Let me address two of Obama's claims that are just plain false.

1) Obama alleges that independent organizations have claimed that he would provide three times more  middle class tax relief than McCain.  The report - which I blogged on earlier from the Tax Policy Center - said that without counting McCain's tax exemption for health-care Obama would provide three times more tax relief to the middle class.  However this isn't true for middle class families with children (remember McCain wants to double the child exemptions).  The statement is completely false if you count McCain's health-care tax credit which the Tax Policy Center didn't do and admitted that if you counted those credits that the results would be drastically different.
             The other deceptive problem with his statement is that Obama is ignoring his unintended consequences of raising taxes on small businesses, capital gains, wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs.  First of all, yes, taxes might go down for many people - but how many people would face an income loss as a result of his policies?  Economics 101 - all people pay all taxes.  You can't tax one group without hurting another in some way.  Think about it this way: two people are in a town.  One guy sells stuff on ebay the other guy runs a grocery store.  The guy who sells stuff on ebay makes 100 dollars, the one who runs the grocery store makes only 50 dollars.  The government decides to tax the "rich" guy and redistribute to the "poor guy".  So the government takes 25 of the rich guys dollars and spends 20 dollars on stuff for the poor guy.  Wait you might say - they taxed the rich guy 25 dollars.  The government is inefficient - they need 5 dollars to run themselves.  Now the grocery store guy gets 70 dollars and the ebay guy has 75 dollars.  Problem is now that the ebay guy is down 25 dollars and so he decides to cut back on his grocery store bill so he only spends 25 dollars instead of fifty... so what happens?  The grocery store owner is down to 45 dollars.  5 dollars less than what he started with before the redistributive process began.  Now this isn't always going to happen - but don't think this is uncommon.  When you take away income people spend in the economy and give it to the government you have a dead-weight loss.  Instead of the government people working and producing goods and services they only drain money from the pool.  Do they spend it too?  Yes, but they don't add their own production to the economy.  They redistribute money and take a commission, they don't actually do anything else. 

Real quick side note: As for the small business claim (Obama says he will lower taxes on 98% of small businesses or if he doesn’t lower their taxes he won’t raise ‘em.  98% of small businesses is a misleading number.  See 98% of small businesses generate only 50% of all small business income!  So the other 2% of small businesses that Obama will raise taxes on generate the other 50% of the small business income!  Think you are going to get a raise if your boss has to fork over more money to Uncle Sam?  I didn’t think so.

2) Obama claims that in regards to Health Care, "By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you."  What a crock.  He's too smart to be this dumb.  This is just a misleading statement that he knows McCain won't be able to parry.  It might be 12,000 - though that figure is debated... but the 5,000 is nonsense.  It is 5,000 plus 12,000-taxes on the 12,000... let's think about it this way:  The median working family income makes $61,500 (rounding).  If we pretend that this family has no more income exemptions and won't receive anymore under McCain then if you add 12,000 to that number it becomes 73,500.  Now the first 3,601 of that money is taxed a rate of 15% so one would get to keep 3,060.85 of that money.  The next 8,399 dollars are taxed at a rate of 25%, so you get to keep 6,299.25 of that.  Now you add them together and get $9360.10.  On top of that 9,360 dollars you get a 5,000 tax credit so you get a total of $14,360.10...  What is more $14,360.10 or $12,000 dollars?  Obama is also assuming that the average cost of healthcare is going to stay at $12,000 dollars.  If you deregulate healthcare over state lines that cost could be considerably less...  Now the problem with McCain's plan is how he is going to deal with sick people who need care?  I have a few ideas about how to do this BUT... they are my ideas not his. Regardless though the 5,000 vrs 12,000 is total bull and yall need to know the real numbers.  McCain's plan has some serious problems but Obama's claim is too inaccurate and misleading for me to let it go... 

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.  Thanks AP - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Gee, ya think? 

Hey America - did you know that raising taxes might hurt the economy?  So Mr. Obama has decided to run right to the center.  Good job - just remember to channel your inner bubba if you get to the oval office.

The analysis of http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080904/090408_obama_claim_p1.html?.&.pf=taxes yahoo - biz, says that Obama's claim that McCain will not provide relief for 100 million Americans is somewhat true BUT that the number will go down once his healthcare tax relief is incorporated. 

I'd like to add to that.  Obama fails to mention that 1) He is incorporating children, and dependents who do not generate any income, 2) that McCain's healthcare tax relief WILL cover many of these people, 3) that a significant percentage of the remainder of these people are very well off (90% and above income) and benefit from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts that Obama would repeal - hence he would raise their taxes but yet uses them to inflate his numbers, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY 4) THAT MANY, THE SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY, OF THESE 100 MILLION DON'T PAY ANY INCOME TAXES AT ALL.  HOW CAN YOU GIVE RELIEF TO SOMEONE WHO PAYS NO TAXES - AND THEN HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR TAX BURDEN?!  HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT GIVING TAX RELIEF TO AMERICANS WHO YOU PLAN ON TAXING MORE?!  Welcome to Obamanomics.  If the Dems had just stuck with Clintonomics, or Rubinomics we would ALL be in a better place.  Poor bubba.

Also for anyone who doesn't understand the implications of the plan - and because the yahoo biz analysts failed to explain it :/ - McCain wants to get rid of employer based healthcare.  Americans don't stay at one job for 45 years anymore.  Plus tearing down that system and the state mandated systems would allow competition and the free market to bring down prices, get people the plans they need and can afford, and still allow for some at risk groups to pool together.  Now for those who want think this would end up as a tax increase let me explain: Your employer will either stop providing the health care altogether and give you back MORE money/income/salary let you buy your own health care plan and recieve a 2,500 tax credit/refund, or instead the employer will give you the option of continuing the subsidy but you will get that taxed, however you will get a 2,500 dollar tax credit.  It's a win win either way unless your employer pays more than 2,500 or 5,000 (Depending on your marital situation).  But your employer will have to give you the option of taking their health insurance - so if the subsidies would put you in jeaporady of taking an income loss - just don't take it and buy a cheaper one on the private market. 

Employers are paying way too much for health insurance due to the nature of the beast - we need to move to a privatized individual based plan which is what the market is slowly moving too anyway.  Think about it.  By 2016 more than 50% of employed people will be self employed.  Healthcare - employer based - has a lot to do with that.  If 50% of the market is going to need to buy individual plans then the market is moving to an individual purchase structure anyway.  Your company is going to end up giving you more money and letting you buy your own policy.  More insurance brokers are going to enter the market and the competition will drive down the prices.  Now unfortunately if health care costs keep rising at the % rates that they do that 2,500 is going to look like pocket change - you know the kind of pocket change you'll be left with if Obama actually takes the office.

I should mention that the at risk group in America might need government help in acquiring health insurance - but for those Americans who put themselves at risk by drinking, smoking, living an unhealthy life style - it would be unethical, and create a moral hazard to bail these people out.  If you randomly get pancreatic cancer though, hey - we're all at risk, then the government should make sure that you are eligible for some sort of health care.  After all it's not like you did anything to get it.  See - the positive externality of healthcare for the people who were victims of random diseases imo out weighs the drain on the tax payer.  It's just all about avoiding moral hazards and inflated and socialized programs for everyone.

It's been busy lately.  Here is why I am disgusted and not writing much lately.  This should be a fitting analogy of the gimme gimme gimme election.  JFK's quote is now turned on it's head:  Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country.  To be fair Obama and Congress people are much more guilty of this than McCain but... even my guy is far from perfect.

Candidate 1: I promise that if I am elected we will get vending machines in the field house, the cafeteria and the senior lounge.  These are much needed and will provide nutritional relief for our growing student body.  As a growing first semester freshman I can tell you that change is needed.

Candidate 2: I promise that if I am elected we will get vending machines in the field house and the cafeteria.  I also promise that filet mignon and champagne will be served at lunch on a fairly regular basis.  We've worked hard and we deserve to eat well.

Candidate 1: Candidate 2 says he will provide filet mignon, but he won't be able to provide prime.  We could better spend that money by creating more parking spots.  Candidate 2's commitment to filet mignon and champagne show that he is out of touch with the burger eating solid C-student.

Candidate 2: Candidate 1 says I won't be able to provide to provide prime filet mignon, but I will be able to provide choice, which is considered 2nd best and restaurant quality.  I do not appreciate his school yard taunts - as they are uncalled for and are not representative of the change he claims to bring.  And I disagree with the parking spots, we would have to bulldoze the women's field hockey field.  That kind of policy is reckless and harmful.  I would also call for ice-cream bar friday's which would grant every student the equal opportunity to make hot fudge freedom sundays in the cafe.

Candidate 1: Candidate 2 says that my policy for more parking spots so that more students won't have to walk an extra un-American eighth of a mile to school is reckless and puts our safety at risk.  But what doesn't put us at risk is my call for teachers to be held to a higher grade accountability by their students.  We deserve the grades we know we deserve and we demand results! 

Candidate 2: That isn't reckless, what is reckless is his policy for calling for no-prerequisite meetings with the heads of our rival schools.  This kind of behavior puts us all at risk.  Candidate 1's policy amounts to nothing more than coercing the faculty into handing out free A's.  This kind of policy is reckless because *being boo'd by the students*...

Hypocrite http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11211.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis_2 liar

http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/obamas-pacs-and-lobbyists-canard - What is he talking about?! - How Obama takes money from corporations but not lobbyists - and tries to distort who donates to McCain.

and from a third article that isn't a must read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_el_pr/obama_strategy

In a questionnaire last year, Obama answered "yes" when asked: "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" He added: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Obama described the public financing system as "broken" when he announced his decision to supporters. But even watchdog groups that have advocated for Obama-backed changes in campaign law said the presidential public financing system is one feature of the law that is working properly.

"A million dollars a day doesn't look to me like chicken feed," said Michael Malbin, director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, who said the system likely would have worked well again this year.

Malbin also said there's been no development within the financing system that could account for Obama changing his mind.

By rejecting the public money, Obama can now raise millions just as he has in the primary campaign. As of the end of April, he had amassed more than $265 million in contributions. He was expected to reveal his May fundraising in a report to the Federal Election Commission on Friday.

McCain, on the other hand, had raised only $115 million as of the end of May. Both candidates rejected public financing for the primaries, allowing them to raise and spend money until their party conventions in late summer.

On Thursday, McCain said he will accept the public money, which means he can't accept private contributions for his campaign.

Still, Obama's clear financial advantage over McCain is offset in part by the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money in the bank than its Democratic Party counterpart. Both national parties can spend money on behalf of the presidential candidates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money

Obama opts out of public funding for the general election.  His excuses border on extremely twisted logic (aka fallacies).  Obama claims that, even though McCain will get public funding, so many 527's are going to spend big bucks for the Republicans in this election that he would be ham-stringed by taking public funding even though he promised it.   Is that true?  Not really... in fact the biggest 527's that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this election are liberal 527s like Moveon.org.  The liberal pro-Obama 527's will outspend the Republican 527's by numbers that could approach hundreds of millions of dollars whether Obama took public financing or not.  The Republicans don't have the big buck 527's lining up like they did in '04.  He also called public financing "broken".  I'd love to know why he praised it and embraced it when it was politically beneficial for him to do so back when he was an underdog but now that it would slow down his money train it is "broken".  It is the same system, same set-up, and same delivery as it was in 06 and 07, so why the big change?  How can one promise to be honest and to change the way Washington works if they can't even keep up with their own campaign promises?  And since when is using shoddy excuses a change in Washington's culture?  Obama is just another typical politician who wants to have it both ways and will get away with it if the media and political opponents don't call him on it.  The verdict is in, he is guilty - but not charged.

Obama won't be able to deliver.  Even if he does deliver, the consequences will be so disastrous that ... are you ready for this?  Young Americans have to learn the Jimmy Carter lesson all over again.  We need to see why liberals are bad for the country's government.  Those of us who have learned economics and public policy (for the most part) know this.  But you know what?  I'd trade four years of this incompetent demagogue for 8 years of a 21st century Reagan followed by another H.W. (who would have won his second term if not for Ross Perot).

This guy thinks he is a demi-god.  Check out his lines from his speech in Detroit (http://www.examiner.com/a-1444760~Obama_tells_rally_he_ll_revive_Detroit_automakers.html), "We are going to build the cars of the future right here in Detroit, right here in Michigan, right here in America," the Illinois senator told supporters in a town that for generations had been the auto capital of the world.  "We're going to create alternative fuels for our plug-in hybrids," he said. "We are going to help the auto companies. If you are ready for change, we are going to create a brighter energy future right here in America." 

So you're going to plug in cars?  That means you need more electrical power... which means... AHA you guessed it we need to burn more fuels.  And you end up spitting in the wind... Of course if you used nuclear energy this problem could be avoided but, hey, he is a democrat - he doesn't come with common sense. 

Let me continue with this uh manure:

Speaking before Gore and Obama, (govenor Jennifer) Granholm said Obama would help Michigan go from leading the nation in unemployment to leading the way to a new era of clean energy and fuel-efficient transportation.

"We'll have a new president in the White House, a president who'll be Michigan's partner, a president who'll fight for us," Granholm said. "We in Michigan, we will build and sell the 100 mile-per-gallon vehicle. ... We have the skill, we have the will, and we'll have a president who's committed to a national energy policy to create those jobs here."

That's exactly what the state needs, 51-year-old Brian Dunn said after Obama's speech.

The Detroit resident has taken a buyout from struggling auto parts supplier American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc.

"It's time. It's time for healing the whole country 100 percent," he said.

Obama said he hears "a cry of desperation across the land" from those struggling through the country's economic troubles, those who have lost jobs, health coverage and hope for the future.

"Everywhere I go I hear it. I hear it from the single mom who can't afford insurance for her children," he said.

Obama said he especially hears it from the laid off factory worker.

"Not only has he lost his job and his health care, he's lost his sense of dignity and self-respect because he can't afford to support his family anymore," Obama said.

Obama said he also would help those who have lost their jobs because of the economic dislocation.

"We're going to make sure every worker gets training they need to function effectively in this new economy," the candidate said.

The problem is that, again, Amerians just don't understand economics - especially those under 40.

BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE IS THIS IS ALL TALK.  NO DETAILS.  NO PLANS.  JUST TALK.

I wish I could tell B. INSANE Obama: STOP RUNNING YOUR MOUTH AND START TELLING THE TRUTH.  STOP BEING DISHONEST OR AT LEAST DISH OUT SOME PLANS YOU ARROGANT BLOWHARD.

You know I started this blog with the intention of being post partisan and interested in only the fair discussion of economics, but that would be like a human rights activist trying to be fair and calm while comparing Hitler and MLK jr.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBjMjAxOGYzYTRhN2Q3ZDk5NzNmMTIyOWM1MjJmMmM=

His record speaks differently than his rhetoric. 

Jason Furman is now his head Economic Adviser.  Deep down the dems know that their economics are too left wing and wouldn't work.  They know if they go back to Jimmy Carter and stagflation they will be crushed for 12 years... would have been 16 if Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992.  And let's face it Clinton and Furman and Rubin continued PRO-growth Reaganomics.  Did they shift it a little to the left?  Yes.  But the basic market based principles prevailed. 

Lastly I will leave you with this:  I believe it was Furman in his critique of Obama's economic ideas said that Bill was Pro-Growth, 100% pro-growth, while Obama is not pure pro-growth he is also for "fairness".  "Fairness" is a euphemism for "inefficient policy (that probably has a bad incentive structure)".  I think Furman will make sure Obama isn't as disastrous for our economy as he would have been otherwise.  Is he going to be as good as McCain?  Hell no.  But any progress is good progress as long as it isn't " 'progressive' progress"!

Our prayers go out to Tim Russert and his family. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/do_the_right_thing_start_drill.html 

Highlighted quotes:

But a paradox is that most environmentalists think of themselves as egalitarians. So, instead of objecting to the view of a derrick from the California hills above the Santa Barbara coast, shouldn't a liberal estate owner instead console himself that the offshore pumping will help a nearby farm worker or carpenter get to work without going broke?

Another paradox: American laws and technology ensure a rig off Florida or in Alaska has far less chance of springing a leak than one in the Persian Gulf or the Russian tundra. If there really is a shared "planet earth," then aren't we all its collective stewards? By locking out energy exploration in the United States, we are encouraging it almost everywhere else. 

We should stop talking about suing the OPEC cartel, jawboning the House of Saud to lower prices, blaming the oil companies or adding yet another massive tax on sky-high gas prices. What we don't need right now are more pie-in-the-sky sermons about wind and solar saving us all or about millions of new jobs in green technology that can be almost instantly created.

That all may be well and good in a generation. But in the here and now, we still need to tap the abundant conventional energy we already have in the United States. And in large part that means building, mining and drilling.

and

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gouging+Big+Oil+means+gouging+you&articleId=8b2912b9-27c3-49c2-82fd-4be7a174b4ee

The latter being crystal clear.

Read it and weep:

The truth, however, is that the case for this new tax is nonexistent.

First, oil company profits are not "unreasonable," however one might define that term. Oil and gas companies earn an average of 8.3 cents per dollar of revenue, compared to 7.8 cents for the Dow Jones average, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in April. And those huge oil company profits are big in dollar, but not percentage, terms.

Exxon-Mobil has earned more money than any other American company in the past five years. But last year, it's most profitable ever, its profit was only 10.9 percent of revenues, Fortune magazine reported last month. Bank of America's profits were 12.6 percent, Pfizer's were 16.8 percent, Coca-Cola's were 20.7 percent, Google's were 25.3 percent, and Microsoft's were 27.5 percent. Whose profits are "unreasonable"?

While Exxon-Mobil was earning 10.9 percent profit last year, it paid 44 percent of its revenues in taxes, The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch reported on Tuesday. Forty-four percent! The government took four times as much from Exxon-Mobil's revenues as shareholders did. "Big Oil" isn't paying its fair share? Hogwash.

You might also be interested to know that 52 percent of Exxon-Mobil's stock is owned by fund investors such as mutual and pension funds. That means you. If it is slapped with a windfall profits tax, your retirement plan might be the one paying the price.

And if all that weren't enough, there is the evidence from the 1980s. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter advocated and Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Guess what happened? Domestic oil exploration dropped, and the promised tax revenues did not materialize. It actually made us more dependent on foreign oil. Isn't that what Congress wants to prevent?

In their push to tax oil companies even more for the sole reasons that they have made record profits lately and the public wrongly suspects those profits of being responsible for high gas prices, Sen. Barack Obama and his Democratic Party are trying to move us back to the failed thinking of the late 1970s. That would be economically harmful, not helpful.

The idea that imposing confiscatory taxes on oil companies will somehow reduce the price of oil has no basis in fact. It shows the flawed economic thinking of a party that still assumes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that high taxes help the country, low taxes hurt, and the government can make everything better by asserting greater control.

And finally see some eye candy propaganda from the Republican Party.  http://republicanwhip.house.gov/UploadedFiles/GAS%20CHART%20TEMP%20PDF.pdf
2.07 after... what... a year or two?  four years?  If they listed the year this price would get there then we could take that number and apply the laws of supply and demand to it.  Like say they estimate that after their plan gas will be at 2.07 per gallon in four years.  I could say yeah BUT, global demand for gas will be going up and global supply won't match growth in demand, in fact growth in supply even with their gas pumping plans is still not going to be close to feed emerging markets... so yes, all things being held constant 2.07 a gallon if everything goes perfect.  But with supply, demand, and other snags - oh and not to mention TIME to drill and refine and get stuff up and running and to the market - the most I think they could shave off the price is $1.00ish. 
And you want to know the worst part of that column?  We would be paying $-0.136 for gas if all the saving measures had their estimated maximum effect.  Add up all the savings, it is $4.195 per gallon.  Price of gas in the example is $4.059. 

Do I support their plan and hate the Democrat plan?  Hell yes - but let's be a bit more realistic guys.  In the words of Dubya, "That's fuzzy math"