Basher51's Bluff and Bluster

Not too long ago Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice  was pilloried in the press.  The specific issue I forget. It probably had something to do with Iraq or the war on terror.  What I do remember is that left-leaning critics accused her of being George Bush's slave girl.  All sorts of mean, vile, disgusting, and racist remarks were made and some of the depictions of her features by editorial cartoonists were right out of the days of Jim Crow.

This is not the first time that the so-called "caring, tolerant, open-minded" liberals have resorted to racist invective when dealing with a conservative who happens to be African-American.  The same treatment was given to Colin Powell (when he supported Bush.  When he opposed him he was nearly deified), Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and so forth.  It seems that the left throws out the rule book when they feel that a black person has strayed from the party line that they have layed down for them. What is most disgusting to me is that the left knows that they can do this without any fear of outrage by the civil rights leadership and the self-appointed civil rights leaders.  When Condi was depicted as an Aunt Jemima or a Prissy in editorial cartoons published all across the country, the sound of silence was emitted from all of these insitutions that ordinarily scrutinize every word of public discourse in search of something to be indignent about.  When every possible racial stereotype was thrown at Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, there was not one peep of even so much as a "watch it there" by Jessee Jackson or Al Sharpton or any civil rights advocate. 

Apparently, spewing racism is allowed if the target is a conservative black person.

I'm wondering if these rules will extend to Barack Obama if, as he say he will, he reaches across the aisle and embraces certain conservative ideas in the name of unifying the country.  You see, that is when the "bloom will come off the rose" for the multitudes who right now are treating him like the second coming of JFK.  That is when the criticism of Barack Obama will be ginned up and it will come fast and furious from the left.  And when he gets criticized from the left it will come fast, mean, and yes--racist.  The track record indicates that the left will go racist at the drop of a hat whenever a black person adopts even so much as a marginally conservative political position.  If you think that the left will cut him any slack in the name of "unity" and "bi-partisanship" you don't understand how the left views those two terms.  Those terms only are function for the left when they apply to conservative foresaking their positions and moving left.

Does the name Michael Steele ring a bell with anyone?  He's the former Maryland Lt. Governor who is set to become the head of the Republican National Committee.  Michael Steele happens to be African-American with solid conservative credentials.  He also knows how the left deals with blacks who stray from the norms that the left has established for blacks.  When he ran for the US Senate, the Dems pulled out all stops and ran a visciously personal and very racist campaign against him.  I wonder if there will be any celebrating about Michael Steele becoming the first African-American to lead the Republican Party?  Will anyone shed tears of joy for that day?

It will be quite interesting to see how the left treats Michael Steele vs Barack Obama.  Indeed, in 2012 we could see an interesting race for the White House.  Condi Rice is still being talked about as a possible presidential candidate.  How will the racists on the left deal with that race?

Here's P. J. O'Rourke, my favorite author, discussing in very frank terms why conservatives have blown it.  And in case your are wondering, I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is one reason why I no longer refer to Republicans and conservatives as one in the same.  A few Republicans are conservatives.  But most of them are just, pardon me, little better than prostitutes, selling themselves and their principles to the highest bidder.  And yes, the same goes for Democrats, perhaps even more so.

Anyway, P. J. in his unique way with prose nails our faults and offers some clues as to our redemption.

I can't recall if in 2000 after Bush was finally declared the winner of the presidential election if there were calls for "unity", "coming together", and "bi-partisanship".  If there were, they were just as ignorant of history then as they are today.

Historically, this country has never been unified.  In fact, I would wager 5 matchsticks that our founding fathers would be horrified at such an idea as it would smack of the sorts of imperialism from which we fought a rebellion to escape.  Our entire history has been marked by contentious politics and, I believe, that our founding fathers found that to be feature and not a defect.  Through partisan wrangling and the normal competition of ideas we have managed to craft a body of law that is the envy of the entire free world, and most of the not-so-free world.

"Oh," you might say, "I just want us to stop all of the partisan bickering and get back to doing the work of the people."  Okay, tell me when that ever happened.  Ever read the story of the Declaration of Independence?  Of the first few decades of this country?  There may not have been political parties in those early years, but we had bickering like there was no tomorrow.  There were even duels fought over partisan slights on the floor of the Senate and House.  Ever hear of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton?  Shortly before the Civil War one US Senator beat another  nearly to death on the floor of the Senate chamber.

And don't try to tell me that up until a few years ago political campaigns were wonderful and polite.  Not!  Deal cutting, lies, rumor-mongering, fistfights, murders, plagerism, fraud, forgery, all were the stock in trade of political campaigning.  Try reading the story of Lyndon Johnson and  how he besmirched the reputation of an opponent by spreading a lie about the man's, shall we say, "affinity" for farm animals.  When a Johnson aide pointed out that it was demonstrably false, Johnson was said to reply:  "True, but he'll spend the rest of the campaign denying it."  Abe Lincoln's supporters printed tons of fake tickets to get into the Republican convention so that he could pack the place with his supporters.  Lincoln was very much aware of the limitations of the mass media of the times.  He felt no problem as he traveled from city to city campaigning, taking political positions that were in stark opposition to each other. The history of political campaigning in the USA is one scandal after another. 

But what about time in office?  We used to be far more unified as a country than we are now.  Wrong!  Our history is filled with the stories of political scandal.  Tammany Hall  and Teapot Dome are just two that come to mind.  There's scads more.  How about a politician that shot a man because he thought the man was having an affair with his wife  (He wasn't.) and was never even investigated by the cops.  When Lincoln arrived in Washington DC to assume the presidency he was told by his secretary of state that because he wa too stupid to comprehend diplomacy and the operation of the government that it had been decided that he would be the figurehead and the secretary of state would actually carry out the duties of president.  And political commentary?  Never been more viscious, you say?  Let's see, Lincoln was often portrayed as a gorilla, a baboon, an ignorant hayseed.  Dig into the subject and you'll find out that newspapers of today, compared to those of one hundred years ago, are incredibly reserved in their political commentary.

I'm not trying to dash anyone's hopes for greater civility in our political discourse.  Just remember that if we ever achieved that, it would be a first for our country.

Now I'm a little worried.  I hope that this is just a total malaprop on the part of the spokesman for the Obama transition team.  This country is a representative republic and it's leaders don't "rule"--they "govern".  But this is the second time that a Democrat connected with Barack Obama has used this term.  Democratic Party National Committee chairman Howard Dean previously had said that the Democrats would "rule".

You may say that this is trifling, that both of these folks had just confused the terms.  but both of these folks are slick, media -savvy professionals.  For both of them this is not their first time in front of a microphone.  Also, the Democrats have taken positions, and made several statements in the past, that they are quite willing to at the very least put restrictions on some of our cherished rights such as Free Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I honestly and sincerely want to give the Dems the chances and respect that they never gave George Bush.  But they keep doing stuff like this and it, frankly, scares me.

I saw on another blog that someone has already got a "Who Is John Galt" sign in their front yard.  For those who have little insight into conservative  thought, the phrase "Who is John Galt" is the opening line of the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.  The book, quite popular among conservatives, is a work of fiction that tells the story of a time when the achievers in the country decide that they are sick of being belittled and seen as a cash cow and simply stop creating wealth. 

I'm dismayed that someone has put up that sign so soon, before Obama has even been sworn into office and given a decent chance to prove himself.  I had hoped that the conservatives would be more rational and gracious than the progressives were following Bush's 2000 and 2004 victories.  Back then, by my recollection, it seemed only a matter of hours before the "Not My President" and "Selected, Not Elected" bumper stickers appeared. They were the first of many very divisive and insulting bumper stickers that we would be faced with for the next 8 years.  During the campaign and accellerating to greater heights following his victory Bush was lambasted five ways from Friday with all sorts of names.  Progressives such as those in the entertainment community and some in the political arena apparently felt nothing was restraining them from bitter hate-filled  criticism.  It has continued unabated for 8 years with few voices on the Democrat side of the aisle calling for any restraint.  A look at DailyKos and Democratic Underground today shows unchecked hatred and calls for war crimes trials. Progressives have already called into conservative talk shows to gloat.  "What do you think of your guys now?"  I doubt that there is a punishment satisfactory enough to appease the hatred that some of those people have because Bush had the temerity to win a close election over Al Gore in 2000.

