Obama’s approval rating in Pennsylvania 35%No Democrat since Harry Truman in 1948 has won the presidency without Pennsylvania. President Obama may get the chance to break that streak next year as those bitter clingers in Pennsylvanians are turning their back to the One Term President. The Morning Call in Allentown reported: “PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, WHO POLITICAL EXPERTS SAY WILL NEED A WIN IN PENNSYLVANIA TO RETAIN THE WHITE HOUSE, DIPPED TO 35 PERCENT APPROVAL AMONG THE STATE’S REGISTERED VOTERS, ACCORDING TO A MUHLENBERG COLLEGE POLL RELEASED FRIDAY.”
That is down from 48% approval in the same poll in March. IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS, OBAMA’S POPULARITY HAS PLUMMETED 13 POINTS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
What should be truly frightening if you are an Obama supporter is that democrats generally do better among registered voters than among likely voters.
Obama’s policy to lose a lot of coal jobs
OVER THE NEXT 18 MONTHS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WILL FINALIZE A FLURRY OF NEW RULES TO CURB POLLUTION FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated. And, not surprisingly, some lawmakers are grumbling.
Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming RULES “EPA’S REGULATORY TRAIN WRECK.” THE REGULATIONS, THEY SAY, WILL COST UTILITIES UP TO $129 BILLION AND FORCE THEM TO RETIRE ONE-FIFTH OF COAL CAPACITY. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means HIGHER ELECTRIC BILLS, MORE BLACKOUTS AND FEWER JOBS. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizeable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created.
So, who’s right? This month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for members of Congress, has been circulating a paper that tries to calmly sort through the shouting match. Thanks to The Hill’s Andrew Restuccia, it’s now available (PDF) for all to read. And the upshot is that CRS is awfully skeptical of the “train wreck” predictions.
First, THE REPORT AGREES THAT THE NEW RULES WILL LIKELY FORCE THE CLOSURE OF MANY COAL PLANTS between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. FOR GREEN GROUPS, THAT’S A FEATURE, NOT A BUG…
These people in Washington are faced with a crisis and they seem to be intent on going to the battlefield and bayoneting the wounded.
Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation
Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.
“EVEN TAKING EVERY LAST PENNY FROM EVERY INDIVIDUAL MAKING MORE THAN $10 MILLION PER YEAR WOULD ONLY REDUCE THE NATION'S DEFICIT BY 12 PERCENT AND THE DEBT BY 2 PERCENT,” THE NON-PARTISAN TAX FOUNDATION’S DAVID LOGAN WRITES.
“There's simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country's problems by waving some magic tax wand,” said Logan.
Buffett, in an August 15 op-ed in the New York Times said it was time to stop “coddling” the wealthy and called on Congress to raise taxes on those making $1 million or more.
“But for those making more than $1 million -- there were 236,883 such households in 2009 -- I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more -- there were 8,274 in 2009 -- I would suggest an additional increase in rate,” Buffett wrote.
“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.
However, according to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, EVEN TAXING THE NATION’S MILLIONAIRES AT 50 PERCENT – EVEN ELIMINATING LOOPHOLES AND DEDUCTIONS – WOULD ONLY REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY 8 PERCENT AND THE NATIONAL DEBT BY 1 PERCENT.
Tax the rich is a nice slogan, but it doesn’t begin to solve the problems we have. Raising taxes on the rich is like putting bandaids on someone who was seriously hurt in a car accident.
No comments:
Post a Comment