Washington (CNN) – A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President, though the group’s leader is offering few specifics about the effort.
The Rev. Williams Owens, who is president and founder of the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors and the leader of the campaign, has highlighted opposition to same-sex marriage among African-Americans. He calls this campaign “an effort to save the family.”
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Rasmussen Poll: Romney Up by 3 Points
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Romney has a 20-point advantage among white voters. Obama is supported by 91% of black voters and 57% of other minority voters.
A third of Americans favor a ban on all television political advertising. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says the data “suggests many Americans view political campaigns and political advertising as a form of civic pollution.” Just 43% believe American elections are fair to voters.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
The president’s support has stayed between 43% and 45% for ten straight days. During that stretch, Romney’s support has been between 46% and 49% every day. See tracking history.
Most voters have not yet felt any personal impact from the president’s health care law. Overall, 15% have been helped by the law and 25% have been hurt. As they have consistently for years, most Americans believe cost control should be the top priority for health care reform. Only 23% rate providing coverage for the uninsured as most important.
There is a high level concern about violence in video games, movies, and TV. Most believe violence in entertainment leads to more violence in society. However, by a 58% to 31% margin, Americans believe protecting freedom of speech is more important than limiting media violence.
Republicans hold a three-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. This lead is a bit smaller than the Republicans enjoyed in 2010.
Despite the continuing violence in Syria, most voters still want the United States to stay uninvolved. Just 21% support providing military assistance.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Romney has a 20-point advantage among white voters. Obama is supported by 91% of black voters and 57% of other minority voters.
A third of Americans favor a ban on all television political advertising. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says the data “suggests many Americans view political campaigns and political advertising as a form of civic pollution.” Just 43% believe American elections are fair to voters.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
The president’s support has stayed between 43% and 45% for ten straight days. During that stretch, Romney’s support has been between 46% and 49% every day. See tracking history.
Most voters have not yet felt any personal impact from the president’s health care law. Overall, 15% have been helped by the law and 25% have been hurt. As they have consistently for years, most Americans believe cost control should be the top priority for health care reform. Only 23% rate providing coverage for the uninsured as most important.
There is a high level concern about violence in video games, movies, and TV. Most believe violence in entertainment leads to more violence in society. However, by a 58% to 31% margin, Americans believe protecting freedom of speech is more important than limiting media violence.
Republicans hold a three-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. This lead is a bit smaller than the Republicans enjoyed in 2010.
Despite the continuing violence in Syria, most voters still want the United States to stay uninvolved. Just 21% support providing military assistance.
Conservative Quote
In general, liberals want more government and hunger to be the ones running it. Conservatives want less government and want no part of it. Liberals want to run other people’s lives. Conservatives want to be left alone to run their own lives.
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Endorses Thomas Massie for Congress
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Endorses
Thomas Massie for Congress
FLORENCE, KY (July 31, 2012) - The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations, endorses Thomas Massie for Congress in Kentucky’s 4th District.
“At no other time in our nation’s history has it been more critical that Members of Congress provide leadership that protects and advances the interests of the business community. We believe that your election to the U.S. House of Representatives will help produce sustained economic growth, help create more jobs, and get our country back on track. We will encourage the business community to vigorously support your candidacy,” said Thomas J, Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the Massie campaign.
“I am proud and grateful to have the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” said Massie. “Creating an environment where private-sector job creation thrives is one of my highest priorities. I will diligently advance free-market legislation and regulatory reform as 4th District Congressman.”
Thomas Massie, 41, is the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in Kentucky’s 4th District. He holds an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and a graduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from MIT. He is an award winning inventor, successful businessman, and farmer. He is the former Judge Executive in Lewis County where he lives with his wife and four children on their family farm.
Copyright © 2012 Thomas Massie for Congress, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in on our website.
Report: Illegals released by feds committed 19 murders, 142 sex crimes - Washington Times
Report: Illegals released by feds committed 19 murders, 142 sex crimes - Washington Times
The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
Free Stuff!
The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff .
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012.
Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff .
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012.
Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
Conservative Humor
A woman was playing golf when she took a big swing and fell.
The party waiting behind her was a group from the White House that included Obama.
Obama quickly stepped forward and helped her to her feet.
She thanked him and she started to leave, when he said, "I'm President Obama and I hope you'll vote for me this November."
She laughed and quickly said, "I fell on my ass, not on my head!"
The party waiting behind her was a group from the White House that included Obama.
Obama quickly stepped forward and helped her to her feet.
She thanked him and she started to leave, when he said, "I'm President Obama and I hope you'll vote for me this November."
She laughed and quickly said, "I fell on my ass, not on my head!"
Monday, July 30, 2012
SCHWARZWALDER: Are we all dependents now? - Washington Times
SCHWARZWALDER: Are we all dependents now? - Washington Times
Terms such as self-reliance, rugged individualism and risk-taking are embedded in the American lexicon. We identify as a people who turned a continental wilderness into the world’s most productive nation. We claim to honor successful entrepreneurs and esteem profitable innovators.
Yet, not only are the wealthy often vilified and their firms dismissed as predatory (e.g., President Obama’s recent riffs against Bain Capital), but a quiet and rather hidden reliance on government undermines our claim to be quite as economically brave as we might wish to believe.
According to George Mason University's Mercatus Center, nearly 150 million Americans receive some form of federal assistance. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, various tax credits, business deductions, agriculture subsidies and many other federal payments land silently in our eager hands on a regular basis.
There is no reason why, given how burdensome and complex our tax code is, ordinary Americans should not be able to claim deductions for such things as charitable giving, raising and adopting children, or the cost of a home mortgage.
Terms such as self-reliance, rugged individualism and risk-taking are embedded in the American lexicon. We identify as a people who turned a continental wilderness into the world’s most productive nation. We claim to honor successful entrepreneurs and esteem profitable innovators.
Yet, not only are the wealthy often vilified and their firms dismissed as predatory (e.g., President Obama’s recent riffs against Bain Capital), but a quiet and rather hidden reliance on government undermines our claim to be quite as economically brave as we might wish to believe.
According to George Mason University's Mercatus Center, nearly 150 million Americans receive some form of federal assistance. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, various tax credits, business deductions, agriculture subsidies and many other federal payments land silently in our eager hands on a regular basis.
There is no reason why, given how burdensome and complex our tax code is, ordinary Americans should not be able to claim deductions for such things as charitable giving, raising and adopting children, or the cost of a home mortgage.
Freedom Quote
"We have room but for one Language here and that is the English Language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans of American nationality and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house."
-Theodore Roosevelt
-Theodore Roosevelt
Ten inconvenient truths about the national debt :Its Worse Than You Think!
Ten inconvenient truths about the national debt « » Print The Daily Caller
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/ten-inconvenient-truths-about-the-national-debt/#ixzz227yttxK5
1.) The amount by which the public debt — the portion of the national debt not borrowed by the U.S. government from funds it administers — has increased since President Obama took office is unprecedented, not politics as usual: more than $4.75 trillion (more than 75%), according to the Treasury Department. If the president’s second-term budget is implemented, he will end up (according to the Congressional Budget Office) increasing the public debt by $8.9 trillion. That exceeds the public debt incurred by all previous presidents combined — by more than $2.6 trillion.
2.) Large as the public debt is, it doesn’t include amounts the government has promised to pay but lacks the funds to pay. For example, the Social Security and Medicare trustees have estimated that we need more than $63 trillion right now to make promised payments for Social Security and Medicare benefits not covered by current Social Security and Medicare taxes.
3.) The government can’t keep incurring debt without consequence. High debt slows economic growth (meaning fewer jobs and less income), according to one study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff and a second study by Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo (refuting the claim that it is slow growth that causes higher public debt and not vice versa).
4.) It’s not like the government is skimping on spending. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that this year the federal government will spend 24.3 cents out of every dollar of the value of all final goods we produce and services we provide (add state and local expenditures and that figure increases to 44.2 cents).
5.) Interest payments on the debt are skyrocketing. The CBO has estimated that the president’s proposals will more than triple interest on the public debt from $237 billion in 2013 to $743 billion in 2022 (more than the Department of Defense is spending on military programs and more than seven times what the Department of Education is spending). That money will enrich other countries (the Treasury Department estimates that almost half of the debt is held by foreign investors).
6.) There aren’t enough rich people to balance the budget on their backs. Ending President Bush’s income and estate tax cuts for the “rich” (defined as individuals with taxable income exceeding $200,000 and couples with taxable income exceeding $250,000) would (according to the OMB) reduce the 2013 deficit by less than 5% ($46.6 billion).
7.) Raising taxes, even if just on the rich, reduces economic growth. Christina Romer (former chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers) and David Romer found that “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.” Remember when Congress decided to soak the rich by taxing yacht purchases? That tax was repealed because of its unintended consequences: the rich stopped buying yachts built in the United States, and tens of thousands of blue-collar workers lost their jobs.
8.) Other countries’ experiences show that the best way to correct debt problems is to reduce government spending, not increase taxes. A Goldman Sachs Global Economics study found that governments that reduce spending correct fiscal imbalances yet still typically boost economic growth. By contrast, governments that rely on tax increases typically fail to correct fiscal imbalances and damage economic growth.
9.) Printing money or otherwise deliberately creating inflation to make it easier to pay off our debt would reduce everyone’s standard of living by reducing the amount of goods and services that we can purchase with our income and savings. Inflation is a hidden tax that hits the poor particularly hard.
10.) When the government spends more money than it takes in, we’re selfishly forcing our children and grandchildren to reduce their standard of living so that we can continue to live beyond our means.
David Gibberman, a lawyer, writes about legal and financial matters for professionals, college students, and the general public.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/ten-inconvenient-truths-about-the-national-debt/#ixzz227yttxK5
Dem platform will support gay marriage: No Surprise Here!
Dem platform will support gay marriage
The Democrats' 2012 platform, to be adopted at their convention in Charlotte in September, will officially back gay marriage, Rep. Barney Frank told the Advocate in an interview Monday.
"Yes, it will be in the platform," said Mr. Frank, who is on the drafting committee. "I am in favor of it being included and it will be included."
President Obama earlier this year officially reversed himself and announced he backed letting gay couples marry, paving the way for the party's platform to embrace that stance.
A law signed by President Clinton defines marriage for the federal government as the union between a man and a woman. Mr. Obama has refused to defend that law in court — though House Republicans have taken up the task of defending it.
Carville: 'We’re Gonna Have to Go Through Hell and High-Water to Win this Damn Thing'
Carville: 'We’re Gonna Have to Go Through Hell and High-Water to Win this Damn Thing'
Looks like we have them on the Run!
In a fundraising email sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic strategist James Carville has a serious warning: "We’re gonna have to go through hell and high-water to win this damn thing." The remedy, according to Carville, is to donate more money to the Democratic group.
"I wish I had good news for you," Carville begins the pitch. "I want to tell you that President Obama has a second term in the bag. I want to tell you that the Koch Brothers are giving up their plot to buy the election."
But here’s where things really stand: We’re gonna have to go through hell and high-water to win this damn thing. It’s gonna be hard. Every big-oil billionaire and Republican Super PAC is throwing the kitchen sink at President Obama.
If we don’t fight back, it’ll be over long before November.
