Published on TheHill.com on June 24, 2008.
Have you noticed a change in Barack Obama’s campaign? Instead of avoiding controversies over values, religion and race, he seems to welcome them and wade into the debates with an increasing enthusiasm.
Characterizing how the Republicans will attack him, he predicted that they would criticize his “funny name” and add “and by the way, did you notice that he’s black?”
Obama used to go out of his way to avoid this kind of reference, but now he brings it on. Deliberately.
Why?
Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level — is he the hope for America’s future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy? That debate, which pits Obama’s rhetoric against the Rev. Wright’s rantings, is a contest that could go on all day, and Obama would win it. It is simply a bridge too far to believe that Obama is that evil and that invidious.
But the more the debate covers such fundamental questions, the more it ignores the details — details which could bring Obama down.
Quite simply, Obama would rather address his religious views and his optimism about America and his embrace of diversity than talk about his plans to raise taxes, let gasoline prices soar and socialize healthcare.
In our new book, Fleeced, we try to bring the debate back down to earth, focusing on the specific plans that Obama has announced during his presidential primary campaign and discussing the consequences. This is the debate Barack Obama hopes he can avoid.
Consider his proposals:
• In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.
• He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes.
• He’d double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.
• He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare. As in the U.K. and Canada, you will not be permitted certain medical procedures if the bureaucrats decide you are not worth it.
• He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation
• He says that unless they can establish that there is “probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group,” Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be “relevant” to a terror investigation.
• In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.
He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more “gradual adjustment” to the higher prices.
Obama can talk about the Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins and his wife’s love of America all day long. But what he resists is a specific discussion of his own plans for our country. That’s the discussion he fears and he avoids. And it’s the discussion John McCain must force upon him if he is to have any realistic chance of winning the election.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
thank you for helping get past ‘hope’ and ‘change’ to substance.
Hugo Chavez and Obama both ground their political philosophy in so called liberation theology. Hugo’s policies have throttled the economy in Venezuela. Will Obamo do the same?
You are not protraying a favorable image of Obama……and I thought you were “rough” on the Clintons. Got to admit, it is excellent strategy to accept the negatives being said about Obama and to ask for more because the reality bridges between those negatives are too distant to connect. He using the GOP adversities against them…and like you stated….it working…and as far as McCain, he is going to provide more negative fuel to Obama’s campaign, making it even more of a success. McCain sees the light at the end of the tunnel, but keeps extending the tunnel.
Most Americans, including myself, don’t see the details in the “We Can Change Plan.” We get bit and pieces from the candidates and much “media woof” playing one candidate off the other. You are one of the most candid contributors to what is happening in this campaign, and the most accurate. For all of the 99 times that you have been right, this is one time I pray you are not…nothing personal. Americans are wanting changes and Obama claims we can change, and if what you have describe comes to past….Americans will not be making “wishes for change” for a long, long time. Change is one thing……extreme makeover…is another.
I’ve been a republican all of 42 voting years. For the life of me, I don’t understand the reluctance to force some of these issues on Obama. Put in with the backdrop of high energy prices and a weak economy, the differences between McCain and Obama are like night and day. I pray to God that our party comes out of their hibernation before too long, or we will certainly experience an “Obamination” come November.
[…] Morris mentions in an article yesterday how Obama has changed his strategy to one that would like to keep the dullards […]
[…] Morris: “In effect, [Sen. Obama proposes to] legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation—He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent—He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present—So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket” […] “Have you noticed a change in Barack Obama’s campaign?”—asks Dick Morris in a DickMorris.com release titled Obama’s New Strategy […]
[…] By Dick Morris, TheHill.com on June 24, 2008. […]
Sorry Dick but you sound like Chicken Little: “The sky is falling”. Be careful. You have not yet dropped quite to the level of a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh but it a slippery slope when you confuse fact and opinion. What you put forward are interesting opinions to add to the mix but little in the way of real facts or analysis. One thing that tweaked my sensibility was your shot at the UK and Canadian health systems. While I know nothing about the UK system I lived in Canada for a while and understand theirs. Apparently you do not. Their system is certainly not perfect but on balance is just as good as the US system. Better in some ways: better outcomes on certain measures (death at birth, longevity), lower per capita cost, much lower administrative costs and not so good in others: longer wait lists for SOME procedures.Contrary to popular US belief it is not a singularly public system. It is not even a single payer system. For services not covered under the plan people have the option of buying private insurance, for many services if they dont want to wait for some services they can go to private clinics and pay directly. Many of the services available are provided through private enterprise such as corrective eye surgery, most imaging services and virtually all personal doctors run as private businesses wth a single payer. As far as “rationing” of services this takes place in both the US and Canadian systems. In Canada some services are not covered: for example cosmetic surgery. In the US services are not covered depending on the insurance policy and on decisions made by corporate bureaucrats who decide on the validity of claims. In the Canadian system there are not the equivalent of 40 plus million people with no insurance and the resulting lack of care. The truth is both systems need work. Canada needs to find ways to capture the creativity and innovation of the private sector and the US needs to get everyone covered. Fortunately both candidates recognize the importance of the latter. Using a false spectre of an inadequate Canadian system to strike fear in our hearts over a universal system is irresponsible.
