Today, Obama Campaign Surrogate Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) Further Lowered The Ceiling For Tax Cuts Under An Obama Administration To $120,000:
Gov. Bill Richardson: "What Obama wants to do is, he is basically looking at $120,000 and under, among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those." (KOA-AM, Interview With Gov. Bill Richardson, 10/31/08)
Click here to listen...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama And Guns
By Chris W. Cox
Op-Ed
The Washington Times
October 30, 2008
In speech after speech, Barack Obama has claimed he would "uphold the Second Amendment." Mr. Obama, of course, is a polished speaker who says "words matter." But records matter more. And while Mr. Obama is short on experience on most issues, he's long on anti-gun votes and even longer on rhetoric. ...
One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)
Questionnaires aside, Mr. Obama has supported handgun bans even when they trap people who defend themselves. In a 2003 case, a resident of Wilmette, Ill., used a handgun to defend himself from a burglar with a drug habit and a long criminal record, breaking into his home for the second day in a row. Though authorities found the shooting justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's handgun ban.
Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois' anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.
Self-defense at home or outside the home - it's all just as bad to Mr. Obama. ...
Mr. Obama also claims he's no threat to hunters.
But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers. ...
As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. ...
This is the real Barack Obama. This record matches the attitude Mr. Obama revealed when he said rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" and "cling to guns." ...
Op-Ed
The Washington Times
October 30, 2008
In speech after speech, Barack Obama has claimed he would "uphold the Second Amendment." Mr. Obama, of course, is a polished speaker who says "words matter." But records matter more. And while Mr. Obama is short on experience on most issues, he's long on anti-gun votes and even longer on rhetoric. ...
One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)
Questionnaires aside, Mr. Obama has supported handgun bans even when they trap people who defend themselves. In a 2003 case, a resident of Wilmette, Ill., used a handgun to defend himself from a burglar with a drug habit and a long criminal record, breaking into his home for the second day in a row. Though authorities found the shooting justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's handgun ban.
Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois' anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.
Self-defense at home or outside the home - it's all just as bad to Mr. Obama. ...
Mr. Obama also claims he's no threat to hunters.
But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers. ...
As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. ...
This is the real Barack Obama. This record matches the attitude Mr. Obama revealed when he said rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" and "cling to guns." ...
Monday, October 27, 2008
They Said It! Obama Regrets Court's Failure to Force Redistribution of Wealth
In 2001, Obama Said The Supreme Court Failed To Pursue A "Redistribution Of Wealth" And Talked Positively Of "Redistributive Change":
Obama Regrets That The Warren Court "Never Ventured Into The Issues Of Redistribution Of Wealth." Obama: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples ... But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And 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, as least as it's been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, 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." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Obama Said One Of The "Tragedies Of The Civil Rights Movement" Was That It Lost Track Of Political And Community Organizing That Could Bring About "Redistributive Change." Obama: "[O]ne of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 stuffer from that." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Obama: "[I]'m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Obama Regrets That The Warren Court "Never Ventured Into The Issues Of Redistribution Of Wealth." Obama: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples ... But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And 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, as least as it's been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, 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." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Obama Said One Of The "Tragedies Of The Civil Rights Movement" Was That It Lost Track Of Political And Community Organizing That Could Bring About "Redistributive Change." Obama: "[O]ne of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 stuffer from that." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Obama: "[I]'m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts." (2001 Obama Interview On Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck, Accessed 10/27/08)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Election Choice: Taxes
In case you missed it...
The Election Choice: Taxes
By Brian Carney
Op-Ed
The Wall Street Journal
October 25, 2008
When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. ...
Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.
The Democrat would also reinstate the phaseout of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions for married couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those phaseouts would raise the top marginal tax rate for millions of taxpayers by another 1.5 percentage points.
Capital gains and dividend taxes would increase to 20% from 15% for those making more than $250,000...
Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.
In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.
