Barack Obama’s tax plan has been called a lot of things. His supporters say it is fair and forces the rich to pay their fair share, his opponents call his tax plan socialist and say it will advocate class warfare. Before making a judgment, let’s look at the numbers of Obama’s tax plan calculated by the Wall Street Journal and the Tax Policy Center:

1.       89 million of 220 million eligible voters (40%) pay no income taxes. Under Obama’s plan, this number will increase to 49%.

2.       Under Obama’s plan, 11% of voters will pay less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 in taxes.

OK, so under Obama’s plan 40% of all voters will pay almost all of the income taxes. 49% of voters won’t pay any income taxes and another 11% will barely pay anything. Most will say “So what? They can afford it, and the rich don’t pay their fair share of the taxes anyway.” The problem is, Obama’s plan will put almost all the burden on 40% of voters. 40% of America’s voters aren’t rolling in money, Obama’s plan won’t tax the filthy rich, many others will bear the tax burden. As for the fair share argument, the 40% that Obama will raise taxes on already pays 95% of income taxes.

Even if we assume that Obama will cut taxes for 95% percent of Americans and raise taxes for the remaining 5%, his tax plan will result in economic downturn. The top 5% of income earners are the ones who create jobs. As much as we love to adore the middle and lower class, the rich are the ones who employ the lower and middle class. Higher taxes on the top 5% will cripple the economy. If taxes get too high, businesses will either cut back or move overseas. If business refuse to employ workers or move out of the country, the lower and middle class will suffer. We may enjoy taxing those rich fatcats, but when we do so, we’re cutting our nose to spite our face.

 I've heard a lot about exploting liberals using the bridge collapse to attack Bush. They say that if Bush didn't waste money on Iraq then we could rebuild levees and bridges. Only one problem, (one liberals have a lot) the facts don't mesh with their opinion (yet again) the bridge was known to be defective in 1990. If Bush is responsible how about Clinton. If he hadn't thrown away money fighting a war in Serbia we could have fixed the bridge. If he hadn't been too busy taking his pants off the bridge could have repaired. The levees were known to be a problem in 1950. So democratic heroes Clinton and Carter along with God John F. Kennedy didn't fix the levees. They can blame Bush if they want, but they better blame Clinton for the bridge and Kennedy, L. Johnson, Carter and Clinton for the levees. Somehow I doubt they won't do that.

According to the latest figures by the Department of Labor 180,000 new jobs were created last month, which means that jobs were added for the last 43 months straight. Unemployment is at a low 4.4% and real wages have increased by 1.8% over the last 12 months up to February.

Thanks to Power Line

The same gatekeepers who let this poll question go up on ABCNews.com:

Three Yale students have been arrested on charges of arson, reckless endangerment and other crimes for allegedly burning a flag on the porch of their apartment. One of the students translated for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. None have criminal records.

Should flag burning be a crime?


It's a good question, there's only one problem. The flag wasn't on their apartment. The students burned a flag that was on someone else's apartment. That's why they got arrested.



Thanks to National Review for catching this.

It's nice to know that "Republican" Governor Charlie Crist is out to prove every Tom Gallagher supporter right during his 4 year term. Crist has managed to pass a bill that will automatically restore the rights of most convicted felons after they completed their sentences and paid restitution. A move which drew praise from the executive director of the ACLU in Florida and criticism from Republican Attorney General, Bill McCollum. In doing so Crist has potentially turned Florida into a blue state. I find it ironic that once again the Republican Party's desire to win at all costs is probably going to be what defeats them. That's Charlie Crist, the same person who supports embryonic stem cell research. Protect convicted felons and forget unborn children. Aren't you glad the Republican party is supporting him?