Letter to a Young Mom (on the then Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama in 2008) Part II

This is Part II of the 2008 case against Barack Obama. The focus is on the economy and life. Some see no connection between these two topics. When one realizes we now face a 14% U6 unemployment rate, a $16T deficit and  25 million out of work, it is impossible to believe that the two are not inextricably linked. When a failed administration foists this much economic pain and suffering on American citizens, it is inarguable that life will be compromised.  

Economy

Rob expressed in his letter a distrust of supply side economics and denigrated the benefits it offers the “wealthiest” Americans.  While Rob reported this has worked in the past, he posits it will not work in a global economy.  Rob goes on to state it is time “the middle class people started getting a tax break and let the top 5% take up some of our tax burden.”  This is right in line with Senator Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” and Senator Biden’s statement that “paying taxes is patriotic.”  There is a word for this philosophy…Marxism.  In short, Senator Obama has declared war on the “rich” and war on “big business.”  Rob failed to report the examples where Marxism has worked because there are none.  Socialism is not the foundation this nation was built on, and it is not the reason we have succeeded as a nation.  The Obama program is not a hand up, this is absolutely a hand out.  How is it possible for 95% of working Americans to get a tax cut when 40% of them don’t pay any taxes now?  The top 5% already pay 60% of all taxes.  In large part, what Rob and Senator Obama are talking about are not tax cuts (if you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut).  They are talking about welfare disguised as tax credits.  It is predicted that Senator Obama’s tax proposal will transfer $1 trillion in wealth over 10 years to individuals currently paying no taxes.

Young Mom, the Obama plan, a treacherous political tool for fomenting class warfare, is also unsustainable in view of Senator Obama’s plans to increase spending.  Senator Obama proposes an additional $800 billion in new domestic spending.  This doesn’t include recent additions to the debt in the name of bailouts, to financial, housing and auto industries.  This is the amount of spending proposals Senator Obama has repeatedly told us about.  He hasn’t talked much about the Global Poverty Act (GPA) sponsored by him and currently under consideration by the Senate.  The GPA calls for the US to send $80 billion a year to the UN for redistribution to developing nations over the next ten years.   Marx, Lenin, the whole bunch would be proud.  Not only will we redistribute wealth in the US, we will give the UN $845 billion over the next 10 years to redistribute our wealth worldwide.  Young Mom, who will pay for this?  The last Presidential candidate to sell such economic fantasy to voters was Bill Clinton in 1992.  He proposed billions in new spending with huge tax cuts for, you guessed it, the middle and working class.  The tax cuts never came, the tax increases did.

Senator Obama has decided that families making above $250,000 are rich.  Or is it $200,000?  Or $150,000?  Or $120,000, as Governor Richardson, Obama spokesman, said this week?  Many small businesses file taxes as individuals to avoid what are currently the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The top corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.  It is 28% in the United Kingdom, 12% in Ireland.  It is not hard to understand why businesses want to move out of the US.  At the $250,000 level (married…$200,000 if single), it is arguable, but as many as 10-20 million small businesses will be impacted by proposed Obama tax increases.  It is also not clear what the Senator means by $250,000 or Governor Richardson by $120,000?  Is this net or AGI?  This makes a huge difference, especially to small businesses.  Numerous economists have recently warned about the impact Obama’s economic plan would have on the nation.  Regarding job creation, expect recession, or worse, to be the watchword.  Young Mom you should think about the following chart before casting your vote:

John McCain will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax which expands in its effect each tax year, currently punishing 25 million middle class families.  He will make it harder to raise taxes and he will ban internet taxation.  John McCain will increase the tax exemption for dependents, something which will directly benefit you Young Mom.  McCain understand the importance of families and this is a step towards better valuing something we have begun to take for granted.  He will also keep in place the Bush tax cuts which benefit all with any type of investment retirement account.  He has the best plan for attempting to create an investment environment which will encourage job creation and economic growth here in the United States.  Senator Obama proposes further corporate taxation which will drive more businesses out of the United States.  John McCain will drop corporate tax rates which are the highest in the world.  This has two effects Young Mom.  It creates an environment that encourages businesses to stay in the US and reduces costs that businesses pass on to consumers.  Senator Obama has made villains of lots of business sectors which have tremendously improved our lives and promises to tax them more. 

A word about “Corporate Taxes” Young Mom. I am no economist but have learned much this year as both candidates have talked about their approaches to the economic challenges we face as a nation.  When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on people—the owners, customers, or workers of the corporation.


Many economists believe that workers and customers bear much of the burden of the corporate income tax. To see why, consider an example. Suppose that the U.S. government decides to raise the tax on the income earned by car companies. At first, this tax hurts the owners of the car companies, who receive less profit. But over time, these owners will respond to the tax. Because producing cars is less profitable, they invest less in building new car factories. Instead, they invest their wealth in other ways—for example, by buying larger houses or by building factories in other industries or other countries. With fewer car factories, the supply of cars declines, as does the demand for autoworkers. Thus, a tax on corporations making cars causes the price of cars to rise and the wages of autoworkers to fall.


The corporate income tax is popular in part because it appears to be paid by “rich corporations”. Yet those who bear the ultimate burden of the tax—the customers and workers of corporations, all of us—are often not “rich”. If the true incidence of the corporate tax were more widely known, this tax might be less popular among voters.  The bottom line, we, we the people, all pay the corporate tax rate.

Senator Obama proposes the largest spending increases in the history of this nation.  He proposes to increase the corporate tax rates which have already driven business overseas.  His tax reform is a promise to “spreading the wealth” and is pure socialism.  Many may be attracted to Senator Obama’s plan by the thought of a check in the mail from “rich” Americans.  My family would qualify for the Obama tax cut.  We don’t want it.  We simply don’t see this as a long term solution to improving the health of the American economy.  I see the Obama plan as a threat to the long term economic well being of my family.  John McCain proposes numerous actions which will make the economic pie bigger.  He wants our nation to continue to grow, not stagnate.  Five Nobel Prize Economists recently said it best Young Mom: (http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/News/PressReleases/96557315-1694-4d8f-9b0a-c29f0f0872e6.htm):

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It
was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

Right to Life

Young Mom, Rob’s comments on this topic need the greatest rectification.  To put it plainly, Senator Obama is the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate this nation has ever known.  He may talk about reducing abortions but the facts suggest otherwise.  He has supported partial birth abortion, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  BAIPA sought to provide infants that survived an abortion attempt with the same rights as any other newborn.  Senator Obama claimed that he did not support such legislation in the Illinois legislature because it did not contain language that would protect infringement on the right of a mother to choose abortion.  When some pointed out that he has unwilling to support such legislation twice, with one bill being identical to the federal bill which contained a neutrality clause, Obama called those people “liars”.  Most recently he has attempted to defend his position by saying that the legislation was unnecessary since infants born alive after a botched abortion were protected by existing law.  “Existing law did not so protect them” as the Attorney General of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

Senator Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable.  He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants.  Jill Stanek, a perinatal nurse at a Chicago hospital, testified at the US Senate Hearings about her experiences as a nurse in Illinois and personally pleaded with Senators to support the bill in the Illinois legislature.  Rob is unfamiliar with what goes on in hospitals regarding birth of live infants deemed pre-viable or non-viable.  On a regular basis at hospitals and clinics infants are delivered alive after abortions and left to die in buckets/trays in cold utility rooms.  Sorry, but this is the unpleasant fact.  In some cases it is even more unpleasant than that as this case from Kansas this year illustrates:

 Abortionist Shelley Sella is a "circuit rider", who splits her time between Tiller's Wichita clinic, a California Planned Parenthood clinic, and other, smaller abortion mills.

"Ms. Davis gave us a very specific eye-witness account about the incident," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We were told that the baby was 35 weeks gestation at the time of the abortion. The baby came out and was moving. Sella looked up at Ms. Davis, then picked up a utensil and stabbed the baby in the left ribcage, twisting the utensil until the baby quit moving. At 35 weeks, there is no doubt about viability. This is murder in anybody's book."

Regarding the BAIPA, it passed 98-0 in the US senate.  Talk about bipartisan!  Even Barbara Boxer supported it!  Senator Obama was not in the US Senate at that time but voted “present”, a regular position for him in the Illinois legislature, on the Illinois bill which was identical to the Federal legislation.  Rob is incorrect, the Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill  It had the same Rowe neutrality clause which protected the right to have an abortion.  Senator Obama could not support the measure Young Mom.  But in failing to do so he supported infanticide.  This is the same man who said he doesn’t want his daughter punished with a baby as a result of an unwanted pregnancy.  This is the same man who said an opinion on when life begins was “above his paygrade.”  I suspect if Obama would speak honestly he might tell us he believes in a truly utilitarian view of life, that life doesn’t begin until an infant has reached some level of “consciousness”.  While monstrous, this might allow him to rationalize his position of unwillingness to support the BAIPA.

Lastly, Senator Obama told a Planned Parenthood Meeting in July that “the first thing I will do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”:

“Once passed, FOCA will protect a woman's right to choose by federal statute. This means that if our worst fear comes to pass and a newly constituted anti-choice Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, women in the United States will have the protection of federal law in the exercise of their right to choose. In addition, FOCA would immediately restore reproductive freedom for the millions of American women who already face interference with their right to choose as a result of onerous state and federal restrictions.

FOCA will supersede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations. As a result, women will be freed from improper governmental interference with their right to choose a pre-viability abortion. Women who require a post-viability abortion in order to preserve their lives or health will also be protected by FOCA.”

The above quote is from Planned Parenthood's action sheets.  The bottom line is that Senator Obama can talk about limiting the need for abortions, but he is advocating legislation that allows for unrestricted abortion.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem here though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

Senator McCain is pro-life.  While he would not support the FOCA, abortion supporters painting Senator McCain’s election as the return to an era of “back alley” abortions are out of touch with reality.  Senator McCain supports constitutional judges who interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the framers, not the whims of the judges themselves.  Despite this instinct, Senator McCain supported the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.  Senator McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which was a coalition of Democratic and Republican Senators committed to shepherding the nomination of judges with broad based support through the Senate.  Lastly, Senator McCain has always honored the principle that a sitting judge should be replaced with one of a similar philosophy.  The next President will have to offer Supreme Court nominees to a Democratic Senate.  While a President McCain would never nominate one, no one believes that a Democrat dominated Judiciary Committee and Senate would allow the Court to tip in any direction but the left.  As a conservative this dismays me but it is an honest appraisal of how McCain, a man of his word, would act.

Part II of a IV Part Series