The Democratic Party's Recession

Just a thought, but it just occurred to me that liberals, progressives and Democrats always blame business for screwing over the "working stiff", who they claim to protect and care about. But if you think about, the US Congress, state legislatures and local governments always, always make a grab for your earnings in the form of taxes, fees and penalties. And they never ever find any reason to cut into their own pay.

Lately, they have not only blamed capitalism, but are quick to point out that the current recession started under the previous administration. I believe it is important to add two unchangeable facts to the conversation.

1. The US President cannot appropriate a single dime from anyone, any business or anywhere, without the US Congress first passing a law to appropriate those funds. The president can only veto the legislation if he has been advised to oppose it.

2. The country's, and the world's economy was doing just fine until 2007, when the Democrats took control of the US Congress.

The democrats are still in control of the presidency and the US Senate.

June 2011, the recession continues*.

The Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives cannot make any legislation into law without the cooperation of the US Senate and the president.

We can blame zero percent of this recession and its continuation to Republicans, although they are partially complicit in setting up the playing field for an economic meltdown.

Come November 2012 we will have an opportunity reduce the influence of the US Congress' and this president's failure to understand what they are doing by putting Republicans in control.

* The government's definition of an official recession is not the definition any unemployed person who lost their home and/or life's savings would use. Much like the way the politicians calculate inflation, it is designed to minimize blame on those politicians make and enforce (or not) those laws.

Bailouts Still Hurting American Families

Browsing the Huffington Post... There is a complaint of racism in the mortgage foreclosures by Janis Bowdler (Deputy Director, WBPP) that is widening the gap between the number of Black & Latino owned homes and Caucasian home ownership in the USA.

While I believe this to be true (the widening gap) I do not believe it is based in racism as greed and self-promotion couldn't care less about race.

Our so-called leaders had an opportunity to help prevent average Americans of all races from losing their homes and it may still possible to stop the further loss of homes and saving accounts. There was and is only one answer to the mortgage securities crisis that caused and is causing families of all races to lose their homes.

A moratorium on foreclosur­es.

There are many reasons this is a good way to help Americans and improve the economy.

1. People would be able to stay in their homes, so families would not be uprooted, traumatized and homeless without an address to put on a job application.

2. There would not be a flood of homes on the market driving down prices wiping out trillions of dollars in overall value.

3. The financial institutions, who are mostly responsible for the crisis would not be double dipping into middle class America's wallets. (Pay & Pay, then Take it Away).

4. Fairness: The government will use borrowed money to extend unemployment insurance payments for periods up to 99 weeks, but will not prevent the banks from taking the unemployed person's home while they try to get back on their feet. We know the governmen is willing to take the "property" of a corparation and give to someone else. This is precisely what they did in response to the GM bankruptcy.

5. There would have been no need for the bailouts. Today most of the bailout money has been paid back, but no one is saying how the banks became profitable enough to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profits that allowed them to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP loans. Thia tells me that TARP was not needed in the first place.

Speaking of TARP, back in the spring of 2008 our leaders said were looking for a way to save the homes of working families and after several minutes grueling brainstorm­ing they came up with a plan to bailout those responsibl­e for the mortgage mess instead. Somewhere along the line, they totally lost the working families that they had claimed they were helping.

Since that time they have been patting themselves on the back having claimed to stop a recession from becoming a depression and seemingly not noticing that millions of Americans lost their homes and their retirement savings.

On top of that, the working family received a real kick in the head from those same bad actors at the financial institutio­ns. Bad actors who did not lose their jobs, homes and savings, are getting those homes to resell again. Any equity and investment that a homeowner had in their home is wiped out completely. Those same bankers are fat and happy and sitting on their bailout money and minimizing their own risk instead of reinvestin­g it in a major way. This another reason the recovery is so slow. Could it be by design?

If congress and Presidents Bush and Obama really wanted to help working Americans they would have stopped foreclosur­es and allowed the CEO's and Executive VPs to sink instead. There would have been no depression­. Only new faces with a renewed sense of responsibility running those financial institutio­ns, something this country drastically needs. And the recovery would be well on its way to pre-bailou­t levels.

