jump to navigation

Economic Recession : Connecting Candidates, Trends, Values and Voting November 3, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, economy, elections, free market, God, John McCain, life, marriage, moral law, news, politics, voting.

It’s a Bad Idea to Elect Candidates to Improve the Economy

Encouraging congregants to vote on Tuesday November 4, my pastor shared some very profound insights about how to view the issues. He said that we would be electing people who will be representing our views and our futures. Those we elect will make decision that will not only affect our own lives but our community and out nation He then followed with an insight applicable to all elections for all time.

The economy is constantly changing. The boom and bust cycles will continue no matter who is in office. We should not vote for candidates based on a troubled economy because it will eventually improve anyway.

Adding to his insight, I want to point out that our economy and its free markets are not some mysterious force operating outside the realm of human behavior. The economy is human behavior. The markets are the results of nothing other than human decisions. Intentionally or unintentionally, the problems and benefits of our economy are the results of human behaviors. The boom and bust cycles of our current economy are the results of policy decisions, trade and consumption practices, errors and neglect, as well as greed and irrational fears. Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats blame Bush for their own bad policy decisions and neglect of the mortgage markets that Congress created. And, Bush’s spending didn’t happen without their approval either.

The Obama Connection?

Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy in Media Report, wrote an article on who is behind the economic collapse. To appreciate his argument, you must read the entire article. Here, I will try to summarize some of his main evidence to illustrate my point. Kincaid research points to Democrats as the primary actors suspected of generating the current economic crisis of New Deal proportions. His research ties US Treasury Secretary Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs to leading Democratic Party fundraisers, and to Barak Obama. Those suspected of creating the current economic crisis for political reasons would not be complete without George Soros, who has a reputation for creating national economic crises. Other writers have produced lists of former employees of Goldman Sachs who have filled leading positions in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many others are being investigated, according to Kincaid.

Recession and Election Cycle Trends

If I remember correctly, the past four or five presidents were elected during an economic correction sometimes called recession. According to financial expert John Mauldin, President George W. Bush inherited an economy already in recession from Democrat Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, Americans elected Clinton as President in part to solve the recession that occurred during George HW Bush’s term in office. We voted Ronald Reagan into office because of his plans to solve the deep recession inherited from Jimmy Carter. Many Republicans voted for Democrat and Baptist Jimmy Carter because of they believed his faith was real and because of his plan to solve the recession-sized energy crisis. Like my parents, many Republicans were sorely disappointed.

Learning From the Past?

It must be questioned whether the most educated people in the world are capable of learning from the past. It is claimed that many Republicans again favor a Democrat for president. That is certainly their right. Many religious leaders have championed the cause of the Democratic Party its candidates. Again, that is their right. Yet, the Democratic Party is more socialistic, more pro-abortion, more opposed to traditional marriage than ever. Their presidential candidate does have religious credentials. However, the religious aura surrounding Barak Obama is a cloud of illusion. I think it is more of a smoke screen for the sole purpose of winning an election. Whether McCain is sincerely Christian is debatable as well. However, his VP choice at least gives us hope for a strong pro-life and pro-family influence in the Whitehouse.

I return to my original point borrowed from my pastor. Whether economic crises are the result of evil intentions or simply bad decisions, they are the product of human behaviors. They have occurred throughout our nation’s history. As now, they have always been corrected by appropriate behavior and policy decision. This corrective process is already in motion. Therefore, whoever we elect as the next president is mostly irrelevant.

Voting Decisions and Issues of Unchanging Importance

My pastor continued his political exhortation with another and even more important insight. Instead of making our voting decisions based on a continuously changing economy, we would find better representation in government if we made our decisions based on unchanging criteria. Going back to the biblical book of Genesis, he reminded us of source of our moral values, the sanctity of human life, and of human dignity. These are the most important criterion. As history teaches, the decline of morality in societies always results in that society’s end. Therefore, in this pivotal election, we will choose whether morality and the sanctity of life will be upheld and strengthened or whether morality will continue to decline.

