Associated Press Rips Obama's Infomercial, Ad Skips Over Budget Realities

Now, the Associated Press is not what anyone would call a bastion of right-wing philosophy. In fact, it is a very leftist organization. That is why it is fairly big news when such an organization takes a leftist candidate for president to task over statements made during a half-hour long infomercial.

Calvin Woodward looks into a few of Barack Obama's claims and separates the fiction from the fact. From his article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office. Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are - beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Just like John Kerry, who claimed he had a plan, but refused to reveal that plan to the American people. Here are some examples of what Obama claimed versus the truth:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

This same system has been tried in Canada and Great Britain and each time were colossal failures. Even the Canucks and Brits admit that they don't have universal health care but rather that they have rationed health care. The quality of their care is now among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Obama's socialized health care plan is analyzed here:

Barack Obama Proposes A Disastrous Socialized Health Care System
84rules
June 18, 2008

And that plan would be rife with fraud:

Medicare Rife With Fraud: The Dems Model For Socialized Medicine
84rules
August 26, 2008

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. " THE FACTS: His proposals - the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more - cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged - although not in his commercial - that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Just a short while ago, it was a tax cut for working families making less than $250,000 per year. Joe Biden has put that figure at $150,000 per year. But history shows us that it is a campaign promise that he cannot keep. Bill Clinton promised no new taxes for anyone making less than $90,000 per year in 1992. The reality was that in order to fund his spending porgrams, people making as little as $30,000 per year were gouged for more taxes. Barack Obama would find the same problem in keeping his promise of a lower threshold. Economists from several different institutions have worked the numbers out and have predicted that families making $45,000 per year will have more taxes taken from their paychecks.

Small businesses won't do any better under Obama:

Obamanomics Is A Recipe For Recession
84rules
July 30, 2008

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Prime-Time Ad Skips Over Budget Realities
Calvin Woodward
Associated Press via My Way News
October 29, 2008

Obama's Definition Of 'Rich' Seems To Be Going Down

It used to be that according to Barack Obama, if you made less than $250,000 per year, you would not see an increase in taxes. Now, in his latest ad, Obama has lowered that to $200,000 and maybe even $150,000 if we are to believe Joe Biden.

According to National Review:

Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut."

Obama's Moving Tax Threshold: $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? What Next?
Byron York
National Review
October 28, 2008

And in Pennsylvania yesterday, Joe Biden said that tax relief should only go to "middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year."

It looks like Obama and Biden are finally fessing up to how much they will really have to gouge the American worker to pay for all that wealth redistribution they have planned. Chances are, anyone making over $42,000 per year is going to get gouged even further.

Check out the video of Joe Biden over at Hot Air:

Video: Biden Talking About Taxing Incomes Over $150K, Not $250K, Now?
HotAir.com
October 28, 2008

Watch Obama as he lowers the bar to $200,000 over at YouTube:

Obama Ad In Which He Breaks His Promise Not To Tax Those Under $250,000 A Year
YouTube
October 28, 2008

Do As the Dems Say, Not As The Dems Do

How much did the Clintons pull in last year? And the year before that? And the year before that? Alot. They finally released some of their financial records.

Now, no one should take them to task for making so much money ($109 million over the last 8 years) but there are some questions about conflict-of-interest and some some sheer hypocrisy concerning their personal finances.

The Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial about this. Some excerpts:

We can also now understand why the couple took so long to release their returns, and are still reluctant to release other information. Their political status has given them access to wealthy folks who've helped make them rich. For example, Mr. Clinton raked in as much as $15 million working as an adviser and rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa firm. We're not sure what advice Mr. Clinton gave but it must have been fabulous. The former President also took in $3.3 million in consulting fees from InfoUSA CEO Vinod Gupta, who has also helped fund Mrs. Clinton's White House bid. These are not opportunities that fall into every American's lap. Meanwhile, the Clintons also made liberal use of the charitable deduction, claiming $10.2 million in charitable giving over the eight years. Intriguingly, nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money. The Clintons can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library – the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state. There are other examples of such politically targeted philanthropy, and it's worth noting that most of the foundation's disbursements came only after Mrs. Clinton announced her Presidential run. Similar conflict-of-interest questions apply to the separate William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, for which the couple has so far refused to release a list of donors.

That's the conflict-of-interest part. Now, let's look at the hypocrisy of their personal finances:

Like other Americans during this tax season, the Clintons have also had to endure the complexity of the tax code. Their 2006 return alone totaled 67 pages. While they can afford a smart accountant to sift through all those forms, would it be too optimistic to think Mrs. Clinton might be inspired by her tax experience to promote tax reform? Alas, yes. Senator Clinton's main tax proposal is to repeal the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, raising rates to the levels of the Clinton Presidency. "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them," Mrs. Clinton explained. With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it.

The WSJ hit that particular nail right on the head. Those who claim to oppose tax cuts nevertheless take advantage of them and when they call for higher taxes, they never set an example by voluntarily paying the higher rates.

The Clintons are no different on that score. We are simply to do as they say, not as they do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Clinton Tax Lessons
Wall Street Journal Editorial
April 7, 2008