Contribute $3 or more to back up President Obama with a Democratic majority. Get your donation in today and it'll get matched >>
Every dollar we can muster will go straight to the front lines -- organizers on the ground and ads on the air hitting Republicans where it hurts.
If you’re with us, then give what you can today:
http://dccc.org/Now-Or-Never
C’mon now!
James
Looks like we have them on the Run!
O shrugs as economy sags - NYPOST.com
O shrugs as economy sags - NYPOST.com
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/shrugs_as_economy_sags_I7TriIHWfhTA6AKpXL1JVP#ixzz227oneub0
President Obama can’t stop talking about the 1 percent of people who he says don’t pay their fair share of the nation’s taxes. But he should be obsessing about a 1.5 percent — the rotten growth rate produced by the once-mighty US economy in the second quarter.
The slowdown announced Friday — on top of another slowdown in the first quarter — is further proof that the president’s class-warfare economic rhetoric and policies are pushing the country perilously close to a double-dip recession.
The numbers are pretty stark: Growth of 2 percent for the first quarter was already scary, down from around 4 percent at the end of last year. A few years out of a stiff recession like the one we had, the economy’s normally roaring, not sagging back down.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/shrugs_as_economy_sags_I7TriIHWfhTA6AKpXL1JVP#ixzz227oneub0
Will America Abandon 'Hope'? - WSJ.com
Will America Abandon 'Hope'? - WSJ.com
The presidential campaign remains very close, but some of the polling information must continue to cause alarm in the Obama campaign. Sixty-five percent of respondents in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll felt our nation was on the "wrong track," and surveys by National Public Radio and ABC News/Washington Post showed similar results. Sixty-four percent of respondents in a recent CBS News poll thought President Obama's policies have contributed "some" or "a lot" to the economic turndown. And as the election gets closer, the president's approval rating continues to lag below the all-important 50% mark in almost every survey.
Americans are frustrated over today's economy and worried about the direction of our country. To some degree they blame Mr. Obama for the weak economy and his policies for stifling economic growth. But our nation's overall dissatisfaction can also be attributed to a disappointment in the way that this president has governed. The Obama administration has forced policies either by ramming them through Congress or implementing them unilaterally when lawmakers refused. And Mr. Obama's politics, contrary to his promise of postpartisanship, have been the most partisan and cynical we have seen in a long while.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Conservative Humor
I find this so sad. She truly earned this medal...
American Lindsey Vonn has had to forfeit her Gold Medal on Friday, JULY 13, 2012.
The International Olympic Committee announced today that it has taken back the gold medal previously awarded to
American skier Lindsey Vonn and given it to U.S. President Barack Obama.
Olympic officials said Obama deserved the medal more than Vonn because no one has ever gone downhill faster.
American Lindsey Vonn has had to forfeit her Gold Medal on Friday, JULY 13, 2012.
The International Olympic Committee announced today that it has taken back the gold medal previously awarded to
American skier Lindsey Vonn and given it to U.S. President Barack Obama.
Olympic officials said Obama deserved the medal more than Vonn because no one has ever gone downhill faster.
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
Islamic extremism, infiltration must be taken seriously:Cal Thomas
Islamic extremism, infiltration must be taken seriously!
Cal Thomas, Washington Examiner
The specter of the late commie-hunting congressman from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, will always be with us. It was summoned up recently to describe Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. She and four other Republican members of Congress wrote the State Department inspector general to investigate a longtime senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aide's family, her letter pointed out, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The response to these charges was mostly outrage. Sen. John McCain defended the aide as "a dedicated American." There is no evidence that he is incorrect. Yet, the larger and more important issue is being obscured here. Many in government and the media don't even want to face the possibility that infiltration is a tactic of Islamic extremists who repeatedly say they want to destroy not only Israel but the "Great Satan" America. Such objectives should be taken seriously, given their violent history.
One need not rely on the word of Bachmann -- try instead that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Charles Moore of the London Daily Telegraph writes that Blair "now thinks, he underestimated the power of the bad 'narrative' of Islamist extremists. That narrative -- that 'The West oppresses Islam' -- 'is still there. If anything, it has grown.' It seeks 'supremacy, not coexistence.' " Blair also expressed fear that "The West is asleep on this issue."
Blair's view is echoed in "Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat," a new book by Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Arab politics and a former journalist for mainstream publications such as the New York Times, the Cox Newspapers' Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Jerusalem Post. Widlanski's main point is that political correctness has stifled the West's ability to understand and fight terror.
Among Widlanski's criticisms is that the West "came to rely on 'experts' without field experience in or scant knowledge of the Middle East: people who do not speak the languages, did not study the cultures and do not know the history. Even worse, some 'experts' have been forgiving and even sympathetic to the terrorists and their aims."
National Public Radio reported last month that "The FBI has conducted more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within the military."
What else would infiltration look like? It's more than an academic question, or a subject for spy novelists. It might look like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which sent a nasty letter to Bachmann comparing her to McCarthy. Documents released from the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, in which the feds prosecuted extremists for funding Hamas and other "Islamic terrorist organizations," revealed that the founders and current leadership of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 2009, federal Judge Jorge Solis denied CAIR's attempt to have its name struck from all of the Holy Land trial's documents -- the group had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator. "The government," Judge Solis noted, "has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, [the Islamic Society of North America] and [the North American Islamic Trust] with [the Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas."
According to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which covers the brotherhood, the deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood recently gave an interview confirming a relationship between his organization and CAIR.
This is what infiltration looks like. It is real, and Bachmann's involvement does not change the fact that it is real. All ties between Americans and Islamic extremist groups need further and serious investigation.
Cal Thomas, Washington Examiner
The specter of the late commie-hunting congressman from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, will always be with us. It was summoned up recently to describe Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. She and four other Republican members of Congress wrote the State Department inspector general to investigate a longtime senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aide's family, her letter pointed out, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The response to these charges was mostly outrage. Sen. John McCain defended the aide as "a dedicated American." There is no evidence that he is incorrect. Yet, the larger and more important issue is being obscured here. Many in government and the media don't even want to face the possibility that infiltration is a tactic of Islamic extremists who repeatedly say they want to destroy not only Israel but the "Great Satan" America. Such objectives should be taken seriously, given their violent history.
One need not rely on the word of Bachmann -- try instead that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Charles Moore of the London Daily Telegraph writes that Blair "now thinks, he underestimated the power of the bad 'narrative' of Islamist extremists. That narrative -- that 'The West oppresses Islam' -- 'is still there. If anything, it has grown.' It seeks 'supremacy, not coexistence.' " Blair also expressed fear that "The West is asleep on this issue."
Blair's view is echoed in "Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat," a new book by Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Arab politics and a former journalist for mainstream publications such as the New York Times, the Cox Newspapers' Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Jerusalem Post. Widlanski's main point is that political correctness has stifled the West's ability to understand and fight terror.
Among Widlanski's criticisms is that the West "came to rely on 'experts' without field experience in or scant knowledge of the Middle East: people who do not speak the languages, did not study the cultures and do not know the history. Even worse, some 'experts' have been forgiving and even sympathetic to the terrorists and their aims."
National Public Radio reported last month that "The FBI has conducted more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within the military."
What else would infiltration look like? It's more than an academic question, or a subject for spy novelists. It might look like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which sent a nasty letter to Bachmann comparing her to McCarthy. Documents released from the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, in which the feds prosecuted extremists for funding Hamas and other "Islamic terrorist organizations," revealed that the founders and current leadership of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 2009, federal Judge Jorge Solis denied CAIR's attempt to have its name struck from all of the Holy Land trial's documents -- the group had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator. "The government," Judge Solis noted, "has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, [the Islamic Society of North America] and [the North American Islamic Trust] with [the Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas."
According to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which covers the brotherhood, the deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood recently gave an interview confirming a relationship between his organization and CAIR.
This is what infiltration looks like. It is real, and Bachmann's involvement does not change the fact that it is real. All ties between Americans and Islamic extremist groups need further and serious investigation.
In Israel, Romney declares Jerusalem to be capital - Washington Times
In Israel, Romney declares Jerusalem to be capital - Washington Times
Original Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish… and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Latest Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid,
99 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives and designer
Air Jordan shoes… and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.
Original Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish… and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Latest Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid,
99 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives and designer
Air Jordan shoes… and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.
Oh How Things have Changed in the Obamanation
Original Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish… and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Latest Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid,
99 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives and designer
Air Jordan shoes… and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Founding Father Quote
"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?."
-James Madison
-James Madison
In the Long Run, Is the GOP Dead? | CNSNews.com
In the Long Run, Is the GOP Dead? | CNSNews.com
Since 1928, only Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush have won the presidency while capturing both houses of Congress for the GOP.
In his 49-state landslide, Richard Nixon failed to take either House. In his two landslides, Ronald Reagan won back only the Senate. Yet Mitt Romney is even money to pull off the hat trick.
With this hopeful prospect, why the near despair among so many Republicans about the long term?
In his New York Times report, "In California, GOP Fights Steep Decline," Adam Nagourney delves into the reasons.
In the Golden Land, a state Nixon carried all five times he was on a national ticket and Reagan carried by landslides all four times he ran, the GOP does not hold a single statewide office. It gained not a single House seat in the 2010 landslide. Party registration has fallen to 30 percent of the California electorate and is steadily sinking.
Why? It is said that California Republicans are too out of touch, too socially conservative on issues like right-to-life and gay rights. "When you look at the population growth," says GOP consultant Steve Schmidt, "the actual party is shrinking. It's becoming more white. It's becoming older."
Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party's death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America.
Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.
Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise.
Yet in their best years, like 2004, Republicans lose the Hispanic vote 3-to-2. In bad years, like 2008, they lose it 2-to-1. Whites are already a minority in California, and Hispanics will eventually become the majority.
Since 1928, only Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush have won the presidency while capturing both houses of Congress for the GOP.
In his 49-state landslide, Richard Nixon failed to take either House. In his two landslides, Ronald Reagan won back only the Senate. Yet Mitt Romney is even money to pull off the hat trick.
With this hopeful prospect, why the near despair among so many Republicans about the long term?
In his New York Times report, "In California, GOP Fights Steep Decline," Adam Nagourney delves into the reasons.
In the Golden Land, a state Nixon carried all five times he was on a national ticket and Reagan carried by landslides all four times he ran, the GOP does not hold a single statewide office. It gained not a single House seat in the 2010 landslide. Party registration has fallen to 30 percent of the California electorate and is steadily sinking.
Why? It is said that California Republicans are too out of touch, too socially conservative on issues like right-to-life and gay rights. "When you look at the population growth," says GOP consultant Steve Schmidt, "the actual party is shrinking. It's becoming more white. It's becoming older."
Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party's death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America.
Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.
Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise.
Yet in their best years, like 2004, Republicans lose the Hispanic vote 3-to-2. In bad years, like 2008, they lose it 2-to-1. Whites are already a minority in California, and Hispanics will eventually become the majority.
Pelosi: President Obama's Been to Israel Over and Over Again
Pelosi: President Obama's Been to Israel ‘Over and Over Again’
Daniel Halper has called attention to Nancy Pelosi's remarkable interview with Al Hunt on the topic of Barack Obama and Israel. I'd note one comment in particular: Pelosi's claim that President Obama "has been there [Israel] over and over again."
Wow. I'm involved with the Emergency Committee for Israel. We have an ad up in several states calling attention to the fact that President Obama, who's been quite the world traveler, has never visited Israel as president. Did we make a terrible mistake? Were we unjust to President Obama? Do we have to pull down the ad?
No, no, and no. Contrary to Pelosi's apparent claim, President Obama hasn't been to Israel over and over again. He's never been as president, which is certainly what Pelosi implied. Well, maybe he visited Israel "over and over" before becoming president, and that's what Pelosi meant to say? No. When he was senator, Obama went on two trips to Israel, once with several other freshmen members of Congress, and then as a presidential candidate. And he'd never been interested enough in Israel to visit as a private citizen. So much for the notion that Obama's been "over and over again."
Daniel Halper has called attention to Nancy Pelosi's remarkable interview with Al Hunt on the topic of Barack Obama and Israel. I'd note one comment in particular: Pelosi's claim that President Obama "has been there [Israel] over and over again."
Wow. I'm involved with the Emergency Committee for Israel. We have an ad up in several states calling attention to the fact that President Obama, who's been quite the world traveler, has never visited Israel as president. Did we make a terrible mistake? Were we unjust to President Obama? Do we have to pull down the ad?
No, no, and no. Contrary to Pelosi's apparent claim, President Obama hasn't been to Israel over and over again. He's never been as president, which is certainly what Pelosi implied. Well, maybe he visited Israel "over and over" before becoming president, and that's what Pelosi meant to say? No. When he was senator, Obama went on two trips to Israel, once with several other freshmen members of Congress, and then as a presidential candidate. And he'd never been interested enough in Israel to visit as a private citizen. So much for the notion that Obama's been "over and over again."
EDITORIAL: Obama’s economic crisis - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Obama’s economic crisis - Washington Times
The Commerce Department on Friday delivered very bad news to President Obama. Economic growth in the second quarter of 2012 plummeted to 1.5 percent — a critically poor showing going into an election. Twenty years ago, then-candidate Bill Clinton sounded the alarm after receiving similar information. His words then are prophetic today.
In 1992, the second-quarter growth came in at 1.4 percent, though the economy enjoyed a lower unemployment rate and drastically smaller federal budget deficits. “Today’s economic statistics confirm what the American people have been trying to tell the president for some time now,” Mr. Clinton said at the time. “We are in a crisis, an economic crisis.”
That message helped propel the former Arkansas governor into the Oval Office. “Maybe today’s statistics will be a wake-up call to an administration that is still offering alibis, not action, while people are hurting,” he said then. Mitt Romney could credibly say the same thing about Mr. Obama, considering the president’s assertion at a fundraiser in California on July 23, “We tried our [economic] plan — and it worked.”
Given the rapid decline in growth rates, it’s legitimate to ask how Mr. Obama measures success. Fourth-quarter 2011 growth for some reason was revised upward by more than a full point, from 3 percent to 4.1 percent, which may have been touted as evidence of Mr. Obama’s effective leadership. Now it means that the current contraction is far worse than economists expected. Instead of growth being cut in half since last year, it has plunged by almost two-thirds.
The Commerce Department on Friday delivered very bad news to President Obama. Economic growth in the second quarter of 2012 plummeted to 1.5 percent — a critically poor showing going into an election. Twenty years ago, then-candidate Bill Clinton sounded the alarm after receiving similar information. His words then are prophetic today.
In 1992, the second-quarter growth came in at 1.4 percent, though the economy enjoyed a lower unemployment rate and drastically smaller federal budget deficits. “Today’s economic statistics confirm what the American people have been trying to tell the president for some time now,” Mr. Clinton said at the time. “We are in a crisis, an economic crisis.”
That message helped propel the former Arkansas governor into the Oval Office. “Maybe today’s statistics will be a wake-up call to an administration that is still offering alibis, not action, while people are hurting,” he said then. Mitt Romney could credibly say the same thing about Mr. Obama, considering the president’s assertion at a fundraiser in California on July 23, “We tried our [economic] plan — and it worked.”
Given the rapid decline in growth rates, it’s legitimate to ask how Mr. Obama measures success. Fourth-quarter 2011 growth for some reason was revised upward by more than a full point, from 3 percent to 4.1 percent, which may have been touted as evidence of Mr. Obama’s effective leadership. Now it means that the current contraction is far worse than economists expected. Instead of growth being cut in half since last year, it has plunged by almost two-thirds.
KNIGHT: ‘Eat mor chikin’ - Washington Times
KNIGHT: ‘Eat mor chikin’ - Washington Times
Each day brings new evidence of the left’s hatred for Christians and other traditionalists, but the smear campaign against Christian-owned Chick-fil-A sets a new low.
The Atlanta-based, 1,600-restaurant chain, famous for its misspelling-prone cows that urge consumers to “eat mor chikin,” is under a full-scale fascistic assault, complete with obscene celebrity tweets and government bullying.
Acting more like Benito Mussolini than Paul Revere, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his city. Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he will stop Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago store. In Philadelphia, Councilman James F. Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy advising his company to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.” Meanwhile, the Jim Henson Co., owner of the Muppets, has canceled a deal to provide toys for Chick-fil-A kids’ meals. This is just the beginning.
What has the dastardly company done? Chick-fil-A’s management, while not political, is an unapologetic defender of traditional values. Like the Boy Scouts, the company has enraged liberals who are at war with nature and nature’s God.
This isn’t the first time Chick-fil-A has been singled out. In February 2011, homosexual activists launched an unsuccessful boycott when they found out that the company donated food to the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s marriage retreat. Seriously, it doesn’t take much to tick them off.
Each day brings new evidence of the left’s hatred for Christians and other traditionalists, but the smear campaign against Christian-owned Chick-fil-A sets a new low.
The Atlanta-based, 1,600-restaurant chain, famous for its misspelling-prone cows that urge consumers to “eat mor chikin,” is under a full-scale fascistic assault, complete with obscene celebrity tweets and government bullying.
Acting more like Benito Mussolini than Paul Revere, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his city. Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he will stop Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago store. In Philadelphia, Councilman James F. Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy advising his company to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.” Meanwhile, the Jim Henson Co., owner of the Muppets, has canceled a deal to provide toys for Chick-fil-A kids’ meals. This is just the beginning.
What has the dastardly company done? Chick-fil-A’s management, while not political, is an unapologetic defender of traditional values. Like the Boy Scouts, the company has enraged liberals who are at war with nature and nature’s God.
This isn’t the first time Chick-fil-A has been singled out. In February 2011, homosexual activists launched an unsuccessful boycott when they found out that the company donated food to the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s marriage retreat. Seriously, it doesn’t take much to tick them off.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Boston Mayor Menino shouldn't block Chick-fil-A because of presidents views
Menino shouldn’t block Chick-fil-A because of president’s views
The president of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage. While this view goes against the grain in a state that made history by embracing it, it’s no reason for Mayor Thomas M. Menino to oppose a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Boston.
The fast food chicken sandwich chain was reportedly looking at property near Faneuil Hall at the location where the Purple Shamrock currently operates. Then company president Dan Cathy stirred national controversy when he said in an interview that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.” In response, Menino told the Boston Herald, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”
The president of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage. While this view goes against the grain in a state that made history by embracing it, it’s no reason for Mayor Thomas M. Menino to oppose a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Boston.
The fast food chicken sandwich chain was reportedly looking at property near Faneuil Hall at the location where the Purple Shamrock currently operates. Then company president Dan Cathy stirred national controversy when he said in an interview that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.” In response, Menino told the Boston Herald, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”
Conservative Quote
"I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who wields up his liberty….is bound to become a slave."
H.L. Mencken, 1927
H.L. Mencken, 1927
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Hey, Boston: Leave Chick-fil-A Alone | CNSNews.com
Hey, Boston: Leave Chick-fil-A Alone | CNSNews.com
It's one thing for Hollywood moppets and television Muppets to protest Chick-fil-A over the fast-food chain president's support for traditional marriage. They're private citizens and entities. But when an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of "tolerance," it's not harmless kid stuff. It's chilling.
This week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declared, "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston." He recklessly slandered the company by accusing it of "discriminat(ing) against the population." And he warned ominously: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."
Drawing on the city's history, he railed against the restaurant empire's plans to build a franchise near a famed path: "We're an open city. We're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion. That's the Freedom Trail. That's where it all started right here. And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail."
It's one thing for Hollywood moppets and television Muppets to protest Chick-fil-A over the fast-food chain president's support for traditional marriage. They're private citizens and entities. But when an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of "tolerance," it's not harmless kid stuff. It's chilling.
This week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declared, "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston." He recklessly slandered the company by accusing it of "discriminat(ing) against the population." And he warned ominously: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."
Drawing on the city's history, he railed against the restaurant empire's plans to build a franchise near a famed path: "We're an open city. We're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion. That's the Freedom Trail. That's where it all started right here. And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail."
Who is this 'We'?
Who is this 'We'?
This is the president speaking:
We’re going to reward risk and entrepreneurship. People are going to have to sweat and sacrifice for their success. But there are some things that we’re also going to do together to make sure that everyone has success. Not everyone’s going to succeed, but everyone’s going to have a shot at success.
Plainly, the president can’t get past criticism of the remarks in which he told successful entrepreneurs that they didn't get there on their own and they aren't really all that smart. The contretemps has been enjoyable but it is also getting increasingly into the weeds with discussions of context and pronoun antecedents and so forth. Assertions that Mitt Romney has said the same thing. That it is all politics and "bogus."
It is politics; no getting away from that. Which might account for why the president made his remarks at a fundraising event. And if an argument over context obscures things then how about checking the tone of the remarks. Does anyone not find that line about how "There are a lot of smart people out there," just a little condescending, in the same way that Elizabeth Warren's schoolmarmish "Good for you," was? These words were not delivered in tones of respect and "We're all in this together," camaraderie. They were meant to put people in their place.
But never mind. The president has now made himself clear. Risk and entrepreneurship are to be rewarded.
Question is: starting when?
This is the president speaking:
We’re going to reward risk and entrepreneurship. People are going to have to sweat and sacrifice for their success. But there are some things that we’re also going to do together to make sure that everyone has success. Not everyone’s going to succeed, but everyone’s going to have a shot at success.
Plainly, the president can’t get past criticism of the remarks in which he told successful entrepreneurs that they didn't get there on their own and they aren't really all that smart. The contretemps has been enjoyable but it is also getting increasingly into the weeds with discussions of context and pronoun antecedents and so forth. Assertions that Mitt Romney has said the same thing. That it is all politics and "bogus."
It is politics; no getting away from that. Which might account for why the president made his remarks at a fundraising event. And if an argument over context obscures things then how about checking the tone of the remarks. Does anyone not find that line about how "There are a lot of smart people out there," just a little condescending, in the same way that Elizabeth Warren's schoolmarmish "Good for you," was? These words were not delivered in tones of respect and "We're all in this together," camaraderie. They were meant to put people in their place.
But never mind. The president has now made himself clear. Risk and entrepreneurship are to be rewarded.
Question is: starting when?
Obamanomics Is A Failure!
Failing Downward- American Spectator
Posted by Peter Ferrara on Wednesday Jul 25th at 5:09am
President Obama thinks he is so clever in continuing to try to trick us into believing his disgraceful record on the economy and jobs is really the fault of the Republicans in Congress. You see, 10 months ago in September, 2011, Obama proposed the American Jobs Act. But Congressional Republicans refused to pass most of it. So that means that the continued high unemployment and worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression must all be their fault.
