MichaelTurk's blog

The Washington Times reports on the fuzzy numbers behind Obama's tax "cut".  WashTimes looks at the rather questionable assertion that you can give a tax cut to people who already pay no taxes.  To achieve their goal of "cutting" taxes for 95% of America, it seems Team Obama will simply take $500 or $1000 from some people, and give it to somebody else - no questions asked.

That idea caught the attention of AFP's Phil Kerpen (a very bright guy):

It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.

Obama's folks are justifying this wealth redistribution scheme by suggesting that Social Security taxes paid are now "refundable" through income tax rebates even if no income taxes were paid.

Unlike conservatives who have consistently pointed to the cumulative amount of taxes, the Democrats have suddenly discovered the "total tax burden".  They will use income taxes paid by some to rebate back Social Security taxes paid by others.

How exactly will that work, given that the Social Security trust is broke and about to start paying out far more that it takes in?  Well, I suspect we'll soon see another "soak the rich" campaign removing the social security cap so "the rich" will see dramatic increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the gap created by Obama's rebates.

If you doubt that, you should read the quote from Obama's campaign advisor.  It may be the scariest thing you'll ever see in print.

"Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' - they think it is only fair to reward work," said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's chief economic adviser.

You heard that right.  Work that results in someone not getting ahead is to be rewarded with money taken from those whose work results in them actually making money (which is apparently work that needs to be punished).

An Obama administration will first absolve a huge segment of taxpayers from any tax responsibility at all, and then shift that obligation to those who create jobs and get ahead.  The wealth redistribution schemes the Obama team wants to put in place should scare the bejeezus out of anybody with one ounce of grey matter in their brain case.

The Politico today covers the decision by the NRCC to pull funding from Congressional races for good, conservative challengers so they can prop up the campaigns of flailing Republicans.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect the NRCC to behave this way.  They are, after all, a campaign organization run by friends and colleagues of those currently serving.  They will protect their own first, and build our numbers second.

What makes me uneasy with that now, is the specific names the Politico mentions.

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Frankly, it hasn't caught me by surprise.  All of those listed voted for the $700 billion - or is it $850 billion or $1.5 trillion, I guess it depends on whose scoring it - boondoggle foisted upon the taxpayers.  These guys are solidly Republican living in solidly Republican districts, and they're suddenly at risk of losing their seats just two short weeks after pissing on the taxpayer? Hrrrrmmmm... I wonder why.

What should stand out in particular are the names Shadegg and Terry.  They're among the sellouts who switched from No votes to Yes votes.  Apparently they guessed wrong.  That vote for political expediency may cost real conservatives - like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, perhaps the best candidate we have running this cycle - a seat.  It may guarantee that the one chance we have to hold a seat - any seat - in NM is lost.

It is unfortunate that the NRCC feels it's better to protect weak Republicans than to elect strong ones.

Well I won't be supporting the NRCC until we see a new Chairman - one who is willing to support good candidates, not just good friends.

Here they are, folks.  The list of sellout votes.  They've sold out their party to save their seat in Congress.

Make them pay at the ballot box in 33 days.

Rodney Alexander – LA05
Gresham Barrett  - SC03
Judy Biggert – IL13
Charles Boustany – LA07
Vern Buchanan – FL13
Howard Coble – NC06
Steve Conaway – WA29
Charlie Dent – PA15
Mary Fallin - OK05
Rodney Frelinghuysen – NJ11
Jim Gerlach – PA06
Pete Hoekstra – MI02
Joe Knollenberg – MI09
Randy Kuhl – NY29
Sue Myrick – NC09
Jim Ramstad – MN03 (not seeking re-election)
Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen – FL18
Jean Schmidt – OH02
John Shadegg – AZ03
Bill Shuster – PA09
John Sullivan – OK01
Lee Terry – NE02
Mac Thornberry – TX13
Patrick Tiberi – OH12
Jerry Weller – IL11

The left is all spun up today about the latest non-story regarding Sarah Palin - she had a tanning bed installed in the Governor's mansion.  To put this shocking abuse of government power into perspective consider the following facts:

• A residential tanning bed runs about $1300 to $2600 and will likely last at least a few years.
• The cost is roughly equivalent to three to six John Edwards' haircuts.
  • Assuming John only gets his hair cut once a month (not likely) that's the equivalent of 1/4 to 1/2 John Edward's annual budget for hair cuts (probably closer to 1/8 his hair budget).
• Average annual temperature in Juneau is 47.2 degrees - you don't get an opportunity to do a lot of tanning at 47 degrees.

Given the relative inability to lay out in the sun, and the relative cost efficiency over time of having a tanning bed in residence as opposed to paying a monthly membership to a tanning salon, this doesn't seem eggregious. 

