Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income.

FoxNews,Drudge Report
A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut."

"Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said..

"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up -- not from the corridors of Washington. ... And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.

John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

"Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed.

"It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said.

"You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time."

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

"Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said.

Obama's economic plan of raising taxes

Senator Barack Obama has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad.

Between now and January 1, 2011 (five short years away),
· Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points.
· Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate.
· Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
· Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
· Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009.
· Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
· Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

What makes this tax nightmare scenario particularly scary are the economic benefits that will never be realized if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts disappear. Businesses are watching now to see if Congress will make permanent the first to expire of the major economic growth components of the 2001 and 2003 tax acts—lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. Failing to make permanent the low tax rates on investment would signal to businesses of all sizes that the other major elements of the Bush tax plan will also be allowed to expire. They would adjust their investment and hiring accordingly.

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.
Only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined that adds up to more than 55 percent. Obama's tax plan would give us a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. And these sorts of tax rates slow the economy.

Obama made it crystal clear to Joe the Plumber that he plans a massive redistribution of wealth — taking your wealth!

Oh, just so you know, Obama's plan defines 'rich' anyone making over $90,000 a year, because that's when his FICA tax cap comes off and you start paying an addition 7% of tax on each and every dollary you earn above the cap!

And if you are making just $50,000 a year or more — expect to pay another 4.5% on each and every dollar you earn starting in 2010. That's when the Bush tax cuts expire.

'President Obama' has emphatically states he will expire those cuts for "rich" people like you.

There aren't many who long for a return to the 1970s. Those of us old enough to recall that decade tend to think of gas lines, a hostage crisis and Watergate. President Jimmy Carter never used the word "malaise," but he acted as if America was doomed to decline, and it was his job to make sure it went smoothly.

Obama's crazy plan must be stopped. It will not only cost you money, it will throw the U.S. economy into a depression.

Tax Foundation looking at 2004 groups when it comes to paying taxes
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Obama Tax plan
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html.
While the majority of the redistribution is targeted to taxpayers in the middle three quintiles, a surprising large amount—$40 billion—would flow to taxpayers in the 80th to 95th percentile (those earning roughly $93,000 to $192,000 per year). This is largely due to the extension of the AMT patch


A brief overview of the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

The alternative minimum tax (or AMT) is an extra tax some people have to pay on top of the regular income tax. The original idea behind this tax was to prevent people with very high incomes from using special tax benefits to pay little or no tax. The AMT has increased its reach, however, and now applies to some people who don't have very high income or who don't claim lots of special tax benefits. Proposals to repeal or reform the AMT have languished in Congress for years, but effective action does not appear to be on the horizon. Until Congress acts, almost anyone is a potential target for this tax.

The name comes from the way the tax works. The AMT provides an alternative set of rules for calculating your income tax. In theory these rules determine minimum amount of tax that someone with your income should be required to pay. If you're already paying at least that much because of the "regular" income tax, you don't have to pay AMT. But if your regular tax falls below this minimum, you have to make up the difference by paying alternative minimum tax.

Q: How do I know if I have to worry about the AMT?

A: Unfortunately, there's no good answer to this common question — which is one of the big problems with the AMT. You can have AMT liability because of one big item on your tax return, or because of a combination of many small items. Some things that can contribute to AMT liability are mundane items that appear on many tax returns, such as a deduction for state income tax or interest on a second mortgage, or even your personal and dependency exemptions.

Obama convincing a voter speading the wealth is good for America

Obama in Ohio was confronted by a man, who shouted: “Do you believe in the American Dream?”
When Mr. Obama answered yes, the man said he had a follow-up question.
“I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American Dream,” the man said, perhaps referring to Mr. Obama’s plan to increase taxes for those making $250,000 a year or more . While Mr. Obama ran through a series of points about how his plan would mean tax cuts for 95 percent of people, that didn’t seem to convince the man.
“I’ve got to go prepare for this debate,” Mr. Obama said as he walked away. “But that was pretty good practice.”
Obama states he will give tax cuts to 95% of Americans, but what he doesn’t tell you is that 40% of Americans right now don’t pay any income taxes what so ever, under his plan those folks not paying any taxes will receive $500.00 for a single person and $1,000.00 for every married couple which will be funded directly from payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Joe lives in a $150,000 home I don't consider that rich

Michigan wakes up to tax increases

A look Back to Oct 2007 In Michigan where a Democratic Governor Raises Taxes then and now did it help Michigan

Paychecks will shrink starting this week
Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
LANSING -- Michiganians went to bed Sunday night with the state nearing its first government shutdown and awoke to a $1.35 billion tax hike, among the largest in state history.

An 11.5 percent income tax increase and expansion of the 6 percent sales tax to a strange brew of services will close most of the $1.75 billion hole in the state budget year that began Monday.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm billed it Monday as a $1 per person increase per week for the average state household.

