Home > Opinion, Politics > Obama, The Left, Law, and Tax Times – Thomas Sowell

Obama, The Left, Law, and Tax Times – Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell has a series of opinion pieces at Townhall this week that makes for interesting reading.  Check them out.

Obama and “The Left”
Mr Sowell discusses Mr Obama relationships, alliances, or whatever you want to call it with the so called “The Left”. Mr Sowell points out something about how Mr Obama is riding his to the White House:

That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

This is so true that it reminds me of another famous Democrat president who used slickness to win the White House. And we were sure lucky nothing bad happen during those 8 years.  😉

But following this paragraph, Mr Sowell educates us on our form of government and how we need to approach this upcoming election:

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called “real issues.”

Ponder that when you get ready to vote next Tuesday.

Obama and the Law
In this piece, Mr Sowell addresses what type of judges Mr Obama will nominate to the courts. Some of what Mr Sowell writes in this piece paints a scary future for our country. A future that will impact your children and grandchildren. It is one big reason to be careful in whom you choose to vote for this upcoming election. I agree with Mr Sowell:

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama’s vision of the Constitution as “a living document”– that is, something that judges should feel free to change by “interpretation” to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

This is something I detest in our judges.  So, another item to consider before you vote this Tuesday. Otherwise, I fear how Mr Sowell closed this piece may come true:

That’s not “a living Constitution.” That’s a dying Constitution– and an Obama presidency can kill it off.

Taxing Times
In this piece, Mr Sowell discuss the best of issue of all, taxes. Of course, Mr Obama says he going to give 95% of the people a tax cut, but I as I have posted earlier this is probably not going to be the case. Mr Sowell presents Mr Obama position on taxes could do harm the wealth of Americans, not the rich mind you, but every American.

Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama’s plan to increase taxes on “the rich” seem not to understand that the issue is the nation’s loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it– instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers– and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home.

In this piece, Mr Sowell bring up the topic I fear will come as results of these bail outs and the possible election of Mr Obama: inflation. Will we be ready for it?

So, a good idea would be to examine your current income and find out what taxes you might be paying in the future if the 2000 tax tables were used. Because our Democratic Congress does not plan to extend or make permanent the tax cuts of 2001.  Of course, this is not a tax increase either.

So, ponder this as well on Tuesday.

Categories: Opinion, Politics Tags: ,
  1. sfokc6125
    31 October 2008 at 10:04

    Campaign promises often wilt after the election. Tax-cut promises are a frequent casualty.

    By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton’s speed record. It wasn’t until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.

    There’s another similarity. Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama both promised to raise taxes, too, but only on “the wealthy.” And both proceeded to widen the definition of “wealthy” to encompass more and more taxpayers.

    During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.

    Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.”

    (Column continues below)

    At first, Clinton maintained that only those earning over $100,000 would pay more under his revised tax plan. But The Heritage Foundation noted it would hit far more broadly, raising taxes for individuals making $25,000 and couples making $32,000. The Los Angeles Times headline echoed that finding: “Clinton Threshold on Tax Bite Dips to $30,000 Incomes.”

    Fast forward to now. Even before the election, Obama is downsizing his tax promises. First he advertised that nobody would pay higher taxes unless they earned over $250,000 a year. Now his TV ads say the threshold is $200,000. And in campaign remarks in Pennsylvania, running mate Joe Biden lowered it again, to $150,000.

    It all parallels the gradual tax plan changes Bill Clinton started making shortly before his election. Then, after his election, the gradual changes turned into dramatic transformation.

    As the New York Times noted in February 1993, “… beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction.”

    On Feb. 15, 1993, just weeks after he was inaugurated, Clinton completed the course change in a national TV address, telling the nation, “I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t.”

    His excuse was two-fold. First, he “hadn’t realized” just how bad the deficit was. Second, he believed the people wanted the new spending he had proposed during his campaign.

    Clinton sought to defuse the political damage by promising to hit “the wealthy” harder. His Feb. 6, 1993, radio address told the nation he would “get rid of windfalls for the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of the American people to make a contribution,” and that, “We’re going to ask the most from those who have got the most and gave the least during the past dozen years.”

    Clinton blamed Washington politicians – prior presidents in particular – for supposedly concealing just how bad the federal deficit was, thereby justifying his reneging on his campaign promises.

    In 2008, our deficit is far worse and Obama’s spending pledges are far greater than Clinton’s. Only someone who has been locked in a cave is unaware that this year’s deficit spending is approaching a trillion dollars.

    This is no proof that Obama will renege, Clinton-style. But his recent adjustments in describing whose taxes will go up certainly are not reassuring.

    Obama also is using a looser definition of wealth than Clinton did. The $200,000 threshold that Clinton applied in 1992 equates to $311,000 today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama’s most-recent $200,000 threshold is the same as a $128,255 income would have been in 1992.

    The week before Bill Clinton was inaugurated, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., observed, “This week has been rather the clatter of campaign promises being tossed out the window.”

    Those who fear that this year’s campaign promises will also be thrown out the window should keep their eyes wide open and be ready to dodge whatever might fall on their heads

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: