Signs of Desperation

What’s New Today

Story #1 looks at the enthusiasm gap.  It seems the democrats have lost 22% since 2008 while the Republicans are up 16%.  #2 looks at Obama campaign strategy which is to depress Romney’s turnout.  I thought the Democrats thought everyone should vote. #3 is a story with our new feature—Signs of Desperation.  I’ll keep them coming. #4 asks if “You didn’t build that” is the end of Obama’s presidency.  #5 looks at the concept of “fair share.”  I guess it’s like Bill Clinton said about the word is.  It depends what your definition of “is” is.  #6 shows you what fascism looks like without the jackboots.

Today’s Thoughts

President Obama from March 2011: "In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.”  At least he admits that not renewing the Bush Tax Cuts is a tax hike. 

 

Obama’s biggest problem for reelection is that the segments of society that have been hurt the most in his term were his biggest supporters in 2008. These include minorities (unemployment in the black community 14.4%; Hispanics 11.0%), young people (unemployment: 18.0%) and single women.

Obama’s latest ad telling people he was quoted out of context about “You didn’t build it,” remind me of another Democratic President who told us, “I did not have sex with that woman.” 

In an interview on BET last September Obama answered a question about why he didn’t create more policies specifically targeted at African Americans: ‘That’s not how America works,’ the president replied.  It appears that isn’t how America works in a non-election year.  In an election year apparently everything works differently as NBC is reporting he will sign an executive order that will create a special new federal office aimed at improving education for African Americans.

1.  Democratic enthusiasm falls off a cliff

Democrats are far less enthusiastic about the 2012 election than they were in 2004 and 2008, according to a new poll released on Wednesday.

A Gallup/USA Today poll found that only 39 percent of Democrats now say they are “more enthusiastic than usual” about the 2012 election. That’s down from 68 percent in 2004 and 61 in 2008.

Republicans, conversely, have seen a sharp rise since 2008, when only 35 percent said they were “more enthusiastic than usual.” In the latest survey, 51 percent said they were enthusiastic about the upcoming election, a 12-point advantage over the Democrats…

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/240069-poll-democratic-enthusiasm-falls-sharply

With a 22% drop in enthusiasm, the Democrats and Obama face a bleak November.  Obama’s strategy to smear Romney doesn’t seem to be working as enthusiasm for Romney is off just 2 points while for Obama it is off 6 points since February.  It appears when you sling mud you get muddy yourself. 

2.  Obama seeks to suppress voter turnout

….The key to the election, therefore, rests with the ability of the Obama campaign to discourage those now predisposed to vote for Romney because of the economy or disappointment with Obama.   Thus the never-ending message over the past two months from the Obama re-election team that Romney is dishonest, unethical, cares only for the rich, outsources jobs, perhaps is a felon, has off shore bank accounts ostensibly to hide money and, as he must have skeletons in his past, he refuses to release his tax returns.
While the polling results to date have not shown any real movement as a result of this scorched earth campaign, it has succeeded in maintaining the status quo.  However, if this were any other time in America's recent past, with similar economic circumstances, Barack Obama would be down by double digits among likely voters in any presidential preference poll…. 

…Mitt Romney is not the first choice of many on the right, but then many on this side of the political spectrum have already surrendered to the idea that it is either too late to save America or there is no real difference in the candidates or Romney isn't a pure "constitutional conservative--so why bother to vote.  They often fall back on various misinterpreted statistics to back-up this defeatist attitude.

First fallacy: a majority of the American people are now dependent on government, so they will always vote for whoever promises to support them.   … this is not a monolithic voting bloc as a recent survey  indicated a majority of federal government employees would vote against Obama.
Second fallacy: nearly 47% of Americans do not pay any income tax so they do not care about raising taxes or spending and will always vote for the Democrats….  When factoring in payroll taxes, 86% of all Americans pay taxes.  All citizens therefore need jobs and economic growth, not higher taxes, unlike the policies being pursued by Barack Obama.  

Third fallacy: there has been such an increase in voter fraud my vote really doesn't matter.  Today, there are approximately 207 million Americans eligible to vote.  Less than 150 million or 70% are registered to vote.  In the 2008 election 146 million were registered to vote (71% of eligible voters); 131 million voted in the presidential election. 

Recent polls continue to show that 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative; only 21% as liberal.  Of the remaining 39% who identify as moderate, it would be safe to assume that these citizens are equally split between the two ideologies, thus at least 60% of Americans lean conservative and 40% liberal.  Accordingly, any substantive additional turnout, registration and voting would be skewed toward electing the more conservative candidate.  Additionally, any attempt at voter fraud would be overwhelmed by these higher numbers.

The Obama re-election team knows it is vital to suppress the turnout and enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. .. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/obamas_campaign_to_suppress_romneys_turnout.html#ixzz21jImIbti

The Democrats fight voter ID saying it would suppress voter turnout even as Obama does everything he can to suppress Romney’s voters from turning out.

3.  Signs of desperation

…Some of you may be saying that spending $15 million is no big deal given that this is a presidential election. You are mistaken. This is an obscene, over-the-top amount of money. Obama faces only about 12 to 15 electorates that are worthy of sampling separately. There is the national electorate, and then there are the individual electorates of swing states, and then there are special targets like his partisan base of Democrats and swing voters like independents. Even if he polled each of these sub-samples every week since the first of the year, he couldn’t come close to accounting for the amount that’s supposedly been spent.

Just by normal ratios or rules of thumb for campaign spending, the research outlays are out of whack. For presidential campaigns, polling should fall into a range of 3 to 4 percent of the total budget. In this case, the percentage is much higher. It is being reported that the Obama campaign has spent $100 million thus far on campaign ads. If they have, in fact, spent $15 million researching those ads, they are genuinely out of control over at the Democratic “research institute” where all this political science is percolating.

It’s interesting to try and follow the money, but it’s also disturbing. Why must Obama spend so much money to find his way? Voters are likely to be turned off to realize that even a teleprompter is not enough for this president. He also needs a phalanx of pollsters to tell him what to say.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/239865-obamas-poll-spending-is-obscene

There are many signs of desperation.  I’ll mark them as such in future blogs.

4.  “You didn’t build it” may end Obama’s dream of reelection

President Obama’s campaign scrambled to combat Republican efforts to highlight his “you didn’t build that” remark — a sign there are concerns the story could have legs far into the election cycle.

Team Obama released a new television ad late Tuesday with the president himself directly addressing the controversy. And the Democratic National Committee circulated a memo Wednesday detailing how it would respond to the GOP messaging. 

The actions indicate Democrats are concerned the remark could haunt the campaign, especially given the persistent GOP strikes at Obama’s handling of the economy. Republicans have repeatedly knocked the president for not understanding the private sector, and their attacks have been amplified by criticism from business leaders, who were unhappy with Obama’s comment.

“Obama did for Romney what Romney couldn’t do for himself, which is to create a clear contrast and unlock emotions on the key issue of the campaign,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “It helps Romney with independents, with GOPers and with white, working-class Democrats who needed an economic message that they could rally around.”…

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240187-obama-campaign-stepping-up-damage-control-over-remark

Obama supporters keep telling everyone he was only talking about infrastructure, not the business itself.  But if that were the case wouldn’t he have said, “You didn’t build those”?

5.  Who is and isn’t paying their fair share?

This vehicle pays $12, 532 a year in vehicle and road taxes.

Has Elizabeth Warren ever driven behind this truck on her way to a Native American get together?  If she had, perhaps she would not say things such as "You built a factory out there. Good for you...you move your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."

I suspect the factory owner would have an issue with that comment.  She moves on to the factory's use of utilities...as if the factory didn't pay for the hook ups and the service. She speaks of the police and fire department's availability as if the factory doesn't pay real estate taxes.

For Elizabeth, the glass isn't half full, it is over on its side. The factory is using its employees.  It is using the community.  It is using the infrastructure.  She fails to acknowledge the jobs created, the schools filled, the taxes paid, the ancillary businesses supporting the factory, the benefits of the created product to the community.  Who are people like Elizabeth Warren?  Where are their real world experiences?
Scott Brown's recent political advertisement underscores just how much these Warren and Obama 'democrats' are in stark contrast to yesterday's Democrats... 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/scott_brown_crystallizes_the_transformation_of_the_democratic_party.html#ixzz21jLWS4dE

The democrats like to say the Republican Party has changed.  They are correct.  It has become more conservative as has the country.  In the meantime, the Democratic Party has changed becoming more liberal unlike the country.  Who’s really out of touch? 

6.  This is what Fascism looks like

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday. 

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/13988905-418/emanuel-goes-after-chick-fil-a-for-boss-anti-gay-views.html

What Rahm obviously believes is that if someone disagrees with him, he will suffer the consequences.  Perhaps Chic-fil-A supporters should wear a yellow star on their clothing? 

Tax the Rich

Return of the real Obama

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/return-of-the-real-obama/2011/09/22/gIQAf7dsoK_story.html

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-tries-to-give-house-gop-conservatives-a-lesson-in-spending-fight/2011/09/22/gIQA0XM5oK_story.html?hpid=z1

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….

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/7805758-417/obamas-faulty-math-higher-taxes-for-rich-just-doesnt-add-up.html

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…

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/09/dem-poll-obama.php

“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….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576586693566324456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

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.

 http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/09/23/white_house_fingerprints_on_lightsquared_scandal

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.”…

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/judge-questions-honesty-interior-department-scientists

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.”

Obama Tax Plan

Obama’s plans to raise taxes

President Obama on Monday proposed a deficit reduction plan that CALLS FOR ABOUT $3 IN NEW TAX INCREASES FOR EVERY DOLLAR IN ADDITIONAL SPENDING CUTS AS HE SEEKS to put his imprint on the ongoing talks with Congress over reducing the government’s staggering debt.

In a plan HIS ADVISERS DESCRIBED AS HIS IDEOLOGICAL VISION RATHER THAN A COMPROMISE OFFER TO HILL REPUBLICANS, Mr. Obama also threatened to veto any plan Congress sends him that makes changes to Medicare benefits without also raising taxes on the wealthy, which he argues is central to a “balanced” approach.

“THIS IS NOT CLASS WARFARE, IT’S MATH,” MR. OBAMA SAID IN THE WHITE HOUSE’S ROSE GARDEN as he laid out the outlines. “The money’s got to come from some place.”

The White House argues his plan totals $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, though $1.1 trillion of that comes from savings on war-fighting expenses that all sides agree were going to happen anyway as the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan shrink. ANOTHER $1.2 TRILLION HAS ALREADY BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW IN LAST MONTH’S DEBT DEAL AND ANOTHER $430 BILLION COMES FROM LOWER INTEREST PAYMENTS BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL LOWER DEBT.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/18/obama-call-broad-tax-increases/

Counting spending cuts such as the wars is like counting as a spending cut the lack of having a stimulus package every year.  This “plan” is smoke and mirrors when it comes to spending cuts, but the tax increases are real. 

Obama’s add revenue isn’t just from the wealthy

It's not just millionaires who'd pay more under President Barack Obama's latest plan to combat the deficit.

AIR TRAVELERS, FEDERAL WORKERS, MILITARY RETIREES, WEALTHIER MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES AND PEOPLE TAKING OUT NEW MORTGAGES ARE AMONG THOSE WHO WOULD PAY MORE THAN $130 BILLION IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES RAISED THROUGH NEW OR INCREASED FEES.

Airline passengers would see their federal security fees double from $5 to $10 for a nonstop round-trip flight and triple to $15 by 2017, raising $25 billion over the coming decade. Federal workers would face an additional 1.2 percentage point deduction from their paychecks to contribute $21 billion more for their pensions over the same period. Military retirees would pay a $200 fee upon turning 65 to have the government pay their out-of-pocket Medicare expenses. They'd also pay more for non-generic prescription drugs.

And it'll cost corporate jet owners a new $100 fee for each flight.

The fees aren't taxes. They're charged to people who use government services or receive benefits such as taxpayer-subsidized health care, and they typically defray the government's cost of providing a service. The fee on corporate jets and other private passenger planes, for example, would raise about $1 billion a year to help finance the cost of air traffic control. Recreational flyers won't have to pay….

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-government-fees-pepper-apf-4120540659.html?x=0&.v=2

This part is not well known.  If he gets his way and you fly anywhere next year, welcome to Obama's world of high spenders because your taxes are going up. 

Fact Check:  Do the Rich Not Pay their Fair Share?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA MAKES IT SOUND AS IF THERE ARE MILLIONAIRES ALL OVER AMERICA PAYING TAXES AT LOWER RATES THAN THEIR SECRETARIES.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. ON AVERAGE, THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA PAY A LOT MORE TAXES THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS OR THE POOR, ACCORDING TO PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT DATA. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUAL MILLIONAIRES WHO PAY TAXES AT RATES LOWER THAN MIDDLE-INCOME WORKERS. IN 2009, 1,470 HOUSEHOLDS FILED TAX RETURNS WITH INCOMES ABOVE $1 MILLION YET PAID NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. THAT, HOWEVER, WAS LESS THAN 1 PERCENT OF THE NEARLY 237,000 RETURNS WITH INCOMES ABOVE $1 MILLION….

… This year, HOUSEHOLDS MAKING MORE THAN $1 MILLION WILL PAY AN AVERAGE OF 29.1 PERCENT of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 AND $75,000 WILL PAY 15 PERCENT of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 AND $50,000 WILL PAY AN AVERAGE OF 12.5 PERCENT of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent….

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

Obama has a habit of making straw man comparisons.  This is just another example. 

Obama’s Bizarre Tax Attack

It could almost make your head spin. With an economy on the front end of another recession, President Obama’s tax attack on the folks who are most likely to succeed, invest, start new businesses, and create jobs is nothing short of staggering. ONLY LIBERAL-LEFT CLASS-WARFARE IDEOLOGY CAN EXPLAIN THIS.

In his speech on Monday, Obama laid out $1.5 trillion in tax hikes over ten years, aimed almost entirely at America’s well-to-do. THIS INCLUDES $800 BILLION FROM ROLLING BACK THE TOP RATES IN THE BUSH TAX-CUT PLAN, $470 SOME-ODD BILLION TO REDUCE ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR UPPER-BRACKET PAYERS, AND -- OH YES -- A MILLIONAIRE’S TAX CALLED THE “BUFFETT RULE.”

Pause a moment on the Buffett Rule. Almost all of Warren Buffett’s income comes from capital gains taxed at 15 percent. He only pays himself $100,000 a year, which would be taxed at the top rate. Most of his wealth is untaxed as unrealized capital gains. So his effective income-tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.

So what?

THE VAST MAJORITY OF MILLIONAIRES PAY A 35 PERCENT CURRENT TAX RATE ON PERSONAL INCOME FROM SALARIES, BONUSES, AND SMALL-BUSINESS INCOME. Their effective tax rate is around 30 percent, much higher than the roughly 20 percent effective rate for the so-called middle class (depending, of course, on how you define the middle class).

Remember that the top 1 percent of income-tax payers shoulders 40 percent of all income taxes. They are paying their fair share. Then remember that 50 percent of income-tax filers don’t pay any income tax at all.

OBAMA REFUSES TO TELL US WHAT THE NEW MILLIONAIRE TAX RATE WOULD BE, OR WHAT THE FORMULA MIGHT BE IN RELATION TO MIDDLE-CLASS TAXPAYERS. BUT ONE THING’S FOR SURE: THIS NEW BUFFET TAX IS A PENALTY ON INVESTMENT, RISK-TAKING, AND JOB-CREATION.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/obama_s_bizarre_tax_attack

This is simply a campaign tactic Obama is trying to use.  He has come out with an ideological plan that will be rejected by the Republicans (and some Democrats).  He will then try to blame it failure on the Republicans for being ideological.  It isn’t likely to work, but he doesn’t have much else he can run on. 

