Let us look at this logically instead of politically.  If someone today has a good business idea which they think is profitable, they will try it and if they make a gain on the value of their investment they will keep 85% based on a capital gains rate of 15% (excluding other taxes).  Cutting the rate to 0% will not change their decision to try and make a go of the business.  In addition the extra money the investor may make when they sell the business due to the lower rates may be used for an additional investment but only if there is a good opportunity.  Since there are a lack of good opportunities in today’s economy, the extra money would probably not be invested.

The argument is even better when talking about small businesses taxes.  The right contends that lowering these taxes will make the companies hire more people but this is just not logical.  A business will only hire people if there is more of a demand for their product, not if the owners get more money. 

Tax cuts for small business are therefore an inefficient way to use scarce government resources which should be used to increase business, create jobs and lower the deficit.  Politicians propose these cuts because they want the votes of the beneficiaries and there is no talk about the loosers from this policy.  I guess since Obama wants to freeze spending for many government agencies the loosers are the government employees who would not have jobs and the groups and people who would loose these agency’s services but this will not be mentioned because that is bad politics.

The facts are the opposite. Obama actually is very mainstream economically as shown by his appointment of the Treasury Secretary who came from Wall Street. The health care bill is not radical, and it helps insurance companies to get more insured people thru mandatory coverage. It also increases competition using exchanges which may not help the insurers but is capitalistic.

In addition the defecit was increased prior to Obama and his programs of increased spending are only necessary to fix the mess he inherited. He even helped the banks by giving them cheap money (he should have loaned it directly to us at the low rate) and this policy is not socialistic, in fact the effect is the opposite beacause it allowed banks that should have failed to make profits using taxpayer money. Wall Street also approves as shown by the stock market.

The Obama perception is therefore another case of right wing media leading the perception and everyone taking the bait. Could you imagine what the perception would be if Obama really followed liberal policies? This is why he is afraid of going too far.

When George Bush barely won the popular vote for his second term in 2004, his Administration was quick to claim the victory as a mandate to advance his stated agenda. If that was the case, then Obama’s landslide victory in 2008 was a demand from Americans to move this country in a new direction. Obama has made a great start of that, despite constant opposition from Republicans. The health care debate is a prime example. Even after amendment after amendment being added to the Senate Finance Committee bill, not a single Republican voted for it, except Snowe, whose “yes” vote was accompanied by a disclaimer reminding us that she probably will not do that again.  And this is who Obama gives a shout-out to after the Bill passesd?

For now I’m going to give the President the benefit of the doubt. After all, much of what has happened in the last few weeks of the health care debate has been surprising, since many people considered the public option dead. With White House support, now we’re arguing over what version will probably make it into law. For my vote, I’ll stick with the “robust” option the House has been pushing. As a small business owner, citizen and father I think it’s the best chance we have of significantly lowering costs and covering millions more people. If the White House is really advocating another version, I’d like to hear why. If it’s a sound reason, great!  However if it’s just to get Snowe’s vote to be able to say they had “bipartisan” support, then we’re in trouble. After all, most Americans don’t run around and wonder “What would Olympia Snowe Do?”

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue yet, but as I watched, I was struck by the gulf growing between these two groups. On one hand, an angry friend distrusts and rebukes Obama at every step…   on the other hand a roomful of children sing his praises.   What is it about Obama that inspires such passionate feeling?

In the video itself, I see a diverse group of children.  In the real world, the larger “Obama Choir” is similarly diverse; gay activist, feminists, the elderly, immigrants, minorities and even the young folk seem to sing his song hopefully….

But among those who prefer to sting then sing, I see less diversity (…in fact, I notice most seem to look like Glen Beck…).  Though these folks have traditionally been more powerful, they seem to feel threatened, and they are ready to fight.  I also notice these folks probably have a lot more to lose…

So what does this have to do with a video of children singing patriotically?

On my first viewing, I noticed it’s poor quality;  it looked like a cell phone video. The poor sound quality makes it hard to hear the words of the song, but I picked out the phrase “equal pay for equal work” and something about “not seeing race” (…both ideas I think are worthy of teaching to children…)

In spite of the “down home” setting, and a message I was comfortable with, the film seemed to grow more ominous by the minute. It “felt” creepy – somehow wrong – but I couldn’t figure out why…

On my second viewing I heard the additional audio track, laid over the original. It has a Phillip Glass/Horror film quality, and might be mistaken for the ambient sound of the video.  You can check the effect here:

Children singing with creepy ominous over-dub

These days, it’s almost impossible to believe what you see online (…especially content intended for a political purpose…). Once I discover media has been altered, I find it acts as a strong indictment of it’s author. For me, if you have to “lie” to make a point, your motives suspect and opinion not worth hearing.

Looking at it a third time, I wonder how hard it would be to make one of these. You could probably get a vacation bible camp to volunteer the kids for a small contribution…  is it expensive to rent a church basement?  as long as your dubbing the sound track, why not “dirty” up the video to give it a cell video quality…

…and as long as I’m thinking about this, why don’t more fake videos come from the “Pro Obama” folks?  Something like Joe Wilson roasting marshmallows at a Klan Rally or Glen Beck playing patty cake with a hooker?

Maybe the “Obama Chorus” is more idealistic… or maybe they still believe in “fair play” politics…  (..or more likely they just lack the media skills that comes from owning the media…)

We’ll see… (…stay tuned!)
Joe