DEOP's Blog

A few interesting parts of this article:

*The prank call to Palin had been on her schedule for 3 days. So no one in the McCain or Palin camps bothered to take a few minutes and confirm the real identity of who was calling.

*Regarding McCain about the Palin situation -”He was aware of the infighting, they said, but it is unclear how much he was inclined or able to stop it.”

*The budget for Palin's new clothing (new suits for her) was $20,000 to $25,000. Instead she handed the RNC bills for about $150,000. "The bills included clothing for Ms. Palin’s family and purchases of shoes, luggage and jewelry, the advisers said."  Guess she thought she was just screwing Alaskan taxpayers again.

November 6, 2008

PHOENIX — As a top adviser in Senator John McCain’s now-imploded campaign tells the story, it was bad enough that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska unwittingly scheduled, and then took, a prank telephone call from a Canadian comedian posing as the president of France. Far worse, the adviser said, she failed to inform her ticketmate about her rogue diplomacy.

As a senior adviser in the Palin campaign tells the story, the charge is absurd. The call had been on Ms. Palin’s schedule for three days and she should not have been faulted if the McCain campaign was too clueless to notice.

Whatever the truth, one thing is certain. Ms. Palin, who laughingly told the prankster that she could be president “maybe in eight years,” was the catalyst for a civil war between her campaign and Mr. McCain’s that raged from mid-September up until moments before Mr. McCain’s concession speech on Tuesday night. By then, Ms. Palin was in only infrequent contact with Mr. McCain, top advisers said.

But Mr. McCain’s advisers also described him as admiring of Ms. Palin’s political skills. He was aware of the infighting, they said, but it is unclear how much he was inclined or able to stop it.

And even as the votes from the election were still being counted, there were new recriminations, with Mr. McCain’s aides suggesting that a Palin aide had leaked damaging information about them to reporters.

The disputes between the campaigns centered in large part on the Republican National Committee’s $150,000 wardrobe for Ms. Palin and her family, but also on what McCain advisers considered Ms. Palin’s lack of preparation for her disastrous interview with Katie Couric of CBS News and her refusal to take advice from Mr. McCain’s campaign.

But behind those episodes may be a greater subtext: anger within the McCain camp that Ms. Palin harbored political ambitions beyond 2008.

As late as Tuesday night, a McCain adviser said, Ms. Palin was pushing to deliver her own speech just before Mr. McCain’s concession speech, even though vice-presidential nominees do not traditionally speak on election night. But Ms. Palin met up with Mr. McCain with text in hand. She was told no by Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers, and Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s top strategist.

On Wednesday, two top McCain campaign advisers said that the clothing purchases for Ms. Palin and her family were a particular source of outrage for them. As they portrayed it, Ms. Palin had been advised by Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain aide, that she should buy three new suits for the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September and three additional suits for the fall campaign. The budget for the clothes was anticipated to be from $20,000 to $25,000, the officials said.

Instead, in a public relations debacle undermining Ms. Palin’s image as an everywoman “hockey mom,” bills came in to the Republican National Committee for about $150,000, including charges of $75,062 at Neiman Marcus and $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue. The bills included clothing for Ms. Palin’s family and purchases of shoes, luggage and jewelry, the advisers said.

The advisers described the McCain campaign as incredulous about the shopping spree and said Republican National Committee lawyers were likely to go to Alaska to conduct an inventory and try to account for all that was spent.

Advisers in the McCain campaign, in suggesting that Palin advisers had been leaking damaging information about the McCain campaign to the news media, said they were particularly suspicious of Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s top foreign policy aide who had a central role in preparing Ms. Palin for the vice-presidential debate.

The McCain camp was further upset about Ms. Palin’s interview with Ms. Couric, which was broadcast at a time when Ms. Palin was meeting with foreign leaders at the United Nations and trying to establish some foreign policy credentials. Ms. Palin’s wobbly and tongue-tied performance was mocked in an iconic impersonation on “Saturday Night Live” by Tiny Fey.

One of the last straws for the McCain advisers came just days before the election when news broke that Ms. Palin had taken a call made by Marc-Antoine Audette. Mr. Audette and his fellow comedian Sebastien Trudel are notorious for prank calls to celebrities and heads of state.

Ms. Palin appeared to believe that she was talking to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, even though the prankster had a flamboyant French accent and spoke to her in a more personal way than would be protocol in such a call.

FROM: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06mccain.
html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

McCain campaign’s last minute distortion of Obama’s coal record an act of desperation

November 3, 2008

United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement today:

“Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.

“Here is what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.’

“Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.

“I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?

“Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families

http://www.umwa.org/index.php?q=news/mccain-campaign

%E2%80%99s-last-minute-distortion-obama%E2%80%99s-coal-

record-act-desperation

So what happens when she’s waken up with a call at 3AM telling her there is no time to wait for McCain to take his start the day pills, & she’ll have to go push the red button?

Updated Sat. Nov. 1 2008 4:47 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Two notorious Quebec comedians have pranked Sarah Palin, tricking the Republican vice-presidential nominee into thinking she was speaking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a Saturday afternoon phone call.

During the nearly seven-minute chat, the conversation ranges from politics to hunting with vice-president Dick Cheney.

The topics also touch on Palin's political future -- a sensitive topic for some of John McCain's campaign staffers, who have suggested Palin is already looking at a presidential run in the next four years.

"I see you as a president one day, too," says one of the pranksters to Palin.

"Maybe in eight years," she responds.

"We have such great respect for you," Palin tells the Sarkozy impersonator during the conversation. "John McCain and I, we love you and thank you ..."

The impersonator also says he has been closely following the U.S. election through his special advisor "Johnny Hallyday," the French pop icon. He also refers to "Canadian Prime Minister Stef Carse."

Speaking to CTV.ca, Audette later claimed that Palin "didn't know who the prime minister of Canada was."

At another point in the chat, the impersonator says in a fake Parisian accent that the pair might use a helicopter to go hunting.

"We should go hunting together," replies Palin. "We can have a lot of fun together while we're getting work done. We could kill two birds with one stone."

But when the fake Sarkozy makes a joke that they shouldn't extend the invitation to vice-president Dick Cheney, Palin says, "I'll be a careful shot."

In 2006, Cheney accidentally shot and injured a friend during a bird hunting trip.

The conversation also touches upon Sarkozy's model-singer wife Carla Bruni.

"You've added a lot of energy to your country with that beautiful family of yours," says Palin.

"Give her a big hug for me."

Nearing the end of the conversation, the impersonator tells Palin she's been "pranked," and an aide quickly cuts off the conversation.

Later in the day, a spokeswoman for Palin emailed politico.com, a blog dedicated to U.S. politics, and confirmed that the chat had taken place.

"Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie," Tracey Schmitt in the email.

Tax credits would move people out of group plans and into individual policies where the benefits aren’t as good

If you think that “The Market” — whatever market — always works for the best, you’ll love John McCain’s version of health insurance reform. It uses the tax code to shove you toward individual policies (more “choice!”) and away from comprehensive, employer supported plans. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the cost of his proposed subsidies at $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

But a funny thing happens on the way to spending that much money. Almost all of the subsidy goes to people who have health insurance already, says Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy at Columbia University. The Tax Policy Center figures that, after 10 years, the plan cuts the number of uninsured by only 1 million, out of 45.7 million now. Barack Obama’s $1.6 trillion plan would take 34 million off the rolls of the uninsured.

McCain’s idea is pretty simple. Tax the value of employer-paid health insurance as part of your regular income (62 percent of the nonelderly are in these plans). In return, he’d give everyone a refundable tax credit—$2,500 for individuals, $5,000 for family coverage—to offset the cost of any health policy they choose.

If you’re uninsured, the tax credit helps you purchase coverage. The only hitch—a big one—is that you have to be able to afford the premiums up front. The tax credit comes later. The government will send it to the insurance company, which will apply it to your account.

It’s a shock to move from group plans into the harsh world of individual insurance. You get “choices” (rah, rah). But the policies cost more and cover less than company plans do—especially for women, older people and those whose health is less than perfect.

That is, if you can find coverage at all. In 2006, the Commonwealth Fund studied working-age adults hunting for individual policies. One-fifth were charged more or rejected for health reasons. More than half found it hard or impossible to secure a policy they could afford.

