Obama Spent $740.6 Million to Win Presidency Outspent McCain 4-to-1 Last 9 Weeks

See Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anLDS9WWPQW8
Spending Doubled as Obama Led Billion-Dollar Campaign
By Jonathan D. Salant - December 27, 2008

■ "In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier."
■ "McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4 million in 2004."
■ "Arizona Senator McCain, unlike Obama, accepted $84.1 million in public financing for the general election, a decision that barred him from raising money privately. Obama outspent him by a 4-to-1 margin from Sept. 1 through Nov. 24, FEC records show."
■ "The League of Women Voters, Democracy 21 and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group are among the organizations urging congressional overhaul of campaign financing. 'The way Washington works is not going to change until we fundamentally change the nation’s campaign finance laws,' they said."

Los Angeles Community College District's Green Energy Program

Surprise. This was a front page story, page 1 of the Los Angeles Times March 6, 2011 regarding the Los Angeles Community College District's green energy program?

See "Grand dream loses sheen in glare of daylight" at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-build6-20110306,0,4909175.story.

I could goal: "Not only would the nine colleges sever ties to the grid, saving millions of dollars a year, they would make money by selling surplus power. Thanks to state and federal subsidies, construction of the green energy projects would cost nothing upfront."

There was a giveaway that they were spending somebody else's money: "cost estimates for taking the nine campuses off the grid ranged as high as $975 million — this for a college system that in 2010 spent less than $8 million on power bills."

The article doesn't connect the dots with our national policy, but I think you can replace "Larry Eisenberg" with the name "Barack Obama" and that's basically what the President is doing to the United States.

Obama Budget Doubles National Debt to $26.3 Trillion in 10 Years

See http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-budget-nearly-double-national-debt

CBS News Monday, February 14, 2011 by Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget.

The figures reflect the effects of Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget priorities, particularly a federal deficit that never falls below $500 billion in any year between 2010 and 2021.

The national debt – both debt held by the public and debt held by “government accounts” (the Social Security trust fund chief among them) – was $13.56 trillion on Sept. 30. 2010, the end of fiscal year 2010. (The national debt today, Deb. 14, 2011, is $14.08 trillion.)

In 2021, the national debt will have risen to $26.3 trillion, increasing by $1 trillion every year until 2021. Obama’s budget does not contain any plans for balancing the federal budget or reducing the national debt."

Repeal ObamaCare

Read January 5, 2011 article at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/05/obamacare_an_unacquired_taste_108442.html
Obamacare: An Unacquired Taste
By Michael Tanner

It includes:
"two years of almost continuous debate on the issue, it is far more likely that the public really does understand the bill. They know, for example, that, despite the president's reassurances, they are not going to be able to keep their current health insurance, even if they like it. They understand that outside experts now predict that Obamacare will cost at least $2.7 trillion over its first ten years of actual operation, not the $950 billion originally predicted, adding more than $350 billion to the deficit over that period, despite massive new taxes. They've seen their insurance premiums skyrocket in response to the law's new mandates and regulations. Their common sense tells them that imposing the employer mandate will increase the cost of hiring workers and mean fewer jobs at a time when unemployment is still a national crisis. They oppose the unconstitutional individual mandate as an assault on their personal liberty. And they are rightfully concerned over how the law will affect the quality of the care they receive."

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are Keynesians

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are Keynesians. John Maynard Keynes encouraged deficit spending during economic downturns to increase aggregate demand. This is a hard theory to resist particularly for politicians who address every problem or potential problem with the same solution, to increase the power and size of the government. Keynes postulated that the multiplier effect would boost the economy. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have stated many times that government money going to people who would immediately spend it was best, that is propensity to consume. So the candlestick maker gets some government money, and spends it promptly buying items from an Indian Chief, who promptly makes purchases from the baker, and on and on. The theory is that the economy grows.

Unbelievably, there is no consensus if President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal Keynesian policies worked. Roosevelt took office March 4, 1933, and five years later the country still had 15% unemployment. Prior to the Great Depression, the U.S. economy suffered numerous financial panics and recessions. Despite little Federal Government intervention, the economy bounced back more quickly. So many economists believe that Roosevelt's Keynesian policies prolonged the Depression and delayed recovery.

More recently, Japan embraced Keynesian policies, primarily “investing” in infrastructure. A 2.4% budget surplus in 1991 turned into a deficit of 4.3% by 1996 and 10% by 1998, with the national debt to GDP ratio reaching over 200%. The Keynesian policies did not work and the two decade period is referred to as Japan’s lost decade.

Of course, if Keynesian theory worked, the government really does have to make payments, it could just drop money from helicopters and the economy would grow. Or the government could hire half the unemployed to dig ditches and then hire the other half to fill the ditches back up. The formerly unemployed having a high propensity to spend would then have the candlestick maker, Indian Chief, and baker’s businesses booming. If Keynesian theory worked, Zimbabwe would be a wealthy country.