The Obama American Jobs Act was just a brain-dead half-brother of the original nearly $1 trillion Obama "stimulus." That so-called stimulus will go down in history as not stimulating anything except government spending, deficits and debt. Of course, that won't mean anything to the Keynesians of the future, who just as the Keynesians of today will be practicing not economics but public relations for neo-socialist politicians.
Infrastructure Addicts
After the first nearly $1 trillion "stimulus" didn't work, Obama's innovative idea was to do basically the same thing, but only half as large at about $500 billion. Part of this Stimulus II bill would go again to finance the building of so-called infrastructure. As former Obama OMB bureaucrat Jeffrey Liebman wrote in the Wall Street Journal of June 22:
[T]he crash of the housing markets continues to take a toll on construction workers. There are still two million fewer construction workers employed than when the recession started in 2007. Yet Congress has failed to act on the president's plan to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, bridges and airports.
But that is what Stimulus I was supposed to do, remember? If it didn't work then, why are we talking about coming back again now to do the same thing, only half as much? Because President Obama has no new ideas beyond what he learned in college freshman economics from liberal left "academics."
Construction industry experts have tried to tell the community organizer Democrats that housing construction workers are not actually trained or qualified to build roads, bridges and airports. But "progressive" Keynesians, like all "Progressives," already know everything about everything, and so are not interested in what construction industry "rednecks" have to say.
Real economists have also tried to explain to the Keynesian PR flacks that infrastructure building projects are not well suited to counter economic downturns because they suffer such long lead times to get up and running. That is why President Obama ended up joking in public that his supposed "shovel ready" construction projects financed by Stimulus I turned out to not be so "shovel ready" after all. Haha, America, the joke is on you.
The bipartisan 2012 Highway Bill finances over $100 billion in spending on infrastructure, primarily for the nation's roads and bridges, more than any other nation. Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported that rational and orderly spending. With our nation facing a historic fiscal crisis, asking us to commit to hundreds of billions in further infrastructure spending is a reckless abuse of authority we should have come to expect from Democrats.
Taxpayer Bailouts of State and Local Liberals
Another part of Obama's "son of stimulus" proposal amounts to a bailout of the most liberal, spendthrift state governments by taxpayers in more conservative states nationwide. Liebman helpfully explains on behalf of his former employers in the Obama Administration, "One of the largest drags on our economy has been the layoffs of public employees like teachers, firefighters and police officers due to state budget cuts." You see, it's all so simple. According to Obama's liberals, getting state spending under control is actually the root of the problem.
So Obama would reverse that by providing federal taxpayer funds to the states to hire hundreds of thousands of state bureaucrats. No, there have been no real layoffs of firefighters and police officers overall, let alone 450,000 as Liebman argues. But anyway, while hiring teachers, firefighters, and police officers may be a national government responsibility in Indonesia, it is a state and local government function in America. Until Obamanomics, where teachers, firefighters, and police officers serve as props for a federal taxpayer bailout of spendthrift states like California and Illinois.
But such federal funding for states was a central component of Stimulus I. If it didn't work then, why are we talking about coming back again to do the same thing now, only half as much? Because President Obama's community organizer economics is out of ideas on how to spark renewed economic growth and prosperity.
Obama's Temporary Tax Cut
A final component of Obama's Jobs Plan is to extend his 2% cut in the Social Security payroll tax for another year. But such temporary tax reductions do not stimulate jobs and economic growth, as permanent cuts and incentives are necessary for permanent jobs and growth. That was proved yet again last year when this same tax cut was already in force for a year, and failed to do anything noticeable to produce economic recovery and jobs.
Nevertheless, congressional Republicans joined in extending the payroll tax cut anyway, because they did not want to be accused of increasing taxes on the middle class by letting the "temporary" Social Security tax cut expire. This shows that Social Security financing is endangered now, as any expiration of the "temporary" tax cut will be assailed as a tax increase on the middle class. Yet we hear not a peep from AARP, supposedly a watchdog for seniors, but in reality a kept lapdog pet for the Democratic National Committee, as we learned during the Obamacare debate in 2010. Just take this message to your friends and family -- friends don't let friends join the highly partisan AARP. There are better, alternative, conservative organizations for seniors today than this dishonest, rip-off organization.
But, notice, this temporary tax cut has failed yet again this year to help stimulate jobs and economic recovery. That reflects Obama's completely inadequate, community organizer understanding of tax policy. What makes the economy boom is not just any tax cut, but permanent cuts in tax rates. That is because it is the rates that determine what percentage producers can keep out of what they produce, and therefore determine the incentives for productive activities, such as savings, investment, expanding businesses, starting businesses, job creation, and work.
President Kennedy understood it. Kennedy proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by 30%, similar to the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that President Reagan embraced and that worked so spectacularly. Kennedy explained:
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.
Kennedy's proposed tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964. The next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years. U.S. News and World Report exclaimed, "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Arthur Okun, the administration's chief economic advisor, estimated that the tax cuts expanded the economy in just two years by 10% above where it would have been.
But today's Obama/Che Guevara Democrats don't understand any of this. That is why even though Obama tries to brag that he has cut taxes for small businesses 18 times, none of it has worked. As Investor's Business Daily explained on July 13:
[I]f you look at Obama's list, you quickly realize that all but four have either expired or will soon expire, aren't cuts at all, or are double counted. And the rest are pretty much worthless…. One of these makes it easier to deduct cellphone costs and another limits penalties for errors in tax reporting. But these two changes will cut small business taxes a grand total of just $567 million over the next decade.
IBD adds:
And then there's the small-business health insurance tax credit. The Obama administration promised that this credit [would help] 2 million to 4 million small companies get money back for providing health insurance benefits to their employees. But a Government Accountability Office report found that just over 170,000 companies actually claimed the credit. The reason: You had to wade through a thicket of rules to see if you were eligible for what turned out to be, in the GAO's words, an "insubstantial" amount of money.
IBD concluded:
This is the problem with Obama's entire approach to tax cuts, and why none of them has made a noticeable difference. They are either too narrowly targeted or too complicated, require businesses to jump through hoops to qualify, or are too temporary to have any long-term incentive effect. "These are rifle-shot provisions that don't have the same benefit as permanently lowering individual income tax rates…," said Chris Witcomb, tax counsel to the National Federation of Independent Business.
This is the same problem with the further tax cuts Liebman touts in Obama's proposed Jobs Plan, tax cuts "for small businesses that add jobs or increase wages." Those are tax credits, not rate cuts, for taking actions the government commands. The same idea was tried and failed in the 1970s, like every economic policy Obama embraces.
Tooth Fairy Economics
Liebman reflects the fallacies, actually the more accurate word after long experience now is stupidities, underlying Obamanomics, saying: "There is a strong consensus about what the immediate challenges facing our economy are: first and foremost, a continued lack of demand as a lingering result of the recession….And we have a good idea of what tools work best to address these problems." Those tools are increased government spending, deficits, and debt which supposedly provide the missing demand.
But economic recovery and growth are not based on increased government spending, deficits and debt, a fallacy that Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Steve Moore has rightly labeled "tooth fairy" economics. That is because the money for such spending needs to come from somewhere, and so drains the private sector to the extent of such increased government spending, leaving no net effect at best.
What drives economic recovery and growth are incentives for increased production, as Reaganomics proved. Obama's assault on such incentives by raising virtually all federal tax rates this January 1 is why trillions are sitting on corporate and bank balance sheets, and America is suffering a capital strike and capital flight. If demand was inadequate, prices would simply fall to clear the market. The result would not be the perpetual stagnation and depression we have seen under Obamanomics.
U.S. News and World Report chairman Mort Zuckerman explained that ongoing stagnation and depression in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, writing:
The official unemployment rate is 8.2%. But if you add to that the number of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor market since the recession began in early 2008 -- approximating eight million -- the rate would be an alarming 12%. Fifty percent of the jobs created since the recession hit have been part time, with no benefits and a wage that's inadequate to enter the middle class. If you add the number of part-time workers into the mix, the unemployment rate climbs to 14.9%. Fewer Americans are working today than in the year 2000, despite the fact that our population has grown by 31 million, and our labor force by 11.4 million.
Zuckerman adds:
Job seekers are only one-third as likely to find a job as before Mr. Obama was elected. Today, a record number of Americans have been out of work for more than six months, and a record number of households have at least one member looking for a job… some employers are shortening the work week or asking employees to take unpaid leave, which doesn't show up in official unemployment numbers.
But Obamanomics is not even good Keynesian economics. Liebman explains, "The president has also put forward a budget that would reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio. But he would achieve that deficit reduction while continuing to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation."
In other words, the President proposes to increase federal tax rates to finance increased federal spending, which is the worst combination of economic policies possible to promote economic recovery and growth. Even under Keynesian economics, increasing tax rates and reducing spending and the deficit reduces demand, and so means continued stagnation and depression.
The voters understand all this. That is why they delivered a shellacking (Obama's word) to the Democrat party, with a New Deal size defeat for Democrats nationwide in 2010. The voters are not buying the snake oil that Obama and Liebman are selling. They don't believe that increased government spending, deficits, and debt promote economic recovery, growth, and prosperity. That is why they delivered a 63 seat swing toward the Republicans in the House in 2010, giving them a strong majority precisely to stop such policies as reflected in the so-called American Jobs Act. Republicans are to be commended for sticking by their campaign promises, and refusing to go along with more Obamanomics stupidity.
Posted by Peter Ferrara on Wednesday Jul 25th at 5:09am
President Obama thinks he is so clever in continuing to try to trick us into believing his disgraceful record on the economy and jobs is really the fault of the Republicans in Congress. You see, 10 months ago in September, 2011, Obama proposed the American Jobs Act. But Congressional Republicans refused to pass most of it. So that means that the continued high unemployment and worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression must all be their fault.
The Obama American Jobs Act was just a brain-dead half-brother of the original nearly $1 trillion Obama "stimulus." That so-called stimulus will go down in history as not stimulating anything except government spending, deficits and debt. Of course, that won't mean anything to the Keynesians of the future, who just as the Keynesians of today will be practicing not economics but public relations for neo-socialist politicians.
Infrastructure Addicts
After the first nearly $1 trillion "stimulus" didn't work, Obama's innovative idea was to do basically the same thing, but only half as large at about $500 billion. Part of this Stimulus II bill would go again to finance the building of so-called infrastructure. As former Obama OMB bureaucrat Jeffrey Liebman wrote in the Wall Street Journal of June 22:
[T]he crash of the housing markets continues to take a toll on construction workers. There are still two million fewer construction workers employed than when the recession started in 2007. Yet Congress has failed to act on the president's plan to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, bridges and airports.
But that is what Stimulus I was supposed to do, remember? If it didn't work then, why are we talking about coming back again now to do the same thing, only half as much? Because President Obama has no new ideas beyond what he learned in college freshman economics from liberal left "academics."
Construction industry experts have tried to tell the community organizer Democrats that housing construction workers are not actually trained or qualified to build roads, bridges and airports. But "progressive" Keynesians, like all "Progressives," already know everything about everything, and so are not interested in what construction industry "rednecks" have to say.
