[Letter addressed to Obama Campaign Team, Washington DC, in September 2012]

If President Obama wants my vote in November, you need to tell me Why Obama hates me.

If you cannot convince me and my friends that Obama's hatred for low-income American citizens like us, and people of faith like us, is good for the country, then I'm more likely to vote for somebody who does not hate me. The other candidate comes readily to mind.

President Obama presided over the biggest tax increase on low income people since the Income Tax became law 99 years ago, almost +6% on me if my AGI income is the same in 2016 as it was last year. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the Supreme Court reminds us that Obama's new tax is a tax. I am not a burden on the taxpayers* nor the public health system, and nobody can prove otherwise. Care to try?

Obama wants to destroy me without cause. That's the same as hate.

Obama hates people of faith. Other than a tiny minority of religions Established by his laws and regulations contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution (maybe the Supreme Court will see that and strike it down), Obama is trying to force people of faith to violate their conscience for no benefit to anybody except possibly some presumed employees who probably agree with their employers and wouldn't be "benefited" anyway. People of conscience are my friends, and Obama hates us.

Anybody who looks at deficit spending and unemployment over the last 12 years can see that they track. Bush started this mess, and Obama promised us more of the same (he used different words in 2008), and he delivered more of the same. I am presently unemployed. So long as he refuses to get serious about the deficit, it proves that Obama hates me and other low-income people like me trying to find work. Why?

I want to  know Why Obama hates me.

If I get a chance, I will ask him in public, "Why do you hate me?"

Don't bother sending me prepackaged campaign lies like we saw in 2008. If you do, I will know that Obama hates American people and there is no good reason for Obama to still be President next year.

Don't bother sending me answers to questions I didn't ask. I can get answers to those questions on the internet, and if that's all you have to say, I will know that you cannot explain Why Obama hates me, and that you do not want me and my friends to vote for him in November.

If you send me something worth reading, I will post it on my weblog.
If not, I will say that instead.

You have two months to convince us.

Tom Pittman
[address omitted]

* Ask your tax people: If I earn $12,000 (or whatever is just above the FPL) in 2016, and I choose not to be a burden on the tax-funded public health system, What percentage of that $12,000 must I pay in Obama's New Tax? Ask them!

Explanatory notes not included in original letter...

"Obama hates me"

Obama wants to destroy me without cause. That's the same as hate. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Obama has raised a crushing Conscience Penalty Tax (my label, his tax) on me and not many other low-income people. Obviously he wants to destroy me and not many other people. Well, maybe he wants to destroy all of us anti-Socialists, but he isn't taxing most of them excessively. It's me he wants to destroy.

I have sought for, and am unable to find, anybody willing to defend this law on a level playing field. That tells me that even the people who voted for it know it's a bad law.

Burden on the Taxpayers

The law's supporters claim the tax applies only to people who would otherwise be a burden on the taxpayer. That's a lie. The people who can afford the health care they consume already pay for that health care. Under the new law, most of them will still pay for it -- or else become newly a burden on the taxpayers because of the increased costs caused by the new law.

The people who are presently a burden on the taxpayers will still be a burden on the taxpayer under the new law. If they are on MedicAid, they will receive subsidized health insurance, all at taxpayer expense. If they are not on some subsidized health plan, but go to emergency rooms for service at taxpayer expense, they will be forced onto subsidized health insurance, still at taxpayer expense. In both cases the cost to the taxpayers will probably increase because they will be eligible for more (now "free") medical services that they previously did without.

Some of the people who are too poor for elective health care today, and are therefore not a burden on the taxpayer today, will be forced onto the welfare rolls with taxpayer-funded insurance under the new law and start becoming a burden on the taxpayer.

Nobody who is a burden on the taxpayer today will cease to be a burden on the taxpayer under the new law, but many people who are not a burden on the taxpayer today will become so under the new law. The new law accomplishes no useful function from the government perspective, except to add to the welfare rolls people thereby inclined to continue the handouts by voting for that political party which started them. The Conscience Penalty Tax offers no benefits to the American people at all. Therefore it is a tax burden without just cause.


