For years, Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy. Obama is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly. My hunch is that Obama's argument will prevail, and that conservatives will then work overtime to try to deny the judgment that the people have rendered.

Of course what conservatives and Republicans really argue is that high marginal tax rates suppress economic growth, while low ones encourage growth, which in turn creates jobs.

Dionne's description, though, is worse than tendentious. It's downright Orwellian. According to him, to tax people less is to "give" them money--as if the money never belonged to them. When the government increases taxes on some people so as to write checks to others, in Dionne's world that is "cutting out the middleman"--the "middleman" apparently being the productive economy, not the bureaucrats who administer the redistribution schemes of Dionne's dreams.

We could be in for a long few years.

As the Bush administration enters its final months with no apparent plan to close the Guantánamo Bay camp, an extensive review of the government's military tribunal files suggests that dozens of the roughly 255 prisoners remaining in detention are said by military and intelligence agencies to have been captured with important terrorism suspects, to have connections to top leaders of Al Qaeda or to have other serious terrorism credentials.

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have said they would close the detention camp, but the review of the government's public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees.

"It would be very difficult for a new president to come in and say, 'I don't believe what the is saying about these guys,' " said Daniel Marcus, a Democrat who was general counsel of the 9/11 Commission and held senior positions in the Carter and Clinton administrations.

Apparently they were just kidding about all that "gulag" stuff. That's a relief, although it may be a rude awakening to Times readers who took it all seriously and are voting for Obama in the belief that he did too.

For years, we've debated rising economic inequality. On one side, liberals denounce it as unjust. Redistribute wealth to the poor and middle...

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

What the presidential candidates say now is important, but it's Congress that ultimately shapes tax law. Voters should be listening not just to Barack Obama and John McCain, but also to Democrats who hold key positions in Congress — particularly in the House, which has sole power under the Constitution to originate revenue bills.

So what are powerful House Democrats thinking these days? For one thing, they're not happy with 401(k)s. Granted, no one who has 401(k) money in the stock market has much to be happy about. But it's not just the loss of investor wealth that has Democrats questioning these tax-advantaged retirement plans. They also dislike the plans' freedom of choice and the size of 401(k) tax deductions for higher-paid workers.

The so-called "tax subsidy" of 401(k) plans comes to $80 billion a year, and its biggest beneficiaries are employees in higher tax brackets. A worker making $35,000 and paying income tax in the 15% bracket gets a $525 break by setting aside 10% of pay in a 401(k). A worker making $150,000 and paying in the 28% bracket gets $4,200 from the same 10% deferral.

You can see why this irks the spread-the-wealth party. So it's no surprise that Democrats are intrigued by an alternative plan that would replace 401(k)s with a flat tax credit at all income levels.

We just hope that voters can see past the current panic and recognize that the Democratic Party simply wants more of their money.

Read Full Article

Isolated gaffe? No. On his own Web site, Obama declares:

"Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy."

In other words, Obama's plan is confiscatory taxes to first destroy America's domestic energy producers, and once that bridge is burned, force the U.S. to rely on alternative energies that haven't been developed. The big-government plan might make ideologues happy, but in the real world, it won't work. History shows that centrally planned industries fail, and when there's an energy shortage, the private sector works best when it's left alone.

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system," Obama said in another interview, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." He added that because "I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to the consumers."

The biggest problem with Obama's plan is that it taxes productive companies, and offers nothing but "hope" to replace the missing energy. He does not propose using our current resources as a bridge to cleaner energy. He'd rather stop their use cold. No nuclear power, no offshore drilling, no new coal plants, and if consumers have to pay more, too bad. Obama's attack on coal use surely will leave us poorer.

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the...

Read Full Article

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise — whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team — is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.

The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Gov. Palin — grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.

Biden: “I never make any big, big gaffes”

You know he’s having a big day when his meditation on “girl-boys” rates as only the second dopiest thing he’s said. And yet — he’s right, isn’t he? Greasy Joe’s national ambitions have been one long exercise in self-sabotage, not just during this campaign but since he started running for president 20 years ago. The plagiarism; the IQ comment; the votes against the first Iraq war and in favor of the second, followed by his opposition to the surge; the 7/11 crack about Indians; the “bright, clean, articulate” backhanded compliment to Obama; and more recently the “no coal plants in America” clusterfark and the warning that we’re sure to face some sort of major international crisis should we elect The One. If the election had ended up being about foreign policy, as McCain hoped/bet that it would, that last one alone might have been enough to sink the Dems.

And yet, in spite of it all, Biden’s a day away from being elected vice president. Exit question: How did he do it?

Breaking: Palin exonerated by Personnel Board

Video: Bishop Finn says “give consideration to your eternal salvation”

For our part, we, the people, must accept that we'll never be loved by each last Syrian secret policeman. Jealousy is far too powerful an emotion. If we expect thanks, we'll always be disappointed. We must back our presidents when they do what is right, even if the world does not applaud.

For all that, we're not nearly as "hated" as our Left would have you believe. Anti-Americanism was far worse in the 1950s and '60s than over the past eight years. The 1970s seethed with Yankee-go-home sentiments (as I saw first-hand). And American power was supposed to be finished at the end of the Vietnam War. It's just that today's irresponsible media amplify every negative event.

Convincing themselves that President Bush spoiled a fairy tale, American leftists forget how gruesome fairy tales really are. When no one takes on the wicked witch, she wins. Sometimes, she wins anyway.

To whom should the world then turn? To the Russians? The Chinese? The Taliban?

An American president too anxious to please the world is bound to do it great harm. Should the American electorate choose Sen. Barack Obama tomorrow, his first challenge will be deciding which groups of his supporters he'll disappoint first. The struggle against Islamist fanaticism will continue to demand costly, long-term commitments - it isn't a problem we can solve by sending in the San Francisco Police Department.

All the conflict-resolution theories in the world aren't worth a single rifleman with an American flag on his sleeve. Aggressors won't be stopped with earnest petitions, and terrorists don't cower at repartee. As Jimmy Carter learned so very painfully, good will is no substitute for strength.