McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Often times pro business even pro small business policies are looked upon with disdain as can be seen in Senator Obama recently comments criticizing Senator McCain for caring more about Wall Street than Main Street. However, this is a myopic view of the economy. Pro business policies create jobs, pro business policies help grow the economy. Putting the breaks on an already sagging economy with increased taxes does nothing for the American worker exept make life harder. CNBC notes that small business owners recognize that McCain Understands Small Business Owners

The following is a statement from American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman: One look at Senator John McCain's website will tell you, this is a man that knows and cares about America's 27 million small businesses. He knows 56 percent of all Americans work for small businesses. John McCain is a small business guy through and through.

Time also reported on the 300+ professional economists that back McCain. Conversely the Union Leader disusses how Senator Obama's tax plan does not add up in their article It doesn't compute: Obama's tax plan a ruse.

Numerous organizations, including the Associated Press, have noted that Obama's proposals spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than his tax hikes raise. What is less well known is that Obama's tax plan itself sends out of Washington far more than it brings in. Obama's campaign twice admits that in the wording of the tax plan.

According to the plan, "his tax relief for middle-class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000." That sounds like he's giving a net tax cut. But much of what he calls "tax cuts" are actually cash payments to low- and middle-income Americans. Ultimately, he sends out of Washington hundreds of billions of dollars more than it takes in.

In other words, Obama promises more in benefits to low- and middle-income Americans than his plan can finance with his tax hikes on "families" making more than $250,000 a year. And note the word, "families." Even though Obama says that no "family" making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase, in fact his plan raises taxes on individuals making $200,000 a year or more.

The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible -- impossible! -- for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that.

Senator Obama's plans to "spread the wealth" are anti-growth measures done in the name of fairness. However, there is nothing fair about halting economic growth. There is also nothing fair about punishing success.

---

McCain Good for Business and Good for the Economy

Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth

Despite the Obama campaign's and media's attempt to discredit 'Joe the Plumber', a fellow who simply asked Senator Obama a question at a campaign event, his question remains valid, and Obama's response proves insightful. Obama's $250,000 a year tax increase provides a barrier to success for the middle class, particularly for entrepreneurs and small business owners. For these people on the bubble there is a penalty for growth. Consequently, this puts the brakes on the growth of many small businesses, which are responsible for a large percentage of new jobs. Raising taxes in a struggling economy on any economic bracket is a terrible idea. Tax increases slow economic growth, and that hurts people across the board. If jobs dry up, it's not the $250,000 plus crowd that will be hurt the most, it will be the middle class.

Senator Obama's response to Joe is interesting. 'Spreading the wealth' is a principle of socialism. This combined with Senator Obama's plan to reduce taxes for 95% of the people, when 30-40% of the people don't pay federal income tax has all the hallmarks of a socialist policy. Senator Obama has never addressed whether people who don't pay taxes would receive a government check. Either his numbers are off or he is creating a welfare class is his plan. Subsidizing low income is the perfect way of encouraging people not to achieve. Why work harder if the government will pay you not to. Why start a new business if the government will penalize you for your success. This is the perfect plan to deaden the economy; penalize success, reward mediocrity, and limit the growth of new/small businesses.

Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth
Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth

More Problems with ACORN and Obama's Ties to ACORN

Ken Blackwell the former Secretary of State of Ohio wrote an article for National Review entitled An ACORN Falls from the Tree. He addresses why ACORN is now garnering attention, as it was to be a recipient of 'Housing Trust Fund' money earmarked by Democrats in the first version of the economic bill. He goes on to note his own experiences with this radical organization.

As the weekend progressed, reports were constantly emerging of the sticking points preventing a final agreement. One of these reputed points of contention was whether 20 percent of the profit proceedings for asset sales in the future would go to what is called the Housing Trust Fund, subsidizing certain groups for ostensibly nonpartisan activity. One of these groups that this trust supports is ACORN.

ACORN has often been in the news since 2004. Officially, they work to register voters and support housing. In reality, everyone in public life knows that they are hardcore supporters for the Democratic Party, and employ bare-knuckle tactics. Their organization is plagued by repeated investigations of voter fraud and other crimes.

In Ohio, where as secretary of state I oversaw elections for eight years, ACORN has been busy. One ACORN man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of voter fraud, and another was indicted in Columbus. Other such problems surfaced in Cuyahoga County, where criminal investigations are ongoing.

The New York Post notes in their article The Meltdown's Acorn that Obama is directly connected to ACORN and he said so himself as recently as last November.

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he [Obama] told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.

Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz of National Review article Inside Obama's Acorn details the aggressive methods of intimidation used by ACORN, as well as a shrewd tactical strategy that has kept them below the radar nationally. Thus ACORN's radicalism and often illegal behavior garners much less attention than groups like MoveOn or Code Pink who seek the spotlight and in many ways are less radical. Kurtz refers to Sol Stern's explanation of ACORN and a reply to his explanation by John Atlas and Peter Dreier.

Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist “New Party.”

This is a definitively radical organization and Mr. Blackwell correctly states that, "Mr. Obama needs to explain his involvement with them."

---

More Problems with ACORN and Obama's Ties to ACORN

Scheiffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Return to Washington

NewsBusters reports Schieffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Save Bailout (follow link for video).

Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show's Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Continued Schieffer . . .

SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he's going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I'm told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.

...And that's where McCain comes in.

This certainly contradicts the spin that Senator McCain was motivated by politics. The fact remains that no one really knows how this will all play out. No one knows how much of the current events in Washington are influenced by politics. What is known is that there is an economic crisis that needs to be addressed, and the role Senator McCain is playing is significant.

Scheiffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Return to Washington

John McCain Bold Leadership

With the markets in turmoil and a bill and a bailout package up for debate in Congress, Senator McCain has suspended his campaign and returned to Washington to work on the bill. Last night prior to Senator McCain's decision to return to Washington ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported,

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reports: If Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain doesn't vote for the Bush administration's $700 billion economic bailout plan, some Republican and Democratic congressional leaders tell ABC News the plan won't pass.

"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican tells ABC News.

A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that
Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no -- that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along.

With the ball in Senator McCain's court, and concerns about the President's current proposal, Senator McCain is heading back to Washington. The debates and future campaign events are in limbo, as this bold decision has put a priority on the economic package.

Bold Leadership from John McCain

FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed

FactCheck.org has followed up on emails rebuking their article on the McCain ad ‘Education’ with a statement that says in part,

'We also never wrote that Obama said class material about 'inappropriate touching' was the main purpose of the bill. Our article said that 'Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ and that Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles."

Factcheck also categorizes the ad as false because it states that it was Senator Obama’s ‘one achievement’ in education. It is true that Senator Obama did not achieve the passage of this legislation, and may be able to account for other education successes. Also, the previous article should have been more clear in stating that it was Senator Obama that stated the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’ not FactCheck. However, there are still major problems in FactCheck’s story.

They state outright in their response. "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." The ad does not state that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ that is solely Factcheck’s own interpretation. Yet this is repeated as proof that the ad is false as they later refute their own interpretation by saying, "But Obama has also said he does not support, 'explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the McCain ad.

Second, as they state in their rebuttal and in their original article, "Obama 'made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles." Again, this has nothing to do with the McCain ad. Motive was never discussed in the ad and Factcheck misleads about the content of the ad by refutiating a claim not made in the ad.

Finally, Factcheck refutes the ad as having cherry picked quotes about Obama’s record. Well, welcome to politics. The statements are all verified, but FactCheck explains that those sources frequently did not have glowing reviews of McCain’s education plan either. Certainly that is fair to point out, but that does no make the ad false.

The one claim they are able to back up is the statement in the ad saying that this bill is Senator Obama’s ‘only accomplishment’ in education. They cite three ammendments to a bill that Senator Obama worked on that were aproved by unanimous consent. As Factcheck states, "Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless." Point taken.

I appreciate that FactCheck has responded to complaints about their article. However, I am still disappointed in the lack of actual fact checking within their article. Please read their response and email them at Editor@Factcheck.org if you agree that their article is still off base.

For clarity here are the basic complaints:

1. The statement, "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’

2. The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.

3. Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.

4. If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence.

---

FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed

Protest The Media’s Melt Down Over Sex-Ed Ad

In the National Review article On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right, Byron York not only points out how the media bought the Obama campaign's rhetoric about the sex-ed ad, but they then added a large portion of their own self-righteous outrage.

“The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”

Even factcheck.org presented the Obama campaign's view point, adding their own interpretation, "Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners." The ad is a series of sourced quotes which factcheck.org does not deny are legitimate. Insinuations are not a facts, and factcheck.org bases their critique of the ad off the insinuation that Obama supported 'explicit' sex education for kindergarteners. However, that is not a claim of that ad.

Factcheck and the media felt compelled to express outrage at this ad, but never relayed the substance of the bill. As Byron York reported, "The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is."

---

As noted in a previous article CNN continued to call the McCain ad a lie even after the National Review article was published. They clearly had not read the text of the bill, but expressed their outrage anyways. Please contact CNN at Election Center and/or Headline News to demand a retraction and an apology for falsely claiming the McCain campaign lied, and please urge others to do the same.

Also, contact factcheck.org at Editor@FactCheck.org and let them know they got his one wrong by interpreting the ad and judging intent, and not reporting on the content and purpose of the bill.

---

Protest The Media’s Melt Down Over Sex-Ed Ad