Obama's New Tax Welfare

Barack Obama’s supposed tax cut for 95% of American workers is meant to draw attention from the real core of the Obama tax plan – proposed increases in every major federal tax:

--Obama proposes to raise the top two individual income tax rates by 25% or more, both through explicit rate increases, and the phaseout of personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for these upper income earners;

--Obama proposes to increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%;

--Obama proposes to increase the tax rate on dividends by 33%;

--Obama proposes to raise the top payroll tax rate by between 16%--32%;

--Obama proposes a new payroll tax on employers to help pay for national health insurance, estimated at around 7%;

--Obama proposes to reinstate the death tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal tax rate of 45%;

--Even though American companies already face the second highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, Obama’s tax plan provides for increasing the corporate tax burden by another 25%, “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens”;

--Obama’s protectionist trade policies even suggest higher tariff taxes.

It’s the Incentives, Stupid

Obama argues that only higher income workers and rich corporations will suffer these tax increases, and they can afford it. But tax and economic policy is not about who “can afford it”, an uninformed and socially retrograde sentiment. It is precisely the increase in these marginal tax rates that greatly harms the economy, because the incentives are turned against savings, investment, entrepreneurship, business expansion, job creation, work, and economic growth. With higher marginal tax rates, the reward for these pro-growth economic activities is reduced, and so these activities decline.

These incentives affect not just higher income people, and all the resources they control, and corporate employers and all their capital, and small businesses who would suffer the individual income tax rate increases. They also affect everyone who plans to be in these upper income precincts someday, or who strives to get there, or who may be trying to gain capital investment from people with money for their own small business, like Joe the Plumber, or who is looking to get a job, which usually only comes from business people with money. Through the effect of these incentives throughout the economy, everyone will be harmed by Obama’s tax increases.

Ireland adopted a 12.5% corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per capita GDP in the EU. This is the effect on the middle class and working people of sound tax policy and the resulting incentives. Ireland with its 12.5% rate raises 50% more corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35% federal corporate tax rate.

Yet Barack Obama laughs at McCain’s proposal to reduce that corporate rate to 25%, the minimum needed to restore international competitiveness for U.S. companies and employers, mocking it as still more tax cuts for rich corporate fat cats. The EU as a whole has reduced its corporate tax rate in the last 10 years from 38% to 24% on average. Canada has just adopted a 19.5% rate, with a 15% rate phasing in. Germany has also recently adopted a19% corporate rate. How are American companies supposed to provide good jobs at high wages with this crippling tax disadvantage? Unfortunately, Obama remains hopelessly mired in his prep school Marxism, which was not remedied by his Ivy League miseducation.

Obama’s tax plan is exactly the opposite of the supply side economics that Reagan adopted, which produced the astounding boom of the 1980s. That boom, in fact, lasted 25 years, from 1982 to 2007, as Art Laffer and Steve Moore discuss in their new book The End of Prosperity. Laffer and Moore explain that more wealth was produced during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years of American history.

Obama’s tax plan is also exactly the opposite of President Kennedy’s tax policies, which produced another astounding boom in the 1960s. Pursuing the exact opposite policies from Kennedy and Reagan will produce exactly the opposite results.

Note also that Obama’s tax increases will not produce nearly enough revenue to finance all his lavish spending proposals, as shown in particular by a brilliant new paper from Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute. Do you think that after all those years of swimming in a sea of left wing extremism with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and ACORN and the Saul Alinsky folks, that when he finally gets to the White House he is going to give up on his Big Government neo-socialism? Or is he going to start imposing huge tax increases on more and more people?

Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 promising a tax cut for the middle class. But after he was elected he quickly dropped that idea, and adopted tax increases for people making as little as $20,000 per year. What happened to fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?

Obama’s Tax Cut

But Obama has the country mesmerized again in PT Barnum Act II with his supposed tax cut for 95% of Americans. Notice how no one ever asks the Messiah exactly what tax cut is he talking about? Indeed, the last person to ask Obama the Munificent a tax question was Joe the Plumber, and we all know what happened to him. The New York Times ran his tax returns on the front page.

Obama’s tax plan specifies that this tax cut is a $500 per worker income tax credit for workers making up to $75,000 per year, and for families making up to $150,000. I dispute that this would cover 95% of all Americans, but there are more important points.

Such a tax credit is a simple giveaway, like George McGovern’s 1972 promise of a $1,000 check for everyone, which the American people then rejected as a crass vote-buying scheme. It does nothing to improve the economy because it does nothing to change marginal tax rates or incentives. Indeed, it would hurt the economy on net because the credit will be phased out at higher income levels, which would effectively raise marginal tax rates again at those higher incomes. (As you earn more, you suffer a penalty in the phase out of the credit, which has the exact same effect on incentives as a tax rate increase).

In addition, McCain has actually proposed a hefty agenda of tax cuts for the middle class, far more substantial than a $500 per worker tax credit. McCain has proposed to increase the dependent’s exemption from $3,500 to $7,000. That would cut taxes for middle class families in the 25% income tax bracket by $875 per child. This would not boost the economy either because it also does not reduce marginal tax rates and so change incentives. But it does promote families having more children, which is also good for America in the long run.

McCain also proposes a tax credit of $5,000 per family and $2,500 per single worker for purchasing health insurance. This is a huge tax cut for the middle class, $1.3 trillion over 10 years. As Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation says, “This tax provision has a bigger impact on cutting people’s taxes than any single proposal from either party.”

McCain proposes as well to eliminate a huge pending tax increase for the middle class under current law by abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT is slated to grow to impose a trillion dollar increase on the American people in future years, burdening 25 million middle class families. Abolishing the AMT would save middle class families a pending tax increase of $2,700 on average per year, another middle class tax cut of $60 billion each year from current law.

Most importantly of all, McCain’s tax plan also includes pro-growth tax cuts that provide exactly the shot in the arm the economy needs right now, exactly the opposite of Obama’s tax plan. The reduction in the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% is a marginal tax rate reduction which would probably not lose any significant revenue overall on net because American companies are so stymied now by the uncompetitive 35% rate. McCain would also make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which would keep income tax rates, capital gains tax rates, and dividend tax rates from rising, and he would still vastly reduce the death tax from its pre-Bush levels. He would also reduce taxes on savings and investment through expensing of capital investment. Abolishing the AMT is another pro-growth tax cut that would prevent additional marginal tax rate increases.

These pro-growth tax cuts would do far more for the middle class and working people than a $500 per worker tax credit. They would reverse the current economic downturn, restoring economic growth, creating jobs, and reviving income and wage growth. They would “spread the wealth around” by creating prosperity for working people and the middle class, not by stealing from those who have already produced their own wealth.

Obama’s New Tax Welfare

The top 1% of income earners now pay 40% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of national income. The top 20% pay 86%. Clearly, federal income taxes are now paid primarily by these upper income taxpayers.

The bottom 40% of income earners as a group pay no federal income taxes on net. Instead they actually receive payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal taxes paid. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.7% of all federal income taxes.

This is the result of Reagan Republican supply side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, through Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans have abolished federal income taxes on the working class. Moreover, they have almost abolished federal income taxes on the actual middle class (the middle 20%). Indeed, the tax cuts proposed by McCain would probably eliminate most of the remaining tax liability of the middle class.

When Obama insists that he wants all of his tax increases for upper income workers because of fairness, he is reflecting the ignorance of his own left wing extremism, and of the left wing nutcase base to which he is appealing. If the top 1% is already paying 40% of federal income taxes, and the top 20% are already paying almost of all of them, how is increasing their tax burdens further promoting fairness?

Moreover, Obama cannot cut federal income taxes for working people and the middle class where Reagan and his Republicans have already eliminated federal income taxes for them.

Nevertheless, besides his $500 per worker tax credit, Obama proposes a slew of additional refundable income tax credits targeted towards low and moderate income people, precisely those who pay little or no federal income taxes now. The term “refundable” means that if the worker does not have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit anyway. Obama proposes such tax credits for child care, education, housing, retirement, health care, welfare, and other giveaways.

Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but, rather, would primarily involve checks from the federal government for these purposes. Consequently, they are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code. This is why I call it The New Tax Welfare. These new tax welfare programs alone would cost an additional $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

The Obama campaign is dishonest when it says these credits somehow offset payroll taxes. None of these credits, including the $500 per worker credit, involve any reduction in payroll taxes. They are refundable income tax credits, not payroll tax cuts. If Obama wants to reduce payroll taxes, let him propose an actual payroll tax cut, and then explain to the country how we are going to finance Social Security benefits.

Such cash grant tax credits again would do nothing to help the economy. Indeed, they would hurt the economy because the credits are again phased out as income grows into and beyond the middle class, actually effectively raising marginal tax rates for these middle class and upper middle class taxpayers.

The Obama tax plan is consequently precisely the opposite of tax reform. Instead of closing loopholes and lowering rates, he is creating new loopholes and raising the rates. Raising the top marginal tax rates for every major federal tax, and adopting $1.3 trillion in new tax welfare tax credits, could not be dumber, more counterproductive, anti-growth tax policy. This is not going to benefit 95% of Americans. It is going to leave all Americans poorer and worse off.

Obama Plane Pitches Reporters From McCain-Endorsing Papers

Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain have reportedly been booted from Barack Obama's campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.

The Washington Times reported Friday, October 31st, that it was notified of the Obama campaign's decision Thursday evening -- even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.

Executive Editor John Solomon advised that the Obama campaign said it didn't have enough seats on the plane, but "I don't think the explanation makes sense to us."

"We've been traveling since 2007 with him. ... We're a relevant newspaper -- every day we break news," Solomon said. "And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven't covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are ... it sort of feels unfair."

He said the newspaper protested but was turned down again by the campaign.

"I can only hope that the candidate who describes himself as wanting to unite the nation doesn't have some sort of litmus test for who he decides gets to cover the campaign," Solomon said, noting that the Obama campaign's decision came just two days after the paper endorsed McCain.

The New York Post and Dallas Morning News also have been kicked off Obama's plane, according to the Web site The Drudge Report. It said the three reporters were told to find alternative transportation by Sunday so that the plane could accommodate "network bigwigs" and reporters from two black magazines, Essence and Jet.

Why does this remind me of Hugo Chavez?

Barack Obama's Biggest Lie...

He's told many a whopper this campaign season, but yesterday I saw coverage of portions of three different rallies. At each one he kept invoking the same thing.

"For the last eight years - we kept giving more and more to the wealthiest among us."

Now wait a second. Argue all you want about what percentage of graduated tax rates should or should not be.

But no one GAVE the wealthy earners anything...

They earned high salaries, because they held jobs that PAID them high salaries. In other words they put in a full days effort, and because they had the right experience, know how, intellectual capacity, and abilities - they convinced the companies they worked for to pay them "X" amount of dollars for those hours of service rendered. (Just like Michelle Obama did when the little scandal about her position at the public hospital had never paid more than $180,000 per year, but somehow she was able to get them to pay her $300,000 plus.)

Know how, experience, network, and capacity are all marketplace commodities and one SHOULD be able to make more money than someone else if they know the job better, have done it successfully, and achieve the objectives set before them.

Nonetheless - those people are still WORKING for what they get. And to think, as Barack Obama has been saying publicly for the last few days, that the American people were giving tax dollars to those earning in the top percentage is just a LIE!

Those people still pay MORE taxes than anyone else. And under the slightly reduced tax burden that they've enjoyed under the Bush economic plan - they still created more jobs, and more wealth for many additional citizens by re-investing their earnings into the workplace as well.

When THE ONE says "taking from the poor, and giving to the rich" he is flat out, 100% telling falsehoods, he knows it.

Further he doesn't care about truth and has not for months now...

Further his economic plan will bring about ruin to the poor people he has promised hope and change to - and he is either too dumb, or too dishonest to know it.

Neither scenario is especially hopeful in these challenging economic times.

Trick or Treat

Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

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. Assume a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year.

If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency the business owner could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- might even get a break -- and as the business owner struggles 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 a business owner had 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 on impacting a small business owner.

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, the small business owner's 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.
In this example, the 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 article.

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 own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is.

However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- 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. Obama do you? 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 been 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.

AN OBAMA PANIC?

Barack Obama has remained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens.

Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years.

The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

To be fair, McCain hardly instills confidence among the Wall Streeters. Why has his campaign spent time focusing on Obama's friendship with former terrorist William Ayers - when it should be hitting Obama's blind loyalty to policies that bring together the worst elements of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter?

Recently, Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades.

Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token $500 welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else.

This is clearly the wrong way to go in the wake of an economic meltdown - yet Obama, for all his talk of how willing he is to compromise, of how he'd bring people together, is sticking to his tax guns.

At least one top Wall Street executive, an Obama supporter from the start of his campaign, who has recently urged Obama to rethink his tax plan - and that was before last week's record losses on the Dow.

But if Obama is rethinking, he's not saying. As his running mate, Joe Biden tells us that it's patriotic to pay higher taxes, Obama remains committed to squeezing businesses even if the recession grows.

The closest evidence I could find of compromise from Obama on taxes came in a June interview with CNBC, when he said: "Some of those [tax hikes] you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important."

It's easy to understand why so many in the media have fallen head over heels for Obama. He's smart, ambitious and cool under pressure. But what is he really like under the surface?

Some reckon that a President Obama won't go through with his plans. They look at his (thin) record and see a wimp who's never taken a firm stand on much of anything, much less enacting tax hikes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow.

And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it.

No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington."

More Unsolved Mysteries

When it comes to books and movies, I am a big fan of mysteries. For one thing, I like the use of logic, perseverance and moral clarity, to come up with solutions. There is great comfort in knowing that even the cleverest, most evil, ne’er-do-well will eventually meet his match and get his comeuppance, thanks to the likes of Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Inspector Wallander, Sam Spade, Lew Archer and Lincoln Rhyme.

In real life, however, I am not nearly so partial to mysteries. Too often, the crimes go unsolved and the perpetrators go unpunished. But not all mysteries involve jewel thefts and murders. For instance, I have long wondered why, if God only created woman after Adam complained he didn’t have a date for Saturday night, God included reproductive organs in His original design.

These days, I am perplexed in a similarly frustrating fashion by the rapture induced by Barack Obama. I know for a fact that not every single Democrat is an ignoramus, that not every last liberal has the emotional instability of a giddy teenage girl in the presence of a rock star, and that not all left-wingers actually believe that the junior senator is a messiah who will make the blind see and the lame dance a jig. For that matter, I’m certain they realize he will not bring the dead to life, although his disciples in ACORN will try to make sure they get to vote.

