Overview
For over 70 years American taxpayers have been doling out billions of dollars every year to underwrite the agriculture sectors’ cost of doing business. Established as “temporary” emergency measures during the Great Depression, these antiquated policies have since devolved into a gravy train supporting corporate agribusiness at the expense of the public purse. Only a handful of crops receive subsidies at all, and the majority of these subsidies flow only to corporate farms. And five types of crops, corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans receive the majority of all payments. Instead of supporting a struggling sector or promoting rural development these subsidies are only icing on the cake for the wealthiest and largest farmers.

Commodity Prices and Farm Income
2007 saw record crop prices and record farm income, according to USDA. Those records are expected to be surpassed in 2008, with crop value projected to be more than $201 billion – a 17 % increase over 2007. Net farm income is also projected to reach a new high in 2008 of $92.3 billion, 51 % above the 10-year average. The average farm household’s income is estimated to be $89,434 in 2008, according to USDA.

Many factors are contributing to the price increases being experienced by the commodity sector. These include the pressure for planting more corn generated by the ethanol mandates, which reduces the amount of land available for other crops, increased food demand from other countries, and crop losses due to flooding and drought here and abroad. But while record crop prices means that the amount of government handouts will be lower than in recent years, USDA still anticipates padding farmers’ pocket with an additional $13.4 billion in taxpayer funded payments in 2008.

Concentrating the Wealth
According to an a analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data on subsidy payments, for farm program years 2003 to 2005, almost $39 billion in farm subsidy payments have been paid out. Just 10 % of recipients receive 66% of the payments, according to the data.  Overall, the analysis finds that the top 1% (measured by income) of recipients received 17 % of the subsidy benefits over the period.  Payments are also concentrated among large producers. The top 1% of producers receives 17% of the subsidies. Their average benefit was $377,484 per person for the three program years. Meanwhile, 80% of producers get just 16% of all subsidies.

While high crop prices are expected to keep some subsidy payments from being necessary in the near future, direct payments will continue to go out regardless of crop price, production, or whether a crop is even harvested. These payments are estimated to cost more than $5 billion per year. And under the new 2008 farm bill, households making up to $1.5 million in farm income and up to $1 million in non-farm income are still eligible to receive subsidies.

Conclusion
The farm economy is prospering. With record crop prices, farm incomes are also setting records. Meanwhile, direct payments that have no relationship to production levels or crop prices will continue to go out at a rate of over $5 billion per year. Under such circumstances the farm subsidy system deserves much greater reform than occurred in the new 2008 farm bill.

Information was obtained from Taxpayers for Common Sense.

As was the case for much of the last decade, profits for major oil and gas companies continue to skyrocket. Exxon brought in over $14 billion in profits in the third quarter of 2008, increasing 58% over third quarter 2007 and setting a new record for quarterly earnings. Similarly, Shell’s third quarter profits increased more than 70% over third quarter 2007 and Chevron’s profits increased  to $7.89 billion, more than double the $3.72 billion reported a year ago.

Last year three of the top five largest oil companies saw annual profits continue on their record-setting trajectory. Exxon lead the pack, posting $40.6 billion in profits — the largest annual profit number reported by any American company ever — breaking their previous record from 2006. Chevron also had a record-setting year with net income rising 9 percent.

Overall, most companies are experiencing the highest profits in industry history, all while receiving billions in taxpayer subsidies. The combined profits of 25 major oil and gas companies reached over $175 billion in 2007, an increase of nearly 19% from 2004. And that same year, the oil and gas industry received more than $2 billion dollars in government subsidies.

Figuring the exact number of tax subsidies is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

• Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
• Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
• Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
• Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
• Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
• Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
• Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
• The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
• Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
• Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

While it’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, remember that subsidies are important across all sectors of the energy industry.

For instance, nuclear power wouldn’t be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants. Solar wouldn’t be what it’s become without significant German, Californian, U.S. federal and other incentives. Ethanol and biodiesel in the U.S. enjoy large subsidies (details, if interested, here), but let’s resist getting into the rat-hole of agricultural industry subsidies.

Subsidies, per se, aren’t a bad thing.

How does the oil industry defend its substantial incentives?

Energy security - The fossil fuel industry has, rightfully, long pointed to the strategic nature of a company’s oil and gas supply. Theirs is an industry that can’t afford to go away, they argue.

Environmental compliance - Far from being big beneficiaries, some oil companies claim they are net victims. They point to gasoline taxes and environmental regulations, such as fuel-efficiency standards for new vehicles.

Bolsters domestic production - Supporters of drilling incentives say they make sense for a country that wants to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and whose biggest untapped reserves are in water just offshore, albeit thousands of feet deep.

Defense requirements - Some have suggested that the demands of defending Middle Eastern oil fields added (pre-Iraq war that is) between $10 billion and $20 billion a year in subsidies to the true cost of oil.

Which begs the question - even if America greatly reduced its imports of oil, would it necessarily reduce its military activity in the Gulf region?

It’s not really that much money - A few years ago, Ronald Sutherland, an energy economist affiliated with the Cato Institute, a think-tank in Washington, used statistics from the Department of Energy to argue that oil actually gets rather little at the end of the day. All told, after subtracting this and allowing for that, he suggested oil receives less than a billion dollars in subsidies, in all.

Critics of oil subsidies in America, however, maintain that:

Subsidies don’t increase domestic production - A few weeks ago, a U.S. Interior Department report obtained by the New York Times suggested that the billions of dollars American oil companies stand to benefit from as incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (royalties they wouldn’t otherwise have to pay the government) wouldn’t add appreciably to any increase in production. Says an analyst who worked on the report, “if they took that money, they could buy a whole lot more oil with it on the open market.”

The U.S. gives far too much away - Industry analysts who compare oil policies around the world say the United States is much more generous to oil companies than most other countries, demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters.

In the U.S., the government’s take - royalties as well as corporate taxes - works out to be about 40 percent of revenue from oil and gas produced on federal property, according to Van Meurs Associates, an industry consulting firm that compares the taxes of all oil-producing countries. By contrast, according to Van Meurs, the worldwide average government take is about 60 to 65 percent.

The United States has even increased some of its incentives in recent years, while dozens of other countries demanded a bigger share of their oil producers’ revenue. This is the low hanging fruit Democratic lawmakers are eying.

In 2004, the then-Republican Congress passed a manufacturing tax cut that critics said gave unnecessary incentives to the oil industry. Democratic leaders this week said they want this rolled back, and want to capture lost royalties from companies drilling in the gulf coast. They’re also considering rolling back the Energy Policy Act of 2005, according to the Washington Post, an act supported by many Democrats.

While the Democratic U.S. Congress says it wants to change the historic ratio of the flow of subsidies for fossil fuels vs. that of renewables, don’t expect government floodgates to open immediately for greentech/cleantech companies.

There’s no clear consensus even among Democrats as to how the new funds should be used. Some lawmakers want public hearings to figure out how the money should be divided. It will likely be set aside in the short term while the government determines how to put it to use.

Recent annual profits in billions of dollars:

This industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington, thanks to the more than $182 million it has contributed to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans. With former oilmen George Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House and Republican majorities in Congress, the industry has enjoyed good times indeed.

One of Bush’s central agenda items has been to reverse Clinton-era restrictions on commercial uses of federal lands – including nature preserves, national forests, and national monuments. To the oil and gas industry’s delight, he got one step closer in March 2005 when Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution containing a filibuster-proof provision to allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Which I have no problem with drilling in these areas.  If we got the resources, lets use them.  Don’t get me wrong though, I’m all for alternative energy too and my thinking is if we open up all these areas for oil and we put a full court press on alternative energy, do you have any idea the number of jobs that would be created?  Anyways, the industry also supports a White House energy bill that is aimed at reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels per day. The proposal has drawn the ire of environmental groups and some Democrats who say the plan does not go far enough and contains large tax breaks for energy companies. Other items on the industry’s agenda include repealing (or reducing, at least) the 4.3 cent federal gasoline tax, doing away with bans on offshore oil drilling and making current programs to curb industrial pollution voluntary rather than compulsory.