Government Mandated Health Care Passes the Senate Health Committee

It's not too late to call or write your senators to register your opposition to this country killer.

Reuters is reporting that the Senate Health Committee passed their version of the the Obama health care plan in a party-line 13-10 vote. The albatross is to be combined with the Senate Finance Committee's input, which they have not written yet. Then it will be passed through 4 more senate committees before it comes to the florr.

The bill ostensibly will insure the 46 million people in America that do not have health care insurance. Of course, opponents say that it will insure only about one quarter of that 46M at a cost of $1.5 Trillion.

Additionally, it will add:
- A government-run health care program (will destroy competition and nationalize health care)

- Require most Americans to obtain health insurance (who are they leaving out? Whose insurance plan? ANS: The government's plan)

- Mandate most employers to provide it to their workers. (to reduce job opportunities for middle America, after piling on income and other tax increases on them)

- The legislation also would seek to reduce costs in the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care industry. (by lowering doctors' and hospital fees, thus reducing the number of doctors and hospitals and other emergency services and by cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Translated this all means the government is going to further tell individual Americans what is best for us and make you pay extra to for arousing their attention.

President Obama has promised to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by over $500 Billion to make it whither on the vine.

I this what you want?

Sign the petition at www.freeourhealthcarenow.com

Some Bloggers. Sheesh

Some bloggers censor their blogs. I would like to believe that the main attraction to to blogging is the free exchange of ideas.

However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.

Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"

I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.

Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)

All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)

You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.

My post to Rants and Raves:

This is incredible.

The singular cause of skyrocketing health care costs is the federal government.

Medicare and Medicaid set prices, control access and reduce the paying customer base for private insurance. The US Congress setup these programs while being influenced by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, hospital, and doctors' organizations.

More government, especially a "public Program", will only make it worse. Look to the lesson of the great state of Hawaii. They instituted public health care insurance to compete with private insurance and fill in the the insurance gap. Hawaiians dropped their I-have-to-pay-for-it-out-of-my-pocket insurance for the better deal of the state program.

Some competition, aye?

Since the state cannot print their own hope dollars, they closed it after 7 months.

The lie is not the with the Republicans on this. The lie is that Obama's program will be competition.

The lie is that it will reduce costs. Only competition will do that. And competition is what Obama is trying to destroy.

Moveitright.blogspot.com

Mr. Boh's response: by Michael Boh said...

Mover/GR - I had to reject your recent comments for the following reason(s): they include misleading and/or disreputable facts (Rule #4) as well as distrations/distortions (Rule #5).

Unlike most "conservative" blogs, I will post comments that disagree with my own. However, I will not do it if I feel they are designed to mislead or disrupt the issue being discussed. Have a good day. June 24, 2009 7:55 AM

Say No to Public Health Care Insurance

The president's plan for universal health care is another bad idea in a long line of bad ideas on this subject. If he, or anyone is congress, would like to actually help folks obtain health care insurance he would push for tort reform, interstate competitiveness, medical savings accounts, and dollar for dollar tax credits to incentivise working Americans to purchase health care insurance for themselves.

Some folks already have medical savings accounts, but it should be made available to everyone.
Interstate competitiveness may be another hard nut to crack because it would in large part remove the several states' power to regulate medical insurance.

I realize this would be a long shot in today's political environment as our illustrious representatives do not understand the term "tax cut". If you explain it to them (and there is no camera or microphone near by) they may let you know that you're talking crazy talk. Tax cuts indeed! Tax cuts to elected Democrats is like garlic to vampires.

The other issue, tort reform, isn't going to happen anytime soon either. Can you imagine two rooms full of lawyers who get to make law and give themselves pay raises suddenly deciding to cut or remove the the largest jackpot lawyers have ever found? Yeah, me either.

All of these issues would have to take on life as a real grass roots issue. Much like the Tea Parties around the country, or the grass roots effort that killed the lame version of so-called "immigration reform".