"This is a solution, not one of celebration but one of resolve," Granholm said after the state avoided a full shutdown with a budget deal that called for the tax hikes and as-of-yet unspecified budget cuts of $440 million and long-range government reforms. The state constitution requires a balanced budget.

"This puts the state on solid fiscal footing and will allow Michigan to move forward," she said

State Treasury officials estimated the income tax increase from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent, which took effect Monday, will cost the average family of four $157 a year after typical deductions.

The income levy begins to ratchet down gradually in 2011 and returns to 3.9 percent by 2015. The service tax -- on items such as landscaping, ski lifts, janitorial services, investment advice, carpet cleaning and tanning -- will cost that same family about $50 a year when it takes effect Dec. 1.

Sherry Pyszczynski, a 40-year-old business owner from Hazel Park, had a different take on the budget solution, particularly the service tax.

"I'm really shocked. It upsets me terribly," she said. "I own a janitorial service and now I have to pass that cost along to all my clients. I don't know how the people in Lansing consider that a luxury."

Robert Smith, a Ford Motor Co. retiree from Northville, said he wished the state shutdown had occurred with full force to wake up politicians and make state employees endure the same sacrifices that have befallen the private sector.

"People would have been mad, but my expenses have risen and my health benefits have been reduced," Smith said. "Everybody is giving out here, but I don't see it happening in the public sector. It needs to happen."

Taxes 'slightly above' U.S. average
State Treasurer Robert Kleine said the new taxes move the state's overall tax burden "from slightly below the national average to slightly above the national average."

It's difficult to compare income taxes across states because most states with such a levy have a graduated tax with varying rates. Using the top rates in each state, the Treasury claims Michigan's 4.35 percent makes it the fourth lowest in the nation. It's the highest rate in Michigan since 1999. The higher rate is expected to generate about $760 million annually.

The tax on 23 new services -- which will generate $725 million over a full year -- means Michigan now taxes 49 services, according to the Treasury. The state already taxes some services, including storage and auto leasing. That puts the state at 27th in the country in the number of services taxes, up from 36th, Kleine said.

Another measure of tax burden is state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income, with the national average at about 11 percent. Kleine said the new tax boosts mean Michigan edges up from slightly below 11 percent to slightly above 11 percent.

But the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., which tracks such data, takes a different view of Michigan's ranking. The combination of the sales and income tax hike puts Michigan's tax burden at 11th-highest in the nation, up from No. 14, the institute says.

Sports, concert tickets spared
The list of services to be taxed can be kindly called unusual. Services on the list were meant to be discretionary, mainly by the affluent. But nonessential items such as sports and concert tickets and cable TV won't be taxed. The Detroit Tigers, who drew more than 3 million fans this year, reminded fans before games to protest the proposed hike with lawmakers. Tigers tickets were excluded.

Ski lifts are on the ledger; golf fees and boat slips are not. Personal services, such as astrology, massage, dating and fortune-telling are now subject to the tax.

Asked about how the list was drawn up, Kleine said: "We had to look for a certain amount of money and we looked for services we thought we could get votes for."

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, likened the selection of the services to be taxed to a "Chinese food menu where you pick a la carte from the list. It's not scientific at all. You identify your revenue target then go down the list and make selections."

Bishop also said he wouldn't be surprised to see a citizens' referendum to try to repeal the service tax.

"There will be outward rebellion when some of these interest groups and industries impacted by it see exactly what it means," he said.

The tax increases were ushered in almost exclusively with Democratic votes. The service tax drew no Republican votes in the House and two in the Senate. The income tax hike attracted two GOP votes in the House and four in the Senate.

"Republicans refused to put up votes for anything," said House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township. "Basically, this entire package was delivered by Democrats."

House Republican Leader Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, said he expects outrage about the tax increases in general.

"This is a victory for the bureaucracy and special interests and a loss for families struggling to make ends meet," DeRoche said. "It's one of the largest spending sprees in Michigan history."

today has Michigan Worst Performance in Nation

Michigan is now in this vicious cycle. Over the past year U.S. personal income increased by 6.3 percent. In some states income grew faster. In others, it grew slower. Michigan has the dubious distinction of having the worst economic performance of all 50 states.

Michigan now has the slowest growth in income and the highest rate of unemployment. And this was the case before Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) insisted on and won a major new increase in taxes, which promises only to make things worse.

While Michigan tax receipts should increase in response to the latest tax hikes, the increase will be temporary. It takes time for businesses to relocate. As they relocate, Michigan will lose jobs and income to other states. Before long, Michigan's politicians will again be faced with a shortfall of revenue. With less revenue, they will once again be forced to cut government services and jobs.

To reverse this vicious cycle, Michigan must do what other states have done to attract jobs and businesses. Lawmakers must significantly reduce the tax burden on citizens. Doing so will help reverse the economic deterioration of the past 40 years.