Having done my own research, it is clear to me which candidate will defend the life of the unborn, the sanctity of traditional marriage, and the general morality our form of democracy has always required. Like the traditions of their respective parties, Democrat Barak Obama favors abortion and opposes defining marriage as one man and one woman because he supports the politics of sexual immorality. John McCain claims to be pro-life and favors overturning Roe v Wade because it was an erroneous ruling. He supports traditional marriage but believes it’s outside the power of federal government to decide on issues of marriage.

Voting Means Judgment—Of Candidate and Maybe of God

As Americans used to believe regarding disasters whether affecting national, state, and local communities, I too believe America is already experiencing God’s justice for the long official support for every form of immorality, for the brutal slaughter of millions of unborn children, for legitimizing unnatural and harmful behaviors of gays, and for many other crimes against God’s moral laws. If this assessment is correct, then this election is the most important and most pivotal of all elections in American history comparable to the election of Abraham Lincoln.


(Note: The title of John Mauldin’s financial commentary referenced above presents the insightful and witty perspective of it gifted author; the title is “Electing the Janitor-In-Chief”. Mauldin’s work is profitable reading and can be accessed at his website www.fronlinethoughts.com)


Children’s Defense Fund Congressional Scorecard : How Did McCain and Obama Score? November 1, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, children, economy, family, health care, John McCain, living wage, news, politics, secularism, socialism, welfare state.
1 comment so far

Children’s Defense Fund sells itself as a non-partisan organization fighting for the good of America’s children. From its secular-liberal perspective, it is seeking what Miriam Edelman believes is good for our children. A look at the scorecard contradicts the non-partisan part of its sales pitch. In all 10 categories, those who rate the best Senators and Representatives are exclusively Democrats and the worst are exclusively Republican. From Children’s Defense Fund’s leftist perspective, all non-partisan conservatives are the enemy of their liberal agenda for America’s children. That includes John McCain who score place him among the worst Senators even though he only voted on two of the 10 related issues.

Maybe I’m being a little extreme in my assessment of Children’s Defense Fund’s ranking of politicians and their voting behavior (or should it be orientation). To some readers, my introduction thus far might make an objective reassessment seem unlikely, but let me try it anyway.

The Scorecard evaluates Congresspersons based on their votes on 10 different bills or parts of bills.

The minimum wage bill (HR & S ) would raise minimum wage from $5.25 to $7.25. Opponents claim it will force employers to eliminate some low-wage jobs thus increasing unemployment. Proponents doubt it claiming it will help offset increasing prices fro consumer goods. Even with the increase, anyone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage still has below poverty level income.

Children’s Defense Fund’s efforts to move universal health care plan and state funded higher education does not solve and is not intended to solve the underlying problem. As Charles Reich has pointed out, the problem is the corporate-government partnership that creates and maintains poverty. Socialist programs proposed or supported by organizations like Children’s Defense Fund further erodes economic independence or liberty by increasing dependency of more and more Americans on federal and state welfare.

Like most other liberal organizations, Children’s Defense Fund is not merely seeking the well-being of America’s children. They are seeking a completely secular and socialist America over which the chosen secularists or liberals rule.

As I have written in other posts, their zealous support for the Democrat version of SCHIP shows the paternalism of their socialist-statist views. It seems evident that they intend to increase taxes on tobacco forcing low and middle-income people either to pay the increases or to quit smoking, which in turn will force the federal government to increase Medicare-Medicaid taxes to pay for middle- and low-income children’s health care.

What secularists do not want to do is change the current political economy to make business pay workers a livable wage while freezing prices because their benefactors would not like it. Children Defense Fund is not actually helping America’s children they are harming them and their families by not demanding genuine economic reform now.

What is as disturbing as their use of the poor to promote their agenda is their blatant opposition to our founders and their ideology. The familiar saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is true of the picture on the second page of the scorecard. The title states “These Fathers Are Behind In Their Child Support.” The picture below appears to be Benjamin Franklin and other leading founders. The message is that of radical secular fundamentalists. The religious-oriented founders were no count white men who didn’t have the best interest of America’s children at heart. Only leftist feminists do and especially black radical secularists.

Barak Obama is their champion. He is classified as one of their best supporting Senators. He scored only 10 points less than Hillary Clinton only because he was either absent or chose not to vote on four issues. Obama was most likely absent because he has stated his support for the Democrat’s version of the State Children’s Insurance Program, Head Start programs, funding college education, and universal health care. And, all of these legislative issues if passed move more low- and middle class into planned socialist (welfare) state dependency.

To view a copy of Children’s Defense Fund Scorecard, click here.

NY Times Is Setting Up Sarah October 31, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in conservative, John McCain, media bias, news, politics, presidential election, Sarah Palin.

By Don Feder, Boycott The New York Times

In this campaign, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is easily The New York Times’ favorite target.

John McCain’s running mate represents everything the mainstream media despise – pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage and anti-big government.

Once upon a time (before he secured the GOP nomination), The Times actually liked McCain, and called him a “maverick,” its term of endearment for Republican lawmakers. Sarah Palin it could never like, even if she was running against Gen. Pinochet.

The Times’ latest Palin hit is a “news story” in today’s paper, the gist of which is that his running mate is a major liability for McCain.

The Times: “All told, 59% of voters surveyed said Mrs. Palin was not prepared for the job [of vice president], up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president…”

This is based on The New York Times’ own survey (Oct. 26-29) – surprise, surprise! – conducted with CBS News. Its accuracy may be judged by the fact that of all recent polls it shows the greatest gap between Obama and McCain (51% to 40%). A Zogby poll taken at the same time showed McCain and Obama only 2 points apart (47% to 49%). The latest Rasmussen poll has the candidates separated by 5 points, versus 9 points in The Times/CBS News poll.

That aside, nobody votes for a presidential candidate based on his running mate, regardless of what they tell pollsters.

The Times is setting up Sarah Palin. If McCain loses, the paper will blame Palin and McCain’s focus on the Obama/Ayers connection, which the paper claims is a foray “into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia” (in an October 7 editorial).

That The New York Times will do anything to bring down Sarah Palin tells you everything you need to know about the conservative champion.

What is Obama and His Campaign All About? October 28, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, campaign finance, Islam, John McCain, Middle East, news, politics, presidential election.
1 comment so far

by Paul Eidelberg

In Obama Unmasked (2008), Floyd Brown & Leo Troxler raise the question, “Why is Obama trying so hard to deny that he was born a Muslim?” As his middle name Hussein implies, Barack Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law because his father was a Muslim, for descent in Islam is patrilineal.

Although his professed conversion to Christianity makes him an apostate subject to death under Islamic law, Muslims nonetheless support Obama overwhelmingly. These Muslims include Islamofascists and terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezballah. In fact, jihadists have contributed to Obama’s campaign funding.

This funding troubles New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, despite for her liberal-left reputation. In her op-ed piece of June 29, 2008, Dowd states she was informed by one of Obama’s campaign internet workers that his internet campaign raised some $200 million. That, she says, is more then twice the total amount raised by any candidate in history.

Dowd asks, “Where was this money coming from?” According to Dowd, one of the web site security monitors began to notice that the bulk of the contributions were coming in from overseas internet service providers. Although the security monitors were not able to track most of the sources, they were able to trace contributions from a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. These donations, she says, were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. Obama’s campaign people claimed that “none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.”

Dowd nonetheless asks, “Is it right for foreign investors to help decide who will be our next president?” Indeed, given Obama’s Muslim background and substantial funding from Muslim sources, a serious voter should be worried about Obama’s intellectual independence or integrity.

Consider his insistence on negotiating with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, even though this Muslim ruler calls for a world without America and Israel. Never mind that five years of American and European negotiations with Iran have only given that despotic regime five additional years to develop nuclear weapons. Couldn’t Obama bring himself to state, as a precondition, that Ahmadinejad must renounce his genocidal ambition to wipe Israel off the map, a threat that violates international law?