As far as raising taxes we must face up to our near $10 trillion debt and year after year of deficit budgets. This is crippling our economy more than any other single issue, albeit not far ahead of our reliance on insecure supplies of fossil fuels. I for one just don’t see how we get back on an appropriate budget track by cutting expenses. The time has come and we will all have to pay up. In concept the idea of hitting higher income people (me) harder may resonate better with potential dem voters I would need to see the end product numbers. Higher taxes on a small number of people will not likely get the job done.
My gut churns a bit at the thought of the Patriot Act but I think it is more to do with the overzealous application of the act by the current neo-cons in the administration than the act itself. Protecting our rights and freedoms includes protecting them from people who will use violence to take them away. Like it or not terrorism is alive and well and we need to have policies and laws that take this into account. On the flip side locking people up for years without any due process (Guantanamo) is a travesty. It steps all over our fundamental belief in human dignity, rule of law and erodes our needed credibility internationally.
Right now for me a big concern is whether we will be better served by Dems running the oval office and congress, the latter being pretty much certain or by maintaining a degree of useful friction by having McCain as President. Once in office either McCain or Obama will face the same harsh realities and I doubt either will be as ignorant, dogmatic and incompetent as the current leadership.
Dick –
On June 24, you wrote:
“Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level — is he the hope for America’s future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy?”
Shifting from the fictional to actual history, the Fidel Castro example may be more apt than the movie.
In 1960-61, Castro was promising a Cuban democracy with protections for private property, press freedom, and friendly relations with the United States. Castro had so hoodwinked leading Americans in government and show business that he headlined national TV shows and was lauded by former President Harry Truman.
Castro’s revolutionary regime was recognized by Washington faster than it had any other Latin American government. Less than a year following the hasty recognition, Castro was denouncing the U.S. in vitriolic terms and confiscated all U.S. property in Cuba and seized all Cuban businesses.
Firing squads killed an estimated 1100 man and boys and Castro jailed ten times the number of political prisoners there were under Batista.
On December 2, 1961, Castro stunned the Kennedy Administration by declaring himself a Marxist, who would impose Communism in Cuba.
Obama shows tell-tale glimpses of his true character and ideals by his long-term associations, his political positions and statements from the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate, statements he thought were made in private, and support of his wife’s candid anti-American rhetoric.
Is Obama a new Castro with big surprises for Americans on Inauguration Day?
Bill Grayson
Raising taxes WILL NOT help the economy. It NEVER has throughout human history. It has been proven that taxes in the US economy in effect hover around 19% of GNP. Therefore the way to prosperity is improved by lowering taxes.
Obama will up taxes significantly, therefore the chances of a decrease in the rate of GNP/GDP growth or an outright recession will go up significantly. And, this is not counting the effects of his and Congress centralizing health care and extending free health benefits to illegal immigrants which would be for an additional 12+ million.
The economy will do worse with Obama as President in combination with a Democratic congress as opposed to a McCain Presidency with a Democratic congress due to the Dems having to need more votes to override McCain’s veto of extreme legislation: Fairness Doctrine, Free Choice (abortion) Amendment, increase in capital gains tax rates and other tax rates, lack of attacking the energy issue from all angles including both supply and demand (Obama is on record as liking high gas prices which are hammering the poor right now - and don’t tell me they are not since I do St. Vincent de Paul work and it IS hammering them. He lacks true compassion.)