In the days immediately following the Obama's election I blew off some steam, vented some disappointment.  I hereby publically apologize for those statements.  I WILL be better behaved than that.  Conservatives MUST be better behaved than that.  Have any of you felt the hurt that I have when over the course of these last 8 years as fellow Americans expressed their outright hatred for our president, called him the most vile and filthy names imaginable, wished for death on him and his family?  I can still clearly remember a few years back when a bulletin was broadcast that there had been some sort of mechanical failure on Air Force One that required an emergency landing.  A co-worker came into the dayroom breathlessly inquiring if the plane had crashed.  "Is Bush dead?  I hope! I hope!".  He wasn't kidding and neither were those posting on DailyKos that day who expressed the same disappointment that Bush had the affrontery to not be killed.  It was outright sickening.  I said at that time and I still say that during the Bush Administration that the progressives were writing the rules by which the next Democrat president will be criticized.  In the world's view we would have every right to criticize Obama the same way that Bush was criticized--filthy, vulgar, and mean.  But "rights" are not "requirements'!

I call on my brother and sister conservatives to not lower ourselves to the debased level of those extremists who criticized Bush.  We WILL show better behavior towards Obama than the folks on the other side of the aisle showed towards George W. Bush.    Objections and protests will be made on policy decisions and matters and remain in the arena of political ideas.  We will not hang Obama in effigy.  We will not fly the flag upside down. (Note to Kelbe Brothers:  What do you think that you are proving?  Do you think that you are changing anyone's opinion, except regarding what they think of you?)  We will not lower ourselves to criticizing Obama's looks, his family, the way he talks.  The Bible says that when we refuse to lower ourselves to our opponent's level we "heap burning coals on his head", we convict him of his own poor behavior.  We will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, unless he proves otherwise, that he has the best interests of the country at heart.  We can disagree on how to achieve the betterment of our country.  But we at all times counter his ideas with ours.  We don't attack the person.  At all times remain dignified, above board, intelligent, restraining ourselves from repaying hate with more hate.  We will be of good cheer.

I call on all of my fellow conservatives to remember Obama in their prayers.  Pray that God gives him wisdom, strength, and discernment.  The Lord knows that the man has a huge task before him made even more complicated by the unbelievable level of expectations that folks have placed upon him.  He will fail to live up to those expectations, no human can live up to what has been placed on him.  He will violate his promises, sometimes intentionally and other times unwittingly.  Pray for his success, for our country's success.

Above all, when we fail to live up to our promises, when folks from the other point of view push our buttons and we respond with anger, then we will admit our wrongs, apologize and move on.  We cannot expect from others what we fail to do ourselves.

Finally, remember the remarks by our hero Ronald Reagan in 1972 when he was given the news that George Wallace had been shot: 

"Oh no!  This is a news bulletin that I’m sure will be of great interest to every one of you, it’s just been handed to me by Ed Graham, my press secretary, down the table here that the AP and UPI report that George Wallace has been shot, during an appearance at Laurel, Maryland.  Was taken to a hospital by ambulance.  There are no further details, as yet.  Well…we’ve had such tragedies in the last several years in the area of political candidates and office holders of this kind.  And isn’t this an outgrowth of the, of the hatred that seems to have been injected into what has in the past has been simply normal competition and normal rivalry and certainly election year emotionalism and all.  But if something is to be done about this kind of tragedy for anyone, isn’t it necessary that all of us review our own attitudes and say yes, it is possible for men and women of good will to differ, to have opposing viewpoints, to discuss and debate them, and perhaps never to come to agreement on them, but as God is in his heaven do we have to hate each other to the point that people with less balance are stimulated to deeds of this kind?"

