Barack Obama's America

When Barack Obama announced that he was running for president he was very clear that, if elected, he planned "not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation". Twenty months after that statement in Springfield Illinois, we now have a much clearer view of what he means by "Change We Can Believe In". In a campaign of soaring generalizations on mostly centrist themes, Barack Obama has described the details of the transformation he would bring with almost surgical precision. What he offers may be, in substance and in spirit, a radical departure from the principles of the American Dream that has defined our nation over the last two centuries.

In the guise of a "middle-class tax cut", Senator Obama is actually adding a new tax in order to create a new welfare program that will add to the annual $400 billion that we currently spend on our welfare system. According to the Tax Policy Center, each year Barack Obama will take $70 billion from the 2% of small businesses and individuals who create over 16 million jobs and will send checks for almost $100 billion to over 40%, or approximately 60 million Americans, who pay no taxes at all. Cleverly, Senator Obama has called his transfer a "refundable tax credit" instead of "income redistribution". Indeed, to label as a "refund" a payment which the recipient has never funded is wordsmithing on steroids.

When Bill Clinton turned "welfare" into "workfare" in 1996 and created twenty two million jobs for Americans, he said, "We are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life". At the time, then State Senator Obama called this highly successful policy "disturbing". No wonder that the Chicago New Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialist Party, endorsed State Senator Obama in 1996 after he signed the pledge that was required in order to receive the endorsement. Now, if elected president, he will re-create a failed welfare system while calling it "tax reform". No candidate has ever been cleverer with words than Mr. Obama. But, does America want to "spread the wealth" as Mr. Obama advocates? According to the June Gallup Poll, Americans, by a margin of 84-13%, want our government to fix the economy and create jobs, not to redistribute wealth.

The fundamental problem with Senator Obama's stealth economics is that his dogma will not make America stronger or fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation's $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation's total needs. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because private enterprise strengthens the economy which in turn creates a larger tax base. For example, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the Bush tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion.

During our last devastating global economic crisis, Franklin Roosevelt protected this country from the statist dictatorships that were emerging in the rest of the world. He protected capitalism by creating programs and institutions to protect innocent people but did not raise taxes and did not remove incentives for private wealth creation. In another era, with real fiscal deficits larger than we face currently, President Kennedy reduced taxes. The historical evidence is clear that nations that stifle private enterprise have less robust economies with slower growth and less innovation, opportunity and diversity.

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama stated that "eking out a bare Democratic majority isn't good enough." Indeed, if the pollsters are correct and the Democrats win overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Senator Obama, if elected, would easily implement both his promises for $307 billion of new federal spending per year and his punitive tax policies. The truth is that with the level of spending in the Obama plan, either taxpayers between $40,000 and $250,000 per year will have to fund the massive costs for the new programs he is promising, or the promises will be abandoned.

Perhaps more sinister is Obama's reconfiguration of the American Dream. My father made an inflation adjusted income of about $50,000 per year. He never took a handout but he worked two jobs. He taught us that if we worked hard and played by the rules there was no limit to what we could become in America. Now, Barack Obama is changing that compact with America. In Barack Obama's America, there is a ceiling to the American Dream. He decides the level at which our money becomes the government's money.

There is a reason why immigrants fly to America to achieve their dream. Now, in the guise of a "middle class tax cut" Barack Obama is threatening that dream. If he succeeds, Barack Obama will bring the kind of radical transformation that this country does not need and never has. And the country will be in for a shock.

Comments

[nisha]

This is a strangely Third World argument-- Lady de Rothschild's argument, that is. The rich in poor countries tend to advocate for making the poorest of the poor "pull their weight," instead of seeing that those people are poor most often because they are underpaid. Tweaking the tax structure can somewhat alleviate that situation, but changing employment regulations and health insurance regulation would really address the problem. That is what the Third World rich and this jumped up woman really fear-- having to pay their employees what they deserve.

[leavesofgrasse]

"And the country will be in for a shock."

Really? Where have you been? We hve been "in shock" for the last 8 years of bad Bush Adminstration's policies....all pales in comparison to what BUSH has done to the world and to AMericans.

[Jason87]

There is no irony at all that a Rothschild is defending the middle-class American dream.

The Rothschild family is known as the infallible benefactor to the working class throughout history.

Whatever she says must be true.

