Regenbogenland
Obama oder McCain – sicherlich gäbe keiner von beiden einen schlechten Präsidenten ab. Aber gerade, weil alle Zeichen auf Obama als den kommenden 44. Präsidenten hindeuten und McCain zunehmend schlechter dasteht, muss man fragen, was Obama eigentlich so attraktiv für viele Wähler macht. Seine Wahlversprechungen jedenfalls, findet Rachel Alexander im “Intellectual Conservative”, sind nichts als bunte Seifenblasen:
Obama criticized McCain for voting for four of Bush’s five budgets, and said a McCain administration would give us “eight more years of the same thing.” It was incredulous to hear him turn this around. Obama voted against those budgets because he wanted budgets that would have spent even more money, not the other way around.
If conservative policies are so bad, then why is Obama touting an astronomical level of tax cuts, a Republican solution? (…)
Obama said he would give tax breaks to U.S. auto companies in order to keep jobs in the U.S. This didn’t make much sense, considering the economy has become so international, foreign auto companies like Honda have plants in the U.S. and U.S. auto companies similarly have parts made overseas. More symbolism than substance.
Immerhin sollen 95% der Amerikaner in den Genuss von Steuersenkungen kommen und damit wildert Obama eigentlich in der Republikaner ureigenem Revier. Das “Wall Street Journal” hat für dieses gewagte Versprechen eine einfache Erklärnung parat:
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” (…)
In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.
Hier wird also Umverteilung als Entlastung des Steuerzahlers verkauft – und das ist ein ganz schön dicker Hund, findet auch Philip Klein im “American Spectator”:
Republicans and Democrats alike have abused terms such as “tax credit” and “tax rebate” to make their policy goals more palatable. But Obama is getting away with defining tax cuts so broadly, that future candidates will simply claim any form of increased government spending as a tax cut. Under Obama’s logic, higher food stamp allowances and expanded state funding of the arts could be dubbed “food tax credit” and “arts tax credit” respectively, and also qualify.
If Barack Obama can effectively claim that his plan cuts taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then the term “tax cut” has no meaning.
Ob sich die amerikanischen Wähler, die für Obama stimmen, dessen bewusst sind? Wohl kaum.
Ähnliche Beiträge: