Senator Obama is a tax and spend liberal. There is no doubt about that. He supports raising the capital gains tax even though he admits that it will not increase government revenue. He argues that raising this tax is merely an issue of “fairness.” He does not seem to care about the harmful economic impact of raising such taxes.

Consistent with his redistributionist tendencies, Obama also wants to raise the payroll tax on Social Security for anyone making over $250,000. Here is a good critique of that policy from Lawrence Lindsey:

“Obama’s plans would provide a powerful incentive for the highest-earning Americans to work less, invest less and contribute less to the economy.”

This would fundamentally change the purpose of Social Security. It was never meant to be a welfare program based on a progressive taxation scheme. It was only meant to provide income to retirees with money from current workers.

The federal government doesn’t need more revenue, it needs to cut spending and lower tax rates. Otherwise, if Obama gets his way and pushes through massive new spending on things like health care or universal pre-school, he will have to substantially increase taxes on everyone to pay for it.

With the economy slowly moving along, the worst thing we could do is increase taxes and spending, and cause capital to flee our shores. Let’s hope the American people realize this before they sign on to Obamania.

While The New Yorker’s cartoon depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama as radical terrorists is making lots of news, the interesting article inside the magazine on his rise in politics seems to be getting little attention. But this is one of the best articles I’ve read about Obama, and all voters should be familiar with its content.

The theme of the 18 page article by Ryan Lizza entitled, “Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama“, is that Obama is a very practical politician not afraid to do what it takes to win. Lizza recounts the story of Obama using technicalities to bump his primary opponents off the ballot in his race for the Illinois Senate. Lizza writes, “he was able to remove not just Palmer’s name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well.” This doesn’t sound like “a new style of politics” but like the rough and tumble Chicago politics that Obama was engaged in for the last few years.

The article also provides further evidence of the relationship between Obama and Tony Rezko, who raised 10% of Obama’s funds for his first campaign. Lizza notes that Rezko and Obama dined together often and even vacationed together. This is in stark contrast to Obama’s assertion that he was not closely linked with the corrupt real estate developer.

Then there is the story about Obama’s near fight with another state senator on the floor. The senator involved says that Obama told him “I’m going to kick your ass!” Again, this doesn’t really seem like the politics of “change” or “hope.”

The best quote from the entire piece is the following:

“Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them.”

The open question is whether independent voters will see Obama for what he is: just another power-seeking politician, rather than the political messiah that some of his younger, more idealistic supporters think he is. We may have an answer to this question on November 4th.