Obama Rejects Obamaism

I’M A SAP, A SPECIFIC KIND OF SAP. I’M AN OBAMA SAP.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE UNEMPLOYED COULDN’T WAIT 14 MORE MONTHS FOR HELP AND WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT AWAY, I BELIEVED HIM. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged republicans to play along. But of course i’m a sap. WHEN THE PRESIDENT UNVEILED THE SECOND HALF OF HIS STIMULUS IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THIS PACKAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING PEOPLE RIGHT AWAY OR AVERTING A DOUBLE DIP. THIS IS A CAMPAIGN MARKER, NOT A JOBS BILL.

IT RECYCLES IDEAS THAT COULDN’T GET PASSED EVEN WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS. In his remarks Monday the president didn’t try to win Republicans to even some parts of his measures. He repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

When Brooks admits what’s going on and says at the end he understands it, but preferred what Obama was talking about in 2008, Obama has major problems. 

Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries

Worried the liberal voice is being drowned out in the presidential campaign, PROGRESSIVE LEADERS SAID MONDAY THEY WANT TO FIELD A SLATE OF CANDIDATES AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES TO MAKE HIM STAKE OUT LIBERAL STANCES AS HE SEEKS RE-ELECTION.

Ralph Nader warns that without an intraparty challenge the liberal agenda “will be muted and ignored,” THE ONE-MAN PRIMARY WILL KILL VOTER ENTHUSIASM AND VOTERS WON’T GET A CHANCE TO REFLECT ON THE REAL DIFFERENCES THAT DIVIDE THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES.

“What we are looking at now is the dullest presidential campaign since Walter Mondale — and that’s saying something, believe me,” Mr. Nader told The Washington Times.

The group’s call has been endorsed by more than 45 other liberal leaders. They want to recruit six candidates who bring expertise ranging from poverty to the military.

Mr. Nader said the intent is not to defeat President Obama but to make him focus on issues that might get lost in a purely Obama -versus-GOP discussion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/

There is a delusion among the left that the problem Obama has is that he isn’t left enough.  This strategy will simply push more voters against Obama and the Democrats as they realize the differences between the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Is the Racism Card All Obama Has Left?

OBAMA IS FINISHED. It's not so much the past six weeks, rough as they were, as his own actions and responses that have finished him. His showdown with Congress over the debt limit, which he then ran away from. His bewilderment at the fact that markets responded to that level of stress with a serious slump. The lousy job numbers, which anybody but Obama and his kept economists could have predicted. HIS INSISTENCE ON HIS PRECIOUS VACATION AT A TIME WHEN THE COUNTRY WAS DEEPLY SHAKEN OVER ECONOMIC MATTERS. The painfully bogus "people's hero" photos released in the wake of "hurricane" Irene. The uproar over his jobs speech, an attempt to embarrass the GOP which merely added to his reputation for incompetence. The speech itself. These were not the actions of a leader, a statesman, or even an adult. They will be neither forgiven nor forgotten.

It's hard to see how he recovers from any of this. (And this is not even to mention the unfolding Solyndra, LightSquared, and Fast and Furious scandals; add the AttackWatch debacle and my cup runneth over.) HE HAS NO SHRED OF REPUTATION LEFT TO BUILD ON, NO RESERVOIR OF GOODWILL TO DRAW FROM. His approval rate is 40% or below, a number no first-term president has ever come back from. According to Gallup, he is running effectively neck-and-neck with every GOP candidate, even exotics like Ron Paul, and the campaign has scarcely begun. The triumph of Bob Turner in NY-9, a district that hasn't voted Row B since glaciers covered Long Island, merely puts the seal on it.

