Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

Minnesota’s progressive newspaper endorses … Norm Coleman?

Michael additionally reports that the Strib casts doubt on Franken’s ability to be a “constructive force” for consensus and compromise.  That’s certainly an understatement, but coming from the Strib’s editorial board, it’s a rare bit of common sense and sanity.  When even the Strib’s editors see Franken as a divisive presence, the lesson for readers should be obvious.

How badly does this hurt Franken?  He’s been trying to paint Coleman as a lackey of George Bush and an extremist, which has always been a ridiculous position, one that even a DFL-friendly outfit like the Star Tribune can’t quite swallow it.  Note, too, that the Strib could just as easily have endorsed independent candidate Dean Barkley or refrained from any endorsement at all.  Instead, by backing Coleman, they may have put the final nail in Franken’s coffin.

Elitism and the progressive tax system

I read different blogs to get different perspectives and to keep up with the arguments on the Left, usually at sites with a mix of contributors like AOL’s Political Machine.  Tommy Christopher both blogs and reports at the site, and while I disagree strenuously with Tommy, he’s a good writer and almost always worth a read.  Yesterday, Tommy wrote an interesting defense of the progressive tax system and threw in some snark at elitism that once again shows a misunderstanding of the concept:

Now, I know that there are tens of millions of people who believe, as I do, that a progressive tax is about fairness, about not just the ability to pay, but the degree to which a wealthier person benefits from our common possessions. That position, like any that disagrees with a Republican position, has been dubbed “elitist.”

If that’s the case, then I say “Pass the arugula!” As I’ve said before, I come from a long line of working-class people, civil servants and tradesman, and I’m in the lower end of that economic bracket myself. Where I come from, a man takes care of his responsibilities and doesn’t complain. He pays his taxes. And when he gets somewhere, he remembers where he came from.

I would love to hear from all of the other “elitists” out there, the teacher, the construction worker, the waitress, the meatpacker, who think that people ought to pay their fair share. People who understand that the burden of these hard times is not falling on those who earn over $250,000.00. It’s “elitists” like us that have carried the weight.

First, let’s tackle his defense of the progressive tax system.  Tommy claims that the federal government somehow benefits the wealthy more than the working class.  I’m certain that will be news to both.  To the extent that one can calculate direct benefits and costs, the cost burden already falls almost entirely on the higher earners.  The top 25% pay 67% of the income taxes received by the government, and the top 10% of earners pay 46%.  The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 13% of income tax collected by the federal government.  Direct benefits from government apply to those who pay less, not more, so the top earners don’t get direct return on their investment.

Ah, but Tommy argues that the federal government protects the rich, and therefore it’s right that they pay more.  But the only manner in which the government protects the rich is in how they protect all of us — by defending private-property rights, defending the borders, and establishing the rule of law.  All of that is neutral to the income level of the individual citizens of the US.

So why have a progressive tax system, meaning one in which rates increase with the level earned?  After all, a flat-rate system would still ensure that the rich pay more in terms of gross dollars while ensuring that everyone pay the same percentage of income earned.  Progressives don’t like that, though, because they want to have government determine winners and losers rather than allowing the talents and the work of individuals in a free market determine that.  And note that I’m not talking about government spending (and the various programs that support lower-income families), but only the manner in which the government collects its income.

The progressive tax system serves two purposes.  First, it punishes those who succeed.  Second, it minimizes the negative impact of redistribution so that more people don’t object to it.  A flat-rate tax could raise just as much money, but the redistribution would become more obvious — and unpopular.

That’s why Joe the Plumber’s objection resonates.  Barack Obama wants government to determine what is excessive wealth and confiscate it because government will “spread the wealth” better than the individuals who earned it.  That, in fact,is elitist, and Tommy doesn’t understand that.  A plumber can be an elitist if he thinks that people can’t make decisions for themselves and need a small, select group of people to make decisions for them.   Elitism doesn’t refer to people who sun themselves on yachts in Aruba, but to a governing philosophy that assumes that people can’t run their own lives and require others to make those decisions. 

