Here's Barack Obama being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews. They are discussing taxation.

O'REILLY: But you want 50 percent [in taxes] of my success.
OBAMA: No, I don't. No, I don't.

Yes, he does. Yes, he does.
Obama would raise the top marginal tax rate to 39%, where it was prior to the Bush tax cuts. He would also lift the Social Security payroll tax cap, adding another 15.1% tax to those making over roughly $100,000. If you add it up, 39% + 15.1% = 54.1%. That is how much Barack Obama wants to take directly out of O'Reilly's success, and that isn't even counting the jump from 15% to 20% in the capital gains tax rate that Obama wants to institute.

O'REILLY: And then you want to raise corporate taxes.
OBAMA: No, I don't. That's not true.

Yes, he does. That is true.
Obama wants to start a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Obama wants to close tax loopholes for business. Half of that increase in the aforementioned Social Security payroll tax is paid by the employer. For his health care plan, Obama wants to force business to either pay for all of a worker's health insurance, or pay a penalty tax to the government so the government can provide it (this is the gateway to the nationalized health insurance Obama really wants, as most companies will choose to rid themselves of the headache of dealing with health insurance and pawn it off to the government by choosing to pay the penalty tax). Obama would give small business a 50% health care tax credit, though to my knowledge, "small business" is not defined.

OBAMA: Well, but the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it if she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more?
O'REILLY: Because it inhibits…
OBAMA: That is neighborliness.
O'REILLY: Listen, if you raise the cap gains tax, that's going to inhibit investment. I won't buy as many stocks. And many, many, more people won't, OK, that's…
OBAMA: If we went up…
O'REILLY: It's going to come back to bite you, senator.
OBAMA: If we went up to a prohibitive rate, you're right. But…

"Neighborliness" ??? Now, I'm all for being neighborly. I let my neighbor borrow my lawnmower and my tools, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give Joe half my income. That's taking things entirely too far. Plus, I have a newsflash for Mr. Obama. It isn't only the rich who are paying half their income in taxes. It's us middle class folks as well. If I'm earning $60,000 per year, I pay about 20% federal taxes, 15.1% payroll taxes, 5% state taxes, 2.5% local taxes. That's 42.6% right there, and that doesn't take into account sales taxes, property taxes, and the hidden taxes that are included in the retail price of every product that I purchase. I call that prohibitive taxation, even if Mr. Obama doesn't.

Where does it end ? When do the taxpayers rise up and say 'enough is enough' ? The problem isn't that the taxpayers aren't paying enough. That hasn't been the case for decades and decades. The problem isn't that the government doesn't have enough revenue coming in. The federal budget alone is about $3 TRILLION, for chrissakes. Yet, we still have continual deficits. We have a $10 trillion federal debt. We have $50 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities. Our geniuses in Washington D.C. just put us on the hook for $5 trillion more by bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. $200 billion of those loans are known to be bad. Our geniuses in D.C. bailed out Bear Stearns, putting the taxpayers at more risk. Then the geniuses in D.C. give us a stimulus package and pretend like they are helping us out. Well, guess what ? That wasn't paid for either. Guess who gets to pay for it ?? WE DO ! Now, they are talking about a second stimulus package, and that one won't be paid for either. Deeper and deeper we go into the hole, and here we have Barack the Changeman pretending that he's somehow different, when all he is going to do is what they all do, vastly increase taxes and spending more and more, which is the very thing that got us into this mess to begin with. Obama has no plans to balance the budget, by his own words. In fact, he doesn't even talk about that. What he talks endlessly about is investing (spending) in this, and investing in that. ENOUGH.

Obama represents change like a guy who has maxed out his credit cards represents change by getting more credit cards. ENOUGH.

No more new government spending until we solve the massive problems we face with all the previous government spending. To do anything else isn't change, it's insanity.

The political Left has two basic positions regarding business in America.

1) If a company is making a profit, they characterize the company as evil, and demand that their profits be taken away, so the government can use the money instead (this is known as THEFT in the non-socialist world, but you aren't supposed to think about that). It goes without saying that the bigger a company's profits grow, the MORE evil that company becomes. This means that Exxon-Mobil is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

2) If a company stops making a profit and loses money, the Left will subsidize the company (the Right tends to join in on this part too - Let's privatize profits, socialize losses, and join me on my yacht this weekend, old chum. Life is good).

The above is a twist on Reagan's old joke about government power: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; And when it stops moving, subsidize it.

A good example of #1 is Barack Obama traveling around the country telling everyone he wants to take the profits away from those evil oil companies (who, btw, enable our economy and society to function at a post-19th century level that keeps us off horseback and stagecoaches, but you aren't supposed to think about that. Just keep repeating to yourself - 'Oil Is Evil, Oil Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi (D-Venus) and Harry Reid (D-Mars) do. It's easier than thinking about things.

A good example of #2 is the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage mess, which included bailing out faltering companies like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those are private companies, aren't they ? Sure they are. Sort of. But talk about connected. They're practically a branch of government.

As far as I can tell, the following industries comprise the liberal Axis Of Evil Corporations: Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. I provide this list as a public service, so you lay persons out there can know who you should hate. Financial companies used to be on the Axis of Evil list too, but they lost so much money recently that they are no longer evil. Now, they must be subsidized.

The mantra the Left uses to demonize profit goes like this: How dare those greedy so-and-so's at the (fill-in-the-blank) corporation make so much money, when that money could be used for a) a government program, or b) the children ? 'The children' is practically foolproof as an excuse for the government to steal money from the private sector. An autocrat can justify anything if it's 'for the children' You aren't supposed to think about the fact that business profits enable people to have jobs, get paid, and become prosperous. You aren't supposed to realize business profits are the reason you live in a house, have an automobile, a refrigerator, a stove, a television, a phone, electricity, heat, and food. You aren't supposed to realize those business profits earned in a free market made the United States the world's leading superpower. Again, thinking is your enemy. Just keep saying to yourself, 'Profit Is Evil, Profit Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (D-Cuba) do - and Karl Marx did.

Our Glorious Exalted Leader Obama has even taken it a step further. He has proposed a windfall profits tax on the Devil Who Is Called Exxon and the other oily devils, and wants to hand $1,000 of the Devil's profits directly to each American, so Obama can literally buy your vote, er, help you combat the high costs of energy this winter, costs that Obama and friends won't do anything to help lower for maybe 20 years, and only then if the requisite alternative energy miracle happens in the meantime (except for that nifty 'inflate your tires' tip. That was quite helpful. Thanks, BO. If you were running for gas station attendant, you'd definitely get my vote).

The Left hates profit because America isn't perfect. There are still problems here, unlike all those other utopian socialist paradises, like, um, well, uh……….er, never mind. There must be some somewhere. I just can't think of their names right now. Even though we spend nearly $2 trillion each year on some type of entitlement program, the Left reasons that just isn't enough. Not even close to enough. Ever more and more and more money must be spent by the federal government, and ever more and more and more of your money must be stolen through taxation. Then someday, when NOBODY has any money left and the government is our supreme overlord and master of all things, that perfect socialist utopian nirvana will be achieved. I think it says exactly that on Obama's website, because his answer to absolutely everything is for big government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. I guess that's easier than thinking too.

Color me skeptical. It seems like $2 trillion per year should be plenty enough to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from starving. Yet somehow, it isn't. Could the problem be the government itself ? Nah, that can't be it. Impossible ! It must be the Republicans fault. Dick Cheney must be taking that money and giving it to Halliburton or something. It's a conspiracy of some sort. I know it, even though I have no proof whatsoever. I mean, c'mon, that Cheney guy just LOOKS evil. He's all old and corporate and white and stuff. Who needs proof ? And Cheney shot his buddy on that hunting trip. Don't forget that. What more is there to know ?

An old and very wise saying about democracy goes like this:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” - John Tyler

That was written in 1770, but it sounds pretty relevant to what's going on today.

Think of that when Barack Obama vows to steal someone else's money to give it to you, or to tax the hell out of the rich as if that won't affect you. It certainly will. We are just finishing with one president who didn't care much about fiscal responsibility, Dubya. Dubya was irresponsible on the spending side. Why on earth would we elect another president of "loose fiscal responsibility", but this time, on BOTH the taxation and spending sides ? $3 TRILLION per year should be plenty enough to run the federal government. Far more than enough, in truth. The tax and spend buck must stop here, or we will suffer serious consequences, the very ones John Tyler warned about back in 1770. Barack Obama wants to declare war on profits. I want to declare war on Barack Obama and all of his socialist/communist/totalitarian ilk, before it's too late.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. - Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) - or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

Major kudos to USA Today. An American newspaper has finally told the truth about the real economic crisis facing our country, which is the growth of entitlements, mainly with Medicare and that Ponzi scheme hidden income tax ripoff fake trust fund brought to you by the Democratic Party, Social Security (SS). Read the USA today article here.

As a side note about SS, Barack Obama took to using a little "politics of fear" (if I may borrow an Obaman rhetorical device) to falsely scare senior citizens into thinking John McCain was going to take away their SS. (link) Real classsy move from Obama the "new kind of post-partisan politician" (guffaw). Nobody has EVER suggested taking SS away from seniors. Nobody. Certainly not John McCain. To paraphrase some more Obama-style patter - Barack Obama's appalling attacks are the type of divisive, dishonest, and hypocritical partisan rhetoric that has characterized politics for far too long. It's the politics of the past, and the American people are tired of it. Americans want real change they can believe in, not more fearmongering, not more of the same old down and dirty intransigent politics so typical of the Washington D.C. inside power players - There. How did you like my Obama impersonation ? You know, it's really easy to talk like that. I think I'll form an exploratory committee to make a run for the Senate, Libertarian Party, I guess. The GOP has ticked me off, so they're out. They had their chance, and the Democrats are just flat out wrong about almost everything, so they'd be far worse. Thinking the Republican mess will be fixed by the Democrats is like thinking you can set your hair on fire and then put it out with gasoline.

Which leads me back to my intended subject. The entitlement liability, which constitutes the REAL federal deficit. It's over $500,000 PER HOUSEHOLD right now. Forget the credit crisis. Forget the mortgage crisis. Forget the Iraq war. This is the REAL crisis. I don't know about you, but $500,000 sounds like a chunk of change to me. Before long, we could be talking about real money. And every year we don't get a handle on this problem, the problem grows by a couple TRILLION dollars. If you want the "politics of fear", well, here's something to fear:

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household.

When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.

The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

"We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Institute for Truth in Accounting of Chicago.

The Medicare liability alone increased by $1.2 trillion in 2007, but it doesn't appear in our deficit numbers anywhere. We still have to pay for it. The total Medicare UNFUNDED liability is $30.4 trillion.

Now let's talk about some politics we really should fear (if you aren't scared already). Suppose Barack Obama becomes president and the Democrats seize a larger Congressional majority in november. Both are likely possibilities. That would give the Dems almost unfettered power. The Dems would immediately start implementing BRAND NEW HUGE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS to add to the enormous entitlement debt tsunami headed our way already. Massive increases in taxes would have to follow, which is another really bad idea when our economy is already slowing and shaky. Add it all together, and the Democrats will create an environment for the PERFECT ECONOMIC STORM (all to help us, of course). Imagine what each American household will be on the hook for then.

You want the truth ? There's the truth. Our politicians can't handle the truth, which is why they hide behind distortions and outright lies. I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of these numbers being talked about during the presidential campaign (which has been going on for over a year), and I guaran-darn-tee you haven't heard a Democrat mention them probably ever in your lifetime.

I BEG ALL YOU VOTERS TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE REASONS I JUST MENTIONED. THE OUTCOME COULD SWAMP THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF YOUR CHILDREN FOR TWO DECADES OR MORE.

So liberals, since you are actually in favor of all these entitlements that will bankrupt the country, I beg you to exhibit a little of that alleged liberal compassion and send at least $531,000 to me, Da King. I'm one of those little guys you love to "help". Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. God bless, er, I mean, dos vedanya.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.

When I heard the Senate passed S.2636, The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, by a vote of 84-12, I immediately wanted to know who the 12 Senators were who voted against it. Those might be 12 Senators I could support. Those might be 12 Senators interested in doing the right thing, as opposed to the pandering election year thing that actually makes the problem worse. Those 12 Senators might actually be, gasp, fiscally responsible, a notion that almost seems quaint in these days of mutually assured fiscal destruction (spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, tax, tax, tax, prop up the economic house of cards for another day, the future be damned, this Titanic is a really nice ship, what's that sticking out of the water up ahead ? Aw, who cares, I'm too fat and lazy to bother turning the wheel, I'm sure it will all be fine, ooh, did we hit something ?).

It came as no shock to me that all 12 of the Senators who voted 'Nay' on S.2636 were Republicans. Every single Democrat Senator voted for the taxpayer funded boondoggle, except for Obama and Hillary, who didn't vote. Here are the S.2636 'Nay' voters. Kudos to them:

Barrasso (R-WY) Bunning (R-KY) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Enzi (R-WY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Warner (R-VA)

It also came as no shock to me that the fiscally conservative position of these 12 Republicans is the minority position within their own party, a party that gives lip service to fiscal conservatism, but in reality has morphed into something else entirely, especially during these last 7 years (FYI - Senator John McCain supports S.2636, even though he didn't cast a vote. He has given it verbal support, contradicting statements he made against an unwise mortgage bailout only a couple weeks earlier). This bodes very poorly for our future. When Republicans aren't interested in fiscal responsibility, we're in big trouble, because the big spending socialist Democrat foxes sure aren't going to guard the fiscal hen house.

One of the 12 'Nay' voters on S.2636 was Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY). Here are a few of his comments on the Foreclosure bill:

“This is an unusually bad bill, and I have opposed it from the start. The course it has followed almost guarantees that it will be filled with the worst kind of gimmickry. And it is. The Senate may be the world’s greatest deliberative body, but this bill is anything but the product of deliberation. It is a jumble of disjointed ideas, unlikely to solve the crisis at hand, and it’s unpopular.

“It turns out that the American people don’t like the idea of bailing out banks and their neighbors who gambled on home prices. The voters understand what is going on in Washington, better than we do.

“Another provision that deserves far more scrutiny is the $4 billion in community development block grants that will be allocated to state and local governments to buy foreclosed properties. To begin with, this program is very poorly managed. The Wall Street Journal called it among the worst-run programs in Washington, and there is a lot of competition for that title…

Let’s not have any illusions. This extraordinarily unwise grant of taxpayer money is really just a bailout for banks in disguise. It goes to states, but the ultimate beneficiaries will be banks that made risky loans. Instead of selling foreclosed properties on the open market, these banks will have the luxury of selling to local officials with whom they may already have a relationship. These officials will be buying properties not with their own funds, but with ‘O.P.M.’ O.P.M. stands for ‘other people’s money.’ And, in this case, the O.P.M. comes from you and me, the American taxpayer, and millions of unborn Americans that we are saddling with even more debt.

Another provision that could benefit from more thoughtful deliberation is the $100 million of spending on counseling. … We also don’t know all that much about the non-profit groups that will get the money. Are some of these groups funded mostly by credit card companies? If so, they will have a clear conflict of interest. Maybe they will actually advise people to abandon their homes to foreclosure in order to pay credit card debt. That would make the foreclosure situation worse, not better.”

But Mr. Bunning, if Congress actually considered the effects of the bill before they voted on it, they might not get it passed in time to pat themselves on the back for the fall elections. What's important is that Congress DID something, even if it's the wrong thing. That's how they get votes. That's how demagoguery works.

The mortgage crisis can only be resolved by a revaluation of housing prices, which is what this temporary housing problem would have brought about had it been left to run it's course. It is counterproductive in the long run for the government to move in and try to keep property values artificially inflated. Free market capitalism doesn't mean that the market will go up, up, up forever. Sometimes it needs to go down too. Pushing huge new costs onto the taxpayers is NOT the answer here.

As for John McCain, Senator Obama has been going around saying it took McCain three tries to get the correct housing crisis response. I say McCain had it right the first two times, and abandoned the right thing the third time, when he caved and started pandering like the rest. The government (actually the taxpayers) shouldn't be in business of bailing out banks and homeowners who made unwise economic decisions. All this bill accomplishes is to move the Titanic a little closer to the iceberg.

The lies and distortions are coming at us so fast and furious that it's almost hard to keep up. The historic Democratic presidential campaign has deteriorated into a daily discussion of Who's Zoomin' Who ? (my vote goes to Hillary, for Lifetime Achievement In Falsehood).

However, since Congress put on it's annual dog and pony show with the oil company executives yesterday, I want to say a word about one of Obama's distortions. Obama claims that he doesn't take money from the oil companies:

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.” - Barack Obama

Barry claims he doesn't take money from oil companies, and it's true, he doesn't. The part Barry leaves out is that NONE of the candidates take money from the oil companies. They can't, because it's ILLEGAL. The other part Barry leaves out is that he DOES take money from oil company executives, and two of his largest fundraisers are oil company executives, according to factcheck.org. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. We can call this the Obama Oil Slick.

I'm also growing a little tired of Democrats like Obama talking about taking away the profits of the oil companies, especially since THE GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY FROM OIL COMPANY SALES THAN THE OIL COMPANIES DO ! If the government truly cares about us little people, why don't they ever talk about removing the 65 cents tax on every gallon of gas ? Why is it immoral for oil companies to make a profit, but perfectly fine for the government, who doesn't drill, refine, or deliver one drop of oil to the pump, to make even bigger profits from oil ? Who IS zoomin' who ? What the Dems are really saying is that THEY want to steal the oil company profits for themselves. That ain't free market capitalism, folks. That's a whole different -ism, one we've fought wars against. One we shouldn't tolerate for a second.

The Democrats also ask why the oil companies should continue to get tax breaks when they are making record profits. That's a valid question, but, do the Dems realize that raising taxes on oil companies won't lower the price of gas, but will instead raise it ? They DO realize that, don't they ? Please tell me they do.

Amid all the blame being doled out to the mean old oil companies by the Democrats, one congressman actually asked a useful question (golf clap):

"What would bring lower prices?" asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican

"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's coastal waters are off limits to drilling.

Source

What's this ? You mean increasing the supply of gasoline (combined with reducing demand) might reduce the price of gasoline ? Too bad some economist hasn't come along and realized that this supply vs demand thingy might be important, huh ? I think it could even be some kind of economic law, maybe. Perhaps someone should look into it.

And guess which political party has been responsible for restricting the supply of oil in the good old U.S. of A, by restricting drilling, among other things ? If you said "THE DEMOCRATS", the same people bitching about the price of gas now, you win a cigar (just don't try to smoke that cigar. The Dems don't like smoking or oil drilling. They've restricted both).

By the way, since the Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 elections, the price of gasoline has risen by about $1.00 per gallon. Those SOB's.

The increase in the price of gas isn't the Dems fault, of course, I was the one zoomin' you that time, but since this is election season, and since I've heard Bush blamed for the price of gas about ten billion times by Democrats, I thought I'd throw that in to score a cheap and dishonest political point. It's the Democrat way… Ewww. Suddenly, I feel dirty. This must be what those Dems in Congress would feel like…if they had consciences.

Exxon/Mobil made $40 billion in 2007. I think their net profit margin was about 9 percent. That's not a very large profit margin. It's pretty low when compared to other businesses, even though the absolute profit number is huge. I'm not saying this to defend the oil companies, I'm saying it because it's true. Exxon's profit is due to Exxon's enormous record sales. I couldn't find the exact number, but CNNmoney has some of the numbers here.

If the Democrats would agree to expanded offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and new refineries, Exxon could and would use a lot of those profits for new oil exploration to increase the supply of domestic oil and reduce foreign consumption until such time as alternative fuels are ready for mass use and cost effective. That would be sensible and would benefit america, but the Dems are against it, apparently because a polar bear or fish might have to relocate. They'd rather just point the finger and steal Exxon's money instead. Those are some oily politicians, and their policies are providing NO help to americans.

According to an Associated Press story, more Ohioans than ever are on food stamps, nearly one in ten.

Amid a sluggish economy, a record 1.1 million Ohioans are getting food stamps, the state’s welfare agency said. That’s about 10 percent of the state’s population.

Caseloads have almost doubled since 2001, when an estimated 628,000 people were in the program, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

Low wages, unemployment and more expensive groceries, gasoline and other necessities have contributed to financial hardships facing many families. Ohio’s jobless rate is 5.3 percent, up from 4.4 percent in 2001.

I would say the lack of good jobs is far and away the number one reason for this situation, with all the other cited reasons running second. This begs the question, why does Ohio lack good jobs ? The entire country was hit with the loss of manufacturing jobs, but other states have recovered much better than Ohio. Why ? One big reason is that Ohio has one of the worst business environments in the entire country. According to The Tax Foundation's rankings, Ohio has the 5th highest state/local tax burdens in the country, and is ranked 46th out of 50 for it's business tax climate. Ohio had one of the lowest tax burdens in the 1970's, and now has one of the highest. Former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is campaigning for John McCain, put it this way:

"John McCain knows as I know…that capital seeks the path of least resistance and greatest opportunity. Ohio's regulatory environment, it's tax climate, and the general cost of doing business is non-competitive, and as a consequence we're losing capital and losing jobs."

Blackwell was also highly critical of his own Republican party under former Republican governor Bob 'good riddance' Taft. Blackwell complained that "Ohio Republicans…campaigned like Ronald Reagan and then governed like Jimmy Carter". Amen to that. The same thing happened at the national level under Dubya. Blackwell, one of the few real conservatives in Ohio, lost his bid for the Ohio governorship to Democrat Ted Strickland by 24 points in 2006.

So, now that the Democrats control the statehouse, what does Strickland plan to do to help Ohio ? Has Strickland seen the light about Ohio's onerous tax burden that inhibits the creation of new jobs ?

No such luck, Ohio. His first budget did nothing to address the situation.

The news gets worse. The USA has nearly the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so the business environment is already unfriendly. When you add Ohio's unfriendly business environment on top of that, we have sort of the perfect storm of business unfriendliness right here in the Buckeye state. We are the worst of the worst. No wonder jobs aren't being created. No wonder the rust belt keeps rusting. On top of that, add high energy costs due to our climate. I mean, what's so hard to figure out here ?

When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blew through town talking about renegotiating NAFTA (and forgot all about it as soon as they left), that was the red herring. The problem isn't NAFTA. Globalization isn't going away. Free trade isn't going away. You might as well wish for the return of the horse and carriage (okay, bad example. That one might make a comeback the way things are going.) Instead of fighting globalization, we have to adapt to it. First, we have to stop treating business and free enterprise like it's the enemy (that's you, left wingers). Second, here's my crazy idea, and somebody tell me why it wouldn't work to immediately transform the business climate from unfriendly to super-friendly, and those job losses into job gains:

We stop taxing business. Completely.

For you liberals out there, c'mon, think outside the box. The purpose of our country isn't to accrue money to the government, it's to create conditions for the prosperity of our citizens. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gets much more difficult without a decent income.

And it beats food stamps.

Oops. The messiah stumbled yesterday. Barack Obama's aura of inevitability took a hit, as he was defeated by Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Obama did win in Vermont (and two Vermont towns noted for their liberal politics voted to arrest Bush and Cheney. Coincidence ? It's doubtful).

Could it be that voters who aren't moonbats in Vermont (the vast majority of us) are finally taking a peek behind the Obama rhetoric to see what policy resides there ? I certainly hope so. In the course of 20 Democratic debates, the moderators didn't make Obama answer one serious economic question about the effects of his policies, and the voters say the economy is the biggest issue. What a complete and utter farce. Voters deserve to know what all that "change" would be, and what all their "hope" would bring about. In that vein, I'd like to expose a little more Obama policy to the sunlight.

