Democrat Policies You Need To Know About

So, if Barack Obama wins the White House in November, what will he do? What issues will he pursue? Will he do anything that will really affect you? Take a look at some of these policies:

Energy

The "energy plan" announced by the Democrats offers one thing: a significant slowdown of our economy for at least twenty years.

The plan: We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.

This is also the Democrat solution. Get it? The Democrat plan is the Democrat solution. In logic this is called petitio principii or "begging the question."

Ask yourself: which of the five components of the "plan" should happen first? "Reducing our dependence on foreign oil" is listed first. But it cannot happen first. In order to keep the economy moving ahead, some type of energy must replace foreign oil-and this energy must be tangible, readily available, and close to the market price of the energy it is replacing.

This is a crucial point and very few people seem to understand it. We cannot solve the energy crisis by talking about the creation of, say, hydrogen fuel cells for cars. We must have a fully functioning economy in the intervening thirty or forty years that it will take to "develop energy alternatives" like hydrogen fuel cells. In other words, the pressing question is not "What energy alternative will we be using in forty years?" The real question is: What energy alternative will we be using tomorrow that will allow us the economic prosperity to create future alternative energies much further down the road?

The Democrat plan also calls for "eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies." (I could not discover when and how the federal government has provided "billions in subsides for oil and gas companies." I assume that this really means raising taxes on oil and gas companies.) How is this strategy going to provide one gallon of fuel for Americans? It certainly has not worked in the past when price controls and higher taxes have always led to long lines at the gas pumps.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. If we do not have a viable, recession free, economy in the short and medium term, then we will not get to a "cleaner, greener and stronger America" in the long run. We will not be able to sustain short-term economic growth that leads to long-term technological development without moderately priced energies being available throughout the process.

Obama's plan does absolutely nothing to increase energy production. Conservation is a fine thing, but in order for our economy to grow, we must increase energy while also conserving. The Democrat plan, as is normal, totally loses sight of that fact. Senator John Cornyn calls the Dem plan the 'tax, sue, and investigate' plan because they'll tax production, sue anyone who would actually have the gall to increase production of energy, and launch investigations to shut up anyone who might oppose their ideas. If the Dems get their way, they will do nothing to increase production or decrease prices; if anything, their actions will make things worse for you and me.

Social Security

Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity."

Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Obama said he would adjust the cap on payroll taxes "so that people like me who make more than $102,000 have to pay a little bit more, and the people who are in need are protected." He said his plan would include an adjustment so the change doesn't hit middle-class Americans who make "just a little bit over $102,000."

The problem here is that Obama sees the government as the provider for everyone's retirement. You know, it wasn't all that long ago that people actually saved their money for their own retirement. It was a Democrat who first introduced the idea of Social Security, and thus ensnared generations of Americans into believing that the government would provide for them once they retired (it's a 'right', you know). Obama will refuse to allow any responsibility to be put on individuals, instead using the federal government to provide everything to everyone. Typical liberalism.

Taxation

As the presidential campaign heats up, a key issue is whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts, which expire in 2011. John McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let the rates rise.

Mr. Obama's claim that the lost revenue from the income-tax cuts exceeds the Social Security shortfall derives from an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Center's conclusions have been widely cited, but rely on dubious assumptions.

The basic methodology is simple: Compare the income-tax revenues if the tax cuts expire to revenues if the tax cuts are extended. The Center measures the difference in revenue 10 years from now – to match the government's 10-year budget measurement period – then extends the difference over 75 years to make it comparable to the 75-year Social Security shortfall.

To account for the effects of inflation and economic growth, analysts compare tax revenues to the size of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the tax cuts expire, income-tax receipts in 2018 will be 1.5% higher relative to gross domestic product than if the cuts are made permanent. By comparison, Social Security's 75-year shortfall is just 0.6% of GDP.

So Social Security is a costly problem, but the tax cuts cost much more. Open and shut case, right?

Not exactly. Tax revenues would skyrocket if the tax cuts expire, due to "bracket creep." Average incomes are higher today than in the 1990s, but income-tax brackets aren't adjusted for the growth of earnings. As a result, Americans will shift into higher tax brackets and pay a greater share of their incomes in taxes.

The key thing that Democrats always seem to overlook is the fact that every time taxes are increased, the economy slows down. Similarly, every time taxes are decreased, it roars. This is because of the simple reality that when Americans have less tax money taken out of their paychecks each month, they have more money to spend, which goes back into the economy. This is such a simple concept that a child can understand it...but our politicians are either incapable or unwilling to deal in reality when it comes to taxes.

Universal health care
Heavy-Handed Politics posts a story from an MD about why most doctors fear universal health care being implemented in America. The short version is that it would 'create one of the most intrusive government bureaucracies since the Internal Revenue Service, and it will impinge heavily on the individual freedoms of all American citizens.' It will not be cheaper, it will not be better quality, and the supposed mandate to require everyone to have coverage would be unenforceable. This same sort of plan is already in force in Massachusetts, where they have seen the following results:

[T]he least expensive health plan available through the program costs $196 a month, while the state fine for being uninsured is about half that cost -- $98 a month!

After just two years, Massachusetts' universal coverage program is running at a staggering $147 million deficit, and the four insurance carriers who provide the state- subsidized insurance are estimating that costs will go up by 14 percent next year.

Even more shocking is the manner in which Massachusetts state officials have decided to deal with the out-of-control costs of their broken system: they've ordered the insurance companies to cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for payments, and possibly increase how much patients will have to pay.

Basically, this doctor says that the Democrat plan for universal health care 'would look to solve our nation's health care problems by giving control of the system to the insurance companies.' If that's not a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is!

Fighting poverty
The one piece of significant legislation that Barack Obama has actually sponsored in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), which would send almost $1 trillion of American taxpayer money to poor third-world countries. That's right, Obama is pushing a bill that would require Americans to pay exorbitant sums of money to fight poverty around the globe. The Center for Individual Freedom points out that this is equivalent to each American household paying an additional $8,500 each year in taxes...every penny of which goes out of the country into the pockets of third world dictators and thugs.

I sure hope I don't have to spell out the negatives on this bill for you. Call your Senators and tell them to oppose this legislation!

Bald-faced lies
Finally, we have a rather startling admission from one Democrat Congressman named Kanjorski:

That's right - the Democrats lied about stopping the war in Iraq simply because they were more interested in winning back power than in making promises they knew they could keep.

You'll get all of these things (and more) if the Democrats win big in November. You have been warned.

There's my two cents.