President Obama has been on the stump trying to cobble together a coalition that will help keep him in the White House. It matters little what damage his actions might do to America, he has bigger plans and needs more “flexibility” to get them done.

On college campuses he is trying to gin up support by making the interest rate on college loans a campaign issue. The issue is government subsidized Stafford loans. He wants to freeze the current interest rates at 3.4% and he wants the Republicans to fight him on this so that he can create another class warfare wedge issue.

Where have we seen something like this before? Wasn’t the government’s heavy involvement in housing, pushing for everyone to be a homeowner that led to the housing bubble? When that bubble burst, all hell broke loose with it and Obama was able to ride the gush of air into the White House.

Think about the growing debt being accumulated by college students and think about their job prospects in the Obama economy. It is not a pretty picture. What happens if those students upon graduating say, “I can’t find a decent job. I have been duped. I’m not paying back my student loans.” What do you do? Jail them?

Now if interest rates climb, the economic effect will be to curtail borrowing, that is, the old price, supply and demand thing. But if interest rates are kept low, then the demand for more debt will not be curtailed. If the demand for more debt is not curtailed the bubble grows. Four more years of Obama managing the economy will not be a boon to jobs. If we haven’t figured that out yet, we better start studying quickly. There’s a big test coming in November.

I fully appreciate the college financing issue. But the education model is broken. Colleges seem to raise tuition in lock step with increases in government aid, so no progress is made. Colleges also seem to be afraid of not attracting enough students so they fill their course catalogs with nonsense courses that will interest no employer. The amount of debt piling up is frightening, but hey, we have a president to reelect. We’ll fix that later; just like Social Security, Medicare, budget deficits…

The Republicans are right to at least demand cuts in spending elsewhere to pay for this. They know the problem won’t get fixed or even addressed with Obama at the helm. We have to hang on for another six or seven months to cancel Obama’s contract and then prepare to roll up our sleeves and undo the damage he has done.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I just got my latest e-mail update from Congressman Tim Bishop and one cannot help but just shake his head. He leads off by mentioning his bogus survey, and tells the reader how (surprise!) people are concerned about taxes. Of course that is when Tim Bishop loses his way again.

You see Tim Bishop is a big supporter of the payroll tax cut. He is also a big supporter of big spending and big government. So let’s examine this closely. What is the purpose of the payroll tax? In the structure of the great Ponzi scheme that it is, the payroll tax goes to fund Social Security checks and Medicare. So a payroll tax takes away revenue from these programs. To put it another way, Tim Bishop is saying, “Let’s raid the piggy bank of today’s retirees and hand the bill to our children and grand children.” They will have to pay more than they did before because not only must they support the baby boomers who are now retiring they will have to make up the shortfall from this cut in funding. Tim Bishop is actually bragging about this.

Class Warfare

He then goes into the class warfare riff, about how nobody likes to pay taxes, that Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of middle class taxpayers, etc. Okay, let’s talk about fairness. How fair is it that 47% of income earners pay no income tax? How politically dangerous would it be if that number increases to greater than 50%, such that the majority of voters pay no taxes, but the minority is demanded to pay more? Is that fair? Is that America?

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” – James Madison, March 29, 1792, Essay on Property

But who do you want to believe? James Madison, the father of the Constitution, or Tim Bishop? It is income taxes, not payroll taxes, that go to the funding of the federal government. Tim Bishop attacks any curtailment of income taxes but makes not a peep about curtailment of runaway spending. No, we need to spend more on Solyndra, on bailouts, on Fannie and Freddie, on the Department of Education! We need to tax, tax, tax, he says.

He then attacks the Ryan budget. This is from a man whose party has not passed a budget, as required by law, in the Senate in nearly three years. This is from a man whose party leader, the president, has seen his budget go down in  a Democrat controlled senate 97-0, and he attacks Paul Ryan’s plan? What’s Tim Bishop’s plan? Oh, that’s right, stop the outsourcing of call centers overseas. That will get the economy humming.

He specifically attacks broadening the tax base.

“Base-broadening” is a Washington term for eliminating some of the credits and deductions that help middle-class families own a home, send their children to college, and afford healthcare.

