Reader Bruce sent me this great retort to a ridiculous chart in the New York Times supposedly proving that the stock market does better under Democrat presidencies than under those of Republicans. The simplicity is its stupidity, as it does not take into account which party controls Congress.

And since we’re on the topics of economics and taxation, here’s a few important notes regarding what an Obama presidency might do:

[Wall Street Journal] Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama’s key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency “would initiate those rulemakings” that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that “in the absence of Congressional action” 18 months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

[Rich Lowry] Where Obama’s 95 percent promise is fundamentally dishonest is in how it discounts the effect of his health-care plan. Obama would require businesses to cover their workers or pay a tax. If the tax is relatively low, employers will choose to dump their employees into Obama’s new public program, making a hash of his talking point that no one will lose his current coverage under the plan. If the tax is high, employers will provide coverage themselves, but will inevitably fund it by paying less in wages or hiring less. Obama is proposing a large new tax on employment.

McCain’s health plan, in contrast, would amount to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. McCain would tax employer-provided health benefits for the first time, but offset that with a $5,000 tax credit per couple for all health-insurance purchases. Independent analysts say the vast majority of taxpayers would be better off.

[Wall Street Journal] Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for “the rich,” substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

“It actually upsets me. I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues coming up shortly. The media’s worried about whether I paid my taxes, they’re worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America. They really don’t. I asked a question. When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me.”

– Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher.

And here’s the response from John McCain:

You may have noticed– there was a lot of talk about Senator Obama’s tax increases and Joe the Plumber. Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe’s driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I’m glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions.

The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.

The question Joe asked about our economy is important, because Senator Obama’s plan would raise taxes on small businesses that employ 16 million Americans. Senator Obama’s plan will kill those jobs at just the time when we need to be creating more jobs. My plan will create jobs, and that’s what America needs.

Senator Obama says that he wanted to spread your wealth around. When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you’d better hold onto your wallet. Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes.

That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by redistributing wealth; we became the greatest nation by creating new wealth.

Mike Allan and Jon Martin of The Politico wrote that former Sec. of State Colin Powell’s decision to endorse Barack Obama “stunned both parties.” If that’s true, it just goes to show you how naive both parties are.

Frankly, I think it’s just typical journalist hyperbole, where every exaggerated headline underscores how we the public should be “stunned,” or “outraged,” or “shocked,” et cetera, and this is, but of course, especially true when the story is deemed harmful to Republicans.

In any event, I take issue with Colin Powell’s curious definition of the role of the vice president:

Powell said that he is “troubled” by the direction of the Republican Party, and said he began to doubt McCain when he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

“Not just small towns have values,” he said, responding to one of Palin’s signature lines.

“She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired,” he said. “But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Sen. McCain made.”

The endorsement is likely to help Obama convince skeptical centrists that he is ready to handle the challenges of commander in chief, and it undercuts McCain’s argument that he is better qualified on national security issues.

On the contrary, what it undercuts, or at least should undercut, is Colin Powell’s judgment, not John McCain’s.

The job of the vice president is not ‘to be ready to be president.’

It is rather this (according Article 1, section 3, of our US Constitution): “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

That’s it folks. If we redefine the job of the vice president as being ready to be president because they are one heartbeat away, it means we must likewise redefine the role of the speaker of the House of Representatives, who is just two heartbeats away from the presidency. Who believes that Nancy Pelosi, who cannot even lead her own House — what with an historically-low 12 percent approval rating — could do any better?

Sarah Palin is running for vice president, but even so has as much, and perhaps more, foreign policy experience than Barack Obama. Worse, Obama knows this, else why would he have picked as his running mate Joe “foot-in-mouth” Biden, who just this weekend acknowledged that an Obama presidency would immediately be aggressively challenged by foreign powers looking to exploit his inexperience?

The person looking bitter in all of this is Powell. And speaking of “transformational figures,” I think it speaks volumes that Powell appears to defend the Obama relationship with William Ayers, a guy who bombed the Pentagon, where within Powell used to work.

“They’re trying to connect [Obama] to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that’s inappropriate,” Powell said. “Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Gov. Palin has indicated a further rightward shift.”

Powell said he has “heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion [that Obama's] a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists.

“This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point,” Powell said. “We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.”

Well, here’s an idea. If you don’t want to be polarizing, you shouldn’t play political footsie with someone as controversial as William Ayers, an unapologetic self-sworn enemy of the United States.

And as far as the suggestion that Powell “heard senior members” of the Republican Party suggest Obama is Muslim, this is, until Powell bothers to name names, just the typical kind of race/religion baiting that we’ve come to expect from the Obama campaign.

It’s a tactic of playing the preemptive race card — people don’t actually have to say anything that sounds racist anymore. Instead, they can just be predetermined to be racist once Democrats accuse them of something they might say in the future.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Small business owners, the kind Joe the plumber hopes to become, will need an expert from another profession – a good accountant or perhaps someone with a crystal ball – to know whether Barack Obama’s tax plans will help them or send money swirling down with the Drano.

Is John McCain right? Would someone owning a company that makes more than $250,000 a year pay higher income taxes under Obama, as McCain claimed in making Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher the man of the moment in Wednesday night’s presidential debate?

Much depends on how such a company is organized for tax purposes, and what its profits are. Wurzelbacher could well end up with a tax cut under Obama if the company he works for and wants to buy – now a two-person operation – continues to share earnings.

On the other hand, it’s not certain that a business owner in that category would qualify for the tax credit Obama proposes to give to small businesses that provide health insurance for workers. Nor is it clear that the company would be off the hook from Obama’s health insurance mandate.

Here’s what the candidates say:

McCain, to Obama: “What you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.”

Obama: “If you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime.”

Well, Obama would increase the tax rate to 39 percent from 36 percent on joint income over $250,000 and individual income over $200,000. Most families would get a tax cut under his plans.

But would Wurzelbacher pay more? There’s no telling based on the scant facts that are known. He said the company brings in over $250,000 but has not said how much he would earn personally as the owner. It also depends on whether he files business taxes as an individual taxpayer, as many small businesses do, or takes a more complicated approach to avoid higher taxes.

Obama has not defined a small business – and a lot of money rides on that unanswered question. The consequences of his plans, plus and minus, go beyond income taxes for business people whose earnings are in the vicinity of a quarter million.

Obama’s health plan makes crucial distinctions that are not defined. Medium and large businesses would be required either to provide health insurance for workers or to pay into a fund.

“Very small businesses” would be exempt from that requirement. Not only that, but Obama would give small businesses a 50 percent tax credit to help them afford health insurance for employees.

What’s very small, small, medium and large? Obama doesn’t say.

In Toledo on Sunday, Wurzelbacher told Obama that he wants to buy the plumbing company he works for, and that the company makes more than $250,000 a year. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

The answer: It depends.

In the battleground states of North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa, it appears that Barack Obama has a large lead in absentee ballots. This is bad news for McCain, historically:

[Nate Silver] According to a study by Kate Kenski at the University of Arizona, early voters leaned Republican in both 2000 and 2004; with Bush earning 62.2 percent of their votes against Al Gore, and 60.4 percent against John Kerry

… What these results would seem to suggest, however, is that there are fairly massive advantages for the Democrats in enthusiasm and/or turnout operations. They imply that Obama is quite likely to turn out his base in large numbers; the question is whether the Republicans will be able to do the same.

Obama: “And 100 percent, John [McCain], of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative.”

Of course, it’s a ridiculous statement to begin with. And as I’ve often argued, these cry babies wouldn’t know a negative campaign if it bit them on the arse. The only reason topics like “negative ads” have the least bit of traction as a media topic is because the vast majority of Americans (and media) are so darn ignorant about American history.

Yet, as Lee Corso might say, “Not so fast, my friend!”

[Time Magazine, hat tip Weekly Standard] “Analysis from the Wisconsin Advertising Project of Sen. John McCain’s television advertising for the week of September 28 to October 4 shows, in fact, that all McCain campaign TV advertising did have significant negative content – either spots that were comprised completely of attacks on the Democratic nominee or ones that combined attacks on Sen. Barack Obama with some talk about Sen. McCain’s own plans. We reported this finding in a press release last week that was widely publicized and this was clearly the number that Obama was citing in last night’s debate. That said, McCain’s advertising has not been completely negative over the course of the entire campaign. Looking at the tone of all of McCain’s advertising from June 4 to October 4, we found that 47 percent of the McCain spots were negative (completely focused on Obama), 26 percent were positive (completely focusing on his own personal story or on his issues or proposals) and 27 percent were contrast ads (a mix of positive and negative messages).

But what about Obama? Our analysis reveals that 39 percent of all general election Obama TV ads have been positive (solely about his record, positions or personal story), 35 percent have been negative (solely focused on McCain) and 25 percent have been contrast ads – mixing a bit of both. So, on a proportional basis, the McCain campaign is and has been more negative than Obama.

But, Obama has aired over 50,000 more ads than McCain. So, hasn’t he simply aired more of everything – including negative ads – than McCain has this year, or than anyone in history, as McCain may have alleged?

If one just looks at pure airings of negative ads, McCain has aired more than Obama. If one allocates contrast ads as half positive and half negative or considers contrast ads as negative – as the Advertising Project does – the tone of the McCain and Obama campaigns has been absolutely identical.

It started with the Scranton Times headline: Palin rallies Scranton voters; crowd member calls to ‘kill’ Obama

Fact check, anyone?

Not in Scranton, apparently.

And not in the mainstream media either, with ABC News, The Associated Press, and The Washington Monthly all just taking some bystanders word for it. The worse offender came from MSNBC’s answer to “fair and balanced,” Keith Olbermann, who not only repeated the story verbatim — and I do mean story, as in fiction — but used it as a tool to criticize Sarah Palin for not condemning the supposed threat.

That Olbermann failed to mention that Palin had not yet arrived when the [supposed] comment was made matters not to the “journalists” at MSNBC.

