Good Morning Ted,
I got your email and would like to share my own views. While earlier in the game I was for Ron Paul as were 16% of Pennsylvania Republicans. I am now going to vote for John McCain as the lesser of evils. I would certainly not vote for Obama for the following reasons.
Obama claims he is for change. That sounds good. One thing he wants to change is the way unions can get representation in a company. Under his plan the workers would lose their right to a secret ballot when voting whether they want union representation. Can't you see how this can result in intimidation and reprisals. If the union gets in they will know who their friends are. Do you think that those who voted against the union will now be treated equally to those who voted for it? Obama is in the pocket of the unions. This certainly is not change. The Democrats have always worked hard to repay their union donors.
Union representation in private sector companies has been falling since the 1950s. If you think unions are good for people just look at the auto industry and Michigan and Ohio. This industry is depressed in the heavily unionized northern states. The burden placed on auto companies by the unions has given them a tremendous disadvantage to non-union manufacturers. Look how the auto industry is growing and producing jobs in the southern states. Hundai has built the world's most automated car factory in one of our southern states. Other foreign car manufacturers have set up plants in non-union states as well.
The only growth in union membership in the past 50 years has been in the public sector. JFK first gave public employees the right to unionize. This was his payback for their generosity to his campaign. Obama is certainly not changing this traditional stance.
Obama wants to increase capital gains taxes. This, he claims, will increase government revenues to pay for some of his other plans. This is a false premise and he knows it. In the past every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased the government has taken in less revenue. Each time the capital gains tax has been lowered it has resulted in greater tax revenues being received. This is well documented.
Now let's step back a minute and look at capital gains. In many cases a significant portion of capital gains are illusionary. Say you buy an asset and it doubles in value over ten years. However in that same period the purchasing power of your dollar fell to half of its previous value. In reality you have no capital gain. The purchasing power from the sale of your asset has not changed. However, the government chooses not to see things this way. They will tax you on what can only be described as an illusionary gain. They change your investment from breaking even in purchasing power to a loss. Saying this in another way the government rewards itself for inflating the currency. Since inflation is chronic a part of every capital gain is illusionary. Therefore the tax rate on the actual realized gain is higher than stated. A better way to deal with capital gains would be to index the value to remove the effect of inflation.
Their is no change to Democrats raising capital gains tax rates. It is part of the class envy game they enjoy playing. Unfortunately many voters do not realize that they pay capital gains through their IRAs, their 401Ks, and mutual funds. Higher taxes result in lower investment performance. In Ireland capital gains taxes were sharply reduced just before their economic boom which propelled them to become the fastest growing nation in the European Union.
Now let's look at education. Many people from both parties agree that American schools are not doing well by international standards. This is nothing new. There have been many ideas and solutions offered to rectify this situation. One which has received some acceptance and success is the idea of giving vouchers to parents so they can choose which schools their children will attend. By giving parents a choice the public schools have competition and an incentive to improve. Voucher programs have been successful in a number of areas. Obama opposes all voucher plans. Why? Because the teachers unions do not like them. They prefer to maintain the status quo where it is nearly impossible to fire incompetent teachers or to trim the large number of "administrators" (which often exceeds the number of teachers in a school district).
It is easy for Obama to play politics with this topic since it only concerns other people's children. His daughters are in private schools.
Obama pledged to accept public funding for his campaign as every candidate from both party has since the Watergate era. Later he decided to break his pledge when he decided it would benefit him to do so. Aren't you put off at least a little bit by a man who does not keep his word? I am.
Ted, you seem to like the idea that we may soon have a government where the Democrats hold both the White House and the Congress with a veto-proof majority. I see this as a very frightening possibility. Should this happen They would be able to put in place many of their "wealth distribution" plans and programs. We run the risk of having the majority of citizens getting entitlements which the country cannot afford to pay in the long run. These programs could be permanent as voters would not vote to cut of their own "entitlements". Then what happens? Look at the European countries which have flirted with socialism. See how they are trying to cut back on programs they can no longer afford. Why can't we learn from their example. Is it really necessary to go down the same road?
In closing let me add that one thing I like about both McCain and Palin is that neither went to Yale or Harvard. I have long felt that for far too long these two institutions and their old boys network have had much to much power in government. Don't your Californian schools ever produce someone fit for the political arena? How about UCLA? Why not someone from Rice in Texas? The ivy league elite have had too much influence in government in my rarely-humble opinion. Have they really done such a great job? Some of our best presidents have not gone to Harvard or Yale. Truman and Reagan come to mind.
I still have high hopes that Billy will be our first black president!
Tito