The basic question from Joe the Plumber comes down to who should spend the money people earn.  If the answer given is “government”, then that’s the elitist answer.  If the answer given is “the earner”, then that is the libertarian, free-market answer that supports self-government and private-property ownership.  In fact, it also supports common sense.  Why filter wealth through a huge bureaucracy when Joe the Plumber can spread the wealth for no additional cost at all, choosing his own winners and losers instead of a few elites in Washington doing it for him?

What will an Obama administration and a Congress with increased Democratic majorities do? That's a relevant question, given the Democrats' leads...

Read Full Article

Two issues pushed by Democrats in this Congress have no budgetary costs.

One is the "fairness doctrine," which is intended to shut down talk radio, the one communications medium in which conservative voices are dominant.

The other is the so-called card check bill, which requires employers to bargain with unions when their organizers secure signatures on cards from a majority of employees; secret-ballot unionization elections, required now, would be a thing of the past. The aim is to vastly increase union membership, pumping money into a Democratic pressure group.

Read Full Article

In 2003, when the deficit was $377 billion, Rep. Barney Frank said Bush's dividend tax cut would have "negative long-term effects on the deficit," and that deficits "are over the long term a negative for the economy."

But just the other day, as the deficit has reached $455 billion and could go to $800 billion next year, Frank said: "I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."

An even more notable switcheroo is New York Times columnist, Democratic mouthpiece and freshly minted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. In column after column from 2001-2003 he denounced the Bush tax cuts for leading to "skyrocketing budget deficits."

About-face! A week and a half ago Krugman wrote: "What we need right now is more government spending. . . . Now is not the time to worry about the deficit."

But let's not be too hard on Frank, Krugman and their ilk. They are giddily anticipating a President Obama and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress. For the first time in almost three decades a liberal wish list of government spending can finally be enacted. Why let a little thing like the deficit get in the way?

Liberals say new spending is necessary for the economy. "This is a time for a very important kind of dose of Keynesianism," says Frank. Krugman thinks "temporary" spending is good "to fight a recession."

Don't believe it. Government can only spend what it drains from the job-producing private sector. And "temporary" government spending is like a unicorn — it doesn't exist.

Ultimately, higher deficits will lead to higher taxes. According to Frank, "Later on, there should be tax increases . . . there are a lot of very rich people out there we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

Joe Biden says he's going to take pensions away from CEOs. You think that's great, huh? Well, they're coming for your 401(k) next. Congressional Democrats want to end their tax deductibility, take it away, and control it.

WSJ: Eyeing Your Pension -- Are 401(k)s Safe from Congressional Democrats?

Market drops on fear of Obama presidency. The markets and businesses live in reality, not the fantasy world of Obama as The One.

The very GOP moderates who said we had to pick McCain and dump conservatism -- guys like Scott McClellan, Colin Powell, William Weld, etc. -- jumped ship to Obama. Good riddance! Stay with the Democrats.

Charles Krauthammer Nails It: Why I'm voting for McCain

Media spins innocent Lieberman quote to humiliate Palin

Light at the end of the housing tunnel?

Frank: Agree to stimulus now or watch us throw money away later

John McCain has apparently decided to make the divided-government argument in the final ten days.  This could be Exhibit A.  Without a check on a Democratic Congress in the White House, Frank and his allies will run wild on spending, creating massive new entitlements and government works programs, pulling capital out of the markets to fund it.  Instead of having a chance at reforming Social Security and especially Medicare, they’ll busily create an even bigger economic disaster.

Republicans need to defiantly answer Frank’s extortion by running this threat in ads for the next 10 days in every close Congressional race.  They need to ask voters whether they want to put government in the hands of people who want to take even more of their money to make government even bigger than it is now.  If nothing else, it prepares the ground for 2010 and the next midterms.

Update: How will they pay for it all?  Frank suggests a 25% reduction in defense spending — while we’re at war.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes.

If Republicans continue to resist, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Democrats are likely to rejoin the issue in January, when they expect party standard bearer Barack Obama to take the oath of office as president.

"There's no question the House will pass ... a much bigger (stimulus plan) than we passed before," Frank said of a postelection lame duck session. "If enough Republicans in the Senate decide to filibuster it ... then we'll just wait until January."