Another chance - filmmaker still in town!

I know it's a busy day of activities - but I just wanted everyone to know about this one, too! Yesterday, Rishad sent out a notice about the documentary America the Beautiful (about America's obsession with beauty) and the chance to meet the director. I went to the film last night and it was great ... and had a wonderful talk with the director, too. He has decided to stay in town one more day to make himself available for to talk with folks who go to the 4:45 or 7:30 show this evening, 8/9/08 (Uptown Cinema, lower Queen Anne). Please spread the word and catch this great new film (which hasn't even opened in LA yet)!!!

Have a great day, everyone ... Cathy

P.S. Anyone who is an organizer/assistant for any other group that might be interested in this, please pass it along! THANKS!

Obama vs. McCain: The Real Polling Data

Posted by Eli Fennell from PUMA Facebook

Because most of the major polls seem to be showing a lead for Obama,
many people are failing to dig beneath the surface and see what
factors contribute to this perception, and where the race really lies
at the moment. More...

Most of the polls that we see on a daily basis are, for one thing,
based on surveys of registered voters. This is simply not a good
standard to judge by, as the Gallup Organization reported themselves after there was confusion over the difference between a Gallup Daily Tracking Poll
showing Obama ahead at the same time that a USA Today Gallup Poll
showed McCain ahead. the USA Today Poll was based on likely voters,
rather than registered voters, and Gallup has conceded that likely
voters are the more accurate of the two criteria. I can personally
attest to having met far more people who say they support Obama but
are unlikely to vote anyways than I have met who say they support
McCain but are unlikely to vote. People who are unlikely to vote may
nonetheless have an opinion of the race and respond to the random
polling of organizations like Gallup and Rasmussen.

There is also the issue of so called "leaners", and these have tended
to show higher support for McCain than for Obama, as they did for
Hillary when she was running against Obama. It seems that if a person
is not sold on Obama's messianic image, their tendency is to lean
towards the more experienced candidate, and this is apparently
especially true of those who remain undecided until the moment they go
into the polling booth and have to make a choice. Change voters seem
to have their minds largely made up before they get there, regardless
of who they think is the better to bring that change.

Beyond this, there is at least one critical factor in the polling data
that is not reported in any tracking poll: The military. Polling
organizations are not allowed to poll on military bases, and are quite
incapable of polling in Iraq and Afghanistan even if they were allowed
to. But there have been informal surveys, and these suggest that in
the war zones support for McCain may be around 90%, whereas
domestically it may be around 75%. The United States military has
approximately 300,000 individuals, including active and reserve duty,
the second largest military in the world behind China. And these tend
to be more concentrated in the blue collar swing states, where as a
voting bloc they have the power to make the difference between victory
and defeat for either candidate.

Based on these factors I submit an ambitious claim: McCain is, in
fact, beating Obama nationally, despite appearances to the contrary,
and whereas McCain is staying level or increasing his support, Obama's
has been in a months-long decline disrupted only by brief periods
where overwhelming media attention has given him a very temporary
bump. So when the media tells that this or that poll says that Obama
is winning, just keep in mind the things they are not telling you, and
the people who are not getting factored into those polls.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mccaindemocrats/
http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/

Internal Clinton Emails

Reposted here from the ClintonDems to share:

Pray for our nation, and for Hillary, that Barack Obama and his cronies fail at their subverted attempts to destroy them both–us all. No wonder he voted for FISA. He absolutely believes the ends justify the means! More...

(by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic)
The Atlantic’s Josh Green has about 200 of them from the height of the Clinton campaign. Atlantic subscribers should be getting the story in their mailboxes later next week, and we hope to post the story online early next week.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/internal_clinton_emails.php

Ambinder infers in his short pronouncement that there is material of interest contained in these emails that he has somehow gotten his hands on from the Clinton campaign. (Patti Solis Doyle comes to mind.) But, it turns out that Rush Limbaugh has them, too, and he read some of them on the air yesterday (8/8/08). From the sounds of it, it’s actually fairly benigned conversation. It includes stuff like she doesn’t think BHO is electable. No news there. Whew!

With BHO’s track record of eliminating the competition, he should know that if he hurts Hillary any more, he’s only closing the final door of his failed attempt to capture the White House in NOvember! He should beware.

PUMAs are prowling, and we are not afraid to ROAR!

Hillary & only HIllary (NO MATTER WHAT) in ‘08!

What Is Obama Talking About?

See related article "Obama Embarrassed by America".

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

Occasionally, Obama has indicated that he has a weak sense of American history. He didn’t seem to know that the Cold War was not a time when the world was standing as one. He didn’t know the history of presidential summits and seems to think that FDR and Truman met with our nation’s enemies. He didn’t know how the Nuremberg Trials worked. And I’m not even talking about his mistake that Americans liberated Auschwitz. More...

But I think his remark when the little girl asked him why he decided to run for president and he gave this response.

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”

As you watch the video, it’s clear that he formed his words carefully and was thinking about how to answer the little girl.

I’m wondering when is the time that Obama thinks that we were what we could be. It couldn’t have been when we had slavery. So that takes us to 1865. It couldn’t be when we had states divided by terrible Jim Crow laws that segregated society and disenfranchised an entire race. So that takes us to the mid-1960s. It probably wasn’t when we were divided and torn apart by the Vietnam War and racial violence. So that takes us to the 1970s. I doubt that it was when we were suffering devastating stagflation and seeing our hostages being paraded in front of the cameras. So that takes us to 1980. We’re left with the Reagan-Bush years. Is Obama yearning for Morning in America? Many conservatives remember that period with nostalgia; does Obama share that feeling? No, certainly not the 1980s, that decade of greed.

Or is he talking about the Clinton years? Was that the time when we were what we could be? Why then run against Hillary Clinton? And that was a time when we were supposedly being divided by bitter partisanship. Is he yearning for the time when the Republicans controlled Congress? The days of impeachment? Or is he thinking about when we had our heads in the sand regarding the growing development of Al Qaeda terrorism? If that was the one period in our time when we were what we could be, then wouldn’t he have wanted to put that team back in the White House? And we know that he isn’t talking about the Bush years. So what was he talking about?

This matches up with some of the things his wife has said. His wife thinks that we are a “downright mean” country.

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

We can narrow down when that better time was as far as his wife is concerned. She says it’s gotten worse over her lifetime and she’s 44. I’m still trying to figure out when in the past 44 years she thinks that it was better. Ed Morrissey reminds us of some other remarks that Michelle Obama has said that indicated her dislike of this country. It now seems that her husband shares some of that disdain. Or does he? She’s also said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America because America had the good sense to vote for her husband. So does she think that we’re now being what we could be? Or was her childhood during the 1960s and 70s that time when America was so good. It’s all very confusing.

As Jennifer Rubin says, this remark wasn’t a gaffe, but a theme.

But really, it is not just a matter of an off-the-cuff remark. (By the way can you imagine that if Joe Biden is selected as VP he might actually be the less gaffe-prone of the two?) That gloomy assessment and glum world outlook is essential to his message. Remember: if the country is not in dire straits then no ordinary, experienced politician will do. We have to throw away the playbook, take a leap of faith and elect the One Who Is Like No Other. So of course everything must be worse than before — why else would we need Him?

You know, this wasn’t a tough question. She was asking him why he wanted to be president. Ever since Roger Mudd flummoxed Teddy Kennedy, candidates have known how to answer that question. He could have talked about the challenges that our country faces and how he wanted to lead us to a better tomorrow. He was given an opening to talk about how much he loves this country and wants to serve it. If he had to return to his usual solipsism, he could have talked about how proud he is to be the first candidate of a mixed racial heritage to be nominated by a major political party and how far we have come from our grim racial history and how he is looking forward to leading the country as we continued our progress.

Many liberals supporting Obama’s campaign probably don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s reply. But those aren’t the people he needs to convince. If he’s worry about those bitter, clinging voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries, this sort of talk isn’t going to win them over.

And I hope that one day, some reporter, or maybe just another seven-year old child, will ask him. When exactly were those golden, halcyon days? What are all those qualities that he believes represent what we can be and what we once were? And when exactly was that period in American history when we satisfied all those criteria? I hope that those journalists or townhall participants at Obama events who will be trying to think of what questions to ask Obama if they get the opportunity will consider asking him when we were what we could be and if we were waiting for the change that we would be today back then? It all is very confusing, but I’m sure that he can deconstruct it for us.

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the race for the White House is tied—Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for nine straight days (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. More...

McCain leads by nineteen points among White Men and by eight points among White Women. Obama leads 94% to 5% among African-American voters and by twenty-one points among Hispanic voters. We invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. Premium Members can review additional information and get an advance look at new data on the influence of money in politics by visiting the Daily Snapshot.

McCain is currently viewed favorably by 54% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53%. Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers. Sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) and we will keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Voters see stark differences between Obama and McCain on two key issues of Election 2008—Iraq and Energy. On Iraq, voters believe Obama’s top priority is getting the troops home rather than winning the War. Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say that is their top priority as well. On energy, voters believe McCain is more focused on finding new sources of energy rather than reducing the amount of energy we consume. That’s also the view held by 65% of voters.

Each Saturday morning, we review the week’s key polls to see What They Told Us. This week’s review includes new state polling data from Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 273, McCain 227. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 60.5 % chance of winning the White House.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated (see party trends and analysis).

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning.

LaRouche PAC's Open Letter to Democrats

August 8, 2008 (LPAC)—The following letter is addressed to all democrats, and especially to those who may be attending the convention. It was written by LPAC's official spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman.