[jpaultel]

Poor Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. You remember that Obama characterized Clinton's welfare-to-workfare reform as "disturbing" but failed to mention that when asked what policy he disagreed with that he now favors he named the same program: welfare-to­-workfare. He went further to say he now believes it was the right way to go beacuse of the inherent dignity in work. All through the campaign he has argued that jobs should be created for all who want to work. If your father lived under Obama, he will get a tax cut. Go to his homepage and use the Tax calculator. However, Forester de Rothschild, will find fewer tax shelters and off shore "phony" corporations in the Cayman Islands to hide his money. He will pay more tax on his profits (not income). If he, Forester de Rothschild, creates jobs in America, he will get tax breaks. You see a win-win. By the way, how did you, in good conscience, and in the clarity of day, jump from being a very vocal supporter of Hilary Clinton to a super vocal supporter of McCain?

[T Pol]

Good last sentence, on top of the good rest of it. Obama knows something many other pols don't, including McCain -- learn from others. He has pledged to bring together diverse ideas and is doing so.

[ethel08]

Every time I read this piece it just makes me angrier. "He never took a handout but he worked two jobs. "

So, according to Rothschild, any tax refund or credit is now a "handout." I hope she remembers the next time she reviews how her armies of accountants are getting her refunds and credits on her own tax statements.

Is it any wonder that the uber-rich hate Obama's tax policies? And then these jerks accuse us of stoking class warfare?

[ethel08]

It is hard to take a piece seriously that repeats the very discredited notion that 40% of Americans "pay no taxes at all." These people pay a variety of taxes. They just don't pay federal income tax.

In Palin's America, poor people will be taxed for milk so that she can cut the wealthy's property taxes. Regressive taxes as far as the eye can see is not the same as no taxation. Of course, Rothschild loves schemes like this.

[jagoneely]

The workfare system didn't work that well to get people where they could support themselves. It was flawed and inadequate. Some of the job training involved hours of sorting bottle caps. People wanted to learn computers and career skills, but these were not available in most cases. Child care was not provided in most cases. So I understand why Obama thought it was disturbing.

[IndependantGal]

It IS disturbing. When I was down and out and homeless with a 4 y/o by no fault of my own, I had the option of the welfare to work program. I was not on welfare and never took government money before. I was looking at all the options. There was NO provision for childcare, except if I was taking classes for job skills, and those provisions where so paltry they didn't add up to the amount of time in the classes. THEN the job skills training had nothing to do with the ones I already had and needed to maintain (graphic design). And childcare wouldn't be provided if I didn't take the courses they appointed to me.

I said "THANKS but no THANKS" to welfare and found a way to get back on my feet on my own, with no family or friends to support me. BUT I did it! And now 2 years later we are OK! I am convinced if I had gone that other route, I'd be trapped in the welfare system for ever. Always look for all other options before taking government assistance. Sucking off that teet is more than you will bargain for.

[ElBruce]

It's an incontrovertible fact that the historical periods during which there was less income inequality are the periods where the overall economic indicators have been the best; the converse is also true. Tweaking the tax structure to be slightly more progressive is the LEAST socialist method of doing it. It's not a transfer payment. If it was, then the Bush tax cuts would also constitute a transfer payment to the rich, and that's an argument I don't think you want to have. We gave stewardship of the economy to the rich, and they have failed us. It's the middle class that is the engine that will get us out of this. It always has been.

I'll admit that there is a certain amount of "stealth" politics involved in this. Nobody's been talking about the poor; instead, everybody's talking about the needs of the middle class. But strengthening the middle class is not merely a question of serving the needs of their current members, it also will require creating the opportunities to help elevate more of the poor to swell their ranks.

[bioluminescence]

The Republican party is completely consumed by anger, invective and negativity. Collectively it reminds us of those annoying people we all know who don't know the right answer but nevertheless are convinced they know the wrong answer. It's a syndrome known as "aggressive ignorance."

