The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Ad Watch

Obama's Economic Counterattack

By Howard Kurtz
The Ad: John McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy. So who advises him? Carly Fiorina, the fired CEO who got a $42 million golden parachute. Phil Gramm, the ex-senator who pushed through deregulation and called Americans hurt by this economy "whiners." Then there's George Bush, whose disastrous policies McCain wants to continue. They think the economy is fundamentally strong. We know they're fundamentally wrong.

Analysis: The key facts in this Barack Obama counterattack ad are accurate.

Fiorina, who has been one of McCain's closest and most visible advisers, was forced to resign as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard over its sinking fortunes and received a severance package estimated at $42 million (popularly, if somewhat pejoratively, called a "golden parachute"). Gramm was another close adviser until he told the Washington Times that America had become "a nation of whiners" complaining about a "mental recession," after which he relinquished his formal campaign role. Gramm was a Senate champion of deregulation, and sponsored a 1999 law, supported by McCain, that loosened barriers between banks and insurance companies and which some analysts say contributed to the current Wall Street meltdown.

McCain has been a frequent supporter of President Bush, but whether Bush's economic policies have been "disastrous" is, of course, a matter of debate.

The ad slightly distorts McCain's comment on Monday that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" -- which, while politically tone-deaf, can be seen as saying that the financial underpinnings are solid despite the current troubles. That is not the same as saying the overall economy is strong.

In a duel over advisers, the Obama ad is stronger in aiming at two McCain confidants than the Arizona senator's spot attempting to tie the Democrat to former Fannie Mae chairman Franklin Raines. But voters may be more interested in the words and policies of the candidates themselves than those who surround them.

Posted at 9:21 AM ET on Sep 19, 2008  | Category:  Ad Watch
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Charges Obama with Taking Advice from Raines | Next: Obama and the Economic Rescue Plan


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



What Obama does'nt know... The following is the meaning of the word Fundamental.

fun·da·men·tal (fnd-mntl)

Of or relating to the foundation or base.

What McCain said about the American Economy is Fundamentally CORRECT.

Not a Pawn to a presidential canidate that does NOT know the meaning of common english words...

Posted by: Not a Pawn To OBAMACON! | September 20, 2008 10:42 AM

The Atlantic
September 18, 2008
An economist explains why he thinks McCain's economic policies make more sense
by Steven Landsburg

(Steven E. Landsburg (born 1954) is an American professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. From 1989 to 1995, he taught at Colorado State University.)


Betting on John McCain

My whole life I've been mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." I've never had any problem choosing my candidates and didn't see how anyone else could either. But this year, I've been genuinely on the fence, partly because I haven't been paying close attention, and partly because there seemed ample reason to dislike all of the options.
But over the past few days, as McCain and Obama have ratcheted up their rhetoric over each others' "disastrous" economic policies, I decided to do a little research. Along the way, I had a few surprises about John McCain's voting record, some but not all of them pleasant. Now I don't think I'm undecided anymore.
Here are some of the things that made my decision easy, and some that made it hard:
1. Free trade and immigration are my top issues, and McCain wins on both.
These are my top issues for several reasons. First, trade is the engine of prosperity not just for the United States but also for the poorest of the world's poor. Nothing matters more than that. Second, the instinct to care about the national origin of your trading partner (or employer, or employee, or landlord, or tenant) is an ugly one, and the instinct to care about the national origin of other people's trading partners—and on that basis to interfere forcibly with other people's voluntary transactions—is even uglier.
Finally, protectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Some intervening presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and to a lesser extent Bush II) have been weak in their commitments to free trade, but none between Hoover and Obama has so explicitly rejected it.
2. McCain is not Bush. This came as a surprise to me. I'd been assuming, in my ill-read, uneducated way, that McCain had been complicit in most of the great travesties of the Bush administration and the execrable Republican Senate. I've learned that's largely untrue. He voted (to my great surprise!) against the prescription drug entitlement, against the Farm Security Bill, against milk subsidies, against Amtrak subsidies, and against highway subsidies.
Obama, by contrast, is in many ways a continuation of Bush. Like Bush (only far more so ), Obama is fine with tariffs and subsidies. Like Bush, he wants to send jackbooted thugs into every meatpacking plant in America to rid the American workplace of anyone who happens to have been born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Like Bush, he wants a more progressive tax code. (It is one of the great myths of 21st century that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code less progressive; the opposite is true. If you are in the bottom 38% of taxpayers, you now pay zero income tax—and therefore have an incentive to support any spending bill that comes down the pike.) Like Bush, he wants more regulation, not less.

3. But there's a lot about economics that McCain just doesn't get. This shows up most significantly in his energy policies. Every economist knows that the best way to discourage carbon emissions (or anything else for that matter) is to tax them. But McCain rejects a carbon tax in favor of one slightly inferior policy (cap and trade) and one grossly inferior policy (direct regulation, such as the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency).
In a world of perfect capital markets and perfect information, a cap-and-trade system (provided the government auctions off the permits rather than giving them away) is exactly equivalent to a carbon tax – same effect on everything down to and including the prices of consumer goods. In the real world we live in, it's inferior for two reasons: First, small firms might find it difficult=2 0to raise the necessary capital to buy a permit; this gives an inappropriate advantage to big firms over small ones. Second, I believe it will be harder (for technical reasons I won't go into here) to calculate the efficient number of cap-and-trade permits than to calculate the efficient per-ton carbon tax. Aside from that, the two policies are equivalent in every way. McCain presumably doesn't get this, or he wouldn't have such a strong preference for cap-and-trade.
Worse, he endorses the CAFE standards, which are just a terrible way to control carbon emissions. While a carbon tax gets incentives right at every decision point, fuel efficiency standards give people no incentive, for example, to bike to work instead of drive (in fact, they flip the incentive in the wrong direction). Worse yet, they concentrate brainpower on improving fuel efficiency when there might be far more effective ways to control carbon emissions; with a tax, all innovations are rewarded.
In his support of CAFE standards over carbon taxes, McCain betrays a serious failure to understand how incentives work. The same problem shows up when he thinks you can simply mandate campaign finance limits, as if people who are competing for control of a $15 trillion economy won't be creative enough to find some way to spend hundreds of millions in the effort, no matter how you write your laws.
4. McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Am ericans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
Of course, there are other things that matter. Foreign and defense policy might matter more than anything, and if I were sure that one or the other candidate were far wiser about these issues, that might be enough to win my vote. But I have no expertise on these matters and no particular reason to trust my own judgment.
I'm sure I'm right about trade and pretty sure I'm right about taxes and health care, but that's because I've thought long and hard about these issues for decades. It seems to me that we ought to be humble about the things we haven't thought hard about, and for me that includes foreign policy. The best I can do is bet that whoever's getting most of the other stuff right is getting this right too.
The bottom line is that I support John McCain. With trepidation.

Posted by: Scott | September 20, 2008 8:43 AM

Manolete,

This is the first time I've felt compelled to lower myself to the level of someone like you.

But here are just a few facts about Sarah Palin you might have missed in your blinding racism:

She has admitted smoking pot. (BTW, so what?)

She was pregnant when she got married. (Which clearly is no longer an issue for the fundamentalists.)

You can easily find the YouTube video of her speech this year at her former church in which she credits her success to being anointed by a preacher who is also a witch-hunter. (I mean, honestly. She is ridiculous.)

Her husband did in fact belong to the Alaska Independence Party, and because I actually happen to know two of the founders of this party, I can tell you that they really do hate the U.S. Government and are sincere in their call for Alaska secede from America. They hope to be buried in Canada, not here.

And on and on and on.

And I know this won't make any difference to you, but it matters to me to say that in Alaska, her reputation has taken a huge dive into the ditch simply because we see every day how much she lies repeatedly. Truly, just about every claim she makes for herself is an exaggeration, but when she told us she was for transparency and accountability, she was just flat lying. Apparently she doesn't ask herself, "WWJD?" much.

Heaven help her when she comes back here--it's going to be a COMPLETELY different political and personal landscape. She's not even going to recognize it.

There's plenty more to say about Palin (and McCain--what was HE thinking?), but I just realized: Why am I even addressing a racist jerk?

Posted by: Bluedog Alaska | September 20, 2008 5:54 AM

EVERYONE::::::Shut up and do some research

(&%*&(&)(%%)(*&(*_&*(&(*%^$%@#$@!$#!@$#
thats all anyone does in these blogs

Try this...go to the websites and see for yourself....look for philosophies, numbers, specifics, word usage.....

Barack Obama: Economy (Entire plan)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

John McCain:Economy(Main page w/subsect)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
:::::relief for families:::::::
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm

you will see a HUGE difference in the information provided....example. do a search in the text for a "$" dollar sign...you will see on Obama's page it comes up alot, for mccain, only once in a quote for his gas tax holiday proposal

McCain doesnt offer specifics....obama talks about Hope and Change, but he backs it up with figures and specifics....McCain has faith you'll take him on his word

see for yourselves....do your homework, we are electing a president, not american idol

Posted by: Oregon4obama | September 19, 2008 9:45 PM

I am amzed at the number of people who deny what John Mccain said himself. He is recorded saying he doesn't understand the economy this year. Where have you been. I am really beginning to worry about some of the GOP people. They insists on believing these bullies and after the election they are ignored as usual. I don't get it. But then I am not a republican.

Posted by: Julescator | September 19, 2008 7:18 PM

Barack's mother was white, he lived in Hawaii as a young boy where he smoked ganja and snore coke.
He graduated from Harvard University and now spends $20,000 per year for each of her children's schooling.

Barack is elitist, pompous and knows how to speak and debate very well, BUT,...his words are empty and hollow and lacks honesty and sincerity.

Barack is just another politician that will do or say whatever it takes to fulfill his political ambitions; that is why, Nobody knows who he really is or what he stands for.

Blacks are confused and are beginning to speak out because Barack is not speaking about social justice or equality or national health insurance or any social programs that would benefit the poor and disadvantaged.

What some members of the black community don't understand is that Barack is calculated and methodical about hiding his true convictions and intentions, as a way to get elected. But we all know who the real Barack is:

Barack had a 20 year association with his religious leader and priest Jeremiah Wright, who became Barack's idol and role model. Jeremiah married Barack and baptized both daughters. AND, we all remember the videos of Jeremiah Wright damning America with bombastic joy after the criminal attack on America on 9/11.

Barack's religious leader Jeremiah Wright used his tax-exempt church to exercise a radical political agenda.


A longtime friend of Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright has called for divestment from Israel and refers to Israel, as well as America, as a "racist" state.

"Theologically he believes that the true 'Chosen People' are the blacks," said Caroline B. Glick, an editor for the Jerusalem Post. "Indeed he is a black supremacist."

"He believes that black values are superior to middle-class American values," she added, "and that blacks should isolate themselves from the wider American society."


Let's not Forget the fact that:
Barack wants to be president of the United States to implement Jeremiah Wrights dream of a black supremacist society in America; and that is why it is so important for americans of all political parties to come together to preserve the future of the country we love.

Country First!
Democrats for McCain/Palin

Posted by: Manolete | September 19, 2008 5:46 PM

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

GovTrak- Senate Record

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: DeadI join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 4:03 PM

I just posted 2 Bush campaign ads from 2004.

Look at them and tell me you are not looking at McCain '08!

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-2004-political-ads-sound-familiar.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 19, 2008 3:56 PM

How very "Washington Post" of the author of this lame piece. He includes this gem:
"[Phil} Gramm was a Senate champion of deregulation, and sponsored a 1999 law, supported by McCain, that loosened barriers between banks and insurance companies and which some analysts say contributed to the current Wall Street meltdown."

Of course, the author doesn't bother to point out that the bill was supported by many Democrats as well, including Sen. Joe Biden, and was supported and signed by Bill Clinton.

The Post staff continues to embarass itself with lop-sided 'analysis' that tries to imply fault of only Republicans in the current financial meltdown, and they willfully turn a blind eye to the Democrats involvement, which some analysts would say was even more substantial considering the recent control the Democrats have had over the legislative regulatory bodies that should have seen this problem coming.

Posted by: dbw | September 19, 2008 3:41 PM

Bush comes out like a clock's cuckoo to say "It's time to act now".
Then goes back to the closet to explain himself to his conscience.
But it's Pinocchio, once more, talking to his self-made internal cricket.

Posted by: El Mugroso | September 19, 2008 2:38 PM

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Michelle | September 19, 2008 2:14 PM

The ad starts out with a bold face lie,"John McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy." John McCain never admitted this and the fact that you, Kurtz, didn't bother to point this out proves your blatant bias.

Posted by: AWilliams | September 19, 2008 2:09 PM

Hey - just a few hundred billion more in loses and this will top the losses under the administration of that financial guru (HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA) Clinton.

Sad thing was, that time, it was the retirement accounts of individuals taking the hits for corporate accounting malfeasance while he was get BJ's from Monica.

Posted by: Robert Campbell | September 19, 2008 12:21 PM

That's right Obama! Get it!

Posted by: Obama2008 | September 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Report confirms Obama negotiated with Iraqi Foreign Minister Update: Taheri receiving death threats from Obama supporters
Sep 17, 2008 - Amir Taheri's September 15th has been, for all intents and purposes, confirmed over the past 24 hours. Obama did indeed conduct illegal foreign policy negotiations with Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari. As we wrote on the 15th, this amounts to a truly audacious betrayal of the American people and our military, and deserves a full investigation by the American government, and scrutinization by the media. This from the American Spectator:
The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.

The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
There you have it, corroborating witnesses were present. On top of this the report goes on to say that the Obama campaign is not even bothering to really deny the charges, simply spin it in the hopes that his media devotees will simply sweep it under the rug like every other scandal.

