Now that I’m more focused on preparing my own income taxes, some of the latest tax evasion scandals in the Obama Administration are even more frustrating. I think the two political cartoons below put the sins of Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner into a more proper perspective. It does seem that those with political connections are held to a lower standard than “the rest of us” who make the country work. What think you?

(Click images to enlarge)

As I noted in my polling post yesterday, we are witnessing an unprecedented amount of pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media. The bias is so widespread that in many circles it has become politically incorrect to even voice support for John McCain. This peculiar political scenario reminds me of the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Danish poet Hans Christian Andersen.

As the story goes, the emperor cares about little more than clothing and always wants to wear the best in the land. One day he is approached by two swindlers who promise him the finest suit from the most beautiful and amazing fabric in the world. This fabric, the emperor is told, is visible to only the wise. In short, anyone who is either stupid or unfit will not be able to see the fabric.

The weak-minded emperor is flattered by the swindlers and, when shown the magical “fabric” does not want to admit he cannot see it. So, to not appear stupid or unfit as emperor, he vainly pretends the fabric is beautiful and authorizes the suit be made at once. Similarly, none of the emperor’s ministers want to appear unfit or stupid so they also pretend to see the fabric and proclaim their admiration.

After much supposed labor, the swindlers tell the emperor that the suit is finished. The emperor, still not admitting he cannot see a stitch of clothing, is “dressed” in the suit. Those around him applaud and gush over the tailors’ workmanship and how good it looks on the emperor. The emperor in his vanity enjoys the attention and proceeds to parade through the capital in a special procession to show off his new “clothes” that only the wise can see. Everyone in the kingdom succumbs to the pressure to not appear stupid. They lavish admiration for the beautiful “clothing” that is fit only for the emperor.

During the parade, however, a small child cries out, “But he has nothing on!” At that moment the crowd no longer withholds their better judgment and admits that the child told the truth — the emperor really is wearing no clothes! The emperor, though, not admitting his foolishness, holds his head high and continues to proceed through the town without clothing.

I feel this nearly 200-year old fairy tale fits our times very well. I offer the following analogy: The emperor is Barack Obama who has been swindled into thinking he is “the change we can believe in” and a few other foolish, empty campaign slogans.

The mainstream news media, much like the emperor’s ministers, don’t want to appear foolish in front of the emperor since he has a rock star-like following among the young and the elite. Instead of researching the fabric (and noting its flaws, including lack of executive experience, radical associations, ACORN fraud, “spread the wealth around” socialism, give 95% a tax cut when only 65% pay any income taxes lie, etc.), the media swoons over the emperor’s fabric and overlooks the obvious. Meanwhile, they busy themselves microscopically researching the fabric worn by John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and others not associated with the emperor.

The American people, not wanting to appear stupid, feel compelled to go along with the adoring ministers (mainstream media) and likewise admire the fabric. In droves they also overlook its obvious flaws and enthusiastically proclaim its greatness. When asked, however, few can explain why they like the fabric. Instead they loudly proclaim that we need the emperor because he talks so well and looks so good to the world. Besides, what he is wearing doesn’t matter.

The rest of this analogy will be written on November 4th. Hopefully a child will step forward and tell the voting crowds that the emperor has no clothes on. When the crowds hear that child will they open their self-imposed blinded eyes and admit that Obama is an empty suit and unfit to serve as President? Only then, when voters realize the emperor is naked, will it be politically correct to oppose Barack Obama.

Let me clearly state that I don’t like or approve of the recent federal intervention in the United States economy. Government policy over the past three decades, pushed to extremes by left-leaning and radical groups like ACORN and using the Community Reinvestment Act, created the corrupt lending environment that was exploited by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to produce the toxic mortgage situation in which we find ourselves. So, since government is primarily responsible for this crisis, why should we then trust government to fix the problem they created?

This unfavorable economic environment is not a shortcoming of capitalism. It is a direct result of government manipulation within our economy for the benefit of a few people. Sometimes manipulation gives an unfair advantage to the rich and sometimes the poor. In this current environment, those who should not get a loan it were encouraged to borrow beyond their means.  While historically no bank would loan money under such terms, Fannie and Freddie created an unnatural market for banks to offload risky mortgages. The result was the poisoning of our entire financial system.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the federal government stepped in and removed even more of our individual freedoms and made our economic system less of a capitalistic one and more like a planned economy under socialism. To give you an idea of the extent of the change, we’re now talking about the government owning or nationalizing large portions of our banking system. We’re also talking about government confiscating taxpayer money to buy up and refinance failing mortgages. We’re also talking about government, not shareholders, owners or investors, telling companies how much they can pay their employees and how to run their businesses. Sounds more like the old Soviet Union than what the Founding Fathers set up, doesn’t it?

This is an extremely dangerous precedent that will severely damage our economy in the long run. It makes the American taxpayer the ultimate holder of risks that the market should allocate to willing investors. It also gives government enormous control over our economy, our money and our everyday lives. In effect, a government bureaucrat will soon be deciding who can borrow, how much they can borrow and under what terms. In the name of fairness and environmentalism, other factors will probably be imposed later like how large our house can be and whether we really need what we can afford.

Instead of the massive bailout that was adopted, I wish government had essentially stepped out of the picture and removed as many of the artificial market distortions imposed on our economy as possible. True, those who foolishly risked assets would go bankrupt but those assets would not disappear (yes, all those over-mortgaged houses would not evaporate into thin air and people would still have places to live). Instead, those assets and failing institutions would be transferred to their creditors who would carry on the business of finding renters and owners for them. The system would have adjusted and done so relatively quickly compared to this permanent fix imposed by the government.

Furthermore, such a capitalist move would have injected more fairness and rational decision-making into our economic system instead of advancing our nation down the slippery slope of socialism. Power corrupts. Whether power is concentrated in the hands of government or unfair markets, it still corrupts. The best fix would have been for government to ensure that free markets existed and then to step back and let the incredibly creative innovations of the American people solve the crisis.

In conclusion, the current economic crisis was caused by government intervention in the first place and will not be fixed by yet another bigger government intervention. It is utter foolishness to grant government more power to tinker with our economy. It is especially dangerous to further empower those same forces who pushed the radical agenda that first took our government down the destructive path of socialism decades ago. Furthermore, I’m also very troubled by the lack of real resistance to this massive erosion of our precious American freedoms.

After watching three debates and many speeches, we all know John McCain is not an eloquent speaker. His mannerisms sometimes appear strained, partly due to torture-related injuries received decades ago as a prisoner of war, and partly because he is not as refined as his opponent. However, in this election we’re choosing a leader, not a celebrity spokesman, and so those cosmetic factors should be of little concern given the grave issues we face as a nation.

With that in mind, there are at least 10 things I’d like to see John McCain address everyday on the campaign stump.  If he will fully embrace and show energy and emotion on these ten populist issues, I feel the election will be his to lose. However, if he won’t actively campaign on them, then he will be defined by his opponent and will miss the chance to paint Barack Obama as the extreme liberal he really is. Apart from a strong stance on these issues, the race will degenerate into a popularity contest for which McCain cannot win.

Here are 10 things I’d like to see McCain embrace in his campaign:

1.  Fighting pork and cutting government spending.

Obama likes to accuse McCain of using a hatchet instead of a scalpel when McCain proposes a broad spending freeze. If I were McCain I’d welcome that accusation and say “Just a hatchet? Give me a chain saw.” The simple truth is you cannot cut much with a scalpel but you can cut vast quantities more with a larger tool. Government has so much pork and excessive spending that we need a chainsaw to cut it all out.

2. Support for the War and the need to kill terrorists.

National security is still the President’s number one task.  McCain should talk daily about his successes in this area and drive home the need for a competent Commander in Chief who supports winning the War and not just withdrawing. The same should be said about Iran and their support of terrorism. Iran must also be stopped in their efforts to enrich uranium and make nuclear weapons. This is a serious international problem that the next President will have to deal with.

3. The Supreme Court.

The next President is likely to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices as well as scores of federal judges. These are lifetime appointments. McCain says he will nominate strict constructionists. Obama supports those who will legislate from the bench. Need I say more?

4. Abortion and the right to life.

Embracing a culture of life is critical to the survival of our nation. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade is equivalent to exterminating more than the entire population of California. To kill that many Americans today would mean that more than 13 out of every 100 of us would have to die.  Protecting life should be talked about everyday by a candidate who believes a baby’s human rights begin at conception.

5. Support for traditional marriage.

A huge majority of Americans are in favor of protecting marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Obama wants to redefine and distort the definition of marriage to include same gender arrangements. Americans need to know about this massive difference between the candidates.

6. Obama’s radical friends and associations.

Obama has a history of incredibly poor judgment in the area of his friends and associations. There are so many long-term radical associations in his past that it is hard to believe him when he claims that he is not a radical himself. Americans deserve to know the full story about William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko and ACORN to name just a few examples.

7. Oil and energy.

Drill here, drill now. Build more nuclear power plants. Develop more energy sources. We need to treat our lack of a viable energy policy as a national emergency and work to become energy independent ASAP.

8. Taxes and the economy.

With his “spread the wealth around” Marxist philosophy, Obama must be stopped before he transforms the American tax code into one that resembles a communist system.  Obama’s promise to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when only about 65% pay any income taxes amounts to such a system. Americans must be told the truth until it hits home.

9. Dangers posed by Russia and China.

Russia and China have been flexing their military muscles in more aggressive patterns over the past few years. We need a President who is willing to confront them, stare them down, and put them in their place when they bully other nations.

10. Name names and push a reform agenda now.

John McCain needs to live up to his nickname as The Sheriff and aggressively take on corrupt interests — especially Democrats in Washington — and those who led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac down the path of corruption. McCain called for reforms of Fannie and Freddie years ago but few know that.  During that time, Obama, on the other hand, was taking huge sums in campaign contributions from these corrupt organizations. McCain needs to name names and push a strong reform agenda now.

I think if McCain aggressively addressed these ten areas he would win a landslide victory. Most voters are looking for a leader who will leave them alone to pursue the American dream, will take on the bad guys, and will protect our national interests and traditional values. John McCain needs to hurry up, step up to the plate and build the case that he is just that leader.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. He is a Libertarian and was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan. His commentary, entitled Bankruptcy, Not Bailout, is the Right Answer, was published today at CNN.com and the American Future Fund, an organization that advocates conservative, free market ideals.

The latest bailout plan that was voted down yesterday would have authorized $700 billion for the U.S. Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from Wall Street financial institutions. Miron argues that this bailout proposal was a “terrible idea” and explains why. First, however, he explains how we got ourselves into this mess.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

After pinning the blame squarely on failed government policy, Miron correctly reasons that it is unwise to let government do more of the same in the name of recovery.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

Miron then builds a case for allowing financial institutions to declare bankruptcy which would mean their creditors would own the remaining assets.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

He argues that bankrupcy is superior to a government bailout because it punishes foolishness and protects taxpayers.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This “moral hazard” generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.

Miron admits that this process would be ugly and could make the credit situation worse before we would see improvement. However, he argues that “talk of Armageddon” is “ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.”

Miron also suggests that the current credit freeze conditions we’re seeing is “likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.” I agree that good market-based alternatives are probably being overlooked in the hopes of a more favorable (in the short run, at least) government rescue.

So that’s the problem. Now for the solution. What should government do? Miron writes:

Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

Miron concludes that someone will have to pay for these mistakes but it does not have to be the U.S. taxpayer. I couldn’t agree more.

I don’t trust the government to fix this mess when their non-market-based policies were what created the problem. Undoubtedly any bailout plan would be filled with unnecessary spending and loaded with benefits for special interests. No big government, no bailout!

Think about this with me for a minute if you would. The government is asking us taxpayers to hand over $700 billion more dollars on top of the $2+ trillion we already give them (or they obligate us with in the form of debt). That’s an enormous amount of money.

Today there is an Associated Press article that looks at what just how big $700 billion is compared to other spending. I quote some of the article below:

You could buy yourself a war with that kind of money – the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations so far.

You could match Franklin Roosevelt on his New Deal and raise him billions more.

Even in a town where billions come and go without anyone blinking, the money that could go into the Wall Street rescue is eye-popping. The House on Monday voted down a proposed $700 billion bailout package, but congressional leaders said they were committed to trying again.

What else could the government do with a $700 billion blank check? There are, well, billions of possibilities.

It could ensure universal health care coverage for six years, for example, or upgrade the country’s most deficient bridges four times over. All the work to upgrade coastal levees that’s been done since Hurricane Katrina? It’s a mere drop in the proverbial $700 billion bucket – $7 billion, or just 1 percent. You could build 1,750 bridges to nowhere.

Or run an entire country. Seven hundred billion dollars is more than twice the size of the economy of Denmark, which had a gross domestic product of $312 billion in 2007.

Seven hundred billion dollars would buy 70 Hubble-type space telescopes. Or about seven international space stations. It would finance the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s premier medical research institute, for two decades. Or pay the U.S. national intelligence budget for 15 years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, half the money FDR spent on his New Deal program to lift the country out of the Depression and banking crisis was for public works projects. For $250 billion in today’s dollars, the nation got 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings and 72,000 schools.

The article provides even more examples but I think you get the picture. My question for the government is simple: You created this problem so why should I trust you to fix it with more government?

Remember this simple fact whenever a political candidate or government official tells you he or she will give you something: Government does not have anything to give that it does not first take from somebody else.

It’s an axiomatic truth that our government cannot give us anything unless it first takes it from somebody else. In order for government to own something, it has to take money (taxes) or property (via a legal provision known as eminent domain) from citizens. Once taken, it is then considered “government property.”

Simply put, government extracts resources from producers (ex: income tax, corporate taxes) and spenders (ex: sales tax) to fill the public treasury. That is necessary and proper for legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution and provided for by law. However, some political candidates and government officials have the audacity to go beyond that and say they’re going to give us something out of the public treasury. That’s such a lie! It’s not theirs to give. Even a tax cut is not giving us something — it’s simply taking less of something that was ours to start with.

The bottom line: It’s our money that they’re spending in Washington! The same is true for our state capitol, city hall, county courthouse, school district or whatever level of government. Think about this next time you vote.

The National Taxpayers Union and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation prepared some easy-to-read tables entitled “Who Pays Income Taxes?” for tax years 1999-2006 using Internal Revenue Service data. According to them, the top 1% of income earners in 2006 paid 39.89% of all personal income taxes while the bottom 50% of income earners paid just 2.99% of all personal income taxes. Let me restate the obvious for 2006: 1% of Americans paid 40% of all personal income taxes while the bottom half of income earners paid just 3% of all personal income taxes. Put another way, the top half of all income earners paid 97% of all personal income taxes in 2006.

This same group analyzed “Who Doesn’t Pay Taxes” and reported the numbers for tax years 2003-2005 using Internal Revenue Service data. In 2005, there were 134.4 million tax returns filed. Of them, 90.6 million were “paying returns” and 43.8 million “non-paying returns.” The percentage of tax returns where no taxes were paid was 32.6% of all returns. That means nearly 1/3 of all Americans didn’t pay any personal federal income taxes in 2005. That figure doesn’t mean they didn’t owe additional taxes, it means they didn’t owe ANY personal income taxes at all that year.  Their federal income tax liability was zero. If they had taxes withheld, they were due a refund.

The Tax Foundation’s Fiscal Fact No. 27 reports a similar finding on the number of Americans who are “outside the income tax system” and have “zero tax liability.” In other words, they pay no personal income taxes.  The latest figures on this report show that the number of people paying no personal income taxes grew under the Bush Presidency – 31.8% of Americans paid no personal income taxes in 2003 (which was up from 25.2% in 2000 under the Clinton tax increase code). In 2003, that was equal to more than 41 million tax returns with no tax liability whatsoever.

[Note that during the Clinton years about 1/4 of all Americans paid no income taxes. Contrast that with the Bush years when even more paid no taxes -- about 1/3 of all Americans paid no income taxes. The Bush tax cuts actually increased the number of Americans who paid no personal federal income taxes and shifted a greater portion of the overall tax burden on higher income earners.]

My question is this: If almost 1/3 of Americans don’t pay personal income taxes to the federal government, then how is Barack Obama going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut as he promised?  How do you reduce nothing?  Can you tax somebody less next year if they are paying no taxes now?  How can 95% of Americans get a tax cut when only about 65% pay taxes?

It simply doesn’t make sense and that concerns me because it suggests something very damaging to our economy and personal freedoms could occur in the name of a “tax cut.” We’ve already seen small “refund” payments made to zero liability tax return filers in the name of tax cuts or rebates. Could Obama be planning to expand on this redistribution scheme in the name of “tax cuts”?

Let’s go over this again: zero minus something equals a negative number. The only way to deal with a negative number and balance the tax books is for the government to pay those whose tax rates are negative with money taken from those whose tax rates are positive.  Does that mean that Obama is going to take money from the “rich” and give it to the “poor” so they can get their promised “tax cut”? If that’s the case then Obama’s “Robin Hood” tax plan would result in a massive and damaging redistribution of wealth.

I say Robin Hood because as the medieval Robin Hood story suggests, Robin Hood took from the rich to give to the poor who were being oppressed (overtaxed) by a corrupt and rich king. If I am right about Obama’s plan, it would actually turn the Robin Hood story on its head with the rich being overtaxed by a corrupt government to pay the poor. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t such an economic redistribution scheme amount to pure communism?

Note: For an interesting case against the Obama tax plan from a small business perspective see “An Argument Against Obama’s Tax Plan” by Grover G. Norquist (7/11/08, Politico.com).

A liberal friend asked me to read an article entitled “Insanity” by DarkSyde at The Daily Kos and pointed out that he thinks it pretty much sums up how most liberals feel about the past 8 years and what this election is about.  I found the article cleverly written and coming from an unusual angle.  It made me stop and think because on a foundational level I actually agree with a some of the broad assessments made in this article even though many of them are grossly exaggerated.

Republicans are often blamed for all the nation’s problems of the past 8 years. I concur that the GOP has been part of the problem for 4 of the past 8 years; however, remember, the Senate was evenly divided when Bush was elected and then 1 GOP member switched to Independent and caucassed with the Democrats so the GOP didn’t control both houses until 2003 and then lost in 2007 after the 2006 election cycle. In fairness to Republicans though, during the 4 years of complete GOP control, Democrats have blocked and/or watered-down virtually all Republican proposed solutions to the problems this article blames them for.

However, in spite of the problems, the overall issue is bigger than simply who controls Washington. The underlying problem in Washington, as I see it, is systemic and part of human nature. It’s something our Founding Fathers were aware of and repeatedly divided government in an attempt to mitigate. It’s simply this: Power corrupts. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that both parties are now corrupt. That doesn’t mean that all members in both parties are corrupt but that the system is corrupt with power. There’s a creeping loss of individual rights and personal liberty every year regardless of which party is in power.

So that brings me to my next point. Since both parties are corrupt and there’s no third party that stands a chance at winning this election cycle, what am I to do as a voter?  I feel I must take the path of less damage and that’s why I am going with the Republican Party.  Most everything listed in the “Insanity” article would have occurred regardless of who was in power — 9/11, the mortgage crisis, a weak economy, Wall Street corruption, etc.; however, each party responds to these problems differently. While both parties continue to pass legislation that reduces my individual liberties and erodes my rights, I feel the Democrats are more restrictive and erode them faster.  For example, I’m a business owner and employer. Democrats want to tell me how to hire and fire and what kind of pay and benefits I have to offer my employees. Republicans restrict my ownership rights in these areas also but not as much. Democrats go so far as to try to require faith-based organizations like churches to hire people who hold beliefs contrary to the positions the church espouses (imagine being forced to hire an atheist for a church outreach program).

Both parties take huge amounts of taxes, but Democrats are more greedy with my money than Republicans.  Both parties create ridiculous “entitlement” programs but Democrats create more and bigger ones.  And on issues of national security, do you really think the defense-cutting Democrats would do a better job protecting us from the “fundamentalist Sunni Monarchs and the communist Chinese” as the “Insanity” article blames Republicans for turning our national economic future over to? (I have an answer for dealing with the Sunni Monarchs: Drill Here! Drill Now! but that’s for another article.)

The shipping of jobs oversees has been going on for decades and didn’t slow down under Democratic Presidents Carter or Clinton.  If the Democrats succeed in taxing corporations for “excessive profits” that will force them to leave our borders — it’s like killing the goose who lays the golden egg. The result would be reduced overall tax revenues and a weaker economy as more jobs are lost.

The article concludes with “Conservatives are worried that Democrats might do the same astonishingly lousy job Republicans have done for the last eight years.”  Actually, I’m concerned that the Democrats’ overall job performance would be far worse than the poor one performed by recent Republicans. This constant concern is one reason why I actually have some excitement about the McCain/Palin ticket since both have proven records of taking on corrupt government and private interests including ones in their own party.  Can the Obama/Biden ticket demonstrate taking on their own party ever for anything?

I think there will be less government growth under a McCain administration than an Obama administration. We don’t need more and bigger government and so I will vote against its expansion whenever I can.

Note: In this post I’m ignoring a host of social issues that also put me more in line with the Republican Party. That’s for another article and another day.

What follows is kind of a “stream of consciousness” rant based on my reactions from Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech last night during the Democratic National Convention.

After Obama’s speech last night I was very disappointed in him. Honestly, I saw the night as historic and wanted to enjoy the moment 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I expected to hear an uplifting speech that talked about the greatness of America. In spite of my reservations regarding Obama’s vision and viewpoints on many issues, I was prepared to take pride in the process and a nation that could overcome slavery and racial prejudice to consider a minority for the highest office in the land. However, in spite of my best intentions, Obama turned me off and actually made me angry.

For starters, you can’t give 95% of families a tax cut when a huge percentage of them pay nothing in taxes. He simply lied since it’s impossible. How can you cut somebody’s taxes who doesn’t pay taxes? Obama likes to criticize George W. Bush but at least Bush told the truth when he said everybody who paid taxes would get a tax cut. If elected, Obama will have to cut taxes on “the rich” to even partially keep that 95% pledge. (See here for a chart breaking down who pays taxes — note the bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 3% of federal income taxes and the top 1% pay almost 40%!)

You can’t tax the rich enough to pay for and simultaneously grow the economy enough to do everything Obama promised last night. What I heard was old-fashioned, liberalism politics as usual and I hated it.  He painted a very dark and exaggerated picture of my country and then promised to fix it.  Remember all the “I will” statements?  It’s not his money to spend as he sees fit. And then there was that crazy political promise to end our dependency on foreign oil in 10 years while only hinting at the possibility of drilling. That’s impossible unless we rapidly increase supply or remove about half the cars in the country.

As a small business owner I shuddered to think of what he’s planning to do to people who produce goods and services and hire others.  He can paint a sad picture of people losing their jobs from being sick, etc. but it’s not business’ responsibility to hire people. That’s a by-product. It’s business’ responsibility to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations to their customers. We all don’t like delays. Take an airline, for example. A pilot or mechanic or whatever cannot continually not show up for work, whatever the good reasons may be, and expect to keep his or her job.  It’s not the airline’s responsibility to protect his or her job. It’s their responsibility to fly people safely.

How is Obama going to fix all those human problems he mentioned and promised to address without taking away my freedoms to spend my money, hire as I wish, and live life as I choose?  He was talking lies and socialism. I was so disappointed. For most of this election cycle I actually wanted him to win over Hilary but I found my respect for her grow (very little I might add but in comparison to Obama it was growth) as his speech went on. I kept thinking “how are you going to do that?” — especially in a free society. I don’t want to be Sweden or even Canada. It’s not the federal government’s job to be everybody’s safety net — let the states and local governments (or faith groups) do that if they choose but don’t make me pay for another botched bureaucracy.

We already have universal healthcare — have you ever seen somebody turned away from a hospital?  I’ve never been asked for money up front and still get good treatment. Why should I ask the government to get involved and further mess that arrangement up?  What has the federal government done, really, to improve anything on a national level like education or healthcare that couldn’t have been done better on the local level if the resources were available? Instead, the federal government takes local resources in the form of huge taxes and then politically spends them with lots of waste and bumbling. The local level is left to fight for the scraps with the hope that our “guys in Washington” bring some largess back to us.  It’s madness. Let’s skip the middleman and avoid the federal feeding frenzy.

Let the federal government do their Constitutional requirements and leave the state/local governments to the rest.  Why don’t the liberals complain about the abuse of the Constitution by the trampling of states rights?  I’m really angry about this and very frustrated at Obama’s squandering of his Convention. I had hope for the Democratic Party and was excited about the prospects of post-racial politics but instead I saw politics as usual. I’m willing to trust a maverick McCain and a non-Washington insider hockey mom who has shown success on the state and local level and who knows what it is like to have a son deployed to Iraq, to have 5 kids, to have owned/operated a business, to have a child with special needs, and to succeed in spite of all those things. I’m ready for change but it’s not coming from Obama/Biden (who in spite of what they say vote about 90% of the time with McCain since most Senate votes are nearly unanimous for naming post offices and other almost meaningless things).

This brings me to my final rant. When will the Democratic Party stop emphasizing the single mom without healthcare and talk about “normal people” like me?  When will they highlight somebody who actually has a traditional family and works and achieves something?  When will the Democrats care about those who take risks and succeed and pay taxes and produce and hire other people and then stay up at night figuring out how to make payroll and quarterly taxes and workman’s comp, etc. and hope there is enough after all the bills to pay themselves? I’m tired of hearing about victims all the time and not at least occasionally about people who make the country work. Even those rare Democratic examples of success are somehow made into victims. Our troops are mentioned and then simultaneously matched in the same sentence with some kind of combat stress disorder. The truck driver is lauded for owning his own truck finally but yet he has no health insurance.  What about the truck driver who is successful because he lives in America? What about the military hero who beat the enemy and adjusted well to society and is now a successful airline pilot or football coach?  What about what’s good with America?  Why can’t we be proud of success and wealth instead of lowering the bar and taking from the rich to give to the poor?

I want everyone to succeed and be rich. Remove the barriers and let people innovate and succeed. When they do they hire others and pay taxes and lift their communities, states and ultimately the nation. Let’s be excited about our opportunities and aim for the stars!