Professor Enigma's Official Site

Hopin’ For Some

Spare Change

Barack Hussein Obama, to be blunt, would be a disaster if he ever resides in the Oval Office in any position other than being an uninvited clown. He is an absolute disaster waiting to happen in nearly every political venue and issue; from gun control, immigration, taxes, spending, and abortion to homosexual marriage, foreign policy and experience.

We have examined Hussein Obama’s record and found it wanting. Let’s get down to brass tacks and show everyone that Obama is not qualified to run a Dairy Queen, let alone be the leader of the free world.

Lack of Experience

This alone serves as a good example that Democrats are only interested in packaging and style, not substance. First, let’s contrast Hussein Obama with some other Democrats that ran against him in the primaries. All of the candidates were empty suits and skirts, but Obama was the greenest of them all.

The guy with nice hair from NC who likes to visit strange women in hotel rooms had a whole term (more than Obama) in the Senate under his belt. Obama has only 4 years and about half of that has been spent campaigning for President. Hillary Clinton has almost 8 years, Biden has 36 and nobody cares what Sen. Dodd is doing, but he’s been in there 28 years himself, it just seems longer. Gravel and Kucinich are so crazy they make Hillary Clinton look sane. Gravel’s claim to fame is reading formerly-classified memos into the Congressional record, other than that nobody’s heard of him, nor do they care.

Bill Richardson did have good experience: He’s in his second term as a chief executive, was Ambassador to the United Nations and ran the Energy Dept. He’s actually ran something, which is more than anyone can say for Obama or the rest of the participants. Unless you count Kucinich bankrupting the City of Cleveland, he stands alone. Obama is indeed low on experience even when compared to this year’s crop of Democrat Presidential candidates. How does he compare to past Democrat and Republican nominees?

Jimmy Carter served one term as governor of GA, Bill Clinton was a governor for 10 years and Reagan was governor of CA. G.H.W. Bush had plenty of foreign policy experience when he ran in 1980 and shored that up as a two-term VP. Al Gore and Richard M. Nixon can boast of the same credentials, having served under Clinton and Eisenhower. Walter Mondull was a one-term VP.

Bob Dole had nearly 3 decades of experience in the Senate when he garnered the GOP nomination in ‘96, the French-looking candidate had 20 years and Michael Dukakis was a two-term governor of MA. Gerald Ford spent 25 years in the House before becoming the first VP selected under the auspices of the 25^th Amendment. He’s the only man to be VP and President without winning an election.

Even John Kennedy, the last sitting-senator elected to the presidency spent 6 years in the U.S. House and 8 years in the Senate. So I have to ask pertaining to Obama’s experience: Where’s the beef? Obama has no experience.

Taxes

I can’t go over numerous key votes I was able to with John McCain and other candidates because Obama’s paper trail is so thin. Obama would’ve opposed the Bush tax cuts, but he was too busy in Springfield voting "present" to participate. That brings me to another quick point, why did Hussein Obama vote "present" over 130 times during his illustrious 8-year state senate career? Couldn’t make up his mind? Too tough? Not smart enough?

Many of the items I go over are covered from a conservative viewpoint here and will add to the discussion.

Let’s start with the Bush tax cuts and income tax rates. Bush’s evil tax cuts dropped the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. Don’t worry liberals, self-sufficient people are still giving over one-third of their income to the government. Obama, being a collectivist, a redistributionist if you will, opposes this. He evidently believes that all income belongs to the government and you can keep what they see fit. Don’t let the people keep the vast majority of their money and drive the economy, divvy it out to specific voting blocs (read: rob Peter to pay Paul) and drive the economy right off a cliff. Jimmy Carter tried it, just ask him about it.

Obama has been consistent on his calls to raise taxes on income, inheritance (death taxes), and payroll (Social Security) taxes. As Clinton did in 1994 with Medicare, Obama wants to abolish the ceiling on Social Security taxes (but don’t look for him to raise benefits significantly), thus turning it into a full-fledged welfare program. Obama has had some difficulty deciding what to do with the capital gains tax. He’s flirted with putting it at 28% (pre-Clinton level), 25% and just being the nice guy he is and only taxing capital gains at 20%.

Obama obviously doesn’t understand the Laffer Curve and if he does he’s just another socialist trying to redistribute income. Here’s the problem with his planned (at least 5%) hike in capital gains. He wants the government to bring in more money, right?

"In 1986, the tax rate jumped to 28% from 20%, a 40% increase. Tax revenues spiked briefly in anticipation of the hike (as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate), then dropped precipitously. Four years later, in 1990, the federal government was still taking in 13% less revenue at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 at the 20% rate... In 2005, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, 8.5 million households paid taxes on capital gains. A hefty 47% of those tax filers reported income of less than $50,000, while 79% had income under $100,000. Keep in mind that capital gains themselves count as income and often are a one-time windfall from the sale of a small business or long-held stock. These working families would suffer a double whammy, both with a higher tax rate and lower stock prices – because financial markets factor higher taxes on stock profits into lower stock valuations."

Liberals who believe you have to feed the government beast were lamenting all that tax revenue that would disappear after cutting the rate on capital gains. It didn’t happen:

"A study by former Treasury Department economist Gary Robbins found that from 1946-1998, about 90 percent of the returns to capital investment accrued to workers in the form of higher wages... After the 1997 capital gains tax cut Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that the government would collect $195 billion from 1997 to 1999 from capital gains payments. The actual amount was $279 billion; in other words, the lower tax rate raised $84 billion more than expected -- which is one reason the late 1990s produced budget surpluses. Most recently, the 2003 tax cut produced a doubling of tax receipts to $97 billion in 2005 from $47 billion in 2002, twice what Congress predicted."

The devil’s in the details, Obama is constantly clamoring about tax cuts for the middle class, ¹ yet if these capital gains taxes had not been reduced in 2003 by Bush and a GOP congress almost 4 million people making less than $50,000 would’ve had less money in their pocket. Over 6.5 million of those people made less than $100,000. Couple that with the data on capital gains revenues plummeting after the tax rate was hiked in 1986 and you can readily see that raising that tax is not a good idea. This makes the case even further and lowering taxes on capital gains was one of the reasons Clinton enjoyed a robust economy most of his presidency.