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided to go in a new direction with this $700 billion bailout plan. The original plan, which was drafted with the help of Congress, was for your tax dollars to purchase troubled assets, specifically troubled subprime mortgages. That was then, this is now.  Instead the government is going to buy stakes in banks and hope that they can resume normal lending.

So what is this REALLY costing us? That $700 billion seems like a lot, but a research firm has calculated the running total of the government’s response to the credit crisis … and it says that the United States government, err, the taxpayer’s, has put itself on the hook for $5 trillion in order to save our financial system.

My opinon: I’m all for letting this thing crash and may the strong survive.  You just can’t keep doing bailout after bailout.  It’ll just sink us more into debt as we keep borrowing from foreign countries and our currency won’t be worth shit.  Crash and burn baby.

Did you hear the one about the pot dealer’s tax return? The New Yorker who claimed the whole city as a dependent? The exotic dancer who deducted . . . well . . . you know?

Bankrate.com has listed the 10 craziest tax write-offs, presented as a shot of levity to help make filing your annual federal income-tax return a little less tedious.

1. It went up in smoke

Don’t forget to claim your black-market earnings.

Hatter must have thought he was hallucinating when one of his clients, a criminal-defense attorney, referred a marijuana dealer to Hatter. The dealer was facing prison time for drug dealing and didn’t want to be nailed for tax fraud as well.

“Because he was involved in an illegal business, he could not take any deductions, period,” Hatter says. “The tax code is written where if you are engaged in something illegal, you have to recognize all of the income, and none of the deductions are recognized, even the cost of the product. It was quite an education on my part.”

Hatter chuckles at his client’s income statement, or lack thereof: “Let’s just say he wasn’t getting 1099s from his customers. He gave me a number, and we paid taxes on it. I had no basis for it because he dealt in cash.”

2. No receipts from above

Tithe with a check, not cash.

Putting a few bills into the church offering plate got one client of Virginia CPA James T. Campbell in a bind when the IRS asked for canceled checks or receipts to support his charitable deductions. Explaining why he had no such receipts, the taxpayer said he simply throws in cash “as the spirit moves me.”

Campbell says the IRS agent paused to consider the taxpayer’s response and then offered this advice: “I understand how the spirit can move you. So my advice to you is to always take your checkbook to church with you. When you feel the spirit coming on, just take out your checkbook and fill in any amount you think is right, whatever the spirit may dictate. It makes no difference how much you give, just as long as you have a copy of the canceled check.

“This way both the spirit and the IRS will be pleased.”

3. Silence is golden — and deductible

While we’re on the subject of charitable deductions, Allyson Baumeister, a CPA at Sanford, Baumeister & Frazier in Fort Worth, recalls one prominent client who found a creative solution to a chronically noisy next-door neighbor: He bought the house, ripped it out of the ground and donated it to a local women’s shelter. He then claimed the value of the house as a charitable deduction.

“The deduction was limited to a percentage of his income, but his income was such that that wasn’t a problem. From what I recall, the IRS may have adjusted the value somewhat, but it did allow the deduction,” Baumeister says.

4. He took Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too

That’s a lot of dependents.

When accounting software was in its infancy, a rookie CPA at Hunter Group of Fair Lawn, N.J., prepared a return for an individual with one small glitch: The software mistook the filer’s address “New York, N.Y.” for the name of a dependent.

The mistake went unnoticed by the firm and the client until one day they received a phone call from the IRS. The agent apologized that the deduction was being disqualified, even though, as the agent politely agreed, it might indeed be justified.

5. But you can write off the pimp hat

Form 1099 is needed for this business expense.

When does an entertainment expense exceed IRS criteria? Ed Mendlowitz, a CPA with WithumSmith+Brown in Morristown, N.J., found out the funny way when a businessman client wanted to deduct the cost of a call girl he hired to entertain some clients.

When Mendlowitz told the businessman he’d have to present said contractor with a Form 1099 to support this business expense, the client declined to do so and dropped the whole idea.

6. The ‘Zoolander’ deduction

Deduct your Botox injections? Maybe.

Those who work in front of the camera for a living — like Derek Zoolander in the 2001 film comedy — are often inclined to work their accountant to deduct all manner of personal property and perks as business expenses, from full wardrobes to back waxing.

“We have public speakers, and we help them understand that they cannot deduct all of their clothing, even though they wear it onstage,” says Dallas CPA Ken Sibley. “Models can deduct a lot of makeup and certain pieces of apparel, but it has to fit the rules. We don’t let them deduct the pedicures, manicures and back waxing for therapeutic reasons.”

The craziest “Zoolander” deduction? New Jersey CPA Alan Sobel wins the prize: “Deductions are sometimes claimed for money given to infants for ‘modeling’ for their parents,” he says. Seriously.

7. What are you, an Indy driver?

New Jersey CPA Elihu Katzman couldn’t believe this one: “We had a client-salesman that was asked the number of miles he used his car for business that year. He insisted that he drove 60,000 miles, all for business.

“We asked him if he had any time to sleep, in that he must have spent most of the day and night driving.”

8. The $50,000 business meeting

Imagine Hatter’s surprise when a client-attorney listed $50,000 in entertainment expenses on his tax return — quite a chunk considering the guy’s gross income was in the $300,000 range.

“I said, ‘Man, what is that?’ He said, ‘Well, I threw a party for my clients.’ And I said, ‘You didn’t invite me?’ Anyway, we started going through it, and he said, ‘Walt, I’ve got to tell you, that was for my daughter’s wedding. But I did invite all my clients.’”

What was the lawyer’s occupation? Criminal-defense attorney!

9. Finally, the Social Security crisis solved

Warning: If parents ever start documenting this deduction, we’ll no longer need to worry about Social Security.

Marcia Geltman, a CPA with Nisivoccia & Co. in Randolph, N.J., says parents have asked her more than once if they can claim a bad-debt loss from unpaid loans to their children.

“The correct answer is, unless you have documentation verifying the existence of the loan and have taken legal action that resulted in a determination that the loan is not collectible, no deduction is allowed,” she says. “Let us hope that, in the long run, we receive more blessings from our children then these momentary aggravations.”

10. Inflated assets

It’s a classic feel-good-all-over tax case that has grown to mythic proportions over the years. Hatter explains: “The one they always talk about at CPA classes is where a topless dancer got breast implants and wrote them off as a business deduction under Section 179 and treated them as a capital asset, as an ordinary necessary business expense, and was able to deduct them.

“The IRS challenged her, it went to the tax court, and she won.”

This article was reported and written by Jay MacDonald for Bankrate.com.

Speaking of income tax…There is currently a bill in the house and senate to simplify our tax system and get rid of the IRS, it is called the Fair Tax Act.

Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

For more information visit www.fairtax.org.

Some interesting articles to read:

The Al Franken / Norm Coleman recount debacle continues in Minnesota. Read this story and tell me you don’t think something stinks up there.

Energy independence? Check this out! We have more oil than we ever imagined in the Bakken Formation .. and it is inside this country! The environmental groups had better get busy before we actually start recovering this stuff!

Iran thought it would be a lot of fun to test a new type of missile near the Iraqi border.

So .. waddaya think? Will the Obama’s send their children to government schools? Are you freaking kidding me? Government schools are for YOUR children, not the Obama’s!

America lurches left … Mark Steyn. Lefties hate this guy .. all the more reason you should read this.

Gotta love P.J. O’Rourke. He says conservatives “blew it.” Golly, ya think?

It looks like Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, will probably be running for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.

What is shaping up to be trouble for president-elect Barack Obama, Cuban president Raul Castro is going to visit Russia next year.

The polls show that Jesse Jackson Jr. is the favorite to replace Barack Obama in the Senate.

The FEC will not be auditing the Barack Obama campaign because it doesn’t want to conduct a messy audit of a sitting president. Meanwhile, there is a rigorous audit of the McCain campaign going on.

Obama wants Congress to accelerate the confirmation of his top appointees. Something tells me that won’t be a problem.

How about Secretary of State Al Gore?

More talk of the Fairness Doctrine from Democrats. One Democrat Senator says that he believes technology has moved beyond our ability to regulate things. Well isn’t that comforting.

Here’s something for you to consider … Google is teaming up with the government in order to help federal officials “track sickness.”

The latest from Time Magazine on Barack Obama: “Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope…”

According to CNN, 59% of Americans think that Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country.

Gas prices are falling so guess what happens … people start buying SUVs again! Amazing how that happens.

As you read this story, I want you to think about all of the people employed by this ski resort rather than the wealth envy: Ski resort for super rich files for bankruptcy.

A local paper in Oklahoma didn’t report that Barack Obama won the election. The paper says it’s because the story isn’t local news. Other people say it’s racist!

You might get a kick out of this … Where whiteness meets race: The Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere — yes it’s real — tackles the notion of white privilege and white people’s responsibility to challenge racism, but can it help move people beyond race?

Visit boortz.com

Some interesting articles for you to read:

Okay, I know the election is over. But this video is more about your children being educated in government schools. Take a look at what this government school teacher had to say to one of her elementary school students supporting John McCain.

It’s official, Rahm Emanuel will be Barack Obama’s chief of staff.

There is no doubt that Obama will face great challenges as our next president. What kind of challenges? Well here are some to start with.

Here’s a real shocker … Vladimir Putin may to return to the Kremlin in 2009.

Majority Leader Harry Reid is about to oust Joe Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

New Hampshire now has a female majority in the State Senate and a new female US Senator.

How expensive is the United Nations for us, the taxpayers? And you know it is spending that money oh so wisely.

The taxpayers also shelled out millions of dollars to support the ethanol industry. That was a mistake.

How soon will it be before the name “Obama” is one of the top baby names in the United States?

A study conducted in British Columbia has concluded that you must ditch your weed whacker and buy a goat. I wish I were kidding folks.

And now the environmentalists will explain how wind farms are hurting salmon. Yes, salmon.

Great Britain’s Daily Mail asks the important questions in life … Why DO women have these tramp stamps? Is it really that hard to figure out?

Are you disgusted by the leaks from the McCain campaign smearing Sarah Palin? Maybe you can participate in Operation Leper.

If you were upset about the $700 billion bailout, get ready to really blow your top.  Clark Howard was talking yesterday on his show about how Cerberus Capital Management, which owns Chrysler and a joint stake in GMAC, received a $5 billion bailout from the feds in the days leading up to the election. That’s because GMAC — the financing arm of GM — had become a wounded duck thanks to a spate of foolish mortgage lending.

The only reason they got money is because of who they are; they count former Vice President Dan Quayle among their ranks.

Cerberus next wants to engineer a merger of Chrysler and GM, which would require more taxpayer money. It’s being marketed as a way to stop imminent job losses. No way, says Clark. If we allow them to merge with our money, the real purpose will be to help the fat cats at Cerberus. Workers will lose their jobs anyway; we’re way oversupplied in the car market and have too many factories as well.

If you’re an autoworker who’s now mad at Clark, realize that he truly doesn’t believe your jobs would be safe with a bailout. The bailout would be solely to save the wealthy influentials.

One last thought: What kind of example do we set for the rest of the world when we start bailing out losers with the money from the winners? That’s crony capitalism, that’s a Third World kind of capitalism.

Read about the secrecy behind this bailout.

Read financial weeks article here.

Here are some of the details of President-elect Obama’s redistribution of wealth/welfare tax plan:

Income Tax
Maintain current tax rates of 10% to 28% for most Americans. Reinstate top tax rates of 36% and 39.6% on joint income of more than $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals).

Capital Gains/Dividends
Maintain maximum rate of 15% for most taxpayers. Boost top rate to 20% for investors with income of more than $250,000. Under current law, taxpayers in the two lowest income-tax brackets pay zero capital gains in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Eliminate capital-gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses to encourage innovation.

Retirement Accounts
Suspend mandatory distributions for those 70 ½ and older. Permit taxpayers to withdraw up to $10,000 from retirement accounts penalty-free; withdrawals would still be subject to income taxes.

New Tax Cuts
Tax credit of up $1,000 to offset Social Security taxes for low-wage earners. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. Double the tax credit for college expenses to $4,000. Create a 10% mortgage tax credit for those who don’t itemize. Provide a $1,000 rebate funded by a windfall-profits tax on oil companies to offset high energy costs.

AMT
Maintain current exemption and index to inflation.

Estate Tax
Set exclusion at $3.5 million per person ($7 million per couple); keep rate at 45%.

Social Security
Maintain current wage base of $106,800, indexed for inflation. Impose additional tax of 2% to 4% paid by employers and employees on earnings exceeding $250,000 — but delay implementation for at least ten years.

Corporate Tax
Keep top rate at 35%; close corporate loopholes.

Read the full story.

Did you know that we can eliminate the IRS and have a simpler, fairer and more transparent tax system?  The question is is government willing to lose it’s power?

Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS

For more information visit www.fairtax.org.

By a better than 2-to-1 margin, Massachusetts voters yesterday rejected an effort to repeal the state’s income tax, following an aggressive campaign by unions and other opponents who warned that eliminating the tax would gut state government.