FROM: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/october/vetting_mccains_
hea.php

If John McCain were not in the Senate, he would be unable to get health insurance coverage, due to his many pre-existing conditions. Seriously, what for-profit health care plan would want to insure a 72-year-old cancer survivor?

That $5,000 tax credit that McCain touts so highly would be useless for him, and for many Americans, under the current system.

Imagine, if a 72-year-old cancer survivor had no worry about getting health care coverage. Or would he prefer a $5,000 tax credit to go toward a health insurance policy he could never get?

FROM: http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/10/mccains-5000-ta.html
</p>

Per Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.

"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

Election: Your health insurance at stake

Under McCain's plan, employees would get taxed on the value of their health insurance, which on average costs $12,680 per year for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Workers pay an average of $3,354 in premiums, while their employers cover the rest.

Experts, however, fear that eliminating the tax advantage of employer-based coverage would prompt younger, healthier workers to leave their office plans. If that happened, costs for the remaining workers could skyrocket. Companies may drop coverage altogether.

"If companies know their employees have the tax credit, it relieves them of the burden of providing coverage," said Sara Collins, who directs a health insurance program at the Commonwealth Fund. McCain's plan "moves people out of the employer system and to the individual market."

Some 74% of companies said that eliminating the tax exclusion would have a "strong negative impact on their workforce," according to a September survey by the American Benefits Council.

Estimates vary, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that 20 million people would lose their employer-based coverage by 2018. Roughly the same number would gain insurance through other means. But, overall, McCain's plan would do little to reduce the number of uninsured

Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.

"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

Also of concern, experts say, is the fact that the $5,000 tax credit would be indexed to inflation. As a result, it would not keep up with the swiftly rising cost of health care, which was soaring as much as 13% a year in the middle of this decade.

FROM:http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/news/economy/he
alth_care_and_election/?postversion=2008102807

TEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT JOHN MCCAINS’ HEALTH CARE PLAN

1. McCain will tax your health care benefits at work

McCain's health care plan will make people pay income taxes on the value of their health care benefits at work. So if your employer pays $10,000 a year for your health insurance, you will start having to pay taxes on that $10,000, just like you do on your wages or salary.

2. And give you a tax credit for less than five months of health care (after that you're on your own).

McCain will give a family a tax credit of $5,000 – paid to your insurance company - but the average cost of a family health care plan in 2007 was $12,680. So McCain's plan will give you enough to pay from January to May. You'll need to come up with the money for June through December!

3. You may be one of 20 million people who will lose your health benefits

A study published in the respected journal Health Affairs found that 20 million will lose their employer paid for health insurance under the McCain plan, because many employers will decide they no longer have a responsibility to pay for health coverage for their workers.

4. And be forced to buy health insurance on your own

When you lose your health coverage at work, you'll need to look for coverage in the individual market. But you'll no longer have your employer doing the shopping for coverage and paying for coverage.

5. You won't be covered for pre-existing conditions - and may not be able to get coverage at all

When you are on your own, health insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions and they often refuse to sell any coverage to people who have had asthma, cancer or other common diseases. The federal law that protects people who get health insurance at work doesn't apply when you buy health insurance in the individual market.

6. But you will pay higher premiums as you get older or sicker or if you're a woman

In the individual market, health insurance companies charge higher premiums to people as they get older and charge more for people who have been treated for illnesses. Younger women get charged more than men of the same age, simply because they can become pregnant.

7. You may have deductibles as high as $11,200 a year

You may only be able to afford insurance plans with high deductibles, which under current federal law can be as much as $11,200 for a family plan.

8. With barebones benefits and no consumer protections

John McCain's plan would take away the protections that your state now offers people who buy health insurance on their own. Your state law requires health insurance to provide standard benefits and consumer protections. McCain's plan allows health insurance companies to get out of following your state's health insurance laws.

9. McCain protects health insurance profits - by passing the cost to taxpayers and the sick.

McCain's solution for people whom health insurance companies won't cover - because they've been treated for an illness - is to put them in a high-risk pool, paid for by state taxpayers and by charging high premiums.

10. Of course, John McCain won't have to worry about any of this for his health care.

You may not be covered, but John McCain will. As a Senator, he'll still get good coverage paid for by the federal government. As a veteran, he can also get cared for through the Veteran's Administration. And as a senior, he can get Medicare. That's three ways that the government provides health care for John McCain.

Regarding the Presidential candidates Income Tax plans, the Tax Policy Center states:

Yet McCain & Palin continue to claim Obama will increase taxes which will be bad for the economy & jobs. In 1992, the same type scare tactic lies were used regarding Clinton’s tax plan, which was similar to Obama‘s plan. McCain claims that his plan, which is basically a continuation of Bush’s plan but with even more being distributed to the ultra wealthy, will be good for the economy & jobs.

So although some hope we never mention Bush (for obvious reasons), let’s compare some results from the Clinton & Bush years:

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (per BLS.GOV):

Clinton - inherited a 7.4% rate from Daddy Bush. When Clinton left office, the rate had decreased to 3.9%

Bush - inherited this 3.9%. Currently the rate has increased to 6.1%

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (per BLS.GOV):

Clinton - jobs increased at an average of over 2.8 million per year.

Bush - jobs have increased an average of 0.5 million per year, the worst average since Eisenhower.

STOCK MARKET - DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE:

Clinton - DJIA @ 3301 when Clinton entered office, @ 10788 when Clinton left office. An increase of 227%, average yearly increase of 28%

Bush - DJIA @ 10788 when Bush entered office, @ 9209 as I write this. A decrease of 15%, average yearly decrease of 2%. Bush is on pace for the worst average yearly result under a President going back to Roosevelt.

* Take a guess when your investments (IRA’s. 401K’s, etc) made more money. In fact, if your retirement money is tied to the stock market, since Bush has been in office your balance has only increased due to the money you have contributed.

Gross Domestic Product (per BEA.GOV):

Clinton - average yearly increase 6.9%

Bush - average yearly increase 6.1%

BOTTOM LINE:

Job Growth - better under Clinton

Stock Market - better under Clinton

GDP - better under Clinton

McCain’s tax plan is to basically continue Bush’s plan, with the main difference being to pass even more tax cuts to the wealthy than Bush did .

Per the Tax Policy Center “McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes..”

Here are some thoughts regarding this - from John McCain:

“I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

“…. I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans.”

“There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”
—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

“I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”
—Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.

“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
—Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.

“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
—Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.

What is a small business?

When the Republicans say that the Obama tax plan will hurt “small” businesses, I believe many think of the local mom & pop businesses, or their neighbor who works out of his home, or their friend who has an auto repair shop.

But what do the Republicans classify as a “small business”?

Recently a blogger, who was repeating this line that they have been told to repeat, posted part of an article from Politico. The blogger didn’t give a link to the article, but a quick search on Google reveals a good reason why he didn’t want to identify the writer. This article was written by Grover Norquist (who I will talk about later). But something from the article he didn’t post was this:

“Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.”

Read that again. According to Norquist “small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.” Norquist doesn’t qualify a small business by income, number of employees, etc.. He qualifies a small business based on their IRS entity status.

So according to Norquist, he would consider it a small business even if the company had $100million of revenue & 5000 employees - as long as the business is a Sub S Corporation. No wonder the claims are so outrageous as to what the Obama plan will cost them. Gee, I wonder what McCain will cost these “Small” businesses because as I posted earlier:

"Both of them would raise corporate taxes but not the rate," said Roberton Williams, a principal research associate at the Washington-based nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute.
"Both of them would raise taxes by closing some loopholes that allow corporations to reduce their taxable income," he told the Reuters Wealth Management Summit.
FROM: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/10/13/


2008-10-13T235325Z_01_N13474331_RTRIDST_0_WEALTH-SUMMIT

-TAXES.html

Let’s examine one of the IRS entities that Norquist claims are “small businesses”, S Corporations.

According to the IRS’s latest statistics for 2005, S corporations:

*Filed 3,893,471 tax returns

*The average revenue was $1,425,725

FROM: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05coccr.pdf

An example of an S corporation is ex-VP candidate John Edwards firm. A few years back, the Republicans were howling about Edwards forming an S Corporation because, although legal, they claimed it was a loophole to reduce his taxes. His S-Corp earned from $5-11 million dollars a year from 1995-1998. Now suddenly the Republicans are concerned about this (in their new view) “small business”.

Now we could say that Norquist is just someone without the knowledge to understand what S Corporations are. Or he could just be another faceless blogger who hopes some people are dumb enough to blindly believe what he says because it fits their political bias.

So who is this Grover Norquist & how unbiased and impartial are his views? Well a simple google search told the following:

Grover Norquist is one of the most connected members of the new right wing movement. He has close ties to the Republican Party, large U.S. business interests, and both the subsidized and regular U.S. media. He truly represents the nexus of politics, business and media.

As President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), he helped the Heritage Foundation write the Republican's 1994 Contract With America. Shortly thereafter, Norquist led a right wing charge to "de-fund" the left, declaring that "We will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding sources."

Norquist was on the campaign staff on the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Republican Platform Committees, and formerly was Executive Director of the College Republicans.

A few articles:

By Steve Mayes of The Oregonian staff

Tuesday, September 8 1998

If you've never heard of Grover Norquist, you'll probably be introduced to him at least once between now and Nov. 3...

"Although Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform are not household names in Oregon, they are well-known in national political circles as a powerhouse working to achieve a wide range of Republican goals.

Philip Shenon
NY Times
March 10, 2006

The chief of an Indian tribe represented by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff was admitted to a meeting with President Bush in 2001 days after the tribe paid a prominent conservative lobbying group $25,000 at Mr. Abramoff's direction, according to documents and interviews.
The payment was made to Americans for Tax Reform, a group run by Grover G. Norquist, one of the Republican Party's most influential policy strategists. Mr. Norquist was a friend and longtime associate of Mr. Abramoff.

Stuart Levine
Tax & Business Law Commentary
January 19, 2006

..The information that is publicly available is still too limited to allow one to definitively answer that question. However, the facts that are publicly available point to systematic violations by Norquist of various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
...in an article entitled “The Pimping of the President”, the Texas Observer gives a detailed account of how Jack Abramoff and Norquist got paid by two Native American tribes to provide a personal audience with President Bush. There seems to be some question as to who was in attendance, but there is no question that Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform, received a $25,000 payment for Norquist's efforts.
...it appears that Norquist, and probably others, used 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities to engage in the "business" of partisan politics. That business made them money, as their influence and the funding of their controlled 501(c) entities grew.

So here is someone with strong ties to the Republican Party who calls himself the President of Americans for Tax Reform, who either doesn’t have simple knowledge of S Corporations or who hopes to fool some into believing that a business with millions of dollars of revenue are a “small business”.

And while we are on taxes, how about the candidates plans for your individual taxes? Rather than blindly believing the bias BS put out by people like Norquist, use your own mind regarding the tax plans of Obama & McCain at:

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Nonelderly Single and Head of Household Families

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displaya

tab.cfm?DocID=1839

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Married Families Filing Joint Returns

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayat

ab.cfm?DocID=1840

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Elderly Families

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/electi

on_issues_matrix.cfmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numb

ers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1841

*2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Proposals

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_

issues_matrix.cfm

*A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url

.cfm?ID=411693

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) has analyzed both candidates tax plans & the findings are that Obama‘s tax plan would cut taxes for 81.3% of all households and for 95.5% of households with children. One example given by the TPC is: Under Obama's plan, taxpayers making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes, while under McCain’s plan those same taxpayers would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

Per the TPC: “The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.”

So next time you hear from the Republicans that Obama’s plan will hurt the “small” business owner, keep in mind that their concern is really not about the average middle class small business owner.

And the next time you see an ad on TV implying that Obama will raise everyones taxes, laugh it off as the political campaign lie that it is.

What is a small business?

When the Republicans say that the Obama tax plan will hurt “small” businesses, I believe many think of the local mom & pop businesses, or their neighbor who works out of his home, or their friend who has an auto repair shop.

But what do the Republicans classify as a “small business”?

Recently a blogger, who was repeating this line that they have been told to repeat, posted part of an article from Politico. The blogger didn’t give a link to the article, but a quick search on Google reveals a good reason why he didn’t want to identify the writer. This article was written by Grover Norquist (who I will talk about later). But something from the article he didn’t post was this:

“Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.”

Read that again. According to Norquist “small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.” Norquist doesn’t qualify a small business by income, number of employees, etc.. He qualifies a small business based on their IRS entity status.

So according to Norquist, he would consider it a small business even if the company had $100million of revenue & 5000 employees - as long as the business is a Sub S Corporation. No wonder the claims are so outrageous as to what the Obama plan will cost them. Gee, I wonder what McCain will cost these “Small” businesses because as I posted earlier:

"Both of them would raise corporate taxes but not the rate," said Roberton Williams, a principal research associate at the Washington-based nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute.
"Both of them would raise taxes by closing some loopholes that allow corporations to reduce their taxable income," he told the Reuters Wealth Management Summit.
FROM: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/10/13/

2008-10-13T235325Z_01_N13474331_RTRIDST_0_WEALTH-SUMMIT
-TAXES.html

Let’s examine one of the IRS entities that Norquist claims are “small businesses”, S Corporations.

According to the IRS’s latest statistics for 2005, S corporations:

*Filed 3,893,471 tax returns

*The average revenue was $1,425,725

FROM: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05coccr.pdf

An example of an S corporation is ex-VP candidate John Edwards firm. A few years back, the Republicans were howling about Edwards forming an S Corporation because, although legal, they claimed it was a loophole to reduce his taxes. His S-Corp earned from $5-11 million dollars a year from 1995-1998. Now suddenly the Republicans are concerned about this (in their new view) “small business”.

Now we could say that Norquist is just someone without the knowledge to understand what S Corporations are. Or he could just be another faceless blogger who hopes some people are dumb enough to blindly believe what he says because it fits their political bias.

So who is this Grover Norquist & how unbiased and impartial are his views? Well a simple google search told the following:

Grover Norquist is one of the most connected members of the new right wing movement. He has close ties to the Republican Party, large U.S. business interests, and both the subsidized and regular U.S. media. He truly represents the nexus of politics, business and media.

As President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), he helped the Heritage Foundation write the Republican's 1994 Contract With America. Shortly thereafter, Norquist led a right wing charge to "de-fund" the left, declaring that "We will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding sources."

Norquist was on the campaign staff on the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Republican Platform Committees, and formerly was Executive Director of the College Republicans.

A few articles:

By Steve Mayes of The Oregonian staff

Tuesday, September 8 1998

If you've never heard of Grover Norquist, you'll probably be introduced to him at least once between now and Nov. 3...

"Although Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform are not household names in Oregon, they are well-known in national political circles as a powerhouse working to achieve a wide range of Republican goals.

Philip Shenon
NY Times
March 10, 2006

The chief of an Indian tribe represented by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff was admitted to a meeting with President Bush in 2001 days after the tribe paid a prominent conservative lobbying group $25,000 at Mr. Abramoff's direction, according to documents and interviews.
The payment was made to Americans for Tax Reform, a group run by Grover G. Norquist, one of the Republican Party's most influential policy strategists. Mr. Norquist was a friend and longtime associate of Mr. Abramoff.

Stuart Levine
Tax & Business Law Commentary
January 19, 2006

..The information that is publicly available is still too limited to allow one to definitively answer that question. However, the facts that are publicly available point to systematic violations by Norquist of various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
...in an article entitled “The Pimping of the President”, the Texas Observer gives a detailed account of how Jack Abramoff and Norquist got paid by two Native American tribes to provide a personal audience with President Bush. There seems to be some question as to who was in attendance, but there is no question that Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform, received a $25,000 payment for Norquist's efforts.
...it appears that Norquist, and probably others, used 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities to engage in the "business" of partisan politics. That business made them money, as their influence and the funding of their controlled 501(c) entities grew.

So here is someone with strong ties to the Republican Party who calls himself the President of Americans for Tax Reform, who either doesn’t have simple knowledge of S Corporations or who hopes to fool some into believing that a business with millions of dollars of revenue are a “small business”.

