About Me

Name: Doug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

My Post-Election Thoughts

It is indeed a great day when an African American can ascend to the highest office in this land. I offer congratulations to President-Elect Obama for his well run campaign and his election victory.
 
That said, I can think of OTHER black candidates I would have preferred, on policy and experience criteria. In fact, prior to the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, I had lobbied the McCain campaign to select the former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele - also an African-American!
 
However:
 
Unlike the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" treatment which the left gave President Bush thru both terms - opposing every word out of his mouth and undermining him at every turn - I will give Barack my full allegiance and encouragement. For the sake of the country, I wish him a successful presidency. However, as I believe a number of stated policies and proposals will be harmful to the country, I will speak in opposition to those initiatives.
 

I will applaud President-Elect Obama when he does what I believe to be the right thing. I will remain the loyal opposition where he moves in a direction to do what I believe is not. Some ask, "Will McCain supporters unite with Democrats and lead this country in a new direction?" The short answer is "That depends on WHAT the new direction IS!!"

I will offer Obama the respect due to the office of the presidency. I will not compromise my conservative principles for the sake of Kumbaya "unity". People with opposing viewpoints can respectfully disagree on policy and programs. I believe strongly that this is appropriate, and is why the founders wisely established a system of checks and balances.
 

I certainly understand the elation and pride the African American community is presently experiencing. It remains to be seen whether Obama can govern effectively, and whether he will "change" the nation for the better or the worse.

Sadly, "change" is not a policy, a program or a plan. Change for its own sake is also not automatically positive. Whenever one speaks of change, it is wise to ask, "From what, to what?"
 
If the change Obama wishes to implement is to circumvent or weaken the founders' intentional constitutional restrictions on Government, as Obama wished the Warren court would have gone further in doing (check out his own words from 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck ) or if his agenda and initiatives are shaped by his socialistic background ( evidenced in my prior article: http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml), this would NOT be what I would consider to be "change" in a positive direction!
 
The ball is now exclusively in the Democrats and Obama's court. How they play it will determine the future of the country for better or worse for years to come. 
 
And we of the loyal opposition, conservatives in exile, will be watching, recording, remembering, and reporting.
 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Facts!

 Sure, Barack Obama's associations are troubling and raise questions of his values, world view, judgment, character and honesty... and Bill Ayers isn't the half of it

But for so many of us today, these issues are just so much "talking heads" noise. The American public is much more focused, in this day of financial turmoil, on "meat and potatoes" issues of the economy. And the health of Wall Street isn't as significant as the "Main Street" viewpoint of "what about my job, my healthcare, my TAXES?"

The discussion of taxes occupied a prominent portion of the final debate and "Joe the Plumber" has become a phenomenon!

Unfortunately, neither candidate clearly articulated their own or their opponent's tax policies clearly or concisely enough that the casual viewer could possibly extract a lucid understanding of how their policies would or could affect U.S. It then falls to analysts and commentators to distill it all down for public consumption.

So, here are some Tax Facts to bear in mind as you evaluate the candidates and their statements on taxes.

* Remember that there are scores of taxes imposed on the American people... not just the income tax. Your net buying power is affected by the sum total of them, and not just the income tax. So if you have your income tax reduced, but taxes on the goods and services you buy increase, you may see a net reduction in your purchasing power though you have more dollars in your pocket. Moreover, if tax policies result in higher prices, this is effectively a hidden tax as your purchasing power erodes.

* 30% of Americans have no income tax liability! They pay no income tax. When Obama offers "tax relief" to 95% of the people, 1/3 of those people will get "relief" in the form of a check when they paid nothing into the system! This is classic socialistic redistribution of wealth. Obama unwittingly revealed this intent in his "Joe the Plumber" conversation.

* Even if it were so that 95% could or would receive a tax cut, the top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. Yes, almost 40% of all income taxes are already paid by the top 1%. Based on these numbers, is further soaking the "rich" sustainable?

* Tax cuts for the rich? You are in the top 25% of income earners if you bring in more than $62,068 a year. (Bet you didn't know that means you're rich…) The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). (source) This means that the bottom 75% of earners already bear only 14% of the burden despite earning almost 1/3 of all the income. Who needs tax relief? If you're in the top 25% at $62K, how low must your income be to be considered by some to be "middle class"? Low enough to be one of those not paying income taxes at all?

* Tax cuts don't reduce federal revenues; they stimulate economic growth which results in increased revenues to the federal government! It happens every time it's tried.  Kennedy's tax cuts raised revenues. Reagan's tax cuts doubled revenues. Bush's tax cuts also increased revenues. (Spending is another issue entirely.)

* Tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas: The implication, of course, is that there is some policy, implemented or proposed, to reward companies for sending jobs abroad. There is not. A generalized policy toward tax relief on business in general (which would positively impact the economy as a whole) would be a tide that lifts all boats – including those who might outsource – but there is no concerted effort to inventivize shipping jobs offshore.

* On the other hand, there are dis-incentives in the tax code to bring overseas jobs back home. Removing these barriers has been painted as a "tax break" for companies who have overseas operations, even though doing so would bring these operations back home. Currently, the U.S. has the second highest tax rates on businesses in the world, something mentioned by John McCain during Wednesday’s debate. When a company has overseas operations, they pay the prevailing tax rate in the country of the operations. Here is the conundrum: Whatever the difference is between that overseas tax burden and our U.S. rates is required to be paid to the US, but is deferred as long as the operations remain overseas. Upon repatriating these operations back to the U.S., the cumulative difference is immediately due. Therefore, companies can avoid paying this accrued tax by remaining overseas. (These policies have been in place since long before George W. Bush, by the way.) If this barrier to returning home could be mitigated, many operations would be repatriated, creating domestic jobs and stimulating our economy. This could be accomplished by a moratorium on collecting the accrued difference, by allowing the accrued difference to be amortized over a number of years, or by removing the requirement to pay the difference at all. Furthermore, the current high corporate tax burden in the U.S. drives business overseas to pay the lower rates and defer the difference, so cutting the rate to a rate more competitive with the global market would keep more business at home in the first place.

* Corporations don't pay taxes? The fact is that corporations consider taxes part of their cost of doing business, and so they respond to increased taxes in one of two ways: they either increase the cost of the goods and services they provide (impacting their customer's buying power) or they reduce other costs by cutting jobs. When we say we will reduce taxes for the "middle class" and increase taxes on those earning over $250,000 (which are primarily small businesses who employ people), we will see higher prices – which reduces buying power and therefore hurts the "middle class."

Sadly, most Americans do not understand these facts, and are therefore easily swayed by eloquent "we're going to take care of you" speeches. Whenever a politician promises you a free goodie, please: ask “how?”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe the Plumber: Destroy Him!!

Isn't it interesting how predictable the American Left is? When someone scores an indisputable point against "the One", they ignore the message and attack the messenger! "Joe the Plumber" has revealed and highlighted Obama's socialistic agenda – and it's had an impact on Obama's support! So he must be destroyed.

First, we heard the immediate "I don't know any plumbers making $250,000" argument. I'm still not sure what the purpose of such a statement could possibly be, but the dismissive tone accompanying the statement is obviously intended to attempt to ridicule Joe away! But the statement is completely disingenuous, as Joe didn't even say he was a plumber, nor that he makes $250K.  He said he's considering buying a PLUMBING COMPANY, which EMPLOYS plumbers, and which GROSSES around a quarter mil. He didn't say he makes $250K. He didn't say he'd EARN 250K after buying the business. The business grosses $250K. The business pays it's employees. The business maintains its vehicles. The business buys its materials. The business pays for its office, phones and utilities. The business pays its taxes. The business pays to advertise. After all that, the business owner can take a salary.

Next the LeftMedia lights up with the accusation that Joe isn't even a registered voter. Aside from the fact that this is blatantly false… Joe is registered and voted in the OH primaries… what possible relevance would this have? I thought ACORN has, as its purpose, to get unregistered people interested, active and REGISTERED now! So here's a guy who's now very interested and engaged in the political process. We should rejoice!

So then the thugocracy dispatches their investigators to dig dirt on Joe. They claim he's not licensed… But he doesn't need one presently, and the company he works for has one! From the Toledo Blade, "According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo, but would not be allowed to work in Lucas County outside of Toledo without a county license." Does he even need one to OWN a plumbing company that EMPLOYS plumbers?   And again, how is this relevant to Obama's Socialism?

Finally, the thugs discover that Joe has a tax lien on about $1100 he owes in back taxes. Does this mean he's not credible to ask Obama a question on the impact of his tax policies? Does this have bearing on the fact that Obama's answers reveal him to be a Robin Hood Socialist bent on redistribution of wealth? It would seem that someone struggling to meet his CURRENT tax liability would be uniquely appropriate to question how Obama's policies might make matters worse!

You may have heard the phrase, "Don't kill the messenger."  This phrase is usually attributed to the ancient Greek and then later Roman custom of employing messengers to carry news throughout the empire. The law PROTECTED these messengers, and decreed that they should be allowed to pass unharmed as they carried out their duty, even if the recipients found the message distasteful.

Sadly, Obama and his minions DO try to destroy anyone who can bring a message critical or damaging to the campaign. Live long and prosper, Joe!

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ayers Isn't The HALF Of It!

The Obama defenders are complaining that William Ayers’ radical bombings in the late 1960s and early 1970s are dismissible as "old news." They declare Obama's associations to be "irrelevant." (Somehow I'm prompted to wonder what they'd say if McCain were a friend of a 1940s Nazi prison camp guard.) Yet Obama's associations are relevant, as they are in fact current news, and they speak to his judgment, character and to his political proclivities and inclinations.  And we can never forget that a man is known by the company he keeps.
 
Here is a brief accounting of over a dozen of Obama’s long-time colleagues, associates and friends.
 
Khalid al-Mansour: the anti-Semite Black Nationalist racist who changed his name from Don Marshall and converted to Islam, was a patron of Obama’s and helped advance Obama’s candidacy to law school. He was instrumental in starting the violent Black Panthers group, reportedly became Kind Saud’s attorney and represents OPEC. No wonder Obama doesn't want to drill anywhere, although he changed that tune in last Tuesday's debate in an apparent attempt to drill for votes. 
 
As an article in FrontPageMag.com reported, And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.”
 
It is notable that Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor and friend to Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million checkright after 9/11 because bin Talal stated that America brought the bloodthirsty attack on itself due to our foreign policy.
 
Rashid Khalidi: an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund. It promotes an agenda that would horrify Obama’s Jewish supporters and any normal person. In fact, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Ayers actually spoke at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi.
 
According to Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and the two families dined together a number of times," a source on the University of Chicago faculty told WorldNet Daily. "The Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.”
 
Ingrid Mattson: President of the troubling Islamic Society of North America, a group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and a woman whom Obama invited to lead prayer at the Democrat Convention, which she did.
 
Frank Marshall Davis: another of Obama's mentors mentioned in his book, a well-known Stalinist Communist whose devotion to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America which he described as racist and imperialistic put him under FBI surveillance for at least 19 years. It is quite possible that Davis did more to shape Obama’s world view than many in his entourage.

Tony Rezko
: convicted felon of fraud and shady dealings, he and Obama were very close. Rezko helped get Obama a sweetheart mortgage, and he bundled tons of money for Obama’s campaign. Rezko bought property (under another sweetheart deal) to be Obama's neighbor. As of today, it appears Rezko is willing to talk to reduce his sentence.
 
William Ayers: Ayers is still today (this is not an “old news” story) an unrepentant terrorist.  He was quoted (coincidentally on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times) as being proud and unapologetic for the bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and the New York City Police where several police officers were murdered as a result. In fact, he stated that his only regret was that they hadn't done more.  For a smug thug like this, Sen. Obama – unbelievably – did the favor of writing a dust-jacket blurb forMr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days". 
 
Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Foundation together, overseeing the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Currently, or rather, inexplicably, all the related records remain "unavailable."
 
Interestingly, the Annenberg Foundation runs the "Factcheck.org" site that Obama uses as his only source of "facts" on his "fight the smears" website. Why or how factcheck.org is given any mainstream media credibility as a fact source is laughable. The mainstream press should be ashamed of itself for using them.
 
Saved from jail, unfortunately, by legal technicalities, Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weathermen terrorist once on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List, who did serve time for refusing to testify about the death of other Weathermen when a bomb they were building blew up prematurely.  J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.''
 
Bernardine Dohrn, who in the 80’s worked at the same time with Michelle Obama for the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin,was also a fan of Charles Manson:
 
At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.
 
ACORN: An organization so fraught with voter fraud they should be closed down and indicted under RICO. Where you're never too dead to vote twice. Ever wonder what a "community organizer" is?  Think ACORN.  For whom was Obama a "constitutional lawyer"? ACORN.  Currently, numerous ACORN offices are being raided by the FBI and investigated for ongoing and major voter fraud.
 
Fannie/Freddie: Obama was the number two campaign contribution recipient from Freddie and Fannie execs, behind Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. And bear in mind, those are numbers compiled over nine years. Obama has been a senator only for four of those years and raked in almost as much dough as Dodd did in all nine years.
 
Franklin Raines/Jim Johnson: Former heads of Fannie Mae, both men were removed for impropriety. Both made tens of millions of dollars from their time at the helm, helping to pilot the economy onto the rocks. Are there two people more responsible for the current economic mess? Besides Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they may have had more to do with creating the problem than anyone else... and they're in Obama's inner circle giving economic advice; Jim Johnson was actually chosen to vet Obama's VP Pick.
 
Rev. Wright and  Father Pfleger: radical, fervently anti-American, and anti-Semitic. The Rev. Louis Farrakhan, also an anti-Semite and black racist, was recently honored by Rev. Wright for “Lifetime Achievement”. And Obama called them mentors, friends and/or spiritual advisors. What did he learn from them over the decades of their association? And why did he not reject their views until it was politically expedient for him to do so?
 
Michelle Obama:  Mrs. Obama seems to hold radical separatist views consistent with a 20-year attendance and tutelage under Rev. Wright. Her college thesis was on assimilation vs. "the black culture,” and she was openly dismayed that so many blacks were choosing to assimilate into the American melting-pot culture. She also stated on the campaign trail that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.  This, from a possible First Lady of the land.
 
From anti-American at best, to virulently anti-American and criminal anti-American at worst, this is the rag-tag crowd with whom Obama has chosen to build his career and personal relationships for the past few decades. That such a person – and crowd - could end up holding the fate and deepest secrets of our most precious jewel, America, in their hands – as well as all our futures - is deeply troubling, to say the least, and it would be an unspeakable tragedy if it were to transpire. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »