Perhaps Barack should read the WSJ regularly--after all, Hillary merely claimed to have read the Journal and she made a killing in cattle futures--maybe then he wouldn't have had to rely on Tony Rezko for real estate advice, and would avoid making dubious pronouncements on the economy, (most recently in an interview with Maria Bartiromo). The WSJ takes Obama to the woodshed, pointing out an increase in the capital gains rate has led to a decrease in tax revenues, and this:
As for Mr. Obama's implication that capital gains remain the privilege of the wealthy well, that's yesterday. In recent decades, the U.S. has become a shareholder society, and average Americans increasingly rely on investment income to save for retirement or even to pay bills.In 2005, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, 8.5 million households paid taxes on capital gains. A hefty 47% of those tax filers reported income of less than $50,000, while 79% had income under $100,000. Keep in mind that capital gains themselves count as income and often are a one-time windfall from the sale of a small business or long-held stock. These working families would suffer a double whammy, both with a higher tax rate and lower stock prices – because financial markets factor higher taxes on stock profits into lower stock valuations.
So much for a taste of Obamaconomics. But let's look Obama's liberal model, his friend Deval Patrick's Massachusetts, left to him in decent shape by the previous Gov. Mitt Romney. The Weekly Standard, "The Politics of Hope, Take One":
Patrick is committed to big government and has proposed billions in new spending, including a billion-dollar giveaway to biotech companies, a new $1.4 billion commuter rail line, numerous multibillion-dollar bond bills, and a proposal to make Massachusetts community colleges tuition-free. To raise cash, he has proposed increasing business taxes, allowing the commonwealth to increase borrowing, and opening state-run casinos--the last overwhelmingly rejected by the legislature in March. His January budget plan uses nearly $500 million from the commonwealth's rainy day fund and includes a $1.3 billion structural deficit--after a year of record tax receipts.As we know, despite Ted Kennedy's endorsement, Obama lost the Massachusetts Dem primary. Patrick's ultra-liberal performance might have had something to do with it. And here in his home state of Illinois, Obama is part of the same failed Dem machine politics that have brought the state to its knees.
Interestingly, in Pennsylvania Obama may not see the heavy turn out in young voters that he has relied on in other states, so Hillary may still pull out a decent victory, even though the polls have shown the race tightening. But both candidates may hope Hillary stays in the race for a while--Obama to distract from close scrutiny of his record, as Hillary makes missteps--Tuzla, tax returns, and Hillary to capitalize on doubts about Obama's electability and his unsavory friends--Rezko and the Rev. Wright.
UPDATE: Excellent point by Jerry Bowyer, Townhall, "How 'Community Organizers' Like Obama Created the Subprime Crisis":
...he went to work for the New York branch of the Public Interest Research Group. PIRG is one of those left of center activist groups who, among other things, uses the legitimate concept of 'fair housing' to force banks into making bad loans. PIRG has actively lobbied for a stronger (yes, you guessed it) Community Reinvestment Act.And one of the "fair housing advocates" he met was a real estate slumlord, uh developer named Tony Rezko. Novak on our wannabe fearless leader Obama's dance on guns. Salon covers the Dem primary race that never ends, "Obama in suspended animation":According to his bio, and accounts from friends, Obama became an expert in real estate law and fair housing while working as a community organizer and public interest lawyer. This is especially the case during his Chicago period.
After all, never in modern political history has a candidate in Clinton's predicament -- trailing, but having won more than 45 percent of the delegates in the primaries and caucuses -- not taken the fight all the way to the convention floor.Now some Dems are making the argument that if the Dems had a system that made sense, like the Republicans:), Hillary would be ahead. This is presumably the argument for her to go on if she doesn't win the popular vote, which looks increasingly unlikely. But are the Dems running out of money? WSJ: Rev. Wright not behind Obama:
"It has not been defused," says David Parker, a North Carolina Democratic Party official and unpledged superdelegate. He says his worries about Republicans questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism prompted him to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s remarks in conversations with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.I would add two things--Al Gore first brought up Willie Horton against Dukakis. Blaming Republicans is not going to wash--Dems always try to blame us for airing their dirty laundry, but Obama has only himself to blame for his 20 year association with the hate-spewing Wright. HT RCP Blog."I'm concerned about seeing Willie Horton ads during the general election," Mr. Parker says, referring to campaign ads that Republicans widely credited for helping defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. Mr. Parker said the Wright controversy didn't hurt his opinion of Mr. Obama.
UPDATE: AP: Obama Seeks to Affirm Patriotism, dateline Butte, Montana. HT Hugh Hewitt... and in liberal Seattle Obama supporter boo pledge of Allegiance. Michelle Malkin.
Posted by Anne Leary on April 7, 2008 5:40 AM
| Permalink
Comments (4)
The economic concerns you and the WSJ articulate so well are a far better argument against Obama than the criticisms of Rev. Wright. If Obama is going to be beaten in the national election it will be because his proposed policies and platform can be shown to be flawed not because he has unsavory and foolish friends.
Posted by Jeremy | April 7, 2008 8:48 AM
Posted on April 7, 2008 08:48
Well, you make a good point. Of course most of his positions are indistinguishable from Hillary's, so if you view these as personal issues (which the Dems'destructive and wrongheaded identity politics encourage) rather than character issues then they won't be at issue in the general election. So yes, of course Obama's liberalism on the economy and other issues will be under assault from Republicans in the general election.
But I would also argue that his long pattern of deliberately associating with extremist liberal figures, not just Wright, but Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and his very questionable friendship with Tony Rezko, his corrupt money man go to the basic question of Obama's judgment, which he has cited as his primary rebuttal for his lack of experience.
And since polling shows at least for now, that on the issues a majority of Americans prefer the Dems, then we need the argument of character, judgment and leadership on our side, where McCains holds the advantage.
Posted by Anne Leary | April 7, 2008 9:37 AM
Posted on April 7, 2008 09:37
The bummer of it is that character seems to be the only real issue in the upcoming election since McCain is so close to being a Democrat as far as policy issues are concerned.
No Democratic candidate is going to end our commitment in Iraq (a good thing) and no Republican is going to slow the ever increasing growth of malignant government meddling in our economy. It has been hard to fight the feeling that national politics just don't matter that much.
Posted by Jeremy | April 7, 2008 12:08 PM
Posted on April 7, 2008 12:08
Time to reiterate some polling truths--the national polls have historically always integrated an 8-15% overstatement when compared to actual results. The reason is pretty straightforward--large number of self-identifying Democrats simply don't vote. I have a number of opinions as to why this is so, but they are generally not complimentary of Democrats.
Jeremy's comment is related peripherally to what I've noted about the polls. The public's apathy has created self-perpetuating institutions of varying effectiveness and desirability. While the president does matter (look at the impact the Bush presidency has had...), the public matters even more--except when they are AWOL.
I observe that the earmark positions of McCain and Obama have been affected by a grassroots campaign. In the final analysis, if one would like to do some good in the country, stay out of politics and work to energize the public behind important issues. We simply have to ride herd on these bastards until they do the right thing.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | April 7, 2008 12:26 PM
Posted on April 7, 2008 12:26