SPONSORED BY:

Spread the Tax Hooey!

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Say It Ain't So!
The Hank Williams ad says that "congressional liberals want to increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars." (The other ad uses almost identical wording.) In this case, "congressional liberals" seem to be standing in for Obama, judging from the back-up material sent to us by the McCain team. And this is an old claim, based on the McCain campaign's estimate that the cost of Obama's various proposals would be $860 billion (the ad rounds the figure up rather, um, liberally).

It's certainly true that Obama proposes large new spending programs, while McCain proposes large but unspecified spending cuts. But the trillion-dollar estimate (which would be spread over four years) doesn't factor in any of Obama's proposed savings or cuts. For example, he proposes to eliminate $15 billion per year in subsidies given to health insurance companies for Medicare Advantage programs, which are insurance plans offered by private companies as an alternative to traditional government-sponsored Medicare.

Outside analysts like the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have found that neither Obama nor McCain would come close to balancing the federal budget without additional spending cuts or tax increases that they have yet to specify.

Sources
Dann, Carrie. "McCain's tax evolution," FirstRead, MSNBC, 21 Oct. 2008.
Martin, Jonathan. "Hank Jr. takes to radio to hammer Obama on 'bitter'," Politico, 23 Oct. 2008.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 11:02:34 PM

    The problem with Obama is a simple one. One association does not a radical make. But in Obama's case, the list of left-wing radical mentors and associates is seemingly endless, (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi , etc., etc.) with a new revelation practically every day. With that trend, a picture begins to emerge, and that picture is that Obama is as steeped, not in just left-wing political thought, but in radical left-wing economic and race ideology, to the same extent that Pat Robertson was steeped in the ideology of the radical Religious Right. I would not have voted for Pat Robertson for dog catcher, and for similar reasons, I will not vote for Obama.

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 10:19:54 PM

    In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

    "And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

    Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
    See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

    Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

    See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

    Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

    See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
    And
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


    The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
    Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
    Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 6:31:20 PM

    Obama's plan for jobs on Pennsylvania, Virginia , West Virginia , Kentucky, Tennessee, and other states, and Obama's plan for dealing with the high cost of energy, including electricity generation.

    An audiotape of an interview Barack Obama did in January 2008 with The San Francisco Chronicle has surfaced in the final days of the presidential campaign. On the tape Obama tells the interviewer, . " so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. . . It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

    Now, why would Obama say that in San Francisco and not Pennsylvania? We have seen this before, yes? Something about guns and religion.

    And why did Newsweek take their story on the Pennsylvania campaign down yesterday after this story broke?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.