Do you remember the old children’s story? Fundamentally, if you’ve never had the story told to you, it is the story of a boy who was guarding sheep and got bored so he cried wolf. All the people of the area ran to help him and found that he had lied. He did this a second time and a third time and finally the wolf came, but no one came to help him. The moral of the story is, if you lie people won’t trust you.

As I look at this election I keep asking myself the same questions, who is most likely telling me the truth, and who is more likely to be fabricating the right answers regardless of the truth. Specifically I’m talking about the tax cuts and tax increases that both candidates are talking about.

McCain talks about extending the Bush tax cuts, and he talks about reducing the dividend and capital gains taxes, as well as reducing taxes for corporations (leaving them with more money to hire people and to invest back in the company).

Obama talks about giving ninety five percent (95%) of the people of the United States a tax cut, and increasing taxes from 35% to 39.6% for the top 5% of income earners, and to increase the capital gains and dividends tax from 15% to 20% (but at one time he said he’d bring it back to the levels of the Clinton years or 28%).

McCain has not varied from his tax cut plan since he presented it in June and then during the convention. Back in 2000 McCain opposed the Bush tax cut simply on the balanced budget principle, but has been a consistent supporter of tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy.

Obama and Biden don’t have a record of voting for tax cuts, so that in itself brings into question whether or not they are crying wolf. If you look at the proposal more closely you find that the 95% that get the tax cuts are those that if single make less than $200,000 or for married filling jointly it’s $250,000. So I have to ask myself do I believe that if a husband and wife work hard and succeed, they are rich if they make $250,000. Why is it not $400,000 or at least $350,000 but to allow a family of two income earners only 50,000 more than a single person makes no sense to me. Then in some of the commercials for Obama they only show the $200,000. Then the Wall Street Journal worked the math and found that to meet the 95% it is everyone over $184,000 per year.

Then in a television interview Biden explains that:

“Spreading the wealth was not–he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just – that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic – they’re going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”

And finally, there is the claim, and the actual congressional record vote, that Obama voted for tax increases for people making more than 42,000.

When I look at the track records, and I look at the consistency or lack of consistency of a message, and I put together the old 2001 WEBZ that the supreme court did not go far enough in compensation for past harms (redistribution of wealth) and top it off with Joe the Plumber’s question and answer that clearly stated that Obama wishes to redistribute the wealth from those fortunate people to those less fortunate.

As I put it all together, I think I’ve heard the wolf cry more than three times, and I put my faith on the one person who has the year upon year of tax cut support.

Do your homework and see what answers you come up with:

Reference Material:
The Real Problem With Obama’s Tax Plan. By Alan D. Viard, Alex Brill and Arthur C. Brooks. Wednesday, October 29, 2008; Page A17

How Obama’s tax plans would ‘spread the wealth around’

Stunning! Obama Changes Tax Plan Seven Days Out

LETTER TO EDITOR: Obama’s ‘tax cut’

Obama Talks Nonsense on Tax Cuts Revenues will inevitably be diverted from Social Security.