No, Tim, broadening the tax base means getting more people into the workforce as taxpayers. Get it? Broadening the base, not squeezing more out of it. After squandering nearly a trillion dollars on the stimulus that promised us unemployment would not rise above 8%, it has not been below 8% since then. That is the worst record since the Great Depression, but of course that was all Bush’s fault.

It’s time to realize the hope and change experiment is over. It is time to get back to the principles of the founders which make this country great for over two centuries. It’s time to get rid of the politicians who keep throwing sand in the gears in the form of mountains of regulations. It is time to shrink government back to where it protected our rights and liberties rather than took them away to substitute them with the collective wisdom of politicians like Tim Bishop.

Tim Bishop says we need more spending, more stimulus, more debt, no solutions. I say, no more. 2012, the end of an error.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congress passed yet another extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. The Republicans did it to take the political issue off the table for the election. Tim Bishop and the Democrats passed it because they think it is good governing.

Payroll taxes are for a very specific purpose, to fund Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that are growing at a dangerous rate. So, hey, what better idea than to take money away from them. Let’s look at it very simply.

Suppose there was no Social Security and instead everyone had individual retirement plans and were contributing the same amount to those plans that they currently pay into Social Security. In tough times, maybe you scale back those contributions, but you fully realize that there will be an impact down the road. Either you will have less money when you retire, or you will have to contribute more when you are back on your feet to catch up. That is living in a responsible world. But Tim Bishop doesn’t live in a responsible world. He lives in an entitlement world which means he hands out goodies to buy votes and when later comes, he won’t be around to answer for it. He will be too busy admiring some post office that got named after him for his dedicated service.

The payroll tax is basically robbing from Social Security. There is no choice involved. If you had your own plan you would have the liberty to decide if you wanted to cut back on contributions to your retirement or not. Some would, some might not. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to increase the payroll tax once the Obama administration stops killing the recovery. Again, if there were private plans, you could decide to pay more into the plans when you are working again. There is nothing being discussed in Congress to decrease future benefits to make up for the shortfall in contributions. Once more, if you had a private plan those would be options you would be at liberty to choose among. Instead we have this from The New York Times:

Democrats could count far more policy victories in the bill: the payroll tax break will not be paid for, large changes that Republicans sought to the unemployment insurance program were not realized, and the program was extended far beyond what the opposing party sought.

Did you get that folks? It is a victory for Democrats that we don’t pay for this so that the Social Security problem that President Obama so scrupulously avoided in his latest budget fantasy just gets kicked down the road. What we really need to do is kick Tim Bishop and the rest of his Democrat colleagues in the House and the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid out of Congress. Let’s replace them with grown-ups who will make the tough choices to get us back on the same track for the good of the country rather than their personal self-interest.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

At CPAC Marco Rubio showed some of the traits that make him a leading candidate for Vice President no matter who the Republican nominee happens to be. He mixed humor and personal narrative.

Rubio spoke with a degree of awe about arriving in the Senate. He wondered to himself, “How did I get here?” But after spending time in Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate he looked around and wondered, “How did they get here?”

Getting more serious he talked about President Obama’s State of the Union address and how the president scrupulously avoided talking about his record. Why? Well, Rubio explained, for two years President Obama had a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate, which until the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace him, they had a filibuster-proof majority. So for two years he got everything he wanted and since then, everything has gotten worse.

So what did Obama say in the State of the Union address? He chose to pit Americans against each other. He is trying to sell the American people on a bill of goods that says we are a zero-sum society. That is, for someone to get ahead, someone has to get pulled down. But that is not true, but Obama needs us to believe it so that he can get people to vote for him.

Rubio then related to his own family saying that he felt his father and grandfather were better men than he, but Rubio has advanced as far as he has because he was born in the greatest country in the world.

He then made a telling point. He said that Republicans try to attract followers by arguing who is more like Ronald Reagan. Do you ever hear Democrats argue about who is more like Jimmy Carter?

What is government’s role, he asked? We should have an understandable tax code so that individuals and businesses can make decisions for business reasons not tax reasons. We need regulatory reform. Yes, we all want clean air and clean water but with sanity. We don’t have an energy policy, we have energy politics. While in office for three years President Obama had no plan for Medicare, but as soon as Republican Paul Ryan came up with a plan, he attacked it.

Summing up, Rubio said that President Obama seems to be a really good father; he seems to be a really good husband; but he is a terrible president. I couldn’t agree more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

If you ask conservatives what their number one priority is in the 2012 election, most will agree it is to unseat Barack Obama. Yet unless Rick Santorum can expand his base beyond social conservatives, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney may hand the election to Obama on a silver platter.

When Newt Gingrich is good, he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Romney has not won the hearts and minds of conservatives because of some of his past positions, his fumbling when he should strongly be defending himself, and his personal tar baby, RomneyCare. In the last debate Santorum almost pleaded for a focus on the national issues, but it only took a moment for Gingrich and Romney to roll back into the mud.

Romney has not been able to break out of the 25% neighborhood, but he hasn’t much fallen below it either. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich each have a win under their belts, but Romney has either been first or second in each contest, which the others can’t claim.

Gingrich can rightfully claim to have led the Republicans out of the wilderness that they languished in for forty years. He can rightly claim that he worked to reform welfare, balance the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, and has worked hard to strengthen conservative causes. He also has some good ideas on taxes. That is what he should run on.

On the flip side, he resigned from Congress when it was clear to him that his own party was not going to reelect him Speaker of the House. In 1997 there was an attempted “coup” where several Republican leaders told Gingrich to step down or be voted out. Newt stood firm and prevailed, but after the 1999 election it was clear that he would not retain the Speaker’s gavel and he resigned. At the time Gingrich said, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.” On the one hand, Newt Gingrich through deft political skill got Bill Clinton to go along with welfare reform, balancing the budget and tax cuts which turned Clinton into a demigod among Democrats. On the other hand, his brinksmanship against Clinton, with the government shutdown and his handling of the impeachment, drove Republican approval ratings into the ground. Clinton was a masterful politician, so is Obama.

The Dark Side

In the nomination battle Gingrich has gone after Romney on some pretty bizarre points for a conservative. He has attacked him on being a free market capitalist. The super PAC that backs Gingrich put out a hit piece that was so full of errors, even Gingrich said it should be corrected or pulled. But is attacking free market capitalism conservative?

He attacked Romney for his investments and for having foreign bank accounts when he knew, or should have known that Romney’s investments were in a blind trust. For those who don’t know what a blind trust is, here’s a definition.

A financial arrangement in which a person, such as a high-ranking elected official, avoids possible conflict of interest by relegating his or her financial affairs to a fiduciary who has sole discretion as to their management. The person choosing the trust also gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.

The key point is that Romney “gives up the right to information regarding the status of the assets.” How can Newt attack him on his investments if Romney has no control or knowledge over them? So Newt either knew this and hoped no one would notice, or he didn’t bother to find out. Romney seems be more on top of his game, because in the debate when Newt attacked him on investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Romney shot right back that Newt had similar investments. Oops! Who would you rather have in the Oval Office, the guy who does his homework, or the guy who shoots from the hip?

The latest attack from Gingrich out today concerns Medicare fraud at a company called Damon Corporation. Damon was involved in Medicare fraud to the tune of about $25 million between 1988 and 1993. Bain Capital acquired Damon in 1989, while Romney was running Bain and he sat on the board of Damon. So according to the timeline Damon was already fraudulently filing Medicare claims before Bain bought them.

When tipped off by whistleblowers an investigation was started and Damon ultimately paid a fine of $116 million. Romney was never charged with any wrongdoing. So what is the point of Gingrich’s ad? Why are Democrats and unions running similar ads to Gingrich’s? This is not a new discovery. It was brought up when Romney ran for Governor in 2002 and a Google search finds a similar reference on a Huckabee blog in 2008. Romney said he learned of the issue and took steps to deal with it, prosecutors disagreed. More facts will certainly come out in the next few days, but it seems that Gingrich is writing Obama’s campaign playbook. It’s one thing for the Democrats to raise these petty issues, but it gives them a whiff of credibility if they can show clips of prominent Republicans mouthing the same charges.

The focus for both of them should be the guy in the White House. For Romney it’s about making the case that he is a reformed moderate and he has moved away from those positions and how he has to convince conservatives of that and of Republicans that he can beat Obama.

For Gingrich, he has to prove that he is not a flip-flopper between pro-free market or anti-free market; between government solutions or government being the problem; about creating an environment for success or demonizing success; about being pro-cap and trade or against the global warming hoax; about endorsing liberal Republican candidates because they can win or backing the most conservative, electable candidate.

I took up commenting on the political scene just before the last presidential election. I don’t want to try to survive another four years of Barack Obama. It will be no consolation to say,”Yeah, but do you remember how Gingrich ripped up John King of CNN?” Retiring Obama is job one.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by Luke M. Schierholz

In a recent interview on Piers Morgan Tonight, Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman, once again, laid down the charge that has no proof, that the Tea Party is racist. I like Morgan Freeman. I think he is a great actor. But with this display, I also think that he needs to get out of the Hollywood bubble that includes such deep thinkers as Michael Moore and Janeane Garofolo, and actually visit a Tea Party gathering, (they are very safe places to go to). Here is his thinking. The Tea Party is opposed to Barack Obama, therefore the Tea Party is racist. Game. Set. Match. Gee, that was easy. Does Morgan Freeman know who Herman Cain is? How does he explain that one?

Here is Morgan Freeman in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSbjRElWv5I

It is simply because he is a black man. It has nothing to do with 9+% unemployment; it has nothing to do with an additional $5 trillion in debt; it has nothing about having a health care program that the majority of Americans have consistently opposed crammed down our throats; it has nothing to do with our abandonment of Israel; it has nothing to do with Obama now being less popular in the Arab world than President Bush was in 2008, despite President Obama grovelling to every dictator in that part of the world after taking office. No, it can only be racism. Talk about being stuck on stupid.

Meet Frederick Douglass

Maybe Freeman is desperately trying to salvage the historic moment of having the first real black president (apologies to Bill Clinton, the self-proclaimed first black president) being elected by 53% of the American people and in three short years, destined to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history, alongside James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter. Perhaps Mr. Freeman should study Frederick Douglass, a former slave, who led the abolitionist movement and helped bring an end to slavery.

In a book by K. Carl Smith, Mr. Smith lays it out and shows how far we have come from our founding principles, principles that were embraced by Douglass. He calls them Douglass’ four principles;

1. Value #1 — Respect for the Constitution
2. Value #2 — Respect for Life
3. Value #3 — Limited Government
4. Value #4 — Personal Responsiblity

Based on that list of values Frederick Douglass would fit comfortably within the Tea Party. According to Morgan Freeman, Frederick Douglass is a racist, because he too would disagree with Barack Obama.

Respect for the Constitution

“About four years ago I became convinced that it was not necessary to dissolve the union between the states, and that the Constitution of the United States not only does not favor slavery, but is is, in letter and in spirit, an anti-slavery document which demands the abolition of slavery. This radical change in my opinions logically resulted in my actions as well.” — Frederick Douglass, “My Bondage and My Freedom (1855)

Where does Obama stand on the Constitution? Since coming to office Obama installed czars for almost everything. By calling them presidential advisers he could avoid Senate confirmation.Here is what Democrat Senator Robert Byrd had to say about Obama’s use of czars.

Before passing away last summer [2010] Byrd, a nine-term senator who twice chaired the powerful Appropriations Committee, blasted the president’s czar appointments as unconstitutional and a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. He referred to Obama’s “czar strategy” as an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House.

Obama is also of the school of thought that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that fluidly changes with the times. In other words, it means nothing to him other than what he wants it to mean to support his objectives. He believes that it is perfectly constitutional to force every American to buy health care insurance as a condition of being an American, whether or not you want it.

Respect for Life

Frederick Douglass held life as being precious. He wrote:

“When I was treated exceedingly ill; when my back was being scourged daily; when I was whipped within an inch of my life — life was all I cared for. ‘Spare my life.’ was my continual prayer.’” – Frederick Douglas, “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave & Other Writings, p. 125

While an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama helped kill a law that would have required medical treatment to any child born alive, even if the procedure being performed was an abortion. Life was important to Douglass, life is a choice to Obama and not the choice of the individual who will live or die.

Limited Government

Frederick Douglass was also a strong believer in limited government. After all, wasn’t it government that enforced his enslavement. He had this to say about the relationship between government and the freed slave:

“Let him alone and mind your own business. If you see him plowing in the open field. leveling the forest, at work with a spade, a rake, a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill — let him alone; he has a right to work. If you seem him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands — let him alone. Don’t shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn — let him alone. Don’t pass laws to degrade him.” {emphasis added} — Frederick Douglass: Selections from his Writings

But where does our government stand with regard to a Right to Work? Obama appoints far left progressives to the National Labor Relations Board and they try to block Boeing from opening a factory in South Carolina. Laws such as Davis-Bacon were passed as a result of a contractor bringing black laborers to Long Island to build a VA hospital in the 1930s. Although changes have been made to reduce the impact on minorities, the law has continued to make federal constructions projects more expensive than they otherwise would be. With regard to education, again, the government gets in the way. While Obama sends his daughters to a prestigious private school in Washington, D.C. he fought against a voucher program that could rescue other black children from failing schools in the District. The Tea Party fully supports such vouchers. Tell us again about who is racist, Mr. Freeman.

Douglass also wrote about government power.

“I was now getting, as I have said, one dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it; I earned it; it was paid to me; it was rightfully my own; yet, upon returning each Saturday night, I was compelled to deliver every cent of that money to Master Hugh. And why? Not because he earned it, –not because he had any hand in earning it, — not because I owed it to him, — not because he possessed the slightest shadow of a right to it; but solely because he had the power to compel me to give it up.” – Frederick Douglas, “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave & Other Writings, p. 85

How much does this sound like the government and President Obama’s insistence that he is entitled to take more. In Obama’s view and in his language he treats all earnings as belonging to the government except what the government allows you to keep. That’s why he says tax cuts “have to be paid for.” Never mind that the government is spending our money for $16 muffins; $500 million for failed solar companies; $60-$100 billion a year stolen from Medicare and Medicaid; $1 trillion for failed stimulus programs, but his solution to the budget crisis is not to spend less, but to take more.

Personal Responsibility

“….And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is to give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!…your interference is doing him positive injury” –Frederick Douglass, What the Black Man Wants (1865)

Douglass did not call for the Great Society programs that have destroyed the black nuclear family. He did not call for spreading the wealth around, because it is good for everyone. Barack Obama wants to grow government bigger and bigger, to do more and more, whether we want it or not. And if we don’t want it, we are racists; if we object to it, we are greedy; if we look at the economic wreckage that surround us and we say enough, leave us alone and we’ll right this ship, we are called Nazis. Here is what Frederick Douglass accomplished without a government program:

• Taught himself to read and write — self-taught homeschooling program
• Taught himself to play the violin
• Escaped from slavery at age twenty
• Delayed his escape from slavery for one year in order to learn how to read and write as well as read
• He wrote his first book at age twenty-seven
• Became the face of the Abolitionist Movement and served as the catalyst within the movement that gave birth to the Republican Party
• In 1847, started a newspaper, The North Star
• Assisted Harriet Tubman in the Underground Railroad Movement through the use of his home in Rochester, NY
• Became an ordained minister in the AME Zion Church
• Served as an adviser to five U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison)
• in 1863, served as a recruiter for the Massachusetts 54th Infantry Regiment
• in 1870, became the owner and editor of The New National Era,  a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C.
• Without his knowledge, in 1872 Douglass became the first black American to be nominated as a Vice-Presidential candidate — Victoria Woodhull’s running mate on the Equal Rights Party ticket
• Douglass earned $50-$105 per speech during his public speaking career.

All accomplished without a government program.

“I am a Republican, a black dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. — Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

So, Mr. Freeman, are you prepared to call Frederick Douglass a racist, because his views are far closer to those of the Tea Party, than to Barack Obama? We’ll wait for your next interview to find out.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Note: a shout out to K. Carl Smith and his book Frederick Douglass Republicans: The Movement to Re-Ignite Americas’s Passion for Liberty (Author House: Birmingham, AL) 2011

President Obama Speaking at Solyndra

Congressman Tim Bishop has not been able to keep from spending, no matter what. The Postal Service has an $8.5 billion deficit, and Tim Bishop is out there fighting to keep an unneeded post office open. We are trillions of dollars in debt and he comes out blasting the Tea Party, because they want Congress to not waste anymore money on green boondoggles like Solyndra.

At issue is a Continuing Resolution, that is, a bill to provide temporary funding to the government. At the heart of the issue is that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has run out of money, so there is an issue of whether to give them $3 billion more or $6 billion more. In addition the Republicans want to cut funding for such green projects like Solyndra, which just declared bankruptcy after getting a $500 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee. How heartless can those Tea Party people be to not want to send good money after bad for progressive boondoggles? But of course we should listen to Tim Bishop. After all he has been such a trusted steward of our money so far, right?

The above chart shows how much debt limit has been increased by Congress to keep the government functioning, since 1940, when it was almost zero. Tim Bishop was sworn into Congress in January of 2003, from a point where it had leveled off, the line almost goes vertical. That is eight trillion dollars in additional borrowing in just ten years in office, and he has the utter gall to say the Tea Party’s calls for restraint are unwarranted? Somebody has to do it. If Tim Bishop and Nancy Pelosi had not spent trillions of dollars that the government didn’t have, maybe we wouldn’t be quibbling over $3 billion.

Waste and Fraud

It remains to be seen if Solyndra was a massive fraud or the Democrats thinking they are really investment bankers and venture capitalists rather than elected officials, but we could have used that $500 million rather than waste it. But Bishop objects:

“Even worse, the Republican bill calls for much of that sum to be funded by cutting federal loan programs that have encouraged new job creation by U.S. automakers and clean energy manufacturers.” — e-mail message from Tim Bishop to his constituents.

$39 billion in stimulus dollars have been earmarked for green energy jobs. So far, $19 billion has been spent and 3,500 jobs have been created. That’s $5.4 million per job, people, do you think we can do better than that in the private sector? But what is a “green job?” According to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, if you drive a hybrid bus, it’s a green job, if you drive a gas-powered bus it is not a green job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1scrqqWpFlM

As one pundit put it, Washington is the only place where the circus never leaves town. This is what Congressman Bishop decries that Republicans are trying to cut. Do you think your hard-earned money is being well spent?

There is a report out today that the federal government paid about $600 million to federal workers who are DEAD! The Justice Department buys muffins for a meeting that cost $16 each! Medicare and Medicaid routinely have $60-$100 billion per stolen, and Tim Bishop has no suggestions how to cut, and even takes the time to write his constituents that, “I am sick and tired of this divisive posturing we have come to expect from the Republican Tea Party Caucus.”

I have a piece of news for you, Congressman, in case you have not been paying attention. The last Democrat who thought it would be a great idea to attack his opponent as beholden to the Tea Party was a guy named David Weprin in the 9th Congressional District of New York special election. In a district that was 3:1 Democrat registered voters, he lost big. Many Tea Party members from the heart of your district traveled on their own time and at their own expense into Brooklyn and Queens to get out the vote for Bob Turner. If you think it is a winning strategy to attack the Tea Party, I have three words for you. Bring it on.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

When  does the decent interval end? When does the clock run out on giving the president the benefit of the doubt and when is it time to call it as you see it, no holds barred?

President Obama is losing on all fronts. If he wants to survive he needs to do what Democrats do best, find a slogan that can be repeated mindlessly by as many adherents as possible and whip up the crowds to turn out and vote for him. If in doing so it means telling massive lies to the American people, so be it. As Saul Alinsky put it in Rules for Radicals

Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, “Does the End justify the Means?” but always has been “Does this particular end justify this particular means?”

Alinsky, Saul (2010-06-22). Rules for Radicals (p. 47). Vintage. Kindle Edition.

Think about Paul Ryan’s serious plan to get the budget under control, save Medicare and eventually balance the budget. President Obama invites Congressman Ryan to a speech about the budget, where he then mocks the plan. That is shortly followed by the commercial showing a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. Nice. What is Obama’s plan? Simple, keep everything the same, except pay doctor’s and hospitals less. Okay, let’s remember some basic economics and supply and demand. If you keep the demand constant (we’re not changing any services for seniors), but we are going to lower the price (less money for doctors and hospitals), what do you suppose will be the impact on the supply of doctors and hospitals? Yes, they will drop out of the Medicare program. So while this administration thinks it can keep from impacting seniors health care financially, it will lead to shortages and long lines. So, if grandma needs an MRI to diagnose her ailment, she may have to wait six months to get  one. Oh, you say she died in the mean time, too bad, at least she didn’t have to make a co-payment.

The Buffett Lie

The so-called Buffett rule came from billionaire Warren Buffett saying that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, and Obama has latched onto this. What better way to win the class warfare battle than to get a custom fitted fig leaf from Warren Buffett? The problem is that Warren Buffett makes most of his money from capital gains, whereas his secretary pays income taxes on her earnings. Different taxes, different rates. It is different because of the source  of the income, not the size of the income. But how was Buffett able to make a capital gain?

Capital gains come about when you buy an asset and later sell it for more than you paid for it. But where did Warren Buffett get the money to buy the asset in the first place? At some point he had to earn it. When he earned it he paid income taxes on it, the same kind of income taxes as his secretary. So he made an income and paid taxes on it. He then took what was left and invested it. While he held the investment, if it paid any dividends he would have paid taxes on the dividends, and when he finally sold it for a gain he paid capital gains taxes on the profit. So Buffett paid taxes several times on the same money, but the “Buffett Rule” only refers to the last tax he is paying. Despite being a mufti-billionaire, he only pays himself about $100,000 a year in salary, the rest is capital gains.

If Warren Buffett doesn’t like this, there are a number of things he can do to assuage his conscience without mucking up things for the rest of the economy.

1. Write a big fat check to the government, if he feels he is not paying enough in taxes. Why?
2. He could pay himself a bigger salary equal to the capital gains, he currently takes and leave the gains in his investments.
3. Structure his secretary’s compensation to match his by paying her more of her income in capital gains and less in salary.

Has the tax code become an unmanageable mess? Yes. Let’s chuck the whole thing and replace it with a flat tax. But President Obama should stop lying that the most productive job creators in the country are not taxed enough. We need them to keep their money in the private economy created more jobs, not sending it to Washington for President Obama to spend.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Chuck Schumer by DonkeyHoley

Today in New York City, the bastion of blue, in the bluest of states there is an upset in the making. Republican Bob Turner is leading Democrat David Weprin for the Congressional seat vacated by the disgraced Anthony Weiner, a protegé of Senator Chuck Schumer.

The margin is a remarkable 6% (47%-41%) the day before the election. I walked two election districts yesterday, and not a Weprin sign was visible and the support for Turner was strong. Registration in the district is 3:1 Democrat. The national party is pouring money into the race on the Democrat side, $500,000 – $800,000 recently, and robocalls featuring Bill Clinton have begun. Unions are also being summoned to get out in force.

Why is this so important to the Democrats? Part of it is history. This seat was held by Chuck Schumer before he ran for the senate. His hand-picked protegé, Anthony Weiner, replaced Schumer in Congress. These were two of the most strident, aggressive progressives in Congress (Schumer still is)  and two politicians who never worked in the private sector, but have all the knowledge and experience to tell everyone else how to run their lives and what is good for them.

The Democrats also puffed out their chests when Kathy Hochul won a special election in upstate New York in a traditionally Republican district, where another Democrat ran on the Tea Party line. Hochul attacked her opponent’s support for Paul Ryan’s budget plan that would actually save Social Security, in the typical “scare the seniors” tactic. The Democrats felt they had the signature issue they needed to carry them all the way to 2012. When Weprin tried to carry that ball forward, he ran into a buzz saw named Ed Koch.

“This is former Mayor Ed Koch. I’m calling set the record straight on something. David Weprin is making phone calls trying to scare seniors. They’re NONSENSE. Weprin should be ASHAMED of himself. Bob Turner is running for Congress to PROTECT your Medicare and Social Security. It’s why I ENDORSED BOB TURNER for Congress. If anyone tries to scare you with LIES about BOB TURNER, tell ‘em ED KOCH told them to KNOCK IT OFF. BOB TURNER is the BEST candidate for senior citizens in this race. Don’t believe anything else. Send Washington a message:  Vote for Bob Turner for congress on September 13th. Bob Turner is supported by Rudy Giuliani, the Liberal Party and me.”

If the Social Security scare tactics don’t work in a district with a 3:1 Democrat edge, Team Obama is in serious trouble. In a recent New York Times article, other Democrat candidates are starting to distance themselves from Obama so they don’t go down with the ship. This will get very interesting.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours; Please comment below.

photo by Kevin Dooley

One of the main reasons the current economic problem is so hard to solve and the battle lines are so starkly drawn is that there is strong disagreement on what the problem is and likewise the solutions. The mantra from the left is that the problem is Bush’s fault, there was too much deregulation under Bush, although no one points to any particular regulation repealed under Bush that caused the crisis, and that we don’t tax enough. Those on the right have a different view.

Conservatives believe that President Obama is hell bent on changing America from a world leader to just one part, co-equal with many others in a world government. Think of the European Union with America added. In addition, we believe, that Obama wants to remake America as another socialist state on the European model instead of fertile ground for creative entrepreneurs to plant the seeds of their dreams and watch them grow. Instead he wants to redistribute the wealth by taking from those who produce to those who do not.

At first blush this may seem compassionate even fitting within the Judeo-Christian philosophy of helping the least of our brothers. However, I don’t recall learning anywhere in my Catholic upbringing those passages in the Bible or among the church scholars where we should all defer to the government and shirk our individual responsibilities. In other words if the story of the Good Samaritan was played out today, the Samaritan would see the man beaten and lying on the side of the road, dial 911, and then go about his business without soiling his hands to help the poor man himself. No worry, there must be plenty of government programs to help the poor guy and better yet, we can tax the rich to pay for it. He would not be so crazy as to put the man in his car, take him to a private hospital, leave some money for expenses and promise to pay any shortfall on his return. That would be viewed as nutty. However, when Obama’s philosophy is in place for a long enough time it changes from that of helping those truly in need, to one of entitlement. If you doubt this you need only look and listen to the recent rioting in Britain. They can rob and loot from business owners, because they say they’re the rich and they deserve to get taken down a couple of pegs. But who is paying for their handouts?

But aside from our view of the role of government what about what has worked in the past and what has not? What about the lies that pack political punch but do not stand up to scrutiny. Let’s take a look at the “we have to tax more” lie.

President Bush was not a fiscal conservative. For example, he added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare without providing funding for it. But in an article in the Wall Street Journal giving a primer on the debt situation, John Steele Gordon says this:

That decline {of debt relative to GDP] ended in 2001 following the collapse of the dot-com bubble and rising unemployment in the resulting recession. By 2003 the debt-to-GDP ratio had risen to 61.7%. Many blame the Bush tax cuts for adversely impacting federal revenues, causing the debt to spiral upwards. But that is just not true. Federal revenues declined by almost 12% in the early years of the decade, but when the tax cuts fully kicked in in 2003, the economy began to grow strongly again and federal revenues increased 44% in the next four years, while unemployment fell to 4.2% from 6.2%. Federal outlays in those four years increased by only 26.4%, and while the debt-to-GDP ratio increased to 64.8% by 2007, that was still well below what it had been in 1994.

First, the Democrats love to hark back to the Clinton years, the last time we had budget surpluses, as proof of the genius of Democratic leadership. But when Bush became president and was hit with a recession and the bursting of the dot com bubble, why was that not Clinton’s fault? Answer: President Bush had more class than to point fingers. He took the hand he was dealt and played it. Likewise, when he left office he made no comments about his successor, unlike the equally classless former Presidents Carter and Clinton who can’t bring themselves to get off the political stage.

Bush cut taxes and brought the unemployment rate down to 4.2% from 6.2%, while Obama jacked up spending and the unemployment climbed from 7.7% and is stuck at over 9%, two years after the recession officially ended.

Second, the argument from the left is that we have to repeal the Bush Tax cuts because we cannot afford them. As Mr. Gordon points out we had a revenue boom. In 2007 the Treasury took in more revenue than at anytime in history. This is plainly a spending problem and we have to unwind the reckless spending. The spending under President Bush was out of control and under President Obama he has kicked into overdrive.

The “solutions” being floated talk about it taking 10, 20, 30, 40 years to get things under control. It didn’t take that long to get into this mess, why should it take that long to get out? Granted, we are facing the Baby Boomers going from paying into Social Security and Medicare to drawing out and addressing that has to be front and center. The ponzi schemes that are Social Security and Medicare, like all ponzi schemes, have reached the point where we don’t have enough new people paying in to keep the con going. It is collapsing and we need our representatives to come up with a workable solution. We need to return to Constitutionally limited government, and let the states handle those things that are not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution as is clearly spelled out in the tenth amendment.

But first we need our representatives to act like grown ups and stop trying to score political points to get themselves reelected, and face up the what the problem really is, spending, and fix it. The golden goose is dead. It’s time to live within our means.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.