Explained simply and logically, with historical references. Ever wonder why progressive liberals cannot make such resounding arguments? (Hint: for any argument to be effective, it must be logically constructed and backed by empirical evidence)
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Coming State/Municipal Crisis (Video)
This will likely be nearly as bad as the housing crash was. Sit back and watch in horror:
Over 90% Of The Pigford Claimants Only "Attempted" To Farm
My previous posts regarding the scandal of the decade - namely Pigford II settlement, that is nothing more than reparations to blacks under false pretenses - documented how a few hundred legitimate cases of alleged Department of Agriculture discrimination in doling out loans ballooned out to a almost $2.3 billion boondoggle for about 99,000 blacks who, let alone actually farming, allegedly attempted to farm. Amazing, considering there were less than 15,000 black farmers during the claim period and only about 200 of them claimed discrimination in the original suit. The responsible party that allowed this to happen is our President as he sponsored the legislation while still in the senate.
The following video is that of Tom Burrell, head of the Black Farmer Agricultural Association, Inc..
You do not have to turn to banana republics for corruption at this scale. Thanks to Obama and his corrupt band of Chicago thugs, for whom politics of payola is the only game they know, we have become no different than countries like Venezuela.
The following video is that of Tom Burrell, head of the Black Farmer Agricultural Association, Inc..
You do not have to turn to banana republics for corruption at this scale. Thanks to Obama and his corrupt band of Chicago thugs, for whom politics of payola is the only game they know, we have become no different than countries like Venezuela.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
There's No Escaping Hauser's Law
Following is an article from the Wall Street Journal that succinctly summarizes what progressive dunces like economist Paul Krugman fail to see despite their ivy league education. Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie. Enjoy.
-------
By W. KURT HAUSER
Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.
On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period.
This is explained once the relationship between taxes and GDP growth is understood. Under a tax increase, the denominator, GDP, will rise less than forecast, while the numerator, tax revenues, will advance less than anticipated. Therefore the quotient, the percentage of GDP collected in taxes, will remain the same. Nineteen percent of a larger GDP is preferable to 19% of a smaller GDP.
The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%. The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion's share of small businesses. Most small business owners pay taxes at the personal income tax rate. Small businesses have created two-thirds of all new jobs during the past four decades and virtually all of the net new jobs from the early 1980s through the end of 2007, the beginning of the past recession.
In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation. Capital formation is the life blood for job creation. As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase. A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue.
It is generally accepted that if one taxes something, one gets less of it and if something is subsidized one gets more of it. The Obama administration is also proposing an increase in taxes on capital itself in the form of higher capital gains and dividend taxes.
The historical record is clear on this as well. In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.
In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level collected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.
The Obama administration and members of Congress should study the record on how the economy reacts to changes in the tax code. The president's economic team has launched a three-pronged attack on capital: They are attacking the income group that is the most responsible for capital formation and jobs in the private sector, and then attacking the investment returns on capital formation in the form of dividends and capital gains. The out-year projections on revenues from these tax increases will prove to be phantom.
Mr. Hauser is chairman emeritus of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and chairman of Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, a San Francisco investment management firm. He is the author of "Taxation and Economic Performance" (Hoover Press, 1996).
-------
By W. KURT HAUSER
Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.
On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period.
This is explained once the relationship between taxes and GDP growth is understood. Under a tax increase, the denominator, GDP, will rise less than forecast, while the numerator, tax revenues, will advance less than anticipated. Therefore the quotient, the percentage of GDP collected in taxes, will remain the same. Nineteen percent of a larger GDP is preferable to 19% of a smaller GDP.
The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%. The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion's share of small businesses. Most small business owners pay taxes at the personal income tax rate. Small businesses have created two-thirds of all new jobs during the past four decades and virtually all of the net new jobs from the early 1980s through the end of 2007, the beginning of the past recession.
In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation. Capital formation is the life blood for job creation. As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase. A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue.
It is generally accepted that if one taxes something, one gets less of it and if something is subsidized one gets more of it. The Obama administration is also proposing an increase in taxes on capital itself in the form of higher capital gains and dividend taxes.
The historical record is clear on this as well. In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.
In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level collected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.
The Obama administration and members of Congress should study the record on how the economy reacts to changes in the tax code. The president's economic team has launched a three-pronged attack on capital: They are attacking the income group that is the most responsible for capital formation and jobs in the private sector, and then attacking the investment returns on capital formation in the form of dividends and capital gains. The out-year projections on revenues from these tax increases will prove to be phantom.
Mr. Hauser is chairman emeritus of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and chairman of Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, a San Francisco investment management firm. He is the author of "Taxation and Economic Performance" (Hoover Press, 1996).
Lord Monckton on Climategate
The brilliant scientific advisor of former British P.M. Margaret Thatcher, whom I have had the honor of exchanging a couple of e-mails with regarding AGW, is naming names and taking no prisoners at the 2nd International Climate Conference
Enjoy:
Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference from CFACT on Vimeo.
Enjoy:
Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference from CFACT on Vimeo.
Friday, December 10, 2010
A Raw Deal For Republicans?
The President and the congressional Republicans reached a deal on Tuesday regarding extending the Bush era tax rates for all Americans. The deal now faces stiff challenge in both legislative bodies since it drew the ire of the president's hard left, wealth redistibutionist constituency including key congressional Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, mostly seem to be content since the deal signals at least a temporary departure from the Keynesian policies of the administration. Ditto with most right leaning pundits and analysts. But, are they being a little too hasty in their glee? Lets examine.
The conventional wisdom among those who support the deal is that it will boost economic growth and job creation as an extension of it. Republicans got what they wanted: a two year extension of the tax rates for everyone, unchanged 15% dividend and capital gains rates, and a one year 100% expensing for business investments. The President got his wish list: a thirteen month extension of the unemployment benefits, a one year 2% payroll witholding tax cut in return for doing away with the "making work pay" tax credits, and a partial return of the estate tax (35% on estates over $5 million as opposed to the 55% the rate would have reset at). On the down side, there were no deals made to curb the out of control spending the government has been on for the past two plus years.
Overall, the short term winner will be the tax payers and, I would argue, the President who looks to be moderating to the independents who had deserted him and his party. The deal, however, is full of potential pitfalls for the Republicans. If it fails to make a substantial dent in the unemployment figures, it will put Obama in the position to be able to say that the supply side policies not only failed to work but increased our debt by almost another trillion dollars, and that will only help the Democrats in 2012.
It is entirely possible that this deal will not be the silver bullet for our woes, thus hurt the Republican prospects in 2012. We are in midst of a jobless recovery for a simple reason. We do not have a credit liquidity crisis. As also evidenced by nearly $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines, job creators - the entrepreneurs - do not have the necessary confidence in the future to expand. Numerous surveys done by State Street Investor Confidence Index, the Conference Board, and other business groups like NFIB (that indicate continued weak, albeit somewhat improving, confidence) bear this out. The reasons for this entrepreneurial pessimism are:
Consumer confidence - CCI remains low. The average American consumer is still worried about job security and, until spending ramps up in a meaningful way, businesses will be in a wait-and-see mode as far as hiring permanent employees is concerned. Jobs and spending depend on each other, thus making the current situation a temporary catch-22 until the vicious cycle can be broken.
Uncertainty of the tax picture - Temporary two year extension of the Bush tax rates for the upper bracket, which most small businesses formed as LLCs or S corporations pay their taxes on, is not a reason for any wise entrepreneur to make any significant investment requiring many more years than two to amortize. The corporate tax rate, which is the highest effective rate among developed nations, remains the same therefore there is no added incentive for bigger businesses to expand or not to move their operations overseas. The value of temporary tax cuts and different tax credit schemes is minimal at best. Permanence of such tax incentives is the only surefire way of incentivizing the private sector.
Worsening regulatory environment - Regulations, except for the most essential few, are primary killers of innovation and job creation. They often result in curbing business activity or in some cases moving them overseas to countries with more business friendly environments. New anti-business regulations - environmental and otherwise - under the Obama administration are surging. Come January 2011, progressives will still be in charge of the executive branch and one of the legislative branches, therefore it would be overly optimistic to expect industry to grow except in cases of cronyism with companies like G.E. We saw the latest example of this last week with the drilling ban off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as most of Gulf of Mexico waters - a purely ideological decision that will cost tens of thousands of jobs.
Possible inflation - The only reason we do not have price inflation at the moment (other than in energy, healthcare, and some food stuffs) is that inflation is a function of not only the money supply (M2 which includes M1 plus all the savings) but velocity (economic activity) of the money supply. In simple terms, faster the expanded money supply circulates in the economy, higher the prices will go as supply and demand principles dictate. If this deep recession accomplished anything, it changed the spending habits of many Americans. Extensive and persistent joblessness, a daily news item, has driven those still employed in to reevaluating their spending/saving habits. Unemployment, combined with more savings conscious consumers, account for the relatively low velocity of the money supply.
Another way that an import based, consumption oriented economy can suffer higher prices is through the destruction of its currency. A weak dollar means more expensive imported goods, and since we consume a lot more imported goods than domestic goods, consumers would suffer the crippling effects of price inflation irregardless of M2 or velocity variables. This, in turn, can be corrosive to the job generating capability of our economy, as it was the case during stagflation of late1970s.
The decision of the Fed chairman Bernanke to monetize our debt under the guise of QE2 will only hasten the destruction of the dollar, which at the moment is being prevented on the most part thanks to the relative weakness of key currencies from the Euro to the Yen.
The national debt and government policy - The U.S. national debt is at $13.8 trillion and counting. We are running annual deficits of over a trillion dollars and the projected 10 year budget deficits looks grim without major government reforms. Many states are also in fiscal trouble, with California (the 7th largest economy in the world) running $40 billion plus annual deficits and its humongous state pension funds going broke. To top it all, unfunded liabilities for social security and Medicare are estimated to be around $110 trillion.
Business investment, by nature, is a long term proposition. Robust business investment requires reasonable confidence in the future course of the economy. To attain it, following must happen:
Perhaps more importantly, the current crop of politicians, including many establishment Republicans, are simply not willing to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg as they all benefit from the corrupt system of crony capitalism that we are mired in. It remains to be seen if the new TEA Party Republicans can accomplish a bloodless coup of sorts. Forces in Washington being what they are (special interest groups, lobbyists, etc.), the odds are stacked against them.
E.U. woes - Finally, the debt troubles of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) threaten not only further expansion of massive social unrest that almost all EU countries are experiencing but contagion among their economies. U.S., through their disproportionate financial support of IMF, stands to be pulled in much deeper than expected. In fact, just last week unnamed administration officials hinted at possibility of expanding the IMF's EU bailout fund despite reservations from Germany. This, due to our fragile fiscal situation, obviously would do further harm to our struggling economy - another in the long list of factors casting doubt on a healthy and sustained recovery on the part of entrepreneurs.
All the above reasons why the private sector is nervous and lacking confidence point to one inescapable conclusion regarding the deal struck with the President: Job creation over the next two years is likely to be insignificant barring major reforms. Since the players, with the exception of a Republican House of Representatives, will be the same ones who, to borrow a phrase, "drove the bus in to the ditch", why would any reasonable observer expect a different result?
I fear that overzealous, 'half a loaf is better than none' thinking congressional Republicans may just have made a raw deal for themselves and it may take the progressive wing of the Democrat party to bail them out by voting it down.
The conventional wisdom among those who support the deal is that it will boost economic growth and job creation as an extension of it. Republicans got what they wanted: a two year extension of the tax rates for everyone, unchanged 15% dividend and capital gains rates, and a one year 100% expensing for business investments. The President got his wish list: a thirteen month extension of the unemployment benefits, a one year 2% payroll witholding tax cut in return for doing away with the "making work pay" tax credits, and a partial return of the estate tax (35% on estates over $5 million as opposed to the 55% the rate would have reset at). On the down side, there were no deals made to curb the out of control spending the government has been on for the past two plus years.
Overall, the short term winner will be the tax payers and, I would argue, the President who looks to be moderating to the independents who had deserted him and his party. The deal, however, is full of potential pitfalls for the Republicans. If it fails to make a substantial dent in the unemployment figures, it will put Obama in the position to be able to say that the supply side policies not only failed to work but increased our debt by almost another trillion dollars, and that will only help the Democrats in 2012.
It is entirely possible that this deal will not be the silver bullet for our woes, thus hurt the Republican prospects in 2012. We are in midst of a jobless recovery for a simple reason. We do not have a credit liquidity crisis. As also evidenced by nearly $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines, job creators - the entrepreneurs - do not have the necessary confidence in the future to expand. Numerous surveys done by State Street Investor Confidence Index, the Conference Board, and other business groups like NFIB (that indicate continued weak, albeit somewhat improving, confidence) bear this out. The reasons for this entrepreneurial pessimism are:
Consumer confidence - CCI remains low. The average American consumer is still worried about job security and, until spending ramps up in a meaningful way, businesses will be in a wait-and-see mode as far as hiring permanent employees is concerned. Jobs and spending depend on each other, thus making the current situation a temporary catch-22 until the vicious cycle can be broken.
Uncertainty of the tax picture - Temporary two year extension of the Bush tax rates for the upper bracket, which most small businesses formed as LLCs or S corporations pay their taxes on, is not a reason for any wise entrepreneur to make any significant investment requiring many more years than two to amortize. The corporate tax rate, which is the highest effective rate among developed nations, remains the same therefore there is no added incentive for bigger businesses to expand or not to move their operations overseas. The value of temporary tax cuts and different tax credit schemes is minimal at best. Permanence of such tax incentives is the only surefire way of incentivizing the private sector.
Worsening regulatory environment - Regulations, except for the most essential few, are primary killers of innovation and job creation. They often result in curbing business activity or in some cases moving them overseas to countries with more business friendly environments. New anti-business regulations - environmental and otherwise - under the Obama administration are surging. Come January 2011, progressives will still be in charge of the executive branch and one of the legislative branches, therefore it would be overly optimistic to expect industry to grow except in cases of cronyism with companies like G.E. We saw the latest example of this last week with the drilling ban off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as most of Gulf of Mexico waters - a purely ideological decision that will cost tens of thousands of jobs.
Possible inflation - The only reason we do not have price inflation at the moment (other than in energy, healthcare, and some food stuffs) is that inflation is a function of not only the money supply (M2 which includes M1 plus all the savings) but velocity (economic activity) of the money supply. In simple terms, faster the expanded money supply circulates in the economy, higher the prices will go as supply and demand principles dictate. If this deep recession accomplished anything, it changed the spending habits of many Americans. Extensive and persistent joblessness, a daily news item, has driven those still employed in to reevaluating their spending/saving habits. Unemployment, combined with more savings conscious consumers, account for the relatively low velocity of the money supply.
Another way that an import based, consumption oriented economy can suffer higher prices is through the destruction of its currency. A weak dollar means more expensive imported goods, and since we consume a lot more imported goods than domestic goods, consumers would suffer the crippling effects of price inflation irregardless of M2 or velocity variables. This, in turn, can be corrosive to the job generating capability of our economy, as it was the case during stagflation of late1970s.
The decision of the Fed chairman Bernanke to monetize our debt under the guise of QE2 will only hasten the destruction of the dollar, which at the moment is being prevented on the most part thanks to the relative weakness of key currencies from the Euro to the Yen.
The national debt and government policy - The U.S. national debt is at $13.8 trillion and counting. We are running annual deficits of over a trillion dollars and the projected 10 year budget deficits looks grim without major government reforms. Many states are also in fiscal trouble, with California (the 7th largest economy in the world) running $40 billion plus annual deficits and its humongous state pension funds going broke. To top it all, unfunded liabilities for social security and Medicare are estimated to be around $110 trillion.
Business investment, by nature, is a long term proposition. Robust business investment requires reasonable confidence in the future course of the economy. To attain it, following must happen:
- Government must get serious about reforming entitlements
- A low tax, low regulatory environment is required for a more competitive U.S.
- To allow a low tax environment, government spending has to be realigned consistent with a smaller, more constitutional government
- Overall, government must become more efficient and free market oriented.
Perhaps more importantly, the current crop of politicians, including many establishment Republicans, are simply not willing to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg as they all benefit from the corrupt system of crony capitalism that we are mired in. It remains to be seen if the new TEA Party Republicans can accomplish a bloodless coup of sorts. Forces in Washington being what they are (special interest groups, lobbyists, etc.), the odds are stacked against them.
E.U. woes - Finally, the debt troubles of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) threaten not only further expansion of massive social unrest that almost all EU countries are experiencing but contagion among their economies. U.S., through their disproportionate financial support of IMF, stands to be pulled in much deeper than expected. In fact, just last week unnamed administration officials hinted at possibility of expanding the IMF's EU bailout fund despite reservations from Germany. This, due to our fragile fiscal situation, obviously would do further harm to our struggling economy - another in the long list of factors casting doubt on a healthy and sustained recovery on the part of entrepreneurs.
All the above reasons why the private sector is nervous and lacking confidence point to one inescapable conclusion regarding the deal struck with the President: Job creation over the next two years is likely to be insignificant barring major reforms. Since the players, with the exception of a Republican House of Representatives, will be the same ones who, to borrow a phrase, "drove the bus in to the ditch", why would any reasonable observer expect a different result?
I fear that overzealous, 'half a loaf is better than none' thinking congressional Republicans may just have made a raw deal for themselves and it may take the progressive wing of the Democrat party to bail them out by voting it down.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Nightmare Act
Congress is poised to vote this week on contentious legislation carving a pathway to legal status for hundreds of thousands of undocumented students living in the United States.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday filed cloture on the DREAM Act, setting the stage for a vote as early as Wednesday morning.
Dynamics of immigration have changed drastically over the past century. In the early part of the 20th century, the work ethics of the poor Italian and Polish immigrants is now replaced by a self-interest-above-all driven group of illegal immigrants who openly defy our laws. Short of a blanket amnesty to 12-20 million illegals in this country, most of whom are here to not only better their lives but to milk the generous welfare state we have created, Democrats would love nothing better than bribing the youth of the modern day immigrants who are most likely to support their party, thus perhaps irreversibly tilting the electoral playing field towards their ideology.
This is a clear insult to every law abiding immigrant wannabe who has to wait years for an incompetent INS to clear their path towards U.S. citizenship. Moreover, if it clears both chambers of the legislature, and signed by the President, the DREAM Act is surely to become the Nightmare Act for anyone who believes that rewarding illegal behavior will only increase the magnitude of it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday filed cloture on the DREAM Act, setting the stage for a vote as early as Wednesday morning.
Dynamics of immigration have changed drastically over the past century. In the early part of the 20th century, the work ethics of the poor Italian and Polish immigrants is now replaced by a self-interest-above-all driven group of illegal immigrants who openly defy our laws. Short of a blanket amnesty to 12-20 million illegals in this country, most of whom are here to not only better their lives but to milk the generous welfare state we have created, Democrats would love nothing better than bribing the youth of the modern day immigrants who are most likely to support their party, thus perhaps irreversibly tilting the electoral playing field towards their ideology.
This is a clear insult to every law abiding immigrant wannabe who has to wait years for an incompetent INS to clear their path towards U.S. citizenship. Moreover, if it clears both chambers of the legislature, and signed by the President, the DREAM Act is surely to become the Nightmare Act for anyone who believes that rewarding illegal behavior will only increase the magnitude of it.
Eco-Diplomacy, The Chicago Way
IBD Editorials
Posted 12/06/2010
Leaked embassy dispatches show an America bribing some and threatening others to get support for a climate change accord, revealing just how weak the case for such a treaty really is.
Sometimes it is worth seeing how the sausage — or in the case of climate change, the baloney — is made. While the WikiLeaks focus has been on the leaking of classified documents, the content of some of them is revealing.
David Carrington in Britain's Guardian shows how the U.S., after failing to get a successor treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol in Denmark, bribed, threatened and cajoled nations to get support for a "Copenhagen accord" under which nations would pledge to meet individual goals in the absence of a binding one-size-fits-all treaty.
In one instance, Hillary Clinton's State Department, acting on a request from the CIA, sent a secret cable on July 31, 2009, seeking "human intelligence" from U.N. diplomats on which nations were being naughty and which were being nice on climate change and which might be making deals to circumvent Copenhagen goals.
We were essentially seeking dirt on nations opposed to the administration's approach to fighting alleged global warming, and we were not above blackmail to get nations to comply with our position or threats that involved the cutting off of financial assistance promised to poorer nations said to be impacted by climate change.
The accord promised $30 billion in aid to these nations impacted by climate change. A Feb. 2, 2009, cable from Ethiopia reports that in a meeting between U.S. Undersecretary of State Marcia Otero and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the U.S. threatened to cut off assistance unless Ethiopia loudly backed the accord.
Zenawi, who heads the African Union's climate-change negotiations, agrees to support the accord but wonders why the threat was made after receiving personal assurances from President Obama that the promised aid would be delivered.
A Feb. 23, 2010, cable shows the Maldive Islands' ambassador-designate to the U.S., Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, telling the U.S. deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing, to essentially "show me the money," asking for "tangible assistance" in exchange for support for the accord and noting that other nations would then see "the advantages to be gained by compliance."
The linkage between financial aid and support for the accord appeared again Feb. 11, when Pershing met with Connie Hedeguard, EU climate action commissioner, in Brussels. A cable shows her telling Pershing "the Aosis (Alliance of Small Island States) countries 'could be our best allies' given their need for financing."
Once again we are confronted with the one thing that is missing from this picture — sound science. Climate change hysteria has been generated as a means to redistribute the world's wealth and to provide a rationale for expanding government control over every aspect of our lives. But this climate Kabuki theater has little to do with saving the Earth from a real and imminent threat.
Confronted with a demonstrably cooling planet and a corrupt and fraudulent global climate-change bureaucracy, our government is reduced to bribes and coercion to cobble together a new agreement. In the absence of sound science and a rationale for committing global economic suicide, we are quite simply trying to make the world an offer it can't refuse.
Posted 12/06/2010
Leaked embassy dispatches show an America bribing some and threatening others to get support for a climate change accord, revealing just how weak the case for such a treaty really is.
Sometimes it is worth seeing how the sausage — or in the case of climate change, the baloney — is made. While the WikiLeaks focus has been on the leaking of classified documents, the content of some of them is revealing.
David Carrington in Britain's Guardian shows how the U.S., after failing to get a successor treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol in Denmark, bribed, threatened and cajoled nations to get support for a "Copenhagen accord" under which nations would pledge to meet individual goals in the absence of a binding one-size-fits-all treaty.
In one instance, Hillary Clinton's State Department, acting on a request from the CIA, sent a secret cable on July 31, 2009, seeking "human intelligence" from U.N. diplomats on which nations were being naughty and which were being nice on climate change and which might be making deals to circumvent Copenhagen goals.
We were essentially seeking dirt on nations opposed to the administration's approach to fighting alleged global warming, and we were not above blackmail to get nations to comply with our position or threats that involved the cutting off of financial assistance promised to poorer nations said to be impacted by climate change.
The accord promised $30 billion in aid to these nations impacted by climate change. A Feb. 2, 2009, cable from Ethiopia reports that in a meeting between U.S. Undersecretary of State Marcia Otero and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the U.S. threatened to cut off assistance unless Ethiopia loudly backed the accord.
Zenawi, who heads the African Union's climate-change negotiations, agrees to support the accord but wonders why the threat was made after receiving personal assurances from President Obama that the promised aid would be delivered.
A Feb. 23, 2010, cable shows the Maldive Islands' ambassador-designate to the U.S., Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, telling the U.S. deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing, to essentially "show me the money," asking for "tangible assistance" in exchange for support for the accord and noting that other nations would then see "the advantages to be gained by compliance."
The linkage between financial aid and support for the accord appeared again Feb. 11, when Pershing met with Connie Hedeguard, EU climate action commissioner, in Brussels. A cable shows her telling Pershing "the Aosis (Alliance of Small Island States) countries 'could be our best allies' given their need for financing."
Once again we are confronted with the one thing that is missing from this picture — sound science. Climate change hysteria has been generated as a means to redistribute the world's wealth and to provide a rationale for expanding government control over every aspect of our lives. But this climate Kabuki theater has little to do with saving the Earth from a real and imminent threat.
Confronted with a demonstrably cooling planet and a corrupt and fraudulent global climate-change bureaucracy, our government is reduced to bribes and coercion to cobble together a new agreement. In the absence of sound science and a rationale for committing global economic suicide, we are quite simply trying to make the world an offer it can't refuse.
Friday, December 3, 2010
U.S. Subsidizing European Socialism
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
December 3, 2010
If you had a child whom you discovered to be a drug addict, would you subsidize his or her drug habit? Let me guess, if you were a responsible parent who wished for nothing more than your child to kick the habit, you would do anything but subsidize their addiction. Unless, of course, you yourself were a hopeless addict.
According to Reuters, at least one U.S. official has indicated that we are ready to support a bigger IMF E.U. stabilization fund. Any which way you slice it, that is U.S. tax dollars aimed at propping up the failing social democracies of Europe, folks.
The falling european dominoes that started with Greece and Ireland is now threatening to proliferate into even larger E.U. economies in Portugal, Spain, and Italy. No one, including the E.U. members, is disputing the fact that the fundamental reason behind all this carnage is their decades long, overly generous social democracies that have reached the tipping point of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Since even the German government is against expanding the stabilization fund, who better to bail european socialism out than the Obama Administration. When it comes to socialism, it takes one to support one.
American Thinker
December 3, 2010
If you had a child whom you discovered to be a drug addict, would you subsidize his or her drug habit? Let me guess, if you were a responsible parent who wished for nothing more than your child to kick the habit, you would do anything but subsidize their addiction. Unless, of course, you yourself were a hopeless addict.
According to Reuters, at least one U.S. official has indicated that we are ready to support a bigger IMF E.U. stabilization fund. Any which way you slice it, that is U.S. tax dollars aimed at propping up the failing social democracies of Europe, folks.
The falling european dominoes that started with Greece and Ireland is now threatening to proliferate into even larger E.U. economies in Portugal, Spain, and Italy. No one, including the E.U. members, is disputing the fact that the fundamental reason behind all this carnage is their decades long, overly generous social democracies that have reached the tipping point of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Since even the German government is against expanding the stabilization fund, who better to bail european socialism out than the Obama Administration. When it comes to socialism, it takes one to support one.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Pigford and New Black Panthers: Friends at DOJ
Following is an article by the former DOJ whistle blower J. Christian Adams that appeared in today's Big Government web site. Pigford II is now a done deal, awaiting only the president's signature to become the latest law that will waste tax payers money on fraudulent claims. Payolas continue.
--------
At the Justice Department, one man has played a central role in two of the most controversial racialist policies of the Obama Administration – Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. This bundler of huge campaign contributions for the Obama Campaign is now the second highest ranking Presidential appointee at the Justice Department. Perrelli is best known for his central role in dismissing the slam dunk voter intimidation case brought and dropped against the New Black Panther Party. But the leftist Perrelli has outdone himself.
This week, the House passed a $4.6 billion payout to American Indians and black farmers as part of a settlement of alleged race discrimination claims. BigGovernment.com has reported extensively, on the “Pigford II” settlement and how it promotes fraud. Worse than fraud, it represents a race-driven political payoff by the Obama Administration to a favored political constituency.
Nothing happens in Washington like the Pigford settlement without the Justice Department. The DOJ, acting as the nation’s law firm, was intimately involved in piloting the Pigford settlement through Congress and reaching similar settlements with other identity politics plaintiffs. Perrelli ran the show at Justice in all of these efforts.
In fact, a large portion of the settlement windfall escapes Congressional approval entirely because Perreilli’s shop at DOJ also approved a similar but separate settlement with Hispanic farmers. Instead of a Congressional appropriation, Hispanic farmers will be paid out of an existing “judgment fund.”
Like the black farmers, Hispanic farmers made claims of racial discrimination in the administration of Agriculture Department loans. But Hispanic farmers added noisy street protests outside of the Justice Department’s headquarters. No wonder Perrelli’s DOJ made a settlement offer of $1.3 billion in this lawsuit. And over $680 million will flow to Indian claimants as part of the Perrelli approved “Keepseagle” lawsuit settlement.
Billions of taxpayer dollars will now flow to black, Hispanic, women and Indian farmers, or those who thought about farming. In the administration of the original Pigford settlement in the 1990’s, even city dwellers who never farmed received payouts. After all, the “discriminatory” policies discouraged them from becoming farmers.
The Justice Department usually plays hardball when it comes to monetary settlements. In fact, the DOJ lawyers, including Perrelli, have an ethical obligation to protect the interests of the United States. But like the New Black Panther dismissal, none of old rules apply anymore.
Change means change.
Perrelli became the administration cheerleader for a colossal payout to the Hispanic, Indian and black farmer claimants. And just like the Pigford and Keepseagle claimants, the New Black Panthers seemed to have friends in high places inside Justice.
Perrelli played the central role in rushing a resolution to these claims before the Republicans took control of the purse strings in January. Instead of fighting hard to limit the exposure of the United States, the claimants had a fellow traveler on the opposite side of the negotiating table.
Similarly, Perrelli was behind the dismissal of the already won DOJ case against the New Black Panthers who organized and ran an armed voter intimidation effort the day Obama was elected. Justice officials acted as advocates for the New Black Panthers more than they sought to protect the ballot box from armed thugs.
Did Perrelli’s zeal to have the case dismissed have anything to do with the New Black Panther’s endorsement of candidate Obama during the primaries?
Judicial Watch sued the DOJ under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain Black Panther documents. They uncovered stacks of emails between Perrelli and his top political lieutenants supervising the lawsuit. They reveal Justice Department political appointees, including Perrelli, intimately involved behind the scenes in driving the dismissal.
Of course the documents contradict testimony given under oath over and over again to Congress and the Civil Rights Commission that only career civil servants were involved in the dismissal. This accuracy-challenged testimony came from both Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez.
Perrelli was the Justice official most responsible for the sketchy windfall settlements to black, Indian and Hispanic farmers. Instead of protecting the interests of the United States, he helped line the pockets of the President’s closest political allies. This is hardly surprising to anyone who followed Perrelli’s central role in ensuring that the New Black Panthers escaped sanctions for armed voter intimidation. You can’t beat having friends in high places.
--------
At the Justice Department, one man has played a central role in two of the most controversial racialist policies of the Obama Administration – Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. This bundler of huge campaign contributions for the Obama Campaign is now the second highest ranking Presidential appointee at the Justice Department. Perrelli is best known for his central role in dismissing the slam dunk voter intimidation case brought and dropped against the New Black Panther Party. But the leftist Perrelli has outdone himself.
This week, the House passed a $4.6 billion payout to American Indians and black farmers as part of a settlement of alleged race discrimination claims. BigGovernment.com has reported extensively, on the “Pigford II” settlement and how it promotes fraud. Worse than fraud, it represents a race-driven political payoff by the Obama Administration to a favored political constituency.
Nothing happens in Washington like the Pigford settlement without the Justice Department. The DOJ, acting as the nation’s law firm, was intimately involved in piloting the Pigford settlement through Congress and reaching similar settlements with other identity politics plaintiffs. Perrelli ran the show at Justice in all of these efforts.
In fact, a large portion of the settlement windfall escapes Congressional approval entirely because Perreilli’s shop at DOJ also approved a similar but separate settlement with Hispanic farmers. Instead of a Congressional appropriation, Hispanic farmers will be paid out of an existing “judgment fund.”
Like the black farmers, Hispanic farmers made claims of racial discrimination in the administration of Agriculture Department loans. But Hispanic farmers added noisy street protests outside of the Justice Department’s headquarters. No wonder Perrelli’s DOJ made a settlement offer of $1.3 billion in this lawsuit. And over $680 million will flow to Indian claimants as part of the Perrelli approved “Keepseagle” lawsuit settlement.
Billions of taxpayer dollars will now flow to black, Hispanic, women and Indian farmers, or those who thought about farming. In the administration of the original Pigford settlement in the 1990’s, even city dwellers who never farmed received payouts. After all, the “discriminatory” policies discouraged them from becoming farmers.
The Justice Department usually plays hardball when it comes to monetary settlements. In fact, the DOJ lawyers, including Perrelli, have an ethical obligation to protect the interests of the United States. But like the New Black Panther dismissal, none of old rules apply anymore.
Change means change.
Perrelli became the administration cheerleader for a colossal payout to the Hispanic, Indian and black farmer claimants. And just like the Pigford and Keepseagle claimants, the New Black Panthers seemed to have friends in high places inside Justice.
Perrelli played the central role in rushing a resolution to these claims before the Republicans took control of the purse strings in January. Instead of fighting hard to limit the exposure of the United States, the claimants had a fellow traveler on the opposite side of the negotiating table.
Similarly, Perrelli was behind the dismissal of the already won DOJ case against the New Black Panthers who organized and ran an armed voter intimidation effort the day Obama was elected. Justice officials acted as advocates for the New Black Panthers more than they sought to protect the ballot box from armed thugs.
Did Perrelli’s zeal to have the case dismissed have anything to do with the New Black Panther’s endorsement of candidate Obama during the primaries?
Judicial Watch sued the DOJ under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain Black Panther documents. They uncovered stacks of emails between Perrelli and his top political lieutenants supervising the lawsuit. They reveal Justice Department political appointees, including Perrelli, intimately involved behind the scenes in driving the dismissal.
Of course the documents contradict testimony given under oath over and over again to Congress and the Civil Rights Commission that only career civil servants were involved in the dismissal. This accuracy-challenged testimony came from both Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez.
Perrelli was the Justice official most responsible for the sketchy windfall settlements to black, Indian and Hispanic farmers. Instead of protecting the interests of the United States, he helped line the pockets of the President’s closest political allies. This is hardly surprising to anyone who followed Perrelli’s central role in ensuring that the New Black Panthers escaped sanctions for armed voter intimidation. You can’t beat having friends in high places.
Mockery Of The U.S. Constitution
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
December 1, 2010
U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon - a Bill Clinton appointee - in Lynchburg, Virginia, became the second judge to uphold the constitutionality of the insurance mandates of the new federal healthcare law. The suit that was brought by Liberty University essentially argued that the mandate to buy insurance or to pay a penalty was not a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In his opinion, Moon wrote, "there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market."
Under this rationale, everything we do or refuse to do under the sun can be regulated by the government using the Commerce Clause argument. As anyone who has been following the legal twists of this saga knows, even the Obama administration had started to give up on the Commerce Clause argument due to its weakness and was starting to focus on the government's ability to tax as the enabling constitutional argument to defend the law. Apparently, Judge Moon is so partisan that, as a legal scholar, he could not even see past the foolishness of using the Commerce Clause as the proper constitutional argument behind this legislation.
This opinion is just the latest mockery of what our founding fathers would have envisioned our justice system to be. Lets hope that the judges in subsequent cases as well as the Supreme Court have a better understanding and more respect for our Constitution.
American Thinker
December 1, 2010
U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon - a Bill Clinton appointee - in Lynchburg, Virginia, became the second judge to uphold the constitutionality of the insurance mandates of the new federal healthcare law. The suit that was brought by Liberty University essentially argued that the mandate to buy insurance or to pay a penalty was not a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In his opinion, Moon wrote, "there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market."
Under this rationale, everything we do or refuse to do under the sun can be regulated by the government using the Commerce Clause argument. As anyone who has been following the legal twists of this saga knows, even the Obama administration had started to give up on the Commerce Clause argument due to its weakness and was starting to focus on the government's ability to tax as the enabling constitutional argument to defend the law. Apparently, Judge Moon is so partisan that, as a legal scholar, he could not even see past the foolishness of using the Commerce Clause as the proper constitutional argument behind this legislation.
This opinion is just the latest mockery of what our founding fathers would have envisioned our justice system to be. Lets hope that the judges in subsequent cases as well as the Supreme Court have a better understanding and more respect for our Constitution.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Pigford II Outrage - Reparations Under A Different Name
A couple of months ago, I had written about a $1.5 billion fraudulent scheme to help solidify the unwavering support of a staunchly Democrat constituency - namely the African-Americans - called Pigford II settlement. This is an update to what amounts to be reparations under fraudulent pretenses.
Congress is rushing through its lame duck session to finally appropriate funds to pay out claims from the Pigford II settlement. The settlement is meant to clear up claims from black farmers who claim discrimination from USDA and also missed out on the first settlement.
The legislation sets aside $1.5 billion to pay these claims. The legislation also makes cuts in other federal programs to “pay for” the new spending. Among the cuts are $500 million for nutrition programs for women, infants and children.
From the Senate language:
Subtitle E–Rescission of Funds From WIC Program
SEC. 841. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM WIC PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts made available in appropriations Acts to provide grants to States under the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), $562,000,000 is rescinded.
Well.
The left likes to couch everything they do as for “the children” and the disadvantaged. Okay, so, why cut funds from child nutrition to pay a second round of claims for a lawsuit surrounded by allegations of fraud?
It is simple, really. The left is really about pay-offs to interest groups. If a child nutrition program loses funds, well, that’s the price to pay to move money around to a more favored group.
Congress is rushing through its lame duck session to finally appropriate funds to pay out claims from the Pigford II settlement. The settlement is meant to clear up claims from black farmers who claim discrimination from USDA and also missed out on the first settlement.
The legislation sets aside $1.5 billion to pay these claims. The legislation also makes cuts in other federal programs to “pay for” the new spending. Among the cuts are $500 million for nutrition programs for women, infants and children.
From the Senate language:
Subtitle E–Rescission of Funds From WIC Program
SEC. 841. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM WIC PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts made available in appropriations Acts to provide grants to States under the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), $562,000,000 is rescinded.
Well.
The left likes to couch everything they do as for “the children” and the disadvantaged. Okay, so, why cut funds from child nutrition to pay a second round of claims for a lawsuit surrounded by allegations of fraud?
It is simple, really. The left is really about pay-offs to interest groups. If a child nutrition program loses funds, well, that’s the price to pay to move money around to a more favored group.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Bernanke's Delusion
According to Wednesday's news story, the Fed Chairman expects the $600 billion QE2 (a.k.a. monetization of our debt) to create upwards of 700 thousand jobs by the way of lower interest rates stimulating the economy.
I do not even know where to start with this. First of all, what does the Chairman think this installment of QE will accomplish in the way of job creation that the previous QE could not do despite its size (which was triple the size of QE2)? Second, is it possible that Bernanke does not know (or admit) what every living soul knows by now that this is not a liquidity crisis, but rather a confidence crisis borne out of uncertainty created by the current government's policies? In what recess of his dark mind does the Fed Chairman intellectualize that the dangers posed by debasing the dollar for an import based, consumer oriented economy is outweighed by potential (and imagined) benefits of his actions?
This kind of unchecked power, exercised by a few elitists like our president, congressmen, Federal Reserve, and federal judges, will be the end of this great nation if more people do not wake up to the kinds of danger they pose to the well being and liberty of all Americans.
I do not even know where to start with this. First of all, what does the Chairman think this installment of QE will accomplish in the way of job creation that the previous QE could not do despite its size (which was triple the size of QE2)? Second, is it possible that Bernanke does not know (or admit) what every living soul knows by now that this is not a liquidity crisis, but rather a confidence crisis borne out of uncertainty created by the current government's policies? In what recess of his dark mind does the Fed Chairman intellectualize that the dangers posed by debasing the dollar for an import based, consumer oriented economy is outweighed by potential (and imagined) benefits of his actions?
This kind of unchecked power, exercised by a few elitists like our president, congressmen, Federal Reserve, and federal judges, will be the end of this great nation if more people do not wake up to the kinds of danger they pose to the well being and liberty of all Americans.
Is Establishment GOP About To Double-Cross TEA Party?
The historic gains made by the Republicans in the recent elections were in most part due to the popular push towards the First Principles backed by the TEA Party movement. It now seems that some of those establishment Republicans who were up for election might have only temporarily shed their wolf's clothing for that of a sheep's. Even the establishment politicians realize, however, that there may be a price to pay if they go back to their old, status quo spending ways, thus the explanation of widespread support among them for a largely symbolic earmark ban (which does not amount to any significant impact on the nation's fiscal woes). So what else have the establishment Republicans been doing since they captured the House of representatives?
This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)
But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.
House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much. Not one newly-elected Congressman will serve on any of these committees, according to the House GOP Leadership. The 80+ GOP members just elected will have no voice in any of the debates about spending, taxes, entitlements, bailouts or health care. The incumbent GOP Congressmen, many of whom helped create this mess, will handle it.
This year, freshman members make up about one-third of the GOP caucus. Excluding them from “A” committees is a deliberate action. It requires willful action and jostling of assignments to pull it off. You have to go out of your way to ensure that one-third of a caucus is excluded from these committees. Unfortunately, the House GOP Leadership did go out of its way.
If this GOP Leadership rule prevails, expect a great deal of disappointment next year. As much as it pains me to say this but maybe Barack Obama is partially right; maybe we are just handing the keys back to the same members who drove us into this ditch.
This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)
But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.
House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much. Not one newly-elected Congressman will serve on any of these committees, according to the House GOP Leadership. The 80+ GOP members just elected will have no voice in any of the debates about spending, taxes, entitlements, bailouts or health care. The incumbent GOP Congressmen, many of whom helped create this mess, will handle it.
This year, freshman members make up about one-third of the GOP caucus. Excluding them from “A” committees is a deliberate action. It requires willful action and jostling of assignments to pull it off. You have to go out of your way to ensure that one-third of a caucus is excluded from these committees. Unfortunately, the House GOP Leadership did go out of its way.
If this GOP Leadership rule prevails, expect a great deal of disappointment next year. As much as it pains me to say this but maybe Barack Obama is partially right; maybe we are just handing the keys back to the same members who drove us into this ditch.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Conservative v.s. Liberal - Funny
As e-mail notification will not display video, go to my blog to watch this hilarious video. Typifies how liberals argue.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Expecting All Of Bush Tax Cuts To Be Made Permanent?
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
November 13, 2010
The president, on last Saturday's weekly address said "at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." He added that we'd be digging our graves deeper while passing the burden on to our children.
This from a man who spent all of last week rationalizing that it was not his progressive agenda (translation: massive spending, to be exact wealth redistribution, disguised as stimulus and healthcare reform) but rather lack of effective communication that caused voters to reject Democrats in a historic landslide. Such rhetoric coming from such a narcissistic, self absorbed ideologue who has racked up more debt than any U.S. president before him is height of insincerity. Not only that Obama is delusional about why his party (and ideology) suffered such a devastating defeat last week, but his unwavering Marxist ideology has him blinded to what a three year old should be able to reason out.
No, Mr. President, it is not your (the government's) money, therefore the premise that making the cuts permanent would somehow be unfair or unaffordable is nothing but a canard. You need to learn the intellectually honest, true meaning of fairness. It is not those in the top 2-5-10, or even 25% who consume more government services than they contribute to. It is on the most part your constituency -- you know, the ones your ideology (as represented by your policies) buys in return for robbing their souls of personal responsibility and self reliance.
In the U.S., federal revenues from income taxes (as well as real job creation) come disproportionately from those liberals continually vilify. The left simply views the so-called rich as their piggy bank to achieve social justice. To them, the rich have simply exploited the underclasses of the society as if we live in a caste system that does not allow upward mobility; as such they must pay to correct the injustices they have subjected the masses to. As this demented 'economy is a zero sum game' view permeates the progressive liberal mindset, do not expect this president to agree to anything more than a temporary extension of the tax cuts.
American Thinker
November 13, 2010
The president, on last Saturday's weekly address said "at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." He added that we'd be digging our graves deeper while passing the burden on to our children.
This from a man who spent all of last week rationalizing that it was not his progressive agenda (translation: massive spending, to be exact wealth redistribution, disguised as stimulus and healthcare reform) but rather lack of effective communication that caused voters to reject Democrats in a historic landslide. Such rhetoric coming from such a narcissistic, self absorbed ideologue who has racked up more debt than any U.S. president before him is height of insincerity. Not only that Obama is delusional about why his party (and ideology) suffered such a devastating defeat last week, but his unwavering Marxist ideology has him blinded to what a three year old should be able to reason out.
No, Mr. President, it is not your (the government's) money, therefore the premise that making the cuts permanent would somehow be unfair or unaffordable is nothing but a canard. You need to learn the intellectually honest, true meaning of fairness. It is not those in the top 2-5-10, or even 25% who consume more government services than they contribute to. It is on the most part your constituency -- you know, the ones your ideology (as represented by your policies) buys in return for robbing their souls of personal responsibility and self reliance.
In the U.S., federal revenues from income taxes (as well as real job creation) come disproportionately from those liberals continually vilify. The left simply views the so-called rich as their piggy bank to achieve social justice. To them, the rich have simply exploited the underclasses of the society as if we live in a caste system that does not allow upward mobility; as such they must pay to correct the injustices they have subjected the masses to. As this demented 'economy is a zero sum game' view permeates the progressive liberal mindset, do not expect this president to agree to anything more than a temporary extension of the tax cuts.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Bernanke's Folly
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
November 10, 2010
The Fed Chairman made it official that they will be implementing QE2 (Quantitative Easing) in the form of buying back $600 billion in U.S. treasuries. For those who need clarification, this translates in to monetizing our debt, which by the way Mr. Bernanke had testified to the congress that he would not do.
The intended purpose of this foolish act is to nudge interest rates lower, make credit even cheaper, and consequently (and hopefully) jolt the faltering economy back in to health by providing excess liquidity to the credit markets. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences, as Bill Gross of PIMCO - manager of world's largest mutual fund company - speculates is 20% or more devaluation of the dollar.
This decision, which even some Fed members apparently disagree with, once again demonstrates Fed Chairman Bernake's incompetence/deviousness (the latter for those who are "audit the Fed" type conspiracy buffs).
For any hypothesis (a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations - in this case the alleged effectiveness of QE) to be tested for reasonableness, principles surrounding it and facts in the form of empirical evidence must bear it out with a great degree of certainty.
First lets examine the premise itself, based on the following series of facts:
Fact: The U.S. dollar itself is the most significant, non-human asset we have as a nation. It is still the most important single global currency.
Fact: Federal debt financing is conducted in U.S. dollars, through the sale of U.S. treasuries to domestic as well as foreign investors.
Fact: The dollar is backed by the good faith and credit of the United States of America since we went off the Gold Standard.
Fact: U.S. manufacturing base has continually shrunk over the past 50 or so years, to the point where we are a service based economy. Translation: We import a heck of a lot more goods than we export.
Fact: Should the dollar devalue, it would not only make financing the debt that much more expensive but inflation would be unavoidable due to our dependence on foreign goods.
Fact: The U.S. federal government has a debt problem; nearly $13.8 trillion at the federal level to be exact. Looming over the horizon is another $111 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities, which cast further doubt on the good faith investors need to have on the ability of the U.S. government to honor its debt.
The above facts are undeniable realities that govern the consequences of any Fed action. Now, lets review empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of QE as a monetary tool to stimulate economies.
The two most prominent instances of QE being used are the 2001-2006 Japan and QE1 (November 2008) in the U.S. (The Euro Zone has also tinkered with some variants of QE)
In Japan's case, QE was primarily used to control CPI deflation. Many economist debate whether it has worked or not. I am in the camp of those who argue that it was the high oil prices of the period that ended Japan's deflationary problems.
As far as the expansion of the Japanese economy during that period, it was largely self-financed by corporations’ free cash flow and therefore not constrained by an absence of banks’ lending. In other words, there was no real connection with the QE policy of Bank of Japan.
Finally, the FRBSF Economic News Letter of October 20, 2006 concludes that the outcome of the Japanese policy remains uncertain.
QE was subsequently tried in the U.S., starting in November 2008. The Fed supplied additional liquidity to the banking system to the tune of $1 trillion plus. The expected $600 billion QE2 and any possible subsequent amounts will assure an additional $2 trillion or more liquidity to the U.S. banking system within the past two years. Unfortunately, the result has once again disappointed in that despite the additional liquidity, usage of credit has been lacking, as also witnessed by the worsening unemployment rate since the QE policy was undertaken by the Fed.
In conclusion, whether QE works or not is as unsettled as AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) is. A static analysis of available data may suggest some success but a more dynamic analysis would lead most observers to hold a healthy dose of skepticism.
As to the unintended consequence of QE 2, application of basic economic principles suffice for abandoning the policy. QE, as its planned implementation suggests, will most likely cause the U.S. dollar to decline in value vis-a-vis to other global currencies. It is a basic economic fact that printing money without creating corresponding economic activity in the form of goods and/or services debases a currency.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason QE will not work in this instance is that we do not have a credit availability problem. Our woes are simply based on a crisis of confidence. All surveys of businesses have consistently indicated that businesses, small and large, are nervous about the regulatory environment as well as the uncertainty of possible tax hikes. Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of investing them, partially because of record low consumer confidence and partially because of the uncertainties this administration and congress have created over the past two years. Simply, no amount of liquidity will entice businesses to invest and create jobs - at least not until the business environment improves.
As the true, real world, practicing economic giants like Roubini, Gross, and Schiff (unlike academics like Krugman) say: allow the economy to restructure. Do not gamble away the reputation of the dollar in return for imagined short term benefits. Superficial meddling will only be digging our grave deeper. If these warnings are not heeded, as Mr. Roubini puts it, "the only light at the end of the tunnel so far is the one of the incoming train wreck, unfortunately..."
American Thinker
November 10, 2010
The Fed Chairman made it official that they will be implementing QE2 (Quantitative Easing) in the form of buying back $600 billion in U.S. treasuries. For those who need clarification, this translates in to monetizing our debt, which by the way Mr. Bernanke had testified to the congress that he would not do.
The intended purpose of this foolish act is to nudge interest rates lower, make credit even cheaper, and consequently (and hopefully) jolt the faltering economy back in to health by providing excess liquidity to the credit markets. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences, as Bill Gross of PIMCO - manager of world's largest mutual fund company - speculates is 20% or more devaluation of the dollar.
This decision, which even some Fed members apparently disagree with, once again demonstrates Fed Chairman Bernake's incompetence/deviousness (the latter for those who are "audit the Fed" type conspiracy buffs).
For any hypothesis (a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations - in this case the alleged effectiveness of QE) to be tested for reasonableness, principles surrounding it and facts in the form of empirical evidence must bear it out with a great degree of certainty.
First lets examine the premise itself, based on the following series of facts:
Fact: The U.S. dollar itself is the most significant, non-human asset we have as a nation. It is still the most important single global currency.
Fact: Federal debt financing is conducted in U.S. dollars, through the sale of U.S. treasuries to domestic as well as foreign investors.
Fact: The dollar is backed by the good faith and credit of the United States of America since we went off the Gold Standard.
Fact: U.S. manufacturing base has continually shrunk over the past 50 or so years, to the point where we are a service based economy. Translation: We import a heck of a lot more goods than we export.
Fact: Should the dollar devalue, it would not only make financing the debt that much more expensive but inflation would be unavoidable due to our dependence on foreign goods.
Fact: The U.S. federal government has a debt problem; nearly $13.8 trillion at the federal level to be exact. Looming over the horizon is another $111 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities, which cast further doubt on the good faith investors need to have on the ability of the U.S. government to honor its debt.
The above facts are undeniable realities that govern the consequences of any Fed action. Now, lets review empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of QE as a monetary tool to stimulate economies.
The two most prominent instances of QE being used are the 2001-2006 Japan and QE1 (November 2008) in the U.S. (The Euro Zone has also tinkered with some variants of QE)
In Japan's case, QE was primarily used to control CPI deflation. Many economist debate whether it has worked or not. I am in the camp of those who argue that it was the high oil prices of the period that ended Japan's deflationary problems.
As far as the expansion of the Japanese economy during that period, it was largely self-financed by corporations’ free cash flow and therefore not constrained by an absence of banks’ lending. In other words, there was no real connection with the QE policy of Bank of Japan.
