrow ideology of a particular party or administration. And the problem with the U.S. economy, more than lack of regulation, has been government's failure to control systemic risks that government itself helped to create. We are not witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted market.
Contrary to Obama's misleading Ads, this health care plan is not an increase in taxes on anyone.
Rich Lowery in National Review writes,
Where Obama’s 95 percent [Americans receive a tax cut] promise is fundamentally dishonest is in how it discounts the effect of his health-care plan. Obama would require businesses to cover their workers or pay a tax. If the tax is relatively low, employers will choose to dump their employees into Obama’s new public program, making a hash of his talking point that no one will lose his current coverage under the plan. If the tax is high, employers will provide coverage themselves, but will inevitably fund it by paying less in wages or hiring less. Obama is proposing a large new tax on employment.Steven Landsburg, an Economist and a professor at the University of Rochester, writes about McCain's health care proposal.
McCain’s health plan, in contrast, would amount to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. McCain would tax employer-provided health benefits for the first time, but offset that with a $5,000 tax credit per couple for all health-insurance purchases. Independent analysts say the vast majority of taxpayers would be better off.
McCain rarely talks of his plan in these terms, and Obama has taken after it as a tax hike in a series of devastatingly effective and misleading negative ads. The latest CBS/New York Times poll says 51 percent of people think McCain would raise taxes, compared with 46 percent who think Obama will. This means Obama is holding his own or winning the tax debate with his Republican opponent, a necessary condition for a Democrat to win the White House.
McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Americans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.Michael Gerson in the Washington Post explains how misleading Obama is about McCain's health care proposal.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
...McCain has proposed replacing the current government health-care subsidy for employers with a tax credit that would help all individuals and families purchase coverage. Biden terms this the "largest tax increase in the history of America for the middle class." He is off by -- well, by even more than the norm of Biden hyperbole. In fact, the McCain trade-off would result in a significant tax cut for nearly everyone (except those with the highest incomes).Michael goes on to explain the pitfall of the Obama plan which he refers to as Medicare in slow-motion (meaning the price controls in the Obama Big Government plan would eventually eliminate competition) and everyone would be in the Big Government plan. Thus causing rationing and running into every foreseeable problem currently experienced by many other countries like Canada and England.
Obama breathlessly reveals that the McCain credit "wouldn't go to you. It would go directly to your insurance company." Since the credit is intended for the purchase of health insurance, where else should it eventually go? Is it a scandal that a child-care credit eventually goes to child-care centers?
"At least 20 million Americans," charges Obama, "will lose the insurance they rely on from their workplace." As Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center points out, this is a distortion. He cites a Tax Policy Center estimate that the McCain plan would result in 21 million people entering the individual insurance market by 2018 -- many because individual ownership of insurance will be more attractive. In every mainstream analysis, McCain's plan would result in a net increase in the number of insured Americans.
Obama terms the McCain plan "radical" -- which is its main virtue. It goes to the root of the problem -- a system that depends mainly on businesses to provide health coverage. Over the past few decades, the rising cost of health coverage to employers has eaten up pay increases, acting as a wage cap and leaving many incomes stagnant or falling. Business-based health coverage leaves many workers afraid to change jobs -- a handicap in the constant employment churn of the new economy. It discriminates against the self-employed and places unique burdens on small businesses. And it insulates workers from decisions about health-care costs. Few in the current system benefit from searching out the best health-care prices and results.
He also says Mccain's plan isn't too radical but too timid. Read the whole article.
Of course these two plans aren't the only way to go.
From Hot Air:
Hawaii has ended an experiment with universal health care for children because it proved a little too
successful. Seven months after launching Keiki Care, a flood of
enrollments caused it to run over budget. The social engineers in
Hawaiian government just learned a lesson about free-market economics
and the effect of government distortion (via The Corner):
Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cited budget shortfalls and other
available health care options for eliminating funding for the program.
A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their
children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop
paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the
administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I
don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”
Fink gets this entirely wrong. Taxpayers didn’t get this for free. They paid for it with their taxes.
Keiki Care took taxes and directed it into creating a universal
health-insurance program for children, and apparently didn’t set any
income requirements for entry. Why wouldn’t the taxpayers whose money
funded the risk pool take advantage of it?
1. Obama did launch his career in the living room of Bill Ayers.
2. Obama DID lead the effort against the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. NO (according to the Attorney General of Illinois) their was no law on the books covering those infants. YES it is fair to call this supporting infanticide.
Big Lies: Obama on Ayers, born-alive bill by Ed Morrissey
In presidential debates (and campaigns), candidates usually try to put their policies and records in the best possible light. The spin usually focuses on the positive aspects of these points to the point of hedging the entire truth, but flat-out lies are pretty rare. Last night, Barack Obama treated us to two of them, and not surprisingly, on the two most controversial points of his record.
Hey, This Race Might Be Winnable
A lot of the state polls look pretty bad for McCain lately, but there's been an interesting shift in the tracking polls.
- Rasmussen’s Presidential Tracking poll now shows Barack Obama
leading John McCain by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. At one
point, Obama was up by 8.
- Gallup’s national tracking poll of likely voters has Obama leading McCain by two points, 49 percent to 47 percent.
- AP/Yahoo shows Obama leading McCain by two points, 44%-42%
- The Reuters/C-Span/Zogby national tracking survey shows Obama leading McCain by five points, 49%-44%.
- The GW/Battleground tracking poll has Obama leading McCain by four points, 49%-45%.
As is almost always the case with the 2nd amendment, the MSM has trouble with basic English again.
Mary Katharine Ham writes
No One Ever Said 'Kill Him' About Obama,
A look back at the original language used by Palin at the rally in question makes it nearly impossible for the exclamation to be misunderstood as an attack on Obama unless you happen to be a MSM member just dying to think the worst of the Right.Here's the original account from the Washington Post of the Florida rally by Dana Milbank:"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.
"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.
"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
The subject of Palin's sentence is never in doubt. It's William Ayers, not Barack Obama. Predictably, the story of the man who allegedly yelled "kill him" about Barack Obama has found its way into an AP story, and then found its way into a thousand iterations of the story of the McCain-Palin rage McCain and Palin are allegedly inciting.
Update: Turns out the Secret Service reports that No One said Kill Him!
The essay starts off
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.If you thought you are aware of all of Obama's extreme views regarding abortion, you most likely don't know the half of it. This essay has to be read to be believed.
Barack defends tax subsidies for the rich.
For someone running as the tribune of "change," Barack Obama showed again in last night's debate that he sure is comfortable with the status quo on health care. He continued his recent assaults on John McCain's health reform even though it is precisely the kind of plan that someone of Mr. Obama's professed convictions ought to support.
The attacks include swing-state TV spots and Joe Biden's multiple distortions, though the most over-the-top come from the candidate himself. Over the weekend, Mr. Obama called the McCain plan "radical," "out of line with our basic values" and, in case he wasn't clear, "catastrophic for your health care." Since Mr. McCain offered only a once-over-lightly defense of his plan, allow us to give it a try.
Perhaps Mr. Obama is so agitated because Mr. McCain's proposal is highly progressive. The Republican wants to readjust the subsidies that Congress channels into health coverage for business so that lower- and middle-wage workers aren't shortchanged, as they are now. Currently, people who get insurance through their employers pay no income or payroll taxes on the value of the benefit. This is revenue the government forgoes to encourage certain behavior. If those losses were direct spending, the tax exemption would have cost more than $246 billion in 2007.
But all that money props up only employer-provided insurance. For reasons of historical accident and lobbying clout, individuals who buy policies get no tax benefits and pay with after-tax dollars. Mr. McCain is proposing to make the tax benefits available to everyone, regardless of how they purchase their insurance.
An Absence Of Candour To Believe In
Obama is twisting and turning over his relationship with unreprentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, trying to pretend it didn’t amount to anything other than a chance acquaintance. But his story becomes ever more preposterous.
Fraud We Can Believe In
Looks like Camp Obama is trying to steal the 2008 US Presidential election.
There are now voter fraud investigations in some ten states involving ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). You can see the kind of thing that’s been going on from this site: ACORN activists being caught falsifying voter registration cards in Connecticut and Indiana, registering fictitious individuals using the details of real people, admitting engaging in voter registration fraud in Ohio but blaming it on ‘inefficiency and lack of resources’, hounding voters to register multiple times even though they had already signed up to vote.
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released the following statement signed by 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith. The economists explain why Barack Obama's proposals, including "misguided tax hikes," would "decrease the number of jobs in America." The prospects of such tax rate increases under Barack Obama are already harming the economy. The economists conclude that "Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy." The proposals "defy both economic reason and economic experience."
The full economists' statement on Barack Obama's economic proposals and a complete list of economists who support it follows:
Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.
We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.
Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.
We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.
After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.
In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.
This is the same Senate seat in which he launched his political career from William Ayers' [unrepentant self admitted domestic terrorist] home. Being introduced to the local political establishment by William Ayers must be some heavy street cred in socialist neighborhoods.
Andy McCarthy reports,
Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA, can be spectacularly wrong on occasion. He does, however, seem to have nailed down that Obama was an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. His post, with lots of corroborating links, is here.Andy convincingly clarifies why he asserts Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
UPDATE: A number of readers object to my use of the word "member" because the links "merely" show that Obama participated in meetings, sought the nomination, and used the nomination. I'm not striking it because I think it's an abundantly fair description. See, e.g., this (my italics):The NP's [NP stands for the New Party, which was formed by the Democratic Socialists of America] political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP. The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.And this:The NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
ME: This has been a pet peeve of mine since I used to prosecute organized crime cases and had to deal with murderers and drug dealers who would argue that they weren't really "members" of a mafia family just because the fellas hadn't held that ceremony with the pricked fingers and burning saint cards. Whether one is a "member" of some association is a function of our observation of his conduct; the niceties that the association in question imposes are relevant, but they're not dispositive. For all it appears, Obama may very well have been a card-carrying member, but his degree of participation makes that question academic.
Update Andy McCarthy has more info on the subject.
I raised this topic in a post yesterday morning based on some information that he been unearthed on Larry Johnson's website. Now, John Hinderaker at Powerline points to this report from a site called "Politically Drunk on Power." The report provides what appears to be documentary evidence that Obama was a member of the Chicago New Party, a creation of the Democratic Socialists of America — and adds that there has been a determined effort to purge the paper-trail. Another report has since been added, here, which adds (a) another New Party document claiming Obama as a member, and (b) evidence that Obama appeared in 1996 at a Youth Democratic Socialists townhall meeting.
As John concludes: "it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy — one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States. It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do."
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a slim 2-point lead on Republican rival John McCain in a tight White House race, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Obama led McCain by 47 percent to 45 percent in the national poll, within the margin of error of 2.8 percentage points. Obama led by 3 points in Tuesday's poll.
Four percent of voters said they were still undecided.
The daily tracking poll, which will sample public opinion until the November 4 election, showed Obama leading among two crucial swing voting blocs. He has a 9-point advantage among independents and a 7-point edge among women.
"This race is at equilibrium," pollster John Zogby said, adding neither candidate has been able to take full advantage of voter unhappiness with the country's direction.
Peter Kirsanow suspects that mainstream Americans can state the following without setting off a lie detector.
- My career was not launched with the assistance of an unrepentant terrorist.
- My pastor has never said "God damn America."
- I don't think our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
- My spouse doesn't think America is a "downright mean country."
- I've never sat on a board with an unrepentant terrorist.
- I've never directed millions of dollars to radical organizations.
- I've never opposed requiring medical care for babies who are born alive.
- I bought my home without assistance from a convicted felon.
- I've never taken my kids to a church whose pastor thinks AIDS was created by the government.If Obama's mainstream, most Americans are extremists.
The Obama Fan-Dance Must End [Mark R. Levin]
As someone who has written critically of John McCain on a host of issues, including the Keating Five, none of it compares to the life that Barack Obama has led and his belief system. Obama is not merely associated with domestic terrorists, Palestinian radicals, Marxists, and black liberation ideologues — he was their favorite candidate. They groomed him. They befriended him. He befriended them. He socialized with them. In other words, these people saw Obama as representing their views and aspirations and he saw them the same way. I am not among those who raise Obama's associations but add "of course, it doesn't mean Obama shares their views." Oh really? These miscreants include Obama's former pastor, political mentors and allies, and friends. Obama attempts to downplay and distance himself from his own circle of allies now that he is running for president. But he is one of them. Obama is getting a pass that no other candidate in my memory has ever received.
If John McCain had belonged to a church for 20 years and that church advocated white supremacy and the pastor of the church spewed racist propaganda wrapped in Biblical verses — much of which was caught on video-tape — what would we say? If McCain's good friends included people involved in blowing up abortion clinics instead of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and police stations, what would we say? If McCain was socially close to a professor with ties to neo-Nazi groups in Berlin, as opposed to a professor who had ties to the PLO, what would we say? If McCain spent his formative years schooled in fascism as opposed to Marxism, what would we say?
Every time Obama's life experiences and character are raised, the response is a diversionary tactic. Today, we're supposed to be impressed with the moral equivalency argument (Ayers = Keating Five), or Obama's associations and friendships aren't what they appear to be, or Obama really isn't like all those people he drew around him, or those raising these issues are guilty of McCarthyism. There are 30 days left in this election. It's high time the Obama fan-dance ended.
Posted by Walt at 7:34 AM
As for Frank and Co., watch them deny, deny, deny the crisis in 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten up Fannie/Freddie oversight, so they could keep the gravy train moving. Republicans are not blameless in this by any means, as they still had a majority when reforms were suggested, but the brazenness with which Democrats are blaming today's crisis on the market they manipulated for their own gain should not be overlooked. Spread this video.