Real economists have also tried to explain to the Keynesian PR flacks that infrastructure building projects are not well suited to counter economic downturns because they suffer such long lead times to get up and running. That is why President Obama ended up joking in public that his supposed "shovel ready" construction projects financed by Stimulus I turned out to not be so "shovel ready" after all. Haha, America, the joke is on you.
The bipartisan 2012 Highway Bill finances over $100 billion in spending on infrastructure, primarily for the nation's roads and bridges, more than any other nation. Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported that rational and orderly spending. With our nation facing a historic fiscal crisis, asking us to commit to hundreds of billions in further infrastructure spending is a reckless abuse of authority we should have come to expect from Democrats.
Taxpayer Bailouts of State and Local Liberals
Another part of Obama's "son of stimulus" proposal amounts to a bailout of the most liberal, spendthrift state governments by taxpayers in more conservative states nationwide. Liebman helpfully explains on behalf of his former employers in the Obama Administration, "One of the largest drags on our economy has been the layoffs of public employees like teachers, firefighters and police officers due to state budget cuts." You see, it's all so simple. According to Obama's liberals, getting state spending under control is actually the root of the problem.
So Obama would reverse that by providing federal taxpayer funds to the states to hire hundreds of thousands of state bureaucrats. No, there have been no real layoffs of firefighters and police officers overall, let alone 450,000 as Liebman argues. But anyway, while hiring teachers, firefighters, and police officers may be a national government responsibility in Indonesia, it is a state and local government function in America. Until Obamanomics, where teachers, firefighters, and police officers serve as props for a federal taxpayer bailout of spendthrift states like California and Illinois.
But such federal funding for states was a central component of Stimulus I. If it didn't work then, why are we talking about coming back again to do the same thing now, only half as much? Because President Obama's community organizer economics is out of ideas on how to spark renewed economic growth and prosperity.
Obama's Temporary Tax Cut
A final component of Obama's Jobs Plan is to extend his 2% cut in the Social Security payroll tax for another year. But such temporary tax reductions do not stimulate jobs and economic growth, as permanent cuts and incentives are necessary for permanent jobs and growth. That was proved yet again last year when this same tax cut was already in force for a year, and failed to do anything noticeable to produce economic recovery and jobs.
Nevertheless, congressional Republicans joined in extending the payroll tax cut anyway, because they did not want to be accused of increasing taxes on the middle class by letting the "temporary" Social Security tax cut expire. This shows that Social Security financing is endangered now, as any expiration of the "temporary" tax cut will be assailed as a tax increase on the middle class. Yet we hear not a peep from AARP, supposedly a watchdog for seniors, but in reality a kept lapdog pet for the Democratic National Committee, as we learned during the Obamacare debate in 2010. Just take this message to your friends and family -- friends don't let friends join the highly partisan AARP. There are better, alternative, conservative organizations for seniors today than this dishonest, rip-off organization.
But, notice, this temporary tax cut has failed yet again this year to help stimulate jobs and economic recovery. That reflects Obama's completely inadequate, community organizer understanding of tax policy. What makes the economy boom is not just any tax cut, but permanent cuts in tax rates. That is because it is the rates that determine what percentage producers can keep out of what they produce, and therefore determine the incentives for productive activities, such as savings, investment, expanding businesses, starting businesses, job creation, and work.
President Kennedy understood it. Kennedy proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by 30%, similar to the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that President Reagan embraced and that worked so spectacularly. Kennedy explained:
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.
Kennedy's proposed tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964. The next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years. U.S. News and World Report exclaimed, "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Arthur Okun, the administration's chief economic advisor, estimated that the tax cuts expanded the economy in just two years by 10% above where it would have been.
But today's Obama/Che Guevara Democrats don't understand any of this. That is why even though Obama tries to brag that he has cut taxes for small businesses 18 times, none of it has worked. As Investor's Business Daily explained on July 13:
[I]f you look at Obama's list, you quickly realize that all but four have either expired or will soon expire, aren't cuts at all, or are double counted. And the rest are pretty much worthless…. One of these makes it easier to deduct cellphone costs and another limits penalties for errors in tax reporting. But these two changes will cut small business taxes a grand total of just $567 million over the next decade.
IBD adds:
And then there's the small-business health insurance tax credit. The Obama administration promised that this credit [would help] 2 million to 4 million small companies get money back for providing health insurance benefits to their employees. But a Government Accountability Office report found that just over 170,000 companies actually claimed the credit. The reason: You had to wade through a thicket of rules to see if you were eligible for what turned out to be, in the GAO's words, an "insubstantial" amount of money.
IBD concluded:
This is the problem with Obama's entire approach to tax cuts, and why none of them has made a noticeable difference. They are either too narrowly targeted or too complicated, require businesses to jump through hoops to qualify, or are too temporary to have any long-term incentive effect. "These are rifle-shot provisions that don't have the same benefit as permanently lowering individual income tax rates…," said Chris Witcomb, tax counsel to the National Federation of Independent Business.
This is the same problem with the further tax cuts Liebman touts in Obama's proposed Jobs Plan, tax cuts "for small businesses that add jobs or increase wages." Those are tax credits, not rate cuts, for taking actions the government commands. The same idea was tried and failed in the 1970s, like every economic policy Obama embraces.
Tooth Fairy Economics
Liebman reflects the fallacies, actually the more accurate word after long experience now is stupidities, underlying Obamanomics, saying: "There is a strong consensus about what the immediate challenges facing our economy are: first and foremost, a continued lack of demand as a lingering result of the recession….And we have a good idea of what tools work best to address these problems." Those tools are increased government spending, deficits, and debt which supposedly provide the missing demand.
But economic recovery and growth are not based on increased government spending, deficits and debt, a fallacy that Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Steve Moore has rightly labeled "tooth fairy" economics. That is because the money for such spending needs to come from somewhere, and so drains the private sector to the extent of such increased government spending, leaving no net effect at best.
What drives economic recovery and growth are incentives for increased production, as Reaganomics proved. Obama's assault on such incentives by raising virtually all federal tax rates this January 1 is why trillions are sitting on corporate and bank balance sheets, and America is suffering a capital strike and capital flight. If demand was inadequate, prices would simply fall to clear the market. The result would not be the perpetual stagnation and depression we have seen under Obamanomics.
U.S. News and World Report chairman Mort Zuckerman explained that ongoing stagnation and depression in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, writing:
The official unemployment rate is 8.2%. But if you add to that the number of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor market since the recession began in early 2008 -- approximating eight million -- the rate would be an alarming 12%. Fifty percent of the jobs created since the recession hit have been part time, with no benefits and a wage that's inadequate to enter the middle class. If you add the number of part-time workers into the mix, the unemployment rate climbs to 14.9%. Fewer Americans are working today than in the year 2000, despite the fact that our population has grown by 31 million, and our labor force by 11.4 million.
Zuckerman adds:
Job seekers are only one-third as likely to find a job as before Mr. Obama was elected. Today, a record number of Americans have been out of work for more than six months, and a record number of households have at least one member looking for a job… some employers are shortening the work week or asking employees to take unpaid leave, which doesn't show up in official unemployment numbers.
But Obamanomics is not even good Keynesian economics. Liebman explains, "The president has also put forward a budget that would reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio. But he would achieve that deficit reduction while continuing to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation."
In other words, the President proposes to increase federal tax rates to finance increased federal spending, which is the worst combination of economic policies possible to promote economic recovery and growth. Even under Keynesian economics, increasing tax rates and reducing spending and the deficit reduces demand, and so means continued stagnation and depression.
The voters understand all this. That is why they delivered a shellacking (Obama's word) to the Democrat party, with a New Deal size defeat for Democrats nationwide in 2010. The voters are not buying the snake oil that Obama and Liebman are selling. They don't believe that increased government spending, deficits, and debt promote economic recovery, growth, and prosperity. That is why they delivered a 63 seat swing toward the Republicans in the House in 2010, giving them a strong majority precisely to stop such policies as reflected in the so-called American Jobs Act. Republicans are to be commended for sticking by their campaign promises, and refusing to go along with more Obamanomics stupidity.
Heritage:Obamacare Falls Short of Promises to Uninsured
Falls Short of Promises to Uninsured
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
July 25, 2012 9:04:37 AM
Amy Payne
Two new reports out yesterday continue to knock down President Obama’s promises about Obamacare: his “If you like your plan, you can keep it,” and the promise to significantly shrink the ranks of the uninsured.
According to a new study from consulting firm Deloitte, almost one of out of 10 employers said they are going to drop coverage for their employees because of Obamacare, while another 10 percent said they “remain unsure” about what they are going to do. As the vast majority of Americans have health insurance through their workplaces, this is a huge blow.
Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dealt another blow with its updated outlook on the health care law, as it attempted to integrate the Supreme Court’s ruling into its projections.
Although Obamacare spends more than $1 trillion to get people covered, CBO predicts it will still leave 30 million Americans uninsured, falling far short of what was promised.
CBO’s announcement said that Obamacare could cost less than originally projected—but the reason for the drop was that fewer people will be covered.
Even with the updated cost estimate, Heritage’s Kate Nix explains: “The law will now add $1.17 trillion in new government spending over 10 years—paid for by massive tax hikes on all Americans and robbing money from the Medicare program.”
Although President Obama campaigned on the dream of universal coverage, that remains simply a dream. In fact, each time the CBO has updated its projections, the number of uninsured under Obamacare increases. Nix breaks it down:
Since day one, it’s been clear that Obamacare will not achieve universal coverage, and every time CBO revisits the law, the numbers show just that. In March 2010, when the law passed, CBO predicted that there would be 22 million people still without insurance in 2019. In March 2012, the estimate increased to 27 million in 2022. Now, the number has once again increased—to 30 million. So Obamacare leaves just as many people uninsured as it covers.
“It leaves just as many people uninsured as it covers” wouldn’t have been a very convincing slogan for the lawmakers who believed that Obamacare would help the uninsured.
Even this CBO projection is merely a guess. The agency is guessing what will happen now that states aren’t being forced to expand their Medicaid programs. Though the Supreme Court allowed Obamacare’s individual mandate to stand as a tax, it struck down the law’s forced Medicaid expansion as unconstitutional.
But as the CBO said, “what states will be able to do and what they will decide to do are both highly uncertain. As a result…[the] estimates reflect an assessment of the probabilities of different outcomes.”
Those outcomes are up in the air, because most of the nation’s governors haven’t decided whether to expand their Medicaid programs yet. States that do may face “a large extra cost,” the CBO said.
Heritage’s Nina Owcharenko warned states not to buckle under Administration pressure to move forward with the expansion of Medicaid. And for good reason—the unintended consequences continue to mount, and the story grows worse with every day that the law stays on the books.
Political Humor
"Alexander Hamilton originated the put and take system in our national treasury: the taxpayers put it in, and the politicians take it out."
-Will Rogers
-Will Rogers
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Pandering to His Base:A Centrist He Ain't!
Pandering to His Base
The usual strategy for presidential candidates is to appeal to the political center in hopes of broadening their support. President Obama isn’t doing that. He is tilting sharply to the left on issue after issue: immigration, religious liberty, welfare, gay marriage, the environment, race, the role of government. Why?
DAVE MALAN
The simplest answer is that his bid for reelection is in trouble, and he’s going where he has the best chance of finding friendly faces. In fundraising, you rely on folks who’ve donated before. Obama is going after voters who’ve voted for him before.