All that being said, why the heck do millions of Americans carry on the way they do? Why is it, to take an obvious example, that only Republicans make fun of Chris Matthews when he announces that Obama sends a tingle up his leg? That’s far more embarrassing than anything Sarah Palin has said. Plus, the man has a lisp, so he’s made to order to be ridiculed on Saturday Night Live, as are Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Rosie O’Donnell and Joe (Hair Plugs) Biden.

Why is it that people who should know better -- adults, I’m talking about, not the kids being indoctrinated on college campuses by tenured Communists and former terrorists -- are falling for Obama’s call for class warfare? Why are so many Americans so eager to accept that corporations are the enemy when corporations not only provide employment, but pay dividends to tens of millions of middle-class Americans either directly or through their pension funds? Why are the same folks who are waging war on corporate America so reluctant to utter even an unkind word about Islamic terrorism?

I realize that a lot of people get upset when CEOs get paid a ton of a money, particularly when it comes in the form of a golden parachute. But why don’t they get equally upset when a movie actor who’s generally a liberal gets paid $20 million to star in a movie that tanks? Do you think Sean Penn gave back the millions he received for “All the King’s Men” or that George Clooney tore up his check when “Leatherheads” went straight to video?

Liberals have even stooped to cheap scare tactics. They keep insisting that there will be riots in the streets if Obama loses the election. Well, as we all know, hooligans have rioted for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, it’s because a hometown basketball team has lost a championship game, but sometimes it’s because the team has won. If I have to choose, I’d prefer a post-election riot of anger and frustration to one of joy and jubilation.

Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is why anyone would want more money and more power in the hands of the federal government, which is really the basis of Obama’s campaign.

Recently, a reader sent me an e-mail which read: “Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada because of tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze.”

Actually, it’s a joke. The IRS did in fact seize the joint following the conviction of the bordello’s manager and the parent company in a fraud and racketeering case, but they simply closed it down.

That’s the federal government for you. They won’t run a brothel for a profit, but they’ll gladly screw the American taxpayer just for the heck of it.

Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews With Florida TV Station

Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews With Florida TV Station
Biden gets asked tough questions by Orlando reporter

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No."

Click here to watch the interview.

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Click here to read more on this story from the Orlando Sentinel.

Boot Murtha: The Change America Deserves

A real referendum on hope and change is taking place in western Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district. If the change agent in the race were a Democrat and the status quo defender were a Republican, this battle would be all over the nightly news. The challenger would be heralded as a maverick and photographed with halo effect and angel wings. Instead, the national media have ignored him.

The Democratic candidate in this race has devoted his public career to back-scratching, logrolling and self-aggrandizing Beltway politics as usual. The Republican candidate is a fresh-faced newcomer and decorated combat veteran fighting to topple the arrogant old crony.

The Democrat supports the pork-stuffed, debt-exploding government bailout for the banking industry. The Republican opposes it. The Democrat supports a raft of illegal-alien amnesty measures. The Republican opposes them. The Democrat supports race-baiting campaign rhetoric and contemptuous smears against both American troops and gun-owning, Bible-respecting citizens. The Republican opposes those divisive tactics and reckless slander.

The symbol of everything wrong with Washington is 18-term Democratic Rep. John Murtha, king of congressional pork and infamous Abscam sting target who was videotaped entertaining a $50,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents posing as emissaries for Arab sheiks trying to enter our country illegally in the 1980s. Most recently, in June, the Democratic porkmeister was caught intervening on behalf of a law-breaking Pennsylvania company convicted of selling military equipment parts illegally overseas and knowingly violating national security rules.

The champion for hope and change is GOP challenger Bill Russell, a Desert Storm veteran, former Army lieutenant colonel and Army reservist who survived the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

I reported to you in this column on July 23 that Russell is "the man who could topple John Murtha." (His campaign website is russellbrigade.com.) Victory seemed like a nearly impossible miracle three months ago. Now, Murtha is on the ropes and finally feeling the heat.

On Thursday, a new poll by Dane and Associates put Russell ahead of Murtha by 48-35. A separate Susquehanna poll released Wednesday put entrenched incumbent Murtha up over Russell by just a little more than 4 percentage points. That's within the poll's 4.9-point margin of error. Murtha's in so much trouble he decided to cut and run from a scheduled debate with Russell last week.

Lesson: Slander has consequences.

Last week, Murtha derided his own constituents as racial bigots. He told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "There's no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area." It's a sentiment Murtha's man Barack Obama infamously voiced at a San Francisco fundraiser in April, when he said small-town Pennsylvanians were "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." After initially backing away from his Obama-inspired trashing of Pennsylvania voters, Murtha dug a deeper hole -- telling a Pittsburgh television station that "this whole area, years ago, was really redneck."

Bull. As Pennsylvania political analyst Ryan Shafik at the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research points out, rural central and western Pennsylvania voters turned out in droves to support black GOP gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann in 2006. In fact, Shafik reminds Democratic race-baiters, "The areas populated by conservative whites voted for Lynn Swann. It was the areas filled with moderate-to-liberal whites and large black populations that voted overwhelmingly against Lynn Swann."

Of course, black Republicans aren't really black in the eyes of the intolerant left -- which speaks volumes about the unrepentant prejudices of the race-card players. In the Democratic Party, diversity is and always will be only skin deep.

Thanks to word-of-mouth and grassroots Internet activism, Russell's conservative counterinsurgent campaign has succeeded in keeping pace with Murtha's fundraising. This despite Murtha's massive advantage in PAC donations, national name recognition and incumbency perks.

Russell's surge is all the more extraordinary because he was a write-in candidate on active duty until Aug. 1 of this year and unable to actively campaign while completing his military service. He jumped into the race after hearing Murtha's slanderous 2006 accusations that Marines in Haditha "overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

As I've noted previously, seven Marines have been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident Murtha recklessly adjudicated in the court of public opinion -- with willing mainstream accomplices at The New York Times, MSNBC and in the world press swinging their nooses to Murtha's beat.

No wonder the news hounds prefer to keep this race out of the headlines.

Republicans face tough odds across the country. A Russell upset over the nation's dirtiest Democrat promises a silver lining. Murtha's constituents are ready to throw the bum out. And not a moment too soon.

The Election Choice: Taxes

The Election Choice: Taxes
The difference between candidates is the widest it's been in over two decades.

When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. Most of the campaign debate has been over whose taxes would be raised, and whose cut.

Here are the facts:
Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.
The Democrat would also reinstate the phaseout of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions for married couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those phaseouts would raise the top marginal tax rate for millions of taxpayers by another 1.5 percentage points.

Capital gains and dividend taxes would increase to 20% from 15% for those making more than $250,000, although capital-gains taxes on investments in "start-ups" would
be eliminated.

The Election Choice: Further Reading

Health Care – The candidates differ on the merits of tying insurance to a job.
For full coverage of the election issues, please visit our Election Choice page.Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.
In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Taken together, these add up to about a 10-percentage-point hike in marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that pay taxes at individual rates. The "marginal" rate refers to the rate paid on the next dollar of income, and it has an especially strong influence on decisions to work and invest.

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has proposed an additional 4% "surtax" on incomes above $200,000. This would further increase the top marginal federal income tax rate to close to 50% -- or slightly above that, depending on the rate of the new Social Security tax -- when combined with Mr. Obama's hikes.

Mr. Obama is also famously promising that 95% of all Americans will get a tax cut. However, he would not reduce tax rates. His tax cuts come in the form of tax credits, most of which are also "refundable." In tax jargon, "refundable" means that you get the credit even if you owe no income taxes at all -- which means the government cuts you a check. These credits include:
- a credit of $500 to offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 in earnings;
- a 10% mortgage-interest credit for those who don't itemize their deductions and so don't currently benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction;
- an expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would raise the income eligibility, reduce the EITC "marriage penalty," and increase payouts for families with three or more children;
- an increase of the college tuition tax credit to $4,000, from $1,800;
- a 50% "savers" credit of up to $500.
- The child-care credit would be made fully refundable and the credit increased to 50% of child-care costs, from 20%-35% now.

According to the Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's tax credits would increase the share of Americans who pay no income tax to 48% from an estimated 38% this year.
On corporate taxes, the Obama campaign has proposed to eliminate "loopholes" for oil and gas companies and rewrite the rules for how multinational corporations are taxed. In particular, he has proposed to treat foreign-source income the same as income earned domestically -- which means subjecting all income earned by American companies around the world to the 35% U.S. corporate rate, which is the world's second-highest. He is also promising a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies.

As for Mr. McCain, the central plank of his personal income-tax proposals is to make permanent almost all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This would leave the top marginal rate at 35%. The one exception is the death or estate tax, which expires for one year in 2010. Mr. McCain wants a 15% death tax on estates larger than $5 million. Mr. Obama wants a 45% rate on estates larger than $3.5 million.

Mr. McCain would also increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds -- to $6,000 per dependent from $3,500.

Mr. McCain would lower the corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35% today, and allow full expensing, temporarily, of some investments in plant and equipment. Like

Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain has said he would "close loopholes" on oil and gas companies and reconfigure the tax regime for multinationals.

The Republican's most dramatic proposal is to introduce an optional simplified tax system with only two rates and larger standard deductions and exemptions. Although Sen. McCain first put forward this proposal months ago, the details of it remain sketchy. In rough outline, taxpayers would be able to choose to pay under the current tax code or file under the optional semiflat tax.

Both candidates have said they would permanently index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. In reality, both would have to do far more to change the AMT, which hits more middle-class taxpayers each year, and which members of Congress have many proposals to alter or repeal.

In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates.

By contrast, Mr. McCain is proposing some kind of tax reduction for most Americans who pay taxes. He says he would finance those cuts by reducing the rate of growth in federal spending.

The Consequences of Defeat

Despite the fact that leading polls continue to indicate a close Presidential election, and point to the very real chance of an upset victory for the McCain-Palin ticket, too many conservatives have begun to embrace a bizarre form of defeatism. According to this destructive logic, a Republican defeat in 2008 counts as not only inevitable, but necessary; some disgruntled voices on the right argue that a decisive win for Barack Obama might actually help the conservative cause in the long run.
This notion contradicts both common sense and historical precedent and rests on five deeply damaging and ultimately demented myths.

MYTH #1: If Obama gets elected, his extreme liberalism will make him a one term president
TRUTH: Whoever is elected in 2008, will almost certainly win re-election in 2012--the business cycle will inevitably allow him to preside over "recovery"

The current financial crisis is painful and unpredictable, but no serious economist believes it will last more than four years. That means that President Obama (or, for that matter, President McCain) will be able to campaign for re-election with the claim that he arrived during "the worst economy since the Great Depression" and brought America back to prosperity and growth. If the next President handles our economic challenges with skill and wisdom, we will likely see the beginnings of recovery by the end of 2009 or early in 2010. If the new chief executive responds in a clumsy, misguided manner (with a heavier tax burden and more government spending, for instance) it could delay the inevitable comeback till 2011 or even 2012. Of course, a recovery that begins in 2012 (a likely development under Obama) would leave the incumbent perfectly situated for a landslide re-election.
In American politics, incumbent presidents almost always win re-election. Even Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, despite angrily alienating big segments of the public, won solid re-election victories –in part, because of the healthy economic conditions at the time of their campaigns. In the last 75 years, White House incumbents have run for re-election thirteen times, and ten of those times they’ve won. The only losers limited to one term (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush) suffered from tough economic circumstances and spirited primary challenges in their own parties (from Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan, respectively). If Obama wins in November, there’s little chance he’ll face either economic hardship or opposition from a fellow Democrat. In other words, he’s a sure winner for re-election.
In the remote chance that the current recession morphs into something much, much worse than a typical downturn, and the nation fails to even commence recovery within four years, then we will face a situation so extreme, insecure, revolutionary and painful that Presidential politics will represent the least of our concerns.

MYTH #2: Whatever damage Obama does to the country can be quickly and effectively repaired by a strong conservative successor.
TRUTH: The most significant and sweeping changes of an Obama presidency would be permanent and irreversible.

It’s true that some changes by liberal presidents can be erased by future conservatives – for instance, George W. Bush cut the top marginal tax rate to 35%, after it had risen to 39.6% under Clinton (it’s sure to go back up to the Clinton rate – or higher – under Obama). Yes, the President and Congress tinker endlessly with details of the tax system or the levels of appropriation or regulation so that the growth in government and spending under President Obama could be adjusted, if not reversed.
But conservatives need to face the fact that Barack Obama has promised profound systemic changes that will be irreversible—permanent alterations of our economy and government where there is no chance at all that Republican office-holders of the future could in any way repair the damage.
For instance, consider two sweeping new entitlements that Obama plans to offer for all Americans – universal (but, he insists, "voluntary") federally-funded pre-school for all children starting at age three, and a low-cost, heavily subsidized federal health insurance plan for every low or middle income American who wants it.
A President Obama would no doubt promote such proposals in his first year in office and a compliant, heavily-Democratic Congress would approve them promptly—perhaps making the benefits even more generous. This means that before the next election, tens of millions (probably hundreds of millions) of American families will take advantage of "free" pre-kindergarten education (and day care), as well as cheap, subsidized (to the tune of at least $160 billion per year) health insurance. The chances of ever taking away such goodies are nil—Presidents may come and go, but entitlements are forever. New government give-aways may accomplish nothing constructive but they’re all but impossible to eliminate once they’re up and running.
Consider Jimmy Carter’s horribly misguided establishment of two vast new cabinet level departments—the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. When the indignant public swept out of office the worst president of modern times, Reagan took the White House with talk of eliminating one or both of these two wasteful bureaucracies. Even the Great Gipper failed in this endeavor, and the Departments of Energy and Education continue to soak up hundreds of billions of tax dollars and to employ tens of thousands, despite their abject failure at improving either public education or our energy supplies.
Obama’s new entitlements will similarly survive all attempts to eliminate them. If he becomes President we’ll be permanently stuck not just with federal pre-school and a subsidized health insurance guarantee (Obama described it as a "right" in the last debate), but with a $4,000 annual check (a so-called "refundable tax credit") to all "non-wealthy" college students, a doubling of the Peace Corps, vast increases in AmeriCorps, new billions for "National Service," a tripling of the foreign aid budget (a specific Obama promise) and much, much more. For those who believe it’s easy to reduce or erase such spending in future administrations, consider the example of Bill Clinton’s cherished "service program" AmeriCorps (which pays its "volunteers" close to $30,000 a year). Gingrich, George W. Bush and countless other conservatives recognize that this is a wasteful, crooked, outrageous effort to use taxpayer money to fund leftist activism, but even when the GOP controlled all levers of government they made no progress in slaughtering the monster.
Or think about Lyndon Johnson’s federal initiative for a "National Endowment for the Arts" in 1967. By now, this appalling program has wasted many billions of taxpayer dollars to fund the ugliest and most puerile sorts of artistic expression. No one can make a serious case that the NEA has accomplished anything worthwhile in uplifting or enriching our culture (in which more than 98% of all cultural spending comes from private sources—donations, opera tickets, sales of paintings, museum admissions, or corporate grants—rather than government initiatives at the federal, state or local level). Despite the endlessly demonstrated uselessness and insipidity of the National Endowment, it continues to flourish and even won increased appropriations in recent years.
Aside from the ongoing growth of government and the waste of public money, other changes brought about by President Obama will prove to be unalterable and devastating: in his first year, he will authorize gays serving openly in the military, and hasten the national imposition of homosexual marriage (he’s pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act).
He will also get the chance to appoint at least two, and perhaps as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. All legal observers expect Obama’s nominees to embrace an even more activist, leftist view of the Constitution and legal system than Clinton’s appointees, Breyer and Ginzburg. The damage from the remaking of the court could prove incalculable. There is also no chance of impeaching any Supreme Court Justice (short of a credible murder or rape charge) even if Republicans re-take control in some future Congress. The GOP (led by Jerry Ford as House Minority Leader) tried to gain traction for impeachment efforts to counteract the wildly destructive excesses of the Warren Court but got absolutely nowhere and managed, mostly, to embarrass themselves.
Finally, and perhaps most fatally, a President Obama will radically revamp our already broken immigration system and permanently remake the country, politically and demographically.
Many conservatives passionately opposed the sweeping immigration reform promoted in 2007 by President Bush and Senator McCain (and, it must be noted, a majority of Republican members of the US Senate). Opponents of the comprehensive Senate compromise objected to the bill because it granted a complicated path to legalization for some of the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. Those concerned citizens who celebrated "victory" last year with the collapse of the immigration compromise should prepare themselves for a much more liberal, forgiving reform under Obama (and his supportive Congress) that will make legalization far easier, and will include far more illegal future voters and citizens.
Of course the Democrats will push such changes, knowing that they can thereby claim sole "credit" for welcoming millions of new citizens to the voting roles, and with the expectation that such freshly minted Americans will vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. The Democrats will also cut back immediately on the workplace immigration raids and enhanced border security that has enabled the Bush administration to sharply cut back on illegal entries in the last year –Obama has specifically condemned these efforts and might even halt or slow ongoing work on the border fence.
In any event, we’ve been down this road before: the Republicans claimed credit for the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, all but eliminating the flow of humanity from Eastern and Southern Europe, and as a result vast numbers of ethnic voters (Italians, Poles, Jews, Greeks and more) became loyal Democrats for a generation or more.
This shift in immigrant voters played a huge role in the establishment of the New Deal Coalition that won five Presidential elections in a row (1932 through 1948) and totally dominated Congress for an appalling fifty years (1930-1980).
As Amity Shlaes shows in her necessary new book "The Forgotten Man," FDR failed miserably at turning around the US economy (the Depression lingered until the beginning of World War II) but succeeded brilliantly in achieving long-term power for the Democratic Party. The innumerable government programs launched by the New Deal may have done nothing to advance the overall interests of the nation of the economic system, but they performed magnificently at creating dependent interest groups who voted reliably Democratic for decades. If the government hands out goodies to various constituencies, those segments of the population will continue to support the idea of enriching themselves with other people’s money.
That’s the biggest threat of an Obama presidency: the creation of vast new groups of dependent Americans who will comprise an unassailable new coalition that will enjoy iron control of our politics for a generation or more. If you start with newly legalized immigrant voters (with as many as 10 million new Democrats totally beholden to Obama and company) and then add the beneficiaries of government pre-school, the new nursery school teachers, the recipients and administrators of federal health insurance, federal college grants, the businesses who’ll enjoy the $150 billion in promised subsidies for "alternative energy," the companies and employees of the vast increases in "infra-structure" spending (lots more bridges to nowhere), the non-tax payers who will suddenly receive a $1,000 per household check (under the guise of "refundable tax credit,") and many, many more.
In his first years in office, a President Obama could easily succeed in buying so many interest groups and constituencies with expensive new governmental favors, that conservative dreams of rebuilding a small government majority will go absolutely nowhere.

MYTH #3: An Obama win in 2008 will set up a far more significant conservative triumph in 2012 (or 2016); after all, isn’t it true that "we had to go through Jimmy Carter to get Reagan"?
TRUTH: In fact, Reagan would have been elected President in 1980 whether or not America suffered under Jimmy Carter, and there’s no potential 21st Century Reagan waiting in the wings.
Some of my talk radio colleagues insist that an Obama victory might be a blessing in disguise in the same way that Carter’s victory over Gerald Ford paved the way for Reagan’s election four years later. The common (and historically illiterate) formulation claims: "We had to go through jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan." According to this logic, a disastrous Obama presidency will prepare the electorate for a future, Reagan-like conservative champion.
The most obvious problem with this analogy and this argument is that Ronald Reagan would have won the presidency in 1980, regardless of who won the general election in 1976. Remember, if Jerry Ford had bested Jimmy Carter in what turned out to be a very close race, he would have been term-limited under the 22nd Amendment. Reagan, who had lost to Ford in a breathtakingly close primary struggle, would have been his obvious successor due to his strong base within the party, national popularity, and support for the Ford-Dole ticket. His well-advertised policy and personal differences with Ford would have allowed him to offer a change in direction in 1980, even if Ford had been his predecessor. The idea that Reagan required the disastrous Jimmy Carter regime in order to capture the White House falls apart when considering his campaign of 1976—when, without the benefit of Democratic disgrace, he nearly captured the GOP nomination against a moderate incumbent and would have likely defeated Carter in the general election nearly as soundly as he did four years later.
Reagan, in other words, won the presidency on a pro-Reagan vote (with tens of millions of loyal supporters) at least as much on an anti-Carter vote. This undeniable historical truth leaves an obvious question: who’s today’s Ronald Reagan, waiting in the wings to lead a united GOP and to unseat President Obama? The lack of any prominent conservative contender with a formidable national base is one of the most obvious arguments against the peculiar notion that this year Republicans can "win by losing."

MYTH #4: If McCain loses, Sarah Palin becomes the obvious leader for the reborn Republican Party
TRUTH: If McCain loses, Governor Palin will enjoy no future in national politics, but if he wins, then she could become a very plausible successor.

Many conservatives support and admire Governor Palin, and cherish the hope that after an Obama victory she would emerge as the natural, inevitable leader of the GOP. Unfortunately, political history and current circumstance make it highly unlikely that she’d survive the defeat of a McCain-Palin ticket as an enduring figure of national stature. While it’s certainly true that any candidate who wins election as Vice President becomes an instant Presidential possibility, defeated Vice Presidential candidates almost always disappear as contenders for party leadership. Consider the four most recent losing nominees for Vice President: John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Dan Quayle all tried to run Presidential campaigns after their losing VEEP bids and all three failed miserably. Meanwhile, the previously well-regarded Jack Kemp (Bob Dole’s running mate in ’96) left politics altogether after his ticket went down in flames. In the last eighty years, a losing Vice Presidential bid has been a virtual guarantee of future frustration and obscurity. Does anyone remember the names John Bricker, or John Sparkman, or Estes Kefauver, or William Miller, or Thomas Eagleton? All of them won nomination as Vice Presidential candidates and then quickly dropped from sight in national politics.
The last time a defeated VEEP candidate actually made it to the White House was with the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 1920, Franklin D. Roosevelt. After losing that race (to the ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge), FDR waited twelve years, went through polio, then won election as Governor of New York, before he finally re-emerged as the Democratic Presidential nominee and, ultimately, President of the United States.
For obvious reasons, Sarah Palin would most likely follow the frustrating example of John Edwards or Jack Kemp, rather than FDR. After the election of 1920, nobody blamed young Roosevelt (who attracted widespread praise for his brisk, effective campaigning) for the crushing Democratic defeat. If the McCain-Palin ticket loses the election, many Republicans will blame Palin (she’s already attracted more than her share of mean-spirited intra-party critics), or at least blame McCain’s choice of Palin, for undermining GOP chances. If the party attempts to regroup after a prospective loss, it’s impossible to imagine this dispirited remnant somehow rallying around Palin.
If, on the other hand, McCain and Palin shock the smug Democrats and win a come-from-behind victory, the new Vice President would emerge as an instantly plausible presidential possibility. During four or eight years as the second-ranking officer of the government, Sarah Palin would enjoy an excellent chance to silence all doubters and mockers and demonstrate her competence and preparation on the world stage. It’s easy to imagine her touring world capitals and dazzling the populace as well as foreign leaders. Assuming (as I do) that the skeptics are wrong about Palin, and that she’s a gifted politician and solid conservative leader, the Vice Presidency would provide the perfect opportunity to prove her stature and mettle.

