“Under a nine-point plan, Mrs. Clinton proposed to let President Bush's tax cuts for top earners expire, scrap subsidies for oil and gas companies, and require large oil companies to invest in alternative energy or pay into a national research fund. She also called for greater scrutiny of the salaries of chief executives. In a bid to keep jobs in America, she is pushing to eliminate an element of the tax code that allows companies to defer taxes on profits they earn overseas.
In ending what she called Mr. Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts, the former first lady said she would revert to the tax rates for "upper-income Americans" during the 1990s. She did not specify an income cutoff, but a campaign spokesman said later that it would be $200,000.”
- The New York Sun, May 30, 2007
President Bush’s tax cuts were only irresponsible in that they did not come with spending restraints and cuts. Senator Clinton is just as guilty as President Bush in this regard. I have not heard the esteemed Senator proposing tax cuts or railing against the billions of dollars of pork in the spending bills she votes on. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house, Senator.
Once again the politicians show how clueless they really are by fostering a protectionist mentality. If they really understood the way the world works they would understand that we are in a global economy and in order to compete in a global economy companies need to make sure they keep their labor costs down. What they also fail to realize is that successful companies grow and hire people stateside. Protectionist attitudes to lock up the labor vote are shortsighted and harmful to the economic future of America.
“Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan for universal health care for all Americans require $50 billion to $65 billion in new revenue, according to estimates released this morning by his campaign.The campaign suggested tax increases for the wealthiest Americans may be the way Obama would pay for his plan. The campaign released estimates from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center saying the money could be raised by restoring the top two personal income tax brackets and rates on dividends and capital gains to Clinton-era levels.”
- Des Moines Register, May 29, 2007
Now, I do not necessarily disagree with Mr. Obama’s plan. I do think we need some form of universal healthcare. Let’s face it; in a country supposedly as prosperous as America, there really should not be millions without health insurance. Here are the highlights as reported by the Des Moines Register:
• Obama will tell the crowd his plan would reduce the typical family’s health-insurance premiums by $2,500 a year.
• Businesses that don’t make a meaningful contribution to health coverage of their employees would do so by supporting the new plan.
• The government would pick up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions, which would reduce costs for businesses.
• Much of the extra costs would come from savings in such things as health screenings and better management of chronic conditions that Obama has said can save the system billions of dollars.
• Increasing insurance industry competition and reducing underwriting costs and profits, which Obama’s campaign staff say will reduce insurance overhead.
I like these suggestions. The insurance industry is woefully inefficient (I suppose they look to the federal government for their business model.) What I disagree with his assertion that we need to increase taxes in order to pay for it.
It bothers me that these politicians automatically assume everything needs a tax increase. I think that the answer really lies in making government more efficient. They require it of their contractors (I know because as a government contractor they nickel and dime us on every project nowadays) maybe they should start looking in the mirror and at the bloated and inefficient way THEY do business. I am tired of funding this thoughtless government and its plethora of wasteful, duplicitous, and mostly needless programs.
One last thing…
Senator Clinton also said the following during a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire:
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity," she said. "I prefer a ‘we're all in it together' society."
- The New York Sun, May 30, 2007
Really Mrs. Clinton? You are for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few? We normal folk out here in fly over country have been saying that for years. It is you politicians in Washington, D.C. that refuse to listen. In order to make government more transparent and accessible to the American people we need term limits for our senators and representatives and meaningful campaign finance reform (not the type we have now that requires hundreds of millions to run for president). Senator Clinton, will you vote for term limits? Will you vote for comprehensive campaign finance reform? I doubt it. You are part of the system, so spare your lectures for the doped up dregs of our society. Your attitude of the socialist “we” without personal responsibility will further disintegrate this society. It is the “on your own” aspect of this country that has in part made it great. It seems to me like you are part of the problem not the solution. And like all problems, we hope they will go away and not turn into something worse like cancer.
Photo by KCThinker, Barbed Wire on Fence Post, Iowa