But why focus his campaign on them? Didn’t Obama long ago lock up the various liberal elements and interest groups who make up the Democratic party’s base? Yes, but their mere support is not enough. He needs them to swarm to the polls and vote in the same massive numbers they did in 2008. At the moment, that seems unlikely.
A poll in mid-July by Resurgent Republic found that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting in the presidential election than either Democrats or independents. Sixty-two percent said they’re “extremely enthusiastic,” compared with 49 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents.
The usual strategy for presidential candidates is to appeal to the political center in hopes of broadening their support. President Obama isn’t doing that. He is tilting sharply to the left on issue after issue: immigration, religious liberty, welfare, gay marriage, the environment, race, the role of government. Why?
DAVE MALAN
The simplest answer is that his bid for reelection is in trouble, and he’s going where he has the best chance of finding friendly faces. In fundraising, you rely on folks who’ve donated before. Obama is going after voters who’ve voted for him before.
But why focus his campaign on them? Didn’t Obama long ago lock up the various liberal elements and interest groups who make up the Democratic party’s base? Yes, but their mere support is not enough. He needs them to swarm to the polls and vote in the same massive numbers they did in 2008. At the moment, that seems unlikely.
A poll in mid-July by Resurgent Republic found that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting in the presidential election than either Democrats or independents. Sixty-two percent said they’re “extremely enthusiastic,” compared with 49 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents.
Obama-ignoring-immediate-economic-fixes
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/23/obama-ignoring-immediate-economic-fixes/
Last month’s dismal jobs report underscored what many across the United States have known for sometime — the economic recovery remains damagingly substandard. With unemployment at 8.2 percent — and real unemployment (counting those who have left the labor force) in double digits — confidence in the economic prospects for 2012 are reaching new lows, while uncertainty among America’s businesses and jobs creators is at an all-time high.
Adding to the gloom is the dismal situation in Europe. The European Union’s recent decision to bail out Spain’s troubled banking sector with an injection of $125 billion underscores the depth of the ongoing financial crisis in Europe. Spain, whose economy is the fourth-largest in the eurozone, joins Greece, Ireland and Portugal in requesting assistance and highlights the systematic troubles in the European economy.
What is frustrating is that with elections looming in November, the administration seems interested only in politics, despite having many policy options at its disposal that would immediately boost economic certainty and aid job creation.
Three such economic policies that Congress should enact this year to improve the economy and make American businesses more competitive are extending bonus depreciation, reforming dividend tax rates and reducing the corporate tax rate.
Last month’s dismal jobs report underscored what many across the United States have known for sometime — the economic recovery remains damagingly substandard. With unemployment at 8.2 percent — and real unemployment (counting those who have left the labor force) in double digits — confidence in the economic prospects for 2012 are reaching new lows, while uncertainty among America’s businesses and jobs creators is at an all-time high.
Adding to the gloom is the dismal situation in Europe. The European Union’s recent decision to bail out Spain’s troubled banking sector with an injection of $125 billion underscores the depth of the ongoing financial crisis in Europe. Spain, whose economy is the fourth-largest in the eurozone, joins Greece, Ireland and Portugal in requesting assistance and highlights the systematic troubles in the European economy.
What is frustrating is that with elections looming in November, the administration seems interested only in politics, despite having many policy options at its disposal that would immediately boost economic certainty and aid job creation.
Three such economic policies that Congress should enact this year to improve the economy and make American businesses more competitive are extending bonus depreciation, reforming dividend tax rates and reducing the corporate tax rate.
Conservative Quote
Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman
Monday, July 23, 2012
8,753,935: Workers on Disability Set Another Record in July; Exceed Population of 39 States
(CNSNews.com) - The number of workers taking federal disability insurance payments hit yet another record in July, increasing to 8,753,935 during the month from the previous record of 8,733,461 set in June, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.
The 8,753,935 workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July exceeded the population of 39 of the 50 states. Only 11 states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey—had more people in them than the number of workers on the federal disability insurance rolls in July.
Virginia, the twelfth most-populous state, had 8,096,604 people in 2011, according to the latest Census Bureau estimate. That would make Virginia’s population about 657,331 less than the number of workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July.
Congress enacted legislation in 1956 to add federal disability insurance to the Social Security system. Over the decades, the number of Americans actually working has dramatically declined relative to the number claiming federal disability insurance payments.
By July 1967, there 74,520,000 Americans actually working and 1,145,663 workers taking disability payments. That made a ratio of 65 actual workers for each worker collecting disability. In July 1987, there were 112,634,000 people actually working and 2,759,852 people collecting disability—a ratio of about 41 actual workers to each worker collecting disability.
When President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people actually working and 7,442,377 workers collecting disability—a ratio of about 19 to 1.
In June, there were 142,415,000 people actually working and 8,733,461 workers claiming disability—a ratio of about 16 to 1.
In July, in addition to the 8,753,935 workers who received federal disability insurance payments, there were also 165,564 spouses of disabled workers and 1,850,653 children of disabled workers who received payments. That brought the total number of disability beneficiaries to 10,770,152.
Federal disability insurance is funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax that is split between employers and workers. Self-employed people pay the entire 1.8 percent.
The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government has needed to borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers claiming them. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran a deficit of $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it ran a deficit of $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011, it ran a deficit of $25.3 billion.
To be eligible for federal disability insurance payments, a person must have worked long enough to have qualified for the benefits and must also meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of “disabled.”
“We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if: You cannot do work that you did before; we decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death,” says the Social Security Administration.
Whether someone has worked long enough to qualify for federal disability insurance payments depends on their age and the number of “credits” they have earned from the Social Security system.
“Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income,” the Social Security Administration explains. “You can earn up to four credits each year. The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2012, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,130 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,520, you've earned your four credits for the year.”
According to the Social Security Administration’s formula, someone under 24 years of age would qualify for disability payments if he or she had earned at least 6 credits—or about $6,780—over the three years before they became disabled.
The 8,753,935 workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July exceeded the population of 39 of the 50 states. Only 11 states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey—had more people in them than the number of workers on the federal disability insurance rolls in July.
Virginia, the twelfth most-populous state, had 8,096,604 people in 2011, according to the latest Census Bureau estimate. That would make Virginia’s population about 657,331 less than the number of workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July.
Congress enacted legislation in 1956 to add federal disability insurance to the Social Security system. Over the decades, the number of Americans actually working has dramatically declined relative to the number claiming federal disability insurance payments.
By July 1967, there 74,520,000 Americans actually working and 1,145,663 workers taking disability payments. That made a ratio of 65 actual workers for each worker collecting disability. In July 1987, there were 112,634,000 people actually working and 2,759,852 people collecting disability—a ratio of about 41 actual workers to each worker collecting disability.
When President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people actually working and 7,442,377 workers collecting disability—a ratio of about 19 to 1.
In June, there were 142,415,000 people actually working and 8,733,461 workers claiming disability—a ratio of about 16 to 1.
In July, in addition to the 8,753,935 workers who received federal disability insurance payments, there were also 165,564 spouses of disabled workers and 1,850,653 children of disabled workers who received payments. That brought the total number of disability beneficiaries to 10,770,152.
Federal disability insurance is funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax that is split between employers and workers. Self-employed people pay the entire 1.8 percent.
The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government has needed to borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers claiming them. In fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran a deficit of $8.5 billion. In fiscal 2010, it ran a deficit of $20.8 billion. And in fiscal 2011, it ran a deficit of $25.3 billion.
To be eligible for federal disability insurance payments, a person must have worked long enough to have qualified for the benefits and must also meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of “disabled.”
“We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if: You cannot do work that you did before; we decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death,” says the Social Security Administration.
Whether someone has worked long enough to qualify for federal disability insurance payments depends on their age and the number of “credits” they have earned from the Social Security system.
“Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income,” the Social Security Administration explains. “You can earn up to four credits each year. The amount needed for a credit changes from year to year. In 2012, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,130 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $4,520, you've earned your four credits for the year.”
According to the Social Security Administration’s formula, someone under 24 years of age would qualify for disability payments if he or she had earned at least 6 credits—or about $6,780—over the three years before they became disabled.
BENTLY: Ending the sentence of unemployed for life - Washington Times
BENTLY: Ending the sentence of unemployed for life - Washington Times
The simple pleasures of summer have been overshadowed this year by crushing institutional despair as too many Americans are sentenced to life without meaningful employment.
The monthly job reports have taken on the tone of a parole board hearing in which the dismal fates of millions are laid out in bleak numbers. The stagnant unemployment number of 8.2 percent ignores those sentenced so long to joblessness that they have become unemployment lifers. Also ignored is the fact that not enough jobs are being created to accommodate new workers, those fresh-faced graduates ready to take their place in the world. With the Federal Reserve predicting no real change until 2014, if then, the data bear a closer look.
The Hill newspaper reports that until recently, the highest percentage of long-term unemployed workers was 26 percent in the 1980s. Compare that to a peak of 46 percent during the most recent downturn, and currently about 43 percent, according to the latest Labor Department figures.
Further breaking down the numbers, of 12.7 million unemployed, 5.4 million have been out of work for at least six months. Of those, about 33 percent have suffered without work for a year or longer. That stands in stark contrast to data from before the beginning of the recession, in December 2007, when just 17.5 percent of the unemployed were out of work for six months or longer.
Bearing the brunt of this is the next generation. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned recently that 14.8 percent of young people ages 15 to 24 in the United States are neither employed nor in school or training programs.
The simple pleasures of summer have been overshadowed this year by crushing institutional despair as too many Americans are sentenced to life without meaningful employment.
The monthly job reports have taken on the tone of a parole board hearing in which the dismal fates of millions are laid out in bleak numbers. The stagnant unemployment number of 8.2 percent ignores those sentenced so long to joblessness that they have become unemployment lifers. Also ignored is the fact that not enough jobs are being created to accommodate new workers, those fresh-faced graduates ready to take their place in the world. With the Federal Reserve predicting no real change until 2014, if then, the data bear a closer look.
The Hill newspaper reports that until recently, the highest percentage of long-term unemployed workers was 26 percent in the 1980s. Compare that to a peak of 46 percent during the most recent downturn, and currently about 43 percent, according to the latest Labor Department figures.
Further breaking down the numbers, of 12.7 million unemployed, 5.4 million have been out of work for at least six months. Of those, about 33 percent have suffered without work for a year or longer. That stands in stark contrast to data from before the beginning of the recession, in December 2007, when just 17.5 percent of the unemployed were out of work for six months or longer.
Bearing the brunt of this is the next generation. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned recently that 14.8 percent of young people ages 15 to 24 in the United States are neither employed nor in school or training programs.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Conservative Quote of the Day!
"That caricature of capitalism — “ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf” — is truly what Obama believes. It’s the sort of juvenile critique that anyone who has taken Economics 101 or read a word of Adam Smith has moved beyond. Even most liberal Democrats understand that the private sector provides the money that government then redistributes. But Obama doesn’t seem ever to consider where the money comes from. He just fervently believes that everything noble, selfless, and worthy trickles down to ordinary people from the beneficent hand of government. Striving to build and create on your own is “ruthless.”"
Mona Charente
Syndicated Colunist
Mona Charente
Syndicated Colunist
More Economic Malaise Ahead!