MYTH #5: A GOP defeat in 2008 will help get rid of the moderates and country club Republicans who damage the party, and Republicans will emerge as a more pure, conservative and successful political force in the future.
TRUTH: After a crushing defeat, all parties move to the center, not to the right or left; in U.S. politics, you can only build a winning coalition by addition, not subtraction.

It’s amazing that some smart conservatives still cling to the "winning-by-losing" strategy, refusing to surrender the lunatic idea that you can build a party’s strength by reducing its numbers. No movement in U.S. political history has ever benefited from a purification process; purges always weaken or destroy a party’s vitality and viability, as even 1930’s Communists could attest. Nothing is more obvious in the American political process than the proposition that you win elections by attracting wafflers, moderates, dissenters, and independent spirits to your side; you lose elections by driving away such uncertain souls.
The greatest conservative of them all, Ronald Reagan, always understood this principle. At the moment of his greatest triumph, when he finally captured his party’s nomination in 1980, he didn’t turn to a "pure conservative" or a "true conservative" as his running mate. Instead, he chose party unity and selected George Herbert Walker Bush, a prime example of the Ivy League, country club Republican many right-wingers instinctively despised. Reagan also used Bush’s friend and aide, the notorious moderate James Baker, as his chief of staff. Unlike his mentor Barry Goldwater (who lost in a landslide), the Gipper understood throughout his career that a party that achieved "pure conservative" status would become a "pure loser" in competition for swing voters.
Moreover, history shows conclusively that a bitter defeat never pushes a conservative party farther right, or pushes a liberal party further left. Instead, political organizations that experience harsh rejection from the electorate move instinctively, inevitably toward the center in quest of precisely those middle-of-the-road voters who abandoned them in the previous contest. After outspoken conservative Barry Goldwater led the GOP to an overwhelming defeat in 1964, the nominees that followed (Nixon twice and then Gerald Ford) clearly represented the more moderate wing of the party. When unapologetic liberal George McGovern brought the Democrats a ruinous 49-state drubbing in 1972, they followed with a long series of relatively centrist, purportedly non-ideological candidates (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore), reliably shunning the strong leftist contingent within their coalition.
There is simply no historical model for the process of party defeat, purification and rejuvenation that some deluded conservatives recommend. Consider the sad state of the Republican Party during the 1930’s and ‘40’s. In 1928, Herbert Hoover represented the most moderate, or even progressive, nominee since Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. When Hoover got crushed by FDR in 1932, the Republicans didn’t turn back to solid conservatives in the Coolidge tradition. Instead they kept nominating moderates (Alf Landon, former Democrat Wendell Wilkie, New York progressive Tom Dewey twice, and then the non-ideological General Eisenhower) in the often forlorn hope that they could woo wavering independents or conservative Democrats away from the New Deal coalition. Not even five consecutive defeats on the Presidential level led the Republicans to shift to a more conservative, ideologically rigorous posture.
Today, Barack Obama is running an unusually explicit liberal campaign, and if he loses the presidency the Democrats will almost certainly adopt a more centrist, "New Democrat" image for the next campaign. If, on the other hand, McCain and Palin lose, political operatives will (for better or worse) steer the Republican Party even further toward the middle of the road, seeking a more moderate (or at least "inclusive") image to attract the centrist, independent, undecided voters who decide almost all elections.
In other words, a McCain victory would force the Democrats to turn to the right, while a McCain defeat would almost certainly send Republicans scurrying toward the mushy center. Since most right-wingers rightly hope for a more moderate Democratic Party, and a less moderate Republican Party, they should seek a rousing GOP victory and help avoid an historic defeat that would shrink and cripple the conservative cause.
The refusal to recognize the obvious rebuttals to such twisted logic, and to acknowledge the huge stakes in this campaign, counts as nothing less than suicidal.

Joe Biden's Fear

Joe Biden wonders whether Barack Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

"Mark my words," Biden warned Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."
Then he added, "Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Now, here's where it gets scary.

Obama's "gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
He's going to need help?

Terrific.

What's particularly disturbing is Biden's Kennedy analogy.
For those who don't recall, it was a scant five months after JFK became president that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev took his measure.

Kennedy had just bungled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, then went off to a summit in Vienna - where Khruschev determined that the rookie chief executive could be had.

Two months later, construction began on the Berlin Wall, precipitating a crisis that nearly led to a US-Soviet shooting war in Europe.

And 14 months after that came the Cuban Missile Crisis - when nuclear Armageddon was only barely averted.

Is Biden saying that America's current enemies - sorely aware of Obama's inexperience - plan to test a President Obama with similar crises, to see what he's made of?
Sure seems like it.

But what if Obama is still on the wrong side of the learning curve when this major international crisis hits?

More important: What if he makes the wrong decision - as even Joe Biden suggests he might?
After all, Obama was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

And he was wrong in his initial response to Russia's invasion of Georgia - when he urged the victimized nation to "show restraint."

And he was wrong when he said he would gladly sit down unconditionally with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the very people his own running-mate now says are planning to "test" him.

As John McCain said yesterday, "We don't want a president who invites testing from the world . . . The next president won't have time."

Little wonder, then, that Biden later admitted that he "probably shouldn't have said all this."
But why not, Joe?

It's doubtless all true.

And it's much better to get it all out now - rather than wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

Five Reasons Independents Should Choose McCain Over Obama

Conservatives, liberals, and independents tend to have a different view of the world and all too often, pundits on the right and left end up preaching to the choir instead of putting out columns that make good sense to people who don't necessarily share our political views.

So today, I'd like to do something a little differently: I'd like to explain to the independents out there why they should want John McCain in the White House next year instead of Barack Obama.

Since most independents would probably acknowledge that McCain is more experienced than Obama, is more capable of handling a crisis, and has proven his bona fides as a bipartisan reformer, there's no need to go back over that well-traveled ground.

However, what I would like to point out is that, as Forrest Gump would say, (Obama is) "like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get:" Paradoxically, one of the things that has helped Obama immeasurably is that his legislative record is so sparse that he has been able to simultaneously portray himself as different things to different groups of people.

All at once, he has been a doctrinaire liberal and a moderate, a radical anti-war candidate and a man who takes a pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, and a bipartisan senator who loves to reach across the aisle as well as a bitter partisan infighter who loves to fight Republicans. So, however you slice it, large numbers of Americans are destined to feel like they were misled when Barack Obama gets into office.

Who are those Americans going to be? I'd suggest that they're the people buying into the image of Barack Obama as some sort of reasonable, bipartisan moderate. If you judge Obama by his record (what there is of it), as opposed to campaign rhetoric, you'll find a candidate who is every bit as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right.

As Sarah Palin has said, this is a man who has been "palling around with terrorists" like Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn. He spent 20 years going to a radical, anti-white, anti-American church. He had the most liberal voting record in the entire Senate in 2007. In other words, this is a man who is comfortable on the farthest fringes of the American Left. Combine his radical views, his stunning lack of experience, and the rapidly shifting promises he has made during the campaign and it's extremely hard to predict exactly what he'd do and how far he would go if he gets into office. Given what we know about Obama, it would be far less risky to hand a teenage boy a bottle of whiskey and your car keys than it would be to hand Barack Obama the keys to the White House.

Giving the far Left your power of attorney, your pin number, and the keys to your house: Because our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to keep different branches of government from getting out of control, we don't typically have radical shifts in D.C. Usually different parties control the different branches of government or alternately, bad legislation can be stopped in the Senate, where the minority party has a lot of power.

Unfortunately, because the Republican Party in general and George Bush in particular have done such a lousy job over the last four years, the Democrats are going to have huge majorities in the House and Senate after the 2008 election and so if Obama gets in as well, the Democrats will essentially have carte blanche to do almost anything they want for at least two years.

Put another way, you may not like John McCain or the Republicans in Congress very much, but are you really willing to give Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama a blank check for the next two years? That's the situation we'll have if Barack Obama gets into office and it's why independent Americans who fear having the country radically shifted to the left would be wise to vote for John McCain.

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it": Americans are sick and tired of spending our blood and treasure in Iraq -- and that's perfectly understandable. However, given all the money we've spent, the sacrifices our troops have made, the enormous importance of the conflict in the war on terror, and the staggering potential consequences if we lose (genocide, regional war), doesn't it make sense to make sure that we win?

Granted, because of the surge, which McCain supported and Obama opposed, the situation in Iraq has improved immeasurably. In fact, it has gotten so much better that it's not completely out of the question that Barack Obama could guide us to victory there. However, as Sarah Palin said of him, "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."

Four years from now, it's unlikely that the United States is going to be taking significant numbers of casualties in Iraq or spending more than a fraction of what we do there today -- and that's no matter who the President may be. Since that's the case, shouldn't we at least be sure that we emerge victorious?

Come hell or high water, John McCain will do what it takes to win. He has essentially staked his entire political reputation on it. But, Barack Obama? The word "victory" never crosses his lips and he's setting a timeline that has the potential to hand over a war our troops have almost won to our enemies. If the American people allow politicians in Washington to steal a victory from our troops at this point, then future generations of Americans can and should damn us as utter fools.

Throwing good money after bad: The most disturbing thing about the 700 billion dollar bailout is not the fact that it rewards bad behavior, that it apparently didn't fix the problem, and that it dramatically increased the size of our national debt -- although those are all reasons the bailout should be condemned.

No, the biggest problem with the bailout is actually that Democrats in Congress, Barack Obama included, are refusing to acknowledge the root cause of the bailout, even though it's so obvious that they're doing skits about it on Saturday Night Live.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress to demand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac give loans to bad risks in the name of "affordable housing," then we're going to be right back in the same place, bailing these banks out again in a few more years. In other words, if you want the exact same people in Congress who created the current bailout mess to create another one we're going to have to pay for somehow in five years, vote Barack Obama into office and that may be exactly what we get.

We don't have a debt because Washington doesn't tax enough; we have a debt because Washington spends too much: Many people have noted that the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton, but rocketed upwards under Reagan and George W. Bush. If you only have a superficial understanding of politics, that doesn't seem to make sense. After all, isn't it the Democrats who always want to hand out goodies while the Republicans always talk about fiscal responsibility?

Here's the little secret that explains that: primarily it is Congress, not the President, that ends up driving the size of the budget. So, folks, if we have more bailouts coming up in 2009 (and we do), the current group of Democratic big spenders in Congress adds to their margins (and they will), and Barack Obama, who is planning nearly a trillion dollars in new spending gets in, the deficit will take off like a space shuttle.

On the other hand, John McCain isn't a big spender. To the contrary, his reputation as a fiscal conservative has been one of the primary things that has kept conservatives on board who have disagreed with him on a host of other issues. Furthermore, John McCain wants to put an end to earmarks, has proposed a spending freeze, and has even set a goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

Now, honest question: since we're putting our children's financial future on the line -- who do you think will do a better job of controlling spending under those circumstances? Here’s a hint: it isn’t the guy who wants to spend enough to bankrupt 57 states.

Florida Congressman Said to be Involved in 2nd Affair

Hours after a married congressman addressed a report that he had an affair with a former aide and paid her to keep quiet about it, details of a purported tryst with a second woman surfaced.

Though Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney did not directly mention allegations first reported by ABC News that he had been involved with the former aide, he issued a statement apologizing to his family but denying he'd done anything illegal.

Later Tuesday, a person close to his campaign told The Associated Press that Mahoney also was having an affair with a second woman around the same time.

Mahoney, 52, won his seat in 2006 while promising to return morals and family values to Washington in the aftermath of the resignation of former Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley.

Foley stepped down when it was revealed he sent lurid Internet messages to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill. Foley was later cleared of criminal wrongdoing by state and federal authorities.

Mahoney's seat was already considered to be one of the more competitive House races, and he has been facing a tough challenge in a district that traditionally leans slightly Republican. He faces former Army officer Tom Rooney, a lawyer whose family owns the Pittsburgh Steelers.

During the news conference, before details of the second purported affair surfaced, Mahoney issued a statement taking "full responsibility for my actions and the pain I have caused my wife Terry and my daughter, Bailey."

"No marriage is perfect," Mahoney said, "but our private life is our private life."

He said he never misused campaign money and was confident he will be cleared of wrongdoing.
Mahoney's statement came one day after ABC News reported that he had an affair with an aide and then paid her $121,000 to keep her quiet and avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit. After the report, Mahoney called for an investigation into his own conduct by the House Ethics Committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also called for an inquiry.

ABC, citing unnamed current and former Mahoney staff members, said the congressman began his affair with Patricia Allen, 50, in 2006 while he was campaigning for Congress. Allen has not returned repeated telephone calls from The Associated Press.

On Tuesday night, a person close to the Mahoney campaign told the AP that Mahoney also was having a relationship with a high-ranking official in Martin County in his Florida district around the same time of the purported affair with Allen.

The person close to the campaign spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to openly discuss Mahoney's private life.

The person said Mahoney was having the relationship with the official in 2007 while he also was lobbying the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a $3.4 million reimbursement for Martin County for damage caused by hurricanes in 2004. FEMA approved the money late last year.

Mahoney's congressional staff declined to comment on this alleged tryst, but noted Mahoney lobbies for FEMA funding throughout his district, and that Martin County has received $43 million from FEMA since 2004. Mahoney didn't take office until 2006.

Meanwhile, a high-level Democratic operative who has been involved with the Mahoney campaign told the AP on Tuesday night that the FBI has begun reaching out to attorneys involved in the initial reported affair and accusations that he paid the woman to keep quiet. The person declined to be identified because of the FBI's involvement.