I've already talked about Obama's many, many, many proposals for new federal government spending, and I've linked you to the Obama Spend-o-meter, which tracks the cost to the taxpayers (that's you and I, folks. In an Obama presidency, the giant sucking sound will be coming from your wallets, in contrast to the Bill Clinton presidency, where the giant sucking sound came from the Oval O…well, never mind).

So let's take a different tack, and look at how Obama intends to pay for all that new spending. Townhall.com has a video that spotlights five of Obama's tax increases. You can link to the video here. I have to point out that Obama is proposing MORE than five tax increases. Townhall's list doesn't even include the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the more wealthy, which is a given, and other tax increases. Before I get into Obama's numerous tax increases, in fairness I have to point out where Obama has said he will cut taxes. Obama has promised a $1,000 tax cut for the middle class. He has also promised to give unspecified tax breaks to corporations that keep jobs in america ("unspecified" is why I don't believe this one for a second. I think it's a trick to make voters think Obama cares about business and jobs, when in fact his other proposals will destroy free enterprise, business, and jobs in america, as you will shortly see). Finally, Obama said he will keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class intact.

Here are the five Obama tax increases from Townhall's video. Let's call them 'Obama's Fave Five':

1) Nearly double the capital gains tax, raising the rate from 15% to 29% (Amanda Carpenter misstated the numbers in her video), and also hunt down what he calls "tax evaders" in foreign countries. Obama calls this his "tax fairness plan".

2) Remove the Social Security tax cap, imposing a 12.4% payroll tax on those earning over $97,000 per year.

3) Implement "green" taxes. Start a carbon tax to pay for Obama's $210 billion proposal to create green jobs.

4) Implement "patriotic" taxes. Require employers to pay all employees a "living wage". Require all employees to receive a pension plan. Require employers to pay 60% of all employee health care premiums. Allow unions to organize WITHOUT elections. Increase U.S. workers relative to those outside the U.S.

5) Implement global taxes. Obama is the lead sponsor of the Global Poverty Act, which would commit $845 billion in additional U.S. foreign global aid by 2015, which would ask nations to ban small arms and light weapons, and which would ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media could put their pointy little heads together and relate some of this information to the general public, and maybe, just maybe, discuss the effects of all this on our economy ? No, I guess that's too much to ask. Instead, they talk about darker vs. lighter shades of Obama pictures, Obama in a turban, and Obama "denouncing and repudiating" Louis Farrakan's amti-semitic remarks, all of which doesn't mean diddly squat compared to these five business and job nuking proposals that Obama wants to bring to reality in our country.

Each one of Obama's fave five taxes will increase the cost of doing business in the private sector. Each one expands government control over free enterprise. Each one is anti-business. Each one puts america at a competitive disadvantage in the world. That one about allowing unions without an election might as well be coming from Lenin, it's so unamerican. Ditto for doubling the capital gains tax. Capital gains money has ALREADY been taxed. It's also investment money, retirement money, and nest egg money. To tax it at high rate discourages investment and harms millions of people financially. If Barack Obama's actual goal was to kill the american economy, his fave five would be a very good start, especially in combination with his massive expansion of spending and entitlements. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, appear to be going into a recession, and in places like Ohio, jobs have been lost. Add Obama's "cure" to the mix and it could be 1929 all over again. No thanks.

This stuff is Economics 101. You don't create new jobs by making it harder and more expensive for companies to do business. You don't expand business and jobs by taking away profits. You don't help the economy by reducing private sector investment. Obama's policies would strangle business. Then, I'm sure, the next dunderheaded liberal would come along and blame it all on the business sector some more, call them greedy, and ask for yet MORE government intervention in business to "fix" things, when what should be done is to make our businesses MORE competitive, not less. The real fix is the exact opposite of the liberal prescription. The real fix is low business taxes, less regulation, and liberty. This stuff is so obvious that anyone who ever took one college business class should understand it. Apparently, Barack Obama didn't take one. Heck, anyone who has ever balanced a checkbook should be able to understand it, or even anyone who can add and subtract, when you get right down to it.

Makes me wanna holler.