It's hard to get straight answers from people tasked with defending (and soon: enforcing) this monstrosity, so we may need to wait until 2017 to find out what the real numbers were. If (as some people say) the minimum income for paying the Conscience Penalty Tax is $9,500, then the new tax is more than 7.3% of that income in 2016. The 2012 Federal Poverty Level is already nearly $12,000 and going up, so you could have people earning substantially below the FPL and paying a new tax on their income 7.3% more than today. If the lower limit is the FPL, then it will be slightly less than 6% because there's a fixed minimum tax at the bottom end, so it will hurt more the less you earn. There's a maximum at the top set by market averages (most likely less than $10,000 until the rates start to skyrocket, probably around 2020), so the very rich pay at a much lower rate than the poor.

From 0% in 2008 when Obama promised not to raise taxes on us (and still 0% in 2009-2013, before the Conscience Penalty Tax kicks in) to 7.3% in 2016 is a pretty big tax increase on poor people. By comparison, a very rich person stuck with the same tax, if suppose he makes $10 million in 2016, he pays less than 0.1% of his income in new tax. Obama is exempt from paying the Conscience Penalty Tax for the rest of his life, but if he or his rich cronies had to pay it, he is rich enough to get away with less than 1% of his income in new tax. But don't believe me, ask your own tax attorney (if you can afford one). Or wait until 2016 and it will be all over the news, after it's too late to do anything about it.

For somebody who got elected promising to tax the rich and "not one dime in new taxes" on the poor, 7.3% in new tax on people below the FPL and less than 0.1% on the very rich looks pretty suspiciously like a fraud. Do we want people like that in the White House?

Established Religions

The Constitution forbids it, but Obama and his lapdogs in Congress have established a tiny minority of American religions, which ObamaCare and some of the regulations imposed on American employers by Obama without the advice and consent of Congress, "respect the establishment of [these] religion[s]" (words from the First Amendment of the Constitution, forbidding the same) by exempting them from taxation and/or penalties imposed on other religions (mine, for example, but also a lot of good Catholics) thereby "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (words again from the First Amendment).

Obama is like a lot of atheists, who are willing for you to believe anything you want, so long as it does not affect your life. That's not religion, that's fiction. True religion, the Bible tells us, is doing things in the real world that make a difference in the real world. That would make Obama's religion -- nevermind what he says it is -- to be smashing the religions of other Americans. That's what he's doing, and it makes a difference in the world. Do we want people like that in the white House?

Deficits and Unemployment

Just look at the chart (original linked from my blog post). Deficits cause unemployment. Bush started it, and Obama gave us more of the same.

In Public

Maybe Obama will come campaign in the State of Misery, maybe he won't. I never hear it listed among the swing states, but at least some people think Missouri is one of them. In any case, the chance of my knowing where and when to be there to challenge Mr.Obama in public are pretty small. But if you hear of it, let me know. Or speak the part yourself, if it fits.

"Prepackaged Campaign Lies"

In 2009 I wrote Obama and asked why he was breaking his campaign promises. I got a form letter back, read it here, with my explanatory notes. Some speechwriter probably got stuck with writing form letter answers, then they put them all in the computer, and punch up a number depending on whatever keywords they find in the letters people write. It's probably all done in a computer. No human ever sees any letter you write to the President.

Obama Campaign Team

Being President of a big country like the USA takes a lot of effort. I'm not stupid. Obama doesn't have time to deal with thousands of letters like mine, he has paid staff to do that. They don't have time to read and carefully answer these letters either, they will pick out a word or two, then choose prepackaged Form Letter #27 or #18 or whatever based on those keywords. They probably have a computer do it. No human will ever see this letter except you and me. Remember that in November. Obama does not care about real people, he just wants votes. This year. Next year he will be as unpredictable as Romney, because he never has to work another day in his life (he even said so out loud, over there in Europe somewhere). At least Romney needs to get re-elected in 2016 if he wins, so he won't want to alienate his electorate the way Obama has done (and will even more now that it doesn't matter).

Rev. 2012 September 13