If they have a receipt that shows they paid 10 or 20 times market value for the bed, maybe.  But $2,000 grand on a tanning bed so your Governor doesn't look pasty when she goes on TV is not a stretch.

Let's find something real, huh guys?

When copyright protection goes too far, you get stuff like this.

Last night, I created and posted the video below to YouTube.  Immediately after processing, I received a notification from YouTube that ITN News, a British media company, has claimed all rights to footage of the Republican National Convention, and my video would be disabled unless I chose to pursue a denial of their claim.

No, there are two things to note.  First, the video was not obtained from ITN, but rather from C-Span.  Second, the video was used in accordance with C-Cpan's copyright policy here: http://rnc08.cspan.org/About/Copyright.aspx

So YouTube has effectively become the watchdog for ITN who is misusing the copyright process to a) prevent anyone from posting convention video and b) prevent anyone using video from another source for posting convention video.

One of Joe Biden's major applause lines tonight came when he demanded equal pay for women.  That's a worthy cause to be sure.  But is Biden practicing what he preaches?

Maybe not.

Despite the fact that Biden employs 27 women and only 14 men (could that be a Clinton problem?), very few of the women and men share common titles.  The one job where there is overlap is staff assistants.  These are traditionally entry level low-wage jobs in congressional offices.

So how do Biden's salaries stack up?

The average male staff assistant in Biden's office (based on the most recent salary figures) made $39,162 in the time period. 

The average woman in that position made $21,323.

Hey Joe!  Before you demand something of others, maybe you should lead by example.  Why not start by giving the women in your office a raise?

Update:  It also looks like the highest salaries are reserved for men, despite their minority status. 4 out of 14 men made more than $40,000 in the period, but only 5 of 27 women cleared that mark.  Two of the men earned $70k, but the highest paid woman made only $46,000

Update 2: Does Obama walk the walk?  It looks like he's certainly better than Biden.  A review of his staff for the same period at least shows remarkable consistency in pay for the jobs carrying the same title.  Although of the twenty highest salaries in his office, 13 are men and 7 are women.

Update 3: It also works going the opposite direction.  Of the 20 lowest salaries in Obama's office, 13 are women and 7 are men. (And please note, there is no overlap between those two lists, and I have not included anyone that worked less than the full time period.)

Update 4: For those who asked, one final note before I do some real work.  Of the 20 highest salaries on John McCain's staff, 13 are women, and 7 are men.

Obama on Friday proposed a return to the good old days of Jimmy Carter's energy policies by suggesting a windfall profits tax on oil producers.

The new Obama ad also pushes his proposal to revive a windfall profits tax on energy companies and asserts that McCain favors tax breaks for the oil industry.

"A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate," an announcer in the ad says.

Obama would use the tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.

Congress enacted a windfall profits tax in 1980, during an earlier era of high oil prices, but repealed it in 1988 amid concern it discouraged domestic oil development. Last year, the House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies, but Senate Republicans blocked them.

And thank goodness they did.  The windfall profits tax is a tremendously stupid idea premised on the fact that Americans want to take out their anger on someone.  But a little digging provides more than a few examples of others that should be taxed.  The Wall Street Journal today, helpfully, has a little list and some fact behind the "windfall" lunacy.

What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely  depend on who earns it?

Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any  clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.

Exactly the problem.  Who gets to define this ridiculous idea?  Apparently, Dick Durbin.

Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat... recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy."

Ok, maybe the concept of capitalism has changed since I studied economics in school, but I don't recall "there is a limit on how much profit you can take" being part of the economic formula.  Let's assume it is, however.  Exxon should surely pay its share, right?

Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion.

That's right, Exxon paid more in US taxes than it made in the US.  Quite a bit more.  You see, Exxon is a  company that operates globally.  It's sales are global.  So we actually see a US company taking money out of the hands of foreign nations, and depositing them into the hands of the US government.  Now the Democrats in the US government want to take more money from around the world and spend it on us.

However, we're not tasked with addressing that fact.  We need to figure out what qualifies them for paying such a ridiculous tax.  Since they're entire US revenue already goes to taxes, maybe we can use some other metric to justify the windfall tax.

Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings.

None of those industries are being asked to pony up... So that can't be it...  Maybe it's growth based...

In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year... This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006.

The fact is, as the WSJ article points out, the idea of a "windfall" profits tax is ridiculous.  It could be assessed against any company in America for any number of reasons.  It's simply another way for big government bureaucrats and politicians to redistribute wealth in America.  Since Exxon's US taxes already exceed its US income, in this case, it's actually a way to redistribute wealth TO America.

That should make Obama's European fans happy, huh?

Good move by the RNC. -Patrick

I have been a pretty harsh critic of the RNC and its Internet operations.  I have argued for some time that the RNC really doesn't foster a sense of creativity or innovation.  While I still maintain that is generally true, I have to admit I really like their latest project - www.barackbook.com.

The idea is very good.  Facebook captures the interconnection of people, so how better to demonstrate Obama's connection to some really shady people than a FB parody. It's not quite an exact rip-off of Facebook's profile page, which would have been easy enough to do, but I suspect they were trying to make it different enough that they wouldn't get sued (friggin' lawyers!).

Some might argue that mocking Facebook is a bad move given that FB co-founder Chris Hughes is running my.BarackObama.com.  It may call attention to the fact that Obama has attracted some big tech names to his side.  I disagree. 

I think the message is compelling, and I think the connection between Obama and FB really won't get much traction. 

The only real critique I have of the effort is the relative inability to spread it around.  I would suggest to Cyrus and company, that they add an option in the upper right left to "Add Friends", and provide the opportunity for visitors to virally promote the site.  Regular Facebook users would likely click on the link just to see what it does.

This is a little late, but I was out on travel last week and didn't have much time to sit and put thoughts together.  As I watched Obama trek through the Middle East and Europe last week, a remarkable thing happened.  The Iraqi Prime Minister gave the Bush Administration the greatest gift it could have wanted - a way out of Iraq immediately and under the Administration's terms.

In January of 2005, President Bush was asked if we would leave if the Iraqi government indicated it wanted us out.  His reply?  "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

Last week, when Nouri al-Maliki announced his support for Obama's withdrawal timetable, and signaled the Iraqi people were ready for us to leave, the Administration had an opening to live up to those words.  The Administration should have immediately issued the following statement:

Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the desire of the Iraqi people to see a US withdrawal.  We have always stated that the US is operating in Iraq only as long as the Iraqi government requests our help.  We now see the Iraqi government requesting our departure and we will respect their wishes.

I have asked our military advisers to prepare a plan for the immediate withdrawal of US troops, and I expect to see 50% of our troops stateside within the next six months with a full draw down to be completed by the end of 2009.

This would have done three things.  First, it would have taken withdrawal off the table as a political issue the Democrats could demagogue.  Second, it would have lived up to the word of the Administration that they would leave when the Iraqis asked.  Third, it would have completely deflated one of two issues that will weigh heaviest on the general election - the other being the economic turbulence.

For McCain, it would have offered a chance to shift to support withdrawal without being seen as a flip-flopper.  He could simply say that he, too, agrees that the Iraqi move toward self-determination is the final condition for US withdrawal.  Having met that, the US will honor its obligation and remove its troops.

Having missed this opportunity, both McCain and the Republicans have a problem in that we are now the occupying force that so many have alleged.  If we insist on staying, despite clear statements from Iraqi leadership that they are ready for us to leave, the GOP is in the unfortunate position of having to justify our continued presence in a country that has said they want us out.  That's a much worse position to be in for the general election than simply supporting an unpopular war.

(cross-posted at Red State)

The Politico today has a column penned by David All, a young GOP internet consultant, and Saul Anuzis, Chairman of the Michigan GOP. The column looks at the premise that the GOP is behind its Democratic counterparts online, and suggests one possible reason why - we don't support the idea of big government intervention in regulating the Internet.

As Republicans, we must not only adopt the new techniques and structure of Internet democracy, but also understand the importance of preserving the open nature of the Net as a policy issue.The tools that are available at low cost to Republicans are only there because of an Internet ecosystem that has managed to remain open, despite the efforts of phone and cable companies.

Republicans need to adopt a lighter approach that will preserve the values of decentralization and freedom — essential conservative values — on the Internet. If we fail to engage in this effort, the Internet service providers, who control the last mile of the tubes into a customer’s house or small business, will choke off the affordable tools available to conservative activists.They have already started exercising their market power to block applications that enable Internet users to distribute information across the Net.

They will make the Internet look a lot more like cable TV, where citizens lack access to every legal channel available and where, consequently, conservative activists get shut out. Taking away these free tools will come at the major expense of the activists and small-businesspeople who are the core of our party’s strength.

Given the attacks on cable and telephone companies in this diatribe, it would be easy enough to discount any response from me as shilling on behalf of cable. Look at my bio, however, and you'll see that I may be the one person uniquely qualified to address every inaccuracy and outrageous claim in his post. Prior to coming to work in the cable industry, I was the eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney '04, and the Republican National Committee. I've been involved in Republican politics - and online politics - since I launched one of the first state party websites (EVER) at the New Mexico GOP in 1995. At that time, there were only about 5 state parties online.

Since I have been active in GOP politics, and specifically online politics, since Andreesson released the browser in 1994, I have a bit to say about the reasons the GOP is behind (which virtually nobody argues). As an employee of the cable industry, I have a bit to say about what , if anything, that has to do with net neutrality.