"Obama got it wrong. The capital gains rate during the Clinton administration fell from 28 percent at the beginning to 20 percent with the signing of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 in August of that year. Interestingly, the economy managed only two years of growth of 4 percent or more in the decade previous to the 1997 cap gains cut—but notched three straight years of such growth in 1997, 1998, and 1999."

In addition:

"According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product. ‘If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period,’ the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. ‘This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP.’ The effect on New York will be even more acute: Wall Street accounts for nearly 9% of the city's tax revenues and up to 20% of the state's revenues; the city collected more than $3.3 billion in tax revenue from the securities industry in fiscal year 2007 and New York State collected $9.6 billion, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. In addition, every job added on Wall Street results in the creation of two additional jobs in other industries in the city, and one additional job in the suburbs."

Obama also has no plans to index this for inflation, for if inflation is high, the tax rate is actually higher than it appears. Right now, inflation is a problem and this will only exacerbate it. Germany, Switzerland, Austria and New Zealand have no taxes on capital gains, if we want to compete in this global economy, raising it is the last thing we want to do. Here’s some more telling information about the time Obama started to realize his "let’s raise the cap gains tax to 28%" rhetoric was scaring investors.

"Having just provided reassurance on the rate, he then said that the tax level on capital gains didn't matter to most Americans. ‘That's not something that's going to affect the average person with a 401(k) when people start talking about how, ‘Well, there are, you know, millions of Americans who own stock,’ most of them own stock in 401(k)s where their taxes are deferred and they pay ordinary income taxes when they finally cash out,’ [Hussein Obama] said. It is true that withdrawals from 401(k)s are taxed at ordinary income rates. That does not mean that the stock holdings in tax-deferred mutual funds are somehow fenced off from rising and falling values in the market. If investors see an increase in capital gains taxes in the offing, even to 20% from 15%, many will cash out before the new rate goes into effect. Unless Senator Obama can guarantee that the economy will be in a strong growth spurt when he imposes a higher capital gains tax rate, it's likely that share prices will fall, causing a decline in the value of the 401(k)s held by average Americans."

In review, it’s the height of foolishness for Obama to support any hike in the capital gains tax, I would settle for leaving it at 15%, but the correct capital gains tax is zero. Even Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Summers believed eliminating taxes on capital gains would do the economy good. Here’s an analogy to demonstrate:

"The great economist Irving Fisher came up with an analogy that precisely delineates the basic difference between income and capital. Think of a fruit-bearing tree. The tree both grows and yields fruit on an annual basis. The tree is effectively a capital asset, the fruit is the income, and growth of the size of the tree -- which will yield more fruit in the future -- is like a capital gain. The fruit can be taxed without hurting the tree or diminishing its capital -- its ability to grow and bear more fruit in the future. But taxing a capital gain is like sawing off limbs of the tree. That diminishes its capital value and inhibits the tree's ability to produce fruit; that is to say, future income. ...Since the 1920s, Congress has basically split the difference by leaving unrealized gains untaxed and generally taxing realized gains at reduced rates. However, a strong case can still be made that capital gains really shouldn't be taxed at all. The right rate for capital gains might be zero."

Obama’s capital gains rhetoric demonstrates his inexperience perfectly. Let’s move onto Obama’s income tax hikes and the damage that could do. Let’s use a real-life analogy to demonstrate this using the greatest golfer of all-time–Tiger Woods. What would happen if Woods won the U.S. Open and Obama was President?

"It was fortunate for Tiger that his most-recent U.S. Open win occurred in 2008. Under twin tax proposals from Obama to 1) remove the 'cap' from Social Security taxes for individuals earning over $250,000, a plateau Tiger has long since surpassed in 2008, and 2) eliminate the 'Bush' tax cuts, thereby raising the top marginal federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent, Tiger's taxes on his winner's check would have increased to approximately $776,000, a boost of almost $190,000. Instead of Tiger keeping 57 percent of his earnings and the government taking 43 percent, under the twin Obama tax proposals, Tiger's federal and California taxes would have amounted to 57 percent of his winnings, leaving Tiger with just 43 percent... The New York Yankees have a 2008 payroll of approximately $208 million. Under the twin Obama tax proposals, the 24 Yankee players would be hit with an aggregate increase in federal income taxes of just over $22 million, with slugger Alex Rodriguez single-handedly getting dunned with $2.6 million in additional federal taxes. The owner of the Yankees would owe an additional $7.5 million of federal taxes. Ticket prices would need to be increased by about $65 million so that the owner and players could have the same after-tax income as before. The increase in ticket prices would amount to an average $16 per ticket. Given that the least-expensive ticket in Yankee Stadium currently is $14, this would more than double the cost of a seat in the bleachers."

Ouch! Oh, they don’t need that money, they’re rich. And nobody residing in the middle class should be able to watch the Yankees play anymore because they can’t afford it! The same effects would be seen in every sector of the economy, the Bush tax cuts must be preserved.

Even Obama seems to be coming around on this issue (flip-flopping) saying:

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy. Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday."

So he thinks rescinding the tax cuts in a recessions would "hurt the economy," but what the heck, I’m still going to do it. Does he make any sense? If raising taxes in a recession (FYI: We have not had two consecutive quarters of GDP growth, we are not in a recession) is a bad idea I guess he’s going to wait for the economy to turn the corner and then we’ll nail all those rich guys with higher taxes so we can go back to a recession. Makes sense.

Since the Bush tax cuts were enacted we’ve seen the Laffer Curve in full effect. We’ve seen this demonstrated in corporate tax revenue, income tax revenue and general tax revenue the government brings in every fiscal year. This even holds true after adjusting for inflation. Raising income taxes (and I don’t believe for a second that if Obama is elected that those rates won’t go higher 2 or 3 years from now to "cover" a budget shortfall) will stunt economic growth and reduce tax receipts in the long run.

Now let’s get to Obama’s plans on lifting the cap on Social Security (payroll) taxes. Some time ago former Clintonoid George Stephanopoulos was grilling Obama on what he was going to do about Social Security and the coming crisis (we will get to this later) concerning adequate funding for it and other entitlements.

Everything was on the table, everything but private accounts where one could be in control of their own retirement destiny, apparently Obama believes it’s my job to pay for everyone’s else’s retirement–no personal responsibility here (unless you’re disabled or a widow, I would make certain exceptions for that, but there is a thing called "life insurance" too).

Raising the retirement age (!), cutting benefits and raising taxes were all on the table. Obama seems to be in love with option #3, he’s going to scrap the cap on payroll taxes and all your income (minus a "doughnut hole" from $102,000 to 250,000) will be subjected to it.

This brings us to the point: Obama is turning an already bad program into a full-fledged socialist endeavor. The more a person doles out to Mr. Big Government in payroll taxes, the more they get when they retire. However,

""[T]he most alarming thing about Mr. Obama's proposal is that the $250,000 threshold, above which the payroll tax would be applied, refers to household income, not individual income. So it's quite deceptive when he claims that the $250,000 threshold will 'ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle class Americans.' Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you'd be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages. At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% – 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers – your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. You probably didn't consider yourself rich before, and you certainly won't after paying that tax bill..."

"Mr. Obama hasn't decided yet what forms of income will be included in the $250,000 threshold. It's an open question whether it might include interest on savings and capital gains income. And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich – and, truth be told, the middle class – paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program... According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed..."

"In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds. There's only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again – plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama's Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you'll get to pay more taxes all over again."

Don’t look for Obama to eradicate the cap on benefits. Sure, Obama’s plan will delay the Social Security nightmare for a time, but only at the expense of economic growth and when the day of reckoning comes the result will be even worse than if we’d done absolutely nothing.

I usually don’t plug videos, but here’s a good one where Dan Mitchell takes Obama’s Social Security fix behind the woodshed for a well-deserved beating. Look at the point where benefits exceed the estimate tax revenue. It’s going to be here before you know it, we need to fix this in McCain’s first term. Before 2030 we will have a $250 BILLION+ deficit. Hiking taxes to "fix" this and shrink the deficit won’t work–we’re going to be revisiting the 1970s and the era of outrageous taxes. Mitchell brings up and expands on many of the points already covered.

Obama has "refined" his plan, but it’s not much better.

"Sen. Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4% rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2% to 4% more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by Sen. McCain's close adviser Lindsey Graham, and that Sen. McCain has previously said he ‘could’ support."

It seems as if Obama has "refined" several of his positions since the Democrat primaries, his proposed payroll tax increase will not solve the entitlement problem and I liken it to a man spitting in the ocean to make sea levels rise. We must note again–a decade from now we’ll have benefits exceeding revenue, this is not going to fix the entitlement problem. I’ll bet if someone like Obama gets into the White House in 2016 he’ll "fix" it by imposing the full payroll tax on all income. We have an entitlement disaster coming soon. ² Obama opposes any kind of legislation that lets the people have more control of their retirement and health care after retirement.

Now onto the last tax (literally), the Death (Inheritance, Estate) Tax. Death should be a taxable event according to liberals, because dead guys spend too much. The Death Tax is dead in 2010 and comes roaring back in 2011, that might be bad news for a terminally-ill rich person who’s in their last days late in 2010, it’ll cost you big to die on Jan. 1^st. Here’s Obama’s thoughts on the Death Tax:

"The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000."

The key phrase is "per couple." If you’re flying solo when you die and your estate is worth $10 million; $2.925 million of the remaining $6.5 million would become government property, just because you exited the land-of–the-living. Under the Obama presidency, dying could cost your family big. More on the death tax here, it should be abolished.

Another keyword is "2000." The death tax is repealed in 2010 but unless something is done it will come storming back. Concerning the amount excluded from death taxes: 2002-03, 1 million; 2004-05, 1.5 million; 2006-08, 2 million; 2009, 3.5 million. The tax rates for income subject to death taxes are as follows: 2002 was 50% and it decreases 1% each year until 2007.

Before we get to spending I have a few more items to address. Much ado was made over the summer on suspending the federal gasoline tax. McCain was in favor of it with no strings attached, Clinton wanted it attached to windfall profits taxes on the oil companies and Obama just wanted windfall profits taxes. ³ Obama hasn’t always looked at it that way, he did vote for a temporary reduction in the fuel tax when he was a state senator.

Obama also apparently doesn’t understand how the stock market works and the long-term investments involved with it.

" ‘Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones,’ [Obama] said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. ‘You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg.’ "

Hey Barack, those are long-term investments. How has the stock market done over the last 15 or 20 years? There are a variety of investments Barack, even when the stock market en masse is spiraling down there are winners. There are speculators in oil futures who win even when the price of oil goes down. If Obama’s worried about the stock market maybe he should keep capital gains taxes at 15%. Now let’s move on to one of the huge differences between Obama and McCain–spending.

Federal Spending/Pork

One of the areas where McCain excels is spending. McCain has a long record of cutting and opposing overspending and pork-barrel projects. Many Obama supporters are naively suggesting to me that Obama will "trim the fat" and cut spending. I find that very hard to believe considering all the spending that Obama has placed on the table during his campaign and his very short Senate career. Let’s hit the high points quickly.

Obama has proposed a budget-buster in the Global Poverty Act, which would dedicate about $845 BILLION in the next 13 years in foreign aid on top of what the U.S. already spends. This reminds me of education spending, throwing more (wasted) money on it causes even more money to be spent on it. They’re not doing much research (as with education) on whether this extra spending is effective, we’ll throw more money at it so our constituents think "we’re doing something." Most foreign aid is wasted either on tyrants taking it for themselves or dreaded overhead costs. Giving exorbitant amounts of foreign aid year-after-year just make other countries (usually socialistic) dependent upon us. Much like a child that never leaves home, is coddled by mommy and not pushed to "get out on their own" with emphasis on "get out."

