It looks obvious

Obama’s promise to eliminate the federal income tax on earning of $50,000 or less for senior citizens has drawn obvious criticism:

If you’re a senior citizen and make less than $50,000 a year, Barack Obama has a deal for you: the rest of your life free of federal income tax.

Sounds appealing, right? Maybe to many seniors. But tax policy experts in Washington are giving it bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups.

Seniors typically have paid off their mortgages. Many have investments and usually don’t pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The kids are usually grown, so they’re not saddled with day care or college costs.

“The odds are the retired folks - they’re getting pensions, they’re getting Social Security, they have investment assets, they own a house - so … they’re better off than somebody who is 30 or 40 years younger who’s trying to buy a house (and) trying to start saving,” said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy for Deloitte Tax.

While the criticism makes sense - economically and morally - it failed to address the main issue on hand. This proposal has nothing to do with social justice, nor with wise tax policy and have everything to do with pandering potential voters. After all older voters votes in higher percentage than younger voters and bribing them, while pretending to care about social justice, is practical. And since Obama didn’t care about social justice, morality or any of those unimportant things, his proposal needs to be evaluated for what it intended to achieve - get the votes.

The question of how to limit the power of senior citizens, or any other large interest group, from robbing the rest of us is completely different topic.

Via tjic

Politic, mostly when the Clintons involved, will always surprise me. Did they really think that the story will surface, mostly after using Penn as scape goat?

On Sunday evening, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, resigned from his post after it was revealed he was working (on the side) for the passage of a Colombia Free Trade Agreement that his candidate opposed.

But within the Clinton campaign, Penn is not the highest-ranking adviser with financial ties to groups and individuals supporting the passage of the measure.

Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

It is interesting how the ethics of making a decision about trade agreement will be when it effect the President spouse bank account directly will be. It is sure a lucrative business to be in the business of selling access…

When government influencing any aspect of our life selling access to decision making become very lucrative business, much more than, for example, giving lectures. It is somewhat naive than to expect those whose fortune depend on selling such access, to limit the phenomena. It is sad, however, that instead of focusing on pleasing the consumer, or competing in the free market, interest group invest in buying such access. The effect on the society and the economy cannot be positive.