Posts Tagged ‘socialist’

Letter from the Capitol has a piece describing how Obamacare is just the first step in transitioning America’s citizens into paying a Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods on top of income tax in order to support our new Democratic Socialist future.  The last section on describing Obama’s impact on history is a lot nicer than I would have put it.

March 31, 2010

ObamaCare: Stalking Horse for VAT Taxation

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says we must live “like good Europeans” as ObamaCare stifles choice & raises costs.  Which may explain why Fidel Castro called ObamaCare “a true miracle” and compared it to Cuba’s CastroCare….

Charles Krauthammer divines the true method behind ObamaCare’s fiscal madness: force adoption of a European-style Value Added Tax, creating a womb-to-tomb European Welfare State, with high taxes, high unemployment & high benefits allocated by government:

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

One reason for a VAT is that, as economist Alan Reynolds writes, the administration’s plan to extract $1.2TR from rich taxpayers over the next decade will not work.  Such filers already pay over 50 percent of income taxes.  Reynolds explains:

President Barack Obama’s new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8% “Medicare tax” on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.

The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.

Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.

It won’t work. It never works.

The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

Put simply, taxpayers alter their investment, tax & work strategies to minimize the impact of punitive levies.

Herb London warns of ObamaCare’s threat to liberty.  A WSJ 3/30 editorial explains what I missed last week; ObamaCare does not explicitly call for hiring 16,500 IRS agents.  The figure is a GOP extrapolation from the IRS budget, to derive an estimate of what will be needed to enforce compliance on the new levies; if the IRS is left at present levels of resources revenues will be lost.

A WSJ editorial last week offered emerging examples of diminished health care choice, already underway due to ObamaCare.  At NRO Rich Lowry warns that deteriorating finances will force choosing between guns and butter, and that Obama clearly will choose to preserve the latter.  Nobel economist Gary Becker’s WSJ interview presents an optimist, but one who fears, as in the old joke about optimism & pessimism, that his optimism may be unjustified.

A WSJ editorial notes major companies already writing down their asset values due to anticipated ObamaCare impact–$14B during 2010, according to one consultant.  Naturally, a senior Obama administration hack calls these “irresponsible” while California thug-Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hillbillies) plans an April 21 kangaroo-court show trial of major CEOs.  NRO’s Rich Lowry adds detail on Waxman’s efforts to muzzle companies hit by ObamaCare.

A WSJ editorial today describes just how outrageous this pressure is–companies are required by law to do what Waxman warns them not to do:

So the wave of corporate writedowns—led by AT&T’s $1 billion—isn’t caused by ObamaCare after all. The White House claims CEOs are reducing the value of their companies and returns for shareholders merely out of political pique.

A White House staffer told the American Spectator that “These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general. Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative Web sites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It’s BS.” (We called the White House for elaboration but got no response.)

In other words, CEOs who must abide by U.S. accounting laws under pain of SEC sanction, and who warned about such writedowns for months, are merely trying to ruin President Obama’s moment of glory. Sure.

Presumably the White House is familiar with the Financial Standard Accounting Board’s 1990 statement No. 106, which requires businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of their expected future retiree health liabilities. AT&T, Deere & Co., AK Steel, Prudential and Caterpillar, among others, are simply reporting the corporate costs of the Democratic decision to raise taxes on retiree drug benefits to finance ObamaCare.

Mark Steyn notes that one firm is heading for incorporation in Canada, no less–yes, CANADA:

In 2003, Washington blessed a grateful citizenry with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it being generally agreed by all the experts that it was unfair to force seniors to choose between their monthly trip to Rite-Aid and Tony Danza in dinner theater. However, in order to discourage American businesses from immediately dumping all their drug plans for retirees, Congress gave them a modest tax break equivalent to 28 percent of the cost of the plan.

Fast forward to the dawn of the ObamaCare utopia. In one of a bazillion little clauses in a 2,000-page bill your legislators didn’t bother reading (because, as Congressman John Conyers explained, he wouldn’t understand it even if he did), Congress voted to subject the 28 percent tax benefit to the regular good ol’ American-as-apple-pie corporate tax rate of 35 percent. . . . I refer you to the decision last year by the doughnut chain Tim Hortons, a Delaware corporation, to reorganize itself as a Canadian corporation “in order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates.” Hold that thought: “In order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates”—a phrase hitherto unknown to American English outside the most fantastical futuristic science fiction.

