September 17, 2008
Obama and Taxes (John Feehery)
Barack Obama is trying hard to convince voters that he will not increase their taxes. It’s not working.
In stump speech after stump speech, Obama proclaims that under his plan, 95 percent of the American people will see their taxes cut. He seems to have learned a valuable lesson from Fritz Mondale. When it comes to taxes, never level with the American people.
Despite his best efforts, Obama has no credibility as a tax-cutter. Here are four reasons that most voters will never believe him when he tries to say that he will cut taxes despite his most passionate protests.
1) History: When it comes to cutting taxes, Barack Obama is a virgin. He has never voted for a tax cut in his legislative life. He has had 94 opportunities to vote for a tax cut in his Senate career, and he has voted no each and every time. When you have a long history of voting to raise taxes, you can’t convince voters that you are a born-again tax-cutter. Sorry. Nice try.
2) Actual plan: According to independent analysts, his tax hikes will make America’s tax rates the highest in the world. The Heritage Foundation said this: “Sen. Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Sen. Obama's new proposed top tax rate.”
3) Refundability: An interesting part of the Obama tax plan is refundability. What that really means is that people who don’t pay taxes will get a refund on those taxes that they don’t pay. In other words, they will get a check from the government even though they don’t pay any taxes. This used to be called welfare. But Obama calls it a refundable tax credit. He includes in his plan a new refundable “Making Work Pay” tax credit, a refundable universal mortgage credit, a refundable $4,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit, a refundable Savers Credit, and a refundable Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. That’s a lot of refundability. That’s a lot of welfare done through the tax code. Most Americans understand that in order to get a tax refund, you need to pay some taxes. The Obama plan is not tax fairness, it is a tax giveaway.
4) Congress: If Barack Obama is elected president, there is no doubt that Congress will be run by Democrats. That means that taxes will go up higher than even Obama has planned. For example, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is committed to increasing taxes, and not just on the wealthy. Should Rangel survive his current ethics woes, he will push Obama to increase taxes on more Americans than Obama currently has in his economic plan. But compared to other Democrats, Rangel is reasonable. Should Rangel not survive next year, the roster only gets worse, from a tax perspective. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) is the next on the list, and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) follow him. All of those Democrats occupy the far left of the political spectrum, and they will have no hesitation in pushing Obama to increase taxes on just about any American who has a job. Don’t count on Obama to veto those tax increases.
The American people aren’t stupid. They won’t be fooled by nice-sounding rhetoric and promises by politicians. Most voters don’t wade through the various plans of the candidates. They make judgments based on history, temperament, character, philosophy and situation. That is why they are not buying what Barack Obama is selling when it comes to tax cuts. He is going to raise the taxes of most working Americans, focusing especially on those working Americans who create jobs in this economy of ours.
Visit www.thefeeherytheory.com.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 25 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
There are other things Barack Obama is not telling the American public. Here's a portion of an article about the Revko deal. It brings up the question, who are Barack's backers, or perhaps, handlers?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005063234084813.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Rezko's trial raised a host of questions. Was Mr. Obama able to save $300,000 on the asking price of his house because Rezko's wife paid full price for the adjoining lot? How did Mrs. Rezko make a $125,000 down payment and obtain a $500,000 mortgage when financial records shown at the Rezko trial indicate she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000? Records show her husband also had few assets at the time.
Last April, the London Times revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire living in London, had loaned Mr. Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before the day the sale of the house and lot closed in June 2005. Mr. Auchi's office notes he was a business partner of Rezko but says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property sale. But in April 2004 he did attend a dinner party in his honor at Rezko's Chicago home. Mr. Obama also attended, and according to one guest, toasted Mr. Auchi. Later that year, Mr. Auchi came under criminal investigation as part of a U.S. probe of the corrupt issuance of cell-phone licenses in Iraq.
In May 2004, the Pentagon's inspector general's office cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal, and in illicit smuggling of weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime. Because of the criminal probe, Mr. Auchi's travel visa to the U.S. was revoked in August 2004, even as Mr. Auchi denied all the allegations. According to prosecutors, in November 2005 Rezko was able to get two government officials from Illinois to appeal to the State Department to get the visa restored. Asked if anyone in his office was involved in such an appeal, Mr. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times last March, "not that I know of." FOIA requests to the State Department for any documents haven't been responded to for months.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 17, 2008 @ 9:47 am
After a brief hiatus, Mr Feehery once again graces us with his rethoric. Btw did anyone of you catch his performance on hardball?
Feeheery wants us to beleive that Obama will raise taxes by quoting from "independent analysts" who pray tell are they? THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Comment by Theard — September 17, 2008 @ 11:37 am
pressed enter too soon.
Welfare? what about corporate welfare, Bear Stearns, AIG?
Mr Feehery makes this incredulous claim: "He is going to raise the taxes of most working Americans"
Why? Because he feels that most voters don't read, they vote based on "temperament"
Btw, you can read the Obama tax plan here..
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
and on the FIRST PAGE we find this little gem:
Obama will..
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for
working couples
This is the only line where he makes any sense..
The American people aren’t stupid. They won’t be fooled by nice-sounding rhetoric and promises by politicians
They are not stupid indeed..McSame and his BFF Phil (you whiners!) Gramm will suffer a massive defeat in November.
Comment by Theard — September 17, 2008 @ 11:58 am
According to many Americans a presidential/vice Presidential pick should be based upon experience, knowledge, character/self-control, beliefs, and exposure to foreign policies.
No Governor, Mayor, or most Senator's have the initial experience needed in foreign policy leadership as a newly elected president of the United States.
Senator's have no executive experience that prepares them to manage the affairs of the most powerful country in the world.
So, you start looking for the ability and initiative to acquire the experience and knowledge by comparing career's and accomplishments.
The Republican Ticket demonstrates the drive to serve other's, learn, and accomplish, in an atmosphere of sincerity. Sarah Palin speaks from the heart and has demonstrated overall success as a governor/leader through her approval ratings.
The Democratic Ticket insists that they have knowledge and experience that they do not have (Jr. Senator and Community Organizer) in an atmosphere of "me first," while preaching "you first."
Washington is filled with people who are in denial about their motives for power and success.
I wonder what it would be like to have two people in the White House who spent their career's trying to make a city, state and country better vs. more self serving politicians….well you get the picture.
Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. Clearly, many people hate her “faith” and her “politics” and refuse to give her the “freedom of choice” without ridicule, as opposed to accepting differences.
Comment by Marlene Spence — September 17, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Marlene;
The more we find out about Sarah Palin, the less of her people like. In the past few days, teh McCain campaign has taken over Sarah and refuse to let her speak for herself and about her record in Alaska. She once said that she would cooperate in teh troopergate investigation but now, with McCain's lawyers are trying to stall. Her "breath of fresh air" has been tainted.
Comment by Mike Coleman — September 17, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Working individuals cannot stand for a tax increase. A single filed in my state making 40 K per year has a state income tax of $2600, federal tax of $7000, state sales tax of $3600, property tax of $1230, road tax (gasoline) $370, Auto insurance of $1200, home insurance of $1800, Auto license of $250, medicare $600, SS of $2400 and still must pay for his own health care, home payment, living expenses. Adding these altogether the individual end the year very little, Oh, I forgot electricity, gas, water, and city charges for sewer and trash, parks, streets and everything else. Please give the people earning the money a break and not just give give give to the welfare state.
Comment by Don Orr — September 17, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Obama will not tax people making under $250,000 per year, and they will do better. Don't believe rpublican BS giving to the 'welfare' state. What the hell do you call the bailouts of FannieMae, FreddieMac, BearStearns, AIG etc? Republican welfare for our kids and grandkids to pay.
Comment by Joyce — September 17, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Theard, Obama's "tax plan" is a nonsensical exercise in buying votes with promises. What's missing from this dangerous individual's "plan" are any kind of estimates of what his proposed spending increases (5 million green collar jobs, anyone? a trillion to the third world to fight poverty, anyone?) would cost. What's also missing is the amount he would raise from the families making $250,000 vs. how much tax reductions and outright subsidies to the lower income families would cost. He is proposing to close some loopholes? Which loopholes? How much would closing those loopholes bring?
The guy seems unable to come up with what would look like a budget, or at least shed any kind of light on how he would balance (or unbalance) the books. In his acceptance speech at the convention he promised to get specific and immediately went into the litany of promises without any details, financial or otherwise. I don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously. Here Theard, here's my proposal:
-all families making less than $250,000K will get a refund equal to 20% of their income.
-all families above $250,000K will get their taxes increased by .75%
-all unemployed people will be hired at a starting salary of $100,000K or their last yearly income, whichever is greater.
-I will pay all educational costs in private schools of any kind or colleges and universities of any kind.
-all people over 63 (yes, I'm lowering the age) will a pension of $150,000 per year. All of their health expenses will be paid without any pre-approval.
-any person under 63 will be require to pay $5/per month and will receive the same health benefit as above.
-any person whose mortgage payments are greater than 5% of their income will receive a subsidy over that amount.
-any person living outside of the United States and Europe making less than $75,000 per year will receive a yearly payment enough to bring their income to this level.
There, that's a detailed plan. I think it's good for ALL people. Vote for me Theard, just as soon as I solve the problem with my foreign birth certificate.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
WTF are you taking about?
This entire article is drivel at best.
Comment by wisanidiot — September 17, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Taxes are how we pay for government by the people.
Borrowing money from Communist China to run the government cost more.
Bush came in with the budget almost balanced and has run up a debt reaching $15 trillion, and still would rather borrow than tax.
These pathetic people have nothing else to run on these day except appealing to people's selfish greed and contempt for the only government we have.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 17, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
The tax cut mantra goes back to the Rovian scheme of "starve the beast" (named by Republicans)
It goes like this. You run up a debt (with interest we have to pay) and then say the budget is in debt because we waste money on welfare and social programs popular with Democrats, so you cut them.
Unfortunately these crumbs of bread are nothing compared to the waste of corporate welfare, six years of Republican pork, and the bail outs we now see.
Very little of this shameful GOP debt is going to the common needy people.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 17, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Oh yes, and there is this boondoggle "war" (really a sitting duck occupation) as well.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 17, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Obama tax cut calculator
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
In-depth analysis of both McCain and Obama plans
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411702_CandidateTaxPlans_summary.pdf
The Tax Policy Center's computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain's proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners — those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama's plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain's — $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year
Translation: If you are part of the top 1% earners, the McCain tax plan is a windfall, if you are middle class or lower YOU'RE SCREWED.
I sure hope that most of you here parotting GOP talking points make more than 250k, because you are the ONLY ones that will see a tax increase under Obama, all others get a tax cut.
My friends, straight talk do you want Gramm as treasury Sec?
Comment by Theard — September 17, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Am I better off than I was eight years ago?
Republicans lowered my taxes, and will keep them low. But the value of my home has dropped 20%, my health insurance costs have doubled, gas costs $4 a gallon, and my investments/retirement accounts are in the tank.
PlEASE, TAX ME.
Comment by Theard — September 17, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Now it all makes sense. This should be made into a McCain campaign commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Title: Explosive CEO calling Obama, Dems "Family" of Fannie Mae
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Don't blame it on the housing crisis.
The housing problem was caused by:
1. unregulated finance company mortage security trading
2. inflationary interest rates, Bush used to pump up an anemic economy with consumer spending through equity borrowing.
3. 30 years of leveraging and unregulated trading.
The housing crisis is just the stone that caused the avalache. It was all ready to go. It was a perfect storm of much more than the housing sector.
Comment by Fred from Oregon — September 18, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Nice Try Igor,
GOP attempts to blame Dems for this crisis will fail miserably.
Phil Gramm chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is SOLELY responsible for this mess. He helped repealed the Glass-Steagal act with Gramm-leach.
Who has been in power these last eight years?
No more lipstick and pigs
Comment by Theard — September 18, 2008 @ 7:08 am
Forgive the grammar..too early to…Gram: "America is a nation of Whiners" repealed the Glass-Steagal act, deregulating the banking industry and THAT is why we're in this mess.
McCain wants to appoint HIM as Treasury Sec?…LOL.
You guys are trying to run away from your record and party, its pathetic and laughable.
Comment by Theard — September 18, 2008 @ 7:14 am
Theard: You should do a little research before you condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act. That political action had Clinton's fingerprints all over it. I posted it elsewhere, but I'll repost it here. The Glass-Stegal act was repealed and was replaced with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which was signed by President Clinton. Two of Clinton's former cohorts, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, were already over at Fannie/Freddie robbing the place. As early as 1998 there were allegations of massive corruption at Fannie/Freddie. The vote in the House for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was 343-86 so an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for it. The part you left out was that significant mergers had already taken place which required this legislation. Those mergers were made under the Clinton administration with temporary waivers. Some of those major mergers in the financial sector had already taken place such as the Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation combination. This is precisely why Bill Clinton signed the legislation. In the meantime a little known federal agency sent three reports to Congress detailing financial gimmickry at Fannie/Freddie. They were ignored. Lobbying money from Fannie/Freddie helped grease the skids for this disaster, and the ones receiving the most money were Democrats, in particular Sen. Dodd, Sen. Kerry, and in third place, Senator Barrack Obama.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 18, 2008 @ 10:20 am
The rush is on. Blame Bush, Blame McCain. Nobody seems to care that the Freddiemac/Fanniemay and by extension AIG flaps are the children of Democrats. Nor do they care that in 2002 the Bush Administration tried to reign in some of the stupidity in lending that Democrats,who listening to their 'community organizers' were able to force through. Nor do they care that 2005 on the floor of the senate McCain predicted this would happen IF proper oversight of Freddy/fanny was not done then.The bill never got out of committee. Obama is number two in freddie/fanny money, and after only 2 years.absolutely astounding
Comment by thomas poole — September 18, 2008 @ 11:34 am
This amnesia thing is contagious. Its like a virus infecting all parts of the GOP machine. Bush doctrine? what Bush doctrine?
Which party was in power these past eight yrs, Repubs? No not us! what's a Republican?
This current state of the economy will be the albatross around your necks and there is no escaping it. Remember when you had the chance to lead this country to prosperity? Instead you chose to cater to a privileged few.
Seriously gents, this blame game is getting tiresome, take your upcoming thrashing at the polls like men.
Comment by Theard — September 18, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Theard, so Barney Frank who repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddy, and that regulating them more will only hurt poor people, is an innocent bystander?
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Even Barney Frank did not know the full extent of what the REAL elists on Wall Street have done. Investors were scammed with mortgages and notes that were forged, tampered with, etc., and appraisers were paid more money, the higher they appraised each home. This is what started the Wall St. fiasco. It was a scam from the beginning, getting people who had paid up homes or close to paid up, to get refi's and then lying to them about the payments, with teaser rate for a few months. The rating companies called these securities as triple A; total fraud. More people got refi's than new home mortgages with subprime lenders but that truth doesn't come out; and please, Igor and friends, don't call me on this. I know what I'm talking about, my husband is an attorney for many years and specializes in fraud, subprime lending, etc., and he has also worked on Wall Street in his younger day and knows all about securitization. This situation is a disgrace. Remember, Bush and McCain wanted social security to be put in equities [the stock market]. Wake up America!
Comment by Joyce — September 18, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Our media has failed us.
Comment by Vicki Berger — October 9, 2008 @ 8:42 am
FYI the Dems have had two years in congress and look at where we are. The Dems. are in the Fannie and Freddie mess up to their little eyebrows. It all began when Mr. Clinton decided to change the accounting rule so low income people would vote for the Dems. Don't kid yourself that is what the motive is and was behind this crisis. The Republicans didn't make enough noise about this mess years ago; in that they are wrong.
Comment by Vicki Berger — October 9, 2008 @ 8:45 am