But, I cannot just pick on the president all of the time as on some points, he gets it right. In fact this is his forte. He will say that which is so true that it defies contradiction. Wonderful. But then he will go on to say something that is completely contradictory or simply wrong. He outlines, as much as he has been able to, his government health care plan in a letter to congress.

In his letter to congress concerning health care insurance he says,

"Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need. It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers. And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of enormous budget deficits that are threatening our economic future."

I agree 100%. Like a hammer he's hit the nail on the head.

But then he ruins it with this...

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."

Public health care insurance is going to lower costs for everyone?

To borrow a phrase: "Here's yer sign."

But I wonder if Mr. Obama, or anyone in government, know why Health care and health care insurance has become so expensive? I believe they either do know why, and are not saying, or they really do not know why, in which case, they should be replaced with people who have a clue.

Health care in America has become prohibitively expensive because of our government. Through Medicare and Medicaid, government set prices on services and prescriptions, allow waste and fraud to run rampant, has become an unfair competitor to private insurance, and a lawyer led get-rich-quick scheme called "malpractice".

Sorry folks, but attributing cost savings to government would not only be unlikely, it would be impossible. I'm afraid our president's advisers have not learned the lessons of public health care insurance from the great state of Hawaii, the government plan to fill the gap for the uninsured in Hawaii. It lasted an entire seven (7) months before being dismantled. The reason? The people who already had insurance dropped their expensive private insurance in favor of the free insurance and almost bankrupted the state while destroying the private insurance companies. People are not stupid. If the government is going to use someone else's money to buy them insurance, it would only be in their best interests to get in on the deal. Of course, private insurance companies cannot force dollars out of the pockets of their customers, so they were left hanging. It won't work.

A quick glance at Medicare and Medicaid's history is a huge clue. In 1980 Medicare accounted for .7% of the country's health care spending. It has now grown to 19.7% of total health care spending. To ensure participation in this government program, Americans are forced into Medicare at age 65 or earlier if they receive Social Security Disability payments. All of this has reduced the number of people buying private insurance and a smaller customer base means higher prices. (just look at your utility bill. Save a lot and they raise the price.) Read more about Medicare here, here and here.

On Medicaid, the numbers are scary as well. (from Reuters, Report says Medicaid spending "unsustainable")

"In 1970, the report said, combined federal and state expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.4 percent of the economy, but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.0 percent in 2000 and 2.3 percent in 2007."

Another inflationary problem with universal health care insurance is the same problem that continues to run up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid: Cost control.

When I have to pay for something out of my pocket, I go for the best price I can get. If someone else is paying for it, then the price is not so much of a concern.

Malpractice Insurance. Doctors are charged huge premiums for malpractice insurance, which they must pass along to patients and their insurance companies. In order to hold back these costs, some governors have frozen insurance premiums in their states. Also, back in 2002 in the article, "High Insurance Premiums Jeopardize Rural OBs" (Rural Health News, Vol. 9, No. 1), they report...

"Citing data from a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, ACOG said that nationally, the median insurance premium for OB/GYNs increased 167 percent from 1982 to 1998. In 2000, it rose seven percent. In 2001, it went up another 12.5 percent. For 2002, the expected increase is 15 percent.

According to American Medical News, eight states saw two or more liability insurers raise rates by at least 30 percent in 2001. In more than 12 states, one or more insurers raised rates by 25 percent or more."

How can this not affect doctor, prescription and hospital fees?

Sheila Guilloton, of the Examiner, writes that...

"Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is reported to have one of the highest premium for medical malpractice, with some areas reporting premiums of $100,000 per year for OB/GYN coverage. Premiums in major metropolitan areas can be as much as $250,000 per year."

You can read more on The Tort Threat at the the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

On the Bill Bennett radio show, Morning In America, Senator Bill Frist said that when a doctor asked if a patient had insurance and the answer is "no", the doctor will prescribe generic, less expensive drugs. If the answer "yes", then the doctor can prescribe the more costly name brand drugs. Since a patient on Medicare or Medicaid is "insured", the fees and prescriptions will add to the taxpayers' burden.