A telephone message left late Tuesday night on Mahoney's cell phone was not returned.
Republicans seized on the Allen scandal earlier in the day.

"We're pleased that an ethics investigation has been called for but quite frankly, we're not going to know the answers in three weeks unless Congressman Mahoney literally sits down ... and answers some questions," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Can someone tell me why the media is not discussing the Tim Mahoney story as was done with Mark Foley? Remember the media going ape shit over Foley? Remember the democrats screaming for an immediate ethics investigation? Double standard here?

Obama Tells the Truth on Taxes

An unscripted moment with an Ohio plumber produced a startling confession from Barack Obama Sunday: The Democrat's "middle-class tax cut" is in fact a scheme to "spread the wealth around."

Obama dropped the mask long enough to tell the truth to Toledo plumber Joe Wurzelbacher - who had asked the Democratic nominee why he wanted to jack up his taxes just for "fulfilling the American dream."

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too . . . When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

At last! The truth outs!

Obama's plan isn't about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there's not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he'll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher - who's been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.

The American Dream?

Wurzelbacher personifies it - but Barack Obama seems determined to tax it to death and be done with it, period.

That's been the case all along, of course. What's different is that the Democrat finally said so.
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter - claiming he'll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we have noted see "Obama - The Fairy-tale Candidate", that's a flat-out lie - not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he "cut" their taxes if they don't pay any to begin with?
Answer: tax "credits."

To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 "make work pay" credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren't to be income-tax deductions - which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington - with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That's a massive transfer of wealth. How does Obama justify it? "Fairness," he says.
But that's an absurdly radical view of what's "fair."

Remember, Obama's tax hikes target folks who already bear the brunt of the burden: The top 20 percent of earners already pay 69 percent of all federal taxes - and 88 percent of income taxes.

(Contrast that with John McCain's call yesterday for real tax cuts - halving the capital-gains levy, scrapping taxes on unemployment benefits altogether - designed to prime the economic pump.)
Monday, Obama promised a tax policy that would restore "a sense of fairness and balance that will give every American a fair shot at the American dream."

But just a day before, he told Joe Wurzelbacher the truth: No American dream for you, buddy!
Nor anybody else, it seems.

Obama - The Fairy-tale Candidate

Once upon a time and far, far away from mainstream America, lived a U.S. senator named Barack Obama. Mr. Obama had a gift, a truly wondrous gift. He could spin troublesome facts into political gold. And perhaps, with enough spinning, he could even spin himself into the White House.

Bill Clinton understood this. He called Mr. Obama's spin "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Like other fairy tales, this one requires a total suspension of disbelief. Jack (of Jack and the Beanstalk fame) had his magic beans. Mr. Obama has his magic facts. Consider the following so-called facts:

-- Magic Fact No. 1: Senator Obama will cut income taxes "for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent."

It would be truly magical to be able to cut income taxes on 95 percent of working families when only 68 percent of tax filers actually pay the federal income tax. According to the Internal Revenue Service, of the 136 million income tax returns filed in 2006, 43 million returns reported positive adjusted gross income but had no income tax liability because of assorted deductions, exemptions and tax credits.

So how do you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay income taxes? Mr. Obama proposes a massive program of "refundable tax credits." Those on the receiving end would simply get a check from the federal government. In other words, they would pay a "negative tax."

By wrapping a thoroughly liberal position - larger welfare benefits - in the mantle of tax cuts, Mr. Obama has very nearly managed to neutralize one of the defining issues of this presidential campaign. If that sleight of hand isn't magic, we don't know what is.

-- Magic Fact No. 2: Mr. Obama pays "for every dime" of his proposals.

According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Mr. Obama has offered 73 proposals that would collectively increase federal spending $365.6 billion annually. That's literally a $1 billion-a-day spending increase. And, unfortunately, that figure doesn't include the cost of Mr. Obama's 88 other spending proposals for which no reliable cost estimates exist.

How does Mr. Obama propose to pay for these new and expanded spending programs? He begins by squeezing defense spending. He would then repeal "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." (Never mind that the Bush tax cuts are already scheduled to expire and that the revenue is already included in the government's budget forecasts.) Finally, he would "close corporate loopholes, [and] stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas."

These steps would not come close to paying for the senator's spending proposals. Assuming they offset $100 billion of new spending, paying for the other $265.6 billion (still ignoring the cost of Mr. Obama's other 88 programs) would require an across-the-board income tax increase of 19 percent. And, of course, this figure does not reflect the tax increase that would be necessary to pay for Mr. Obama's "tax cuts."

The IRS reported earlier this year that the top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers shouldered 60 percent of the federal income tax burden in 2006. If Mr. Obama insists upon having a tiny fraction of Americans shoulder the cost of his spending and tax proposals, the tax increase on those taxpayers would have to be huge - far larger than the 19 percent tax increase described above. This would slow investment, employment and economic growth - and, yes, total governmental receipts.

Sen. Hillary Clinton once threatened, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Perhaps she would have been Mr. Obama's ideal running mate after all.

-- Magic Fact No. 3: Economists overwhelming favor Mr. Obama's economic policies.
The Obama campaign likes to say it has the support of professional economists. Yet, that "fact" is based on two, methodologically flawed polls circulating the Internet. True enough, majorities of those surveyed said they favor Mr. Obama's economic policies. What else would you expect from a poll where Democrat responders outnumbered Republicans by nearly 3-to-1? Only 17 percent of the surveyed economists were Republican. In the second poll, Democrats outnumbered Republicans nearly 5-to-1. Only 10 percent of the respondents were Republican.

Meanwhile, more than 500 economists from across the country, including five Nobel Laureates, have signed a statement supporting Sen. John McCain's economic plan. (For the text of the statement and a complete list of the signatories, see www.economistsformccain.com.)
The fairy tale candidate may yet become the fairy tale president. But will the story end with "and the American people lived happily ever after?"

Obama Distorts ACORN Ties

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign has been forced to revise statements about their candidate's work for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, a liberally-leaning non-profit roiled in allegations of voter registration fraud.
Obama’s website “Fight the Smears,” designed to counteract misinformation about the candidate’s record, contained false information about Obama’s connections to ACORN.

Before news outlets reported Obama worked as an ACORN trainer in 1992, the website said, “Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.” The website later revised their “fact” to say: “Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.”

The conservative leaning blog Gateway Pundit published archived screenshots of the Fight the Smears site showing the discrepancy.

As a presidential candidate Obama has extensive ties to the group currently being accused of voter registration fraud in 11 states. He is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN for get-out-the-vote activities. Obama’s campaign paid $800,000 to a subsidiary of the liberally-leaning non-profit Association of Community Organizers for Reform called Citizens Services Incorporated campaign to increase voter turnout, but initially did not properly disclose this information on financial disclosure reports.

The Obama campaign said it hired CSI to do “polling, advance work and staging events” according to reports submitted to the FEC during the Democratic primary. The FEC later said the Obama campaign needed to disclose ACORN was engaging in get out the vote activities last August. At the time the Obama campaign called the mistake a “clerical error.”

Obama sought ACORN’s endorsement in the Democratic primary telling ACORN members, “Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” “Project Vote” is the name ACORN’s voter registration drives are called. Obama worked for Project Vote for a period of roughly seven months in 1992.

ACORN endorsed Obama for president in February 2008. Before becoming a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit to help push for “Motor Voter” laws to make it easier for low-income persons to vote. Later, as director of the Woods Fund and Chairman of the Board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge Obama helped steer funds to ACORN through various grants.