Wait, it gets better.

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

… Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

Hey, but who needs facts when it’s a great story, right? Call it fake but accurate. I mean, a bunch of white folks gathering to hear Palin speak, they must be racist right? Just like that plumber who worked his butt off for 15 years in order to buy a business that Obama wants to punish with a tax hike. Why wouldn’t that mean plumber not vote for The Chosen One, the quick change artist? Can’t be that tax increase, right? No, no, that plumber must just be racist!

Here’s Club for Growth’s Andrew Roth on the government’s announcement that it will partly nationalize nine major banks. I guess Vladimir Lenin et. al. get the last laugh.

(Remember this January 2007 headline: “U.S. blasts Chavez plan to nationalize electricity, phones.” Hypocrisy rules.)

Link:

“[Franklin] Raines, who you’re talking about, worked for Fannie Mae, was there for a while. The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama is they both are African-American, other than that there is nothing.”

– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV)

I love the twisting of words by Harry Reid. What a transparent jerk. The radio host comments that Barack Obama “has three people tied to the mortgage mess…” Two of them are former CEOs of Fannie Mae! But Reid attempts to counter with a ridiculous bait-and-switch about McCain “lobbyists” (a completely legal and constitutionally-protected activity, by the way).

In Reid’s twisted logic former Fannie Mae lobbyists working for McCain are somehow worse than two former CEOs of Fannie Mae who cooked the books, overstated Fannie Mae profits for the sole purpose of generating higher bonuses, and helped create this loan and credit crisis (completely illegal activities) — even as each of these CEOs made millions of dollars in the process!

If an Enron or Arthur Anderson accounting fraudster was working for John McCain, wouldn’t the media be screaming bloody murder? Did you know that Barack Obama has received $42,000 in campaign contributions for each of his years in Congress? Did you know that is 4 times higher than any other member of Congress? (Apparently Obama hasn’t the disdain for Fannie lobbyists that Reid has).

Both James Johnson (CEO Fannie Mae, 1991-98) and Franklin Raines (CEO, 1999-2004) additionally received preferential loan deals from the now infamous Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo.

But to Harry Reid, Raines is just a guy “who worked for Fannie Mae,” as though he was a door greeter or something, while the radio host is a racist.

I never thought the Democrats could find a bigger weenie than Tom Daschle, but they sure proved me wrong!

John Pitney Jr.

In some important ways, Tuesday night’s event resembled the 1996 town-hall debate between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

Twelve years ago, the visuals worked to Clinton’s advantage. He was extremely skillful at the format, locking eyes with questioners and oozing sympathy for their problems. He was the male gender’s answer to Oprah.

Some commentators said that Dole seemed out of place because his true habitat was the Senate floor. Maybe, but his biggest handicap was a physical one. His war injuries cost him of the use of his right arm, so he moved awkwardly. Out from behind the protective shield of a lectern, he looked stiff and old.

McCain had a similar problem. Because of what happened to him in Vietnam, he limps and has difficulty moving his arms. These limitations became obvious when he walked around the debate floor. In a just world, television viewers would watch him and think “war hero.” In the real world, many probably thought “elderly man.”

Obama was no Bill Clinton, but he didn’t have to be. As a relatively young man in apparently good health, he benefited merely from the visual contrast with McCain. He moved with the easy grace of someone who’s never had to face any torture greater than sharing a stage with Alan Keyes.

In 1996, Bob Dole tried to attack Clinton while casting himself as a bipartisan problem-solver who could bring people together. The message was not entirely consistent. It’s hard to be both a pit bull and a border collie.

McCain suffered from the same kind of cognitive dissonance. He did his best to go after Obama, and then stressed his talent for working with Democrats. At points, his language had echoes of 1996. For instance McCain’s proposal for the entitlements problem was to name a commission: “We’re going to have to sit down across the table, Republican and Democrat, as we did in 1983 between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill.”

Twelve years earlier, Dole said the same thing: “After this year is over, we’ll resolve it just as we did with Social Security in `83. It’s a nonpartisan commission. Ronald Reagan got together with Tip O’Neill and Howard Baker, two Republicans and one Democrat.”

Even in 1996, the idea of an entitlements commission was becoming questionable. The 1983 commission worked because congressional leaders wanted it to work. Tip O’Neill was a nastier partisan than most people remember, but he also had some sense of institutional responsibility. By Dole’s presidential race, however, the climate on Capitol Hill had turned more contentious. He had to quit the Senate because Democrats were engaging in legislative maneuvers to pin him down in Washington and make him look bad.

Fast-forward to 2009. Does anybody think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would forgo partisan advantage to craft a difficult and painful solution to the entitlements problem? (There is no other kind of solution.)

It’s understandable why McCain, like Dole, would make such a proposal. The idea of a bipartisan commission will not draw hordes of AARP protesters. But in 2008, like 1996, it’s not a great selling point, either. It neither stirs the blood nor brings tears to the eye.

We all know how the 1996 election turned out. If the 2008 election turns out differently, the reason will not lie in Tuesday night’s town-hall debate.