Taken together, these add up to about a 10-percentage-point hike in marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that pay taxes at individual rates. The "marginal" rate refers to the rate paid on the next dollar of income, and it has an especially strong influence on decisions to work and invest.
Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has proposed an additional 4% "surtax" on incomes above $200,000. This would further increase the top marginal federal income tax rate to close to 50% -- or slightly above that, depending on the rate of the new Social Security tax -- when combined with Mr. Obama's hikes. ...
In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates. ....
The Election Choice: Taxes
By Brian Carney
Op-Ed
The Wall Street Journal
October 25, 2008
When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. ...
Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.
The Democrat would also reinstate the phaseout of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions for married couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those phaseouts would raise the top marginal tax rate for millions of taxpayers by another 1.5 percentage points.
Capital gains and dividend taxes would increase to 20% from 15% for those making more than $250,000...
Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.
In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.
Taken together, these add up to about a 10-percentage-point hike in marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that pay taxes at individual rates. The "marginal" rate refers to the rate paid on the next dollar of income, and it has an especially strong influence on decisions to work and invest.
Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has proposed an additional 4% "surtax" on incomes above $200,000. This would further increase the top marginal federal income tax rate to close to 50% -- or slightly above that, depending on the rate of the new Social Security tax -- when combined with Mr. Obama's hikes. ...
In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates. ....
Thursday, October 23, 2008
ACORN's Acts Invite Fraud
In case you missed it, Chairman Daves wrote a special op-ed for the Charlotte Observer on ACORN.
ACORN's acts invite fraud
Group is partly subsidized by tax dollars, and must uphold public trust.
By Linda Daves
Special to the Observer
October 23, 2008
Already this election season, ACORN has been the subject of investigations in Durham and Wake Counties. More than 100 fraudulent forms have been identified as originating from ACORN workers in North Carolina.
ACORN directors have responded to criticism of their voter registration operations by saying that the fraudulent forms returned by their workers are a low percentage of the total forms they turn in. However, ACORN is an organization that is partially subsidized by tax dollars. The utmost standards of fairness and legality must be followed when it comes to organizations that are supported by the taxpayers.
Taking public money demands that you uphold the public trust. ACORN has failed again and again to show the ability to do just that. This is an organization that has paid campaign workers according to how many voters they register. This invites fraud and foul play.
Going through phone book
Is there any reason to be shocked then when we learn that ACORN workers are registering some voters dozens of times or just going through the phone book and copying down names and addresses?
This behavior is unacceptable.
Voters interested in free and fair elections should know that the North Carolina Republican Party remains vigilant against efforts to engage in voter fraud. We have a highly trained team in place to ensure that our elections are carried out in accordance with the law.
Deserve faith in process
Hardworking North Carolinians do not deserve to have their votes watered down by the fraudulent and illegal acts of a few. We deserve to have faith in our election process.
But if we choose to accept and tolerate registration fraud, people will lose faith in our democracy. Good people of both parties must stand against registration fraud and voter fraud to ensure the integrity of our elections and to protect the public's interest.
Possibly the most troubling aspect of ACORN's involvement in this year's election process is the organization's connections to Sen. Barack Obama. Sen. Obama paid ACORN $800,000 for voter registration efforts done on behalf of the presidential candidate. ACORN has publicly endorsed Obama and worked toward supporting his candidacy. Now the organization is embroiled in more than a dozen investigations in areas all across the country, including reports of investigations by the FBI.
Wants to elect Obama
ACORN has made it clear they will stop at nothing to elect Obama the next president whether by hook or by crook. Obama has made it clear that he will do or say anything to become president.
What will Barack Obama owe to this special interest group if he is elected president? How will he use our tax dollars to reward his friends if he makes it to the White House? I hope we never find out.
ACORN's acts invite fraud
Group is partly subsidized by tax dollars, and must uphold public trust.
By Linda Daves
Special to the Observer
October 23, 2008
Already this election season, ACORN has been the subject of investigations in Durham and Wake Counties. More than 100 fraudulent forms have been identified as originating from ACORN workers in North Carolina.
ACORN directors have responded to criticism of their voter registration operations by saying that the fraudulent forms returned by their workers are a low percentage of the total forms they turn in. However, ACORN is an organization that is partially subsidized by tax dollars. The utmost standards of fairness and legality must be followed when it comes to organizations that are supported by the taxpayers.
Taking public money demands that you uphold the public trust. ACORN has failed again and again to show the ability to do just that. This is an organization that has paid campaign workers according to how many voters they register. This invites fraud and foul play.
Going through phone book
Is there any reason to be shocked then when we learn that ACORN workers are registering some voters dozens of times or just going through the phone book and copying down names and addresses?
This behavior is unacceptable.
Voters interested in free and fair elections should know that the North Carolina Republican Party remains vigilant against efforts to engage in voter fraud. We have a highly trained team in place to ensure that our elections are carried out in accordance with the law.
Deserve faith in process
Hardworking North Carolinians do not deserve to have their votes watered down by the fraudulent and illegal acts of a few. We deserve to have faith in our election process.
But if we choose to accept and tolerate registration fraud, people will lose faith in our democracy. Good people of both parties must stand against registration fraud and voter fraud to ensure the integrity of our elections and to protect the public's interest.
Possibly the most troubling aspect of ACORN's involvement in this year's election process is the organization's connections to Sen. Barack Obama. Sen. Obama paid ACORN $800,000 for voter registration efforts done on behalf of the presidential candidate. ACORN has publicly endorsed Obama and worked toward supporting his candidacy. Now the organization is embroiled in more than a dozen investigations in areas all across the country, including reports of investigations by the FBI.
Wants to elect Obama
ACORN has made it clear they will stop at nothing to elect Obama the next president whether by hook or by crook. Obama has made it clear that he will do or say anything to become president.
What will Barack Obama owe to this special interest group if he is elected president? How will he use our tax dollars to reward his friends if he makes it to the White House? I hope we never find out.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
They Said It! Ayers Says His Radical Views Widely Known
William Ayers in 2002 interview with California radio station:
" I considered myself partly an anarchist then and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist which is to say I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing. I'm very open about what I think, and nobody here is surprised about what I think. There is a struggle over various religious fundamentalism, Jihad being the most visible, but the religious fundamentalism of the Christians and of the Jews is equally troubling. Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No, it is not. I don't regret that." (FOXNews.com, 10/22/08)
It is worth noting that only seven days later Senator Obama appeared on a panel with Ayers and continued to work with him for months afterwards at the Woods Fund.
" I considered myself partly an anarchist then and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist which is to say I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing. I'm very open about what I think, and nobody here is surprised about what I think. There is a struggle over various religious fundamentalism, Jihad being the most visible, but the religious fundamentalism of the Christians and of the Jews is equally troubling. Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No, it is not. I don't regret that." (FOXNews.com, 10/22/08)
It is worth noting that only seven days later Senator Obama appeared on a panel with Ayers and continued to work with him for months afterwards at the Woods Fund.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
They Said It! Biden Warns of Coming Crisis if Obama is Elected
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. Remember I said it standing here. if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen." Joe Biden (10/20/08)
Chairman Linda Daves said, "Where has Joe Biden been? We are already facing multiple crises both foreign and domestic. Why would we want to elect a president who invites more tests at such a critical time in our nation's history? Do we really want Barack Obama to face his first crisis in public life in the Oval Office? No, we should elect a president who has been tested countless times and has emerged with courage and grace. That president is John McCain."
Chairman Linda Daves said, "Where has Joe Biden been? We are already facing multiple crises both foreign and domestic. Why would we want to elect a president who invites more tests at such a critical time in our nation's history? Do we really want Barack Obama to face his first crisis in public life in the Oval Office? No, we should elect a president who has been tested countless times and has emerged with courage and grace. That president is John McCain."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