[musezeek]

Using the figures "the top 1% pay 40% of the $2.6 trillion dollars" and "50% pay 2.9% of the amount america needs"; if you moved 1% of the total tax revenues from the lowest 50% and up to the top 1% of the tax payers, you would decrease taxes by 34% for the lower 50% of the tax payers, while increasing the taxes by only 2.5% for the top 1% of tax payers... I think that 50% would have a LOT more and maybe get to keep what they earn (subtracting $3,400 from a $10,000 tax bill) , while the top 1% should hardly notice the one-half nickle per dollar increase. (example: adding $25,000 to a $1,000,000 tax bill)

[radnip]

For those of you who think we need a flat (i.e. regressive) tax system and that it's always best to get your public services from the poor, I say, "When I buy my three-story penthouse condo, I expect to pay the same homeowner's fees that the guy in the downstairs single pays. After all, the common areas are all the same and it's the same building. So ALL condo owners should pay the same taxes and the same association fees. I DESERVE my money when I sell because I have a bigger condo. Thanks for your subsidies!"

http://www.votesmarter2008.com

[owlsocks]

Ummm... "He decides the level at which our money becomes the government's money." ????

Really, that's funny. I was under the impression that the Constitution (of which Obama is a noted scholar and which he taught at the collegiate level) prevents our One Man president from DECIDING anything.

He can suggest, even outline.

But, it is the Representatives of the people, along with the elected Senate that make decisions.

Sorry to burst your "left-wing conspiracy" bubble.

[hopefullee]

The day that John McCain blew off David Letterman before he "suspended" his campaign, he met with Lynn de Rothschild. She's a big contributor to his campaign. Anything she says should be viewed with that in mind.

[AnotherunhappyDemocrat]

Actually Roosevelt did raise taxes. In addition to introducing payroll taxes to help fund Social Security, by 1936 the top income tax rate had gone from 63-79%. We had witnessed a huge tax hike just before FDR, when Hoover raised the rate on top earners from 25-63%. And, of course, when war came to our country, FDR raised taxes again; they climbed from 79% in 1939 to 94% in 1945. And regarding Kennedy's tax cut, I suspect that anyone not knowing the actual numbers would be misled by your use of this example. In 1960, the top rate was 91%. By 1964 this had been reduced to 77% and would drop to 70% by 1965. That is hardly evidence for maintaining tax rates at these very low levels of today.

[CuriousRepublican]

The problem is that when Hoover raised the top rate from 25% to 63%, the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 16% to 24%. The U.S. economy did thrive okay during the 1950s with a top rate of around 90%, but no profession then handed over 90% of their salary to the government; there were various forms of loopholes, and the wealthy had ways of hiding their taxes from the government altogether (that's why they created the Alternative Minimum Tax).

When President Bush Sr. increased taxes during his administration on the eve of a recession, the economy went into a recession as well.

With President Clinton, he raised taxes and the economy mumbled along during the first few years of his administration, but then he cut the capital gains tax rate in 1998 which caused revenues to surge, and there was a surplus.

Under current President Bush, when the economy was heading into a recession, taxes were cut.

It would be ludicrous I think to increase taxes to rates over 50% today, and there's also the simpel issue of fairness; people have a right to keep the money they work hard to make. It should not be taken from them by force because of some belief that the government knowsh ow to spend it better.

[ethel08]

"It would be ludicrous I think to increase taxes to rates over 50% today, and there's also the simpel issue of fairness; people have a right to keep the money they work hard to make. It should not be taken from them by force because of some belief that the government knowsh ow to spend it better."

Wow! I am converted by your "simpel" issue of fairness argument. Indeed, let's just be as fair as possible and eliminate all taxes. After all, I work for my money; I deserve to keep it--all of it. Let's just watch the whole infrastructure crumble. It's unfair that Obama should consider ways to spend tax dollars--making him the first president in the history of the US to be so audacious! Certainly, John McCain and George Bush haven't decided how to spend our tax dollars in some ludicrous war waged for no discernible reason!

Screw the common good, I say. Every person for him or herself while the nation burns, burns, burns.

Long live fairness! Love live the Rothschilds! The good Lord knows their wealth is almost extinct because of how much they pay in taxes. Seriously, how do they make ends meet?

[cjgnew]

I read this lady's post because of her courage to attack us on our own turf. After reading her post, I saw no substantive reality in her piece. She's just upset about HRC not being on the ticket, and the only way she could defend her stance is by bringing forth to the surface that her pocket book might take a hit on taxes under Obama. To protect her own pockets, she's willing to twist Obama's tax proposals in a way that she thinks could turn a few votes on her side. Her efforts will fail miserably because she is basically a sore loser.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO