Under Obama's Plan Even If You Make $25,000 Your Taxes Will Go Up.
The following piece appeared on the American Thinker.
October 27, 2008
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this articole.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have capital investments -- through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in personal portfolios. Most of that half of all Americans will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
Go to the article on American Thinker to view the charts.
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Unions Shortchange Teachers
A quiet morning both kids are sleeping so I could actually read the paper without my one year old walking on the paper. I am also able to type undistracted. I was delighted to see an Op Ed in the Eagle Times titled "Unions Falsely Claim They Represent All Teachers." I googled the title and could not find it. However, I did find the original piece which appeared in the Los Angeles Times titled "Unions shortchange teachers - Dues are simply taxation without representation for many." The piece appeared on October 18, 2008.
It is always exciting when I can use my post label "Teachers Who Get It."
OPINION
Unions shortchange teachers
Dues are simply taxation without representation for many.
By Larry Sand
October 18, 2008
Just a few weeks into the new school year, and in the midst of an important political season at the state and national level, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the relationship that the teachers unions have with their members. Much has been written about these unions, and the case has been frequently and justly made that they are anti-student because of their adamant positions on school choice, charter schools and teacher tenure. And although these unions of course claim to champion teachers, this support is conditional and often comes at the expense of teachers.
In 28 states, a teacher is essentially forced to join a costly union. A typical teacher in Southern California, where I teach, pays $922 every year to his or her local, which then sends $611 of that amount to the state affiliate, the California Teachers Assn., or CTA, and $140 to the national affiliate, the National Education Assn., or NEA. (One has to wonder, if the unions are so beneficial, why do teachers need to be forced to join and to fork over such hefty dues in most states?)
And just what are all of these forced dues spent on? Untold millions go to political causes, whether a teacher agrees with the cause or not. According to Reg Weaver, the recently retired NEA president, his union's rank-and-file teachers are about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third independent. Yet more than 90% of NEA political spending goes to Democratic causes, according to OpenSecrets.org. Thus, if you are a Republican and have conservative values, your dues are being used to support causes and candidates you oppose.
In August, just before relinquishing his position, Weaver spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Although it was not surprising that he expressed support for Barack Obama, he made an egregious statement at the end of his speech. After extolling the virtues of his candidate, Weaver said, "That, my friends, is why the 3.2 million members of the National Education Assn. are organized, energized and mobilized to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America."
What? All 3.2 million? This coming from the man who has said that the NEA is only one-third Democrat. Who then speaks for the 1-million-plus Republican teachers and for the 1 million or more who are independents and may not have decided whom to vote for?
Another example is Proposition 8, a controversial measure on the November ballot in California that would seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. The CTA, which represents more than 300,000 teachers, just this week contributed $1 million -- on top of a previous $250,000 donation -- to help defeat Proposition 8.
As usual, the CTA did not seek input from its rank-and-file members on this issue. Although certainly some teachers are in favor of same-sex marriage, others are not. And just what, exactly, does Proposition 8 have to do with education? Why is the CTA pushing a "values" agenda that many parents, and many of its own members, may find offensive?
Aside from political choice, there are other areas in which teachers don't fare well under the auspices of their unions. Carol Katter, a veteran teacher and lifelong Catholic, objected to the fact that her union supports abortion on demand. When she sought a religious exemption from paying her dues, a union official suggested that she change her religion! In her state, Ohio, the law allowed only Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonites to claim such an exemption. Only after much legal wrangling was Katter able to do so.
One of the great bêtes noires of teachers unions is merit pay. They insist that all teachers at a similar point in their careers make the same amount of money, regardless of workload, classroom size, job performance or other measure. Good teachers earning more than bad teachers? Not on their agenda.
Clearly, this old-style industrial model of paying people based on seniority can kill incentive. Good teachers are less likely to have the incentive to excel when peers who have lower aspirations, are less talented or less effective make the same amount of money.
All of us who object to what amounts to taxation without representation must speak up. Teachers who are happy with their union should have the right to continue that affiliation. However, the rest of us -- especially those who live in states where we are forced to join a union -- would be well served to take a hard look at the organization that claims to represent our best interests and start demanding change.
Larry Sand, a classroom teacher in Los Angeles for more than 27 years, is the president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network (ctenhome.org). The views herein are his own.
It is always exciting when I can use my post label "Teachers Who Get It."
OPINION
Unions shortchange teachers
Dues are simply taxation without representation for many.
By Larry Sand
October 18, 2008
Just a few weeks into the new school year, and in the midst of an important political season at the state and national level, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the relationship that the teachers unions have with their members. Much has been written about these unions, and the case has been frequently and justly made that they are anti-student because of their adamant positions on school choice, charter schools and teacher tenure. And although these unions of course claim to champion teachers, this support is conditional and often comes at the expense of teachers.
In 28 states, a teacher is essentially forced to join a costly union. A typical teacher in Southern California, where I teach, pays $922 every year to his or her local, which then sends $611 of that amount to the state affiliate, the California Teachers Assn., or CTA, and $140 to the national affiliate, the National Education Assn., or NEA. (One has to wonder, if the unions are so beneficial, why do teachers need to be forced to join and to fork over such hefty dues in most states?)
And just what are all of these forced dues spent on? Untold millions go to political causes, whether a teacher agrees with the cause or not. According to Reg Weaver, the recently retired NEA president, his union's rank-and-file teachers are about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third independent. Yet more than 90% of NEA political spending goes to Democratic causes, according to OpenSecrets.org. Thus, if you are a Republican and have conservative values, your dues are being used to support causes and candidates you oppose.
In August, just before relinquishing his position, Weaver spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Although it was not surprising that he expressed support for Barack Obama, he made an egregious statement at the end of his speech. After extolling the virtues of his candidate, Weaver said, "That, my friends, is why the 3.2 million members of the National Education Assn. are organized, energized and mobilized to help elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America."
What? All 3.2 million? This coming from the man who has said that the NEA is only one-third Democrat. Who then speaks for the 1-million-plus Republican teachers and for the 1 million or more who are independents and may not have decided whom to vote for?
Another example is Proposition 8, a controversial measure on the November ballot in California that would seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. The CTA, which represents more than 300,000 teachers, just this week contributed $1 million -- on top of a previous $250,000 donation -- to help defeat Proposition 8.
As usual, the CTA did not seek input from its rank-and-file members on this issue. Although certainly some teachers are in favor of same-sex marriage, others are not. And just what, exactly, does Proposition 8 have to do with education? Why is the CTA pushing a "values" agenda that many parents, and many of its own members, may find offensive?
Aside from political choice, there are other areas in which teachers don't fare well under the auspices of their unions. Carol Katter, a veteran teacher and lifelong Catholic, objected to the fact that her union supports abortion on demand. When she sought a religious exemption from paying her dues, a union official suggested that she change her religion! In her state, Ohio, the law allowed only Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonites to claim such an exemption. Only after much legal wrangling was Katter able to do so.
One of the great bêtes noires of teachers unions is merit pay. They insist that all teachers at a similar point in their careers make the same amount of money, regardless of workload, classroom size, job performance or other measure. Good teachers earning more than bad teachers? Not on their agenda.
Clearly, this old-style industrial model of paying people based on seniority can kill incentive. Good teachers are less likely to have the incentive to excel when peers who have lower aspirations, are less talented or less effective make the same amount of money.
All of us who object to what amounts to taxation without representation must speak up. Teachers who are happy with their union should have the right to continue that affiliation. However, the rest of us -- especially those who live in states where we are forced to join a union -- would be well served to take a hard look at the organization that claims to represent our best interests and start demanding change.
Larry Sand, a classroom teacher in Los Angeles for more than 27 years, is the president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network (ctenhome.org). The views herein are his own.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Truth About Taxes
As always CRAFT does not endorse any candidates. However readers by now know where I (Cathy) stands on the candidates. The following two stories below are to aid our readers in making educated decisions before voting.
The first story appears in the Boston Herald
The truth about taxes
Editorial, Boston Herald
October 24, 2008
As the economy continues to give working Americans the shivers, it’s time to take a serious look at presidential nominee Barack Obama’s tax plan.
Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment exposed the flaw in the candidate’s plans to increase the income tax rate for “the wealthy” - including small business owners - all the while giving refundable tax credits to those who might not even be paying federal income taxes. Yes, it’s blatant income redistribution, but there’s more.
If you liked the Clinton era taxes, you’re gonna love an Obama administration. Obama’s Web site spells it out: “The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent.” The capital gains tax on those same families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. The same goes for taxes on dividends.
You think the credit market is tight now? Well, just wait for these tax “reforms” to further dry up capital.
The Obama tax plan also has a list of domestic tax “loophole” closings. Those of us who have seen similar proposals offered here by a Republican and then a Democratic governor know that “loopholes” are often in the eye of the beholder. And when corporate “loopholes” are closed, those higher costs are invariably passed along to consumers.
This candidate who says he wants to increase incentives to make this nation less dependent on foreign oil also wants to eliminate “special tax breaks for oil and gas companies,” including “manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms.” Yep, that will encourage domestic production!
Whatever tax hike Obama hasn’t thought about, congressional Democrats surely will. Our own Rep. Barney Frank was quoted in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal as saying that after an immediate “increase in spending” by Congress to stimulate the economy, “I believe later on there should be tax increase.”
So there you have it - the unvarnished and rather costly truth.
The second story appears in the Wall Street Journal.
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
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.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
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.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Corrected typo 10/25.
