In a 2008 debate, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: “WELL, CHARLIE, WHAT I’VE SAID IS THAT I WOULD LOOK AT RAISING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX FOR PURPOSES OF FAIRNESS.”
A most revealing window into our president’s political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. IT IS NOTHING BUT PUNITIVE. IT BENEFITS NO ONE — NOT THE RICH, NOT THE POOR, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. FOR OBAMA, HOWEVER, IT BRINGS FAIRNESS, WHICH IS PRICELESS…
….He also insists again upon raising marginal rates on “millionaire” couples making $250,000 or more. But roughly half the income of small businesses (i.e., those filing individual returns) would be hit by this tax increase. Therefore, if we are to believe Obama’s own logic that his proposed business tax credits would increase hiring, then surely this tax hike will reduce small-business hiring.
BUT WHAT ARE JOBS WHEN FAIRNESS IS AT STAKE? FAIRNESS TRUMPS GROWTH. FAIRNESS TRUMPS REVENUE. FAIRNESS TRUMPS ECONOMIC LOGIC.
As Winston Churchill once said, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” It appears Obama is a socialist as far as fairness is concerned.
House approves spending measure opposed by Senate; shutdown possible
Washington lurched toward another potential government shutdown crisis Friday, as THE HOUSE APPROVED A REPUBLICAN-AUTHORED SHORT-TERM FUNDING MEASURE DESIGNED TO KEEP GOVERNMENT RUNNING THROUGH NOV. 18 THAT DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY VOWED TO REJECT.
In an after-midnight roll call, House Republican leaders persuaded conservatives early Friday morning to support a stop-gap bill nearly identical to one they had rejected just 30 hours earlier.
The bill, which will keep federal agencies funded through Nov, 18, passed over staunch objections from DEMOCRATS, WHO OPPOSED A PROVISION THAT WOULD PAIR INCREASED FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF WITH A SPENDING CUT TO A PROGRAM THAT MAKES LOANS TO CAR COMPANIES TO ENCOURAGE THE PRODUCTION OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT CARS.
Without a resolution, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund will run out of money early next week and the rest of the government would be forced to shut down Oct.
It appears the Democrats are either intent on shutting down the government or are using the threat of shutting down the government as their favorite bargaining position. Either way, there is a large portion of the populace who wouldn’t notice or don’t care.
Not Paying their Fair Share?
….THE NUMBERS DISPUTE OBAMA’S ASSERTION THAT “THE WEALTHY” DON’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES, according to an analysis of recently released IRS data for 2009 by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The study shows that TAXPAYERS EARNING MORE THAN $200,000 ACCOUNTED FOR 25 PERCENT OF THE NATION’S ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME FOR THAT YEAR BUT PAID 50 PERCENT OF THE $866 BILLION IN 2009 INCOME TAXES….
So they earn 25% of the nation’s income, but pay 50% of the income taxes. It sure seems someone isn’t paying their fair share, but it isn’t this group.
Dem Poll: Obama a drag
One of the Democratic party's leading pollsters released A SURVEY OF 60 REPUBLICAN-HELD BATTLEGROUND DISTRICTS TODAY PAINTING AN OMINOUS PICTURE FOR CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IN 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.Pollster Stan Greenberg released the poll with some sugary spin for Democrats, downplaying the results by arguing that the president's jobs plan will improve the party's fortunes….
… But the numbers - at least right now -- are troubling for Democrats, and echoed some of the takeaways from the GOP special election upset in New York City last week. Instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, VOTERS ARE TAKING MORE OF THEIR ANGER OUT ON DEMOCRATS. When voters were asked whether they're supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 PERCENT PREFERRED THE REPUBLICAN AND JUST 41 PERCENT BACKED THE DEMOCRAT….
… President Obama's job approval rating in the battleground districts is just 41 percent, and only inches up to 43 percent in the 30 more-competitive seats that are a little more Democratic. BOTH PERRY AND ROMNEY HIT A NEAR-MAJORITY OF 49 PERCENT AGAINST OBAMA IN THE BATTLEGROUNDS, SUGGESTING THAT VOTERS ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH CASTING THEIR BALLOT AGAINST OBAMA THAN CARING ABOUT WHO THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE ENDS UP BEING…
“Don’t worry Colonel Custer, even though the Indians outnumber us if we circle up we may be able to fight them off.”
Amateur Hour at the White House
…I note this to make clear the particular importance, for me, of Ron Suskind's book on the creation of President Obama's economic policy, "Confidence Men." IF MR. SUSKIND IS RIGHT, I HAVE BEEN WRONG IN MY CRITIQUES OF THE PRESIDENT'S ECONOMIC POLICY. NONE OF IT WAS AS BAD AS I SAID. IT WAS MUCH WORSE.
The most famous part of the book is the Larry Summers quote THAT HE SAW IT AS A "HOME ALONE" ADMINISTRATION, WITH NO GROWN-UPS IN CHARGE. But there's more than that. Most of us remember the president as in a difficult position from day one: two wars and an economic crash, good luck with that. But Mr. Suskind recasts the picture.
Like FDR, Mr. OBAMA HAD BIG ADVANTAGES: "OVERWHELMING POPULAR SUPPORT, DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND THE LATITUDE AFFORDED BY CRISIS." But things were weird from the beginning. Some of his aides became convinced that his "lack of . . . managerial experience" would do him in. He ran meetings as if they were afternoon talk shows. An unnamed adviser says the 2009 stimulus legislation was the result of "poor conceptualizing." Another: "WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TIME THINKING ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT, RATHER THAN SIMPLY THAT THERE WAS THIS HOLE OF A CERTAIN SIZE IN THE ECONOMY THAT NEEDED TO BE FILLED, SO FILL IT." Well, yes.
THE DECISION TO FOCUS ON HEALTH CARE WAS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN. It could have been even worse. Some staffers advised him—this was just after the American economy lost almost 600,000 jobs in one month—that he should focus on global warming….
It’s always easy to look back and say what should have happened, but in the case of this administration there seems to have been such a lack of a coherent thought as to make it imperative that we look at what would of, could of, and should of happened.
Obama Scandal Update: LightSquared
The newest Obama Administration scandal-de-jour, LIGHTSQUARED, HAS QUICKLY ESCALATED TO INVOLVE POTENTIALLY "GUIDED" TESTIMONY TO TWO SEPARATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. Additionally, two witnesses have confirmed that the White House pressured them to alter testimony in favor of LightSquared, a Virginia broadband provider whose executives also made very large Democrat Party campaign contributions.
Further, ENTIRE PORTIONS OF THE SUPPOSEDLY INDEPENDENT OPINION SUBMITTED TO A CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REGARDING LIGHTSQUARED FROM FOUR SEPARATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CONTAINED "IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN THEIR WRITTEN TESTIMONY" – a truly remarkable coincidence…
… On September 20, 2011 separate letters were sent to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget requesting documents related to the Administration's involvement with LightSquared. The letters were signed by Science and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (TX), James Sensenbrenner (WI), Rep. Broun and four other committee members. THE LETTERS DOCUMENT THE APPARENT ATTEMPTS TO "TAMPER WITH TESTIMONY" AND "MUZZLING OFFICIALS" FOR POSSIBLE POLITICAL OBJECTIVES. "Sugarcoating testimony over critical matters that include the lives of Americans is irresponsible, and inevitably raises questions about the Administration's priorities," wrote the lawmakers.
The letters express frustration that earlier requests by the Committee for LightSquared related documents from DHS, NOAA, NIST, and the Commerce Department have been ignored. The lawmakers also cited the STONEWALLING BY THE FCC OF SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY'S REQUEST FOR LIGHTSQUARED DOCUMENTS MADE LAST APRIL, AND THE REFUSAL OF FCC CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI TO TESTIFY AT A SENATE HEARING.
The most transparent Administration in history is quickly looking like just another Administration. “Hope and Change” is becoming “Nope and Blame.”
Scientists who Lie?
…U.S. District Court judges aren’t known for using inflammatory language in deciding the weighty issues that come before them on the federal bench. So it was remarkable to read the scorching indictment of a federal environmental agency and two of its scientists last week by Judge Oliver W. Wanger. . . . THE CASE CONCERNS HOW THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANAGE CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLIES AND AT THE SAME TIME SEEK TO PRESERVE THE DELTA SMELT, AN ALLEGEDLY ENDANGERED SPECIES OF MINNOW-LIKE FISH. . . .
…Wanger was angered by testimony from the two scientists, Frederick V. Feyrer and Jennifer M. Norris, THAT HE SAID WAS “FALSE,” “CONTRADICTORY” AND “MISLEADING.” HE ACCUSED THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF “BAD FAITH” in providing the two scientists as experts, and claimed THEIR TESTIMONY WAS “AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD AND TO DECEIVE THE COURT INTO ACCEPTING NOT ONLY WHAT IS NOT THE BEST SCIENCE, IT’S NOT SCIENCE.” An Interior Department spokesman defended Norris and Feyrer, telling the New York Times that “we stand behind the consistent and thorough findings by our scientists on these matters and their dedicated use of the best available science.”…
This isn’t the first time we have had DOI officials seem to lie about what science says (it did so as well trying to shutdown drilling in the Gulf). I’m really disappointed in Ken Salazar. Also I look at the phrase the spokesperson used. They stand behind the “consistent and thorough” findings. I didn’t see the words “real” “correct” or “unimpeachable.”