During the 1930s depression, President Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt kept on increasing tax rates. Roosevelt kept on increasing regulations. Without certainty and a stable tax and regulatory environment, businesses cannot plan and determine which business expansions or new business enterprises will pencil out. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have continued these practices. Imagine you have a business idea, and are using a spreadsheet to forecast your projected revenue and expenses. What do you put down as your expenses for taxes, health care costs, and thanks to proposed cap and trade legislation, energy costs?

The Bush tax cuts have been in place for nearly a decade. Some progressives have referred to this as Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich. However, President Obama said in his December 7, 2010 press conference "A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st".

Congress and President Obama have agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years. Hopefully, the Keynesian policies are at an end, and the government has now provided some certainty to taxpayers so entrepreneurs can consider expanding their current business or to start a new business. Let's hope so.

Yours truly,

Gene Felder

Bush Tax Cut for the Typical American Family

From the President's press conference:
"Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for the typical American family,"
"And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs."
President Barack Obama Dec 6, 2010

What happened to always calling it Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich?

Obama Sabotages Republican Leaders Press Conference

Is President Obama cool? Or is he cold? Or is he quite petty, hypocritical and disingenuous?

What do you make of this in Dana Milbank’s column?

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113005458.html

“Slurpee Summit full of empty calories” by Dana Milbank Washington Post column Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Includes:
“Republicans made plans to speak to TV cameras in the White House driveway immediately after the session, but then the White House announced that Obama would be making a televised statement at 12:20. Republican leaders, in response, announced a news conference on Capitol Hill for 12:30. Obama then delayed his 12:20 statement, and, before Republicans could complete their news conference, he began his dueling statement - forcing the cable networks to ditch the GOP event.
The White House, in turn, did its best to make sure the visiting Republican leaders wouldn't get a chance at the spotlight. Photographers and TV cameras were not admitted to the room for the customary ‘spray’ - a few seconds to shoot photos or roll tape. And the ‘stakeout’ location in the West Wing driveway - the spot where White House visitors address the cameras - was rendered inhospitable by a fleet of backhoes and cement trucks working on a construction project.
That was about the time Obama began his competing statement, which included a lament about the ‘hyperpartisan climate’ in which ‘both sides come to the table. They read their talking points. Then they head out to the microphones, trying to win the news cycle instead of solving problems.’ Obama called that ‘a game that we can't afford.’
The statement might have carried more weight if Obama hadn't just preempted his opponents' news conference.”

Liberal Eleanor Clift on Obama and Change

See "Halfhearted Soul-Searching at the White House" by Eleanor Clift, Newsweek Nov 21, 2010
at http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/19/the-problem-with-the-cult-of-obama.html

It includes:
"Obama is an undefined figure to much of the country, and to his fellow Democrats. Though he’s portrayed as a liberal, it’s not clear what he’ll fight for, and he keeps that deliberately vague, perhaps hoping to deliver on the post-partisan promise his election represented. The fight over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts is a perfect example. The White House needs to settle on a strategy and then execute it, whatever it is. Hope is not a strategy, and the extent to which Obama seems to weigh the political considerations of whatever decision he makes reinforces the voters’ disillusionment that rather than leading, he has instead become part of the government—an implicit admission of his failure to bring about the change he ran on."

Democratic 2010 Off Year Election Effort

"This was about the volunteer effort, not the election result," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse. "The party made 86 million voter contacts, we had staff or volunteers in 435 congressional districts, we raised and spent more money than ever in a midterm, we had the lergest midterm field effort ever, we ran or staffed virtually all the coordinated campaigns in all the key states."

From ABC News Jake Tapper, Nov 19, 2010 "Huh? President Obama Tells Volunteers That In Midterms "You Guys Turned 'Yes We Can' Into 'Yes We Did'"

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/huh-president-obama-tells-volunteers-that-in-midterms-you-guys-turned-yes-we-can-into-yes-we-did.html

Obama Copies Japan's Economic Mistakes

See "How to avoid Japan's economic mistakes" By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 15, 2010 Washington Post
See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/15/learning_from_japans_mistakes_107948.html

■ "Japan's mistakes that resulted in a 'lost decade' of economic growth."
■ "There is no substitute for vigorous private-sector job creation and investment"
■ "Despite massive stimulus, rapid growth hasn't resumed two decades later."
■ " government debt soared from 63 % of the economy (gross domestic product)…now around 200 percent."

Obama Faces Ungrateful Electorate

See Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2010 column by Charles Krauthammer "Obama Underappreciation Syndrome" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It includes:
"Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the "New Foundation" of a more regulated, socially engineered and therefore more humane society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation and a shot at cap-and-trade -- and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful."

Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out

See Los Angeles Times Sept 14, 2010 at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus.html
"Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out"

"First Lady Michelle Obama, who has been unable to convince the Smoker-in-Chief to give up that dreadful habit, now has some health suggestions for other American families and for restaurant menus across the country,"

[Michelle] "Obama would like to see more healthy choices for Americans dining out, even if it means a restaurant deleting a best-selling menu item.
The Democrat suggested that Americans are "programmed" by taste and advertising to eat many things that the government and health professionals know are not healthy for their bodies. So she wants to facilitate a nationwide re-programming of personal tastes by having restaurants start serving less of what customers ignorantly want and more of what they should have."

Gangster government stifles criticism of Obamacare

See Michael Barone column "Gangster government stifles criticism of Obamacare"
at http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Gangster+government+stifles+criticism+of+Obamacare+%7C+Washington+Examiner&expire=&urlID=435692247&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolitics%2FGangster-government-stifles-criticism-of-Obamacare-811664-102642044.html&partnerID=376964&cid=102642044

September 10, 2010

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent millions of senior Americans a brochure that is packed with blatantly false claims about Obamacare. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Secretary Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact . . . will be minimal."

Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.

As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."

But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: Those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.

"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.

The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.

"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."

According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.

But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.

The closing paragraph of Sebelius' letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little but we eventually made a deal.

The secretary goes on: "It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start." In other words, shut your members up and play team ball -- or my guys with the baseball bats and tommy guns are going to get busy. As Tyler Cowen puts it, "worse than I had been expecting."

Maureen Dowd on Obama

Obama - Going Mad in Herds by Maureen Dowd New York Times Aug 21 2010
Obama and Islam: How can America know so little about this president?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd&pagewanted=print
“How can a man who has written two best-selling memoirs and been on TV so much that some Democrats worried he was overexposed be getting less known and more misunderstood by the day?
The president who is always talking about wanting to be perfectly clear is ever more opaque. The One, who owes his presidency to the intense feeling he stirred up, turns out to be a practical guy who can’t deal with intense feeling.
He ran as a man apart and now he must deal with the fact that many see him as a man apart.
Too lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics, Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch. And to the extent that people don’t know him or don’t get him, he becomes easier to demonize. Obama is the victim of the elevated expectations he so skillfully created in 2008. He came as a redeemer and then … didn’t redeem. And nothing bums out a nation that blows with the wind like a self-appointed messiah who disappoints. If we’re not the ones we’ve been waiting for, who are we?”

Missouri pops the ObamaCare-media bubble

See August 4, 2010 HotAir.com at
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/04/missouri-pops-the-obamacare-media-bubble/

It includes:
"If anything, this shows that opposition to ObamaCare is growing, not receding".

"Bear in mind that over 315,000 Democrats turned out to cast ballots in the primary that nominated Robin Carnahan, while over 577,000 Republicans hit the polls. That is about a 65/35 split — which means that a significant amount of Democrats either supported the ballot measure repudiating ObamaCare, or didn’t bother to cast a vote to defend the program. Actually, Prop C got more votes than the combined voting in both Senate primaries — which tells us something even more about the passion in the electorate."

Stop ObamaCare - Go Missouri

See http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Freedom,_Proposition_C_(2010)

Missouri Health Care Freedom Proposition C statewide is to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance. It protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions.

August 3, 2010 Election Results, YES 75% No 25%

A "yes" vote is a vote to amend current Missouri law to deny the government authority to "penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services." A "no" vote is a vote to reject the proposed referendum.

Public Service Pensions Unsustainable Says NJ State Senate President

Public Service Pensions Unsustainable Says NJ State Senate President June 30 2010

Federal stimulus funds used "just like throwing it away".

KCRW public radio program "To the Point"
WED JUN 30, 2010 "Stimulus or Austerity?: That Is the Question"
Host: Warren Olney

Listen to this Los Angeles public radio interview show by Warren Olney June 30, 2010 at
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp100630stimulus_or_austerit

I downloaded it to attached to this email. After seeing it was 23 megabytes, I removed it.

Stephen Sweeney, President, New Jersey State Senate and also an official in New Jersey’s Iron Workers' Union

This guy is great. Sounds like a Democrat who gets it.

It is so hard to believe. His portion is towards the end of the program starting at 37 minutes.

Here's some of Stephen Sweeney's comments, not a great transcript, but pretty close:
• 37 minutes "elected officials bypassed the collective bargaining process, the costs of elections and gave benefits, expanded benefits, that they could not pay for"
• "basically the politicians gave the workers what they asked for and they destroyed the system"
• "our pensions will be bankrupt probably in another five or six years" .. "for political purposes enhancing benefits and to sustain favor with people, in the long run hurting their workers"
• 38.4 "our system we have is not sustainable"
• 38.5 the federal aid to states "plans that I've seen pass out of Washington…used billions of dollars what we did was use the money to plug shortfalls in existing programs instead of dealing with the issues"
• 39.1 "infrastructure improvement, building schools was a better plan, when they turned the money over to the States it was just like throwing it away"
• 42.2 stimulus money should "not to States to fund their budgets, why I said the money was thrown away, state governments and local governments did not have to deal with the financial crises, they pushed it off. If we had taken the money for improving infrastructure, building roads, and schools where you would actually have something for years to come made more sense to me"
• 43.1 "The billions of dollars that we spent in the State of New Jersey basically we were just trying to hide the inevitable"
• "This year we cut $800 million dollars out of school aid; you know, we should have cut a billion dollars last year"
• Question from Warren Olney "And you're an official in the Iron Workers Union? Are you a Democrat as well? Response from Stephen Sweeney "Yes, I am".
• 43.4 "I come from the private sector unions where my employers can go out of business. There's a thought process where because we're government you cannot go out of business. You can always tax more. That model is not working anymore."

The whole program is good including comments by a Harvard professor wanting to slow down federal spending.

Obama Grants Environmental Waivers to BP Gulf Off Shore Drilling

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06rig.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
The New York Times June 5, 2010 front page article "In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig" by Ian Urbina includes:
Minerals Management Service
■ "Investigators have focused on the minute-to-minute decisions and breakdowns to understand what led to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, killing 11 people and setting off the largest oil spill in United States history and an environmental disaster. But the lack of coordination was not limited to the day of the explosion."
■ "a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig"
■ " Of roughly 3,500 drilling rigs and production platforms in the gulf [of Mexico], fewer than 50 are in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. But the risks and challenges associated with this deeper water are much greater."
■ "BP officials [for] Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico, they asked for and received permission from federal regulators to exempt the drilling project from federal law that requires a rigorous type of environmental review, internal documents and federal records indicate."
■ "BP engineers … had to get permission from company managers to use riskier equipment because that equipment deviated from the company’s own design and safety policies"
■ "when company officials wanted to test the blowout preventer, a crucial fail-safe mechanism on the pipe near the ocean floor, at a lower pressure than was federally required, regulators granted an exception'
■ The Obama administration Minerals Management Service "shares responsibility for oversight of drilling in the gulf with many others. The Environmental Protection Agency and others review offshore drilling for potential damage to wildlife and the environment"
■ "On the Deepwater Horizon, for example, the minerals agency approved a drilling plan for BP that cited the 'worst case' for a blowout as one that might produce 250,000 barrels of oil per day, federal records show. But the agency did not require the rig to create a response plan for such a situation."
■ "The rig’s 'spill response plan' … includes…the importance of protecting walruses, seals and sea lions, none of which inhabit the area of drilling. The agency approved the plan."
■ "Michael J. Saucier, an official with the Minerals Management Service, said that his agency 'highly encouraged' — but did not require — companies to have backup systems to trigger blowout preventers in case of an emergency.
■ "With the clock ticking, bad decisions went unchecked, warning signs went unheeded and small lapses compounded."
■ "BP skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe. Federal regulators also gave the rig a pass at several critical moments. After the rig encountered several problems, including the gas kicks and the pipe stuck in the well, the regulators did not demand a halt to the operation. Instead, they gave permission for a delay in a safety test of the blowout preventer.”
■ "at least a dozen federal agencies have taken part in the spill response, making decision-making slow, conflicted and confused, as they sought to apply numerous federal statutes.”
■ "For three weeks, as the giant slick crept closer to shore, officials from the White House, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Environmental Protection Agency debated the best approach. They ultimately approved the use of only one barrier, called a berm"
■ "Louisiana state officials spent much of May repeatedly seeking permission from the federal government to construct up to 90 miles of sand barriers to prevent oil from reaching the wetlands."
■ "It took more than a week after the explosion for the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, to declare, on April 29, 'a spill of national significance' a legal categorization that was needed before certain federal assistance could be authorized."

Obama Lies but Voters Projection of What They Wanted to Believe

See June 4, 2010 Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284693139359582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Author and blogger Virginia Postrel, in an interview in the June issue of Reason magazine:


"Glamour is a particular form of illusion. It's an illusion that tells a truth about the audience's desires, and it requires mystery and distance. During the campaign people projected onto Barack Obama whatever they wanted in a president or even in a country. Lying is usually a bad thing, but they would project onto him that he was lying about his positions because he secretly agreed with them: 'Anyone that smart has got to be a free trader at heart. He's just saying this to pander to those idiots. He can't really mean it.' . . . [T]here is always this capacity for disillusionment. People have projected so much of what they think, including things that are sort of impossible, onto a glamorous figure, that when any flaw shows up the glamour is dispelled and suddenly he becomes terrible."

No Family Making Less Than $250,000 Will See "Any Form Of Tax Increase."

See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Presidential candidate Barrack Obama