Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #6: You Can't Believe Your Own Economic Plan

Dear Senator Obama,

This is the first in a series of letters I feel I must write to you as the general election draws close. I pray this first installment finds you well. May God bless you.

I recognize that this letter begins with the number 6. I know it's odd (and even), that any series could begin at 6, but I thought I'd begin here and work my way toward number 1. As you have already gathered, I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I'd be a fool to ask you not to take this personally; none of us is either so humble or so hard-hearted that we can easily accept a voter's rejection. And while I offer that I am not rejecting you as a person; should I tell you that I am not rejecting your humanity or denigrating your value as my equal under God and law, I know that such words will not necessarily palliate your feelings of disappointment. Not that I am all that important to you or anyone else; I admit I am just a simple person living on the edges of a meadow in a small New Hampshire town. But I also recognize that you are like me: it would be nice to have everyone's acceptance.

Here is reason number 6 explaining why I can't vote for you.

YOU'RE NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT A BOTTOM-UP TAX AND ECONOMIC MODEL, OR YOU'RE BEING STUPID

Forgive me for accusing you of dishonesty. I know that hurts; I know that you have promised to be a different candidate, one who rejects the petty games, the dishonesty, and the broken promises common to politicians of old. But you are either being dishonest or simply dumb when you talk about building an economy from the bottom; you are either being dishonest or dumb when you say trickle-down economics don't work. Why would I say this? Because your very plan proves you accept the framework of trickle-down economics; your own policies prove that you believe trickle-down or top-down economics are the most effective means for shaping economic health.

Imagine I am running for president. Imagine that I am speaking to the National Association of the Filthy Rich. Imagine that I make the following promises to them:

"My fellow Americans, please hear me when I say that I am a friend of the upper class. I recognize your role in building businesses and providing jobs in this great nation of ours. Hence, please know that I intend to reduce your tax burden through a series of cuts and credits; I shall also keep capital gains taxes at a minimum if I can't eliminate them altogether; I shall lower marginal tax rates. Some of my critics may ask why I would do this. My answer is that I recognize that if the wealthiest among us can keep as much of their money as possible, they will save and invest their money; both savings and investments -- in many cases the same thing -- allow the wealthy to expand their businesses; to sell their goods at lower prices; and most importantly such investment creates jobs for millions of Americans. Increase the tax burden on the wealthy and they can't save and invest; they can't expand their businesses, so jobs are lost; and the cost of goods almost always increases, as the cost of lost revenues is passed on to consumers."

Surely, Sen. Obama, you see that I have essentially adumbrated to the National Association of the Filthy Rich a trickle-down economic model. A model, as you know, you've said does not work.

But what did you say to "Joe the Plumber?" Here's what you said:

"Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same. It is true that for … say, from $250,000 up, from $250,000 to $300,000 or so …

So, for that additional amount, you'd go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 so what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less … I want to give them a tax cut and so what we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $250,000 that that marginal amount above $250,000, they're gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36 percent rate…

Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren't making $250,000, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means that you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful …

But another way of looking at it is, 95 percent of folks who are making less than $250,000, they may be working hard, too, but they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is … you know, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever — $60,000 or $70,000. Under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be spending lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster. Now, look, nobody likes high taxes, right? Of course not. But what's happened is that we end up … we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks who make less and, as a consequence, the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is … I've got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well, even though they've been working hard … and I understand that; I appreciate that … I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect your disagreement, but I just want you to be clear. 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.

You know, I would be open to it except for … here's the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you'd probably … in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's … things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf 'cause I want to make sure … small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn't mention. For small-business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we're not gonna tax you on it 'cause I want you to grow more so you're actually going … you may end up … I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.

[bold added for emphasis]

I hope you see what you've done. You told "Joe the Plumber" essentially what I told the filthy rich; you told him that if his taxes were lowered and his capital gains taxes eliminated, he would have been able to save, invest and GROW HIS COMPANY MORE RAPIDLY. Of course, growing a business means, usually, that jobs are created; if "Joe the Plumber's" business does grow, he will, of course, need to hire extra help.

So all you've done, Senator, is first suggested that trickle-down or top-down economics don't work, and then you've promised to America that they will and do work. The trick is that you've seemingly lowered where the trickle-down begins; (ironically) talking to a plumber, you promised to lower the spigot: If Joe's taxes are cut, his prosperity will trickle down.

But the reality is you actually haven't moved the spigot. You are still a top-down politician. Why? Because you have promised to tax the upper classes more aggressively; you have promised to take the revenues from their prosperous success and slam them down to the poor and needy. Your model is hence two-fold: it is a trickle-down (with a seemingly lowered spigot) and a slam-down economic model. Your whole plan is contingent on the success and prosperity of the wealthiest Americans. You NEED the top economic classes to grow and thrive so that you can distribute their wealth to the poorest classes. Hence, no matter how you obfuscate or restate your position, you undeniably believe in what you have insisted does not work. Moreover, the slam-down component of your "progressive" tax scheme gives the lie to what you said to "Joe the Plumber":

"...my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody."

You don't believe that at all, Senator, because you are priming that "bottom up" economy from the top, NOT the bottom. Don't you see this?

Lastly, when the folks "most in need" in America do not even pay taxes (and if they are paying payroll taxes they are indeed working), why would you give them a tax refund? And isn't it true that, in the scheme of things, this "refund" is really only a tiny amount? How does this cash outlay "help" them build their businesses, or get their kids the education they need?

My sense is that you are doing several things here, and all of them are cynical. First, you are trying to appease an assumed envy (the lowest class's envy of the upper), and you are trying to palliate some guilt felt by certain successful Americans (who can't stand to be envied, at least prima facie). Second, you are trying to implement egalitarianism: you are trying to remove the pain of Darwinian competition. Third, you are simply trying to win votes with such vapid promises.

Let me amend myself here: I will state that you are not being dishonest, only dumb. And if not dumb, intentionally obtuse.

That's just one reason I can't vote for you. Sorry.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A Corporate Idiocy: Fallacies Abound (Even For Frank Rich)

I will not explore the great depths of the "Joe the Plumber" story. You know it all too well. I merely want to point out the idiocy of left-wing "debunking."

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher spoke to Barack Obama last week; he asked a question about taxes. Barack Obama answered. And his answer has been used against him by John McCain.

That's it, in nuce, as we pedants might say.

But note how the San Francisco Chronicle deals with the story:

"His first name isn't really Joe. It's Samuel.

"He's not really a plumber - at least, not a licensed one.

"He's concerned about increased taxes - but hasn't paid his own income taxes."

Surely you see the problem. Let's follow the logic of this particular type of argument employed by the San Francisco Chronicle:

• Stop your ears and cover your eyes! You mean the guy named Samuel whose middle name is Joseph is not really "Joe"? Then Barack Obama's answer is irrelevant!

• Gasp! You mean he is not a fully-licensed plumber? Then there is no need for Barack Obama to defend his answer at all!

• What the &#*? You mean "Joe" the not-exactly-bona-fide plumber has not paid all of his income taxes? Then there is no need at all for Barack Obama to discuss taxes with such a man!

Not that any liberal might even think this way, but it would seem to me that the more liberal tack to take in all of this is to wonder -- with all due hand-wringing and mopping of a concerned brow -- how horrible America must indeed be for a white man to lie about both his real first name and his capacity to pay America's unbearable taxes. And surely a true liberal would perseverate over the social injustices that must have driven "Joe" to seek asylum in a business without first acquiring proper documentation. But that's just me misunderstanding the extent of the liberal spirit.

Check out this capital idiocy from the Chronicle (sorry!):

"Wurzelbacher's expressed concern about paying more taxes looked a bit tarnished with the revelation that he owes Ohio about $1,200 in personal income taxes, according to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. And there's a 2007 civil filing that shows a record for a $1,200 owed to a creditor, St. Charles Mercy Hospital."

Don't you just [expletive deleted] love this [expletive deleted]?

Joe's "concern" is "tarnished" because he CAN'T pay his taxes?! Get it? No, of course you don't, nor should you. For only the insanely partisan can think in such a distorted way. But a clear-thinking commentator would note that Joe's inability to pay taxes is actually PROOF that his CONCERN is real (or at the very least, could be real). Apparently one must be without spot or blemish before asking Barack Obama a question about his tax policies; only those who are not suffering can ask the Great Harbinger of Hope to explain his plan to increase taxes on certain Americans. And can you imagine a liberal journalist chiding poor Joe because he owes $1,200 to St. Charles MERCY (!) Hospital? Can you imagine Joe is dismissed as disingenuous by a liberal member of the press because he DOES NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE?!

Where's your compassion, America?

All this to say that this is what passes in the liberal press for "debunking." For "fact-checking."
______________________

Here's another apparently great bit of "debunking":

In Sunday's New York Times' column by Frank Rich, "He Just Can't Quit W," we find MORE reasons to hate conservatives: Conservatives banish those who don't conform!

Here's the imitable Rich in his own love-of-truth words regarding the seemingly rapid death of the McCain campaign:

"Even Republicans are rapidly bailing on a McCain resuscitation. It’s a metaphor for the party’s collapse that on the day of the final debate both Nancy Reagan and Dick Cheney checked into hospitals. Conservatives have already moved past denial to anger on the Kubler-Ross scale of grief. They are not waiting for votes to be counted before carrying out their first round of Stalinist purges. William F. Buckley’s son Christopher was banished from National Review for endorsing Obama. Next thing you know, there will be a fatwa on that McCain-bashing lefty, George Will."

Beyond noting the tactlessness of thinking Nancy Reagan's and Dick Cheney's health issues are fodder for lame political humor, it should be noted that Mr. Rich does not understand metaphor. But I digress. What is germane to our discussion here is the left's handling of facts, and Mr. Rich proves himself shamelessly competent at abusing facts and his readers.

FACT: National Review has not "banished" Christopher Buckley. The editors merely and amicably accepted Mr. Buckley's resignation, which he, by his own admission, penned without any compulsion other than his own conscience (and maybe a couple of outraged subscribers). Read here, or here.

But YOU don't need to know the truth, only a semblance of it, because you are a reader of the New York Times, or so one must infer from Mr. Rich's artful and misleading prose.

Finally, notice this "clever" trick of the Rich pen (recall the column's title):

"...no matter what McCain says or does, he still can’t quit the guy."

The guy, of course, is President Bush. And the reference? Come now. He can't "quit" the guy? That's right, "Brokeback Mountain."

What, pray tell, is the "homophobic joke" buried beneath Mr. Rich's crass "metaphor"? But Mr. Rich can't be homophobic, can he?

I will let you decide.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.