Finally, the FRBSF Economic News Letter of October 20, 2006 concludes that the outcome of the Japanese policy remains uncertain.
QE was subsequently tried in the U.S., starting in November 2008. The Fed supplied additional liquidity to the banking system to the tune of $1 trillion plus. The expected $600 billion QE2 and any possible subsequent amounts will assure an additional $2 trillion or more liquidity to the U.S. banking system within the past two years. Unfortunately, the result has once again disappointed in that despite the additional liquidity, usage of credit has been lacking, as also witnessed by the worsening unemployment rate since the QE policy was undertaken by the Fed.
In conclusion, whether QE works or not is as unsettled as AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) is. A static analysis of available data may suggest some success but a more dynamic analysis would lead most observers to hold a healthy dose of skepticism.
As to the unintended consequence of QE 2, application of basic economic principles suffice for abandoning the policy. QE, as its planned implementation suggests, will most likely cause the U.S. dollar to decline in value vis-a-vis to other global currencies. It is a basic economic fact that printing money without creating corresponding economic activity in the form of goods and/or services debases a currency.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason QE will not work in this instance is that we do not have a credit availability problem. Our woes are simply based on a crisis of confidence. All surveys of businesses have consistently indicated that businesses, small and large, are nervous about the regulatory environment as well as the uncertainty of possible tax hikes. Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of investing them, partially because of record low consumer confidence and partially because of the uncertainties this administration and congress have created over the past two years. Simply, no amount of liquidity will entice businesses to invest and create jobs - at least not until the business environment improves.
As the true, real world, practicing economic giants like Roubini, Gross, and Schiff (unlike academics like Krugman) say: allow the economy to restructure. Do not gamble away the reputation of the dollar in return for imagined short term benefits. Superficial meddling will only be digging our grave deeper. If these warnings are not heeded, as Mr. Roubini puts it, "the only light at the end of the tunnel so far is the one of the incoming train wreck, unfortunately..."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Problem Is...
From PatriotPost.US:
Blaming voters for not getting the message: "I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine closely as I go forward." --Barack Obama
Editor's Note: Obama gave 42 news conferences during his first year in office, which is twice as many as George W. Bush did in the same period. On top of that, he visited 58 cities in 30 states, held 21 town hall meetings and read 52 speeches off the teleprompter telling us the virtues of ObamaCare. The problem is not a failure to communicate -- the problem is that he did communicate.
Blaming voters for not getting the message: "I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine closely as I go forward." --Barack Obama
Editor's Note: Obama gave 42 news conferences during his first year in office, which is twice as many as George W. Bush did in the same period. On top of that, he visited 58 cities in 30 states, held 21 town hall meetings and read 52 speeches off the teleprompter telling us the virtues of ObamaCare. The problem is not a failure to communicate -- the problem is that he did communicate.
Mystery Missile off West Coast?
After decades of downsizing and inadeqaute spending on hardware, do you think our national defenses are adequate?
As ABC News reports "Mystery Missile: Launch of Unknown Missile Caught on Tape in California".
Possibly the Chinese or the Russians fire a missile 35 miles of the coast of Los Angeles, and Pentagon has no clue who could it have been!?
I seriously doubt that it was a model rocket hobbyist. Lets hope that, whoever it was, next time their intent isn't more serious.
As ABC News reports "Mystery Missile: Launch of Unknown Missile Caught on Tape in California".
Possibly the Chinese or the Russians fire a missile 35 miles of the coast of Los Angeles, and Pentagon has no clue who could it have been!?
I seriously doubt that it was a model rocket hobbyist. Lets hope that, whoever it was, next time their intent isn't more serious.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Comrade Atkins Admits Communist Infiltration of Democratic Party
Patriot's note: Trevor, who publishes New Zeal, is in my view one of the most valuable servants to the cause of liberty. I strongly urge everyone to scour his site; the education that awaits you is invaluable (and scary). The following article is a great example of the detective work you will find on his site. Enjoy
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Zeal
November 10, 2010
This blog has long contended that the Communist Party USA and other Marxist groups have heavily infiltrated the Democratic Party.
This has enabled the Communist Party to both influence Democratic Party policy and to choose and promote Democratic candidates at all levels.
Writing on the Party website Political Affairs, comrade C.J. Atkins admits that Communists indeed do work inside the Democratic Party, including on state level policy committees.
Comrade Atkins also admits that Party members work in in Democratic-aligned organizations including Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, the Campaign for America’s Future or the New York Working Families Party.
The context here is that Atkins believes that the Party is stigmatized by the "communist" label and should drop the name, in order to more easily and effectively work through the Democrats and other "mainstream" organizations.
Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it. This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees. More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.
However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.
All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well.
It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such. By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates. Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.
So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice. The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century. It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times. We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.
The Communist Party USA works closely with the Communist parties of Cuba, China, Russia, and with many Latin America, Africa and Asia.
It's loyalties do not lie with the United States of America, but with a re-energized and growing international communist movement.
The fact that the Communist Party USA has heavily infiltrated the Party of President Barack Obama, a man the Communists call a "friend" should be very big news.
Why isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Zeal
November 10, 2010
This blog has long contended that the Communist Party USA and other Marxist groups have heavily infiltrated the Democratic Party.
This has enabled the Communist Party to both influence Democratic Party policy and to choose and promote Democratic candidates at all levels.
Writing on the Party website Political Affairs, comrade C.J. Atkins admits that Communists indeed do work inside the Democratic Party, including on state level policy committees.
Comrade Atkins also admits that Party members work in in Democratic-aligned organizations including Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, the Campaign for America’s Future or the New York Working Families Party.
The context here is that Atkins believes that the Party is stigmatized by the "communist" label and should drop the name, in order to more easily and effectively work through the Democrats and other "mainstream" organizations.
Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it. This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees. More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.
However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.
All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well.
It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such. By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates. Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.
So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice. The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century. It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times. We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.
The Communist Party USA works closely with the Communist parties of Cuba, China, Russia, and with many Latin America, Africa and Asia.
It's loyalties do not lie with the United States of America, but with a re-energized and growing international communist movement.
The fact that the Communist Party USA has heavily infiltrated the Party of President Barack Obama, a man the Communists call a "friend" should be very big news.
Why isn't it?
Obama Saved Capitalism?
By: Kerem Oner
November 8, 2010
Originally published in American Thinker
Leftist journalists and intellectuals insist that Barack Obama is a moderate, and even credit him as a defender of capitalism, in an effort to refute the charge he is leading America toward socialism. A recent article, "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms" by Timothy Egan in last Tuesday's N.Y.Times is a perfect example of the disconnect between the elitist left, in this case a Pulitzer Prize winning one, and reality.
I have personally encountered variants of the same argument from progressives around me. The argument usually goes something like 'Obama has done nothing that Bush himself did not do (bank and auto company bailouts), therefore you cannot call him a socialist'. Excuse me? We, TEA Party types, are not usually accustomed to defending George W. Bush as he started the ball rolling down the hill with his Medicare Part D fiasco among other concessions to the Democrats and establishment Republicans in congress. However, we must draw a line somewhere between what Bush stood for and what Obama has been shoving down Americans' throats.
It might be useful for Mr. Egan to re-visit history.
Bush was told by just about everyone around him that the $700 billion TARP was a necessity for the survival of the financial markets. Whether you supported it or not, TARP at the very least unlit the fuse of financial armageddon global markets were faced with. More importantly, the U.S. Treasury got repaid, with interest, by everyone but a couple of companies. At the end, TARP will have cost a small fraction of its original price tag to the tax payer.
As far as the bailouts of G.M. and Chrysler are concerned, after much consideration and in part as a concession to have TARP passed, Bush threw an ill conceived temporary lifeline to G.M. Nothing more. It was the Obama administration that blackmailed and skewered the bond holders of those companies in favor of the unions.
Head fakes, like pointing to the stock market performance over the past two years by likes of Mr. Egan to prove that Obama has been good for capitalism, may fool the inattentive and the liberals but unfortunately the American consumers and businesses are not buying them as witnessed by business confidence surveys, and lack of private sector job creation despite record low interest rates as well as nearly $2 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines. The reason? Toxic (and uncertain) regulatory and tax environment created by the policies of Obama administration.
In contrast to president Bush, Obama supported and signed the economically destructive ARRA (stimulus), healthcare reform, financial reform, and equal pay legislation among other, lesser known, bills. Perhaps more revealing were some of the bills he wanted passed but did not succeed: card check that would amount to forced unionization, and Waxman-Markey (aka cap and trade) that would have cost average american family approximately $3,900 annually besides costing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy.
Even putting his radical pre-presidential history aside, Obama has proven by his rhetoric as well as actions that he is nothing short of a hard left ideologue with Marxist inspirations.
You can skin a cat in many ways, but any which way you skin this one, president Obama has been as toxic to the U.S. economy as no other president has been in recent memory.
November 8, 2010
Originally published in American Thinker
Leftist journalists and intellectuals insist that Barack Obama is a moderate, and even credit him as a defender of capitalism, in an effort to refute the charge he is leading America toward socialism. A recent article, "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms" by Timothy Egan in last Tuesday's N.Y.Times is a perfect example of the disconnect between the elitist left, in this case a Pulitzer Prize winning one, and reality.
I have personally encountered variants of the same argument from progressives around me. The argument usually goes something like 'Obama has done nothing that Bush himself did not do (bank and auto company bailouts), therefore you cannot call him a socialist'. Excuse me? We, TEA Party types, are not usually accustomed to defending George W. Bush as he started the ball rolling down the hill with his Medicare Part D fiasco among other concessions to the Democrats and establishment Republicans in congress. However, we must draw a line somewhere between what Bush stood for and what Obama has been shoving down Americans' throats.
It might be useful for Mr. Egan to re-visit history.
Bush was told by just about everyone around him that the $700 billion TARP was a necessity for the survival of the financial markets. Whether you supported it or not, TARP at the very least unlit the fuse of financial armageddon global markets were faced with. More importantly, the U.S. Treasury got repaid, with interest, by everyone but a couple of companies. At the end, TARP will have cost a small fraction of its original price tag to the tax payer.
As far as the bailouts of G.M. and Chrysler are concerned, after much consideration and in part as a concession to have TARP passed, Bush threw an ill conceived temporary lifeline to G.M. Nothing more. It was the Obama administration that blackmailed and skewered the bond holders of those companies in favor of the unions.
Head fakes, like pointing to the stock market performance over the past two years by likes of Mr. Egan to prove that Obama has been good for capitalism, may fool the inattentive and the liberals but unfortunately the American consumers and businesses are not buying them as witnessed by business confidence surveys, and lack of private sector job creation despite record low interest rates as well as nearly $2 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines. The reason? Toxic (and uncertain) regulatory and tax environment created by the policies of Obama administration.
In contrast to president Bush, Obama supported and signed the economically destructive ARRA (stimulus), healthcare reform, financial reform, and equal pay legislation among other, lesser known, bills. Perhaps more revealing were some of the bills he wanted passed but did not succeed: card check that would amount to forced unionization, and Waxman-Markey (aka cap and trade) that would have cost average american family approximately $3,900 annually besides costing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy.
Even putting his radical pre-presidential history aside, Obama has proven by his rhetoric as well as actions that he is nothing short of a hard left ideologue with Marxist inspirations.
You can skin a cat in many ways, but any which way you skin this one, president Obama has been as toxic to the U.S. economy as no other president has been in recent memory.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Want To See Liberal Policies At Work? Look At California
If one thing was made clear as a result of last Tuesday's elections, it is that Americans in general are rejecting big, intrusive government policies at all levels. Democrats lost big not only in governorships and U.S. Senate seats, but also in state legislatures - nineteen states flipped over to the Republicans to be exact. Which state was the notable exception to succumbing to the red tide? Why, California, of course.
Californians collectively have learned nothing from their history. Yes, California bucked the national trend once more by solidifying the Democrat leadership that has turned one of the bread baskets of the U.S., the once 5th largest economy in the world, in to the basket case of United States.
Consider the following.
Californians gave Senator Boxer - a vile partisan with outright radical views from removing all limitations on late term abortions to rabid environmentalism that is literally killing her state's economy - another six years.
Californians replaced their RINO governor with, who else, former governor "It is all a lie" Jerry Brown. The same governor who, by signing the Dill Act in 1978, all but sealed California's faith. Read about California's pension fund mess here.
Just as devastatingly, Californians returned all the incumbent Democrats to their Democrat controlled Assembly and State Senate seats - even the dead ones. There were no net gains for Republicans at the state legislature.
As a former resident of California, it is saddening to see such destruction of a state blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile farmlands, and an industrious workforce that was once a role model for other states to follow. After decades of unrelenting progressive liberal rule, today, California is the poster child for a welfare state. How far has the state fallen? Consider these stark economic, fiscal, and social realities that the state is faced with:
• Unemployment rate of over 12%, translating in to nearly 2.5 million jobless Californians
• Unfunded state public pension liabilities of half a trillion dollars
• Between $10-$20 billion dollars annual illegal immigrant related costs
• Highest state sales tax and third highest income tax burden in the country
• 2010 State budget deficit of $45.5 billion out of a budget of $86 billion - the highest in the nation and state's history
• Over 15% of the population living in poverty and approximately 30% of the welfare recipients in the U.S.
• During the first decade of the new millennia, the state lost 640,000 factory jobs which translates in to loss of 34% of the state's industrial base. Every passing month adds to new businesses fleeing the state.
• Tax Foundation's 2011 "State Business Tax Climate Index" ranks California 49th in the nation
• Ronald Pollina's ranking for job creation: 50th.
• ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) 2010 study on state economic outlook ranks the state 46th.
• ALEC economic performance ranking for 1998-2008 is 38th.
• Death of agriculture in the central valley, thanks in great part to progressives in the state legislature
• Highest concentration of nations 20 million or so illegal immigrants
• Net population loss due to migration ranking of 8th.
• ALEC public education performance rank: 30th.
In almost all the above categories, California has been on a continuous decline due to unchecked environmentalism and otherwise progressivism run amuck. The environmentalist groups like Sierra Club, moochers of generous welfare recipients, and state unions effectively have full representation in the state legislature while the hard working citizens and businesses are locked out.
With one of the worst business regulatory environments in the country, just about highest taxes (both individual and corporate), fleeing businesses, declining population, and crumbling societal institutions like its failing schools, rest of the U.S. needs only to look at California to understand what a correct choice they made in last Tuesday's elections. We hope that the good people of the state will join most of the rest of Americans in waking up and kicking the bums out, before it is too late.
Californians collectively have learned nothing from their history. Yes, California bucked the national trend once more by solidifying the Democrat leadership that has turned one of the bread baskets of the U.S., the once 5th largest economy in the world, in to the basket case of United States.
Consider the following.
Californians gave Senator Boxer - a vile partisan with outright radical views from removing all limitations on late term abortions to rabid environmentalism that is literally killing her state's economy - another six years.
Californians replaced their RINO governor with, who else, former governor "It is all a lie" Jerry Brown. The same governor who, by signing the Dill Act in 1978, all but sealed California's faith. Read about California's pension fund mess here.
Just as devastatingly, Californians returned all the incumbent Democrats to their Democrat controlled Assembly and State Senate seats - even the dead ones. There were no net gains for Republicans at the state legislature.
As a former resident of California, it is saddening to see such destruction of a state blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile farmlands, and an industrious workforce that was once a role model for other states to follow. After decades of unrelenting progressive liberal rule, today, California is the poster child for a welfare state. How far has the state fallen? Consider these stark economic, fiscal, and social realities that the state is faced with:
• Unemployment rate of over 12%, translating in to nearly 2.5 million jobless Californians
• Unfunded state public pension liabilities of half a trillion dollars
• Between $10-$20 billion dollars annual illegal immigrant related costs
• Highest state sales tax and third highest income tax burden in the country
• 2010 State budget deficit of $45.5 billion out of a budget of $86 billion - the highest in the nation and state's history
• Over 15% of the population living in poverty and approximately 30% of the welfare recipients in the U.S.
• During the first decade of the new millennia, the state lost 640,000 factory jobs which translates in to loss of 34% of the state's industrial base. Every passing month adds to new businesses fleeing the state.
• Tax Foundation's 2011 "State Business Tax Climate Index" ranks California 49th in the nation
• Ronald Pollina's ranking for job creation: 50th.
• ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) 2010 study on state economic outlook ranks the state 46th.
• ALEC economic performance ranking for 1998-2008 is 38th.
• Death of agriculture in the central valley, thanks in great part to progressives in the state legislature
• Highest concentration of nations 20 million or so illegal immigrants
• Net population loss due to migration ranking of 8th.
• ALEC public education performance rank: 30th.
In almost all the above categories, California has been on a continuous decline due to unchecked environmentalism and otherwise progressivism run amuck. The environmentalist groups like Sierra Club, moochers of generous welfare recipients, and state unions effectively have full representation in the state legislature while the hard working citizens and businesses are locked out.
With one of the worst business regulatory environments in the country, just about highest taxes (both individual and corporate), fleeing businesses, declining population, and crumbling societal institutions like its failing schools, rest of the U.S. needs only to look at California to understand what a correct choice they made in last Tuesday's elections. We hope that the good people of the state will join most of the rest of Americans in waking up and kicking the bums out, before it is too late.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Left Still Does Not Get It
The tsunami that swept the Democrats Tuesday night may not have been a vote of confidence for the Republicans, but it was at the very least repudiation of progressive policies that have been ravaging America. The conservative point of view won because Americans still believe in the superiority of our system and in American exceptionalism.
Some on the left clearly disagree. Next morning, I had the displeasure of reading an article by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast. Beinart, an elitist left wing raving lunatic of the same magnitude as Paul Krugman, is a political writer for The Daily Beast, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation - a fringe left organization dedicated to social democratization of America.
Beinart, like other dedicated socialists in politics, media, and academia, has apparently been busy rationalizing the defeat Democrats suffered Tuesday night. In his article, he opines that Republican victory will end up helping Obama get re-elected in 2012 as he will be seen as a check on Republican radicalism (he adds "as Bill Clinton did in 1996", which shows his mind boggling ignorance as Clinton moderated greatly after his party's 1994 defeat - remember "the era of big government is over"?)
He goes on to lament that the big loser of the night was Keynesianism. Here is a guy who thinks that the world's best economists (likes of Paul Krugman no doubt - a legend in his own mind to say the least) are screaming that abandoning Keynesian policies is exactly the wrong thing at this moment. I mean, how irrational can a progressive liberal get? Maybe Mr. Beinart (who is not an economist or, quiet obviously, has any understanding of economics), could point to a single instance of Keynesian policies succeeding in the modern era? Did it succeed during the 1930's America, or in post WWII Europe, or in Japan for the past two decades? The answer is no in each case, unless of course your definition of success involves people getting further and further mired in centralized, stagnant economies that are flirting with bankruptcy.
The article goes on to claim that FDR made significant cuts to the federal budget in 1937, "which according to many economists prolonged the depression for several years". This statement alone qualifies Mr. Beinart as an intellectual midget. Is he not aware that the Great Depression had started more than a half decade before? Including Hoover's misdirected efforts to right the economic ship by a series of anti-trade, tax, and spending measures, U.S. implemented varying degrees of Keynesian policies for almost a decade before 1937. Shouldn't the question then be "if Keynesian policies did not work then, why would they work any other time"? Unfortunately, such reasoning lies beyond the intellectual limits of the liberal elite.
Mr. Beinart concludes his article with the usual progressive parting shot of questioning American exceptionalism by comparing upward mobility in India and China to that of American citizens. The merits of such an argument are non-existent since such comparisons cannot be made between the richest country in the world and some of the poorest.
Progressive liberals may not believe in American exceptionalism any more than Indian or Chinese exceptionalism because they do not believe in the promise that America holds for anyone who is within its borders regardless of their background. Believing in American exceptionalism would require them to abandon their collectivist ambitions.
Mr. Beinart (or Mr. Obama for that matter), American exceptionalism is borne out of the single greatest constitution in the world - the only one that truly empowers individuals over governmental entities. Our innovativeness, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth all attest to it. Do not confuse the concept of exceptionalism with superiority complex or arrogance, which you and all other progressive liberal elites suffer from.
Some on the left clearly disagree. Next morning, I had the displeasure of reading an article by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast. Beinart, an elitist left wing raving lunatic of the same magnitude as Paul Krugman, is a political writer for The Daily Beast, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation - a fringe left organization dedicated to social democratization of America.
Beinart, like other dedicated socialists in politics, media, and academia, has apparently been busy rationalizing the defeat Democrats suffered Tuesday night. In his article, he opines that Republican victory will end up helping Obama get re-elected in 2012 as he will be seen as a check on Republican radicalism (he adds "as Bill Clinton did in 1996", which shows his mind boggling ignorance as Clinton moderated greatly after his party's 1994 defeat - remember "the era of big government is over"?)
He goes on to lament that the big loser of the night was Keynesianism. Here is a guy who thinks that the world's best economists (likes of Paul Krugman no doubt - a legend in his own mind to say the least) are screaming that abandoning Keynesian policies is exactly the wrong thing at this moment. I mean, how irrational can a progressive liberal get? Maybe Mr. Beinart (who is not an economist or, quiet obviously, has any understanding of economics), could point to a single instance of Keynesian policies succeeding in the modern era? Did it succeed during the 1930's America, or in post WWII Europe, or in Japan for the past two decades? The answer is no in each case, unless of course your definition of success involves people getting further and further mired in centralized, stagnant economies that are flirting with bankruptcy.
The article goes on to claim that FDR made significant cuts to the federal budget in 1937, "which according to many economists prolonged the depression for several years". This statement alone qualifies Mr. Beinart as an intellectual midget. Is he not aware that the Great Depression had started more than a half decade before? Including Hoover's misdirected efforts to right the economic ship by a series of anti-trade, tax, and spending measures, U.S. implemented varying degrees of Keynesian policies for almost a decade before 1937. Shouldn't the question then be "if Keynesian policies did not work then, why would they work any other time"? Unfortunately, such reasoning lies beyond the intellectual limits of the liberal elite.
Mr. Beinart concludes his article with the usual progressive parting shot of questioning American exceptionalism by comparing upward mobility in India and China to that of American citizens. The merits of such an argument are non-existent since such comparisons cannot be made between the richest country in the world and some of the poorest.
Progressive liberals may not believe in American exceptionalism any more than Indian or Chinese exceptionalism because they do not believe in the promise that America holds for anyone who is within its borders regardless of their background. Believing in American exceptionalism would require them to abandon their collectivist ambitions.
Mr. Beinart (or Mr. Obama for that matter), American exceptionalism is borne out of the single greatest constitution in the world - the only one that truly empowers individuals over governmental entities. Our innovativeness, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth all attest to it. Do not confuse the concept of exceptionalism with superiority complex or arrogance, which you and all other progressive liberal elites suffer from.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
It Is Not Just The Economy, Stupid
It amuses me greatly to see progressive punditry try to rationalize the repudiation of progressive policies by the citizenry by repeating the old political cliche "it is the economy, stupid".
To them, I have a new cliche: "it is the Constitution, stupid".
Progressive policies inescapably center around massive, stifling federal government that is commonly referred among classic liberals as the "nanny state", yet what sets America apart from everyone else in the world is our almost genetically driven adherence to a Constitutional government as set forth in our founding documents.
At every given juncture in history, Americans have rejected the role of central government in planning and controlling every aspect of their daily lives. This in turn has allowed us to excell like no one else has. This is what is meant by "American exceptionalism", which Obama and most Democrats simply, and admittedly, do not understand or believe in.
Yes, occasional progressive eras have and will always derail America temporarily, but what sets us apart from everyone else is our can do attitude. Deep down, Americans believe in personal responsibility; and despite intentional corruption of our culture, on the most part still behold traditional values that will reject progressive liberalism every time. Today is just the latest one of those historic triumphs of the common sense of American people over the philosophy that governs everyone else. May god bless America, now and for ever.
To them, I have a new cliche: "it is the Constitution, stupid".
Progressive policies inescapably center around massive, stifling federal government that is commonly referred among classic liberals as the "nanny state", yet what sets America apart from everyone else in the world is our almost genetically driven adherence to a Constitutional government as set forth in our founding documents.
At every given juncture in history, Americans have rejected the role of central government in planning and controlling every aspect of their daily lives. This in turn has allowed us to excell like no one else has. This is what is meant by "American exceptionalism", which Obama and most Democrats simply, and admittedly, do not understand or believe in.
Yes, occasional progressive eras have and will always derail America temporarily, but what sets us apart from everyone else is our can do attitude. Deep down, Americans believe in personal responsibility; and despite intentional corruption of our culture, on the most part still behold traditional values that will reject progressive liberalism every time. Today is just the latest one of those historic triumphs of the common sense of American people over the philosophy that governs everyone else. May god bless America, now and for ever.
(At Least) 50 Reasons to Vote Democrat
As a public service for those who may still be undecided, here are at least 50 reasons to vote for your donkey candidate:
1) If you want the American government to be feared by the American people -- but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- vote Democrat.
2) If you want to agree with John Kerry that American voters are stupid and distracted and uninformed -- vote Democrat.
3) If you moved your 7-million-dollar yacht to Rhode Island to avoid taxes -- vote Democrat.
4) If you want a "dude" president -- and not the shining city on a hill -- vote Democrat.
5) If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 -- vote Democrat.
6) If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it -- vote Democrat.
7) If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago -- vote Democrat.
8) If you fear the Chamber of Commerce more than you do the Ground Zero Mosque -- vote Democrat.
9) If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California (or any one of western European countries), vote Democrat.
10) If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment -- vote Democrat.
11) If you want to pay six dollars a gallon for gas -- vote Democrat.
12) If you want electricity bills to "necessarily skyrocket" -- vote Democrat.
13) If you think America deserved what it got on 9-11 -- and that we can handle another such attack -- vote Democrat.
14) If you think that Club Gitmo, which was not even operational on 9-11, is why "they hate us" -- vote Democrat.
15) If you think our economy will boom with government bureaucrats making twice what similar folks make in the private sector -- vote Democrat.
16) If you think there's nothing wrong with Jerry Brown admitting that the last time he ran for governor of California, he "had no plan" -- vote Democrat.
17) If you think anything has changed about Jerry Brown and his plans -- vote Democrat.
18) If you liked Richard Blumenthal's answer in the Connecticut debate on "how to create a job" -- vote Democrat.
19) Actually, if you can even decipher Blumenthal's answer about creating a job -- vote Democrat.
20) If you think Michelle Obama actually added value to the health care system with her no-show three-hundred-thousand-dollar job in Chicago -- vote Democrat.
21) If you think John Edwards is sexy -- regardless of your gender -- vote Democrat.
22) If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
23) If you are stupid enough to think that being against a Federal Department of Education is the same as being against education -- vote Democrat.
24) If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting -- vote Democrat.
25) If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting -- vote Democrat.
26) If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised -- vote Democrat.
27) If you think Cuba is a success story -- vote Democrat.
28) If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crashing the housing market is an example of "unfettered capitalism" and a failure of the free market, then vote Democrat.
29) If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas -- vote Democrat.
30) If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill -- vote Democrat.
31) If Chris Matthews gives you a tingle up your leg -- instead of an upset stomach - then vote Democrat.
32) If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item -- and every preexisting condition -- and every illegal alien -- and stay in business -- vote Democrat.
33) If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 -- vote Democrat.
34) If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally -- vote Democrat.
35) If you think electric cars are the answer because they don't use energy -- vote Democrat.
36) If you don't want Nancy Pelosi to retire -- vote Democrat.
37) If you think that dissidents in countries like Iran and Tibet do not deserve our backing, while wannabe dictators in Panama and elsewhere do, vote Democrat.
38) If you think that the modern interpretation of the Constitution does not go far enough in providing "redistributive justice", vote Democrat.
39) If you think that the Republican Party and all Americans, who believe that the government needs to be scaled back if we are to survive, is the "enemy" and they need to shut up and "sit at the back of the car", vote Democrat.
40) If you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we need to implement economy killing measures to stop global warming, er.. climate change, er.. whatever it is being called this week, vote Democrat.
41) If you believe that "Heather has two mommies", "Flocabulary", and "Story of stuff" are more valuable to teach to public school students than U.S. Constitution and history, vote Democrat.
42) If you believe that top 10% of tax payers paying nearly 70% of the total tax burden is still not enough, vote Democrat.
43) If you believe that none of Obama appointees (or Obama himself) are socialists (or worse), vote Democrat.
44) If you think that corrupt-to-the-core Chicago political machine is the model that should serve for the rest of the nation, vote Democrat.
45) If you think that lawyers, who write the laws and lobby almost exclusively Democrats to enrich themselves by the implementation of those laws, are just swell, vote Democrat.
46) If you think that the only problem with the stimulus was that it was not big enough, vote Democrat.
47) If you believe that tax payer money should go exclusively to Democrats as campaign contributions from government unions such as AFSCME, vote Democrat.
48) If you believe that Soros and his organizations like the Tides Foundation, who leave no stone unturned in trying to convert the U.S. in to a socialist haven while installing a one world government, vote Democrat.
49) If you believe your friendly progressive before you believe your lying ears and eyes, vote Democrat.
50) If you believe that personal responsibility and hard work is for the birds, vote Democrat.
I hope this has helped any undecided voters.
1) If you want the American government to be feared by the American people -- but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- vote Democrat.
2) If you want to agree with John Kerry that American voters are stupid and distracted and uninformed -- vote Democrat.
3) If you moved your 7-million-dollar yacht to Rhode Island to avoid taxes -- vote Democrat.
4) If you want a "dude" president -- and not the shining city on a hill -- vote Democrat.
5) If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 -- vote Democrat.
6) If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it -- vote Democrat.
7) If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago -- vote Democrat.
8) If you fear the Chamber of Commerce more than you do the Ground Zero Mosque -- vote Democrat.
9) If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California (or any one of western European countries), vote Democrat.
10) If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment -- vote Democrat.
11) If you want to pay six dollars a gallon for gas -- vote Democrat.
12) If you want electricity bills to "necessarily skyrocket" -- vote Democrat.
13) If you think America deserved what it got on 9-11 -- and that we can handle another such attack -- vote Democrat.
14) If you think that Club Gitmo, which was not even operational on 9-11, is why "they hate us" -- vote Democrat.
15) If you think our economy will boom with government bureaucrats making twice what similar folks make in the private sector -- vote Democrat.
16) If you think there's nothing wrong with Jerry Brown admitting that the last time he ran for governor of California, he "had no plan" -- vote Democrat.
17) If you think anything has changed about Jerry Brown and his plans -- vote Democrat.
18) If you liked Richard Blumenthal's answer in the Connecticut debate on "how to create a job" -- vote Democrat.
19) Actually, if you can even decipher Blumenthal's answer about creating a job -- vote Democrat.
20) If you think Michelle Obama actually added value to the health care system with her no-show three-hundred-thousand-dollar job in Chicago -- vote Democrat.
21) If you think John Edwards is sexy -- regardless of your gender -- vote Democrat.
22) If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
23) If you are stupid enough to think that being against a Federal Department of Education is the same as being against education -- vote Democrat.
24) If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting -- vote Democrat.
25) If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting -- vote Democrat.
26) If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised -- vote Democrat.
27) If you think Cuba is a success story -- vote Democrat.
28) If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crashing the housing market is an example of "unfettered capitalism" and a failure of the free market, then vote Democrat.
29) If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas -- vote Democrat.
30) If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill -- vote Democrat.
31) If Chris Matthews gives you a tingle up your leg -- instead of an upset stomach - then vote Democrat.
32) If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item -- and every preexisting condition -- and every illegal alien -- and stay in business -- vote Democrat.
33) If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 -- vote Democrat.
34) If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally -- vote Democrat.
35) If you think electric cars are the answer because they don't use energy -- vote Democrat.
36) If you don't want Nancy Pelosi to retire -- vote Democrat.
37) If you think that dissidents in countries like Iran and Tibet do not deserve our backing, while wannabe dictators in Panama and elsewhere do, vote Democrat.
38) If you think that the modern interpretation of the Constitution does not go far enough in providing "redistributive justice", vote Democrat.
39) If you think that the Republican Party and all Americans, who believe that the government needs to be scaled back if we are to survive, is the "enemy" and they need to shut up and "sit at the back of the car", vote Democrat.
40) If you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we need to implement economy killing measures to stop global warming, er.. climate change, er.. whatever it is being called this week, vote Democrat.
41) If you believe that "Heather has two mommies", "Flocabulary", and "Story of stuff" are more valuable to teach to public school students than U.S. Constitution and history, vote Democrat.
42) If you believe that top 10% of tax payers paying nearly 70% of the total tax burden is still not enough, vote Democrat.
43) If you believe that none of Obama appointees (or Obama himself) are socialists (or worse), vote Democrat.
44) If you think that corrupt-to-the-core Chicago political machine is the model that should serve for the rest of the nation, vote Democrat.
45) If you think that lawyers, who write the laws and lobby almost exclusively Democrats to enrich themselves by the implementation of those laws, are just swell, vote Democrat.
46) If you think that the only problem with the stimulus was that it was not big enough, vote Democrat.
47) If you believe that tax payer money should go exclusively to Democrats as campaign contributions from government unions such as AFSCME, vote Democrat.
48) If you believe that Soros and his organizations like the Tides Foundation, who leave no stone unturned in trying to convert the U.S. in to a socialist haven while installing a one world government, vote Democrat.
49) If you believe your friendly progressive before you believe your lying ears and eyes, vote Democrat.
50) If you believe that personal responsibility and hard work is for the birds, vote Democrat.
I hope this has helped any undecided voters.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Let The Voting (And The Cheating) Begin
The long awaited day is only hours away. All indications point toward the American electorate on the most part being finally awakened to the horrifying reality of who Democrats really are.
All polls point toward a bloodbath like of which has not been seen in at least six decades, if not a century. This is, as Mark Levin puts it, the most critical election in our life times as far as survival of our constitutional republic goes.
The left fully realizes the undeniable reality of pending doom, even in reliably blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin. This is exactly why the amount of fraud in this election will also be unsurpassed in our life times. Fraud, afterall, can be the deciding factor in getting Democrats elected in close elections as it did with Senator Franken in Minnesota in 2008.
I documented some of the many instances of fraud that has already been perpetrated in this election cycle by the party of the dead and the undocumented. ACORN and the SEIU have been busy. So have local Democrat political machines everywhere from Maine to Hawaii.
In the latest news, Daytona Beach City Commissioner Derrick Henry and his campaign manager Genesis Robinson face dozens of felony charges involving alleged absentee ballot fraud from Henry's re-election campaign two months ago.
Authorities say they illegally obtained 92 absentee ballots to boost Henry's re-election chances. Some voters said they never requested absentee ballots that were in their names, which is a common complaint we have been hearing from across the country, and it echoes a new potentially explosive case.
In Pennsylvania, in the Eighth Congressional District of Bucks County, authorities tell us more than 500 absentee ballot applications are allegedly fraudulent.
Voters in sworn statements say someone made up excuses for why they needed absentee ballots, and they claim they never signed for them. Some, they say, include fabricated excuses for why they supposedly needed absentee ballots, such as citing "travel," when the voter had no plans to go anywhere.
Voter Patricia Phipps said someone came to her home, and "asked me to sign my name to prove that he was there. He told me that if he collected enough signatures, he would get to meet President Obama... I was never told that I was signing an absentee ballot request."
Voters also say they received letters soliciting absentee ballot applications from the "Pennsylvania Voters Assistance Office," threatening that they may not be able to vote if they did not cooperate and sign an absentee ballot application. The only problem? There is no such office. The letter said it was actually "paid for by PA Victory 2010, a project of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee."
Democratic sources tell Fox News there was "nothing sinister or malicious" about all this and that the letter was targeting Democratic voters.
In a statement, the State Democratic Party says "absentee applications have been rejected for routine reasons, the system is working, there's no evidence of any irregularity or problem."
But Republicans want all the absentee ballots impounded to prevent possible fraud, and a hearing is scheduled for Friday.
They accuse the Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy's campaign of being involved, accusing campaign workers of having voters include false or inaccurate information, which is illegal, on absentee ballot applications.
Murphy is in a close race with Republican challenger Mike Fitzpatrick. Requests for a response from the Murphy campaign were not returned.
Meanwhile, Democrats plan to accuse Republicans of encouraging absentee ballot fraud as well. The Democratic State Committee claims while the party "is working to make sure as many voters are able to participate in next week's election as possible, Republicans are spending their time trying to disenfranchise voters." I find it hillarious that the best Democrats can do is alway
The Bucks County absentee ballot case appears similar to the ongoing case in Troy, New York that have been extensively covered.
A special prosecutor has taken DNA samples from nine Troy public officials and political operatives, including five Democratic members of the City Council, in an absentee ballot scandal stemming from the 2009 Working Families Party primary there. The DNA will be compared to samples recovered from dozens of absentee ballots and ballot applications that were allegedly fraudulent. As in Bucks County, voters in Troy said they never filled out the applications.
In Troy, though, the excuses appear to be more creative than in Bucks County. Two ballot applications cite as the reason the voter supposedly couldn't go to the polls: "bus to casino."
Meanwhile, in Nevada next month, ACORN goes on trial for voter registration fraud charges. The troubled community activist group faces criminal charges stemming from its voter programs in the 2008 election.
The official who has brought that case, the Democratic Nevada Secretary of State, Ross Miller, is now on the trail of more allegations of possible voter fraud in his state in this election.
All polls point toward a bloodbath like of which has not been seen in at least six decades, if not a century. This is, as Mark Levin puts it, the most critical election in our life times as far as survival of our constitutional republic goes.
The left fully realizes the undeniable reality of pending doom, even in reliably blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin. This is exactly why the amount of fraud in this election will also be unsurpassed in our life times. Fraud, afterall, can be the deciding factor in getting Democrats elected in close elections as it did with Senator Franken in Minnesota in 2008.
I documented some of the many instances of fraud that has already been perpetrated in this election cycle by the party of the dead and the undocumented. ACORN and the SEIU have been busy. So have local Democrat political machines everywhere from Maine to Hawaii.
In the latest news, Daytona Beach City Commissioner Derrick Henry and his campaign manager Genesis Robinson face dozens of felony charges involving alleged absentee ballot fraud from Henry's re-election campaign two months ago.
Authorities say they illegally obtained 92 absentee ballots to boost Henry's re-election chances. Some voters said they never requested absentee ballots that were in their names, which is a common complaint we have been hearing from across the country, and it echoes a new potentially explosive case.
In Pennsylvania, in the Eighth Congressional District of Bucks County, authorities tell us more than 500 absentee ballot applications are allegedly fraudulent.
Voters in sworn statements say someone made up excuses for why they needed absentee ballots, and they claim they never signed for them. Some, they say, include fabricated excuses for why they supposedly needed absentee ballots, such as citing "travel," when the voter had no plans to go anywhere.
Voter Patricia Phipps said someone came to her home, and "asked me to sign my name to prove that he was there. He told me that if he collected enough signatures, he would get to meet President Obama... I was never told that I was signing an absentee ballot request."
Voters also say they received letters soliciting absentee ballot applications from the "Pennsylvania Voters Assistance Office," threatening that they may not be able to vote if they did not cooperate and sign an absentee ballot application. The only problem? There is no such office. The letter said it was actually "paid for by PA Victory 2010, a project of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee."
Democratic sources tell Fox News there was "nothing sinister or malicious" about all this and that the letter was targeting Democratic voters.
In a statement, the State Democratic Party says "absentee applications have been rejected for routine reasons, the system is working, there's no evidence of any irregularity or problem."
But Republicans want all the absentee ballots impounded to prevent possible fraud, and a hearing is scheduled for Friday.
They accuse the Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy's campaign of being involved, accusing campaign workers of having voters include false or inaccurate information, which is illegal, on absentee ballot applications.
Murphy is in a close race with Republican challenger Mike Fitzpatrick. Requests for a response from the Murphy campaign were not returned.
Meanwhile, Democrats plan to accuse Republicans of encouraging absentee ballot fraud as well. The Democratic State Committee claims while the party "is working to make sure as many voters are able to participate in next week's election as possible, Republicans are spending their time trying to disenfranchise voters." I find it hillarious that the best Democrats can do is alway
The Bucks County absentee ballot case appears similar to the ongoing case in Troy, New York that have been extensively covered.
A special prosecutor has taken DNA samples from nine Troy public officials and political operatives, including five Democratic members of the City Council, in an absentee ballot scandal stemming from the 2009 Working Families Party primary there. The DNA will be compared to samples recovered from dozens of absentee ballots and ballot applications that were allegedly fraudulent. As in Bucks County, voters in Troy said they never filled out the applications.
In Troy, though, the excuses appear to be more creative than in Bucks County. Two ballot applications cite as the reason the voter supposedly couldn't go to the polls: "bus to casino."
Meanwhile, in Nevada next month, ACORN goes on trial for voter registration fraud charges. The troubled community activist group faces criminal charges stemming from its voter programs in the 2008 election.
The official who has brought that case, the Democratic Nevada Secretary of State, Ross Miller, is now on the trail of more allegations of possible voter fraud in his state in this election.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Not Paying Attention? You Wish
David Harsanyi
October 27, 2010 - Reason Magazine
Who's going to argue with Sen. John Kerry's recent claim that the American electorate "doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening"?
Hey, that's why John Kerry keeps his job. That's why a simple three-word slogan and a bunch of saccharine speeches can propel a fresh political face into a spectacularly failed presidency.
And that's why the Party of Intellect, Decency, and Selflessness has a hallowed duty to point out the hard facts and truths about its opponents, those Aqua Buddha-worshipping, witchcraft-loving, Talibanish, rape-approving, women-hating, foreign-influence-peddling brutes.
Or, as the president calls them, the "enemy," a group so masterfully devious it can swindle a nation but yet too dumb to take seriously.
Without a doubt, Kerry's deft prognosis of the electorate allows that this epidemic of ignorance most often sweeps the nation when Democrats lose elections. Its existence—like that of PBS or the Coast Guard—is a mystery.
But these particular midterm elections are more intensely focused on philosophical disagreements and public policy than any in memory.
If you've been paying attention, you know it's not Sharron Angle's and Ken Buck's sophisticated personalities, soaring orations, or spellbinding answers that make them competitive. It's their ideology—and the ideology of their opponents.
Tea Party types are interested in ideology, not just the economy. They will be disappointed at the first whiff of "bipartisanship" consensus on spending. They will be irate when Republicans fail to shut down unnecessary federal departments as promised. (As others have pointed out, if the GOP doesn't have the stomach to defund those nerds at NPR, how can we expect it to repeal Obamacare?)
Most elections aren't as historically momentous as partisans would have us believe, but many can shift the trajectory of the national conversation for a long time.
Now that the Tea Party has cleared the brush and lived to tell about it, the next round of candidates will be far less apprehensive in advocating free market reforms. In fact, the next round of economically libertarian candidates—folks who never would have thought of running against the establishment previously—are likely to be more polished, impressive, and intellectually prepared to make their case.
They've been paying attention.
A new Rasmussen poll finds that 75 percent of likely voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. When further broken down, 90 percent of "mainstream" voters prefer free markets.
Among the "Political Class"—which I believe is technically defined as "people who hate America"—only 34 percent feels that the free market is better, and 30 percent likes a government-managed economy.
Anyone "paying attention" can see that a managed economy is a stagnant economy. Anyone "paying attention" can see that as clearly as he can see Nov. 2. There have been few elections as clearly delineated by ideological differences in action as this one.
So despite the claims by Democrats that voters are misled or confused, trust me; an electorate paying attention is the last thing they want.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
October 27, 2010 - Reason Magazine
Who's going to argue with Sen. John Kerry's recent claim that the American electorate "doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening"?
Hey, that's why John Kerry keeps his job. That's why a simple three-word slogan and a bunch of saccharine speeches can propel a fresh political face into a spectacularly failed presidency.
And that's why the Party of Intellect, Decency, and Selflessness has a hallowed duty to point out the hard facts and truths about its opponents, those Aqua Buddha-worshipping, witchcraft-loving, Talibanish, rape-approving, women-hating, foreign-influence-peddling brutes.
Or, as the president calls them, the "enemy," a group so masterfully devious it can swindle a nation but yet too dumb to take seriously.
Without a doubt, Kerry's deft prognosis of the electorate allows that this epidemic of ignorance most often sweeps the nation when Democrats lose elections. Its existence—like that of PBS or the Coast Guard—is a mystery.
But these particular midterm elections are more intensely focused on philosophical disagreements and public policy than any in memory.
If you've been paying attention, you know it's not Sharron Angle's and Ken Buck's sophisticated personalities, soaring orations, or spellbinding answers that make them competitive. It's their ideology—and the ideology of their opponents.
Tea Party types are interested in ideology, not just the economy. They will be disappointed at the first whiff of "bipartisanship" consensus on spending. They will be irate when Republicans fail to shut down unnecessary federal departments as promised. (As others have pointed out, if the GOP doesn't have the stomach to defund those nerds at NPR, how can we expect it to repeal Obamacare?)
Most elections aren't as historically momentous as partisans would have us believe, but many can shift the trajectory of the national conversation for a long time.
Now that the Tea Party has cleared the brush and lived to tell about it, the next round of candidates will be far less apprehensive in advocating free market reforms. In fact, the next round of economically libertarian candidates—folks who never would have thought of running against the establishment previously—are likely to be more polished, impressive, and intellectually prepared to make their case.
They've been paying attention.
A new Rasmussen poll finds that 75 percent of likely voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. When further broken down, 90 percent of "mainstream" voters prefer free markets.
Among the "Political Class"—which I believe is technically defined as "people who hate America"—only 34 percent feels that the free market is better, and 30 percent likes a government-managed economy.
Anyone "paying attention" can see that a managed economy is a stagnant economy. Anyone "paying attention" can see that as clearly as he can see Nov. 2. There have been few elections as clearly delineated by ideological differences in action as this one.
So despite the claims by Democrats that voters are misled or confused, trust me; an electorate paying attention is the last thing they want.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Obama: Both National Therapist and Patient
This fits well with my earlier post about liberal gene having been discovered. Enjoy.
--------
By: Jeannie DeAngelis
American Thinker
According to an "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up" Barack Obama, Americans are "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up."
With the midterm election less than a week away, Barack has decided that Americans, critical of liberal policies, are "confused and not thinking clearly."
Obama has assumed the diagnostic mantle and deemed the majority of the nation mentally unstable. However, voters are crystal clear that Barack's liberal way of thinking is the factor instigating the impending political backlash, and corporately resent the haughty suggestion that rejection of liberalism is driven by instability, depression and anxiety.
By treating the American electorate like a roomful of emotional cripples, Barack is reminding Americans that a national referendum is in order to deal with Obama's repeated demeaning innuendos, as well as his left-leaning agenda.
Barack Obama's hubris is so stunning that the president believes any criticism of Democrat policy is indicative of a nation in need of bouncing back by "choosing hope over fear." Translation: Mental stability is defined as choosing to agree with Obama even if you disagree, which sounds more like political schizophrenia.
Rather than playing TV psychiatrist Frasier Crane, Barack "You're not dumb, you just missed the point entirely" Obama should be the one assessing his own performance instead of projecting personal failure onto everyone else. Unbeknownst to Dr. Barack, voters are acutely aware that national mental health will be achieved by exorcising the party in power and hamstringing the President's effort to transform America into a European facsimile.
Moreover, Obama should address his own sociopathic tendencies as an individual who refuses to accept blame for anything, including America's rejection of an aggressive socialistic agenda. By contending that "Americans would be more supportive of [his] policies...if they weren't fettered by [GOP-stoked] anxiety," Obama calls attention to a fragile presidential psyche in dire need of professional attention.
Yet the President continues to soothe his battered ego by fostering the fantasy that "part of the reason that ... politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day ... is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." All of which are viable concepts applicable to a president intimidated by the reality that the American public rejects everything he stands for.
Barack forcibly laid America prostrate on a psychiatrist's couch, declaring "There's a lot of anger and there's a lot of frustration and a lot of fear across the country." The President maintains that the "question is going to be whether once again hope overcomes fear... because what the other side has decided is that they're going to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box."
Maybe Obama should counsel with Harry Reid, who is in the process of plying voters with "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry has also decided to accept a teachers' union bid to "offer gift cards in return for a vote for Reid."
The soon-to-be-unseated Senate Majority leader would likely argue that he is merely concerned with providing for the nutritional needs of Nevada voters, as well as bestowing on cash-strapped individuals the ability to shop.
On the other hand, Obama is concerned with the nation's mental health. If Barry really believes fear and anxiety is the only obstacle to Democrats maintaining power in the mid-term election, America's health care reform president should follow Harry Reid's lead and solve the problem by mandating that generous dosages of government-provided Xanax be administered to every American voter.
--------
By: Jeannie DeAngelis
American Thinker
According to an "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up" Barack Obama, Americans are "angry, frustrated, scared, anxious, uncertain, nervous, discouraged and shaken up."
With the midterm election less than a week away, Barack has decided that Americans, critical of liberal policies, are "confused and not thinking clearly."
Obama has assumed the diagnostic mantle and deemed the majority of the nation mentally unstable. However, voters are crystal clear that Barack's liberal way of thinking is the factor instigating the impending political backlash, and corporately resent the haughty suggestion that rejection of liberalism is driven by instability, depression and anxiety.
By treating the American electorate like a roomful of emotional cripples, Barack is reminding Americans that a national referendum is in order to deal with Obama's repeated demeaning innuendos, as well as his left-leaning agenda.
Barack Obama's hubris is so stunning that the president believes any criticism of Democrat policy is indicative of a nation in need of bouncing back by "choosing hope over fear." Translation: Mental stability is defined as choosing to agree with Obama even if you disagree, which sounds more like political schizophrenia.
Rather than playing TV psychiatrist Frasier Crane, Barack "You're not dumb, you just missed the point entirely" Obama should be the one assessing his own performance instead of projecting personal failure onto everyone else. Unbeknownst to Dr. Barack, voters are acutely aware that national mental health will be achieved by exorcising the party in power and hamstringing the President's effort to transform America into a European facsimile.
Moreover, Obama should address his own sociopathic tendencies as an individual who refuses to accept blame for anything, including America's rejection of an aggressive socialistic agenda. By contending that "Americans would be more supportive of [his] policies...if they weren't fettered by [GOP-stoked] anxiety," Obama calls attention to a fragile presidential psyche in dire need of professional attention.
Yet the President continues to soothe his battered ego by fostering the fantasy that "part of the reason that ... politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day ... is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." All of which are viable concepts applicable to a president intimidated by the reality that the American public rejects everything he stands for.
Barack forcibly laid America prostrate on a psychiatrist's couch, declaring "There's a lot of anger and there's a lot of frustration and a lot of fear across the country." The President maintains that the "question is going to be whether once again hope overcomes fear... because what the other side has decided is that they're going to ride fear and anxiety all the way to the ballot box."
Maybe Obama should counsel with Harry Reid, who is in the process of plying voters with "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry has also decided to accept a teachers' union bid to "offer gift cards in return for a vote for Reid."
The soon-to-be-unseated Senate Majority leader would likely argue that he is merely concerned with providing for the nutritional needs of Nevada voters, as well as bestowing on cash-strapped individuals the ability to shop.
On the other hand, Obama is concerned with the nation's mental health. If Barry really believes fear and anxiety is the only obstacle to Democrats maintaining power in the mid-term election, America's health care reform president should follow Harry Reid's lead and solve the problem by mandating that generous dosages of government-provided Xanax be administered to every American voter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)