Now that Obama has been elected president, all of the rules that applied to criticism of the Bush presidency will apply to Obama.  That includes bizarre conspiracy theories, name-calling, hate-speech, invective directed at his family, poking fun at his personal appearance, questioning his intellect, and so forth.  And, for you folks supporting him, we are free to question your sanity, your intellect, your birthright, and do it very personal and hurtful language.  In short, we will be free to call Obama supporters any names that we feel like.  I won't be doing all of that.  I probably won't be doing much of any of it.  But I'm sure that others will.  So liberals, when it happens REMEMBER THIS:

FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS, YOU WROTE THE RULES.  WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING THEM.

And let this be a lesson to everyone:  Never craft rules for criticism that you yourself would be loath to live by.

We can now kiss campaign finance reform good bye.  In the future, anyone running for president would have to have his head examined if he chooses to limit himself to government financing.  Obama's $600,000,000 versus McCain's government funding of $84,000,000 has destroyed any pretense to campaign finance reform.  I certainly don't think that the Dems are going to introduce ANY meaningful campaign finance reform legislation in the immediate future.

It is the height of irony that McCain's campaign was crippled financially by the very laws that he helped craft.  It is also troubling that the very folks who furrowed their brows at the problem of "too much money in politicis" have remained silent, especially after Obama broke his promise to take government funding and abide by the cap.

So, future candidates can be assured that the precedent is now locked in:  You can raise and spend all of the money that you want and no one can say anything against it.

Well, the country has spoken, the party is over, and come January it will be the Dems turn to carry out an agenda.  We Republicans lost the election.  The Dems won.  Like good Americans should after a fight, we'll pick ourselves up, wipe the blood from our lip and tell the other guy that you won fair and square.

I won't go so far as to say that now we'll pitch in and support the Democrat agenda.  We can't do that because it is crucial to this country that legislation be created in an adversarial fashion.  Were it done without any criticism you'd end up with a lot of junk passing for good law.

It is going to be incumbant on Obama to govern and not rule the country.  That will be his biggest challenge.  How is he going to square his agenda with reality?  He's promised $1 trillion in new spending.  But you can't do that in a weak economy.  You can't even do that in robust economic times.  There are factions in his own party that want his administration to get revenge on the Republicans for a myriad of slights.  Indeed, they want the Bush Administration brought up on war crimes trials.  How will he deal with this? How will he deal with ultra-liberals in his party who do not want any of the bi-partisanship that he proposed as the ahllmark of his administration (and then quickly went silent on)? He said that he would govern from the center.  But this runs counter to his own party's liberal and ultra-liberal base. 

But the biggest challenge that he is going to face is dealing with the swiftly changing tide of public opinion.  Is he going to go with the tide?  Or is he going to stick to principle?  It is easy to govern when the public is on your side.  But in the blink of an eye you can find yourself on the receiving end of a ton of heat from the public that loved you just last week. That will be Obama's crucial first test.  Early in his administration he is going to have to explain why he, the guy who built up such huge expectations, cannot come through on them in the first term, or any term for that matter.  His biggest challenge is doing the impossible:  giving the middle class tax cut by increasing the taxes on "the wealthy".  From an economics standpoint, that won't get done--at least, not as he proposed it.  A lot of folks who for years thought that they were middle class are going to suddenly find themselves to be "the wealthy".

So, congrats again Obama.  You won it.  Now you have to run it.

Obama at one time was campaigning on being "post-partisan" and a "unity candidate", that he would put all partisanship aside for the good of the country.  His campaign quickly dropped that mantra fo far more partisan rhetoric.  During the general election campaign you've heard precious little of that talk and a lot of hyper-partisanship and partisan invective.  Recently, Joe "Gaff-o-matic" Biden spoke a bit on the need to reach out to the Republicans after the Obama team takes office.  But Biden himself is very, very partisan and not one that has ever "reached across the aisle".

It is interesting to note the number of "boos" that Biden received when he talked about bi-partisanship. Beyond the rhetoric, an Obama/Biden administration, particularly if the Dems win a super-majority,  would have a very serious problem on their hands.  I was listening to a talk show the other day and a caller there said  just as much.  It is now our turn, the caller said.  Time for the wealthy to take the back seat, to give up some of their money.  The message was clear:  No bi-partisanship.  The Republicans will have to sit back and shut up.  Looking at the Obama campaign you see that the  primary base of support is the ardent, far-left liberals.  They don't want bi-partisanship, indeed it appears that many want REVENGE.  Wandering around lefty web sites you see a lot of folks looking forward to subjecting George Bush and Dick Cheney to war crimes trials, sweeping indictments of leading Republicans.

How will Obama and his people appease these key supporters and still cling to the image of being "post-partisan"?  How will Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, ACORN, Code Pink, and all of the other ultra-liberal people and groups be satisfied if Obama tries to compromise with Republicans?  The answer is that this could be quite interesting.  The folks who voted for Obama because he is an ultra-liberal neo-socialist and going to end up in quite the tussle with the folks who voted for Obama because he is "the great unifyer".  If you are going to unify, you are going to have to compromise.  If Obama compromises, he will lose strategic support from the hyper-partisans on the far left who see every single Republican as the embodiment of evil, sold out to international corporate interests, yadda, yadda yadda.  But if he appeases those folks by stiffing the Republicans, then he risks losing support from all of those folks who swooned at his sweeping visions of a unified country where the sky is not cloudy all day.

It is also interesting that as Senate leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talk about the post-election time, they always mention "our agenda" and not a "bi-partisan agenda".  I have a feeling that Obama is going to be in for a very serious lecture from the Democrat House and Senate leadership and the theme of that lecture is going to be "stow the bi-partisanship crap unless you hear from us".  Key supporters of the Dems simply don't want bi-partisanship.  They want their favored legislation imposed.  They want Republican proposals to die in committee.  Indeed, if there is to be any reaching across the aisle, they want the Republicans to be the ones doing it and it had damn well better be to pass legislation that has a decidedly liberal tilt.

Oh, this could get interesting!!!

Michelle Malkin, like her or hate her, made an excellent point today.  She wrote:

If Joe the Plumber were Jawad the Suspected Terrorist, civil liberties activists would stampede the halls of Congress on his behalf. Liberal columnists would hyperventilate over the outrageous invasions of his privacy by Ohio state and local employees. The ACLU would demand the Big Brother snoopers’ heads. And Democrat leaders would convene immediate hearings and parade him around the Beltway as the new poster boy/victim of unlawful domestic spying.

An excellent point.  Where are those people and why aren't they expressing outrage at the actions of Democrat operatives in Ohio?   All Joe the Plumber did was ask Obama a question.  Because he challenged Obama he is suddenly the victim of a dump of all his private records.  The same thing happened to the news anchor that challenged Joe Biden with tough questions.  Suddenly her husband, who is a GOP fundraiser, has his entire person life ripped open for the public to scrutinize.  Malkin is correct:  If these people were Islamic terrorists intent on attacking the USA, these invasions of privacy would be the outrage of the entire left wing.  The message being sent by the Obama people is simple:  Don't dare cross us or every jot and tittle of your personal life will be made public.  The subtext is even scarier:  We will do whatever it takes to destroy dissent.

It is one thing to scrutinize a candidate for public office.  I hate the fact that an entire army of lawyers, public investigators, and reporters were sent to Alaska to dig through her family's personal affairs to find anything that could be used against her.  But then that is the state of political affairs these days.  When you run for office you have to expect that.  But if you are a private citizen the price that you pay for asking a candidate a question should not be having state and local officials from the candidate's party throw open you private life for all of the public to see, merely to punish you for having the temerity to ask Obama a question.

A while back a member of my extended family was invited to meet Prince Charles.  One of the things that she was told by the Brits was that under no circumstances was she to ask him a question.  It is considered a major breech of protocol for a commoner to ask any royal a question unless the royal invites you to ask one.  Apparently we are seeing the elevation of Obama to the rank of royalty.

We used to have a line we'd use around the fire house whenever anyone would get all worked up over a trivial matter:  "Take a deep cleansing breath."  I gues it origniated a bunch of years ago when the department thought that we all need psychological care and brought in a shrink to lecture us about stress relief.  About all that most of us took from it was that line spoken in a soft low voice thus:  "Take a deeeeeeeeeep cleansing breeeeeeaaaath."

Right now I think that all of us in this great country need to stop and take a deep cleansing breath.  I wonder if four months from we could go back and look at each of our blog postings and say "What the hell was I thinking!"  I'm just as guilty as the next guy in going off on trivial matters that I (we) blow way out of proportion.   We lose sight of the fact that this is merely an election.  Yes, major issues are going to be in play.  But doggone it, this country will survive whether McCain or Obama gets into office.  If Sarah Palin or Joe Biden are somehow elevated to president, this country will survive.  In the words of Ronald Reagan, this country will survive because "we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom."

God willing, Tuesday night this will all be over.  I'm pretty sure that we are going to have one hell of a national hangover no matter who wins.  The winner and his supporters will celebrate and the loser and his supporters will lick their wounds.  But sooner or later we will get back to the business of everyday life in this country.  Our biggest concerns will be the same ones that we had 6 months ago.  We'll look ahead to vacation, try to start the snowblower, and cuss all of thye snow on the ground and wonder why we are still living in this state.  The packers will excite us, the Bucks will do whatever they are able to do, and me and the racing fanatics will look forward to the Daytona 500 and the start of a another season.  Stores will open and stores will close.  Fish fries on Fridays will still be the dinner of choice.  Bowling leagues will start and, hopefully, so will that car that we park outside on the winter nights.  Thanksgiving and Christmas will come and go, all too soon for some and not soon enough for others.

What I'm saying is that we need to calm down and put things in perspective.  I'm sure that no matter who wins, some folks will leave the country and whole bunches of folks will move here--some legally and others not.  The promises that are made during the campaign will get broken one by one with the artful prose of the political class explaining to us how they just couldn't find a way to bring home the bacon.  Life will go on.  No matter what I or anyone else says things will not be as bad as the politicians claim should the other side win. 

The big point is that once again we will be able to show the world that we are a contentious, argumentative, country.  We'll fight each other to the last dime and then some.  When it is all over the battered foes will shake hands and years from now remember the fight and laugh about how they considered such trivialities so important.  We are a nation of brothers and sisters who like to argue.  The enemies of this country have consistently looked at this and said that we are weak, fractious, divided, and ripe for the plucking.  What they forget is that we can call each other names and get into a wild fight.  But should an outsider mess with us, we'll both join together and beat that creep to a bloody pulp.

Years ago I heard a wise old man relate this story.  It seems that he was engaged in a fist fight with his brother over some gal.  Another guy who was mad at the brother for some unrelated reason, took the opportunity to jump in and start helping him beat up his brother.  Suddenly both brothers joined forces and beat the third guy to a bloody pulp.  When the third guy asked for an explanation he got this:  "My brother may be a sonuvabitch.  But by golly, he's MY sonuvabitch!"

Pretty well describes America.

Apparently if you don't endorse Obama you are banned from covering his campaign. 

I'm telling you, this guy's attitude towards anyone who dares to disagree with him is downright scary.  Apparently, if you cross Obama he will do everything in his power to silence you. 

Our right to free speech is in danger. 

Where are the free speech liberals?

I had a fairly long drive today from the physical therepist (sore knee--AGAIN!) to a music lesson (learning to play the Appalachian dulcimer).  During that time I tuned in a bit of Rush Limbaugh.  But only a bit.  With all of the chatter about the elections, the arguing, and the shouting, I'm even turning off talk radio.  So, I turned it off and did a bit of free associating.

One thing that came to mind is "What would I do if I was making $250K a year?"  First off, I don't make $250K.  Not by a long, long shot.  I wish that I did and under other circumstances I would work like crazy to do so.  But right now?  Going into a likely Obama presidency where there will be a significant increase on income over $250K?  Not on your life.  Now I've known some "rich folks" and did inspections on the property of a lot of people who make over $250K a year.  I've talked with them, had to ask them questions about things such as income, sales, profit and loss, etc.  I think that I can fairly say what their decision-making is going to be if Obama is elected:

"How am I going to modify my income profile to make less that $250,000?"

People who make over $250K are not simply going to grab their ankles and cough up the extra taxes.  In fact, most of them, as I said before, are already quite wealthy.  They don't have to make a lot of income.  They can modify their income and adjust things so that they make more or less.  They can, like liberals such as the Kennedy's and John Edwards, and George Soros, and Warren Buffett, have all of heir income go into a trust that then pays them a modest stipend that is framed such as to modify their tax exposure.  As such, they have a trickle coming to them even though they makes scads of money.  Even if they are a small business owner, they can modify how much profit from the corporation ends up directly in their pockets.  Indeed, some might just slow down their business to make less profit.  That is the scariest proposition of all as that would grind our economy to a near halt.  If the incentive to make more is having to give away most of the increase, then why bother?

To be sure, what all of this does is put less money into the economy.  But it also creates the scenario called "short-fall" where the money that the Dems think is going to "pay for" the middle class tax increase, ends up not being there.  The Dems--Obama--are going to have to make a significant change in their publicized taxation plans.  All of the talk right now is politics and not economics.  It is, coming from the Dems, pure class envy--"let's get even with the greedy bastards". The One is figuring that the typical wealthy person is going to grit his/her teeth and just pay more income taxes.  And some of them might do just that.  But most will adjust how they make money and suddenly there is going to be a massive decrease in the number of wealthy people making over $250K in this country. Indeed, some might even drop their income profile low enough to capture some of those middle income tax cuts.  We could end up with a lot of middle class folks living in Bayside, Fox Point, and Chenequa.

So the Dems will have to do one of several things and they might do all of them.  First, they will define wealthy down.  Bill Clinton did this to the point where I was making $48,000 and got called "rich" and had a tax increase.  I don't care how much Clinton cried or swore that he worked harder than he had ever worked in his life.  I got labeled rich and was nailed with a tax increase that he promised wouldn't happen.  And then he bragged at how much he cut taxes on working folks!  Second, the Dems could drastically increase the increases in taxes on the wealthy that they had promised us.  Any wealthy person still stupid enough to pay the tax increase would be nailed with a double-digit increase that would make Jimmy Carter proud.  Indeed, we could become the envy of Europe where in some European countries they pay 80% to 95% takes on upper income brackets.

Then you have a problem of increasing the number of people who will be benefactors of government largess.  As you increase the amount of the reward for not increasing your income, more and more people will do that.  We have succeeded in this country of making movement between the economic quintiles a hallmark of our success.  Even in weak economic times we have quite a lot of movement back and forth between the various quintiles.  And, yes, there is even more movement up than there is down.  Always has been that way in the USA. The economic quintiles (the five income brackets) of most countries, especially the socialist ones that Obama apparently loves, are quite stagnant.  Few folks enter the wealthy brackets.  More and more folks stay at the impoverished and lower middle income brackets because there is simply no incentive to move up.  Check out Sweeden where they are pleading with their citizens to go to work and earn money.  They have made sitting around and collecting government benefits an absolute art--a lifestyle--their occupation.

Perhaps Obama is factoring something that I've overlooked.  I hope so.  Because otherwise we are going to end up with a very stagnant economy...and fewer and fewer people left to tax.

Today Obama is quoted as saying about McCain:

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from. You make a big election about small things."

Anyone catch the irony in that statement?