The first story appears in the Boston Herald
The truth about taxes
Editorial, Boston Herald
October 24, 2008
As the economy continues to give working Americans the shivers, it’s time to take a serious look at presidential nominee Barack Obama’s tax plan.
Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment exposed the flaw in the candidate’s plans to increase the income tax rate for “the wealthy” - including small business owners - all the while giving refundable tax credits to those who might not even be paying federal income taxes. Yes, it’s blatant income redistribution, but there’s more.
If you liked the Clinton era taxes, you’re gonna love an Obama administration. Obama’s Web site spells it out: “The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent.” The capital gains tax on those same families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. The same goes for taxes on dividends.
You think the credit market is tight now? Well, just wait for these tax “reforms” to further dry up capital.
The Obama tax plan also has a list of domestic tax “loophole” closings. Those of us who have seen similar proposals offered here by a Republican and then a Democratic governor know that “loopholes” are often in the eye of the beholder. And when corporate “loopholes” are closed, those higher costs are invariably passed along to consumers.
This candidate who says he wants to increase incentives to make this nation less dependent on foreign oil also wants to eliminate “special tax breaks for oil and gas companies,” including “manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms.” Yep, that will encourage domestic production!
Whatever tax hike Obama hasn’t thought about, congressional Democrats surely will. Our own Rep. Barney Frank was quoted in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal as saying that after an immediate “increase in spending” by Congress to stimulate the economy, “I believe later on there should be tax increase.”
So there you have it - the unvarnished and rather costly truth.
The second story appears in the Wall Street Journal.
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
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.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
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.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Corrected typo 10/25.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama Represents The Middle Class?
Thomas Sowell had a recent column about Obama supporters and how you just can not challenge them about Obama because they like him and that is that. I find it frighting beyond belief that people take the right to vote so lightly. I spent numerous hours this election season making sure I will make an educated vote come November 4th. I would also hope our readers make an educated vote as well.
Barack says he is working for the middle class people, in such a tough economy I find it amazing that he is able to raise 600 million dollars for the election my guess is that this money is not all from the middle class and in fact we are finding it is not all from US citizens. He is not representing middle class people that I know, he is not representing me or my family.
Below I have another story that gives me yet another reason to vote against Barack Obama. The BLOG post is titled Who is John Galt? John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. By the way this is my favorite fiction book of all time. I would love this to be a required reading for all high schoolers unfortunately I am sure this is a book that the NEA does not approve of, further today's high schoolers probably do not have the reading skills to read such a book.
Hat tip to Powerline BLOG.com
Cathy
WHO IS JOHN GALT?
We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:
Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.
The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."
Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:
I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?
I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:
Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999
Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."
This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.
In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.
Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:
I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.
Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.
Barack says he is working for the middle class people, in such a tough economy I find it amazing that he is able to raise 600 million dollars for the election my guess is that this money is not all from the middle class and in fact we are finding it is not all from US citizens. He is not representing middle class people that I know, he is not representing me or my family.
Below I have another story that gives me yet another reason to vote against Barack Obama. The BLOG post is titled Who is John Galt? John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. By the way this is my favorite fiction book of all time. I would love this to be a required reading for all high schoolers unfortunately I am sure this is a book that the NEA does not approve of, further today's high schoolers probably do not have the reading skills to read such a book.
Hat tip to Powerline BLOG.com
Cathy
WHO IS JOHN GALT?
We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:
Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.
The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."
Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:
I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?
I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:
Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999
Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."
This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.
In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.
Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:
I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.
Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Newport School Board Meeting.
There was a Newport School Board meeting tonight.
As Jim was walking in the building he ran across an Obama sign in a classroom window that can easily be seen from the hallway. Newport is failing at teaching math but it looks like indoctrination is underway. Like how the sign is kind of leaning against the window so they can use the excuse they were not intentionally posting the Obama sign?
For six years Newport has been failing it's students when it comes to math. At the school board meeting tonight Jim raised the question is it because the material is too easy and the students aren't prepared for the math on the standardized tests or is the material too hard and the students are being passed on to the next grade anyway? Of course a teacher piped up with the usual line "Oh no, the students have poor learning skills." It always amazes me how teachers never accept responsibility for the failing of students and yet refuse to allow school choice.
Why does Newport continue to ship it's students to Sunapee to learn calculus? Because a teachers job comes before the students needs. If a high school math teacher is incapable of teaching Calculus they should no longer be employed, math teachers that can teach calculus should be hired to replace said teachers.
Jim's primary reason for attending tonight was to focus on the issue of full day kindergarten vs half day kindergarten. You can find research stating the case for both. The source of funding for said research tends to skew the results in the direction of the desired outcome. The fact of the matter is, it is the quality of the educational material, practices and the quality of the teacher that are the biggest factors in educational outcomes. If teachers are failing at teaching math and reading why spend money on full day kindergarten which provide questionable results at best and the have no cost benefits when compared to half day kindergarten?
Cathy
As Jim was walking in the building he ran across an Obama sign in a classroom window that can easily be seen from the hallway. Newport is failing at teaching math but it looks like indoctrination is underway. Like how the sign is kind of leaning against the window so they can use the excuse they were not intentionally posting the Obama sign?
For six years Newport has been failing it's students when it comes to math. At the school board meeting tonight Jim raised the question is it because the material is too easy and the students aren't prepared for the math on the standardized tests or is the material too hard and the students are being passed on to the next grade anyway? Of course a teacher piped up with the usual line "Oh no, the students have poor learning skills." It always amazes me how teachers never accept responsibility for the failing of students and yet refuse to allow school choice.
Why does Newport continue to ship it's students to Sunapee to learn calculus? Because a teachers job comes before the students needs. If a high school math teacher is incapable of teaching Calculus they should no longer be employed, math teachers that can teach calculus should be hired to replace said teachers.
Jim's primary reason for attending tonight was to focus on the issue of full day kindergarten vs half day kindergarten. You can find research stating the case for both. The source of funding for said research tends to skew the results in the direction of the desired outcome. The fact of the matter is, it is the quality of the educational material, practices and the quality of the teacher that are the biggest factors in educational outcomes. If teachers are failing at teaching math and reading why spend money on full day kindergarten which provide questionable results at best and the have no cost benefits when compared to half day kindergarten?
Cathy
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Our McCain Sign Was Stolen
Our McCain sign was stolen two days after we put it up. I hope the culprit at least got a free pizza. Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin.
We lived here in Croydon for less than two years and have already been robbed twice, I thought Croydon was such a nice little town. The last town we lived in had 8000 people we were not robbed in the four years that we lived there and the 12 years that Jim lived in the house.
We lived here in Croydon for less than two years and have already been robbed twice, I thought Croydon was such a nice little town. The last town we lived in had 8000 people we were not robbed in the four years that we lived there and the 12 years that Jim lived in the house.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Case Against Obama
When did it become okay to punish people for working hard? "Spread the wealth" is a platform of Obama. I was born in 1964 my mother was a product of the depression. Growing up my mother told me never be ashamed of working hard no matter what the job. I grow up in a lower middle class family. There were five children in our family and four out of the five put themselves through college. I started working when I was 14 put myself through college and graduate school. When I finished college I could not find a job right away so I worked at a camp for handicap children and as a waitress until I could get a job.
If Obama's tax plan is as he says, our family will not get a tax increase. But I still do not think it is right to punish those making over $250,000 a year to give us money. They have worked hard for their money and should keep it. If they choose to donate to those in need they should give freely not by force.
When did it become okay not to take care of yourself. Someone said they saw two pins on a backpack. One was an Obama pin and the other said "I hate work." That speaks volumes of the character of this person.
I have said it time and time again. We are not recommending one candidate over another but I do want people to make an informed decision if they are supporting Obama.
I have been sent a ton of information for and against both candidates. I am not happy with either candidate. Typically CRAFT has stayed focus on taxes and education issues but this election taxes will play a big role.
Our Country was founded over it's fight against taxes from England it is amazing that this election may be one over people wanting to tax people.
Here is some information to help you make and informed decision.
Cathy
The Forgotten Man and Election 2008
Commentary: Sam Donaldson on Economic Socialism
O’Reilly: Obama Was Close to Ayers
The Clear Case Against Obama
The "comprehensive" argument against Barack Obama - Unchecked Unions
What is next for the economy.
Never Find Out
Consequences
Arguments Against Idiots
The American Spectator: Batman and Rush: Why McCain Will Win
If Obama's tax plan is as he says, our family will not get a tax increase. But I still do not think it is right to punish those making over $250,000 a year to give us money. They have worked hard for their money and should keep it. If they choose to donate to those in need they should give freely not by force.
When did it become okay not to take care of yourself. Someone said they saw two pins on a backpack. One was an Obama pin and the other said "I hate work." That speaks volumes of the character of this person.
I have said it time and time again. We are not recommending one candidate over another but I do want people to make an informed decision if they are supporting Obama.
I have been sent a ton of information for and against both candidates. I am not happy with either candidate. Typically CRAFT has stayed focus on taxes and education issues but this election taxes will play a big role.
Our Country was founded over it's fight against taxes from England it is amazing that this election may be one over people wanting to tax people.
Here is some information to help you make and informed decision.
Cathy
The Forgotten Man and Election 2008
Commentary: Sam Donaldson on Economic Socialism
O’Reilly: Obama Was Close to Ayers
The Clear Case Against Obama
The "comprehensive" argument against Barack Obama - Unchecked Unions
What is next for the economy.
Never Find Out
Consequences
Arguments Against Idiots
The American Spectator: Batman and Rush: Why McCain Will Win
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)