Well, it looks like Obama and the Democrats are leading in all polls in the final days of this tremendously long election season. McCain appears to be "huffing and puffing" to the finish line with no new ideas and riding the disappearing coat tails of a vivacious but inexperienced Sarah Palin. Really sad days in the Republican Party from what I am able to observe. No cohesion, no new message, no fire...
I think alot of people, especially higher percentages of independent voters, have been attracted to Obamas youthful and intelligent persona and are seeking change from the traditional politicians many of us have come to despise. I do think that he has represented SOME good ideas and a more hopeful, positive message than the Republicans have been able to muster this year. As I have often stated on recent blogs, I don't like either of the main party platforms at this point in America's history and voted 3rd party. Yet, I realize one more time we will be stuck with one of the bloated two party leaders for another four years...and it seems to point to Obama.
If/when he gets in office, one of the biggest concerns I have about his objectives is how he is going to pay for all his big "change" ideas. Everyone now has a clearer picture of our governments record deficits and a quickly sinking economy. In the middle of this, it appears that the focal point of his economic and tax plan is a "redistribution" of WHICH taxpayers pay WHAT within our system. While on one hand you can understand the desire for fair and balanced payment of taxes, it does concern me that Obama and the Democrats think they are going to be able to create more "entitlements" for the non-productive by taking more from the productive sector. Most people I have talked to who are voting Republican this year are doing so more as a vote AGAINST Obama than FOR McCain...and the main focus of their concern is Obama's not so subtle suggestion that its time for the wealthy and successful to pay more while a large percentage of the electorate will pay less. If this idea goes too far, it will appear much like other leftist or socialist exteme systems such as Chavez in Venezuela, and many other Central and South American countries who have been nationalizing their major industries, leaning heavy on the rich, and giving freely to the poor. It doesn't appear to me very successful in those countries when it comes to economic stability, balance and growth. I now see the potential for America to go down that same road and am very concerned about what the results will be.
An article today in the Wall Street journal probably more clearly examines and states my concerns. It bears repeating here as my summary statement:
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
How long before taxpayers are pushed too far
By: Adam Lerrick--professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.