Email This to a Friend:

July 29, 2008

Obama’s Policies are Consistently Contrary to What’s Good for the Flag,the Economy, and the Military

An undeniable pattern has emerged in Obama's policies. Again and again, they are policies which are contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military. The pattern may be seen repeatedly and consistently.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN FLAG

Obama has refused in the past to wear an American flag pin.

He has refused in the past to put his hand on his heart for the national anthem.

And now he has removed the American flag from his jet: "...the plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama 'O.'"

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Obama is against drilling for oil, preferring instead to have our economy strangled by expensive gas prices.

Obama has sponsored a bill, which is still a danger to this country as it has not yet been defeated, which would require the U.S. to give $845 billion to the United Nations. Don't like paying high taxes? How would you feel about it if your taxes are higher because you're getting taxed by the United Nations too?

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

And Obama wants to nearly double the capital-gains tax rate from 15% to 28%, which not only would devastate the economy, but would also be likely to lose money for the government.

From the NY Sun:

As Senator Obama's presidential platform starts to take shape, economists and tax officials here in New York and Washington are warning that his fiscal policies could have a devastating effect on what is, in effect, New York's biggest crop - capital gains.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by a staggering two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%, which could curtail investment and business on Wall Street, a backbone of the city's and state's economy.

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

From US News & World Report:

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment-as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth-the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

But Dan Clifton over at Strategas Research thinks the Dems may be disappointed by the ROT-return on taxes-from higher cap-gains rates. After reviewing the connections between changing cap-gains rates and government revenue during the past five decades, he concludes that higher cap gains could well be a revenue loser for Uncle Sam.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN MILITARY

Obama has pledged to cut our military capabilities:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to insure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Obama scrapped a visit to wounded American troops in Germany.

Obama wants to have a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Professor Eugene Volokh writes:

So - if Obama means what he says - his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama's proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise "to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

Obama's plan would likely remove money from funding our military in order to finance this ill-defined civilian force.

CONCLUSION

Obama's patriotism is not in question in this article. What is in question is whether his policies would be good for the flag, the economy, and the military. Obama's policies are consistently contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military.