Locking in dependency is Obama's aim

I've been thinking a lot about Barack Obama and his tax plan. I'd prefer to spend my Saturdays thinking about college football, but since an Obama Presidency may force me to get a second job, well, here I am. Steve Charnovitz has a great letter today in the Wall Street Journal, commenting on the Journal's excellent piece entitled Obama's 95% Illusion. Here's what he said: Your editorial is very helpful in pointing out that Sen. Barack Obama's plan would allow 44% of U.S. taxpayers to enjoy no federal income tax liability. Such a policy is wrong in principle. If America is going to use an income tax to pay for the federal government, then all income earners should have to pay some tax.

Whenever any citizen is exempt from having to pay taxes, the untaxed citizen has little incentive to insist upon a responsible government. If we allow the tax rolls to fall to 56%, then we will soon be dangerously close to a tipping point where the majority of the public has no stake in insisting that politicians stop wasteful federal purchases and subsidies to special interests.

There are a couple of important things related to this letter that I think need to be addressed:

First, it is increasingly clear that Barack Obama's primary constituency is the non-tax payer. Because Obama's tax plan gives cash payments to those who don't pay any taxes at all, it amounts to another form of welfare. As the Journal points out:

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

So, Obama's plan is geared to increasing the number of non-tax payers. He is not trying to assist them in getting jobs that would help them earn enough money to pay taxes in the first place. Rather, by transferring wealth from tax payers to non-tax payers, Obama is actually enshrining a new and larger underclass -- dependent on government handouts for their livelihood. This is, of course, regressive. But it meets Obama's desire to make a large voting class permanently indebted to the Democrats.

Second, we are on a slippery path to having a majority of the nation being dependent on the innovation, hard work and entrepreneurship of a shrinking tax paying class. This is both unfair and unhealthy for the country. A permanent dependent class will be an economic burden and ultimately a killer for economic growth, because it will require new and ever higher taxes to support. What is the motivation for innovation if you know that 50, 60 or 70% of your income will go to supporting people who either don't work or don't pay taxes? How is that equitable?

It isn't equitable. And even worse, it totally ignores human nature. Multiple studies of welfare recipients have shown clearly that people want to be self-sufficient -- there is no pride in taking handouts. People want to feel proud about their lives and the work that they do. I don't believe that they want to be treated like children. The welfare reform of the 1990s proved that putting in place incentives for people to find work is effective. When given the right motivation, people find jobs for themselves. It's basic human behavior.

Unfortunately, Obama and the "well intentioned" Democrats have never understood this basic fact. The opposed welfare reform because they didn't think people could pull themselves up and provide for themselves. Their basic assumption is that we are not capable of taking care of ourselves. And now they are planning a system that will be a massive new entitlement program -- funded on the backs of those who get up every morning and go to work. It is destructive and will result in a massive new dependent class which society will have to deal with for generations.

Is this the kind of country America will become? A Democratic-socialist state with ever higher taxes and ever lower productivity?

This is the America that Barack Obama envisions. His tax plan proves it.

The character issue

Not surprisingly, given Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in American politics–so fast that the people know little about him–John McCain has raised questions about the Democratic candidate’s character. But equally important, notwithstanding McCain’s far longer career, is the character of the Republican candidate. On that score, the issue is not simply one of Obama’s negatives but McCain’s positives. As we head into the last few weeks before November 4, we notice that the McCain campaign is publicizing the fact that Obama has publicly cooperated with William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, frequently over the last 10–15 years in Chicago politics and philanthropy. That is, Obama launched his first campaign for public office in Ayers’ living room and served with his friend before that on the board of an educational foundation. Although Obama repeats that Ayers’ 1971 bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and a New York police station occurred when he "was only eight years old," there is no question that Obama knew fully of Ayers’ terrorism. Indeed, Ayers reaffirmed this in a New York Times article, ironically appearing on September 11, 2001, regretting that he didn’t accomplish more in his violent opposition to America’s defending South Vietnam against its communist enemy.

