Topic: Election 2012
If Norm Coleman's prediction comes true, kiss the Republican Party goodbye.
Norm Coleman – the former senator from Minnesota and a prominent advisor for Mitt Romney – suggested over the weekend in an interview that no matter who the Republican nominee is, they are unlikely to fully repeal Obamacare.
The conservative base of the GOP did not bust its butt to return Republicans to control in the House because we like pragmatism, bipartisanship, and tinkering around with Obamacare in an effort to "fix" it. The majority of Americans want it repealed. Obamacare is a malignant tumor on the Republic. If the GOP proves unwilling or unable to cut out that tumor before 2014 -- when it goes into full effect -- then we conservatives will eviscerate the GOP as a political entity and start over. The party cannot survive without us Google the sad fate of the Whig Party; it can happen again.
If the GOP doesn't bleed to get Obamacare repealed, we'll bleed the party dry. Bank on it.
As you watch President Obama's class-warfare-soaked State of The Union address tonight, keep two things in mind.
- He's a liar and a demagogue.
- Taxation is only half of the story at best.
You have to watch spending too. The poorest Americans got back $8.21 for each $1.00 paid in taxes. The middle class got back $1.30 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. The rich got back $0.41 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. Yes, really.
We do do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
The document below the fold is purportedly John McCain's opposition research report on Mitt Romney from the 2008 presidential campaign.
I was just checking the latest posts over at Ace of Spades HQ and saw the following. Click it to zoom in:
My own senior U.S. Senator, the radically left-wing utopian Sherrod Brown, apparently thinks it's a smart move to spend campaign funds on ads at conservative blogs. This genius has already shown that he's supremely confident in his ability to spend your money better than you can, since he's delighted to grow every conceivable government program or entitlement you can dream up (except for national defense, which he'd like to gut). Is it any surprise that he's equally profligate when it comes to spreading around that sweet, sweet union cash?
Let me know when his challenger Josh Mandel starts buying ads on Democratic Underground, won't you? I'll try my best not to hold my breath while I wait.
This post by Steve McCann has fouled my mood much more than the clouds and rain could ever do.
There now appears to be an inevitability surrounding Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination for president. Are the American people prepared to sit through another term of George H.W. Bush? The chances are that Romney would be the last Republican president, as the Party may fly apart under his rule. The country would then have to face another round of the Left-dominated Democratic Party in charge and the inevitable collapse that would bring about.
At no time in the past 150 years has the nation needed a bold and decisive leader that could not only initiate change but be honest with the American people.
Yet the current governing class and in particular the Republican establishment is treating this election cycle as if it were no different from any other during the past sixty years. Their reaction to the Tea Party movement is indicative of this mindset, as they choose to denigrate and dismiss this grassroots uprising as just another passing crusade by conservative ideologues. They fail to understand that the appeal of Ron Paul is that he is willing to stick it to the ruling class. The primary concern of the establishment, either Republican or Democrat, is to retain power through the control of the purse strings, and to put off any difficult decisions while "compromising" with the opposition.
The campaign strategy of Mitt Romney mirrors that of all the past moderate nominees chosen by the Party. The formula: speak the language of the conservative majority in the Party, claim only a moderate can get elected, divide the vote among the conservatives running for the nomination, mobilize the media to destroy any real conservative challenger, and overwhelm these same challengers with money from the deep-pocket establishment contributors.
If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise. If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation's problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.
This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.
There are many things I don't get. Here's one.
Mitt Romney is Obama's dream opponent. He's a moderate, a squish, a watered-down statist, a Democrat Lite™. So why would voters elect an imitation leftist when they can have an authentic Marxist who'd like four more years to destroy the republic? If we're all forced to choose between driving off a cliff with the cruise control set, or launching into the abyss at top speed, the people egging on the drivers will choose the daredevil. Those of us who want to hit the brakes aren't going to work very hard for the wuss who wants us all to sit politely as we coast into oblivion.
We're not interested in playing by someone else's rigged rules. If the Republican Party establishment sticks us with Romney, we'll change the rules to our advantage. They should remember one word, and tremble.
The hyper-skilled tradesmen who build nuclear aircraft carriers possess a level of expertise that requires steady use to maintain. Just as professional athletes must constantly train to maintain their abilities, shipbuilders must steadily build to keep their own proficiency at the required peak level. If you run Newport News Shipbuilding and your guys are forced to sit on their butts for years between builds, they're going to lose their skills (if not go into different lines of work just to keep food on the table). The ripples from that kind of splash would be very big and would last a very long time.
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is under construction as you read this, but guess what the geniuses at Barack Obama's Office of Management and Budget are planning to do to the gap between the construction of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and CVN-80?
The navy has proposed an additional 2-year schedule slip to its newest carrier, CVN79, which would extend the funding profile from the original 8 yrs to 12 yrs.
This schedule change almost insures the cost of CVN-79 is going to be enormous due to loss of trade skill at the yard, which means CVN-80 is also going to be a whole lot more expensive. By 2020 aircraft carriers are going to have such an enormous cost that there is no way the nation will build CVNs after CVN-80.
I see only two ways this doesn't happen. Either Obama loses in 2012 and the new President addresses this issue directly, immediately following election, or in some future 2016-2020 time frame the nation funds and builds 2 carriers of the Ford Class just like Reagan built 2 with the Nimitz class as a way of getting long term costs for the CVN as a strategic entity under control.
Otherwise, there will be 3 Ford class carriers, and by around 2025 the nation will have decided that based on cost alone a new way to project airpower from the sea will be necessary in the future. If you don't believe this move will end the big deck aircraft carrier, then you are in denial how the industrial reality will be seen in a political context once the costs go up.
This is a bigger deal than the politics and economics and budgets will ever reflect in conversation. What is the true value of 50 years of projecting airpower from sea? A big deck nuclear powered aircraft carrier today is a strategic investment that the US really can't afford get wrong. Making the wrong choice would be a strategic and political blunder of incalculable magnitude; one history would record as our nation casually tossing aside the aircraft carriers strategic advantages without a clear understanding of the consequences, but doing so knowing full well that once you lose the big deck production line - there is no going back.
That bold-faced emphasis is mine.
An argument can be made that big-deck carriers in this decade might be as relevant as battleships on December 7, 1941. I'm not sure I buy it, but it seems colossally foolish to abandon the big-deck carrier not because of a hard-nosed assessment of their value, but to lose them instead because a bunch of pencil-necked peacenik accountants in Washington don't understand shipbuilding.
The Brits recently abandoned fixed-wing carrier aviation (see HMS Illustrious for details), and their failure to think ahead continues to bite them in the rear. To add insult to injury, it looks like Argentina once again intends to test the proposition that Britannia rules the waves.
But hey, who needs aircraft carriers when you've got universal healthcare, right? In the Age of Obamacare, the whole world loves us. Let's just redirect those sweet, sweet taxpayer dollars away from that icky war stuff to something more in line with our newly socialist tastes. We'll never be attacked.
You tell me, progressives.
Next foolish campaign slogan, please.
A preview just went up at the WSJ:
On Tuesday I will announce my "Cut, Balance and Grow" plan to scrap the current tax code, lower and simplify tax rates, cut spending and balance the federal budget, reform entitlements, and grow jobs and economic opportunity.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
e will lower the corporate tax rate to 20%--dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to a rate on par with our global competitors.
I guess you could call it the 20-20-0 Plan. Unlike Herman Cain's somewhat fuzzy 9-9-9 Plan, this one will supposedly target spending too (which is critical). Unlike Mitt Romney's 87-page snoozer, people will presumably read this one.
It'll be impossible to score, though, because of that "choose your own tax system" feature. It'll be impossible to predict how many people (and which people) will pick this new option if it's made available. All anyone can do is score it as if 100% of taxpayers choose to switch, which won't happen.
Logically, there are a limited number of possible positions for a person to hold regarding government policy on abortion. Here's a Venn diagram that lays them all out.
Anyone who's thought about the issue for more than a couple of seconds understands this. So how do we make any sense of Herman Cain's stated position? He's never given any indication that he's in the blue area above, so we can rule that out. But when you watch this interview on CNN, it's impossible to pinpoint where he stands beyond that.
He says "I think it's a sin." That puts him in either the red or purple area. Moments later, he says "I believe life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances." That puts him squarely in the red area. But when pressed on making an exception if his daughter or granddaughter were to be raped and become pregnant, he replies:
It's not the government's role, or anybody else's role, to make that decision. ... It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as President, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.
That puts him somewhere in the purple area. If we take him at his word, he would be morally opposed to abortion, but would reluctantly allow it on demand. That's squarely a pro-choice stance. When you take that position, you are in favor of a woman's right to abort her unborn child for any reason or no reason. That is not a pro-life stance.
Now listen to his statements in this Fox News interview with John Stossel.
The Democrat base echoes this guy's call: "Long live socialism."
Oh, and long live bestiality, too.
This is the modern Democrat Party. These degenerates actively hate the middle class, though they claim to love them. The middle class is the evil "bourgeoisie" of 21st Century America, where the lion's share of income goes.
Both candidates spoke yesterday at the Values Voter Summit.
After a video of Mitt Romney's speech finds its way online, I'll update this post.
Aw, not this again.
Look, I understand that the infamous Allahpundit is pretty liberal on social issues. That's fine. He's entitled to be wrong, and it's not at all surprising (he's an atheist based in New York City). There's nothing outrageously silly in this quote of his in a post about Rick Perry's support for two proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution banning gay "marriage" and abortion:
Two caveats to his otherwise strict support for the Tenth Amendment, both of which happen to serve the agenda of social conservatives whose votes he's depending on. He backed away from his "states' rights" defense of legalizing gay marriage last week; here's the inevitable climbdown on abortion too, which he described as a states' rights issue a few days ago. Follow that last link and re-read the post to see why it was predictable. I'm surprised he didn't anticipate the tension his Tenther rhetoric on these issues would cause with his base, which he could have defused by mentioning his support for the amendments straightaway. There's nothing necessarily inconsistent in that position: You can be a strong federalist and still condone federal solutions for exceptionally grave evils like slavery which the states, for various reasons, can't be trusted to police as diligently as they should. That's the core of the pro-life argument for an anti-abortion amendment -- it's a matter, literally, of life and death. What's Perry's argument, though, for why gay marriage qualifies as an "exceptionally grave evil" warranting a nationwide ban? Is smoking, say, an evil sufficiently grave to require a constitutional amendment outlawing it? (Don't answer that, liberals.) He's not in a legal trap here but he is in a philosophical one. And a political one, of course, as the press will use this to throw him off his economic message. Specify, please, which behaviors are so pernicious that we can't risk letting parochial state legislatures deal with them.
What's outrageously silly -- or intentionally obtuse -- is the slug under the post on the home page. Here, click on the screen shot and look closely:
Perry's current position does not conflict with his support for the Tenth Amendment, nor does it conflict with the doctrine of federalism. Amending the Constitution is inherently federalist, because every amendment must be ratified by the states. Read Article V yourself:
I understand Ann Barnhardt's frustration.
This debt ceiling increase was no victory. Giving the federal government a new $2.4 trillion slush fund makes about as much sense as giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Time to swap out more Congressmen and Senators for less corrupt replacements.
There are no cuts, and we all know it. There are reductions in the rate of increase of spending. We're just gulping slightly less fiscal poison, so we're dying slightly less quickly than before. Until inflation kicks in. And assuming future Congresses choose to abide by this Congress' promises. And if we don't get involved in another war.
But hey, we only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the gubmint. It's not like Cut Cap & Balance was popular or anything. And the media will be mean to us unless we compromise, and they'll be nice if we do. It's still 1995, and Teh Interwebz have no effect. Tea Parry? What Tea party? Best we could do. Even though "next time" has never come yet, our GOP betters will really & truly make actual cuts after we win in 2012. Pinky swear.
Eat your peas, drink your poison and smile!
Federal tax revenue went down after the Bush Tax Cuts, and raising taxes is now regrettably the only way to close the giant hole in our budget.
This post by DrewM over at Ace of Spades HQ has really stirred up a hornets' nest in the comments. Drew slammed Herman Cain for a remark about banning mosques, and that kicked off the brawl. It makes me wonder what circumstances, if any, would convince a majority of Americans to support a ban on mosques ... or even the internment of all Muslims in America.
Don't automatically think "Oh, that'll never happen." After all, Americans of Japanese descent were interned during World War II.
4:00 UPDATE: Imagine this federal response:
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam's history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Like it or not, this approach would avoid First Amendment obstacles.
Good catch by the Coughlin campaign. This is going to require a solid explanation.
That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but to hear the Left's explanations, the federal government can extract more and more money from their preferred targets without any repercussions. In Progressive Fantasyland, rich fat cat CEOs who run oil companies, banks, and Fox News have a secret stash of unlimited money hidden somewhere in their corporate jets or on the grounds of their posh estates, from which they simply pull more money after Washington takes what it wants. The government spreads the wealth around, the members of the middle class find excellent green jobs with full dental benefits, the poor all move up to the middle class, everyone votes for progressives, conservatives crawl back into the bowels of Hell from whence they came, and unicorns poop skittles to feed the hungry.
In the real world the vast majority of American wealth belongs to the middle class, but facts never get in the way of a juicy class warfare talking point. Here in flyover country where common sense still exists, we know that taxes influence people's behavior. If the government collected no taxes whatsoever, then its revenue would be zero. Likewise, if the government taxed away every last cent people earn, revenue would also drop to zero. Nobody would have any incentive to conduct any economic activity at all, so there would be no wealth to tax. Somewhere in between no taxation and total taxation, there's a point where the government will collect the maximum possible revenue. The conclusion isn't magical, farcical, or deserving of ridicule. It's common sense. It's logical. It reflects reality.
It also means everything to your way of life, so pay attention.
Well-known supply side economist Arthur Laffer sketched out this thought experiment decades ago -- reportedly on a napkin over drinks with conservative political heavy hitters -- and came up with the curve that soon bore his name. Here's a very simplified version of the Laffer Curve:
David Duke plus eight other fruitcakes in a country of 309,000,000 sure sounds like a stampede to me. Boy oh boy, those GOP racists are everywhere.
I just want to be sure of the rules here, though. Does this mean I can now tar the entire Democratic party with a brush dipped in the slime from Fred Phelps and Lyndon LaRouche? Or is this a progressives-only club?
Let's also dispense with the stupid assertion that taxing "the rich" will solve all of our problems. That won't work, because the problem is spending. Anyone who denies it is either uninformed, blindly partisan, or a liar.
Senator Jim DeMint's very influential PAC -- about as close to a RINO-hunting anti-GOP-establishment Tea Party presence as you're likely to see in the Senate -- just went all in with a great guy and true conservative with whom I went to law school. Please help Josh Mandel become Ohio's next U.S. Senator by clicking on the image and making a contribution.
This is the SCF's first endorsement of the 2012 season, and since they helped put Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) in the Senate in 2010, incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown can't be very happy about this.
Draw your own conclusions.
Here are the rest of the candidates.
This fundraising message that hit my inbox today should give you some idea.
Ohio's senior U.S. Senator sounds worried to me.
When it comes to the economy, the main Democrat talking point for the 2012 election appears to be something along the lines of: "Sure, the stimulus was huge, but without it things would have been much worse." How do you reconcile that with this?
Uh-oh. In a completely unpredictable turn of events, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz apparently managed to get her hands on a copy of the Sooper Sekrit Republican 2012 Campaign Strategy memo that's been making the rounds among us eeeevil conservatives. She's on to our schemes:
[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and - and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally - and very transparently - block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it's nothing short of that blatant.
She then issued a non-retraction retraction:
Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don't regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.
You see, the Jim Crow laws were aimed at blacks, and we evil Republicans have evolved into more broad-based haters. We don't want to limit ourselves to one group, when there all of those other undesirables to hold down and oppress. We see women, young people, minorities, gays, non-Christians, the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and we think: "so many targets, so little time." Yes, our grand evil strategy is to appeal only to the 40-50 year old white male heterosexual Christian southern CEO vote. It works every time, as long as nobody figures it out.
If America decides to re-elect Barack Obama in 2012, here's what you'll see beginning in 2014:
Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will "definitely or probably" stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
"At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries," the study says.
Don't say you weren't warned, because you were.
GOP candidates, are you paying attention to how Benjamin Netanyahu utterly demolished the President?
First, let the president talk, and talk, and talk. (And talk.)
Second, look right at him when responding.
Next, speak from specifics, using facts and especially history.
Finally, express core truths bluntly -- especially the harshest ones.
Since we all know that the default Democrat tactic in the 2012 presidential race will be to slander all of President Obama's critics as racists, we should be prepared to turn the tables on them. To that end, I hereby release into the public domain the following graphics to anyone and everyone to use, totally free, gratis, no rights reserved, etc.
This one is a PNG file with a transparent background:
If you're handy with PhotoShop you can "rubber stamp" it over any image you want, as in this example:
And of course, there's the ever-so-useful Race Card; it's perfect for pre-emptive throwing atop anything you write that dares to criticize The One:
So get busy, my fellow
conservatives critics individualists racists! Our progressive betters intend to sling plenty of incendiary accusations at us no matter what we do, so we might as well start countering the meme now. Just remember ... there are five R's in RAAAAACISM!
10:00 PM Update: Not running. Good.
Y'know who this helps?
From her speech this past Sunday in Colorado (emphasis mine):
I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America's finest, into harm's way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it's not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm's way. If you can't explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.
And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don't go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.
When it makes sense, when it's appropriate, we'll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We're not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We're always on the side of both. But we can't fight every war. We can't undo every injustice around the world.
But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we'll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we're gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don't wage war on other free and healthy countries.
The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.
Donald Trump has a very troubling record of eminent domain abuse. Remember the horrible Kelo v. New London ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court? Both conservatives and liberals were outraged for nearly identical reasons -- but apparently our newly "conservative" GOP contender is a big fan.
Do your homework before you cheer for The Donald.
Here's a screenshot of the brand new SarahPAC site revealed today.
Does this mean she's getting ready to announce?
Take a good look at where the taxable money is. Click on the image:
President Obama and the Democrats in Washington, DC are lying to you. It is impossible to pay for their insane levels of spending by taxing "the rich." The rich don't have enough money to pay for that spending binge, even if the federal government confiscated their every last dime. The IRS data is beyond dispute. If he insists on the current insane level of spending, Barack Obama will have to raise massive amounts of taxes on the middle class to pay for it.
He's lying and he knows it. Standard & Poor's just downgraded the U.S. Government's credit outlook to "negative" for the first time in history, and it's all because the fools in Washington won't stop spending. This is awful, awful news.
As I said before, it's too late to fix our enormous deficit without pain. We can either feel some pain now and fix the problem, or we can keep living in Obama's fantasy land until we experience incredible pain a little bit later. Take your pick.
During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama usually identified "the rich" as families earning income of $250,000 a year and up. He swore he'd never ever ever raise taxes one dime on anybody making less yearly income than that, and he swore he'd rein in federal spending.
After he took office in 2009, President Obama -- and his fellow Democrats who controlled Congress from 2007 to 2011 -- sent government spending rocketing upward so far that he's on track to add as much debt in one term as all 43 previous presidents combined.
Since the recent release of two detailed and comprehensive Republican plans to cut spending -- one by The Republican Study Committee and another by Representative Paul Ryan -- President Obama has apparently been shamed into responding with something slightly less insane than his original binge-spending 2012 budget.
This is what passes for an Obama plan for closing the deficit (emphasis mine):
The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving, we can't ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize. So my budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans -- a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years.
But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. And that's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple -- so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.
Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. All of our problems will be solved if we only tax the rich. Right?
Wrong. As shown by the Wall Street Journal, the "rich" haven't got enough money:
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets -- and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans -- most of whom are far from wealthy -- were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.
For the sake of argument, let's go with President Obama's "plan" and seize every last bit of money from any family making $100,000 a year or more. What next?
It's. Not. Enough.
Barack Obama is offering you a false choice: A) do nothing and watch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security collapse our entire economy into hyperinflation, government default and another Great Depression; or B) make no changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and pay for it all by massively raising taxes on the middle class (after redefining them as "the rich"). According to him, there are no other options.
Wouldn't you rather avoid raising middle class taxes, put reasonable restraints on spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and preserve those programs for those who truly need them?
It's too late to fix our enormous deficit without pain. We can either feel some pain now and fix the problem, or we can keep living in Obama's fantasy land until we experience incredible pain a little bit later.
Which do you prefer?
Here's an updated version of something I put together by combining the Employment-Population Ratio (because the unemployment rate you hear reported in the news doesn't account for discouraged workers), along with a visual representation of which party controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. The data starts in January, 1948 and ends in March, 2011.
Click on the graphic below to see it at full resolution.
That horrible nosedive on the right is what you get when you put the modern Democrats in charge of all three. And here I was, thinking the Carter years (1977-1981) were bad.
Ask for suggestions online and you'll get suggestions:
Here's a fun way to screw with the Democrats' internal polling and brand management -- and hopefully convince them to stay the course and keep doing crazy things voters hate instead of pulling towards the middle and trying to put their mask back on before 2012.
The Democrats rely heavily on polling...with an upper tier that is dead-set against moving the party back to the middle. This is suicide for the party, but the Leftists who now control the DNC don't want to believe that. Instead, they want to see polls that tell them the public LOVES what the Democrats have been doing and want them to commit more of this madness between November 3rd, 2010 and November 2012.
It should be our mission to screw with as many Democrat internal polls as possible...to give these nuts the data they want to keep Obama on the wrong track for the party. This will guarantee the Democrats will keep making people furious for the next two years, so the public can wipe even more of them out in the next election (including people like Claire McCaskill in the Senate, and Obama himself in the White House).
For each one, we tried to answer while keeping in mind what would do the most damage to the Democrat Party in the long term. So, for questions that asked if we thought the party was on the right track, we said it definitely was. For questions about what issues we wanted Democrats to push, we answered the ones that would alienate Democrats from the most voters. Ie, healthcare, immigration, etc. This is counterintuitive to what YOU personally want to see, so you need to think strategically. Democrats are hurt most when they are talking about things like healthcare, immigration, the environment, etc. So, that's what they need to be encouraged to keep talking about.
Americans really want to deal exclusively with jobs...so the LAST THING we want them to actually ever talk about is jobs. Let the survey indicate Democrats need to talk nonstop about healthcare, immigration, and the environment just to keep making people mad for the next two years. That will greatly benefit conservatives.
Brilliant. You can see the HillBuzz submission at their site.
He says he might run.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gives President Barack Obama only a 20 percent chance of being reelected -- and says he might be the one to give Obama the boot.
The former speaker said there is "more of a possibility now" that he'll run for president than when he was considering the idea ahead of the 2008 election. He said he'll decide in February or March of next year and will base the decision partly on whether there is "a potential to raise the resources to be a serious, major candidate."
Gingrich said he and his wife, Callista, will base the decision on two top factors: "Is the case for basic change clear enough, and powerful enough, that articulating it and carrying it is a legitimate part of my role as a citizen?" and "Is there a potential to raise the resources to be a serious, major candidate."
He's delusional if he thinks he has a prayer of winning the Republican nomination.
That isn't a glass of sherry gripped in David Frum's sweaty fist, Palinistas. It's a mug of scalding hot coffee, and it's going right down your throats. Personally, I'm stuck in an alternative reality where a hardcore leftist is running up astronomical deficits and double-digit unemployment, in the service of a liberty-destroying collectivist agenda. I wonder how many hard feelings the voters of 2012 will carry for the woman who gave 110% effort to save us from this little branch in the time line, and has the battle scars to show for it... assuming they can tear themselves away from obsessing over those "statistical studies that show her as the only vice presidential nominee in ticket to have hurt her ticket."
Do you suppose that tsunami of frivolous lawsuits from the Democrat slander machine might have had something to do with her "failure to make any serious progress" as governor? It doesn't matter to the dutiful scribes of conventional wisdom. When the Washington Post counts a Republican out, David Frum will always be there with a bottle of chloroform, to make sure they don't get back up. Deviation from the accepted script for Republican political life is dangerous populism.
Palin has developed a remarkable knack for saying all the things President Obama should be saying, at any given moment. While Obama was serving as the warm-up act for anti-American and anti-Semitic nutjobs at the United Nations, Palin spoke of her country's proud tradition of liberty and capitalism in Hong Kong. While Obama pondered whether the ruins of the Berlin Wall would make a suitable backdrop for his magnificence, Palin wrote of the twilight struggle between Ronald Reagan's America and the Evil Empire... and wasn't shy about naming both the heroes and villains.
Hey, David ... go sit on the bench and let the pros play. Twerp.
Incidentally, Sarah's back on Twitter.
It's called Going Rogue: An American Life.
I reserved mine!
Newsweek's Katie Connolly interviewed former Massachusetts Governor (and former GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney about his experiences with health care legislation yesterday. When she asked him "What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?", Romney replied:
After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes, but we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.
The states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It's been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I've received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There's a whole series of things I'd do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.
What's Obama supposed to ask Mitt to explain? How to screw up health care through rationing, high taxes, obscene spending, and over-regulation? Both men have mastered those skill sets already.
Connolly also asked Romney "In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?"
I'm not happy that the President wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I'm convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform healthcare. It's important for us to get everyone insured. It's important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the healthcare sector.
This is just rich. Mitt Romney, the man who orchestrated Massachusetts government's takeover of its citizens' health care, is warning about a government takeover of health care?
I think Mitt's been hitting the medical marijuana.
7:00 Update: We've got health care, yes we do! We've got health care, how 'bout you?
For The Record (IPT Blog)
Force Majeure Farm
Gates of Vienna
Right Scoop, The
Spirit of America
U.S. Naval Institute
Center for Bioethics
Ctr for Bio-Ethical Reform
Dawn Treader, The
Do No Harm
Int'l Task Force on Euthanasia
Life Training Institute
Stand To Reason
Stand To Reason podcasts
World Religions Index
Day By Day
Looking Spoon, The
People's Cube, The