Why I'm voting for John McCain

It's really pretty simple- I am voting for McCain, both because I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what Obama says, I disagree with a lot of what he stands for, and I disagree with a lot of what he wants to do and will do; I am also pro-McCain, as I agree with McCain on a large number of issues.

First off, a personal decision is to be made, and I'll let Volokh's Todd Zywicki explain a large reason why I should vote for McCain, as opposed to voting for Obama (I being a libertarian leaning Republican):

Perhaps most fundamentally, given the history of the world over the past 25 years I think I just had assumed that no serious politician or thinker would in this day and age hold the sorts of views that Obama seems to hold. Raising taxes in a recession, protectionism, abolition of the secret ballot for union elections, big spending increases, nationalized health care, and most appallingly (to my mind) the potential reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine"--I mean this is pretty serious stuff. And when combined with a Democratic Congress, I think we may be talking about (to use Thomas Sowell's recent phrase) a "point of no return." I guess I just assumed that Obama would be sort of Bill Clintonish--"the era of big government is over" and all that stuff. That he would have absorbed the basic insights of recent decades on taxes, trade, regulation, etc. ...

But as I've looked at the actual policy positions of the two more closely, it seems to me that Obama really seems to be pretty far out there. He is no Bill Clinton. And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven't seen any explanation as to how Obama's policies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain's (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won't do what he says he'll do rather than because of what he says he'll do.

Obama promises more of the failed economic policies of Democrats from years gone by, free markets, despite recent events, have more than shown and proved their value and worth; most people rightly criticize knee-jerk reactions against something because they are based on fear and rigid ideology, and not on any proof of failure. Obama's economic policies, coupled with a Democratic control of Congress, are not what's needed today- instead, by using populism, they will suck out the life of free-market capitalism, in favor of populist, government sponsored and controlled markets. We should not be turning our back on 20+ years of positive growth, positive freedoms, and positive experience- let the markets do their thing.

Obama proposes none of that- he proposes government interfering in the marketplace; he proposes government interfering in the free exchange of ideas; he proposes getting rid of secret ballots for union formation; he proposes a huge tax increase on the very same people that should be relied on to invest capital into the market. In a time of undercapitalization in the market, how government taking that money and giving it away makes sense is beyond me- that capital would be better used to be re-invested in the market.

Obama's reasoning behind raising taxes is simply to pay for this social redistribution of wealth spending plans, but, as even CBS has noted, "If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession." If taxes on the rich don't cut it, and, I might add he's now dropped the floor from $250K to $200K, a realization that he needs a bigger pool to steal from, then where else is he going to come up with this money? The answer- either he will continue to drop the floor on who will be subject to a tax hike, or he will have to cut his spending; guess which one I think he'll do. He'll raise more people's taxes.

All in all. . .Obama's economic plans are a recipe for disaster. In a time of recession, which Congressional Democrats have been waiting for, raising taxes and increasing spending does not work. John McCain knows that, that's why he advocates for cutting taxes and cutting government waste. He doesn't want government taking money away from the people who are best able to inject capital into the economy; he doesn't want the government to raise taxes to simply hand them out to someone else. He wants people to use their own money to make their own choices; he wants people to invest in America. He knows that the government is not a domestic charity organization.

After taxing and spending, my next near and dear topic is free trade. It is patently clear that Obama, egged on by a, to use a term from the Economist, "muddle-headed" Congress, will raise (or not lower) tariffs, will make it more difficult to enter into free trade agreements with foreign countries and will make protectionism their mantra for foreign trade. Again, history has shown us that throwing up protectionist barriers on free trade dramatically hurts American businesses and American consumers by making prices go up across the board. This is true during times of recession and panic, and it's true during times of economic prosperity. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, something that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is daring him to do. Why? Well, there's something in there that forces Canada to sell a majority of their oil to the U.S.; you can be sure that if NAFTA is renegotiated, Canada, and Mexico, will want that taken out. The result, well, a less secure and more volatile reliance on foreign oil. Instead of having a steady supply of Canadian and Mexican oil, they will put it up on the market, thereby necessitating that we potentially increase on imports of oil from less friendly countries. Obama claims that he will be better able to repair our image abroad, yeah, by making us less competitive, we'll be seen as an economic patsy, a country that is not worth the effort to trade with.