Obama and his campaign staff regard the criticism of his questionable association as trivial at best and the lowest form of politics at worst, reducing it to "guilt by association." But there was nothing casual about Obama’s work with "a guy in my neighborhood," as he traded on Ayers’ political connections and was not in the least disturbed by the man’s violent radical past and his no less radical "march through the institutions" of the years since. It is entirely legitimate for McCain to question Obama’s complicity with Ayers, particularly since Obama’s soaring and inspiring rhetoric tends to suppress much-needed public skepticism.

It is equally legitimate for McCain to question Obama’s 20-year collaboration with Rev. Timothy Wright of the United Trinity Church of Christ, the man who was his pastor, performed his marriage and baptized his children. Wright has been preaching anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semitic sermons for years which Obama could not have missed. McCain has not stressed the Wright connection as much as the Ayers link, but the two associates are as one in their hatred for American institutions and our way of life. Doubtless McCain is sensitive to the bogus charge of "racism," even though Wright is well beyond the pale of civil discourse and has shown himself to be utterly incapable of good citizenship.

Obama’s claim that McCain has taken the low road, allegedly because his campaign has not gained traction and he is behind in the polls, is merely the corollary to his carefully crafted image as a sort of political messiah who will unite the country and solve the problems of America fully and finally. Indeed, he has said that he is the one America has been waiting for, the country that has so far failed to reach its potential, the country that his wife, Michelle, was proud of only when Obama demonstrated a winning appeal in the Democratic primary contests. It is wrong to raise questions of character, you see, with someone whose public persona so effectively suppresses public awareness.

McCain has been alleged to have a character problem himself, his detractors claiming that he lacks good temper on occasion and is subject to occasional outbursts. Unfortunately for his critics, McCain has disappointed them in his presidential campaign. But there is no denying that McCain is a man of passion and enthusiasm–passionate about his country and enthusiastic about its prospects for more good times ahead. By contrast, and this is alleged to be his advantage, Obama projects less passion and enthusiasm than careful calculation and deliberation in all his public appearances. He may raise his voice while addressing crowds, but the tempo is measured and, I submit, intended to assure all his listeners that the country has nothing to fear from his becoming the next president of the United States.

In all three presidential debates, viewers noticed more animation in McCain’s countenance than in McCain’s. These men, as Rush Limbaugh might say, "are what they are," but one can still wonder why that is. McCain is 72 years old and Obama is 46, a difference of 26 years. For a senior citizen, McCain evidently possesses a lot of energy. He cannot effect what he does not feel, so he is the genuine article. When he questions Obama’s judgment, his promises and his programs, McCain exhibits the genuine alarm that an honest man would feel. He wants a less burdensome and expensive government that protects the nation against its enemies abroad and violent or fraudulent predators at home out of a genuine conviction. He never shades his meaning and always says precisely what he believes.

Obama’s careful articulation of his, let’s face it, traditional liberal policies of big government at home and national hesitancy abroad are designed to conceal his true feelings. His concern for the middle class is probably no more genuine than Bill Clinton’s, who also promised a middle class tax cut that he abandoned almost immediately after he took office in 1993. When Obama calmly promises to "invest" in America’s future with huge increases in government spending on health care, public works and education, he sounds as if he were doing nothing more than pointing out, the way a faithful accountant would to his less astute employer, the costs of doing business. All that Obama lacks is a green eyeshade as an effective, but deceptive, symbol for his proposed raid on the public treasury.

But sometimes the truth comes out. It did, when Obama assured Joe, the plumber, who wished to buy the business and make more money for himself, that taxing people who make at least $250,000 annually shows concern for those behind him and "shares the wealth." This mild-mannered reference to income redistribution both removed the screen from Obama’s carefully cultivated reasonable image and handed McCain the political gift that has kept on giving for Republican candidates beginning with Ronald Reagan. Taxing the rich really means discouraging anyone from getting rich who has not already become so.