• One question about Obama that has never been satisfactorily answered is “What has he ever accomplished?” The best his supporters can come up with is “He was elected to the U.S. Senate.” So was John McCain … several times. Besides, take a look at his election. He had two opponents self-destruct with scandal. The GOP had to go to Maryland and talk Alan Keyes into moving to Illinois to run against Obama. Trust me, that win was no sterling accomplishment.
• Don’t argue with me here. You’ll lose. There is NO constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. We’re going to learn in a few days just how smart our founding fathers were in this regard.  Click here and read for yourself if you don’t believe me.
• Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. Several times during his political career Obama had a chance to either cast a vote or make a statement against the corruption that permeates Chicago’s machine. Never – not on one occasion – did he do so.
• The fact is, Obama has benefited from corruption (Tony Rezko?) but has never fought it.
• Do you know how Obama won his first election in Illinois? He had campaign operatives go to the voting office and work hundreds of hours pouring over petitions to have his opponents thrown off the ballot. I guess that means that this is the first real election battle he’s ever been in!
• I guess it’s just me, but all this time I thought that the government used its power to seize property … i.e., to tax … in order to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government. Now, under Obama, we’ve learned that one of the appropriate functions of government is to take from those who have and give to those who have not. I prefer a different phraseology: Take from those who achieve, and give to those who achieve not. Karl Marx was of a like mind.
• Obama’s “spread the wealth around” mantra means that he believes that we do not leave our homes every morning to work for ourselves and our families. We leave our homes to work for the government. We belong to government, not to ourselves. The government will determine how much of the money we earn we deserve to keep .. the rest goes to people the government believes to be even more deserving of the fruits of our labors.
• Obama’s candidacy would have faltered before an educated electorate. Why do you think Democrats love government schools so much? Do you want examples? I’ve got examples.
• Obama says he’s going to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. Americans don’t realize that over 40% of their numbers don’t pay income taxes; and since they don’t realize that, they aren’t asking themselves how Obama can give a tax cut to someone who doesn’t pay taxes.
• Obama has effectively change the definition of “tax cut.” From now on any government handout to any worker is a tax cut. Changing this definition may well be one of their greatest accomplishments in this election and that new definition will cause us problems for decades.
• Obama constantly rants about those dirty corporations who shipped “our jobs overseas.” An educated voter knows that those jobs belong to the employers, not the employees. Workers look for jobs. Employers with jobs look for workers. Pretty simple, really.
• Obama also tells us that 95% of small businesses out there will not have their taxes increased. The only reason this line works is because our government educated voters cannot grasp the idea that it isn’t the percentage of small businesses hit with tax increases that counts; it’s the percentage of small business employees represented by the unfortunate 5% that counts. Tomorrow thousands of workers – perhaps tens of thousands of workers – employed by what we call “small businesses” will cast a vote that, a year or so down the road, will cost them their jobs.
• Over the weekend Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry if they tried to build any more coal-fired power plants. Can any of you think of a time when any president has ever made an overt threat to bankrupt a large American industry?
• Obama says that his “cap and trade” policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost electricity prices to “skyrocket.” Oops … there goes some of that middle class “tax cut.” Guess he’ll have to transfer some more wealth to help his constituents pay the increased price.
• There are literally millions of Obama supporters out there who think that once Obama becomes the president their lives are going to become sweetness, roses and light. One woman at an Obama rally
• Remember Obama’s 30-minute infomercial? If a foreigner with no knowledge of our country or our people were to see that program they would think that America was a country mired in abject misery and depravation. Thanks, Obama, for the nice positive message.
• How long after the election, whether Obama wins or loses, do you think it will take for that America-hater Jeremiah Wright to surface?
• The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all income taxes. The top 1% of income earners earn around 19% of all income, but they pay almost 39% of all income taxes. When these people don’t want to give up a larger share of their earnings Obama call’s them “selfish.”
• When someone is content to sit on their butts and wait for Obama to transfer some wealth from someone else to their pockets they are not “selfish.”
• Every one of the points I am bringing up here is “hate speech” to an Obamacon.
• The great Democrat goal is to have more than 50% of the voters living, at least in part, on the efforts of the minority of voters. When we pass that tipping point … and we’re nearly there … game over.
• In every election since 1952 Democrats have told the voters “vote for the Republicans and they’ll take your Social Security away.” In every election after 2008 the Democrats will say “Vote for the Republicans and they’re going to make you pay taxes.” Then if Obama wins again, in every election after 2012 Democrats will say “Vote for the Republicans and they’ll make you pay for your own Social Security and Medicare.” How long before we hear: “Vote for the Republicans and they’ll make you work for a living!”
• Obama will definitely destroy your right to be armed outside of your own home for your own protection. The question is whether we count the time until he accomplishes this in days, weeks, months or years.
• Do you see now why politicians, especially Democrats, aren’t fond of the FairTax? Without playing his tax scam and wealth envy card Obama would have been toast by Super Tuesday.
• Surveys in Israel show that 76% of Israeli citizens want McCain to win. American Jews will vote for Obama by pretty much the same percentage. What do Jews in Israel know that Jews in America do not?
• Peter Nicholas is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He has been traveling with Obama for almost the entire campaign. Nicholas writes “After all this time with him, I still can’t say with certainty who he is.” Nicholas doesn’t know him, but so many voters are so sure they do.
• Obama wants a national civilian security force that, in his words, is “just as strong as our military.” Who would they serve under? What would their mandate be? Would they be unionized? (oh HELL yes!). Would this be like the Soviet Union under Communism where neighbors ratted on neighbors for anti-government statements? And what does he mean “as strong as our military?” Would this national civilian security force have nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? Are we just talking about a glorified national police? (Show us your papers!)
• Obama has talked about reducing spending on our military. One leading Democrat Senator has suggested a 25% spending cut on defense. Do you feel comfortable with that? You do know that all of the savings would be spent on buying votes, don’t you?
• Do you home school your children? Obama has called home schooling a fraud. Put him in office and you’ll be putting your kids back in government schools for their indoctrination.
• Do you run a small business? If Obama wins start planning immediately to lower your work force. The best way to do this would be through efficiency measures and temporary staffing agencies. Not only is Obama going to make it easier for your workers to unionize … he’s going to expand onerous measures such as the Family Leave Act. You will end up paying your employees a good portion of their salary to lay out for weeks on end.
• Maybe you shop at Wal-Mart. Get ready for higher prices. Obama’s instant unionization bill will surely result in the unionization of Wal-Mart’s workforce. In fact, as much as Democrat politicians hate Wal-Mart, it’s safe to say that Wal-Mart is target number one. The result? Higher prices for you. If Obama can call a government handout a tax cut, we can call higher prices a tax increase. This will be Obama’s tax increase on the poor and the middle class.

Visit boortz.com