And what about Ahmadinejad’s saying “death to America”? Surely any patriotic or self-respecting American would insist that Ahmadinejad apologize for such outrageous statements. Strange that Senator McCain and Governor Plain failed to take their opponents to task for this obvious lack of honor.

I wonder whether the honorable senator from Illinois would approve of negotiating with Hitler without preconditions? Comparing Hitler and Ahmadinejad is not hyperbole. Iran used thousands of its own children to walk through and explode minefields in the Iran-Iraq war.

Allow me to juxtapose Islam’s denial of human rights and Obama’s vote against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” This act is intended to protect an infant that is actually born during an abortion procedure. To put it bluntly, Obama voted to kill the baby—something not even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted for!

Returning to campaign financing: Brown and Troxler report that the AFL-CIO and its affiliates have raised an unprecedented $250 million to put 200,000 union workers to campaign for Obama. No wonder: Obama supports unionization of businesses with less than twenty employees. He also voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. And he supported subprime mortgages that led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the current economic crisis.

Obama is playing the “poor man’s” card, while he receives incalculable support from billionaire George Soros. With only one appearance, he raised $18 million from Hollywood movie stars, 95 percent of whom are leftstream.

Obama is also playing the “race” or guilt card. Countless Americans, especially the liberal-left, feel guilty about the injustices suffered by the black race—boatloads of whom were sold into slavery by Muslims and even by their own people. Voting for Obama, “liberals” feel, will absolve them of guilt or of any accusation of racism. To erase the stain of racism, these liberals are now applying affirmative action programs to Obama’s bid for the presidency regardless of whether he is qualified for the most important and complex office on this planet.

Liberals do not see that their pro-Obama attitude is not only an extension of affirmative action programs, but that those programs are really racist! After all, what is racism if not judging and treating people not according their intellectual and moral character, but by the color of their skin?

Geraldine Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position” Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s vice-presidential running mate for the Democratic Party in 1984.

Obama is also playing: the “image” card despite his associations with questionable public figures. His youth and glibness, together with his being half black and half white, trumps his having had anti-American tutors such as black nationalist Rev. Jeremiah Wright and communist Saul Alinsky. Such associations do not alienate self-hating American multiculturalists of the liberal-left. Obama’s attraction to anti-Americans means nothing to youth ignorant of the American heritage, which has made America the most powerful and beneficent nation on earth. Obama is a novelty, mystifying, for democracy’s bored and impressionable youth.

Obama has cleverly translated the novelty and audacity of his candidacy into campaign slogans: CHANGE and YES WE CAN. How appropriate—since change and cheek flourish the further democracies are removed in time from the aristocratic and religions traditions.

What do Obama and his adulators know about a living tradition, one that reconciles permanence and change, that unites reverence for the past and creativity, national pride and progress?

Like contemporary liberals and all-too-many self-styled conservatives, he disdains conservatives like Justice Clarence Thomas who subordinates himself to the Constitution, which cannot be revered as the nation’s fundamental law if it changes with every generation. Unlike Mr. Justice Thomas or that other great American, Thomas Sowell, Obama regards the Constitution as mere wax on which the majority can stamp its transient prejudices, which can only deprive youth of national purpose and identity. Given the idolatry of CHANGE, is it any wonder that youth are preoccupied with fads and steeped in hedonism? How can it be otherwise when so many universities propagate moral relativism and thus teach nothing of human excellence or greatness—yes, and when so many academics, including mentors of Obama, spew anti-Americanism?

These academics take civilization for granted. They forget how much virtue and sacrifice are required to build civilization and prevent its relapse into barbarism. Raised in a consumer or self-indulgent society, today’s crop of liberals cannot face the reality of Islamic penetration of the United States. A thousand mosques preach hatred of America and Jews, and these liberals hardly blink. They are not disturbed by the growing network of jihadists, including Hezballah sleeper cells, now dotting America. They cannot imagine how Muslims throughout the world would exult and be incited to greater violence if the Crescent and the Sword flew over eastern Jerusalem, as Obama advocates and without a word of criticism from McCain and Palin.

The word “Islam” has yet to appear in the campaign debates. This can hardly be attributed to the economic crisis. True, this crisis distracts U.S. decision-makers from America’s most lethal enemy, Iran, the epicenter of Islamic terrorism.

Judging from his rhetoric, Obama does not comprehend the enormous danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. He does not see that Iran’s proxy, Hezballah, defeated Israel in the Second Lebanon War—Israel, the most powerful nation in the Middle East. He does not see that Israel’s defeat was largely the result of irresolute and inexperienced leadership. Neither Israel nor the United States has seen the full consequences of the Lebanon fiasco. Perhaps this will only come to light if Obama enters the White House. This he may well do if Senator McCain and Governor Palin fail to reveal what Obama is really about, and this will require them to be teachers of what America is all about, beginning with America’s Founding Fathers

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. In 1976, he joined the faculty of Bar-Ilan University where he taught political science. Before that time, he served as first lieutenant in the United States Air Force, and earned his doctoral degree at the University of Chicago, and wrote a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: The Philosophy of the American Constitution, On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence, and a Discourse on Statesmanship. Since then, he has written over 1,000 articles, policy papers, and books on Israeli, European, and American politics.

Obama Revelations Worthy of National Attention October 15, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, education, John McCain, news, politics.

Today, I was introduced to the writings of Burt Prelutsky, an L.A. Times Columnist, Hollywood playwright, and all-around nice guy–so he claims. The fact that he admits to marching to the tune of his dog Duke makes me a little suspicious. What can I say! Yet, if he is keeps in step with his wife’s marching orders, he probably stays out of the dog house. Hey! He said it not me.

So much for my introduction.

As mentioned above, I just finished reading Prelutsky’s latest Townhall column titled “If I Were John McCain.” In it, he advises McCain on he should defend his run for office against Barak Obama. While doing so, Prelutsky wrote:

If I were John McCain, I would skip the next debate. After those first two snooze festivals, nobody except maybe Bob Schieffer’s mother will be tuning in anyway. Instead, I would buy up an hour on all three networks. I would walk on stage and announce, “I’ve fired all my handlers. Anyone who needs to be told what to say and how to say it by a bunch of high-priced media wonks doesn’t deserve to be president of the United States.”

During the hour, Prelutsky believes McCain should introduce the members of his executive cabinet. Prelutsky advises McCain to announce to America that he commissions Attorney General Rudy Guiliani to investigate and indite anyone found to have played a role in the sub-prime scandal. This would be followed with bringing “RICO charges against ACORN for engaging in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to suborn the election process in America.”

Don’t you just love the way Prelutsky thinks?

Prelutsky thinks McCain should spend most of the hour exposing his opponents judgment. Here is what McCain should reveal:

Liberals are right about Barack Obama’s connections to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers and ACORN being nothing more or less than guilt by association. When a man is 47 years old and everyone and everything he’s been closely associated with, including even the church he attended for most of his adult life, is radical, corrupt or racist, most sensible Americans would agree … that it’s a pattern, and not mere partisanship.”

Proponents of Obama are right. Obama possesses the brilliance born of a con man. He has lied about his place of birth, his relationship with native-born terrorists William Ayers and Mrs. Ayers, who is an ex-member of the Weather Underground, and his relationship with Bernadine Dohrn. “For Obama to claim that Ayers was just a guy who happened to live in his neighborhood, a fellow he hadn’t realized was a role model for Timothy McVeigh, is such a blatant lie that it amazes me that anyone, even such pinheads as Alan Colmes, Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, is buying it.”

“[E]ven if Obama was a kid when Ayers, Dohrn and their pals were bombing or trying to bomb the Pentagon, the Capitol Building and a New York police station, Ayers is a famous guy in Chicago — and he never hid his light under a bushel, only his explosives.”

The problem with the Obama-Ayers relationship isn’t about what happened in the 1960s. The problem is the Ayer’s hosting the launching of Obama’s presidential campaign two years ago in his living room. The story that Obama only knew Ayers because both sat on several of the same corporate boards is therefore patently misleading.

Obama served as chairman a Chicago educational reform group called the Anneberg Challenge from 1996 to 2002. A community organizer turned educator, Ayers was among its founding members.

Did you catch the addirional connection between Obama and Ayers. Ayers was a community organizer long before Obama was mentored by him. Community organizer Ayers helped Obama become a good community organizer too.

Prelutsky offers further insight into inner circle’s uses of Anneberg’s multi-million dollar funds:

I have no idea how the Annenberg Foundation thought its money would be spent, but I doubt if the guy who made his fortune as the publisher of Seventeen and TV Guide, and was a pal of Ronald Reagan, had any idea that millions that were supposed to be used to improve Chicago’s schools would have some of it funneled off to Mike Klonsky, a founder of the Maoist Party of America; some to ACORN’s coffers; and some to Obama’s political war chest.

Even the money that theoretically went towards education was used by Ayers and Obama to promote their left-wing agenda. It was Ayers’ stated purpose that the schools infuse students and their parents with a radical political commitment that downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. Ayers, who got word of his first teaching job while in jail for leading a draft board sit-in, and who has proudly identified himself as “a radical leftist, a small ‘c’ communist,” has clearly defined his approach to education: “Teachers should be community organizers dedicated to providing resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Of course I’m not suggesting that just because Mr. Ayers hates our country and that, while discussing his past terrorist activity, said that his only regret is that he didn’t set off more bombs, we should assume the worst about Sen. Obama. After all, when they last sat on the Annenberg Challenge board together, Barack Obama was a mere tot, barely 40 years old.”

From community organizer, to educator, to Illinois legislator, to U.S. Senator, Obama’s path has been attended by anti-Americans of all kinds including anti-American Islamists, anti-American preachers, and domestic terrorists. A man with a few years of political experience want us to elect him in order to carry on the political of his friends, mentors, and other leftist associates ion Capitol Hill.

Obama’s campaign reminds about how Adolf Hitler came to power. Hitler was elected because of a number of factors. His backers were some of the richest people in Germany.He was brilliant speaker and a good organizer. His speaking ability was nearly matched by slick advertisements and propaganda against his opponents. He promised everyone something so that they would vote for him. Because Germany was experiencing serious economic crisis, Hitler’s economic solutions resonated with the masses.

Obama is also a brilliant speaker. He is backed by billionaire socialist George Soros, Warren Buffet, Penny Pritzker, hedge fund executive Kenneth Griffin, hotel and casino resort developer Neil G. Bluhm, and foreigners like Syrian Antoin Rezko, Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi, and others. Obama’s propaganda against McCain, Bush, and the Republican party’s responsibility for the economic crisis is false. Much of the guilt belongs to leading Democrats like Dodds and Frank. Obama is making big promises to attract everyone and especially the largest group of Americans: the Middle Class.


Townhall.com September 13, 2008

Dorothy Schipps, et. al., The The Chicago Anneberg Challenge: TheFirst Three Years, Consortium on Chicago School Research, March 1999.

John D. Clare, “How was Hitler able to become Chancellor in January 1933?” at Greenfield History Site, Oct. 14, 2008

Corruption Chronicles 02/27/2008 and Washington Post April 11, 2008

McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie October 13, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in economy, John McCain, news, politics.
add a comment

Sen. John McCain’s 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as Human Events learned from the letter shown in full text below.

McCain’s letter — signed by nineteen other senators — said that it was “…vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]…operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either…should fail.”

Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.

Click on the image for an enlarged image of the letter as provided by Human Events.

Obama fishing for votes: the art of bait and switch October 11, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, children, Democrats, family, health care, John McCain, Medicare/Medicaid, news, presidential election, Republicans, SCHIP, taxes, welfare.
1 comment so far

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary gives a two-part definition of the phrase bait and switch:

    1 : a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
    2 : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

Obama’s accusation that McCain’s health care plan is a bait and switch tactic is a classic example of part two. He claims McCain’s health care plan promises a $5,000 tax incentive to American families for the purchase of any health care coverage of their choice while at the same time taxing American consumers health care coverage.

Obama’s accurate depiction of a bait and switch scheme is impressive. However, he fails the honesty test when he claims McCain would tax individual Americans purchases of health care coverage. Obama tries to deceive America by suggesting that the money raised under McCain’s plan would be given directly to insurance companies as a tax increase. But, after reading McCain online counter argument, it appears McCain proposes to redirect current income taxes of individuals and families to help pay for their health care. Redirecting current income taxes payments for health insurance is not applicable to the uninsured. That is why McCain also proposes a non-profit state-based program to fund adequate health care for the uninsured. Such a plan conforms to the Constitution’s ideal of state republicanism as opposed to national welfare socialism.

Underlying Obama’s health care plan is the typical ploy of liberals: Whatever they accuse their opponents of is usually what they are guilty of themselves. This is no less true of his plan for universal health care. He preaches help for the middle class just as liberals before him did for the poor. While helping the poor into welfare dependency, liberals increased federal power over both the states and the lives of the poor. Maybe that is why many poor Americans refuse to deal with the socialist welfare system including applying for the States Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or other Medicare programs.

What Obama does tell the middle class is that much of his health care plan is based on ferociously non-bipartisan Democrats plan for SCHIP, which was originally a Republican program to help low-income parents provide adequate health care for their children. As all other welfare programs, it did not end up just helping poor children, but also adults and even middle-income wage earners. That is why Democrats want Obama in office. They need a liberal in office in order to make the middle class welfare dependents too.

How Democrats propose to pay for SCHIP is by greatly increasing taxes on tobacco. Studies by the Center for Disease Control reveal that a majority of tobacco users are among the low-income population.

I hope that you can see where I’m going with this. The Obama-Democrat Party plan is an even better at bait and switch than McCain. By comparison, McCain really has failed in his purported bait and switch efforts. Unlike McCain’s plan, Obama’s will lead to taxing the poor to pay for the children of middle-income families’ health care. Should most of the poor quit buying cigarettes and other tobacco products the federal government would have to raise Medicare taxes on all workers in order to pay for the additional SCHIP deficits.

The only reasonable conclusion is Obama and his liberal supporters have increasing the power of government and its benefactors over the American people in view. It may not be good for freedom and independence, but as CNN and WTOP reports claim, it would be cheaper than McCain’s plan at least in the short term. A WTOP report claims taxes under McCain would be several hundred dollars greater than under Obama for a family of four with an annual income of $100,000. Yet, that same family would get about $2,000 in tax refund applicable to health care coverage under McCain’s plan. CNN reports that the total annual costs of Obama’s health care plan would be $65 billion per year and McCain’s $360,000 billion. But again, once the federal government has to pay for all of SCHIP and most of the middle class health care, the annual costs would likely exceed those of the McCain plan.

I said most of the middle class would eventually be covered by federal health care because Medicare would be cheaper than private provider plans. That might even be the case with a more efficient and competitive health care market. As Wal-Mart put many local family retailers, a big federal insurance program would eventually put individual health care providers out of the capitalism business. Just as Wal-Mart offered products that were cheaper but not better, federal health care would not be better or more convenient, which has been proven by other nations with universal health care. Knowing how much more the federal government often pays for products and services it’s conceivable that government-run health care would eventually cost more than before.

The cost not calculable in dollars is the additional loss independence and freedom both of individuals and their states.


Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online

Southern Ledger October 4, 2008

John McCain’s Campaign Website

CNN News April 29, 2008

WTOP News September 16, 2008