John McCain is a real free trader. He knows that in order to facilitate the on-going competitiveness of the American workforce and keep prices down, free trade is necessary. He will stand up to the unions, unlike Obama, who will sign a union card check law that will no longer provide for a secret ballot to create a union. Everything that Obama said he will do economically, John McCain won't- McCain won't raise tariffs, he wants to lower them, he won't support throwing up protectionist walls on our market, all of which hurt American business and customers. He will advocate for free trade agreements that are mutually beneficial- for free trade is one of the greatest sources of showcasing not only American technology and ingenuity, but also our core beliefs on freedom for all people without the threat of government interference.

So, yes, I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I am not voting for a return to a New New Deal, an economic program that will hurt America and its citizens more than help; I am not voting for one of the most inexperienced and unqualified nominees this country has seen in some time; I am not voting from one of the biggest frauds to run for president since Pat Paulson. Obama's minimal legislative experience is not one of envy- he is simply a yes man. In his years in the Illinois legislature, he voted as he was told, and was rewarded; in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has voted as he was told, and was rewarded. As President, I have no doubt that will sign what he is told. This is no time to vote Present. This is no time to elect someone who has shown little to no ability to think for himself- his sole ability is his ability to read lines off a teleprompter in a pleasant voice. This is no time for a yes man; this is a time to elect John McCain.

John McCain is no yes man. John McCain is his own man. John McCain has a history of putting aside partisanship and to do what's best for the country, even at his own political peril. He fought for and got signed a campaign finance law (a law that Obama is flouting by not disclosing all of his donors, especially in light of the numerous instances of fraud); he has fought for a cap and trade bill on the environment; he has fought for immigration reform; he criticized the Bush administration on the handling of Iraq; he has shown a willingness to put aside what's best for him, and do what's best for the country. Barack Obama does not and will not do what's best for the country; John McCain will.

I do not trust Barack Obama; I trust John McCain. I do not trust Obama's sense of judgment, this is evidenced by his unapologetic alliances with Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN, amongst who knows how many others that the press has conveniently not bothered to investigate, instead, he simply brushes them aside and explains them away, like a one-night stand in college. He fails to see that his judgment to associate with these people, and not be offended at any point from then on out is important. John McCain has shown humility and a recognition of doing wrong. After his association with Charles Keating, he admitted it was a mistake to meet with him; Obama has made no such apology about any of the people above, nor has even admitted it was a mistake to begin with. John McCain has gone out of his way to make amends for that mistake; Obama has not once made any attempt to make amends, or even show remorse. He does not care, and has shown no inclination to apologize. Hiding behind mis-information, half-truths, thuggish attempts to silence non-believers and critics, and straight-up obfuscation is not the sign of a leader. Barack Obama is not a leader, he's a follower, and will only move America backwards. John McCain is the leader we need. He will lead America forward, and will do it for America, not for himself. That is why I'm voting for John McCain.

I will conclude with what former Democratic speech-writer Wendy Button wrote in a recent article:

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.” ....

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
....
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges. .... Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Vote John McCain.

A mess of state-wide California Propositions

Normally I will go over and get in-depth on the whole slate of propositions, both state-wide and before the City of San Francisco. However, I'm running late on these, and there are 12 state-wide props and 20+ city-wide propositions. So, I'm not going to go in-depth into the majority of these, but I will go into a few of these propositions where I think it appropriate.

First up is Proposition 2.

Prop. 2 proposes to set standards for the confinement of farm animals, specifically, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. Beginning in 2015, the proposed standards would require that those animals be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Penalties are not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Believe me when I say that I want to support this measure, but I cannot. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this proposition, but, honestly, I do not believe that using the power of the government is the right way to go about this. Plus, there is already a burgeoning market in California, and elsewhere, for these free-range and cage free products; God knows that I pay a premium for them. Which goes to my next point; in order to accommodate these new rules, the costs to farmers to implement and maintain animals under these standards are going to, first of all, increase the production and maintenance costs, which will result in increased prices to customers. Second, it will likely result in many companies leaving California to other states, and Mexico, that do not have these restrictions. Which, of course, means that these products will need to be shipped in from a longer distance than today- and longer truck drives means more CO2 emission. Finally, this will also reduce the number of animals a business would be able to raise, as complying with these new standards would necessitate an increase in the total area for raising these animals, increasing costs due to potential shortages in supply, or increasing costs due to the need to purchase more land to raise these animals.

Like I said above, I completely agree with what this proposition wants to accomplish, but I disagree with enshrining it into state law. The market already provides incentives to businesses to raise animals in this style, but not every Californian can afford cage free eggs, free range pigs and veal. We currently buy cage free eggs, because we can afford it and know that the product is of better quality; we buy free range and cage free chicken when we can, but a lot of people in this state can currently barely afford to pay for eggs as they are. This proposition will only increase these costs and prices beyond what some people are able to pay. While the limitation on the production of foie gras only affects those who can afford foie gras, eggs, on the other hand, are a necessary component in many families lives. Increasing the costs to produce eggs will have profound negative impacts on the ability of millions of families in this state to purchase eggs.

So, I recommend No on Prop. 2.

Proposition 3

Prop 3 proposes to issue nearly $1 billion in bonds to fund construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals across the state. There are 5 children's hospitals specifically mentioned in the text (UC Children's Hospitals, which will get at least 20% of the proceeds), and the voters guide identifies an additional 8 other hospital's that fit the requirements of the proposed law. So, what would be the potential issues I have with this proposition? Obviously, the first problem I have is that it increases the state's debt. The guide estimates that to pay off the bonds plus interest, 5% over 30 years, it would cost the state about $2 billion, with an average yearly payment of $64 million- this would all be paid out of the General Fund. Secondly, in 2004 the state passed Prop. 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in bonds for this same purpose, of which $403 million has been awarded. In other words, there are still nearly $350 million worth of bond money currently unappropriated, and this proposition asks for another $980 million on top of that.

However. . .I'm really not a heart-less person. I do believe that there are worthwhile bond projects, and, let's not forget, think of the children. Plus, the proposition (along with Prop. 12, which I'll get to below) have the great advantage of being on the same ballot as Prop. 1A. Compared to Prop. 1A, these two propositions amount to peanuts. Where does that leave me? Well, even though this is proposition will increase the state's debt, during a time of serious economic constraints, these funds appear to be needed to upgrade the various children's hospitals across the state. Plus, if I recommended no, a doctor that I know would kill me.

So, I recommend Yes on Prop. 3.

Proposition 4.

Proposition 4 is another attempt to get an abortion parental notification law through the voters. The last attempt 2 years ago with Prop. 85 failed 46-54. This proposition provides for a 48 hour notification period before an abortion can be completed on an "unempancipated minor" under the age of 18. This time the authors of this Proposition have added several new exceptions, notably, notification is not needed in the case of an emergency (defined as a condition that threatens the minors life; a waiver of notification signed by a parent or guardian; and, if the minor is fearful of abuse from a parent, notification may be sent to an adult family member, identified as a grandparent, step-parent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling or first cousin, provided they are at least 21 years old. In such a circumstance, the doctor performing the procedure would be required to file a notice of suspected child abuse with local law enforcement and/or local child protection services. Additionally, a minor can petition the juvenile court for a waiver, which the court may grant if it decides the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to make their own decisions.

In 2006, I supported Proposition 85. As I argued then, I find it odd that a minor needs a parent to get a tattoo, get a piercing, get a driver's permit and even go to an R rated movie; yet, state law and policy is fine with allowing a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. This is entirely inconsistent with the motives and rationale for keeping those other parental requirements on the books. Having an abortion is one of the most important decisions a minor can make, yet, state policy is of the belief that parents or some other adult family member shouldn't even be notified. Opponents of Proposition 85 presented the threat of parental abuse as reasons why notification laws are bad; as I argued in 2006, those activities are illegal, and Prop. 85 provided for a waiver of parental notification in those circumstances. Proposition 4 strengthens these protections from abuse by allowing a minor to notify another family member, and requires the doctor to report abuse.

