As I posted back in June of last year, Congraulations, You're In The Top 5% it seems Obama was pulling our leg when he said he would only tax the top 5% of earners. But why the tax increase? I thought Obama was going to go through the budget line-by line and cut the programs that don't work. Obama's reply:
"Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are. The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with."
So the problem is not with the spending, just that we are spending more than we are taking in? I think our biggest problem, next to the deficit, is Obama's response. How could any responsible politician make this statement, let alone one who has quadrupled the deficit in a single year. Is he saying that the tax increase would still be necessary if we hadn't spent all the money on stimulus? What Obama calls a "mismatch," I call "fiscal irresponsibility". He bought things he couldn't afford and he did it with our money. And from the results of the stimulus so far, it even appears that he paid too much.
Congress certainly wouldn't dare to propose legislation to raise taxes on the America people during a populist upswell who's acronym says for Taxed Enough Already, right? Well right to a degree, they won't propose it, merely vote on it. Obama is creating a debt commission to draft the legislation. The commission will be made up of 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans who will be the scapegoats for the outcome. This issue is so toxic that out of the 535 elected members of Congress, only 18 could be fooled into tackling it. Circumventing conventional parliamentary procedures is the only way Congress will go along with a tax increase that will be as hazardous to their reelection as it will be to Obama's. Obama's new agnosticism and a willingness to support the bipartisan's commission's findings (gag) will be his excuse for not vetoing such legislation.
Let us all pray that Obama has a return to faith or else we will all dwell in his Garden of Gethsemene.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
For The First Time In My Adult Life, I Am Proud Of My State
New Jersey has had it rough over the last few years. The last Republican governor was Christie Todd Whitman who was arguably as bad as the Democrat running against her. She went on to write a book It's My Party Too which suggested that the GOP needs to be more like the Democrats. Dear Ms. Whitman, No It's Not.
Then we had Jim McGreevey, since this is a family friendly blog I'll just say that if you don't know about McGreevey already, google him.
Then we had Jon Corzine who succeeded greatly in kicking the can down the road on the Federal Aid deficit, the Unemployment Fund deficit, the Debt Service deficit, and the Property Tax Rebate deficit.
Finally the Republicans again control the governorship and it seems like our latest entry is a true conservative. Governor Chris Christie of NJ has issued 14 executive orders in his first 23 days of office. Many, including declaring a "state of fiscal emergency", aimed at reducing New Jersey's 2.2 billion dollar budget hole. Christie has promised to cut the state income tax which has an 11% top rate and the property taxes of which New Jersey boasts the highest in the nation. In regards to the government pension plan, New Jersey has not made a contribution in over a decade.
Christie is savaged by the NJ newspapers saying that his school cuts will necessarily cause property taxes to rise but even in their own negative articles they admit the schools have a surplus . If the schools have a surplus and the state has a deficit, it makes sense to return the funds. Also, if all we are doing is taking their surplus of unspent money, why would property taxes have to be raised to make up this unspent money that they will not be allowed in the future? The article goes on to say that items such as repairing boilers are taken out of the surplus so how much money are we talking here? No one would deny schools petty cash for infrastructure repair. For example, the Union City district has a $38 million surplus. Last year alone, they accumulated a $14 million surplus. Under the law, Union City is still allowed a $4 million surplus, more than enough to keep the little ones warm in the long winter months. An emergency surplus of an additional $5 million will also be allotted to Union City district. Christie's school surplus cuts gives the state $475 million dollars. Almost a quarter of the amount needed for the state to plug the deficit.
Christie will continue to fight to cut taxes, deflate bloated budgets and stop the state from hemorrhaging residents to the tune of $539 million lost tax dollars every year. I genuinely hope that Christie rehabs the state and it becomes a place where people can afford to live again. But I, like many, can't wait that long so I'm moving to Delaware.
Then we had Jim McGreevey, since this is a family friendly blog I'll just say that if you don't know about McGreevey already, google him.
Then we had Jon Corzine who succeeded greatly in kicking the can down the road on the Federal Aid deficit, the Unemployment Fund deficit, the Debt Service deficit, and the Property Tax Rebate deficit.
Finally the Republicans again control the governorship and it seems like our latest entry is a true conservative. Governor Chris Christie of NJ has issued 14 executive orders in his first 23 days of office. Many, including declaring a "state of fiscal emergency", aimed at reducing New Jersey's 2.2 billion dollar budget hole. Christie has promised to cut the state income tax which has an 11% top rate and the property taxes of which New Jersey boasts the highest in the nation. In regards to the government pension plan, New Jersey has not made a contribution in over a decade.
Christie is savaged by the NJ newspapers saying that his school cuts will necessarily cause property taxes to rise but even in their own negative articles they admit the schools have a surplus . If the schools have a surplus and the state has a deficit, it makes sense to return the funds. Also, if all we are doing is taking their surplus of unspent money, why would property taxes have to be raised to make up this unspent money that they will not be allowed in the future? The article goes on to say that items such as repairing boilers are taken out of the surplus so how much money are we talking here? No one would deny schools petty cash for infrastructure repair. For example, the Union City district has a $38 million surplus. Last year alone, they accumulated a $14 million surplus. Under the law, Union City is still allowed a $4 million surplus, more than enough to keep the little ones warm in the long winter months. An emergency surplus of an additional $5 million will also be allotted to Union City district. Christie's school surplus cuts gives the state $475 million dollars. Almost a quarter of the amount needed for the state to plug the deficit.
Christie will continue to fight to cut taxes, deflate bloated budgets and stop the state from hemorrhaging residents to the tune of $539 million lost tax dollars every year. I genuinely hope that Christie rehabs the state and it becomes a place where people can afford to live again. But I, like many, can't wait that long so I'm moving to Delaware.
Monday, February 15, 2010
What's wrong with Libertarians?
It all started with Ayn Rand but if you talked to the college students who were covering traffic signs with bumper stickers they might tell you it started with Ron Paul. By either measure, it seems like Libertarianism is ascendant. Atlas Shrugged returned to the Top 10 lists when the 50th anniversary edition came out and Tea Party members are routinely seen holding signs asking "Who is John Galt?" Ron Paul, while never a serious contender for the Presidency, created more excitement among his base than even the Republican nominee did.
Low taxes, less government, less regulation, and more freedom; what's not to like? Now we are in the midst of a populist revolution that supports all these positions. It seems like Libertarianism is front and center and people who have never read Ayn Rand or paid attention to Ron Paul have caught the bug. Unfortunately, libertarianism rejects the Tea Partyers as jingoistic and unfriendly to civil liberties.
Why is this happening? Certainly not all libertarians feel this way. It's a truism that gathering libertarians is like herding cats but enough subscribe to this line of thinking as to keep the two movements separate.
Many in the libertarian movement do not like the War on Terror. One notable exception is Larry Elder. But many libertarians blindly subscribe to the idea that we are trading freedom for security in the War on Terror. What could these libertarians do before the Iraq invasion that they cannot do now? Even ridiculous answers like "not having to talk off one's shoes at the airport" do not hold water. That occurred as result of Richard Reed AKA the Shoe Bomber who preceded the Iraq invasion. You can still speak freely, operate as an independent economic agent, and enjoy full privacy rights as you could before September 11th.
Libertarians tend to come down on the side of civilian trials for terror and closing Gitmo but why? These are not American citizens and their stated goal is an act of war and not of criminality. They do not even qualify for Geneva Convention rights because they are not uniformed soldiers and do not fight for a nation. Guantanamo was a necessary location to keep prisoners and avoid the sticky legal challenges sure to pop up. In the past, FDR imprisoned those who would make such challenges and Nazi war prisoners were actually kept in Ohio, California, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oregon, Georgia, Texas and Nebraska. Roosevelt also incarcerated Japanese Americans who were not prisoners of war or even charged with a crime. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War. By comparison, infractions like Abu Graib and Guantanamo fail to shock the conscious.
Far from fighting this war with a disregard for civil liberties, this may well be the war in which we have stood by our principles most faithfully. While there is always room for improvement, libertarians should stop wringing their hands about terrorists and stand with the Tea Party or else the movement may very well pass them by.
Low taxes, less government, less regulation, and more freedom; what's not to like? Now we are in the midst of a populist revolution that supports all these positions. It seems like Libertarianism is front and center and people who have never read Ayn Rand or paid attention to Ron Paul have caught the bug. Unfortunately, libertarianism rejects the Tea Partyers as jingoistic and unfriendly to civil liberties.
Why is this happening? Certainly not all libertarians feel this way. It's a truism that gathering libertarians is like herding cats but enough subscribe to this line of thinking as to keep the two movements separate.
Many in the libertarian movement do not like the War on Terror. One notable exception is Larry Elder. But many libertarians blindly subscribe to the idea that we are trading freedom for security in the War on Terror. What could these libertarians do before the Iraq invasion that they cannot do now? Even ridiculous answers like "not having to talk off one's shoes at the airport" do not hold water. That occurred as result of Richard Reed AKA the Shoe Bomber who preceded the Iraq invasion. You can still speak freely, operate as an independent economic agent, and enjoy full privacy rights as you could before September 11th.
Libertarians tend to come down on the side of civilian trials for terror and closing Gitmo but why? These are not American citizens and their stated goal is an act of war and not of criminality. They do not even qualify for Geneva Convention rights because they are not uniformed soldiers and do not fight for a nation. Guantanamo was a necessary location to keep prisoners and avoid the sticky legal challenges sure to pop up. In the past, FDR imprisoned those who would make such challenges and Nazi war prisoners were actually kept in Ohio, California, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oregon, Georgia, Texas and Nebraska. Roosevelt also incarcerated Japanese Americans who were not prisoners of war or even charged with a crime. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War. By comparison, infractions like Abu Graib and Guantanamo fail to shock the conscious.
Far from fighting this war with a disregard for civil liberties, this may well be the war in which we have stood by our principles most faithfully. While there is always room for improvement, libertarians should stop wringing their hands about terrorists and stand with the Tea Party or else the movement may very well pass them by.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Obama's State of Confusion Speech
In 1994 after a wholesale rejection of what was known at the time as HillaryCare, President Clinton used the State of the Union Speech to announce that the "era of big government is over." Clinton moved to the center and passed legislation such as welfare reform (though he did veto it twice). After going on a liberal bender with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and health care reform, Clinton's survivalist mentality prevailed and he settled for an incrementalist agenda. Obama has made clear in his State of the Union speech that he has no such survivalist inclinations.
One is led to believe Obama would have denied his dismal first year where healthcare reform stalled and cap and trade was dead on arrival if not for the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Even after that, his "moderation" is little more than window dressing. His plan to enact a spending freeze while maintaining a largely unspent stimulus that serves as a slush fund to Democratic pet projects is at best disingenuous. Even then, the freeze only affects 1/6 of the budget. In two years, Obama raised the discretionary, nonsecurity domestic spending by 24%. Freezing spending after that is much like going on a diet after a hotdog eating contest.
Having been satisfied that he "checked the box" for fiscal responsibility, he curiously overlooked his policy of Mirandizing terrorists like the underwear bomber. He grappled awkwardly with the solution to unemployment referencing the deficit “in which we find ourselves” not mentioning his quadrupling of the deficit including his $800 million stimulus. Obama even took a shot at the Supreme Court for overturning campaign-finance reform that violated the first Amendment.
Obama will have to work with Republicans to pass any version of healthcare reform but has been hesitant to scrap the bills that the House and Senate passed separately last year. Obama has signaled willingness to utilize nuclear power and drill offshore but if he intends to add these provisions to his current version of cap and trade, he will still be imposing a regressive tax on all Americans.
Obama threw conservatives and moderates few bones during the speech and only when the details are fleshed out will we determine which strings are attached. Another year of legislative gridlock will cause Obama to lose more seats in the '10 elections so the onus is on him to reach across the aisle. After his State of the Union, I'm just not sure he has any intention to.
One is led to believe Obama would have denied his dismal first year where healthcare reform stalled and cap and trade was dead on arrival if not for the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Even after that, his "moderation" is little more than window dressing. His plan to enact a spending freeze while maintaining a largely unspent stimulus that serves as a slush fund to Democratic pet projects is at best disingenuous. Even then, the freeze only affects 1/6 of the budget. In two years, Obama raised the discretionary, nonsecurity domestic spending by 24%. Freezing spending after that is much like going on a diet after a hotdog eating contest.
Having been satisfied that he "checked the box" for fiscal responsibility, he curiously overlooked his policy of Mirandizing terrorists like the underwear bomber. He grappled awkwardly with the solution to unemployment referencing the deficit “in which we find ourselves” not mentioning his quadrupling of the deficit including his $800 million stimulus. Obama even took a shot at the Supreme Court for overturning campaign-finance reform that violated the first Amendment.
Obama will have to work with Republicans to pass any version of healthcare reform but has been hesitant to scrap the bills that the House and Senate passed separately last year. Obama has signaled willingness to utilize nuclear power and drill offshore but if he intends to add these provisions to his current version of cap and trade, he will still be imposing a regressive tax on all Americans.
Obama threw conservatives and moderates few bones during the speech and only when the details are fleshed out will we determine which strings are attached. Another year of legislative gridlock will cause Obama to lose more seats in the '10 elections so the onus is on him to reach across the aisle. After his State of the Union, I'm just not sure he has any intention to.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Harry Reid: Racist?
The media has been buzzing with the story about Harry Reid unearthed in the latest political book, Game Change. In the book, Reid is recorded to have said about Obama that he was electable because he is 'light-skinned and with no Negro dialect unless he wants to have one.'
Reid immediately called up Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. All of which offered Reid absolution. One understands why Reid might call Obama since Obama was the one he supposedly slighted but why call Jackson and Sharpton? Because they represent all black people? What is Reid trying to imply here?
Kidding aside, the racial discussion in this country is a comedy of manners. Although we constantly berate ourselves for not talking more about race, whenever someone really does mention race they are excoriated. Reid's defenders say he was only saying a truth with some 'curious' terminology but what is so offensive about the term 'Negro'? Isn't there a United Negro College Fund? Negro is a race classification in the 2010 census.
Meanwhile, the media largely ignore the more obvious examples of racism on the left. For example, there was almost no media coverage of Robert Bryd, a Democratic Senator and ex-KKK member, when he used the term "white nigger."
Normally I'd have a laugh at Reid's expense and say that it is about time that the left start eating their own but the Reid example shows that now even the politically protected class cannot have a conversation about race. It is telling that even though we have abolished slavery, demolished Jim Crow and raised the standard of living for the average black (or African American or...) family, we still do not have an agreed-upon term to use in the discussion. Unfortunately those who seek to benefit from injustices or perceived injustices like Sharpton and Jackson need some ambiguity to further their careers. Reid should just be thankful that, in this case, they were quick to forgive.
Reid immediately called up Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. All of which offered Reid absolution. One understands why Reid might call Obama since Obama was the one he supposedly slighted but why call Jackson and Sharpton? Because they represent all black people? What is Reid trying to imply here?
Kidding aside, the racial discussion in this country is a comedy of manners. Although we constantly berate ourselves for not talking more about race, whenever someone really does mention race they are excoriated. Reid's defenders say he was only saying a truth with some 'curious' terminology but what is so offensive about the term 'Negro'? Isn't there a United Negro College Fund? Negro is a race classification in the 2010 census.
Meanwhile, the media largely ignore the more obvious examples of racism on the left. For example, there was almost no media coverage of Robert Bryd, a Democratic Senator and ex-KKK member, when he used the term "white nigger."
Normally I'd have a laugh at Reid's expense and say that it is about time that the left start eating their own but the Reid example shows that now even the politically protected class cannot have a conversation about race. It is telling that even though we have abolished slavery, demolished Jim Crow and raised the standard of living for the average black (or African American or...) family, we still do not have an agreed-upon term to use in the discussion. Unfortunately those who seek to benefit from injustices or perceived injustices like Sharpton and Jackson need some ambiguity to further their careers. Reid should just be thankful that, in this case, they were quick to forgive.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Steele Not Showing His Mettle
What is wrong with Michael Steele? The former Maryland Lieutenant Governor and current head of the RNC seems erratic and unfocused. Though he seemed like a rough and tumble guy who was a proud conservative during his unsuccessful run for the Senate, he now appears timid and unsure.
Just some of the odd things he has said since being RNC chairman are:
1. Steele told Sean Hannity of Fox News that the GOP cannot win back a majority in the House in 2010. Besides the fact that everything points to big Republican wins in the next election, the job of head of a political party is to be a cheerleader, not a detractor.
2. In remarks that CNN aired on March 1, Steele said that he, rather than Rush Limbaugh, is “the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.”
3. Responding to a comment by TV One’s Roland Martin that “white Republicans have been scared of black folks,” Steele replied, “You’re absolutely right.” The first African-American RNC chairman, Steele continued, “I’ve been in the room, and they’ve been scared of me. I’m like, I’m on your side.”
4. On Fox, when Hannity expressed surprise at Steele's comment that Republicans wouldn't be able to take back the House, Steele allowed that “I don’t know yet” whether Republicans could win a majority because candidates still are being lined up.
“But then,” Steele said, “the question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?”
Hannity asked Steele what his answer is.
“I don’t know,” Steele said.
5. When questioned about his odd behavior, “Get a life,” Steele snapped. “If you don’t want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program.”
With Republicans in a good position to pick up some seats in and the House and Senate, we need strong and determined leaders who see the goal and work towards it. If Steele is feeling wishy-washy, he needs to go.
Just some of the odd things he has said since being RNC chairman are:
1. Steele told Sean Hannity of Fox News that the GOP cannot win back a majority in the House in 2010. Besides the fact that everything points to big Republican wins in the next election, the job of head of a political party is to be a cheerleader, not a detractor.
2. In remarks that CNN aired on March 1, Steele said that he, rather than Rush Limbaugh, is “the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.”
3. Responding to a comment by TV One’s Roland Martin that “white Republicans have been scared of black folks,” Steele replied, “You’re absolutely right.” The first African-American RNC chairman, Steele continued, “I’ve been in the room, and they’ve been scared of me. I’m like, I’m on your side.”
4. On Fox, when Hannity expressed surprise at Steele's comment that Republicans wouldn't be able to take back the House, Steele allowed that “I don’t know yet” whether Republicans could win a majority because candidates still are being lined up.
“But then,” Steele said, “the question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?”
Hannity asked Steele what his answer is.
“I don’t know,” Steele said.
5. When questioned about his odd behavior, “Get a life,” Steele snapped. “If you don’t want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program.”
With Republicans in a good position to pick up some seats in and the House and Senate, we need strong and determined leaders who see the goal and work towards it. If Steele is feeling wishy-washy, he needs to go.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Christmas Massacre Averted: Update
I prayed for a second Christmas day miracle in my first blog post on the subject of the underwear bomber and it is obvious I was pressing my luck. Obama interrupted his vacation to pay lip service to the event. Krauthammer points out:
'More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."'
The speech was so terrible and muted that Obama had to give a second speech the next day. The second speech even included a reference to the "War On Terror" whereas Obama had previously stated we were involved in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
Janet Napolitano assured us that the system worked! Then she said it didn't work. Then Obama finally settled the issue by saying the system definitely did not work.
Worst of all, the Nigerian terrorist is not being interrogated by the intelligence community, he is being given a lawyer and there is talk of a plea bargain if he turns on his co-conspirators. Talk about a pre-9/11 mindset!
Obama has completely misread his mandate. Many people had problems with aspects of the War on Terror. On the other hand, most people recognize it is not a war that we chose. The 9/11 Commission said that the Islamists were at war with us but we were not at war with them. Regardless of people's feelings regarding certain parts of the War on Terror, there are people who do want to kill American civilians. Obama, as President, has a right to tweak the Bush policy. However, if he simply chooses to ignore the conflict and not learn from history, he is doomed to repeat it.
'More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."'
The speech was so terrible and muted that Obama had to give a second speech the next day. The second speech even included a reference to the "War On Terror" whereas Obama had previously stated we were involved in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
Janet Napolitano assured us that the system worked! Then she said it didn't work. Then Obama finally settled the issue by saying the system definitely did not work.
Worst of all, the Nigerian terrorist is not being interrogated by the intelligence community, he is being given a lawyer and there is talk of a plea bargain if he turns on his co-conspirators. Talk about a pre-9/11 mindset!
Obama has completely misread his mandate. Many people had problems with aspects of the War on Terror. On the other hand, most people recognize it is not a war that we chose. The 9/11 Commission said that the Islamists were at war with us but we were not at war with them. Regardless of people's feelings regarding certain parts of the War on Terror, there are people who do want to kill American civilians. Obama, as President, has a right to tweak the Bush policy. However, if he simply chooses to ignore the conflict and not learn from history, he is doomed to repeat it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
