I’ve heard the word “change” coming from the mouths of liberal Democratic Presidential candidates so many times in the past 2 weeks that I want to vomit. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards talk nonstop about “change.” It’s as if “change” is a magical word. It’s as if all we have to do is snap our fingers, make a change, and all our problems as a nation will be solved. But the problem is that all change is not good. The question American voters should be asking is “What kind of change?” When I hear liberal Democrat politicians talking about change, I instinctively reach into my pocket to protect my wallet. They’ve already absconded with a large portion of your income. Now they want your change too! So perhaps not all change is good. The “change” that Obama & Company refers to means the same old tax and spend “income redistribution” policies of failed Democratic Presidential candidates like Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. It’s back to the future for liberal tax & spenders. Is that the kind of change the American public wants?
Just because Barack Obama is a good talker…just because he has charisma…just because he is charming…doesn’t mean he has anything of value to offer. If you examine his flowery words (under that dynamic style) you find a great big NOTHING. Obama isn’t actually saying a thing. He is offering no specifics, few if any details. He has hope, and he wants change. Wow, that’s pretty radical and enlightening stuff. Obama is purposely hiding the true meaning of the “change” he wants to bring. You know why? Because he’s afraid if he tells you the exact definition of the change he wants to bring, the voters will recoil. His version of change has already been defeated at the polls again and again for the last half century (usually in a landslide). Obama is George McGovern-lite. Obama offers a prettier face, more charisma, and no details.
Obama says he doesn’t want to pit blue states versus red states. Well that may be what he says. But never trust what a politician says. It’s more important to watch what he does. Obama’s policies (and past voting record) tell a different story. Barack Hussein Obama talks about uniting America. But his ultra-liberal voting record actually proves his goal is to divide America according to race, income, and career. Barack’s recycled liberal tax and spend policies pit rich versus poor; successful versus unsuccessful; business owners versus employees and unions; teachers unions versus taxpayers; those who worked hard to achieve the American Dream versus those who want it handed to them. His policies are McGovern/Kennedy/Mondale revisited. It’s the same old tax and spend policies of hard core liberals recycled and repackaged with flowery words to hide the true meaning. Liberal Democrats like Barack and Hillary must think we’re all fools. Well actually they have no other choice- when McGovern and Mondale actually explained the details of their policies- they both lost in landslides.
Obama is simply playing Robin Hood (like all liberal tax and spenders). I know the game plan well. First denigrate the successful people of this country (call them that dirty word “rich”)…then describe them as “greedy” (for wanting to retain some of their own money)…then steal their hard-earned money under the guise of “fairness.” In the world of liberal Democrats like Obama, it’s “greedy” to want to keep more of your own money (earned through your sweat, hard work, long hours, and risk), but it’s called “fair” to steal the money you didn’t earn from others to buy things you want, but can’t afford. That’s an interesting way to look at it, isn’t it? But I have news for Obama- Robin Hood may have been a hero for stealing from the rich to give to the poor. But no matter how you color it, no matter how eloquently you say it, IT’S STILL STEALING.
If you look at the plans for saving our economy as designed by Obama, Hillary and Edwards, it’s frightening. The amount of money needed to pay for all the government programs and giveaways they envision will A) Bankrupt our nation…and B) Send anyone who isn’t already poor to the poor house. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for all the “change” they are promising. But heck, if you’re rich one day and bankrupt the next, I guess that does qualify as “change.” Liberal politicians like Obama and Hillary talk so much about your pain, it’s easy to forget that they are the ones causing it.
Three things are definite if any of these liberal tax and spenders get elected: the rich will be targeted and taxed to death (literally- as death tax rates will be raised back to old levels); the recession that appears imminent could turn into a full fledged depression (as real estate crashes and the stock market melts away); and budget deficits will soar to new records. Now isn’t that interesting? For 8 years all we’ve been hearing Democrats whine about is the growth of our budget deficit because of tax cuts. But once Democrats are in charge, budget deficits will grow even bigger as a result of out of control government spending, ever-expanding government programs, and bribes disguised to look like giveaways and entitlements to the poor. So why is a record budget deficit a big problem only when Republicans are in charge? Why are deficits perfectly fine when Democrats are in charge? Why is it “fair” to cause a deficit by handing money to people that never earned it? But it’s not good (according to liberal tax and spenders) to expand a deficit by allowing hard working Americans to keep more of the money they’ve earned? The hypocrisy of politics boggles the imagination.
Democratic Presidential contenders will allow the Bush income tax cuts to expire. They’ll raise capital gains tax rates. They’ll raise the death tax rate back to old levels. They’ll remove the cap off Social Security tax rates (so the tax will come off all your income, with no ceiling). They’ll most probably demand a tax surcharge on any income above $250,000. It’s a mind-boggling array of tax raises. But hey, as long as Obama is a good speaker everything is fine and dandy, right? What he’s actually talking about doesn’t really matter, does it? Besides, change has to be good, right? Any change at all- no matter how painful to the taxpayer, no matter how damaging to the economy, is good for America, right? As long as Obama and Clinton say they feel your pain, well then it’s obvious that they have the answer to all our problems, right? The fact that they will rob Peter to pay Paul is no big deal. As long as you’re not Peter.
As a Libertarian candidate for President of the United States, I too believe strongly in change. But the “change” that I believe in is not the same old recycled big-government, tax-and-spend policies designed to punish successful Americans. The change I believe in will lead right back to the most perfect document ever created- the United States Constitution. I believe in smaller government, less spending by government, less federal government intrusion in the lives of American taxpayers (just as our Founding Fathers designed). I believe in lower taxes. I will fight to make the Bush income tax cuts permanent. But that’s just a small start. I will fight for a simple flat tax that lowers income taxes far below current rates. I will fight to eliminate death taxes entirely. I will fight to completely eliminate the dreaded AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). I will fight to dramatically lower capital gains tax rates on any American over age 55 (so they can retire at a younger age). I will fight to dramatically lower corporate income tax rates (now among the highest in the industrialized world). I will cut foreign aid dramatically. I will move to close military bases across the globe- let the Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans pay for their own defense. I will cut entire Cabinet Departments whose existence is not authorized by the Constitution (starting with the Department of Education). I will fight to enact the “Enumerated Powers Act” introduced by Rep. John Shadegg (R-Arizona) that would require that “Each act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act.” In other words if a program isn’t authorized by the Constitution, it should not be funded. I will fight to eliminate earmarks, which so often lead to political bribery and government waste like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” I will reform Social Security by moving towards a system of individual savings accounts (similar to what every member of Congress already has). I will root out waste and inefficiency in our government to pay for our reduced tax burden.
And then there’s the all-important topic of illegal immigration. But it’s not immigration that’s the real problem. It’s the insane policies that allow illegal immigrants to obtain entitlements and government handouts. I will fight to eliminate welfare, food stamps, housing aid, and other entitlements to illegal aliens. I love immigrants. Immigrants have always served as the foundation of this country. LEGAL immigrants. There is a huge distinction. Both sets of my grandparents were immigrants who arrived on the shores of America legally through Ellis Island. If you want to come to this country legally to work and pay taxes, we will welcome you with open arms. But if you want to come here to grab government entitlements and handouts, you’re most definitely not welcome. You are most definitely NOT entitled.
I think those are the kinds of changes the American people are looking for. I want change just like my Columbia College classmate Barack Obama- but our definition of “change” is far different. The change that Barack Obama envisions is to create bigger government and force higher taxes on the very people that are doing all the work, taking all the risks (small business owners), creating the jobs, paying all the taxes (otherwise known as taxpayers). My version of change is to give the power and the money back to the people who earned it- the taxpayers. Now that’s a change worth fighting (and voting) for. Just remember- not all change is created equal.
