Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I always find it interesting to see how much politicians give to charity. Senator Joe Biden gave a paltry $995 last year, yet he made $2,450,042! And his $995 to nonprofits was over twice his normal yearly giving for the past 9 out of 10 years. Why do I say paltry? Because many teens I know give more money from their part time job income than he gave in his past average donations.  Biden made almost $2.5 million but gave such a little amount... amazing.

Actually, I am surprised at his Scrooge-ishness, because Biden says he is a Catholic. I would have thought he would have given his church more. (David Wade, a spokesperson, said the Bidens did give to their church, “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.” That could be the case. But why they wouldn't record these donations and put them on their tax return is beyond me, since that is such a standard practice. It raises the question, if you aren't claiming the entire amount, then why list any at all?)

I was thinking about stinginess vs. generosity again today when I looked at our church bulletin. I usually check the offering report for the previous week and often am pleasantly surprised at the dollar amounts listed. Our congregation almost always gives above the amount needed to stay on budget, and they do this without coercion.

The associate pastor does remind us from time to time that all we have is from God and that He allows us to keep around 90%. But there is no heavy handed tithe requirement or even a hint that giving more makes God love you more. The love is supposed to be coming from us to God in the giving, and it is evident in our church. Often people give more than the usual 10%. Many of these families are not wealthy and some are large, having 4 or more children.

Given that Al Gore and his wife gave a pittance, coupled with Biden's ridiculous amount, and the Obamas only recently gave above their 1% average, to me shows a selfishness. God instructs us to give Him the first of our fruits, not the left-overs. We are to trust Him to take care of us. (In fact, that was the subject of our sermon today, from a series on The Sermon on the Mount, Oct. 5, 2008)*

It's no wonder these politicians think people must be compelled by the government to give to social programs through taxes. They know they would not give voluntarily. From National Revue:

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.

But thankfully, plenty of Americans do give voluntarily, and they give a lot!

When the government taxes me more, it reduces my ability to give to the good works I think are worthy. Taxes also compel me to support programs I don't agree with or think are immoral, such as Planned Parenthood or ACORN. My "donation" in the form of taxes gets less bang for my buck because it must first travel through the maze of wasteful government bureaucracy.

If politicians like Biden, Obama, and Gore would give more to charity, maybe they would be less eager to increase taxes to pay for government social programs. Maybe then they would be more understanding of how higher taxes impacts voluntary giving. Obviously they have not tried it.

In case you were interested, McCain's giving, Palin's income and giving. 

*When my husband was laid off in 1982, we were concerned that we would not be able to meet our charitable donation commitments. Thankfully, we got through it.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Democrats present the Trojan Drilling Bill, the stock market is in major jitters, investors look for safe places to put their money. Hence oil, gold/silver/precious metals go up. Pretty simple.

With the Democrat's no-drill oil bill, prohibiting drilling in most areas, there will be little change in our domestic oil supply. If we don't get a real Drill Here bill, we will be dependent on foreign oil for years and paying higher prices. It is supply and demand...the price will go up.

Anyone wondering if the Democrats are trying to create such an oil price crisis that the government must come in and take that industry over too? I am hard pressed to explain the Democrat's stance any other way.

The other factor involved in precious metal and oil price increases is the fall of the dollar. It had been improving since about July. But the Freddie and Fannie / financials bail outs cause the United States to expand the money supply. That is inflationary, resulting in the value of the individual dollar to fall. Again, it is supply and demand.

From the Financial Times: The Short View: Oil and the Dollar: 

By late morning in New York on Monday, the price of oil had climbed by 20 per cent in barely five days and scarcely anyone had noticed. Then it went into overdrive, hitting $130 at one point before settling at $120.92. Last Tuesday, it traded at $90.51 – a swing of 44 per cent from bottom to top.

This had little to do with the supply of and demand for oil and everything to do with the fallout from the “Paulson plan” – the proposal to risk $700bn of US public money in a bail-out of toxic securities held by banks.

Oil rose as doubts surfaced about the plan.

When people are nervous, they look for tangible products to invest in. 

A key variable is the dollar. So far, it has fallen in response to the possible huge rise in the US deficit. The markets seem to have gone a step further and assumed that this step will be be inflationary and cause financial assets to lose value.

In that situation, the thing to do was to head for real assets, led by oil, although other commodities, led by silver, also had a strong day. Unfortunately for the Paulson plan, the inverse relationship between oil and the dollar is one of the few financial constants to have survived the past few days.

I heard this morning that oil settled down to about $108/barrel in Asia. People are nervous worldwide. The US money supply is expanded beyond thin.

The last thing we need is another check writing spree by the government in the form of a Democrat 2nd $50billion stimulus package or a $1,000 energy rebate based on a windfall profit tax to oil companies as Obama is touting. (That tax would be passed onto consumers, making oil prices higher.)

