My take on the ISSUES...

As I have stated, Richter and I have been “debating” the issues as seen from each of the Presidential nominee camps. As we have both presented differing numbers and points of order, I have decided to make my arguments AGAINST Obama’s policies by categorically following his stated positions according to his official website (found HERE).

Now, being a politician, Obama presents mountains of information on his site, and as I am unlikely to have the time or energy to hit EVERY topic, I will follow the course of our most recent “discussion” and touch on those now patently familiar subjects for all concerned. The hyperlinks that I have included lead you (or anyone) to the sources of my information.

Let’s start with his Economic/Tax Relief page:

Obama thinks that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich, and do nothing for the poor and middle class. Those earning $1 million or more receive a cut 160 times bigger than the middle class earner. Let’s rationally look at this statement and weigh its validity to the debate in general.
According to the US Census Bureau, the average “middle class” income range for the years 2000 to 2007 was between $31,850.00 and $77,100.00. This is a mean average annual income for all tax payers between the age of 15 and 65 years of age, and constituted the vast majority of what most experts call the “middle class” in America. However, a qualifier needs to be employed here, because anyone should understand that, even earning the high-end of that scale ($77K) isn’t going to get you very much of a lifestyle in places like San Diego, CA or New York, NY. In fact, that income wouldn’t get you much of a lifestyle in any major metropolitan area, including such “middle America” places as Omaha, NE, Minneapolis, MN, Chicago IL, or Madison, WI. BUT, it is the mean average, so we’ll stick with it and assume that is what Obama means by “middle class”.

So, let’s take 3 separate examples of income. First, we’ll use the low end of the middle-income scale ($31,850 per year). Then we’ll take the high-end ($77,100 per year). Finally we’ll take the “magic” number… $1,000,000 per year in taxable income.

In 2000, the person earning $31,850 (Mr. “A”) paid $5,506 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $4,386. That means that he paid 17% of his gross income in 2000, and 13% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $1,120, or 3% of his gross income.

In 2000, the person earning $77,100 (Mr. “B”) paid $18,582 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $15,698. That means that he paid 24% of his gross income in 2000, and 20% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $2,884, or 4% of his gross income.

In 2000, the person earning $1 million (Mr. “C”) paid $373,670 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid #329,074. That means he paid 37% of his gross income in 2000, and 33% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $44,596, or 4% of his gross income.

All three of our tax payers saw very nearly an exact 4% cut in their tax burden between ’00 and ’07. However, Mr. C earned more than 30 times the amount of money that Mr. A earned, yet he paid more than 39 times the tax amount. Where is the “160 times” tax break that Obama is talking about? I don’t see Mr. C paying even ONE times less than Mr. A and B, do you?

This is basic, 5th grade math. It doesn’t even touch the earned income credits, child deductions, et al that Mr. A and B can take advantage of that Mr. C can’t.

The next rung in our debate was Federal revenue and how it is affected by lower taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 2003 to 2006 (the numbers I found first, not necessarily those that best reflect the above examples, I know…), the Federal revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts by 35%! From $1,783,000,000,000 in 2003 to $2,407,000,000,000 in just 3 years! If the tax cuts had actually HURT revenue and added to the deficit (Richter’s contention), then the CBO numbers certainly wouldn’t show a 35% increase, would they? Absolutely not! They reflect the FACT that the Laffer Curve proves when it shows that lower taxes DO equal more revenue for the Feds, because the PEOPLE spend more money within the economy, and the more stringent sales and import taxes contribute to the coffers far more than the income tax does.

Moving on (to steal a very liberal moniker!), we see that Obama thinks that NAFTA and CAFTA are bad for American jobs and industry. Richter made the case last night that the Obama plans reflected “Clinton-like” agendas and policies. To the best of my meager recollection, NAFTA was the “flag-ship” of Clinton’s trade policy, and the framework of CAFTA was laid down almost single-handedly by then Vice President Al Gore (although Bush signed it into law in 2002). Obama clearly says on his website that CAFTA must GO, and NAFTA must be re-written to better suit American interests. Doesn’t sound like Obama thinks all that much of Clinton’s trade policies, does it?

Next, let’s look at Obama’s Energy Policies:

Obama promises a plan of getting 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015. Those 1 million cars would still function at a gasoline consumption rate of between 25 and 35 miles to a gallon… more, if they are running at less than highway speeds. The average cost of an electric hybrid vehicle, right now, is roughly 66% higher than its standard gasoline equivalent. This means that the average HEV will cost more than $50k, while a gas-powered vehicle will run $30k. The Bush “tax cuts” that Obama and Richter are so upset with ALREADY offer a $3400 deduction if you buy a HEV within the calendar year, or roughly 5% of the cost of the vehicle. Presumably, Obama would further subsidize the cost to make the program cost effective for the majority of America.

McCain wants to institute a plan where 15 million TRUCKS (the 18 wheeler variety that move 88% of all goods in this nation) are converted to natural gas propulsion by 2012, at a cost of roughly 17% of the base cost of the vehicle. The United States holds (arguably) the largest natural gas reserves in the world, with the only real competition coming from Russia and Canada. With these 15 million trucks running on cheap, clean and easily available natural gas, the US will free itself of the cost of 4.2 million barrels of diesel EVERY DAY! In one year, the average amount of annual heating oil would be saved 171 times over! One year of natural gas-powered trucks EQUALS 171 years of heating oil for people’s homes! As the owner of a home heated with fuel oil, I’m ALL in favor of that plan!

Mac’s plan doesn’t cost the tax payer OR the Government anything. The cost of the conversion is covered by CORPORATE tax incentives that are geared towards the manufacture of both the NG vehicles and the NG distribution facilities that the trucks would go to in order to fill up their tanks. Again, lowering taxes is the incentive to driving the economic engine of America towards making the more economical and environmentally-friendly natural gas a feasible alternative to diesel and gasoline.

Speaking of heating plans… Mac is also selling abundant American natural gas as a primary source for home and commercial heating units. Knowing I am looking at paying between $3.89 and $4.24 a gallon for fuel oil this winter, and I use roughly 900 gallons a season, the nearly $3,700 I am looking to spend on heating my home this winter is a big concern for me. If I were to get the $5,500 tax break for a natural gas conversion of my fuel oil system, I’d spend $12.26 per million cubic feet of gas, or (roughly) $1,100 per season in gas for my furnace.

That’s $2,600 of my money that DOESN’T need to be spent on fuel… and what I am spending isn’t going to rogue Muslim states or madrasahs in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or into Hugo Chaves’ pockets… it’s going to the US economy from start to finish, every time.

Whew… I’m spent.

More later…