America really needs some reporters with the testicular fortitude to start an investigation. Is the media so in the tank for Obama that they would go out of there way to ignore what might be one of the biggest breaches of trust of a presidential candidate in American history?

Chris Mathews (in)famously complained to Pat Buchanan that media access to Governor Sarah Palin was necessary for the American people to make an informed decision about her. Is this very same media, which demanded Palin postulate in front of them for the good of the people, going to allow this bombshell to go unscrutinized, withholding what could be crucial information necessary to making an informed decision in November? If so, their hypocrisy is not only deep, but dangerous.

Update: Amir Taheri is receiving death threats from Obama supporters. In his follow up opinion piece in today's NY Post, Taheri writes:
While I am encouraged by the senator's evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a "cease and desist" plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 11:27 AM

Hmmm, well about "working class people paying $700 less," Bush has served nearly two terms, and a study was conducted: See "Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy" here in the following link

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

A few months ago, Washington Post posted an article informing that McCain is pro Bush tax cuts, and he wants to make them permanent, while adding onto the plans as well. The article talks about the shifting of burden from the wealthy, to the middle class. I think that if we're not going to have proportional balance of tax cuts for everyone of the U.S., and someone had to have the burden, common sense would be the more wealthy; you know, the few of the U.S. with what 80% of owned wealth of this country is it? Those people are very well off in this imbalanced playing field, compared to the vast of hard working Americans. If I were rich, I wouldn't mind being subjected to paying my due proportion.

Posted by: Obama2008 | September 19, 2008 11:18 AM

Thanks for the CNN analysis of federal income taxes. The "Laffey Curve" trickle-down economics theory has been applied several times since Reagan and has NOT worked. Last time is when Dumbya tried it when he had a budget SURPLUS, now we have $450 Billion+ debt.

Jesus... the Republicans are trashing this country. The first $2,000 of your federal income tax goes towards paying the interest on the national debt, the vast majority of which was created by the Reagan, Bush I and Dumbya administrations. Democratic administrations have been proven to be better for the economy as measured by "fundamentals".

And now we have McCain, who's running around with his hair on fire over this crises. Do you REALLY think this kind of wild public pronoucements, going from "no big deal" to "crisis" to "Fire him!" in 3 days is helpful? Do you REALLY REALLY want a President who acts like this in a time of crises?

Jesus. Cool under fire he ain't.

By the way, a Fat Cat will pay almost $500,000 MORE in Taxes under the Obama Plan. A working class guy will pay $700 LESS.

Average Tax return net change next year per president(FROM CNN ECONOMISTS):

.............MCCAIN .......OBAMA
Income......Avg. tax bill....Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ..+$701,885
$603K and up .-$45,361 ..+$115,974
$227K-$603K ..-$7,871....+$12,000
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380 ...-$2,789
$112K-$161K ..-$2,614 ...-$2,204
$66K-$112K ...-$1,009 ...-$1,290
$38K-$66K ....-$319 .....-$1,042
$19K-$38K ....-$113 .....-$892
Under $19K ...-$19 ......-$567

(posted again, because this should not get buried behind BS.)

Posted by: DDS | September 19, 2008 10:59 AM

With so many JakeD's floating around now though, how do you know it's the right one?

Posted by: JakeD | September 19, 2008 10:45 AM

McCain is a hot-headed, impulsive flip-flopper. Obama is cool, level-headed and unflappable.

Obama has revolutionized politics in America. McCain (and the WaPo) is stuck in the past.

The future always wins.

No More Years.

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 19, 2008 10:39 AM

Wow, i never thought Jaked would be supporting Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | September 19, 2008 10:21 AM

Average Tax return net change next year per president(FROM CNN ECONOMISTS):

.............MCCAIN .......OBAMA
Income......Avg. tax bill....Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ..+$701,885
$603K and up .-$45,361 ..+$115,974
$227K-$603K ..-$7,871....+$12,000
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380 ...-$2,789
$112K-$161K ..-$2,614 ...-$2,204
$66K-$112K ...-$1,009 ...-$1,290
$38K-$66K ....-$319 .....-$1,042
$19K-$38K ....-$113 .....-$892
Under $19K ...-$19 ......-$567

(posted again, because this should not get buried behind BS.)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:19 AM

TiredOfBS,

That is what i figured, so I didn't say anything.

The numbers are straight from the CCN website, I'm looking to get $1200 more next year, woohoo Obama!

Posted by: Tim | September 19, 2008 10:18 AM

Analysis: The key facts in this Barack Obama counterattack ad are accurate.


ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 19, 2008 10:17 AM

Counterattack? Looks like Obama's attacking US Taxpayers for the benefit of his overseas fans-
**************************

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote


Accuracy in Media Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

Posted by: Scott | September 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Counterattack? Looks like Obama's attacking US Taxpayers for the benefit of his overseas fans-
**************************

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote


Accuracy in Media Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:16 AM

I LOVE THIS AD!!!!!!!!!!! Play it night and day every 30 minutes in the swing states and all over the country.

Posted by: JakeD | September 19, 2008 10:15 AM

I missunderstood your tax post. Ignore what I said. I didn't see the negative signs on your numbers.

Posted by: TiredOfBS | September 19, 2008 10:15 AM

Stop posting your fabricated Tax reports. They're a big load. Obama will not increase the taxes of the lower income people. Ignore these scare tactics.

Posted by: TiredOfBS | September 19, 2008 10:12 AM

LIARS on these comments.


Average Tax return net change next year per president(FROM CNN ECONOMISTS):

.............MCCAIN .......OBAMA
Income......Avg. tax bill....Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ..+$701,885
$603K and up .-$45,361 ..+$115,974
$227K-$603K ..-$7,871....+$12,000
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380 ...-$2,789
$112K-$161K ..-$2,614 ...-$2,204
$66K-$112K ...-$1,009 ...-$1,290
$38K-$66K ....-$319 .....-$1,042
$19K-$38K ....-$113 .....-$892
Under $19K ...-$19 ......-$567

"Ladies and gents, watch your pocketbook if he gets in because he's going to take your money and send $1,000 checks to people who don't work and don't want to work."

These checks are real, and they will go to everyone making under 250k a year, WHICH IS 95% OF AMERICANS.

People like you make me sick. You complain that Obama says "ah" and "um", yoiu complain that he knows some people that are shady, and you complain about other stuff that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICIES.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT POLICIES? BECAUSE MCCAIN HAS LOSING POLICIES AND YOU WOULD LOSE A DEBATE THAT ACTUALLY INVOVLED IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE THE ECONOMY.

So keep talking about Ayers, Wright, and flag pins, and I will keep telling you that you are an asshat with your head in the sand.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 10:03 AM

Kurtz:
"That is not the same as saying the overall economy is strong."

Neither is:
"They think the economy is fundamentally strong."

Interesting technique, paraphrase to add arguable content, then contend with the claim, focusing on your own added words as the issue. I thought we only get to benefit from this technique when we listen to hate radio and read partisan web sites.

Posted by: zukermand | September 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Play this nationwide day and night... maybe have an ad to contrast advisors. Explain Obama is advised by Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin, and Paul Volker. These are real heavy weights not a People Magazine celebrity CEO like Fiorina or the self-serving former Senator Phil “the nation of whiners” Gramm.

Posted by: bradcpa | September 19, 2008 9:53 AM

McCaint and peeeuuu palin are in agreement to fire people that they cant even understand on a 5th grade school level....

How foolish to say ...Lets fire the the SEC chairman.....

To all of the "cleaners" of the McCaint campaign and its water carriers....

"The regulators were asleep, my friends,"
(this buffoon uses the term "my friends" way...way too often...I never saw a moron who has so many friends...)

McCaint said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president.

And in my view has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.

What a true idiot and patronizing fool....

In 47 days, we can fire the whole Trickle-Down, On-Your-Own, Look-the-Other-Way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path.

Don't just get rid of one guy, get rid of this administration, get rid of this philosophy, get rid of the do-nothing approach to problems and put someone in there who is going to fight for you.

....and truly not the 72 Ford Maverick and Carribou Barbie..............

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 19, 2008 9:47 AM

What are Obama supporters what smoking over there at Kumbiyah? All Obama does is complain and point finger and blame others for the economic situation. He's meeting today with his "advisors" so he can get orders on what to say about Wall Street.

Obama has no experience and off the teleprompter, it's "uhhh" and "ah" and babbling of an ivory tower elitist who is confronted with the stark reality of real world problems.

Let's face it, Obama loves himself first, last and always. He's spent 20 years in an angry black church, he pals around with former domestic terrorists, he got a sweetheart deal on his home from a convicted felon and all this drivel about "change we can believe in" is for swooning sops. Nothing is going to change because Obama has no history of bipartisanship, unlike John McCain, and he's got the most liberal voting record in the Senate, when he can bring himself to vote instead of voting "present."

Plus, Obama has voted for tax increases 94 times in the U.S. Senate. Ladies and gents, watch your pocketbook if he gets in because he's going to take your money and send $1,000 checks to people who don't work and don't want to work.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 9:34 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company