August 7, 2008

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Soon, Democrats will gather in Denver to select the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. And, contrary to the declarations of everyone ranging from media pundits to Chairman Dean to Barack Obama himself, we Democrats have not yet selected our nominee. That, my friends, is what the Convention is all about! More...

In 1932, New York Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic Party Presidential nomination by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his nearest rival and avowed political enemy, the former New York governor and J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On Nov. 8, 1932, Roosevelt won a second landslide victory, this time, over incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular vote, and swept the Electoral College by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate for change in memory, and FDR immediately set out to return the U.S.A. to the tradition of the American System of political-economy, and, in so doing, brought the country out of the depths of the Great Depression, and prepared the nation for the great battles to come--against Nazism and Fascism--and an expected post-war battle to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.

Most Americans, with even a slight degree of historical literacy, know these basic facts about the election of 1932. Few, however, know how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn the outcome of the 1932 election.

The 1932 Convention fight was a fierce one. Fortunately, Franklin Roosevelt knew that the fight for the United States Presidency was not simply a game of political machines and punditry, but that the coming fight demanded a leader who understood the historic enemy of the United States, and the founding principles of the nation. In those months leading up to the National Convention, FDR said "...while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles."

It is that story, rarely told, which offers a vital lesson today to the Democratic Party, and to the American people, as the nation faces what may very well be our nation's most monumental Presidential election--an election, like 1932, that once again may determine whether the United States survives for another generation, as the sovereign republic established by the Founding Fathers.

And so, LaRouche PAC has put the story together in what is probably the most dramatic history lesson ever made available. It is presented, with its full implications for today's situation, in the enclosed DVD "1932: 'We must speak not of parties, but of universal principles.'" I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to view it before you head to Denver. When you've viewed it, I'm sure that I won't have to urge you to share it with others, because I'm confident you won't need any urging to do that.

There is much more that I can say; about the current crises our nation and the world face, as well as about Mr. LaRouche's proposed solutions. But I am enclosing the best presentation possible of that strategic overview, in two of LPAC's recent pamphlets: "Your Enemy, George Soros," and "One Year Later." The latter is the transcript of Mr. LaRouche's July 22 webcast, and is even more timely today than the day it was uttered.

See you in Denver,

Regards,

Debra Hanania-Freeman

“Painful”

Reposted here from Larry Johnson's NOQUARTER

This ad is very effective. I worry that not every American has realized yet that, in 2005, Barack Obama chose to side with his lobbyist benefactors over the American people, and that he voted FOR the Bush-Cheney Energy bill. Hillary Clinton or John McCain voted against the bill.

Imho, that alone is reason enough to not nominate Barack Obama. “Words? Just words?” Well, sadly, that is all they are, Mr. Obama. When push comes to shove, you ALWAYS side with your money men. You didn’t give a single thought to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
More...

I just had to get that off my chest. If every American voter KNEW that Barack Obama voted WITH Dick Cheney and George Bush on energy and profiteering for big energy companies, there’d be no doubt who should be nominated.

This ad is about the average American family. It's from the McCain campaign — which this blog does not endorse, but recognizes for its ability to point out the stark differences not only between John McCain and Barack Obama but also between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. click HERE to watch.

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Painful.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes on middle class families and his proposals for painful tax increases that will only further hurt those already struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and the threat of home foreclosure. The last thing we need to do is raise taxes that force families to make even tougher choices with less money in their pockets. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXqpHEsrxc

Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

· The Associated Press: Budget Resolution “Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase.” “At issue is Obama’s vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what’s left after taxpayers account for deductions.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism,” The Associated Press, 7/12/08)

· In June 2008, Obama Said “The Senate Voted To Stand Up For Working Families In Illinois And Throughout The Nation” By Passing The Democrats’ Final Budget Resolution. Obama: “Today the Senate voted to stand up for working families in Illinois and throughout the nation by rejecting the failed policies of the Bush Administration and moving our country back on track to fiscal discipline. … Our country needs change, and this budget is an important step in the right direction. I commend House and Senate leaders for working together to move this legislation through Congress.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Statement Of Senator Barack Obama On The Senate ’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget Resolution,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 6/4/08)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making “Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation’s Priorities Back On Track.” Obama: “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. … We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama Statement On The Senate’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

ANNCR: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes On Families. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners “Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates.” “Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when ‘passed-through’ to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates.” (”Topics Related To The President’s Tax Relief,” U.S. Departm ent Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· In 2006, Over 26.7 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Capital Gains Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· In 2006, Over 31.5 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Dividend Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Even Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy. CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD: “And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let’s take a listen to Barack Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here’s what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth.” (CNBC, 6/9/08)

· Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. “Even though Senator Obama’s plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income.” (Burman et al., “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors “Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide.” “Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations’ decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders–including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors.” (Gerald Prante, “The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors,” Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)