http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121365641014879041.html

Senator Obama in today’s Wall Street Journal:

“I'm a big believer in evidence. I'm a big believer in fact…If I saw strong evidence that an additional $300 billion in tax cuts that John has proposed…would actually boost economic growth and productivity, I’d be happy to take a look at that evidence. But I haven’t seen that. It’s all conjecture.” 

Where were you in the ‘80s, Mr. Obama? Or the sixties? Or the twenties? 2001? 2003? 

Here’s your evidence:

Tax cuts under the leadership of President Coolidge

In 1913 (when the federal income tax was established), the top marginal rate was 7%.

By 1918, this same top rate had risen to 77%.

In 1925, the top marginal income tax rate was reduced to 25%.

Over the next four years, economic output almost doubled.

Tax cuts under the leadership of President Kennedy

In 1962, the top corporate tax rate was reduced from 52% to 48%.

In 1964 (signed by President Johnson), the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 91% to 70%.

What was the result on the economy? From 1959-1962, economic investment grew at an annual rate of 3%, but between 1962-1969, investment grew at an annual rate of 6.1%. After these tax cuts were repealed, investment grew at an annual rate of only 2.3% between 1969 and 1972. Furthermore, the gross national product grew at 2.4% from 1952-1960, but it grew at 4.5% per year from 1960-1970. 

What about the result on government revenue? From 1952-1959, government revenue increased 1.2% per year, but between 1962-1969, revenue increased at an annual rate of 6.4%. Furthermore, the deficit during these years fell from $7.1 billion to $1.4 billion. 

Tax cuts under the leadership of President Reagan

In 1981, the top marginal rate was reduced from 70% to 50%.

By 1988, this rate had been reduced to 28%.

What was the result on the economy? From 1978-1982, the real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 0.9%, but between 1983-1986, it grew at a rate of 4.8% per year. In 1982, the unemployment rate was 9.7%. In 1986, it was 7.0%, and by 1989 it had fallen to 5.3%.

Tax cuts under the leadership of President Bush

In 2003, the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 35%.

In 2004, tax revenues increased by 5.5%.

In 2005, tax revenues increased by 14.5%.

Supply-side economics has worked every time it has been tried. May I have my tax cut now, please?

Sources

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp

It’s an American tradition.

Every four years in this country, we elect a president. Just the same, every four years, Democrats vow Republicans will raise the retirement age or cut Social Security benefits.

Senator Kerry did it in 2004.

“Obama said McCain would push to raise the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits or trim annual cost-of-living increases. Obama has rejected both ideas as solutions to the funding crisis projected for Social Security in favor of making higher-income workers pay more into the system.”

But that’s not what Mr. Obama said a year ago. Appearing on This Week on ABC on May 14, 2007, the Senator said “everything should be on the table” regarding a Social Security solution. Asked specifically about raising the retirement age, Mr. Obama again responded that “everything should be on the table”. Furthermore, Mr. Obama said, “I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together.”

They came together, yes, but 1983 was also the last time that the retirement age was raised and the last time Social Security benefits were cut. 

What if Saddam and al-Qaeda really did have a relationship?

This is the question Americans should be asking themselves before casting their vote this year. If it turns out that there was, in fact, coordination between the two prior to the overthrow of Saddam’s regime, would it make a difference in your view of the war? Should it?

It seems there is a bit of revisionist history going on in this election cycle, it being of course, the year of the Bush-bash. Perhaps it’s because for the first time in over half a century there exists no member of the current administration in the race who can defend its record, but nobody thus far has made a meaningful rebuttal of what has unfortunately come to be regarded as truth. Americans everywhere, many of whom have more interest at this point in who wins American Idol than who is nominated for the Presidency, have taken Senator Obama’s line that “there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and Dick Cheney decide to invade Iraq” as Gospel.

In this case, however, Mr. Obama is more of a false prophet than a messiah. Saddam Hussein did have a relationship with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, a fact which has been pointed out on several occasions.

Shortly after Mr. Obama made his remarks, Investor’s Business Daily attempted to correct the record in a February 28 editorial:

Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al-Qaida cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, found safe haven in Iraq, and documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with both a home and a salary…

Back in 1999, ABC News reported that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum, citing their "long relationship" and a December 1998 meeting in Afghanistan between Osama and Iraqi intelligence chief Faruq Hijazi…  

In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department alleged in an indictment against bin Laden that "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." 

On a previous occasion, President Bush tried to set the record straight regarding the founding of al-Qaeda in Iraq in a July 24, 2007 speech at Charleston Air Force Base:

Al-Qaida in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al-Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al-Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces.

Nevertheless, the myth that Saddam and al-Qaeda had no contact continues to spread. On March 13 of this year, CNN declared, citing anonymous sources, that a Pentagon report “showed no connection” between Iraq and al-Qaeda:

The report released by the Joint Forces of Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no “smoking gun” after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.

The only problem for CNN being that this isn’t what the Pentagon report concluded. The abstract of the 94-page document reads as follows:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Working together in pursuit of shared goals constitutes a relationship, does it not? And we all know what the goals of al-Qaeda are! Perhaps before voting for a candidate who will withdraw our troops based on the “fact” that this war was waged on false pretenses, one should take a moment and evaluate whether or not those pretenses were, in fact, false. Does it make a difference to whom gets your vote? Should it?

First thought: Election night is the worst time for my internet to be down! Six hours I was without access last night…

Second thought: While most of the nation was tuned into the final four of American Idol, the ultimate reality show was taking place in Indian and North Carolina…

Third thought: That odor coming out of Lake County, Indiana isn’t from the steel mills. It has the all the aromas of voter fraud.

Most important thought: What will Hillary’s decision on whether or not to stay in the race reveal about her character? Her argument to the super-delegates is that she is a better match-up against John McCain. But even this isn’t true anymore if one considers the backlash that results when the nomination is taken away from The Anointed One. She’d be crazy to think she could convince Obama fanatics to vote for her after that.

So what will she do? 

Will she make good on her promise to do “everything (she) can to make sure a Democrat is elected to the White House” in the fall. It’s looking more and more like this would mean withdrawing from the race.

Or will she stay in and fight despite no matter the short (and potentially long) term damage done to her party’s chances in November? Of course, a Republican victory in the general election would mean that there won’t be an incumbent Democrat running for reelection in 2012. Isn’t that interesting?

Personal incentive is the most underrated aspect of American life. It’s because of self interest that capitalism thrives: Two parties transacting, each willing to give up something of value in order to obtain something else of value that better serves their interests.

It is also the reason many of our politicians and public figures behave the way they do. Asking ourselves what incentive a person might have for making a particular decision guards against deception and aids in uncovering the truth.

When someone is earning tens of millions a year spreading fear of an impending global disaster, it does not automatically mean that the issue is false. It does mean, however, that this person has a motive in seeing the fear continue.

When someone attains fame by convincing millions they are victims of racism, it does not mean that racism doesn’t exist. It does indicate, though, that this person has incentive to see the problem persist.

When a politician places personal achievement above the health of the nation, it does not mean that he or she does not truly care about the issues. It is a signal, though, that such a person has a vested interest in the defeat of a like-minded candidate.

To the contrary of these examples, when someone has to be persuaded to run for office, or when a candidate takes a pay cut to seek elective office, or when a person shies away from the media limelight, it does not make such a figure correct on the issues. It is an indication, however, that he or she has the best interests of the country at heart.

Motivation matters. Don’t ever forget that.

John McCain this week proposed a health care initiative that includes a $5000 annual tax credit to American families for the purpose of purchasing health insurance. Under his plan, Americans would have the choice of staying with their employer’s health coverage or using the tax credit to purchase their own. Those who have no income tax liability would receive a rebate instead of a credit.

This way, the state would quote-unquote provide health insurance to all Americans but would do so in a way that actually increases choice. In truth, it is a much needed tax reduction packaged in way that aims to reduce health care costs and premiums.

It is well documented that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed similar plans (to each other) for universal health care coverage.  Universal health care, by the way, is just a sweet sounding name for socialized medicine, kind of like affair is much gentler on the ears than adultery.

Socialized medicine, should it ever be implemented in this country, will likely reduce the choices available to both patients and doctors. Ronald Reagan, long before he became president, once gave a radio address on the dangers of socialized medicine. You can find it on YouTube or follow the link here.

Senator Obama said today that the gas tax holiday proposed by Senator McCain would rob the treasury of billions of dollars intended for highway construction. 

That’s odd. 

Congress has no problem spending money intended for highway construction on all kinds of purposes unrelated to our infrastructure, but let someone suggest taking those dollars away and it’s, “Oh no! That tax money is for our highways!” 

Well, the Associated Press calculates that such a Memorial Day to Labor Day moratorium on the 18.4 cents-per-gallon tax would keep $10 billion in the hands of taxpayers. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that $13.2 billion was spent in 2007 on earmarks and pork projects.

Does anyone see a problem here?

Senator Chuck Schumer said today in response to President Bush’s plea for the Congress to allow drilling in ANWR, “Which side is (the President) on? He can’t be both for big oil and for lower prices.”

It’s true we live in an era dominated by the sound byte, but any discussion based on Mr. Schumer’s statement establishes the premise that “big oil” is directly and solely responsible for our woes at the pump. Whilst numerous accusations have been made, not one shred of evidence indicating price fixing has been publicly submitted by a politician making such claims.

On the other hand, I could easily say, “The people of this country can’t have it both ways. They can’t be for lower gas prices, and vote for liberals,” and I would be closer to the truth. Evidence does exist that the high fuel prices we are paying, while undoubtedly due to a combination of factors that include a weak dollar and speculation on Wall Street, are primarily the result of restrictions held in place by a Democratically-controlled Congress which reduce supply in a market of growing demand for oil and gasoline.

Neither statement, however, will bring down the price of fuel. That will only be done when those who matter insist upon it. Write your congressman.