I still see no reason to oppose this proposition. As noted above, Prop. 4 provides for new exceptions to parental notification, which should allay fears for parental abuse due to parental notification. I still see an illogical divide in the treatment of minors in state law and policy. As such, I have no reason to change my recommendation from 2006 on parental notification of abortions.

I recommend Yes on Proposition 4.

Propositions 5, 6 and 9 all deal with various aspects of law enforcement. For the life of me, I can't understand what any of those three do, so I am going to pass on those for the time being.

Proposition 8

I am not at all looking forward to talking about this proposition. I must admit, I thought about deleting this section and giving a terse "I have no opinion" statement, but I came to the conclusion that using that would be a cop-out. So, I left the text intact- I realize that it is probably not at all satisfactory, but I'm fine with that. I have tried to be honest with myself and the reader on my this topic; you may disagree, but I hope you do not think I came to this conclusion rashly.

Proposition 8 re-writes into the California Constitution that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, and that only those marriages be recognized by the State of California. This proposition is in response to a California Supreme Court decision earlier this year that ruled that Proposition 22, that was passed by California voters in 2000, and subsequent legislative activities on domestic partnerships, violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Now, I disagreed with the California Supreme Court decision because it overturned a valid vote by the people of the state. I also disagreed with the ruling because it overturned a series of legislative actions by the state that granted same sex couples the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples, except that it wasn't called marriage. I believed that the Court had no power or authority to overturn either of those decisions; instead, that decision should be left with the people.

So, here is a proposition to get the vote of the people on this topic. My internal struggle on this question is profound- my political philosophy is that government shouldn't care what individuals do or decide on their own, as long as there is no detrimental effects on society. In other words, according to my political philosophy, the government shouldn't care about the decisions of individuals to marry. However, my personal view, based on my own personal morals and ethics come to a different conclusion. So, where does that leave me.

From a legal perspective, I disagreed with the Court's equal protection argument on gay marriage- I believed that the Court created a new law, a law that I do not believe is correct, outside of current statutes in overturning Prop 22, as such, they violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe in an equal protection argument for the justification of gay marriage. I do not believe that domestic partnership laws, as in effect at the time of the court's ruling, violated the equal protection laws of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, that does not answer the question presented in this proposition.

Frankly, I do not believe that I can make a recommendation on this proposition. I believe that how one votes on this decision is incumbent on one's own interpretation and beliefs; my own struggles between divergent philosophy's provide just one example. Since I do not buy an equal protection argument, primarily because domestic partnership laws provided for the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriages, I'm left with determining which philosophy is important to me. As such, I am left with the conclusion that this is fundamentally a personal decision- and I still am uncertain as to how I will vote.

The final proposition that I will discuss on this posting is Proposition 12.

Proposition 12 would approve the issuance of $900 million worth of bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Money from the sale of these bonds are used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to help our veterans, and voters have been approving bonds like this since 1921. The total cost of paying off these bonds and interest (5% over 30 years) would total around $1.8 billion, at an annual cost of $59 million a year. However, as supporters of Prop. 12 note, all costs of the program and repayment of the bonds that have been issued to support Veterans have been repaid through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, and have not relied on the General Fund. In other words, this program has historically been entirely self-sufficient, being paid off by the borrowers, only relying on the state so that it can take advantage of the state's superior credit rating. The Home Loan Program purchases homes using the proceeds from the bonds, then re-sells the houses to veterans, thereby recovering all costs from the mortgages of the borrowers to pay off the bonds. The state would only be required to cover the costs in the event that the program came up short, primarily if a foreclosure occurred.

All of that is to say that this is a good program- bonds are issued to help veterans purchase homes, then the mortgages themselves pay off the bonds, with little risk to California voters.

So, I recommend Yes on 12.

I'll finish off the rest of the state-wide ballots soon. There will really only be one San Francisco initiative that I think I'll have to get in depth on, so I hope to get the San Francisco post out in due time as well.

A look into the future

Pete duPont lays out the future:

So where is the new Obama administration likely to take us? Seven things seem certain:

The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.

Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.

Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."

Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).

Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.

The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.

Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

These policy changes will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America. There will be many more public policy changes with similar goals—nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending.

More important, all but the clean car credit would be "refundable," meaning people will get a check for them if they owe no taxes, which is simply a transfer of income from the government to individuals. In reality this is the beginning of a new series of entitlements for middle-class families, the longer-term effect of which will be to make those families more dependant on (and so more supportive of) larger government. The Tax Policy Center estimates that these refundable tax credits would cost the government $648 billion over 10 years.

Needless to say, in my opinion, each of those 7 things are bad, and will substantially degrade the relative freedoms in our society. Where are the Clinton Democrats and the DLC; have they all been run over by the progressives? Where are the free traders in the Democratic Party. For a party that at one time bemoaned how much Bush wasted the success of the Clinton years, they sure don't seem to want to repeat the success from the Clinton years either. How increasing taxes, throwing up trade barriers, increasing the power of unions, and increasing regulation is expected to breed success is beyond me; it's a recipe for doing nothing, but enjoying your government hand-out.

As Jonah Goldberg noted today, Obama is not simply rehashing the failed policies of FDR, but is also harkening back many of Woodrow Wilson's failures.

Blowing away the dust and cobwebs from ancient wares doesn't make them new. Save for his skin color, Obama doesn't represent anything novel. Rather, he symbolizes a return to an older vision of the United States that was seen as the "wave of the future" eight decades ago.

It sure seems like we've progressed since then; it's that progress that so-called progressives want to stop. Change we can believe in?? -for the sake of this country, I certainly hope not.

A series of interesting links

Sometime this week I will post about why I'm not voting for Dear Leader (ooops, there goes one full paragraph) and a breakdown of the California state-wide ballot initiatives and the San Francisco ballot initiatives. But this posting, I just want to link to a number of articles.

From Michael Malone at ABC News:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist. .....

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

This article from the Wall Street Journal:

What a difference an election makes. "The choice you'll have," Mr. Obama warned of the McCain plan during one of the debates, "is having your employer no longer provide you health care." Sounds terrible. But wait, let's consult another one of Mr. Obama's advisers. David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard, put it this way: "Health insurance is not something that is made better by tying it to employment. As a result, essentially all economists believe that universal coverage should be done outside of employment."

Indeed. . .the article above notes that the fundamentals of John McCain's health care proposal is essentially the same as two of Obama's health care advisors' from before joining the Obama campaign. As the WSJ puts it, "These advisers know that Mr. Obama's claim that Mr. McCain will tax health benefits "for the first time in history" is particularly disingenuous."

Another one from the WSJ (at this point, I expect a comment about relying on right-wing newspapers, well, I bet they're getting this stuff out now before Congress passes laws to silence them), this one by Robert Carroll, who I've referenced previously: "[T]he McCain tax credit for the purchase of health insurance exceeds the value of the current exclusion for all income levels shown. Indeed, it generally provides more resources to purchase health insurance than the existing exclusion."

Since fraud has been an ongoing theme this month, there's this article on the differences on on-line campaign donations between the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign.

To test the campaigns' practices, this author bought two pre-paid American Express gift cards worth $25 each to donate to the Obama and McCain campaigns online. As required by law, the campaigns' Web sites asked for, and National Journal provided, the donor's correct name, location and employment. The cards were purchased with cash at a Washington, D.C., drugstore, and the campaigns' Web sites were accessed through a public computer at a library in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Obama campaign's Web site accepted the $25 donation, but the McCain campaign's Web site rejected it.

Then, there's this article from the New York Post:

All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.

He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."

He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.

He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.

Finally, to prove that I do read other sources of information, there's this from the New York Times:

Economists believe the cost of health benefits is ultimately shifted to employees through lower wages. When wages cannot be lowered, layoffs may result. Katherine Baicker of Harvard and Helen G. Levy of the University of Michigan have projected that play-or-pay might push 224,000 workers into that category.

This article compares Obama's health care penalty to what is going on Massachusetts, and how businesses there have borne the brunt of the state's filling in of a deficit though these health care penalties. As the Times notes-

But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.
.....
That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees, 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits.

“To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it,” he said. “If they do that, prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that.”

Yet, somehow, despite all but declaring ala Walter Mondale that you're taxes going up, he's somehow winning. I guess, despite what Dear Leader has said, words in fact don't matter.

Excellence

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

After my last posting, I began to think about this exact same question, but in regards to the social security tax that Obama is proposing- the one that won't start for 10 years, but has Obama already including revenues from that tax today. Anyway, 10 years is a long time. Let's say there's an Obama supporter that is 23 years old, recent college graduate and single. Now, in 10 years, it's not outside the realms of reason to think that that person will be 33, married and have at least one child. I also don't think it's outside of reason to think that the combined income of that family is at least $150,000, if not more.

Now, as the WSJ opinion notes above, what's to keep progressives who believe in taxing the wealth from simply decreasing the floor as those above the floor are repeatedly squeezed for more and more money, to the point the government can't squeeze no more? At that point, the government must either 1) reduce taxes and cut spending or 2) lower the floor to get at those people who make just less than the floor. So, that person who today is supporting Obama may very well also be supporting his own tax increase in 4, 6 or 10 years (certainly as to Social Security); the same tax increase that today, as a new employee, making under $40,000, he or she is able to rationalize because he or she isn't rich and won't be affected; that same person who may be a beneficiary of Obama's tax credits today, but will see those credits disappear at some point in the future. It is easy to vote for a tax increase on the rich when, selfishly, you are the recipient of a government handout; the result of someone else's hard work.

In other words, the phenomenom that Obama's tax policy is, is predicated on squeezing and squeezing every last dime from those who make more than $250K in order to pay for these tax credits to everyone else, as well as his large federal spending increases. And when 40% of the people don't pay taxes, and another 11%, according to the article, will see their tax burden reduced to near zero due to tax credits, how can we expect this last 5% of rich earners to be the main funders of at least 50% of Americans and expect them to continue to create jobs and invest in this country? Those 5% will have an incentive to reduce their earnings until they fall below this floor, which means reductions in employment, reduction in investments, and reductions in production.

Or, as the WSJ article notes:

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

Obama's tax policy is nothing short of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, but ask for nothing in return; government creating a tax policy to punish people for being successful, then using that money to give away to the poor. We should not be using taxes to redistribute wealth and punish success; we should be lowering taxes to encourage people to succeed, and to not have the government step in and take away people's money and simply give it away to someone else. This not a recipe for success, this is a recipe for welfare. The Federal government is not a charity organization.

Exactly what we don't need

So, was talking to my wife's sister the other day. She's a junior at Wisconsin and she asked if I've come around and changed who I plan to vote for, and I said, Why would I? After the usual line about Palin this and Palin that, and Biden brings all this experience, blah blah blah, I then said, well, if it's experience, why aren't you voting for McCain? She then went in to a spiel about this and that, then said, and I'm gonna paraphrase, "Obama is like FDR, and that's what we need. When FDR became president, he wasn't very well known, and, sure some of his policies didn't work, but he was willing to try lots of things to get people to work." I had to stop her there- First, FDR's policies didn't work because they were unconstitutional, amongst other things (see below). Second, FDR was the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 1920, a sitting governor of New York, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and, finally, the cousin of a guy named Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt got elected because he was able to convey to the American public that he could and would do something; well, he did do something all right. He turned a regular old recession into The Great Depression. Let's just say that if we need another FDR and Obama is him, I say No thanks. We cannot afford another FDR.

When FDR took office, unemployment was around 25%, but during the period until 1940, unemployment averaged above 17%, and didn't fall to under 10% until 1941, when it hit 9.9%- 6 years AFTER FDR took office. There is increasing economic evidence that BUT FOR FDR's New Deal policies, unemployment would have been much lower and the Great Depression would have ended well before U.S. entered World War II. As Walter Lippmann wrote: "the essence of the New Deal is the reduction of private corporate control by collective bargaining and labor legislation, on the one side, and by restrictive, competitive and deterrent government action on the other side.” In other words, the New Deal was nothing short of the federal government's taking over and managing the economy without a care as to the ability of businesses to conduct their affairs. As the authors of the UCLA study conclude: "Our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Or, as historian David Kennedy wrote in "Freedom from Fear," “Whatever it was [the New Deal] was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one.”

Now, was FDR able to communicate with the common guy, sure; was his leadership on handling the lead up to World War II and other international programs effective, sure; but on the domestic front, his policies were an absolute disaster. When a panic hit the U.S in 1938, there was a spike in unemployment from 14.3% back up to 19%. As the UCLA paper posits- the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, even though it was declared unconstitutional 2 years later, and FDR's keeping as close to that Act's goals as possible, still accounted for "60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943."

According to the UCLA analysts-

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

Instead, what we need is a program that, as President Kennedy once described in an address to the Economic Club of New York (December 14, 1962): "In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures." Further, President Kennedy insisted there should be a tax cut on "personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital."

Obama's tax plan only gets half of it right- he's proposing to decrease taxes for "95%" of taxpayers (let's say lower and middle classes), nevermind that 30% of those taxpayers don't pay taxes anyway, which means they are not getting a tax cut, but are getting a government handout, in order to pay for those handouts, and other new programs, he also proposes to increase taxes on upper middle and upper class, plus proposes a huge increase in government spending, and, on top of all that, an additional increase in social security taxes on those who make more than $250,000; the same people who would be subject to the increase in personal income tax now get hit twice. (Note: Obama proposes that this increase in Social Security tax start in 10 years, but simply by saying that, he can start including revenues from the future to pay for current program costs- once again, the future is compromised to pay for the present.) All to pay for Obama's redistribution of wealth program. As Robert Carroll from the Tax Foundation says, "When Mr. Obama's full package of upper-income tax increases goes into effect, the top marginal tax rate would be nearly 50 percent, a incentive-destroying level we haven't seen since 1986." In a separate article, Carroll also notes that under Obama's tax plan, marginal tax rates go up, even on workers making as little as $30,000. As the article puts it: "Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent." These rates rise because "the combination of the phase-out of the [Earned Income Tax Credit], the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the child and dependent care credit pushes the effective marginal tax rate to as high as 51.7 percent. That is, the taxpayer who benefits from all these provisions at a lower income discovers that he gets to keep less than one half of every additional dollar of earnings in the roughly $30,000-to-$43,000 range." As a worker makes more money, he is entitled to less and less of his previous benefits, even if he only makes $40,000 a year. By the way, the Tax Foundation even notes that Obama's tax vision is to redistribute wealth.

So, where are we? We know that many of FDR's domestic policies "may not have worked," as my sister-in-law puts it, and there are very good reasons why they didn't work, but those that did work, hurt this country more than helped it. And that Obama, by using our present economic crisis to his political advantage, hopes to more fully realize those failed domestic policies of 80 years ago. Hope and change he may be, but hope is never a strategy and his view of change is something we cannot afford.

Only if the little man doesn't make that much money

Ruben Navarette:

With just a few weeks until the election, Obama made a major boo-boo that could cost him the race. What are Democrats and their simpaticos in the media supposed to do? They can’t turn back time. So instead, they turn on Joe the Plumber.

Read more here.

Of course Obama doesn't apologize for saying that redistribution of wealth is a good thing- why should he, that's what's accepted and promoted in his elitist circles. Although, it's again worth noting that those same circles also give far less of their income to charity than other groups. . .that's how we end up with Sarah and Todd Palin giving 8 times as much money to charity than the Biden's, despite making half of what the Biden's make; government is their charity.

Btw, from Andrew Sullivan, we learn that Joe Biden is a tee-totaler. I'm guessing Biden isn't going into the bar with all the other plumbers after work to have their reward for a long day of work- an ice cold beer.

Finally, the media acknowledges their complicity is not researching or writing stories detrimental to Obama's ascendancy to his throne. An exchange between Mark Halperin and Howard Kurtz on CNN:

KURTZ: Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million, the early estimates had been about $100 million. They always kind of leak a lower figure so they can exceed it.

If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

HALPERIN: We would. We'd also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn't ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it's a Republican? I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

From Instapundit

I suspect most journalists don't care.