Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has happened again. Tainted Chinese made baby formula* has caused 3 infant deaths in that country. More deaths will probably follow since 1,253 babies are already sick, and at least 10,000 infants have been exposed. (In 2004, 13 babies died from "drinking fake milk powder.")

Now the Chinese government is cracking down. China arrests 12 in milk scandal:

Suppliers are believed to have added melamine, a banned chemical normally used in plastics, to watered-down milk in order to make it appear higher in protein.

The additive is blamed for causing severe renal problems and kidney stones.

...Tests have shown that 69 batches of formula from 22 companies contained the banned substance.

If that chemical sounds familiar, it is because melamine was the same culprit in last year's dog food recall that caused thousands of American pets to die. It is not included by mistake; the toxic chemical is added because it is cheaper than producing the product properly. In other words, they do it to cheat. (I don't believe the Chinese have the same ethical prohibitions to cheating that Americans do.)

China's track record on producing safe products is shaky at best. 

It has also raised questions about China's ability to police its food production industries after a series of health scares - and fatalities - in recent years.

These have ranged from the contamination of seafood to toothpaste and, last year, to pet food exported to the US.

Not only are food products in question, but the lead paint on toys scandal last year makes me doubt their veracity on other fronts too.

My advice is to start reading labels--including mainstream American company brands. When you start, you may be as surprised as a family member was to see American Co. juice boxes marked, "Made in China." 

The tilapia I so enjoyed was also marked, "Made in China." Since tilapia is pond raised, I had to wonder, what are the Chinese feeding them? Do I trust them to do the right thing? No. I suddenly lost my appetite.

On non-food products with a more personal connection, such as sun screen, mouth wash, baby bottles and pacifiers, make-up, medications, toddler toys--anything that goes in the mouth or on the skin--I would avoid "Made in China" or made in the 2nd or 3rd world too. (Reputable countries such as Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. would be probably be OK.)

It is one thing to purchase a pair of "Made in China" shoes that fall apart in a month, quite another to give a toddler a toy with lead paint! I don't mean to suggest that the Chinese are the only people motivated by greed, but your chances of getting what you pay for are higher when you buy "Made in USA."

Not only will you be protecting your family from possible harm by buying American, but you will also be helping our own economy. 

*OK, here is my chance to pitch breastfeeding, which is by far the best method for feeding an infant. La Leche League helps women worldwide to learn how to breastfeed their infants. Nursing provides better nutrition and immune defense to infants, be they in the USA or 3rd world country--and no worries of tainted, improperly, or inadequately configured formulas.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Before we breezed out of town last weekend, I purchased some Edy's Slow Churned Ice Cream in what formerly was the half gallon size and tossed it in the basement freezer. (I know ice cream has not been 1/2 gallon for years. It is actually 7 cups.)

While away, my husband spotted a USA Today article he thought was blog worthy: Shoppers beware: Products shrink but prices stay the same It was all about how manufacturers are making the packages smaller but charging the same price as the former full size:

"Downsizing is nothing but a sneaky price increase," says Edgar Dworsky, former Massachusetts assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection Division, now editor of Mouseprint.org, a consumer website. "I'm waiting to open a carton of eggs and see only 11."

The article showed Edgar Dworsky with a magnifying glass and some Breyers ice cream cartons in the new 1.5 quart size. If you aren't paying attention, it would be easy to mistake the 1 cup smaller packages for the former 1.75 quart sized cartons.

 "We did not in any way try to hide this," insists Tim Kahn, CEO of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, which also makes — and has shrunk — Edy's. "The package-size change couldn't be any more visible."

I didn't catch the Edy's reference at the time--hey, I was on vacation! But tonight when my men wanted some ice cream, I noticed the Edy's carton on the counter and said, "This is smaller than before, we got gypped like the article!"

I still paid the same price as the larger size but lost 1 cup of ice cream.

Sometimes manufacturers have the nerve to try to sell the idea of smaller sizes, spinning that it is for your convenience that the package is smaller because it is easier to carry!

Sure enough, my ice cream was the newer, smaller size. When I put it back in the kitchen freezer, I noticed that it fit in a place that wasn't tall enough before. Guess the smaller size was for my convenience. :)

Other products have shrunk too. Sugar is a good example. Sugar always came in 5 and 10 pound bags. Now you have to be careful. The name brand sugar often comes in 4 pound bags. Generic or store brand sugar usually comes in 5 pounders. (Aldi's sugar is 5 pounds for $1.79 if you were interested.)

Consumers just can't catch a break. We pay the same, if not more, for gas laced with ethanol for a 10% reduction in m.p.g., and now we pay the same price for a container that is 10% to 20% smaller than before!

Hmm, if only we could reduce the density at Percheron Square by 20%, but that is a subject for another day.

Links: