So just a few quick thoughts about Senator Obama’s comments at the Saddleback Civil Forum.

There were 2 items that stood out in my mind. Darfur and taxes. I am passionate about both and have written a great deal on each subject. So his answers were very important to me.

In terms of taxes I noticed that when Obama was asked to directly quote a single amount that qualifies as rich he could not do so. He in fact avoided the answer. He responded with the answer that if you make $150,000 or less – depending where you live in America – AS A FAMILY then you are most likely middle-class. And he stated that basically if you are a family making $250,000 or more you are in the top 1% of the nation, again depending on where you live. He then promised that families making $150, 000 or less will receive a tax benefit from his tax plans, and those above it will pay more.

That answer is both insufficient and deceptive.

He did not address individuals. Does he mean that $75,000 and less is middle-class? Or under $150,000? Or are you rich? He did not make it clear.

And what if you are a business owner? He wants to increase business taxes; and roughly 60% of businesses in the nation are small-businesses owned by individuals and families. So does he count raising the business tax in his promise to lower taxes of those families as well?

So if we follow what he is saying, and has said, it is very possible that people other than just the ambiguous ‘rich’ will have their taxes increased as well. Which says nothing of the 94 votes he has made to date to increase taxes, including the most recent that would increase taxes of Americans making as little as $31,850.

On top of that is this bit of intuitive thought. America, from a federal tax basis, is not New York City, or Chicago, or Little Rock, or any other region. The IRS does not adjust our taxes based on where your income comes from. The IRS has fixed numbers on what is rich, middle-class, and poor. Any candidate that fails to answer this questions fails to give America a real chance to make a choice.

The other issue that caught my intention is Darfur. When Senator Obama was directly asked about what America should do about places like Darfur where perhaps 1 million men, women and children have died in the last 4+ years – and where America has done nothing (look up the history on HR 180 IH).

Senator Obama completely bypassed Darfur. He went directly to Georgia and other areas. Now I realize that Georgia is a hot topic these days. But this was an opportunity to address a genocide that America has blocked out. I mean a virtually complete major media blackout. And it was a credit to the Minister to bring up the issue as the media has not.

Senator Obama had a chance to go beyond the popular, and to make America aware that if we want to obligate ourselves to international issues, places with no oil and little strategic importance are as valuable as those that do. Simply because there are people, children, that are being murdered – and that is wrong.

Senator Obama failed on that question. That seriously pissed me off.

Now I will be looking forward to the responses of Senator McCain on these same issues.

Labels: Darfur, HR 180 IH, middle class, Saddleback Civil Forum, Senator Barack Obama, tax increase, tax policy

So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama

Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.

There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.

That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].

So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.

But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states

“I do not think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you, and not looks down on you," said Hillary Clinton. "And after seven years of Americans feeling invisible to this president, President Bush, it is time that we leveled the playing field.”

Is Senator Clinton better?

Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.

We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).

Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?

Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.

So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?

Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.

Labels: Binghamton NY, Chicago, Democratic Party, middle class, President Bill Clinton, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Wal-Mart