Even the Federal Government can only print so much money if it is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on! 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Oil companies have made a lot of money and some in Washington think they should get a bigger cut. The Senate recently tried to snatch some of those profits with their attempt to resurrect the Windfall Profits Tax bill. Thankfully, the Senate Republicans stopped that piece of legislation ...for now.

I am sure we will see that tax tried again. After all, Obama is campaigning, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Generally, Democrats seem to think that oil companies just do not have the right to keep their profits. They don't seem to have that same aversion to other corporations' profits though. I heard on Jay Weber recently that oil companies made about 7.5% in profits.

How does that compare to other industry profits? Weber said Banking made 20%, Pharmaceuticals 18%, Insurance 11%, and Beverage/Tobacco 9.4%. So oil companies 7.5% is excessive and these other industries are not? Does it seem there is a double standard here?

Weeks ago, Sean Hannity broke down the profit per gallon of gas that oil companies received. We're paying around $4/gal. Oil companies get about $0.08/gal. Taxes on a gallon are around $0.19/gal for Fed. and State, I think. Again, oil companies seem to be getting the lesser amount.

How much profit does an oil company like Exxon make? Mark Perry, on Seeking Alpha, a Stock Market Opinion/Analysis site shows that last year they had pre-tax profits of $70.61 billion. Wow, that is a lot of money!

Some of you might be muttering to yourself how unfair it is that these filthy rich companies are making all the money and WE (via taxes to government) should be getting some of it.

But here is a figure the news media does not talk about very much; the amount Exxon pays in taxes. Perry includes an interesting chart showing the profits vs. taxes: $40.6 billion in after tax profits, $30 billion in taxes. Exxon averaged over the past 3 years to pay $27 billion in taxes each year. He compares that to regular taxpayers contribution to the IRS:

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

This was not enough for the Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) though. They wanted more. 

No doubt about it. We have high energy prices and future prices don't look any better, but taxing oil companies more will not lower the price at the pump!  Would you want to work harder to increase production only to have more of your profit taken away?

FYI:  Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move 

Links:

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

Links:

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

The big election buzz this week was Obama became the nominee.

I could not listen to his entire speech, but this part caught my attention:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

I think his statements show how little he understands conservatives and economics.

Most conservatives do not consider McCain as standing with Bush. I would say McCain has been a thorn in Bush's side on many fronts for years. (Most likely, I am still voting for McCain because he is really my only choice, but he is NOT this conservative's dream.)

Secondly, the phrase, "left our children with a mountain of debt." What does he think all of his spending programs will do? He supports National Health, help with college, Global Poverty Act, more biofuel, and Cap and Trade * to name a few.

Every new spending program saddles our children with more debt. So how is it that his new spending programs are OK and those of the past are not? (I am not in favor of many of those either.)

If he had come up with a plan like Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America to reform Social Security, Medicare, and the Tax Structure, and did not have all of these new government programs as his platform, then maybe I could swallow his "mountain of debt" statement.

As it stands, he is the pot calling the kettle black. 

*WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- "Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday said that if elected he would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that would sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

I saw this enthusiastic supporter's car in WCTC's parking lot recently.

The college student in our household says many of the students there voted for Obama in the primary just because they think he will win. They like the idea of being on the winning side.

I can understand how "youth" would be attracted to a younger candidate--especially if that candidate is promising all kinds of change.

But who is going to pay for all that change?

The answer is our children. (We will all pay of course, but they will bear the brunt of it.)

According to a PEW Generation Next Survey from 2006 (page 14), 81% of 18 - 25 year olds rated "To get rich" as "[Their] generation's most important goals in life"

Senior Citizens are promised their incomes will not be taxed if under $50,000/year and families won't be taxed either, if their incomes are under $70,000, Sen. Obama has said.

So if getting rich is that important to this age group, then picking a candidate who will place such a huge tax burden on the young, singles, married with no children, and rich does not make much sense to me.

I know I am asking a lot here. Sadly, many otherwise intelligent college students (and people of all ages) don't understand basic economics. We see it all the time in that they don't understand that using a credit card means they still have to pay for their purchases with cash later, or buying a home that is beyond their means, on a temporarily low interest rate, is a bad idea. 

Hopefully after the parties' nomination process and the campaigns go into full swing, some of these questions will be addressed. I think the whole country could use an Economics 101 class!

Wow! Hillary Clinton pulled off Texas, Ohio, RI, check on the Clinton/Obama results for Tuesday's primary. Much like Mark Twain's quote, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated", Sen. Hillary Clinton is not pulling out of the race as some hinted. This is certainly the election that defies the usual. Huckabee is officially out of the race; McCain wins the GOP nomination.

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna