Bush fatigue

I noted yesterday in a post on my blog entitled "The Morning After" that I believe Obama's victory on Tuesday was as much a product of the public's "Bush fatigue"as it was any ringing affirmation of the liberal policies that Obama will pursue as president. I argue this because Obama ran primarily as a centrist, coopting the Republican tax-cut mantra by promising his tax reduction for "95% of working Americans" and talking up his desire in general for middle class tax relief. It was a great strategy and proved extremely effective -- particularly given McCain's ineptness in arguing that the Obama plan amounts to another entitlement program. In the end, of course, we all know that with the Democratic robber barons in Congress leading the way, tax increases are coming for everyone -- and not just the "rich" folks making in excess of $250k per year. In my view there is no fundamental "realignment" in this election -- the country remains a center-right nation that wants small government and low taxes. In today's Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey makes a very compelling argument to this effect:

"A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

This is exactly the point I've been making: the 2008 election -- like in 2006 -- was a referendum on George W. Bush and the Republican "bums" that the public associates with failure. It was not a ringing endorsement of "spreading the wealth around" and doesn't amount to an affirmation that wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is "selfish". This was not a realignment toward socialism. It was a rejection of Bush, pure and simple.

The poll results cited by Toomey clearly back up this position:

"Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.

On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows."

These results read like a Conservatives dream: a focus on individual effort to create wealth, elimination of the death tax and low tax rates. Unfortunately, the voters -- in rejecting McCain as another vestige of the Bush Administration -- elected someone who stands in opposition to all of these positions. Obama is on record as supporting increases in the death tax, capital gains and dividend taxes, income taxes on the highest tax bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and many other tax increases. One of the poll results that shocked me from Tuesday was that Obama won among tax payers in the $200,000 and above income category -- the very category that he was openly targeting for a tax increase. Voters seem to be against tax increases -- but they didn't vote that way on Tuesday.

This seeming contradiction is tough to explain. It is a given, of course, that many voters don't pay attention to the details, and vote on the basis of emotion and personality. On that score Obama won hands down. Many of the voters in swing states ended up voting against their stated interests and desires, by electing Obama and increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The emotional wave of "change" -- coupled by an incoherent Republican opposition and a total failure of leadership -- created a Democratic wave. Caveat emptor: they just bought something that was both defective and dangerous.

How long will it take before massive "buyer's remorse" sets in? That depends on how well Obama is able to manage the massive liberal forces that will now be pushing him hard to the left. Whether it be the far-left interest groups that poured massive money into his campaign, or the Democratic leadership in Congress that wants socialism on a grand scale, Obama faces some powerful groups that want precisely what most Americans do not. Whether he can (or will) resist this and govern more to the center is unclear. Nothing in Obama's past indicates a courage of conviction or a willingness to buck his party's power brokers. If Obama is unable (or unwilling) to control these forces, he will quickly find himself with a groundswell of opposition among those who decided (against logic) to vote for him. It won't be pretty.

In the end, this election amounted to a clear signal to conservatives that the issues that fueled the Reagan Revolution -- smaller government, less regulation and low taxes -- still resonate broadly with the American people. George W. Bush was never a leader of this movement, and his prolifigate spending and lack of fiscal discipline helped to ruin the Republican brand. Now, Conservatives need new leadership and new ideas that will take the Reagan-era philosophies and update them for a new generation of Americans. Barack Obama won the presidency but he hasn't changed America.

Fairness? Just the opposite

Obama admits that raising taxes decreases revenue. He does not hide that his goal in increasing taxes on individuals and small business owners who qualify for his tax hike is emphatically not to increase tax revenue. Because a "single mom" gets taxed at a higher rate than "her boss's investments," Obama is willing to sacrifice necessary revenue in the service of what he defines as "fairness." But how is it "fair" to tax the boss's money at the same rate as the "single mom's" (or more likely, a higher rate) when the money is first earned, and then not only tax it again, but raise the second tax on it - merely because it is invested? Don't we want to encourage investment in American companies?

How is it "fair" to deprive the country of essential tax revenue needed to decrease the deficit and run all our bloated government programs (programs that only McCain is willing to reform)? Don't we want the deficit to shrink instead of grow?

And how is it "fair" to the "single mom" who relies on her job to care for her family's needs to jeopardize her employment by increasing the tax burden on her boss (who very well may be a "single mom," too)?

According to Obama, wanting to keep the money you earn (and invest it and even decide for yourself which non-profit gets your donations) is what he calls, "selfish," and the most recent figure for who will get taxed under his plan has changed to people making more than $120,000.

Obama even believes that a good way to "spread the wealth around" is to take your money and give checks to people who don't pay taxes - more than 40% of the people getting Obama's "tax relief" money pay no federal taxes at all. That's not "fair," that's "welfare" and it traps people in poverty.

This isn't "restoring fairness to the tax code." This is creating the appearance of fairness in the tax code. But it isn't honest and it isn't fair. It's class warfare - divisive and polarizing. What happened to the Obama of, "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America" fame?

I guess he's the same Obama that followed, "people don't expect government to solve all their problems" with "But..."

Dr. Pamela Zuker received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Psychology from the University of Chicago where she performed research at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). She also holds degrees in Anthropology and Clinical Psychology, and practiced marriage, child, and family therapy before focusing on positive psychology. Her current research is on the role of meaning in adult life. She lives in the Roaring Fork Valley with her husband and two children.

America at the tipping point

Today, Daniel Henninger has a brilliant piece in the Wall Street Journal that lays bare the true significance of an Obama victory. Rather than being representative of a repudiation of "the last eight years", a victory for Obama will usher in a new and philosophically revolutionary change in the basic tenets of both the American economy and society. An Obama administration -- aided with huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate -- will not be a "one-off" example of an over-reaction to the financial crisis that demands an immediate (but temporary) change in direction to right the ship.Rather, as Henninger so eloquently puts it, with this election the U.S. is at a "philosophical tipping point". This is spot on, and echoes the theme of many of my posts for the past several months. America is about to take a sharp 90 degree left turn, away from our history of free-market capitalism based on a risk/reward calculus, and toward a model of state-controlled system based on a no-risk/high security formula. It's a fundamental shift, as Henninger states:

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

This move toward "welfare capitalism" is exactly where Obama will take us over the next four years. And it is a tipping point because it is largely irreversible; the Great Society has now been with us for over 40 years, and its core elements -- Medicare and Medicaid -- are programs that make up a huge percentage of our entitlement spending. It is easy to giveth -- but it is much harder politically to "taketh away".  This is the issue we will face with Obama -- who plans an historic expansion of public-funded healthcare, energy development and welfare programs. As I've written previously, this will result not just in new taxes, but in the growth of a huge and growing dependent class that lives off government but does nothing to help fund it.The impact of this will be to move America back in the pack, to the economic alsorans of France, and Germany. As Henninger again writes:

Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, "Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It's time to spread the wealth around."What this implies, undeniably, is that the United States would move away from running with the high GDP, high-growth nations rising today as economic and political powers and move over to retire with the low-growth economies we displaced -- old Europe.As noted in a 2006 World Bank report, spending in Europe on social-protection programs averages 19% of GDP (85% of it on social insurance programs), compared to 9% of GDP in the U.S. The Obama proposals send the U.S. inexorably and permanently toward European levels of social protection. This isn't an "agenda." It's a final temptation.

A temptation to remake America in the model of the "progressives left" -- which sees capitalism as a model that fundamentally offends them. It offends the notion that America should be about equality of outcome, not opportunity. At the heart of this is a super-charged version of those who believe that "self-esteem" matters more than keeping score, and the idea that some will win while others lose is not acceptable. Never mind that in our economy, those who win do so not because of some hereditary right that is baked in as a birthright, but rather because of their drive to succeed. The left wants to discount the winners so as not to offend those who are less able (or willing) to succeed. This is at the core of the progressive movement: don't brag, walk softly, don't make anyone else feel badly and -- most importantly -- spread your wealth around so as not to make anyone feel inferior.

What this ignores, of course, is that human nature desires independence and self-sufficiency, not dependence on others. Those who actively support this kind of system are the progressive intellectuals who live in a world of theory, rich liberals who feel guilty about their success, and students whose brains have been scrambled by the left-wing politics of the universities. But the vast middle -- who will vote for Obama on November 4 because they have been hoodwinked into thinking that he is more Bill Clinton than Jacques Chirac -- don't want a handout. They want opportunity. And opportunity is not granted by a statist model of economics, but rather by life-giving tax cuts and a light regulatory burden that will ignite the economy and create new jobs. That's the right tonic for America and those who have too little -- not a government handout in the form of a cash payment that serves only to affirm their lower lot in life.

But this is not Obama's view of the world. And if he wins on Tuesday, we will see America make a choice that will fundamentally alter the philosophical underpinnings of our great capitalist democracy.

It will be a choice we will long remember-- and long regret.

Lies only prove worth of 47 & 49

Politicians and campaigns are masters of "spin" – selectively presenting facts in a way that leads the target audience to believe what the spin doctors want them to believe. Like it or not, spin is unavoidable because everyone has a unique perspective, formed by their own experiences and beliefs.

But there's spin, and then there are lies — outright, premeditated, willful lies that have no basis whatsoever in truth.

That's the campaign strategy now being employed by labor union bosses who are, ironically, fighting against the rights of workers by opposing Amendments 47 and 49.

Amendment 47 (also called "right to work") simply guarantees that an employee cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues in order to get or keep a job. It neither encourages nor discourages union membership, but simply protects the right of every working man and woman to make that choice without coercion from labor union bosses or pressure from management.

Those principles defend freedom for all workers, plain and simple. Amendment 49 ("ethical standards") prohibits state and local governments from intercepting a worker's paycheck to collect dues or contributions for unions, lobbyists or any other special interest. It simply requires all interest groups to ask supporters directly for their contribution, rather than use government payroll systems as their collection agency. Groups from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club rely on voluntary contributions, so why can't labor unions and other special interests.

To hear the outrageous lies of labor union bosses, you'd think these amendments would catapult Colorado back to the days of dirt roads, oil lanterns and outhouses.

An unbelievable commercial paid for by Protect Colorado's Future shows a fireman claiming these amendments would "keep (public workers) from speaking out on public safety" and "silence the voice of firefighters, teachers and nurses."

Strangely, they never identify the language that repeals the First Amendment, but maybe union lawyers have special glasses that reveal the super-secret code when viewed in black light.

Another hyperventilation by the same disreputable outfit warns that these amendments "put Colorado's economy at risk" and suggests that passing them would "let special interests do to Colorado what they did to Wall Street."

The only thing these amendments put "at risk" are the cushy accommodations reserved for labor bosses and their leverage to crack heads of workers who don't join the union.

Then there's the whopper by the "Coloradans for Middle Class Relief" that claims "a few rich owners" – "Big Bad Wolf" was already taken — want to pass these amendments so they can "cut wages and reduce health care for their employees."

What stops those greedy owners from treating their employees like indentured servants today? The good old profit motive, of course. It's tough to sell goods and services without productive, properly compensated employees.

The Denver Post called the union attacks dishonest, noting that Amendment 47 "does not in any way prevent unions from organizing and collecting dues from willing employees." The Post also pointed out that the firefighter in the commercial works in a department where union membership is voluntary.

Why then are unions crying wolf and destroying what remains of their own tattered credibility?` `

Because when workers are allowed to choose for themselves, 92% of private sector workers and 64% of government workers decide against union membership.

As this campaign demonstrates, union leaders don't give a darn about protecting the little guy. They want to force the little guy to pay union dues to enhance their own political power, and they are more than willing to play dirty.

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

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.