Obama’s Tax Plan and the Credit Crunch

Driving home yesterday I was suddenly struck by the discontinuity between Sen. Obama’s approach to the so-called credit crisis and his tax plan should he be elected president.

The basic problem as Wall Street crumbled was that the flow of credit halted keeping companies from being able to borrow either short- or long-term – credit that is used to finance day-to-day activities, inventory, and expansions of businesses.

There’s another word for this “credit” – money. They need money to make their businesses work. We need free-flowing money to keep our economy running.

According to Sen. Obama, failing to keep the money flowing “would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs.”

Yet his tax plans – raising the top income tax rate more than 11% plus increases in capital gains and payroll taxes – would suck money out of the economy, out of businesses just as surely as the credit crisis did. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s simple economics.

Can someone please ask Sen. Obama why it was so essential to keep money in the economy in September but it won’t be next year?

Obama, Powell, and Race

By now you've heard that Colin Powell has endorsed Sen. Obama for president. This would be a complete non-issue if he wasn't a Republican -- though he's always been liberal and pro-choice -- and Pres. Bush's former Secretary of State. The latter makes me want to have someone ask Sen. Obama about Powell and Iraq, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Mr. Powell has said he supports Sen. Obama "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he's reaching out all across America, because of who he is." In other words, he doesn't know what Sen. Obama believes either.

Anyway, though people will say what they'll say, Mr. Powell denies that race made a difference in his decision, and I'll take him at his word. If it was a factor, he would hardly be the first, though -- just about every conservative black politician and pundit has admitted a temptation in this regard.

Does this surprise anyone? I've heard many women talk about Sen. Clinton or Gov. Palin in the same way that black people have talked about Sen. Obama. People are attracted to people who are "like me." They tend to live together, clump together at work or at church, and when they get to opportunity to vote for someone like them for an office that has never before been an option, it gets their emotions involved. That's normal, and it should not be called, as some have, racism.

I just hope that when the day comes to "pull the lever," people will put their excitement about someone "like me" on hold long enough to look at the issues.

Mr. Powell says he doesn't want pro-life judges; well, we knew he was pro-choice. But a lot of people who say they want to vote for Obama are pro-life, anti-tax, small government voters the rest of the time.

Let's set our emotions aside and vote on the issues. The issues will matter long after the euphoria of being able to vote for someone "like me" has passed.

Adventures is Missing the Point 2

Joe the plumber is the new poster child against Sen. Obama’s tax policies. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that he’s the new target of the left-leaning media. They’ve “discovered” that he’s just a middle class guy who’s in no danger of being in Obama’s magic 5%.

So what?

The man’s points are all true – Sen. Obama’s plans would take job-creating capital away from small businesses. Maybe Joe would benefit in some small way from Obama’s tax plans. I might too. That doesn’t change the fact that his plans would be toxic for our economy and just add to the class-warfare that is already rampant in our culture.

Adventures in Missing the Point 1

Senator Obama has said many times on the campaign trail:

“America has 3% of the world’s oil reserves and uses 25% of the oil.”

His point is apparently that we cannot “drill our way” out of the energy crisis.

Has anyone claimed that we could? Drilling will not solve our long term problem. Drilling will ease our short term situation.

The way Sen. Obama talks, you’d think all kinds of alternative energy technologies are mere months away from commercial use. The truth is we have no idea how long it would take to switch our economy to non-fossil fuel energy.

We do know that we’re sitting on a lot of fossil fuel, though, and that accessing it would lower prices and loosen some of our entanglements in the Middle East.

Sometimes I think Sen. Obama has another “point” in his 3%/25% line. He likes to point out that we use so much of the world’s oil.

Assuming his numbers are correct, we use 25% of the world’s oil supply. We also produce 20-30% of the world’s GDP. That seems like a fair trade.

More Debate Followup

A couple more things from the last presidential debate.

First, Sen. Obama says Americans weren't greeted as liberators in Iraq. I don't remember it that way:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeUEABXDfg

Now, I know their attitudes have been as fluid as ... well, ours, but that doesn't change how they originally received us.

Second, the question about healthcare being a right, privilege or responsibility caught me off guard. I kind of wanted to say it was a right, but I saw they would want to make that mean we should provide healthcare to everyone free of charge. I knew that wasn't true, but it took me a while to put my finger on it. (This is why I'm a blogger, not a debater.)

I think healthcare is a right. If we're all created in the image of God, if we all have an unalienable right to life, then healthcare should be a right -- anything that is essential to life is a right.

The disconnect is that the left would say anything that is a right should be provided by government. That is obviously not true.

We all have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean government has to provide everyone with a laptop and Blogger account. It means government can't interfere in our right.

A right to healthcare only means that no one should be denied access to healthcare -- ala, "only party members are permitted this procedure" kinda stuff.

Obama on War

UPDATE: I've been asked to provide quotes to support my claims regarding Sen. Obama's statements. They all come from the CNN transcript of the town hall session.

We learned a bit about Sen. Obama's philosophy on war at last night's debate:

=He doesn’t have any problem invading a country who isn’t a direct threat against the US.

Brokaw: What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake? (emphasis added)

Obama:...we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

=He supports invading countries where people are suffering from their government.

Obama (to same question): If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

=He doesn’t have any problem ignoring the UN and doing what he thinks is right.

"...we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don't provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests."

=He doesn’t want people who are friends with terrorists to have dangerous weapons.

"We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.... it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it."

So, why did he oppose invading Iraq?

Despairing Over Government and the Credit Crunch

Since Justin Taylor's tapped into the wit of Despair, I thought I'd share one of their "demotivators" with application to our current situation:




See the original (and lots more) from Despair, Inc.