Mr. Obama is up to his old tricks

Four years ago, if you recall (the efforts of the media to bury the story make that unlikely), the Obama campaign's "Truth Page" handled the candidate's having killed a bill in an Illinois Senate committee which would have closed a loophole in state law allowing passive infanticide with a series of whoppers which seemed to get him off the hook with voters.

The page said that committee chairman Obama would have voted for a version of the bill which contained language similar to that of a Federal statute on the same subject (the matter falls under state ,rather than Federal, juristiction). The Federal language ensured that the bill could not be interpreted in a manner contrary to Roe v. Wade.

The campaign page also argued that the law Chairman Obama killed was unneeded, because a statute to that effect was already on the books in Illinois. The trouble was that the law in question was so badly written as to be, in the opinion of then-Attorney General Roland Burris (a Democrat, and Mr. Obama's successor in the U.S. Senate), unenforcable. In fact, it was the impossibility of enforcing the existing law which prompted the campaign to adopt a new and better-written one.

The committee Mr. Obama chaired inserted language even stronger than that of the Federal bill into the Illinois Born Alive Act. Mr. Obama voted for the change. It was only then that the committee- Mr. Obama voting with the majority- voted to kill the bill. The question is obvious: if Mr. Obama would have voted for a bill containing such language, why didn't he?

Details of the Obama campaign's deception on the matter can be found here.

Well, he's at it again. The squadrons of ill-informed Leftists who honestly believe that only the super-rich have a financial stake in the success of corporations (how does it feel to be a plutocrat, O middle-class owner of a 401k?) have been fed a new tidbit of information: that corporate executives pay a  lower income tax rate than their secretaries.

Pants on fire, Mr. President. When, oh when, are the Democrats going to face up to the fact that the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class more than the rich- and that the tax burden falls disproportionately on the latter?

While I personally am by no means opposed to increasing taxes on those making the most money (they're the ones who can best afford it, after all), it should be noted that far from not paying their fair share, the top ten percent of Americans in income pay nearly three-quarters of the income taxes in this country. In fact, the top fifty percent in income pay practically all of the Federal income taxes. About.com.'s page on the subject reports the following- certainly very far from what the rhetoric of Mr. Obama and the Democrats would lead us to expect:

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent. (Information: U.S. Office of Tax Analysis).

Now, Mr. President... about those flaming pants....

Though somewhat dated, some useful graphs on the realities of the income tax burden for different income groups can be found here. As will readily be seen, any resemblance between the rhetoric of Mr. Obama and the Democrats on this subject and reality is purely coincidental.

HT: Drudge