Another little-noticed provision in ObamaCare: Money for long-term care will be automatically deducted from worker paychecks unless employees opt out; it is an estimated $146/month payment to give $75 daily care; some cost estimates peg the deduction at $240/month.  Cost at the lower figure is estimated at $100B.

Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti sums up what ObamaCare will do to Obama’s historical reputation:

The liberal line is that President Obama has secured his place in history by signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. And secured it he has. Henceforth Obama will be remembered as the man who accelerated America’s mad dash toward bankruptcy. He will be remembered as the leader who promoted a culture of dependency. He will be remembered as the figure who sacrificed a dream of national unity upon the altar of big government liberalism. It’s true: Obama is now a president of consequence. And almost all of those consequences are bad.

The fiscal picture was bleak before Obama made it worse. Government debt is 60 percent of the gross domestic product and climbing. The deficit is projected to remain above 4 percent of GDP for the next decade. The week before the president signed his health care reform into law, Moody’s warned that America’s AAA bond rating may be downgraded. The day before the signing ceremony, the nation learned that Warren Buffett is a safer investment than U.S. treasuries. One needn’t look across the Atlantic, where a penniless Greece is a supplicant to the IMF, to see our future. Look to California, where the economy is crippled by high taxes, high spending, and burdensome debt….

Gone is the charismatic young man who told the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston that there was no Blue America and no Red America, only the United States of America. All that remains is a partisan liberal Democrat whose health care policy bulldozed public opinion, enraged the electorate, poisoned the Congress, and set into motion a sequence of events the outcome of which cannot be foreseen.

This tarnished White House complains incessantly about the crises it inherited from its predecessor. Crises? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The latest public health care horror show from the UK–presaging America’s ObamaCare future: nurses declining to bring a dying patient a glass of water.


Bottom Line.  Coupled with America’s rapidly deteriorating financial position, ObamaCare is a massive, potentially fatal economic train wreck in the making.


Read Full Post »

CNSNews brings us the expected news, at least expected to those of us who can see through the Democrats’ ploys, that they want to increase taxes on those making as little as $104,425.

The Democrats are trying to squeeze money for the Government anywhere they can, despite any “promises” they made during the “election”.  They’ve already tossed the ball around cutting VA benefits, but were batted down after such an outcry.  They’re getting ready to introduce the “cap-and-trade” crap that will only increase the cost of goods and services for everyone in America.  The tax on cigarettes hit today as well as the “stimulus” money in our paychecks, which is actually netting them more money on joint filers like myself.  I’ve had to increase my withholding, and I’ll probably still end up owing at the end of the year.

I can say one thing:  this is definitely “change”, but this “change” is killing America.

Senate Tax Chair Wants Vote This Year to Raise Taxes on People Making as Little as $104,425

Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over federal tax law, is seeking a vote this year on legislation that would  increase the income tax rates on some Americans who earn as little as $104,425 per year.

The bill, which Baucus introduced Thursday, would fulfill many of President Barack Obama’s promised tax changes, including making most of the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush permanent while raising taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 per year.

But those making more than $250,000 per year would not be the only ones to see their taxes go up if Baucus’s bill becomes.

The proposed legislation would raise the rates on the top two income brackets, from the current levels of 33 percent and 35 percent respectively, to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The new rates would become effective after 2010.

The increase in the rates for these two brackets will affect all taxpayers who fall into these two brackets regardless of their filing status, according to Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Curtis Dubay, who reviewed the legislation.

That means some taxpayers earning as little as $104,425—far less than half the $250,000 threshold President Obama set for raising income taxes—would see their income tax rate increased.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the second highest income bracket—currently set at 33 percent—kicks in at an income level of $104,425 for a married person filing separately; $171,550 for someone filing as a single person; $190,200 for someone filing as a head of household; and $208,850 for a married couple filing jointly.  Under Baucus’s proposal, the tax rates for all these people would jump to 36 percent.

The highest income bracket—currently 35 percent—kicks in at an income level of $186,475 for a married person filing separately; and $372,950 for all other filing statuses.

After studying the bill, Dubay of the Heritage Foundation told CNSNews.com that unless Congress changes the income levels that the top two tax rates kick in for each filing status, taxes will be increased on many more Americans than previously indicated by the Obama administration. (A spokesman for Baucus confirmed to CNSNews.com that the tax proposal does not change the taxable income levels of each filing status–it raises the two top tax rates across the board.)

For a chart showing the current tax rates and income brackets for all filing statuses in 2009 click here.

The income levels in question are indexed to inflation–meaning they will almost certainly be slightly higher by the time the new tax rates take effect in 2011 if Baucus’s bill passes.

Since 2007, the income level for a married person filing singling in the 33-percent tax bracket has gone up only $6,500, from $97,925 to $104,425.

Related Posts: ‘Cap-And-Trade’ Bill Introduced, Hearings Begin April 20
An Experiment On Socialism

House Majority Leader Doesn’t Know Where Obama Got Authority For Auto Bailout

Read Full Post »

CNSNews is pointing out that the Bush tax cuts will expire next year which will mean increased taxes for everyone during a recession if Congress and Obama don’t act.  Not that I expect them to do anything; after all, they have to pay for this “stimulus package” and their desired socialist programs, somehow.  All of this “free money” isn’t free, you know.

Massive Tax Increases Loom as Democrats Begin to Talk Fiscal Responsibility

Monday, February 23, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – With massive tax increases waiting in the wings for American taxpayers when the Bush tax cuts end in 2010, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats will soon turn their attention to taxes.

The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orzsag, will host a “fiscal responsibility” summit Monday with congressional Democrats and others, in an effort to highlight the administration’s upcoming efforts to reform government health-care entitlements and bring a modicum of balance to the federal budget.

Part of the discussion is sure to include the impending tax increases set to hit every American taxpayer when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, unless Congress acts to extend them. During the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to repeal the tax cuts.

“I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts,” Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a May 2008 interview.

Obama also said, in a June 2007 Democratic debate at Washington, D.C.’s Howard University, that repealing the Bush tax cuts would help pay for universal health care and other social programs he envisioned.

“The Bush tax cuts — people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives,” Obama said.

Enacted in 2001, the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax rate for all taxpaying Americans, as well as rates on capital gains and stock dividends.

The tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 unless Congress renews them, meaning their expiration would amount to an across-the-board tax increase for Americans who pay income taxes, roughly 60 percent of the country.

But unless Congressional Democrats act to prevent it, every income tax bracket will rise, with the lowest tax bracket experiencing the largest increase – jumping from 10 percent to 15 percent of income.

Those who pay no income tax at all will see a reduction in benefits provided by refundable tax credits, a form of social spending.

The 2001 tax cuts increased the amount of the Child Tax Credit that is refundable – money which can be earned even if no income tax is owed – to $1,000. Unless Congress extends the tax cuts, low-income families will only be able to get a maximum of $500 per child.

Another tax set to rise in 2010 is the capital gains tax, which will rise from 8 percent to 10 percent for those in the 10 percent tax bracket. For everyone else, capital gains taxes will rise to 20 percent.

Capital gains are profits made on investments when those investments are sold. Investments that can incur capital gains taxes include stocks, bonds, real estate and financial instruments, like securitized debt.

An increase in capital gains taxes could prove controversial, given the slumping real estate and financial markets, because it could make selling homes or securities more difficult, due to the higher real cost caused by the higher taxes.

The tax rate on dividends is also set to rise in 2010. Currently, dividends are not taxed for those in the 10 percent tax bracket and are taxed at 15 percent for investors in every other tax bracket. Barring congressional action, dividends will be taxed as normal income – at the newly raised rates.

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will ironically revive the controversial estate tax, which is set to be eliminated in 2010. Known by some as “the death tax,” this provision places taxes on large inheritances, regardless of whether they are inherited through a will or simply passed on when someone dies.

Advocates of the death tax say, if it returns to force, it would only affect estates worth $1 million or more. But opponents criticize it because the tax can often encompass ordinary farms, small businesses and other long-time family-held properties that are worth $1 million or more on paper, but are not really part of the large inheritances that were the original target.

Congress could act to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts and prevent taxes from rising, however, that will make balancing the budget and paying for Obama’s planned healthcare reforms nearly impossible, according to Roberton Williams, senior fellow of the Tax Policy Center – a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

“It makes the problem a lot harder if you don’t let revenues rise,” Williams told CNSNews.com “Because if revenues can’t go up other than with the growth of the economy, then you have to rely entirely on spending cuts to balance the budget.”

Cutting spending to balance the budget is unlikely, Williams explained, because spending has grown far too fast, prohibiting Congress from cutting enough social programs to bring the budget back down to Earth.

“If we just look at the trend in spending, it doesn’t look like it’s feasible to undue the growth enough to be able to use spending cuts as a means of balancing the budget.”

Read Full Post »

Letter From The Capitol has an interesting piece posted today.  John shows, in Pelosi’s own words, some of the mindset of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The best part is the letter from a boss to his employees; he absolutely gets it right.

I just can’t understand why Democrats, or anyone, would be pushing for economic “stimulus” the way they are.  Bush was also wrong when he pushed the first “stimulus” package through.  Thinking about it, I’ve come up with a list of reasons this type of “stimulus” is being forced upon us:

1)  They are naive and believe this will actually work even though history and economics show otherwise.
2)  They don’t think it will work, but are following the crowd so t hey won’t make waves for Obama.
3)  They are encouraging further economic failure in order to elevate the poor, set up a bigger government, and start socialist state.

It’s no secret that Obama thinks that the “economically disadvantaged” have been in their state too long, and the Government should redistribute wealth to make things “more even”; he’s on record saying just that.  The problem is that this doesn’t work.  Just look at any prosperous socialist country.  Wait, there isn’t one.  Do we really want to be some quasi-Russia or China?

Even if, in his own eyes at least, Obama was a “benevolent ruler”, do you think the next President (or whatever he would call himself; the Constitution is meaning less and less every day) would be as “good” or “better”?  History shows us what power does to people; any “moral standards” we employ upon ourselves quickly disappear when power comes into play.

February 05, 2009

Non-Partisan Nancy; Not Wild about Harry

Re House Speaker Nancy, the Jan. 29 NY Times Caucus Blog contains this nugget from Nancy, offered the same day her stinker stimulus package passed the House without a single GOP vote–as told by the Caucus blogger:

When Mrs. Pelosi was asked whether the vote — 244 to 188 without a single Republican’s approval — represented a failure on her part to advance President Obama’s desire for a broad bipartisan bill, she practically snapped:

“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest….

We reached out to the Republicans all along the way, and they know it. And they know it. They were part of the original bill, with the — some of the tax provisions were their suggestions. They had what they asked for in terms of committee mark-up. They had the rule on the floor that gave them plenty of opportunity to make changes. They just didn’t have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress. ”

But Pelosi later said, more candidly: “We won the election.  We wrote the bill.”  GOP Members were completely barred from offering drafting input.

As to Senate Solon Harry, the letter below was sent me by a friend, a letter from a boss who sees what Washington does not see.  Perhaps Harry can apply the advice below in captaining the drafting of the Senate stimulus bill:

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the hanging political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some  idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don’t see is the back story. I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living  apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting  any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations… you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don’t understand … to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It’s quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I will fire you. I will fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about….

Your boss

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily has an exclusive story up about Martin Dzuris, a radio host in Michigan whose on-air program is critical of Obama.  Martin is critical of  Obama’s Marxist speech, but Martin has a special perspective:  he defected to the U.S. in 1989 from Czechoslovakia where he had lived under Communist rule.  Martin knows exactly what it’s like to live under a socialist government, and he can see the U.S. turning into the very same type of government he escaped from twenty years ago.

His co-workers, many of whom volunteered for Obama’s campaign, are not only against his show, but some go so far as to “hate [his] guts”.  However, if the fairness doctrine were in place, WRHC would have to put up with a lot more people like Martin in order to “balance out” their liberal vomit with conservative viewpoints.

Obama radio critic finds talk show time slashed
Program host: ‘I’m just trying to bring to light what he’s said’

Posted: January 01, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says.

Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris’ coverage of local issues as well as national issues.

But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris’ criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama’s statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism.

Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama’s call in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported.

In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”

A video of his comments is here:

Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn’t new at all.

“We called them the ‘peoples’ militia’ (in Czechoslovakia),” he told WND.

He said he’s reviewed Obama’s speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government and discussed those issues on his program.

“I’m just trying to bring to light what he’s said,” Dzuris told WND. “I’m just taking what he says, his influences, background,” he said. “I lived all those things.”

He said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989.

Radio station administrator Kim Pruitt confirmed that a number of individuals within the board structure of the 100-watt community station are active campaigners for Obama. But she said a recent decision that sparked Dzuris’ outrage to cut his show from two hours to one hour wasn’t made on that basis.

She said Dzuris show had been extended from one hour to two months ago in order to allow time for discussion of “local events.” She said, however, Dzuris didn’t fill the additional time with local issues.

“The situation was he actually was not spending very much time on the local events and he was spending time on the national events. Elections were of interest to him,” she said.

So a decision was made by a programming committee to reduce the program time, she said.

Dzuris appealed to the full board of directors for the station, which included some members of the programming committee, and ultimately they compromised and restored another 30 minutes of his program time, Pruitt confirmed, even though there are those in the station’s coverage area who would “like to see him off the air.”

WND e-mails and telephone messages for the chief of the station’s board, as well as Obama’s transition team, did not generate a response.

One board member, Dave Repetto, was contacted by WND but declined to discuss the issue. He referred WND to coverage in the area Three Oaks and New Buffalo newspapers.

In the New Buffalo Harbor Country News, Dzuris said, “I was told to tighten up my show, but no help or suggestions were given to me about how to do this, and I feel the real reason my time on the air is being reduced is because of my political views that differ with many people on the board of directors and programming committee.”

Former station program director Linas Johansonas agreed.

“This issue is about content,” Johansonas told station committee members, according to the News. “I’ve had board members tell me that they hate Martin’s guts. This decision is political, and I hope you can get past that and see the good Martin does in the community.”

Dzuris confirmed to WND he attended a program committee meeting in which members vocally expressed their opposition to the program’s political position including its criticism of Obama.

But fellow program host Dennis Snow said that wasn’t an issue.

“If you want to call Obama a communist on the air, you have a right to do that, and I’ll defend to the death your right to do that, even though I don’t agree with that,” Snow said in the News report. “I know you feel we’re all a bunch of liberals here, and that we’re ganging up on you by reducing your time on the air, but that’s not true. I just really feel your show would be better if it was one hour instead of two hours, that’s all.”

Dzuris said the move to reduce his show time came after Obama volunteers, including some from the station, concluded a round of several thousand telephone calls in the region trying to generate support for the Democrat.

People would respond that they weren’t voting for Obama and then reveal they got information about Obama’s links to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his Saul Alinsky influences and other factors, from Dzuris’ program.

“On the programming committee, there are people, one that presented the motion, the other seconded the motion to cut my show … many of them were involved as volunteers in our local Obamam campaign,” Dzuris told WND.

“They’ve been after my show. Now it came to a head,” he said.

Many questions about Obama’s stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military remain unanswered.

But Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has said there will be a mandatory “force” for Americans.

“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.

WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposal. The new wording reads, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

WND also previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

The apparent censorship also raised questions about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which, if re-adopted in Congress, could be used to severely limit conservative talk radio in the U.S..

If would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law’s repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law’s return would decimate the industry’s marketability.

Many fear the “Fairness Doctrine” would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

As WND reported, ATI-News President Brad O’Leary examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, “Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign.”

Obama’s presidency, he said, could “allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

Read Full Post »

The Associated Press, covered by Yahoo! News, has published a story that deals with some of the “facts” presented by Barack Obama in his 30-minute “infomercial” about himself.

“Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” — Ephesians 5:6

Obama’s prime-time ad skips over budget realities

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 29, 9:18 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama’s assertion that “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond” the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by “eliminating programs that don’t work” masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn’t tell them:

THE SPIN: “That’s why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.”

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it’s not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.


THE SPIN: “I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care.”

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: “I want to start doing something about it.” He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.


THE SPIN: “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost.”

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama’s policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: “Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years.” The analysis goes on to say: “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.”


THE SPIN: “Here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we’ll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. ”

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: “The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals.”

Read Full Post »