Obama has every reason to keep his enthusiasm, if he has any, under wraps, for nothing arouses the suspicion of the upwardly mobile American citizenry than pie-in-the-sky promises to spread the wealth which wind up lowering the general standard of living. Given his revealing common exploits with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is obliged to look sober as a judge. McCain has nothing to hide but Obama has.

Sanctity of life a chasm in campaign

On some issues, voters may have difficulty distinguishing between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Examples could include the economy, energy, defense and even taxing and spending. But there is one area in which their differences are absolutely clear: the rights of unborn children. McCain would protect these innocents and Obama would not. Ever since Roe v. Wade (1973), which held that unborn children are not persons and denied them any rights whatsoever, defenders of the controversial decision have employed the rhetoric of "a woman’s right to choose" or "reproductive rights." Indeed, in the name of "health," a woman may have an abortion for any reason during the entire nine months of pregnancy. It has been, and always will be, an absurdity to maintain that women cherish the right to make war on their nature or that they would place no value on the most precious gift of the Creator. But the euphemisms are necessary to conceal from everyone, including the parties directly involved in an abortion, with the actual horrific nature of baby killing.

In fact, "pro-choice," which is another version of the euphemism, has an historical antecedent which has all the vicious attributes of its vile successor. That would be "popular sovereignty," the rallying cry of northern Democrats before the Civil War who sought to deprive the decision of whether to permit slavery in the Western territories of any moral significance. "Let the people decide" is no different in principle from "let the woman decide." There is never a right to do what is wrong, so advocates or apologists for evil acts have to resort to sophistry. The most effective method is to corrupt liberty or majority rule, flattering the people but leading them astray.

McCain has always opposed Roe v. Wade, which nationalized abortion protection, and has advocated that the matter be returned to the states for their determination. He believes that the people should legislate and not the courts. Obama, on the other hand, is a cosponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would remove all barriers to unrestricted abortion, including financial. He has said that this will be a priority of his administration.

When Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, McCain voted for it. This gruesome procedure is employed late term to ensure the death of the infant by severing its spinal cord at the back of the neck. Obama insists on a "health" exception, which would serve the same function as it does in Roe v. Wade, meaning that no such abortion could be prevented. Obama opposes the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), which upheld the congressional ban.

The late Rep. William Hyde of Illinois in 1975 authored the amendment which bears his name forbidding federal funding of abortions. McCain has always voted for it when it has been challenged. Obama opposed any limits on funding in the Illinois legislature and has stated that he does not support the Hyde Amendment.

No thanks to the "sexual revolution," millions of adolescent girls have gotten pregnant and many of them are pressured by their (frequently older) boyfriends to have an abortion and spare them the responsibility of supporting the child which the couple has conceived. Even states with permissive abortion rules and funding have adopted measures that require an abortionist to notify at least one parent of the impending procedure. McCain voted for such legislation whereas Obama voted to block it even if the child is from another state.

Finally, sometimes babies survive late-term abortions and yet they are either allowed to die or are put to death by drowning or suffocation. McCain voted for federal legislation to protect these babies just as those who are born prematurely, while Obama voted three times against a similar bill in the Illinois legislature.

It came as no surprise to those familiar with Obama’s pro-abortion record when he told Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Baptist Church that determining when life begins is "above his pay grade." McCain forthrightly declared that the rights of the child begin at conception. Nothing else but a human child is developing in the mother’s womb, a fact which Obama denies and McCain affirms.

Prepping McCain for final debate

Tonight is John McCain's last best chance to address the American people. Granted, this will likely be the smallest of the debate audiences, but it will still be substantial -- 50 million plus I would guess. Its far more than any advertising buy will reach, and its a chance for McCain to speak directly to the voters. Its a chance that he has had twice before and largely squandered. If he has any chance of winning, he cannot squander it tonight. But its a tall order for McCain -- who has both been hampered by an inane campaign (Bill Kristol says McCain should "fire" the lot of them), and his unwillingness to go for the jugular against Obama's obvious weaknesses. McCain sees it as beneath his dignity to play "dirty" with Obama -- as if going after the Senator's associations and past are off limits. This is noble in a game of chess, but not when the presidency of the United States is on the line. While McCain sees it as somehow honorable to not bring up the Reverend Wright because it touches on Obama's religion, he is really doing a disservice to the very people he wants to represent as president. As Tony Blankley writes today, McCain's unwillingness to go strongly after Obama and his past is a very critical and relevant issue that most Americans don't know anything about:

During the past few weeks, as I have been traveling extensively across the country, I have yet to find anyone (including a few reporters and producers at local news stations in Florida, California and New York) who has heard of these facts. The response when I recite the facts is always about the same. More or less: "Really? Wow!"

For those who follow politics closely, this may seem shocking. But it really isn't -- a huge part of the population is both uninterested in politics and uninformed. To me it is unreal that people actually are "undecided" up until the time they actually cast their ballot -- but that is because I understand the stark differences between the candidates and follow it closely. But many do not. They don't know ANYTHING about Barack Obama except that he is black, smooth, well-spoken and young -- all things that are, at first glance, attractive. And this is as far as most people get. That's why Obama's whole schtick about "hope and change" and "post-partisanship" had so much traction in the beginning. And even now, people look at Obama and think he represents change and a new style of politics.

But it is all a farce; Obama is a standard-issue liberal with an even more radical left-wing background than probably 95% of those in Washington. He's left of the left in Congress. He's just packaged himself perfectly. As I've written previously this is a great hoodwinking of the American people.

What McCain must say is this: Barack Obama is not like "you and me". He sat in an openly racist, anti-American church for 20 years. He's worked with a domestic terrorist who set-off bombs designed to kill Americans. He has had financial dealings with a known felons. He was the attorney for ACORN in Chicago and his campaign has recently given them $800,000 to register voters -- which they are doing illegally. He needs to make it clear: Barack Obama is a radical, not a mainstream Democrat. He's no Bill Clinton. And he's certainly no Jack Kennedy.

And he must say this as well: the history of one party rule in this country has not been successful. It is a blank check for the party in power to legislate its agenda. And in this case it will be big spending and big tax increases -- never mind what Barack Obama is saying on the campaign trail. If the Democrats are in charge of both branches of government, hang on to your wallet!

That's a message that will resonate with people.

Tax increases aren't popular -- and McCain must make the case that if Obama is president with Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the Congress, the country is going to get tax increases like never before. Why? Because Obama's stated tax plan is a lie -- he'll say and do anything to get elected. But once in the Oval Office, "circumstances" will have suddenly changed, and he'll be "forced" to raise taxes on everyone "for the good of the country". Oh, and to pay for his massive health care program and ten-year energy boondoggle.

That's what McCain must say tonight. And he must say it with confidence, warmth and compassion.

Look Obama in the eye and let him have it -- Just the facts, ma'am. In this case, the facts are all he needs.

How I'm voting on judges

We need rotation in office, John Adams' cherished principle, for the judicial branch just as we already have for the legislative and executive branches in Colorado. No one is infallible or indispensable, and no one is more likely to forget that fact than "Your Honor" in black robes on a high bench. Term limits for judges are a remedy for that hubris. Though unsuccessful as constitutional Amendment 40 in 2006, they are still functionally achievable by our retention votes in 2008. With that in mind...

I am a yes on Supreme Court Justice Alison Eid... also a yes on three of the Court of Appeals judges, Bernard, Furman, and Jones. All four are Owens appointees and received unanimous retention recommendations from the review commission.

I am a no on Democrat Justice Gregory Hobbs, who has ignored the constitution in some major rulings... also a no on Appeals judges Hawthorne, Roman, and Terry, also seated by Owens but who got weak retention recommendations. Give them tough love ala Mike Shanahan: You didn't make the cut, back to the minors.

Finally, I am a no on all district judges, most of whom are unknown to me. Again nothing personal, on principle I just believe these judges as they win their retention should have to see a large no-vote total against their name to remind them a lot of citizens don't trust our courts.