If the federal government enacts public health care insurance, the same pattern will follow. People are not stupid. If they can get free (to them) health care insurance, they will abandon private insurers in favor of saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month. Wouldn't you?

So, there you have it. Medicare and Medicaid, along with malpractice insurance rates, are the prime reason that health care costs so much. The way to reduce these costs is not to add more government, as the president, his advisers and the US Congress believe. The answer is less government. Much less government.

Tax breaks will enable the working to afford their own insurance and that will act to keep medical expenses and insurance premiums lower. Tort reform will reduce the number of excuses insurance companies have to increase premiums while lowering doctor and hospital costs.

It needs to be mentioned that government is now intruding into areas of individual freedom that Americans are not accustomed to, such as deciding what to eat and how much exercise we need (or not), what kind of cars we need and what kind of energy usage is better for us. As government moves to further influence our lives, they will use the excuse of 'saving taxpayer dollars to reduce health care expenditures' by a reward and punishment system to be more healthy, just as I did when raising my children.

We are not children and do not need the impersonal government dictating lifestyles of Americans. Americans did just fine when there were no big government babysitting programs and we will do just fine again when they go away.

Pay Equity Debate Equals Class Warfare

The organization,United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is proud to advance the divisiveness of class warfare. Class warfare is a tool of the liberal left and the Democratic Party in the United States. They seem to believe that by pointing out the income differences in between CEO's and their employees is providing some sort of public service.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This organization seems to be a mouthpiece for those who cannot cope with or cannot understand the American way of life and they publish salary and bonus numbers to incite voters. And this helps no one.

Here is what they say:

"CEO Pay: We believe that the lack of pay equity in the US can be addressed by changing the rules. The better informed average workers are, the more they will be empowered to generate changes."

Their premise starts off on a positive note, but then fall into their peculiar idea of fairness. So, yes, being informed certainly is better for everyone. The question I have for them is, "why would our system need to change?"

While CEO's, executives, large and small business owners make much more than their employees in most cases, this should not be a problem, but an incentive. In fact, without our system and the risks business leaders take, the standard of living in the United States and around the world would be nothing like it is today. None of the advances in medicine, materials, and transportation would be possible. Millions people around the world would be dead, or never have been alive, if not for the work and reward system that Americans embrace.

CEO's make more because they take more risks. Employees only have to show up and do the job they contracted for. An employee's only financial risk is whether the company remains successful at the location where he/she works, and that security is a result of the leadership's expertise and commitment.

Look. If you are envious of another's wealth, that should be an incentive to do the same thing. If an employee wants make as much or more than his/her CEO, there is a very simple solution. Start your own company and take all the financial risks, the many hours of sweat equity, the learning, and abilities, and apply it to your goal. If you don't feel like you can do all that, then shut up, collect your paycheck and continue to be at the mercy of statisticians, accountants and balance sheets. With hard work, persistence and good ideas anyone in country can achieve as much success as they are willing work for. This scenario has been repeated millions of times in this country.

This is the way to become successful and wealthy in a free market system. Many politicians and organizations such as the UFE clearly do not understand this basic truth. Class warfare is used as a political tool to pedal influence. They influence millions of followers (a key word) to look to them to even out the playing field and protect them, but end up being held down, in place by those same politicians. Remember these are the same people who engineered, either by expert planning or supreme stupidity, the economic crisis this country and world are in right now. If you prefer to complain about the rich getting richer and having to work for "the man", then keep following others and looking outside yourself for help.

Our politicians have the sworn duty to make the playing field as fair as possible. They very often fall short of this while looking out for their own self interests. This is due to lobbyist approved legislation designed to give the lobbyist's employer advantage over employees and competitors. This is how we get the Enrons, the high energy costs, the S&L Crisis from the 1980s and the current economic crisis that is destroying millions of jobs.

In this country, for now at least, anyone can become whatever their own strengths, talents a perseverance allows.

An RV in Everyone's driveway

President Obama decided to deliver his latest Doom & Gloom Report in the faces of the most unemployed people in America: Elkhart, Indiana. Their unemployment rate is 15% and a big industry in Elkhart used to be manufacturing recreational vehicles (RV). They are the self-described RV Capital of the World.