Obama made sure he got in on the stimuluspalooza hysteria pledging another bevy of $1,000 checks to a lot of people who don’t pay any taxes. This will cost another $65 billion, I thought Democrats were worried about the deficit. The last stimulus was a flop, most of it went into savings or was used to pay off debt, it didn’t work. This is Obama in full pander mode, looking to buy votes by paying Paul with Peter’s money.

Because Obama is a "junior Senator" he didn’t garner as many earmarks as heavyweights like Sens. Clinton (I refer to "Little" Chuckie as the "junior" Senator of NY), Stevens and "Sheets" Byrd, but he was able to get $91-92 million in earmarks for FY08. McCain, who is an enemy of earmarks took Obama to task on this.

In all fairness, Obama did vote with 28 other Senators to impose a moratorium on earmarks. That’s where the good news ends and the bad news begins again. Obama had a chance to kill the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," but balked. There’s more, Obama voted to keep the following subsidies and pork-barrel projects, because if we didn’t have this spending, by golly millions would starve.

Obama voted against "strik[ing] a provision that provides $74.5 million to states based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock and or diary products, which was not included in the Administration's emergency supplemental request." Obama voted against eliminating "a provision providing $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which was not included in the Administration's emergency supplemental request."

Obama voted to keep earmarks in an emergency war supplemental spending bill. Obama voted against requiring "conference report inclusion of limitations, directives, and earmarks" and voted against prohibiting "any funds under the Act from being used for a parking facility as part of the Joslyn Art Museum Master Plan, in Omaha, Nebraska."

Obama’s record on combating wasteful subsidies and pork spending aren’t good. He’s a Johnny-come-lately to the fight against wasteful spending. If that wasn’t enough to make you sick check out his bag-o-goodies Obama is proposing to hand out to various groups from the public treasury. Ready?

"Among other things, he proposes: Doling out faith-based grants 'targeting ex-offenders.' Subsidizing supermarket chains that relocate to the inner city to deliver 'fresh produce' to blacks, helping wean them off unhealthy fast food. Imposing 'goals and timetables for minority hiring' on large corporations whose work forces are deemed too white. Continuing to fund the Community Development Block Grant program, Head Start and HUD public housing subsidies. Funding Small Business Administration loans for minority businesses who train ex-felons, including gangbangers, for the 'green jobs' of the future, such as installing extra insulation in homes. Doubling the funding for federal after-school programs such as midnight basketball. [Where are the parents? Hello?] Subsidizing job training, day care, transportation for inner-city poor, as well as doubling the funding of the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program. Expanding the eligibility of the earned income tax credit to include more poor, and indexing it to inflation. Adopting entire inner-city neighborhoods as wards of the federal government. Spending billions on new inner-city employment programs, including prison-to-work programs."

Spend, spend, spend; pander, pander and pander some more. Fund this because people are too dumb to choose what they eat. Subsidize neighborhoods full of crack whores, drug addicts and drug dealers because government is your mother. Who needs parents when you can have midnight basketball and a bevy of after-school "programs?" It’s not my job to raise your friggin’ kids, do it yourself! Pay for someone’s transportation (I guess he’s never heard of public transportation) because now you have a constitutional right to a car. Hand out money to supermarkets so they can make deliveries and a little affirmative action to boot. This is utter nonsense!

This is utter Marxism, taxpayers are literally going to fund everything. When will the madness end? When will people stand up and say enough is enough?

That’s not all folks, there’s more.

"Obama proposed a 10-year, $60 billion ‘National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank,’ which is a haughty name for a scheme to fund dubious pork-barrel projects that can't pass Congress. The $60 billion is just a down payment; it will be used to leverage ‘almost half a trillion of additional infrastructure spending’... He promises a $4,000 refundable tax credit to finance college tuition for students who spend 100 hours performing community service... Taxpayers will also finance a $500 refundable tax credit to augment a $1,000 savings-account deposit made by families earning up to $75,000... He would increase their refundable child-care tax credit to $3,000 and offer a refundable $1,000 tax credit to partly offset their $1,500 Social Security taxes, which had already been more than offset by their nearly $10,000 refundable EITC. If they put that $1,000 in the bank, they would get another refundable tax credit of $500."

Where’s this money coming from? Oh yeah, the taxpayers, at least those who do pay taxes. As if we don’t spend enough on education but evidently Obama doesn’t think so–he wants to "double funding for after-school programs." I thought the parents were in charge of raising their kids? Apparently not, to Obama government literally is the mommy. Education spending has already skyrocketed under Bush, enough is enough. Throw in another $4 billion in bailouts for the Detroit automakers and this guy is going to challenge Bush’s record of egregious spending.

Then you have Obama’s mysterious plans for a Civilian National Security Force. Obama has ignored queries from Joseph Farah on the details surrounding this proposal and the antique media largely ignored this line. Obama has not posted a transcript of this speech on his campaign website either.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Is this going to make military service mandatory, service that Obama never engaged in? I think our military, FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, Dept. of Defense, Homeland Security and Coast Guard are enough to keep this country safe, we don’t need a "civilian national security force." How much will this cost? Farah has an idea:

"Last week, I blew the whistle on Barack Obama's secret $439 billion plan for a mysterious initiative called the ‘civilian national security force’... A few have suggested I am making too much of a benign proposal by Obama -- one that merely calls for a greatly increased commitment to the Foreign Service. If so, why is it that the Obama campaign has gone mum on this proposal? Why is it that operatives keep promising us clarification that never is forthcoming? And furthermore, is an expansion of the Foreign Service to the size of the $439 billion Defense Department (in 2007 dollars) really such an innocent idea... Or is Barack Obama's notion of a "civilian national security force" something else entirely? Does it have anything to do with the Foreign Service, or does it have more to do with some kind of domestic Big Brother program, as the chilling words first suggested to me?"

Obama’s silence is deafening. Other items in this article will indirectly relate to spending but don’t fit directly into this category, keep an eye on it.

Gun Control

If I could describe Hussein Obama’s views on gun control in one word–draconian. He is certainly not a supporter of the Second Amendment. I always get a kick out of liberals stressing the right of people to have guns for hunting and such, but what about the right of self-defense? What about my right to shoot a criminal who’s entering my home without my permission in the middle of the night? Don’t I have the right to own a firearm for personal protection? Funny, they usually leave that out, but they never forget about the hunters.

Let’s start with D.C. v. Heller and Obama’s flip-flops on this issue. At one time Obama was in favor of D.C.’s unconstitutional handgun ban, but shortly before that ban went down in flames Obama suddenly "believes the Second Amendment is an individual right." He tried denying this but the videotape doesn’t lie.

Obama has a horrible record on gun control, he’s opposed to concealed-carry (even if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you know how to handle a gun), he also "supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, [a] position he denied ever taking."

Obama also wants to hamstring people who defend themselves and their property from criminals:

"In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession. S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property. Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee's vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence."

He also favors bans on assault weapons, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, micro-stamping (this can be circumvented easily by those who want to do it and it will cost manufacturers a lot of money and time), banning gun stores within 5 miles of schools and parks (the only places there would be fun stores are out in the middle of nowhere), frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers (i.e. Dave passes a background check, buys a firearm and shoots someone 5 years later. This legislation protected those who make guns–it’s not their fault someone went nuts), banning most rifle ammunition, and gun registration. This way the government and possibly everyone else would know if you have a gun. It’s none of their business.

Pertaining to protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, we’ve already seen some results in that venue:

"A federal court has once again invoked a 2005 law in dismissing a lawsuit filed against 25 gun manufacturers on behalf of nine ‘gun crime’ victims. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is intended to protect the gun industry from politically motivated lawsuits... The lawsuit was filed in January 2000, but according to the opinion written by Associate Judge Michael William Farrell, the 2005 law required the court to dismiss the case. Judge Farrell wrote that Congress, in passing the law, wanted to ‘prohibit [lawsuits] against manufacturers ... for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms products ...’ Allowing the lawsuit to proceed ‘would, in our view, frustrate Congress' clear intention.’ It was lawsuits like this one that led to passage of the federal law in the first place, Gottlieb said."

If Obama had prevailed, we would see gun makers getting hit with lawsuit-after-lawsuit, either putting them out of business or making guns too expensive for most people to buy. There is definitely a long-standing precedent established that owning a firearm is an individual right. Here’s one interesting landmark case:

"In the 1857 Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that a free black man could not be an American citizen. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney listed the unacceptable (to him) consequences of black citizenship: Black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and to go where they wanted within that state at any hour of the day or night. Further, black citizens would have ‘the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ "

Obama is definitely out-of-the-mainstream when it comes to gun control, in fact he seems like a statist who wants to limit the rights of law-abiding and free citizens. Maybe you’re asking yourself: "Ok, Obama is a nut on gun control, but at least he’ll crack down on those criminals, right?" Wrong. Obama is a wimp on crime, reminds me of Michael Dukakis.

In 1999, Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to vote against a bill that prohibited convicted criminal sex abusers from getting early release. The amendment to the 'County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act' provided that a person in a county jail may not receive a good behavior allowance if he is convicted of criminal sexual assault against a minor who is also a family member or if the criminal were to be convicted of criminal sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse. The legislation, S.B. 485 (IL 1999), passed 54-1... In 2003, Obama would not vote at all on H.B. 338 when it crossed over to the Illinois Senate. That legislation made sex offenders ineligible to sit on school boards. Perhaps most troubling though, was Obama's 2001 vote against H.B. 1912. The legislation came about in response to a brutal gang murder in Chicago and was designed to put gang members who kill in furtherance of gang activity on death row. Obama voted against the legislation and he even spoke out against the bill on the Senate floor. He claimed to be concerned that the term will be used to ‘target’ certain neighborhoods. The legislation passed 44-9."

Hussein Obama was trying to look like a tough guy after the SCOTUS quashed states’ rights in regards to executing perverts who rape children. His record indicates a severe weakness in dealing with crime. In review, Obama wants to make it impossible for a law-abiding citizen to get a handgun for home protection but doesn’t mind criminal sex abusers getting early release. How Orwellian.

Homosexual Marriage

While it’s true that McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (I would too, because I think it should be left up to the states, although I oppose it), Obama would too and he takes his pandering to the militant homosexual lobby to a new level.

Obama has not been shy about declaring his vehement opposition to DOMA, a piece of legislation signed by Bill Clinton which keeps IA from having to recognize the crazy marriage laws of states like MA, NH and CA.

He’s made no bones about his plan to repeal DOMA and force each state to accept homosexual marriage, despite the fact that it does not win on the ballot–ever. So much for Federalism.

Abortion

Abortion is another area where Obama is very radical, even to the point of opposing legislation that would require life-saving procedures given to infants who survive abortion attempts. I used to think liberals believed in abortion only to the point where the last millimeter of the infant’s foot got out of the womb–apparently some support it even when it exits the womb. It should be noted that even Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy and Hillary Clinton supported the Infant Born Alive Protection Act at the federal level. Again, Obama was in Springfield at the time.

Obama tried to explain away his vote against this while a State Senator, saying it was not identical to the bill passed at the federal level, but this has gone up in smoke. He was deathly afraid that this legislation would restrict Roe v. Wade and thus voted against it, voting "present" once. After he was called out on that and proven wrong, he said it still could’ve been used to undermine Roe v. Wade.

If elected President he plans to "sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions."

So not only is this barbaric practice going to continue, but I’ll have to pay for the abortion of some gutter slut. Pay for your own abortion scumbag, it’s not my job to do so. And forget about the parents being notified if their minor daughter seeks an abortion. They have a right to know (notice it doesn’t even restrict her access to one, this is how far to the left Obama is) but not in the world of Barack Obama they don’t.

In review, Obama opposes the IBAPA, parental notification, interstate abortion laws (prohibiting a man from taking a minor across state lines to circumvent abortion laws in the state they reside and avoid parental notification) and supports taxpayer funds for abortions. He (like McCain unfortunately) favors embryonic stem cell research as well.

Illegal Immigration

Like McCain, Obama is way to the left on immigration, supporting two recent immigration bills that would’ve granted amnesty to 12 million+ illegal aliens and taxpayer subsidies (DREAM Act) for illegal immigration education. However, Obama has even moved to the left of McCain on this issue.

Obama also voted against denying "funds in FY2007 for the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the United States just voted against because countries found complicit in sustained human rights abuses are eligible for Council membership. Savings redirected to border security."

He voted against 1.8 billion in funding for a double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along out Southwest border; voted against barring gang members et al. from ever becoming citizens and voted against "prohibit[ing] H-2C nonimmigrants from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status."

Obama supported the Secure Fence Act, but since then has moved far to the left. For example, at a debate with Mrs. Bill Clinton on 2/21/08 Hussein Obama said this about the border fence: "The key is to consult with local communities... I will reverse that policy... we can’t deport all 12 million [illegal aliens]."

No border fence I guess, Obama wants a mulligan. Why did you vote for it in the first place? Flip-flop. He also said this while pandering to none other than La Raza:

" Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza yesterday, pumped up the crowd by describing how Hispanic communities are 'terrorized' by government immigration officers. ‘When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids,’ Obama said, ‘when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.’ "

I had my version of this, I thought it was nice: "Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza yesterday, pumped up the crowd by describing how American communities are 'terrorized' by illegal aliens stealing Social Security numbers and jobs. ‘When communities are terrorized by people stealing Social Security numbers and doling out welfare to people who snuck in,’ Obama said, ‘when nursing mothers are sucking up massive funds from the public treasury, when children of illegals come home from school to find taxpayer funds paying for their education wholesale, when terrorists who aren't covered by the Geneva Convention are given SCOTUS-ordained access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.' " That sounds about right."

Make no mistake folks, if Obama is elected President not only will amnesty be given to illegals, massive taxpayer funds will be directed to their education, the border fence will be quashed, there will be no enforcement of immigration laws and... they’ll get drivers licenses. Yes, that’s correct, drivers licenses for those who illegally reside in these United States.

Universal Health Care

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, most of the information is elucidated here, but Obama does indeed favor a government-run health care system, much like the broken systems in Europe (especially the U.K.) and in Canada.

The costs attached to this are enormous and Sen. Allard (R-CO) recently called out Obama on this. He created a budget amendment funding all the proposals that Obama has promised on the campaign trail related to health care–costing $280 billion a year. Obama and everyone else ran from it like Dracula from garlic.

Obama’s claims about what this program will cost are a laughingstock and there will bureaucracy aplenty:

"The one element of Obama's plan that is crystal clear is his call for major expansion of the government's role in controlling healthcare. The central proposition he makes is that the government can intervene to improve the quality of healthcare provided in the US. Clearly, quality improvement should be a major goal for healthcare reform. Obama's plan does not disappoint on this promise. He claims that he will improve patient care by requiring doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. His plan would link payment with reported quality. This implies that poor quality must be the provider's fault."

"To implement this plan, an army of new bureaucrats must be hired by the government to keep a watchful eye on the doctors and hospitals to ensure quality. Healthcare providers will have to hire larger staffs to collect and report this data adding more cost to the system. As these new structures evolve, the law of averages will prevail and the actual care will migrate to a median level of quality. The net result will be little improvement in care, and significant increase in the cost. High administrative overhead already is a major problem in our current system. A New England Journal of Medicine article stated that U.S. healthcare administrative overhead is twice that of the Canadian system. These researchers found that 31% of health care expenditures in the US went for administrative costs. Obama advocates that we increase this overhead further with no clear indication that quality will improve."

"Obama's plan also calls for a ten billion dollar federal investment in healthcare information technology over five years. He purports this will improve quality and save money. Will it? The data suggests otherwise. A study published in The Archives of Internal Medicine showed information technology did not make a quality difference. Comparing practices that used an electronic medical record with those that did not, investigators found no difference in 14 quality measures, improvement in 2 outcome measures, and a worse outcome on 1 measure."

The $280 billion/year price tag is a conservative estimate, I know of no socialized medical program (look at MA, it’s way over budget) that stays within its original budget, it always ends up costing more than projected. Obama’s nationalized health care scheme is a joke and a budget-buster to boot. We’ll spend more for lower quality across-the-board.

Free Trade

For more information on free trade, go here. Obama hasn’t had to vote on many FTAs because he hasn’t been there that long. His rhetoric on free trade is also wanting–he did support an FTA with Oman but opposed CAFTA-DR. He’s been a vocal critic of NAFTA (at least during the primaries) but seems to be caving under pressure, he realizes he’s making a mistake and his inexperience is showing.

While the OH primary loomed on the horizon, Obama pulled out all the stops and took advantage of Hillary’s missteps on NAFTA (she was for it before she was against it) by proclaiming "Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA." It’s funny though, he’s done just what Hillary did. Now the inexperienced Senator says:

"In a teleconference on Friday, the Obama campaign said ‘absolutely ... Barack Obama will reopen negotiations on NAFTA’ to add tougher environmental and labor rules. Otherwise, said Senator Sherrod Brown, an Obama administration ‘could’ withdraw the United States from NAFTA... his position is constant and will stay that way on the North American free trade (pact) and on trade generally... In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. ‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy."

He’s taking three positions: He’s for it, against it and "maybe" he’ll withdraw, maybe he won’t. I’m not sure he knows what he wants. It took Obama about five months to blink on the NAFTA issue. Free trade is good for the economy, we can’t trust Obama to do the right thing considering how often he "refines" his position. Now onto the biggest issue: National Security.

National Security/Terrorism/Iraq

This is one issue where I will drag the career-Senator Joe Biden into the issue, he’s really bad news on this issue. What good does 36 years of experience do you when you’re wrong all the time? Biden voted for the war (as did a lot of Democrats) and is now using it as a political football. It’s finger-in-the-air foreign policy.