And while we are on taxes, how about the candidates plans for your individual taxes? Rather than blindly believing the bias BS put out by people like Norquist, use your own mind regarding the tax plans of Obama & McCain at:

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Nonelderly Single and Head of Household Families

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displaya
tab.cfm?DocID=1839

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Married Families Filing Joint Returns

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayat
ab.cfm?DocID=1840

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Elderly Families

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/electi
on_issues_matrix.cfmhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numb
ers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1841

*2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Proposals

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_
issues_matrix.cfm

*A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url
.cfm?ID=411693

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) has analyzed both candidates tax plans & the findings are that Obama‘s tax plan would cut taxes for 81.3% of all households and for 95.5% of households with children. One example given by the TPC is: Under Obama's plan, taxpayers making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes, while under McCain’s plan those same taxpayers would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

Per the TPC: “The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.”

So next time you hear from the Republicans that Obama’s plan will hurt the “small” business owner, keep in mind that their concern is really not about the average middle class small business owner.

And the next time you see an ad on TV implying that Obama will raise everyones taxes, laugh it off as the political campaign lie that it is.

Palin Charged Alaska for Kids' Travel

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Oct. 21) - Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

After Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain chose Palin his running mate and reporters asked for the records, Palin ordered changes to previously filed expense reports for her daughters' travel.

When Palin released her family's tax records as part of her vice presidential campaign, some tax experts questioned why she did not report the children's state travel reimbursements as income.

In October 2007, Palin brought daughter Bristol along on a trip to New York for a women's leadership conference. Plane tickets from Anchorage to La Guardia Airport for $1,385.11 were billed to the state, records show, and mother and daughter shared a room for four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House hotel, which overlooks Central Park. The event's organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter.

In January, the governor, Willow and Piper showed up at the Alaska Symphony of Seafood Buffet, an Anchorage gala to announce winners of an earlier seafood competition. When Palin amended her children's expense reports, she listed a role for the two girls at the function — "to draw two separate raffle tickets."

In February 2007, the three girls flew from Juneau to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines. Palin charged the state for the $519.30 round-trip ticket for each girl, and noted on the expense form that the daughters accompanied her to "open the start of the Iron Dog race." The children and their mother then watched as Todd Palin and other racers started the competition, which Todd won that year. Palin later had the relevant expense forms changed to describe the girls' business as "First Family official starter for the start of the Iron Dog race."

FROM: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palin-charged-al

aska-for-kids-travel/220444?icid=200100397x1212041148x1

200736029

McCain is now trying very hard to distance himself from Bush:

October 13,2008

“we cannot spend the next 4 years as we’ve spent much of the last 8 waiting for our luck to change“

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/14/mccain-vows-
underdog-comeback/

October 15,2008

“America needs a new direction. We cannot be satisfied with what we've been doing for the last eight years.”

“And they want this country to go in a new direction.”

“we've got to have a new direction for this country.”

“Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we're giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/d
ebate-transcri.html

Yet previously the following was said:

June 2005, Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I–the fact is that I’m different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

May 2003, Your World with Neil Cavuto:

"The president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues."

On Fox News today, Time’s Mark Halperin said, “The President behind the scenes has told people for months that he thought McCain would be the nominee. Even during some of those dark periods he still thought he could win. And also that McCain would be the best to carry forth his agenda.”

Palin tax returns for 2006 and 2007 released

…since she took the job in December 2006, she hasn't paid taxes on the more than $17,000 she received in controversial per diem payments for working out of the family's lakeside home in Wasilla

The debate last night lightly touched on the candidates income tax plans. Even in this small period of time, Sen. McCain found it necessary to repeat one of his campaigns misleading statements.

Sen. McCain admits he doesn‘t have the needed grasp on economics (“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”), but does he also not understand tax law? OR is he just following the politicians standard trick of repeating false statements knowing that some followers will blindly believe whatever they say?

According to the Tax Policy Center “The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes….. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

From an article by Factcheck:

A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families.

McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan.

The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most.

We've already reported on at least 3 other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year. Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.

Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain’s plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stit
c
h_in_a_bad_pattern.html

Some of the other claims made by McCain that factcheck debunked:

Instead of blindly believing the BS being spewed about, to see in reality how the actual tax proposals could affect you, check out the following web sites:

*Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans for Nonelderly Single and Head of Household Families

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cf

m?ID=411693