, , , , , , ,

Barack Obama is running a campaign of CHANGE. Change in tactics, change in policies, and change in your wallet. You see, you hand Barack Obama a dollar and all you’ll get is CHANGE back. Senator Obama would like for you to believe that he’s fiscally responsible. After 4 years of an Obama presidency, I believe he would be responsible… for the most socialistic policies ever seen before in the US. Here’s an excerpt from his website:

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

  • End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
  • Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

Doesn’t that SOUND responsible? What does it actually mean in reality? Ending tax haven abuse means that he will give billions of dollars to the Treasury Department (money paid into the Treasury by you and I) so that they can prosecute individuals and companies who use the antiquated laws of the tax code against itself. He’ll spend a dollar to get a quarter in return, but no one cares because we’ll have ended “ABUSE” (doesn’t that sound laudable?).

As for closing special interest loopholes, what he means is he’ll make sure that every company has to pay too much in taxes, not just yours. I just love his pro-growth monetary policies: growth of the Federal government’s reach into our lives and our wallets.

As for Senator Obama’s other fiscal policy positions such as cutting pork barrel spending, reinstating the PAYGO system (offsetting any spending increases with decreases elsewhere in the budget), and ending wasteful government spending… they all SOUND good. I agree with all of them in principle. But I think we have different definitions for each. Let’s look at the term WASTEFUL. To Barack Obama, the most liberal senator in Congress, he has yet to find a WASTEFUL government program, unless it involves military spending for our troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama is trying to masquerade as a fiscal conservative by “cutting pork barrel spending” and ending “wasteful government spending”. Fact of the matter is most government spending is wasteful. Any time the Imperial Federal government takes money from its citizens and gives it to other countries, people, races or genders, it’s a waste. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all wasteful government spending because they take the government $10 to do what the private sector can do for $1 and provide an inferior product. All three of those programs should be dismantled and the tax payers refunded their money with interest… heck, I’d even take it without interest as long as they don’t take any more.

According to Senator Obama, the Bush tax cuts are the reason for the national debt increasing. I disagree. Tax cuts never increase national debt. Spending is always the reason for any type of debt. For example, if I make $50,000 a year and my expenses are $45,000 per year, I have a $5,000 net profit. If I lose my job and get another job making $40,000 but continue to spend $45,000, would you say that my income is the reason for my debt? No, my spending should adjust to below my income. Debt is the result of spending more than you make, not making less than you spend. A person is considered irresponsible if he continues to spend more than he makes knowing that he doesn’t have the money to do so. The same goes for Congress. The reason for the national debt increase isn’t because the Federal government took in too little money, it’s because it spent more than it took in, whatever that amount may be. If they could control the spending, just like that single mom on a budget working at Applebee’s (you know the one they always use an example of why the minimum wage should be increased), then there wouldn’t be an increase in the national debt. I guarantee you there are a lot of single moms that could run the government budgets better than the blow-hards in Washington.

But Senator Obama wouldn’t just repeal the Bush tax cuts to cover the debt gap, as he wants you to believe. No, that would be responsible. He wants to fund a trillion dollar a year government healthcare plan with the “proceeds” from the increased taxes. The top 10% of earners which pay 90% of the taxes aren’t going to pay enough in taxes to turn around an $8.8 trillion deficit (as claimed by the Obama website) and fund a trillion dollar a year healthcare proposal. He also wants to use that “injection of capital” to fund “green collar jobs”, jobs created thru artificial government interference in the private sector marketplace as a way to lessen the effects of “climate change” and lower unemployment at the same time. He’s either naïve (which I don’t think he is) or he is deceiving all of those swooning at his rallies into believing he can actually pay for all of his proposals by merely taking more money from rich people. You can’t get blood out of a turnip.

So how does the national debt get paid down? The fact of the matter is it won’t. As long as there is more money in government coffers it will always be used to buy more votes for people who don’t pay money in thru programs like government healthcare and “green collar jobs”.

This country can’t afford to raise taxes on the “wealthy” while providing services for the “poor”, exacerbating the welfare mentality and bankrupting the nation. Raising taxes on the employers doesn’t produce more jobs, but less jobs. Giving more money to the poor doesn’t eliminate poverty, it increases it by incentivizing those in poverty not to pull themselves up at the price of hard work when for a lesser price one can get by on food stamps and government handouts. There was a time when people in this country didn’t want or expect a handout, it wasn’t the American way. 46% of the population, according to polls, now, apparently don’t have a problem with it. My, how times have changed.