Let’s begin with the surge, Obama was against the surge (I find it interesting that Democrats have taken Iraq off the table, they whined incessantly about it in ‘06, but it’s not an issue now, that says a lot) but has had to eat his words. Obama supported legislation in January of 2007 that would pull us out of Iraq before the surge started. This didn’t make it out of committee. Twice he voted with Sen. Feingold and Co. to pull us out of Iraq just as the surge was getting a full head of steam.

Obama said this about the surge: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think (the surge) takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal."

Let’s highlight some of the successes of the surge.

"A former stronghold of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, this rural and overwhelmingly Sunni area south of Baghdad on the west bank of the Tigris was once a country getaway for Saddam Hussein's cronies. His sons Uday and Qusay had a weekend house here. After the invasion in 2003, it became a virtual no-go zone for the Iraqi police and army... But last year, violence fell drastically. American commanders cite three main reasons: the United States troop surge, which provided the combat power to take on the insurgents, the decision to withdraw troops from large bases far outside Iraqi towns and put them closer to the population, and the decision by local Sunnis to follow the model of the Anbar Province tribal Awakening by turning against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and cooperating with the Americans to fight it... The American military has also created and paid for armed tribal Awakening security patrols, which include many former Sunni insurgents, to guard their own neighborhoods. They were formerly known as Concerned Local Citizens here, but were recently rebranded Sons of Iraq."

July 2008 was the least deadliest month of the Iraq war, only four U.S. service personnel were killed and Iraqi security forces made positive gains in Basra and (especially) in Iraq’s smaller southern cities (Sadr City, Najaf, Kut et al.).

Overall violence is decreasing: "According to the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs, ‘Overall violence is down at least 80 percent since the surge began, and ethno-sectarian violence — the kind that seemed to be sucking Iraq into all-out civil war in 2006 — is down by over 90 percent.’ American fatalities have plummeted from 66 in July 2007 to five last month... According to the Brookings Institution’s stunningly comprehensive Iraq Index, attacks on Iraqi oil pipelines fell from 19 in May 2007 to one last March. This has helped oil production swell to 2.54 million barrels per day, surpassing peak pre-war production of 2.5 million barrels daily"

And: "Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a senior U.S. military spokesman, said violence in parts of Iraq had fallen to its lowest levels since summer 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties are down 60 percent since June, and they have dropped 75 percent in Baghdad, Smith said."

I’m not saying it’s a picnic over there, but it has dramatically improved since the surge was enacted, McCain pushed hard for the surge, Obama opposed it. One of the problems Obama didn’t take into account because his greenness prevented it was the removal of all the equipment if you decide to bail out of Iraq.

"90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks. While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was 'no way' it could work logistically... Unless [Hussein] Obama plans some kind of nationwide garage sale, that would be a rather large loss for the American military in materiel as well as making our exit look more like Dunkirk. Obviously, Obama didn’t have any awareness of logistics when he made this proposal — and that’s the point. His lack of experience, combined with a hubris that he has consistently shown on the campaign trail, makes clear that he is in way over his head at this point of his career. He has no sense of military policy at all, and got the biggest call of the war — the surge — completely wrong. Yet he insists that he’s ready to lead this nation’s military during a time of war as Commander in Chief?"

It seems Obama has now finally realized that the jig is up, people are learning that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about when Iraq is the topic. He has a few sound bites that he clings to as a lifeline when questioned, but when we get into details he’s completely lost. He’s starting to crack.

"CBS’s Steve Kroft asked Obama in a 60 Minutes interview if he would pull out of Iraq according to a timetable ‘regardless of the situation? Even if there’s sectarian violence?’ Obama responded, ‘No, I always reserve as commander in chief the right to assess the situation.’ As a U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate, Obama has called on President Bush again and again to agree to a binding withdrawal date for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. He even introduced legislation, titled The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, to remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."

What’s the problem Barack? You’re playing both-sides-against-the-middle? Further proof that he knows he’s wrong–he removed all criticism of the surge from his website, they were probably working around the clock to get all that deleted. Here’s another flip-flop from John Kerry’s best student.

"When Barack Obama was running for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004, he filled out a questionnaire for the Chicago Sun-Times answering ‘no’ to this question: Would you have voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan? Once elected to the Senate, Obama voted for a series of war funding measures, as did chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)."

McCain has been hammering The Inept One on his opposition to the surge, demanding that he admit he was wrong. Obama finally admitted it without actually admitting it because that would mean looking into the camera and saying, "I was totally wrong on the surge, if we had done what I wanted, we would’ve lost and given Iraq back to al-Qaeda and terrorism en masse."

"As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people. ‘I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody [read: Obama] anticipated,’ Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. ‘I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.’ "

Totally wrong on the surge and has absolutely no credentials to be Commander-in-Chief. Terrorist group Hamas thinks Obama has the right stuff, but why would a well-known terrorist organization endorse Obama other than some reasons already mentioned? Let’s expand on that.

Hillary Clinton hit at Obama (and exposed her own flip-flopping in the process) during the primaries for expressing interest in meeting unconditionally with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Clinton seemed willing to meet with all of them but Iran. Obama also voted against legislation designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization." Obama criticized Clinton early and often for voting in favor of that.

He also said: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people... the Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." Taking into account Obama’s ties to Palestinian organizations and people like former Carter stooge Zbigniew Brzezinski, he seems to have a rather Carteresque foreign policy. Another one of his foreign policy advisers Daniel Kurtzer has visited Syria and is trying to be a negotiator between them and Israel. Kurtzer also supported recognizing the PLO.

Now let’s focus on another of Obama’s flip-flops, telecom immunity for phone companies that voluntarily help these United States listen to international calls (some of these calls don’t originate here, nor is their destination the U.S., merely utilizing some of our switching networks) for possible terrorist chatter.

This is a big issue, unless you’re a civil libertarian (or hypocritical Democrat who turns a blind eye to Carter, FDR and Clinton doing many of the same things) who thinks Cheney is gleefully reading your e-mails to grandma. This was Obama then on telecom immunity:

"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.... No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed."

