The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance has undertaken the task of highlighting criticisms of the Obama ticket that the in-the-tank MSM works hard to downplay or outright ignore. The effort has been titled “Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now” (HOPE ON), and, in all, 13 installments will be rolled out for blog readers to peruse and reflect upon.
Here are my recaps of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9.
The Boring Made Dull has the scoop on Part 10. You can check out the video there or here. Obama claims there will be those in the middle class who get tax breaks, but he’s never actually voted that way in the U.S. Senate. Obama talk of federal initiatives and taxes make it sound as if the government creates wealth, but the government doesn’t. The people create the wealth of the nation, and tax policy must reflect that, but Obama’s principles don’t even acknowledge that.
From the Buckeye RINO standpoint:
John McCain has said that he will not raise taxes because he knows that it would hurt the economy’s recovery hopes. I have not dwelt too much the tax proposals of the presidential candidates, as I’m sure you’ve heard the talking points many times over. I have, however, said a few things about taxes relative to ethically challenged sub-prime lenders playing shell games in order to avoid paying taxes. I’ve also made some down-ticket endorsements based partly upon candidate platforms relating to taxes, like Nick Brusky for Lorain County Commissioner, Larry Silcox for Huron County Commissioner, Dave Potter for Congress from Ohio’s 13th, and Jeff Wagner for state rep from the Ohio House 81st District. I’ve also noted that the Democrat machine in Lorain County uses some strong-arm tactics to intimidate residents from trying to interfere with hiking taxes.
Buckeye RINO 
October 31, 2008 at 11:05 am
Campaign promises often wilt after the election. Tax-cut promises are a frequent casualty.
By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton’s speed record. It wasn’t until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.
There’s another similarity. Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama both promised to raise taxes, too, but only on “the wealthy.” And both proceeded to widen the definition of “wealthy” to encompass more and more taxpayers.
During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.
Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.”
(Column continues below)
At first, Clinton maintained that only those earning over $100,000 would pay more under his revised tax plan. But The Heritage Foundation noted it would hit far more broadly, raising taxes for individuals making $25,000 and couples making $32,000. The Los Angeles Times headline echoed that finding: “Clinton Threshold on Tax Bite Dips to $30,000 Incomes.”
Fast forward to now. Even before the election, Obama is downsizing his tax promises. First he advertised that nobody would pay higher taxes unless they earned over $250,000 a year. Now his TV ads say the threshold is $200,000. And in campaign remarks in Pennsylvania, running mate Joe Biden lowered it again, to $150,000.
It all parallels the gradual tax plan changes Bill Clinton started making shortly before his election. Then, after his election, the gradual changes turned into dramatic transformation.
As the New York Times noted in February 1993, “… beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction.”
On Feb. 15, 1993, just weeks after he was inaugurated, Clinton completed the course change in a national TV address, telling the nation, “I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t.”
His excuse was two-fold. First, he “hadn’t realized” just how bad the deficit was. Second, he believed the people wanted the new spending he had proposed during his campaign.
Clinton sought to defuse the political damage by promising to hit “the wealthy” harder. His Feb. 6, 1993, radio address told the nation he would “get rid of windfalls for the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of the American people to make a contribution,” and that, “We’re going to ask the most from those who have got the most and gave the least during the past dozen years.”
Clinton blamed Washington politicians – prior presidents in particular – for supposedly concealing just how bad the federal deficit was, thereby justifying his reneging on his campaign promises.
In 2008, our deficit is far worse and Obama’s spending pledges are far greater than Clinton’s. Only someone who has been locked in a cave is unaware that this year’s deficit spending is approaching a trillion dollars.
This is no proof that Obama will renege, Clinton-style. But his recent adjustments in describing whose taxes will go up certainly are not reassuring.
Obama also is using a looser definition of wealth than Clinton did. The $200,000 threshold that Clinton applied in 1992 equates to $311,000 today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama’s most-recent $200,000 threshold is the same as a $128,255 income would have been in 1992.
The week before Bill Clinton was inaugurated, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., observed, “This week has been rather the clatter of campaign promises being tossed out the window.”
Those who fear that this year’s campaign promises will also be thrown out the window should keep their eyes wide open and be ready to dodge whatever might fall on their heads
October 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm
[…] HOPE ON Part 10: Obama will tax us […]
October 31, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[…] HOPE ON Part 10: Obama will tax us […]
November 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm
[…] HOPE ON Part 10: Obama will tax us […]
December 4, 2010 at 5:22 pm
[…] intentions for the middle class HOPE ON part 9 Measure Obama and McCain by their character HOPE ON part 10 Obama will tax us HOPE ON part 11 What would Ronald Reagan do? HOPE ON part 12 Obama isn’t just […]