At this point, he has only two possibilities -- a GOP screwup, or a dirty campaign….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/beating_the_racism_card.html

The Democrats are being hoisted on their own petard.  Giving us the first black President who has proven to be an incompetent executive, they cannot run someone against him without alienating a fundamental reliable part of their base.  They are stuck with him and he is likely to bring down a lot of down ticket Democrats as well in 2012. 

Obama Scandal Update:  Fast and Furious

In a conference call this morning with Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, reporters were told the Attorney General in Mexico has confirmed at least 200 murders south of the border happened as a result of Operation Fast and Furious. Eleven crimes in the United States have been linked to Operation Fast and Furious up to this point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277786/did-fast-and-furious-cause-200-murders-robert-verbruggen

I’ll keep you abreast of the latest on the many Obama scandals.  Far from being scandal free, this Administration is piling up more and more scandals just in time for the 2012 elections.

$16 Muffins, $8 Coffee at the DOJ

The Washington Times reports on the “extravagant and wasteful” carousals your tax dollars have been funding at the Department of Justice:

The Justice Department spent more than $120 million in fiscal 2008 and 2009 to host law enforcement conferences across the country, many of which FEATURED “EXTRAVAGANT AND WASTEFUL” COSTS FOR FOOD, BEVERAGES AND EVENT PLANNING, INCLUDING SPENDING $16 ON EACH OF 250 MUFFINS SERVED AT AN AUGUST 2009 LEGAL CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., A REPORT SAID TUESDAY.

Acting Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar, in an audit report that examined taxpayer expenditures incurred by the Justice Department at 10 of 1,832 conferences held during fiscal 2008 and 2009, said investigators also found that ANOTHER CONFERENCE FEATURED A LUNCH THAT COST $76 PER PERSON AND COFFEE COSTING MORE THAN $1 PER OUNCE. Other costly items cited in the report included a $32-PER-PERSON SNACK BREAK CONSISTING OF CRACKER JACKS, POPCORN AND CANDY BARS, $7.32 BEEF WELLINGTON HORS D’OEUVRES, $10 COOKIES AND $5 SWEDISH MEATBALLS…

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277780/16-muffins-8-coffee-doj-andrew-stiles

I guess the DOJ is looking to be the next Pentagon for outrageous charges. 

Climate Fraud at Times Atlas of the World

The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge SCIENTISTS EXAGGERATING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

ACCOMPANYING PUBLICITY MATERIAL DECLARED THE CHANGE REFLECTED ‘CONCRETE EVIDENCE’ THAT 15 PER CENT OF THE ICE SHEET AROUND THE ISLAND – AN AREA THE SIZE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM – HAD MELTED SINCE 1999.

But last night the ATLAS’S PUBLISHERS ADMITTED THAT THE ‘ICE-FREE’ AREAS COULD IN FACT STILL BE COVERED BY SHEETS OF MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE THICK. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute SAID THE APPARENT DISAPPEARANCE OF 115,830 SQ MILES OF ICE HAD NO BASIS IN SCIENCE AND WAS CONTRADICTED BY RECENT SATELLITE IMAGES.
There are no official figures on how much ice has melted but one scientist put it at between 0.3 and 1.5 per cent of the ice sheet.

PUBLICITY FOR THE NEW ATLAS READ: ‘FOR THE FIRST TIME THE NEW EDITION HAS HAD TO ERASE 15 PER CENT OF GREENLAND’S ONCE PERMANENT ICE COVER – TURNING AN AREA THE SIZE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND “GREEN” AND ICE-FREE.
‘This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet for ever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate.’

The seven Cambridge scientists who signed the letter are closely involved with research into changes in the Greenland ice shelf.

They do not dispute that some glaciers have got smaller but say the overall picture presented is wrong…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039262/Times-Atlas-error-exaggerates-ice-retreat-Greenland.html

Nothing new here.  AGW proponents have no problem exaggerating what is going on to even telling outright falsehoods.  It isn’t that they don’t believe in global warming, but they feel justified in these tactics because you don’t.