This is Obama now:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. ... After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

I’m amused at the bone Obama throws is vacuous legions: "I will carefully monitor the program" Yeah, sure you will, you’re passing the buck. Just as you’ve failed to hold even one meeting in the last two years on the Senate subcommittee you’ve chaired, nobody’s buying it Barack.

Even some on the left (like Glenn Greenwald) are upset at Obama’s flip-flop and others like Keith Overbite are now making excuses for Obama’s flip-flop. Overbite railed against "fascism" while this bill was being debated, but now that Hussein Obama has voted for it he’s "standing up against the left" and "reaching across the aisle."

Here’s Obama voting for a specific amendment trying to neuter telecom immunity and here’s Obama voting for the final FISA bill containing telecom immunity. Biden voted "nay" on both. Obama must be a Bush lapdog.

Obama’s (check out our record in missile-defense tests) a limp-wristed Carterite when it comes to national defense too, he wants to:

Cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. He will not weaponize space. He will slow our development of future combat systems and is open to drastically cutting the Pentagon’s budget. He’s also expressed interest in ridding the U.S. and the world of all fissile material! I’m sure Iran, Russia and China will be first-in-line to join on us on that venture. Obama’s also had a "Road to Damascus" conversion on this, trying to expunge his past statements and ambivalence to missile defense systems.

Obama and his willing accomplices in the Democrat Party have opposed any-and-all missile defense systems for decades, leaving up open to a possible future attack should a rogue regime acquire the ability to shoot a missile into U.S. airspace.

They want to pull our military out of every area in the world, yet don’t support Reagan’s vision of SDI, derisively labeled "Star Wars" by Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy. Consider this: "[In 1972 only nine countries had ballistic missiles. Today at least 27 countries do, including those with hostile intent and those that actively support terrorist groups." Let’s start with his running-mate, career bureaucrat Joe Biden. He has a laundry list of failures during his 36 years:

"Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them. In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras. He also opposed Reagan's efforts to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which at the time was battling the FMLN, a Soviet-supported Marxist group..."

"He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War... Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: ‘What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia... Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a ‘tragic mistake.’ It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever."

And:

"During a debate in June 2000, he said building missile defenses would be 'acting on our worst fears' and would 'only make those fears come true.' [What Joe, the fear of actually intercepting a missile fired by Iran or some rogue group?] Biden attacked President Bush's 'theological' belief in missile defense in a September 2001 speech at the National Press Club. 'Are we willing to end four decades of arms control agreements, and go it alone, a kind of bully nation, sometimes a little wrongheaded, but ready to make unilateral decisions in what we perceive to be our self-interest?' he asked. In a December 18, 2001, op-ed in the Washington Post titled 'Missile Defense Delusion,' Biden wrote: 'President Bush's decision to unilaterally walk away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a serious mistake.' The ABM Treaty forbids building a defensive shield, except for the one the Soviets built around Moscow. It was in fact a necessary first step in fulfilling President Reagan's dream of a national missile defense protecting the American people. It was definitely in our national interest."

Bush does favor SDI, but considering the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, it’s pointless to have a treaty with a non-entity. Our record on missile defense tests are impeccable, this can and does work. If the Democrats have their way, SDI will be a thing of the past.

---

---

¹ I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rich are paying the lion’s share of income taxes. Consider:

"Tax returns with adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more numbered 4.1 million, or 3 percent of all 2006 returns. That 3 percent earned 30 percent of all adjusted gross income. However, they paid 53 percent of the total income tax. So, the top 3 percent of income earners paid more than half the total individual income tax bill. The numbers are similarly striking when looking at those earning $100,000 or more: Tax returns with adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more numbered 16.2 million, or 12 percent of all 2006 returns. That 12 percent earned 51 percent of all adjusted gross income. But they paid 74 percent of the total income tax. So, the top 12 percent of income earners paid nearly three-quarters of all personal income taxes in 2006. But perhaps some will argue that earning between $100,000 and, say, $250,000 per year is not rich (and they would be correct). What about those raking in over $1 million - what are they paying? Tax returns with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more numbered just over 354,000, or 0.3 percent of all 2006 returns. That 0.3 percent earned 15 percent of all adjusted gross income. However, they paid 27 percent of the total income tax."

What did the bottom 50% of income taxpayers pay in 2006? Less than 3%. Most of these in the bottom 50% are receiving money from the federal government, not paying money into it. What percentage of people who filed tax returns don't pay any income taxes? 32.58%. There are a lot of people in the bottom half who don’t pay any taxes.

2 If one really wants to get a hold of the reigns on budget deficits then look to entitlements. Many leftists I’ve conversed with erroneously think the Iraq war is breaking our budget, but they don’t know the facts. Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare) have about $43 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, we are headed towards a cliff. For example and quick review:

1. $43 Trillion in unfunded liabilities (Obama and his ilk will raise taxes to "fix" it)
2. These programs will consume the entire federal budget by 2050
3. Medicare spending alone will eat up the entire budget by 2082
4. If no privatization, raising of the retirement age, or cutting of benefits (I am against the last two) is done then taxes will be raised through the roof to pay for it
5. This year Medicare will pay out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes and Social Security will reach this plateau in 2017
6. Social Security will be bankrupt in 2041
7. Medicare is already drawing more than 45% of its funding from general government revenue–instead of from payroll taxes, or premiums and co-pays from beneficiaries

Washington we have a problem, ignoring this and/or raising taxes isn’t going to solve it. You’ll fix it in the short-term at the expense of economic growth. El Salvador dumped their soon-to-be-bankrupt government-run retirement scheme and privatized it. They’re free to choose who runs their pension accounts and the conditions of their retirement. Washington, are you listening?

3 Obama is in love with windfall profits taxes, tearing some pages right out of Jimmy Carter’s book on how to raise gas prices through the roof and ruin the economy. For more on the failure that was windfall profits taxes, go here. Obama and most Democrats support energy policies that will make gas prices higher and reduce supply. See the aforementioned link for a thorough debunking of Obama's energy policies and see this for a response to his love affair with ethanol and renewable energy.