What Barack is not saying is that people who would normally be in the market for an RV are waiting to see what the economy is going to do. I certainly would need to know if I were going to be able to pay for an expensive "nice to have" product or will I be unemployed and lose everything. Maybe I should concentrate my resources on my house payment, groceries, utilities, kids clothing, etc., before adding a new monthly payment or draining my savings.

Those people are smarter than Barack Obama. He does not know how the economy works or what a responsible person will do in the face of his daily doom and gloom predictions; all of which are lies. (So much for political ethics)

Recall the election year 2000 and the first months of George W. Bush's Administration, in a recession started on President Clinton's watch. George W. Bush and company said that the economy was slowing down and was accused of "talking down the economy". I guarantee you that Candidate Bush's rhetoric couldn't hold a candle to Obama's scare tactics. And the media jumped on Bush, but you haven't heard a word of it in the legacy media this year.

The most preposterous element of this rush to spend hope dollars is that the people claiming to fix the problem, the US Senate, US House of Representatives and the White House, are the very people who caused the problems. Their failed policies and obstructions over the last 2 decades are what have brought us to this point. Why would anyone believe they will get us out of it by doing the same thing they have been doing.

Call, email and write a real letter to your senators and representatives in Washington DC and tell them you aren't buying their snake oil and to stop this nonsense before they cause long term damage to you and your family. And tell the President that his advisers are leading him in the wrong direction.

Salary Cap: Says Who?

President Obama is calling for a salary cap on company executives who receive any TARP bailout money, claiming it is "the height of irresponsibility" to pocket taxpayer dollars.

Now don't that beat all. He's upset because he and President Bush gave the Wall Street bankers and auto makers hundreds of billions of hope dollars and did not think to put any meaningful restrictions on how the money was to be used. They all just "hoped" the bankers would do their version of the responsible thing.

So who is the irresponsible one in this mess?

He and Bush couldn't imagine that the money-makers on Wall Street would be pocketing large amounts of the hope money. If the two Presidents and US Congress had not interfered with the US economic system in October, the Wall Street executives would have received pay and bonuses equal to their performance. A company that is bankrupt cannot handout huge paydays to those who led it to that end. Well, unless it's the government we're talking about.

This just emphasizes why the government must be stopped from mortgaging the country's future with the largest pork package in US history (to be paid after those making these lousy decisions are long gone).

Additionally, this is the next step in the destruction of free market capitalist system. The very system that made it possible for this country to become the world leading country that it is. This is just one reason why the entire hoax that is TARP and the Lobbyists' Stimulus and Recovery Act of 2009 needs to be tossed and sooner rather then later.

Government officials, including the president and US Congress should not be in the business of dictating how much anyone should be paid in private industry, whether rich, poor or between. The US Congress should restrict their payroll machinations to giving themselves raises. And this President, who has no meaningful experience at anything (especially the private sector), is the last person who should be dictating salaries and wages.

By the way: Rich people getting richer is not a crime. But, stealing money from people is a crime and using the power of government to force people to pay for the failures of others is also a crime in my book. Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the George W. Bush administration are principly responsible for the current trumped up economic crisis. I can see no provable reason why these people should be permitted to meddle with the economy. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't even have the slightest clue about how many people actually work in this country. She claims 500,000,000 will lose their jobs if the Lobbyists' Stimulus and Recovery Act of 2009 is not passed quickly.

I'll admit that I, just like any other average worker, marvel at the astronomical sums being raked in by many private sector CEOs and executives. And I marvel at the huge sums being raked in once politicians leave office. But capping wages and bonuses will only hamstring the economy further. The only way to ensure that the capitalist system is functioning properly is to allow it to work. To get out of the way as much as possible while ensuring compliance with the law. And that includes allowing companies fail. If President Bush and President Obama had gotten out of the way, the bad actors would be looking for work in other fields rather than reaping the benefits of the elected class's largess. All the money that would be lost would have belonged to those who supported such irrational investment "instruments". The real property that is blamed for the mess is still here, still available and still worth a lot more than zero,as we nhave been led to believe.