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/20/more-malaise-ahead/
The economy continues to be stuck in neutral, with no sign of relief ahead. The natural question is: How many more months and years of gloomy news reports must be endured until we admit the Obama administration’s borrow-and-spend policies have failed?
Other than a slight glimmer of hope in the housing market, economic indicators are grim. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, testifying before Congress Wednesday, reiterated the commitment for further action via monetary policy if the outlook doesn’t improve. Printing more greenbacks won’t be any more effective than the misguided stimulus which helped drive the national debt to its current $15.9 trillion level. Loose money might just add inflation to our woes.
The Fed’s Beige Book released Wednesday offered the most optimistic forecast of about 2 percent economic growth. The gross domestic product expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter, but many experts think that the rate will slide in the third quarter, leaving us with 1.5 percent this year. That’s substantially down from last year’s 2.5 percent growth.
The economy continues to be stuck in neutral, with no sign of relief ahead. The natural question is: How many more months and years of gloomy news reports must be endured until we admit the Obama administration’s borrow-and-spend policies have failed?
Other than a slight glimmer of hope in the housing market, economic indicators are grim. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, testifying before Congress Wednesday, reiterated the commitment for further action via monetary policy if the outlook doesn’t improve. Printing more greenbacks won’t be any more effective than the misguided stimulus which helped drive the national debt to its current $15.9 trillion level. Loose money might just add inflation to our woes.
The Fed’s Beige Book released Wednesday offered the most optimistic forecast of about 2 percent economic growth. The gross domestic product expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter, but many experts think that the rate will slide in the third quarter, leaving us with 1.5 percent this year. That’s substantially down from last year’s 2.5 percent growth.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
YOUNG AND CREWS: Season for relief from big government - Washington Times
YOUNG AND CREWS: Season for relief from big government - Washington Times
The good news is that this year’s budget deficit will be half a trillion less than last year’s. The bad news is that it still will top $1 trillion.
The worse news is that politicians, those clever creatures, are constantly looking for ways to keep enacting expensive new regulations and dispensing goodies without adding to the budget or the deficit. It’s a way to curry favor with voters, who tend to like freebies but dislike paying the costs. One such trick is the unfunded mandate, and it needs to be reined in.
Here’s how an unfunded mandate works: In the face of today’s still-high unemployment, suppose Congress wants to enact, say, a new job-training program. It could pay for the program itself by increasing federal spending, or it could require businesses or states to foot the bill, escaping any cost scrutiny.
The first approach shows up in the federal budget and increases the deficit. The second does not; hence the unfunded mandate’s political appeal.
Unfunded mandates are ways to grow government without making the government’s balance sheet look worse than it already is.
Unfunded mandates have been abused for a long time. Back in 1995, governors were furious at Washington, and Congress even passed an Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). It handily passed the House with a 394-28 vote and sailed through the Senate, 91-9. One reason for such overwhelming margins, though, was that the legislation doesn’t have much in the way of teeth. Members of Congress were able to hold back-patting press conferences, but they didn’t have to change their behavior very much.
One loophole is that an unfunded mandate has to be very expensive before it triggers any UMRA actions. It would have to cost more than $73 million to state and local governments or more than $146 million to the private sector.
If an unfunded mandate reaches those thresholds, the Congressional Budget Office is supposed to take a closer look and disclose its findings to Congress. Congress then has the option of striking the spending, though it almost never does. Congress explicitly is not allowed to strike down disaster aid, national security-related spending and a few other kinds of mandates. The UMRA is a good transparency measure, but it isn’t much more than that.
Click on link above for entire commentary!
The good news is that this year’s budget deficit will be half a trillion less than last year’s. The bad news is that it still will top $1 trillion.
The worse news is that politicians, those clever creatures, are constantly looking for ways to keep enacting expensive new regulations and dispensing goodies without adding to the budget or the deficit. It’s a way to curry favor with voters, who tend to like freebies but dislike paying the costs. One such trick is the unfunded mandate, and it needs to be reined in.
Here’s how an unfunded mandate works: In the face of today’s still-high unemployment, suppose Congress wants to enact, say, a new job-training program. It could pay for the program itself by increasing federal spending, or it could require businesses or states to foot the bill, escaping any cost scrutiny.
The first approach shows up in the federal budget and increases the deficit. The second does not; hence the unfunded mandate’s political appeal.
Unfunded mandates are ways to grow government without making the government’s balance sheet look worse than it already is.
Unfunded mandates have been abused for a long time. Back in 1995, governors were furious at Washington, and Congress even passed an Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). It handily passed the House with a 394-28 vote and sailed through the Senate, 91-9. One reason for such overwhelming margins, though, was that the legislation doesn’t have much in the way of teeth. Members of Congress were able to hold back-patting press conferences, but they didn’t have to change their behavior very much.
One loophole is that an unfunded mandate has to be very expensive before it triggers any UMRA actions. It would have to cost more than $73 million to state and local governments or more than $146 million to the private sector.
If an unfunded mandate reaches those thresholds, the Congressional Budget Office is supposed to take a closer look and disclose its findings to Congress. Congress then has the option of striking the spending, though it almost never does. Congress explicitly is not allowed to strike down disaster aid, national security-related spending and a few other kinds of mandates. The UMRA is a good transparency measure, but it isn’t much more than that.
Click on link above for entire commentary!
Friday, July 20, 2012
Conservative Quote
"Nobody is needy in the market economy because of the fact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody. The process that makes some people rich is, on the contrary, the corollary of the process that improves many people’s satisfactions."
Ludwig Von Mises, “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality,
Ludwig Von Mises, “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality,
Obama's 2013 New Year's Resolutions
Party with Secret Service one last time
Pack up White House silverware.
Cut prices for Presidential Pardons.
Fire up paper shredders.
Delete teleprompter porno.
Flip off Hillary Clinton.
Get medical marijuana card.
Ask Chris Matthews for a date.
Throw Eric Holder under the bus.
Throw Joe Biden under the short bus.
Reid Can't Explain Why Dems Didn't Raise Taxes When They Had the Chance
Reid Can't Explain Why Dems Didn't Raise Taxes When They Had the Chance
At a press conference in the Capitol today, Senate Democrats continued to make their push to raise income taxes on individuals, as well as small businesses that file with the IRS as individuals, earning more than $250,000 per year. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't explain why he didn't pass this bill in 2009 or 2010 when Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate and could have actually sent it to President Obama to sign into law.
At a press conference in the Capitol today, Senate Democrats continued to make their push to raise income taxes on individuals, as well as small businesses that file with the IRS as individuals, earning more than $250,000 per year. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't explain why he didn't pass this bill in 2009 or 2010 when Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate and could have actually sent it to President Obama to sign into law.
Obamacare Prevents Quality Care!
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/19/obamacare-prevents-quality-care/
Americans are so focused on the availability of health care provided by the Affordable Care Act that they completely overlook the quality of care they might receive. Government interference, intrusive mandates and cumbersome regulations are making it impossible to continue providing high-quality care.
Physicians across the nation have been planning for the worst, and an exodus of more than 100,000 doctors is expected by 2020. I will be closing the doors of my office in December after 32 years in surgical practice.
Patients will be lucky to see a physician because fewer will be available. The government does not recognize the term “physician” anymore. A fully trained doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine who completed a residency and became board-certified will be rare because the lesser-trained licensed health care provider will be the norm.
Americans are so focused on the availability of health care provided by the Affordable Care Act that they completely overlook the quality of care they might receive. Government interference, intrusive mandates and cumbersome regulations are making it impossible to continue providing high-quality care.
Physicians across the nation have been planning for the worst, and an exodus of more than 100,000 doctors is expected by 2020. I will be closing the doors of my office in December after 32 years in surgical practice.
Patients will be lucky to see a physician because fewer will be available. The government does not recognize the term “physician” anymore. A fully trained doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine who completed a residency and became board-certified will be rare because the lesser-trained licensed health care provider will be the norm.
They Want What?
...and they want 12 years of Romney's tax returns???? THIS should be on billboards all over our nation!
Listen when the Teleprompter is off!
TeaParty.net:
Listening to President Obama when the teleprompter is off gives keen insight into who this man really is. The teleprompter was off in Roanoke, VA., last Friday when he told the crowd; “If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that, Somebody else made that happen.” Of course they are trying to walk back the comments but based on everything else we have seen over the last three and a half years, this is what Obama really believes. In his view, government is the reason "you've got a business", not you!
If we allow through our inaction to allow Obama to win another four year term, think of the real and permanent damage he can do. The next President will likely appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. America's regulatory agencies will be given free rein to further destroy our nation's businesses to grow and create jobs through unnecessary regulation.
If Obamacare is not repealed, $2.8 trillion dollars (added to the $15.7 trillion debt we now carry) will be siphoned out of America's economy and it is clear that our healthcare system will be worse than it is now, not better.
Listening to President Obama when the teleprompter is off gives keen insight into who this man really is. The teleprompter was off in Roanoke, VA., last Friday when he told the crowd; “If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that, Somebody else made that happen.” Of course they are trying to walk back the comments but based on everything else we have seen over the last three and a half years, this is what Obama really believes. In his view, government is the reason "you've got a business", not you!
If we allow through our inaction to allow Obama to win another four year term, think of the real and permanent damage he can do. The next President will likely appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. America's regulatory agencies will be given free rein to further destroy our nation's businesses to grow and create jobs through unnecessary regulation.
If Obamacare is not repealed, $2.8 trillion dollars (added to the $15.7 trillion debt we now carry) will be siphoned out of America's economy and it is clear that our healthcare system will be worse than it is now, not better.
Don't Die in 2013: Confiscatory 55% Death Tax Set to Take Effect
Blake Seitz
In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form.
This content is provided by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation.
Current Law
The 2001 tax relief bill (EGTRRA), drastically reduced the impact of the death tax over the course of a decade, so that it was eliminated entirely for one year in 2010 — a good year to die, joked a number of pundits. The bill lowered marginal rates and increased the applicable exclusion amount, but it also included a provision allowing individuals to carry over exclusion dollars that were unused by their spouse at the time of his or her death. This “portability” measure effectively increased the applicable exclusion for many households, in some instances putting millions of dollars beyond the reach of the federal government.
The death tax rose from the grave at the end of 2010, with a Bush-era top rate of 35% and an applicable exclusion amount of $5 million ($5.12 million in 2012).
Scheduled Changes
In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form. The applicable exclusion amount will plummet to $1,000,000, and the top marginal rate will leap twenty points to 55%. A 5% surtax will also return, to be levied on estates between $10 million and $17 million. This raises the top effective rate of the death tax to 60%.
ATRF Analysis
According to research by the Tax Policy Center, if the current death tax expires, then the resulting, stricter exemption threshold will force 114,600 estates to file for the tax in 2013 — this represents a 13-fold increase from the previous year’s 8,800 estates, and countless wasted hours filling out tax paperwork. Of that cohort, an unfortunate 52,500 will be liable for the tax, way up from 3,300.
While those 52,500 taxpayers only represent 2% of those who die each year, no one should be fooled into thinking that the effects of this tax fall only on the proverbial “one percent.” The economic incidence of the death tax is far broader, because it causes many wealthy individuals to save less, choosing instead to retire early or, as Milton Friedman put it, “dissipate their wealth on high living.” This reduction in savings means a concomitant reduction in investment, lessening the flow of capital to businesses and organizations where countless ordinary Americans are employed.
Additionally, use of estate planning lawyers, life insurance trusts, and inter vivos gifting (all common practice in upper-income circles) allows many wealthy individuals to minimize their estate liability, so that the death tax ends up harming only those who could not or chose not to navigate a maze of legal loopholes.
But the ills of a 55% death tax are not just speculative. Prior to 2001, when the death tax stood at 55%, a 1994 study by the Tax Foundation found that a 55% estate tax “has roughly the same effect on entrepreneurial incentives as a doubling of income tax rates.” The same death tax today, then, would have similar decision-distorting economic effects as an 80% income tax on affected parties. A 1992 study that was generally pro-redistribution piled on, finding that the paperwork and compliance costs of the estate tax largely cancelled out any revenue raised from the tax.
This consistent finding — that the death tax is effectively revenue neutral, and is a net economic drain — exposes the class warfare aims of death tax advocates. The other reasons listed merely reinforce the point: that the death tax increase should be vigorously opposed.
10 Year Cost to Taxpayers
Congressional Budget Office: $516 billion
This content is provided by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. To donate to ATRF, click here.
In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form.
This content is provided by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation.
Current Law
The 2001 tax relief bill (EGTRRA), drastically reduced the impact of the death tax over the course of a decade, so that it was eliminated entirely for one year in 2010 — a good year to die, joked a number of pundits. The bill lowered marginal rates and increased the applicable exclusion amount, but it also included a provision allowing individuals to carry over exclusion dollars that were unused by their spouse at the time of his or her death. This “portability” measure effectively increased the applicable exclusion for many households, in some instances putting millions of dollars beyond the reach of the federal government.
The death tax rose from the grave at the end of 2010, with a Bush-era top rate of 35% and an applicable exclusion amount of $5 million ($5.12 million in 2012).
Scheduled Changes
In 2013, the death tax will revert to its antiquated, pre-2001 form. The applicable exclusion amount will plummet to $1,000,000, and the top marginal rate will leap twenty points to 55%. A 5% surtax will also return, to be levied on estates between $10 million and $17 million. This raises the top effective rate of the death tax to 60%.
ATRF Analysis
According to research by the Tax Policy Center, if the current death tax expires, then the resulting, stricter exemption threshold will force 114,600 estates to file for the tax in 2013 — this represents a 13-fold increase from the previous year’s 8,800 estates, and countless wasted hours filling out tax paperwork. Of that cohort, an unfortunate 52,500 will be liable for the tax, way up from 3,300.
While those 52,500 taxpayers only represent 2% of those who die each year, no one should be fooled into thinking that the effects of this tax fall only on the proverbial “one percent.” The economic incidence of the death tax is far broader, because it causes many wealthy individuals to save less, choosing instead to retire early or, as Milton Friedman put it, “dissipate their wealth on high living.” This reduction in savings means a concomitant reduction in investment, lessening the flow of capital to businesses and organizations where countless ordinary Americans are employed.
Additionally, use of estate planning lawyers, life insurance trusts, and inter vivos gifting (all common practice in upper-income circles) allows many wealthy individuals to minimize their estate liability, so that the death tax ends up harming only those who could not or chose not to navigate a maze of legal loopholes.
But the ills of a 55% death tax are not just speculative. Prior to 2001, when the death tax stood at 55%, a 1994 study by the Tax Foundation found that a 55% estate tax “has roughly the same effect on entrepreneurial incentives as a doubling of income tax rates.” The same death tax today, then, would have similar decision-distorting economic effects as an 80% income tax on affected parties. A 1992 study that was generally pro-redistribution piled on, finding that the paperwork and compliance costs of the estate tax largely cancelled out any revenue raised from the tax.
This consistent finding — that the death tax is effectively revenue neutral, and is a net economic drain — exposes the class warfare aims of death tax advocates. The other reasons listed merely reinforce the point: that the death tax increase should be vigorously opposed.
10 Year Cost to Taxpayers
Congressional Budget Office: $516 billion
This content is provided by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. To donate to ATRF, click here.
Ayn Rand on Individualism
The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness – which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.
Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Ryan: 'Republicans Must Return to Free-Market Principles'
Ryan: 'Republicans Must Return to Free-Market Principles'
"The protection of big business remains a common thread in Mr Obama’s policies, which have come at the expense of the consumer, the taxpayer and the entrepreneur. A growing coalition of reformers – rooted in citizen movements across the political spectrum – reject this pernicious crony capitalism. Our solutions promote an opportunity society, one that is rooted in the US commitment to free enterprise.
"Government should promote expanded opportunities, not force equal outcomes. Free enterprise is about more than material riches. It incorporates moral truths about personal dignity, equal opportunity, job security, ending poverty and dependency, increasing upward mobility, and taking responsibility for self and family. The Republican party has recommitted itself to these principles and promoted ideas that meet the magnitude of continued economic hardships and real anxiety about the future. Advanced with clarity and conviction, our reforms are reassuring precisely because they are so bold.
"In November’s election I believe the US will renew its dedication to economic freedom and reach a proper understanding of the role of government. In doing so, we will not just promote our prosperity, we will ignite an economic boom to spread opportunity around the world."
"The protection of big business remains a common thread in Mr Obama’s policies, which have come at the expense of the consumer, the taxpayer and the entrepreneur. A growing coalition of reformers – rooted in citizen movements across the political spectrum – reject this pernicious crony capitalism. Our solutions promote an opportunity society, one that is rooted in the US commitment to free enterprise.
"Government should promote expanded opportunities, not force equal outcomes. Free enterprise is about more than material riches. It incorporates moral truths about personal dignity, equal opportunity, job security, ending poverty and dependency, increasing upward mobility, and taking responsibility for self and family. The Republican party has recommitted itself to these principles and promoted ideas that meet the magnitude of continued economic hardships and real anxiety about the future. Advanced with clarity and conviction, our reforms are reassuring precisely because they are so bold.
"In November’s election I believe the US will renew its dedication to economic freedom and reach a proper understanding of the role of government. In doing so, we will not just promote our prosperity, we will ignite an economic boom to spread opportunity around the world."
Conservative Bar Humor
A guy goes into a bar, there's a robot bartender.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "168."
The robot then proceeds to talk about physics' space exploration and medical technology.
The guy leaves, but he is curious... So he goes back into the bar.
The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
Again, the robot makes a great martini gives it to the man and says, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "100."
The robot then starts to talk about Football, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.
The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time. He goes back into the bar.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini," and the robot brings him another great martini.
The robot then says, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "Uh, about 50."
The robot leans in real close and says, "So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "168."
The robot then proceeds to talk about physics' space exploration and medical technology.
The guy leaves, but he is curious... So he goes back into the bar.
The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
Again, the robot makes a great martini gives it to the man and says, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "100."
The robot then starts to talk about Football, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.
The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time. He goes back into the bar.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini," and the robot brings him another great martini.
The robot then says, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "Uh, about 50."
The robot leans in real close and says, "So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"
Conservative Quote
History surely teaches that when people refuse to face their responsibilities and embrace a philosophy which attempts to solve their problems by allowing undue concentration of power at the top they are traveling a road which leaves freedom and liberty behind and takes them toward a totalitarian form of government which, no matter under what name it parades, has always spelled disaster.
Horace Hildreth Maine Governor 1945-1949
Horace Hildreth Maine Governor 1945-1949
Remember In November!
Gun and ammunition sales, which rocketed when Obama took office, are again on the rise as owners stockpile weaponry in part because they're afraid those won't be available if he wins reelection, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group.
Politico
Politico
TSA Let 25 Illegal Aliens Attend Flight School Owned by Illegal Alien | CNSNews.com
TSA Let 25 Illegal Aliens Attend Flight School Owned by Illegal Alien | CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) -- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved flight training for 25 illegal aliens at a Boston-area flight school that was owned by yet another illegal alien, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The illegal-alien flight-school attendees included eight who had entered the country illegally and 17 who had overstayed their allowed period of admission into the United States, according to an audit by the GAO.
Six of the illegal aliens were actually able to get pilot’s licenses.
Have we learned nothing after 9/11?
(CNSNews.com) -- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved flight training for 25 illegal aliens at a Boston-area flight school that was owned by yet another illegal alien, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The illegal-alien flight-school attendees included eight who had entered the country illegally and 17 who had overstayed their allowed period of admission into the United States, according to an audit by the GAO.
Six of the illegal aliens were actually able to get pilot’s licenses.
Have we learned nothing after 9/11?
Freedom Quote
"Because we fear the responsibility for our actions,we have allowed ourselves to develop the mentality of slaves.Contrary to the stirring sentiments of the Declaration of Independence,we now pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" not to one another for our mutual protection, but to the state,whose actions continue to exploit, despoil, and destroy us."
-- Butler D. Shaffer
Professor, Southwestern University School of Law
June 9, 2003
-- Butler D. Shaffer
Professor, Southwestern University School of Law
June 9, 2003
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
News From The Hill
House passes bill demanding sequester details from Obama
By Pete Kasperowicz
The House approved legislation on Wednesday that would give the Obama administration 30 days to provide details on how it will deal with a required $109 billion cut to 2013 spending, which the administration must impose under last year's debt ceiling agreement.
The bill enjoyed broad support from both parties, and passed easily in a 414-2 vote. The two "no" votes came from Democrats: Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.).
Under the sequester, the Office of Management and Budget must by Jan. 2 cut $109 billion from 2013 mandatory and discretionary spending accounts unless Congress provides a different plan.
Republicans have complained that the Obama administration has yet to indicate how it would make these cuts, which were required after the so-called "supercommittee" failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction.
By Pete Kasperowicz
The House approved legislation on Wednesday that would give the Obama administration 30 days to provide details on how it will deal with a required $109 billion cut to 2013 spending, which the administration must impose under last year's debt ceiling agreement.
The bill enjoyed broad support from both parties, and passed easily in a 414-2 vote. The two "no" votes came from Democrats: Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.).
Under the sequester, the Office of Management and Budget must by Jan. 2 cut $109 billion from 2013 mandatory and discretionary spending accounts unless Congress provides a different plan.
Republicans have complained that the Obama administration has yet to indicate how it would make these cuts, which were required after the so-called "supercommittee" failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction.
Obama to entrepreneurs: Your success belongs to the state | New Hampshire OPINION01
Obama to entrepreneurs: Your success belongs to the state | New Hampshire OPINION01
President Obama has transitioned from “the private sector is doing fine” to “there is no private sector.” That is the gist of the argument he made in a campaign speech in the critical swing state of Virginia on Friday.
Speaking of American entrepreneurs, Obama said, “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Obama explained his theory this way: “...look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”
He mentioned teachers, firefighters and builders of roads as examples of those who are responsible for the success of America’s entrepreneurs. The economic illiteracy of the President’s thinking is staggering.
President Obama has transitioned from “the private sector is doing fine” to “there is no private sector.” That is the gist of the argument he made in a campaign speech in the critical swing state of Virginia on Friday.
Speaking of American entrepreneurs, Obama said, “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Obama explained his theory this way: “...look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”
He mentioned teachers, firefighters and builders of roads as examples of those who are responsible for the success of America’s entrepreneurs. The economic illiteracy of the President’s thinking is staggering.