I'm positive many of our neighbors would have lost their jobs with or without this government interference. However, not it not by their own doing. But rather by the US Congress, the FTC, the SEC, the DoJ and the Presidents' doing, or lack thereof.

For our neighbors I say extend unemployment benefits, freeze owner occupied home foreclosures, create new home financing instruments that help working Americans, and force the banks to play or go away. (My conspiratorial side tells me that Wall Street, in collusion with government officials, manufactured this "credit crisis" for the express purpose of fleecing the US taxpayers.)

Capping income by government is not the way to fix anything. Government interference in the process needs to be limited to preventing the cheaters, such as the Bernard Madoffs, Enrons, Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs, from committing crimes, exacting justice on those who do, and to prevent the public from being financially injured by the process as much as possible.

To President Obama:

Keep your government bailouts and supporter payola. You do not understand the long term affects of all this government interference (or you do, which would be much, much worse). Allow the country to recover from this financial pain quicker and easier without pounding the national debt. The monstrous spending bills that have been passed in congress will only make the economy worse, much worse. You can pay back your supporters in other ways.

McCain/Palin: Damage Control

Some conservatives and Republicans who are at odds with the direction the Republican party has taken and plan to either vote for Democrats, third parties, or just stay home on election day, will accomplish what they should want to prevent: A leftist tax and spend government with no controls.

As President, John McCain is damage control to Barack Obama's vision of America and the onslaught of government “of, for and by” the political class. There is no need for Americans to suffer under an fiscally oppressive government until it collapses under the weight of recession, unemployment and high taxes on those few who can find work. Vote McCain/Palin to stop them.

A President McCain administration, one of the few politicians that tips the scales towards honestly and selfless service, will continue his record from the US Senate of opposing the status quo, pork, reducing spending and taxes, and to promote job creation in the private sector. If you're thinking he and Sarah Palin are not your team, you have to ask yourself, "Will a Democratic Party controlled congress and executive branch really cut your taxes?" "Do they have a history of cutting taxes?" Whose policies improve the economic situation?

The answer can be found in Obama's tax plan. I call it the "Hoover Maneuver". President Hoover's tax policies maneuvered the Great depression into long lasting economic hell hole for everyone.

Syndicated columnist Amity Shlaes writes that President Hoover raised income taxes from 25 percent to 68 percent, instituted a 40 percent tariff on imports and canceled all oil leases on government lands (sound familiar?), among other things, during the Great Depression. That maneuver very likely extended the Great Depression for many more years than need be. When the "New Deal" is added in to the mix, the depression lasted until WWII.

Obama promises to implement the Hoover Maneuver, raising taxes and stifling economic growth. Barack's version of the "Hoover Maneuver".

- Raise the top rate from 35% to 39%; This will encourage people to move money "off shore" or lose it (with a net of no tax gains for federal revenue).

- Raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20-28%; That is the middle class' retirement accounts, and please remember those off shore accounts.

- Add Social Security taxes to those earning above $250K; That is 7.2% to employees, 14.2% for the self employed (think small business), additional 7.2% tax on business)

- Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010; Raises income taxes on those 95% who he promises tax cuts in his campaign ads.

- Barack keeps the corporate tax rate at 35%; Second highest rate in the world, driving jobs over seas.

- Continued dependence on foreign oil by opposing the use of our own energy resources.

Recall that John McCain voted for tax cuts at every opportunity, has never requested earmarks, and is pro life. In his tax plan, he will:

- Make the Bush tax cuts permenant
- make medical insurance portable and affordable
- increase tax deductions for individuals and families
- Reduce corporate taxes (keep jobs in America)

Most importantly, he has many years of leadership experience and he has put the freedom of Americans ahead of is own. His Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, has more leadership experience than Senators Obama and Bidden combined.

Do you want a recession followed by a depression for the next decade?

If your answer “yes” to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi vision, vote Obama, for a third party (that has no chance of winning) or stay home.

If your answer is no higher taxes and big government and yes to job growth, vote McCain/Palin.