O! So anti-business "Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history," writes Dinesh D'Souza, president of King's College in New York City, in the Sept. 27th edition of Forbes.com Forbes.com. Indeed, BHO is living out the frustrated dreams of his father, who D'Souza describes as a "philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions."
DC Democrats are the richest pols Wealth is not in and of itself bad, but when the wealthy run around wildly spending other people’s money that’s practically criminal. So, we find it less than amusing that the spendthrift Democrats — check Omaba’s recent spending spree — are also the richest elected officials in Washington, DC.
The Web political publication, The Hill , just issued its list of the 50 richest politicians in DC, and eight of the top 10 are Democrats, which we list below.
Of the 50 richest members of Congress, The Hill says 26 are Democrats and 24 are Republicans.
What’s especially irritating is that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry heads the list and he’s the guy we recently wrote about because he docks his new $450,000 sailing yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying the Bay State’s sales and excise taxes. What a hypocritical cheapskate!
Of course, after the story hit every newspaper in America and many abroad, Kerry said he’d pay the $70,000 in taxes even though his boat would still be moored in RI. Kerry is the poster boy for adage, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Here are the top 10 richest elected officials according to The Hill , where you can read the full list.
S. John Kerry, D-MA, 167M
R. Darrell Issa, R-CA, 164M
R. Jane Harman, D-CA, 112M
S. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, 80M
S. Mark Warner, D-VA, 72M
R. Jared Polis, D-CO, 71M
R. Vern Buchanan, R-FL, 50M
S. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, 48M
S. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, 43M
R. Harry Teague, D-NM, 40M
Richest Politician Skirted Taxes It only took two days of bad press to get the Democrataic Senate hypocrite John Kerry to cave in and pay his tax bill, as the AP reported.
Kerry is a free spender of tax dollars, but when it comes to his own money, he's obviously a bit tighter. Of course, all of that money really isn't Kerry's, a good bit of it comes from his wife who inherited the Heinz ketchup fortune from her late husband, also a politician.
Kerry recently commission the 76-foot yacht, christened Isabel, at a boatyard in Rhode Island. Therefore, it was naturally convenient for Kerry to have the boat legally moored in Rhode Island. The location also allows Kerry to avoid paying the sales tax plus annual excise tax, which total about $70,000 in Massachusetts.
If Kerry were only as stingy with tax dollars that would be nice.
We might note, too, that the Isabel is said to spend a good bit of her summer moored off of Nantucket Island, the millionaires island, where the Kerry family has a summer home.
A couple of broadcast reports the Kerry Yacht Fiasco and interesting. One is WBZ-TV, Boston, and the other isFox News'
US Says Repeal ObamaCare 60% of US voters want Obamacare repealed — “the second straight week that support for repeal of Obamacare is at 60% or above,” according to the Rasmussen Report.
And...
36% Oppose repeal.
45% Strongly Favor repeal.
27% Strongly Oppose repeal.
Plus…
62% believe Obamacare will increase the federal budget deficit.
58% think it will raise the cost of healthcare.
51% say the new law will hurt the quality of healthcare.
(Rasmussen 5-31-10)
Obama’s disaster: Unemployment Gallup Daily tracking finds that 20.3% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed in March — a slight uptick from the relatively flat January and February numbers.
A rise in the percentage of part-timers wanting to work full time (from 9.2% to 9.9%) is responsible for the March increase in underemployment.
Unemployment saw a slight, but insignificant, decline in March.
Six in 10 underemployed Americans are not hopeful they will find work or move from part-time to full-time work in the next four weeks. That translates to 12% of the workforce that is both underemployed and not hopeful they will find their desired amount of work.
The lack of change suggests that underemployed Americans anticipated long-term difficulties in finding work well before the administration's formal announcement was made.
The Gallup report was released April 1, 2010.
US 47-50% Pro-Con On Obamacare "Americans are now about evenly split in their reactions to the healthcare bill's passage: 47% consider it a good thing and 50% a bad thing. The divided, but slightly negative, assessment is similar to what Gallup found in recent months prior to the final House vote," the polling company reported today, Monday 3-29-10.
Poll: Kill ObamaCare A week after the House passed ObamaCare, 54% of voters favor the law’s repeal, including 44% who Strongly Favor repeal, according to the latest Rasmussen survey.
The poll also shows that 42% oppose repeal, including 34% who Strongly Oppose repeal.
Rasmussen said these number are “virtually unchanged” from last week’s poll results.
84% of Republicans favor repeal.
59% of Independents favor repeal.
25% of Democrats favor repeal.
1% of black Democrats favor repeal.
55% say the plan will increase healthcare costs.
17% say it will reduce healthcare costs.
49% say it will reduce care quality.
60% say it will increase the federal deficit.
The Rasmussen president Scott Rasmussen said: "The overriding tone of the data is that passage of the legislation has not changed anything. Those who opposed the bill before it passed now want to repeal it. Those who supported the legislation oppose repealing it."
Remember Scott Brown? That vote didn’t count either In voting for Scott Brown to fill the US Senate seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts voters demonstrated:
1. Dissatisfaction with the direction of the country,
2. Antipathy toward federal government activism, and
3. Opposition to the Democrats' health-care proposals.
Those are the conclusions (1-22-10) drawn from a Jan. 20-21 poll sponsored by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University's School of Public Health, and released by The Post, which says the statistics show “how dramatically the political landscape has shifted during President Obama's first year in office.”
63% of Massachusetts’ special-election voters said America “is seriously off track,” the newspaper reported. “Nearly two-thirds of Brown's voters say their vote was intended at least in part to express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington.”
Among all Massachusetts voters — including those who voted for Brown’s opponent, state attorney general Martha Coakley — 48 percent oppose said they oppose Obama’s healthcare proposals while 43 percent support them.
Among Brown's supporters, however, eight in 10 said they were opposed to Obama’s healthcare proposals, and, 66 percent of them strongly opposed them.
President Lincoln would have cried In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln declared and prayed at Gettysburg Pennsylvania that "...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
But a little over 200 years later, 219 self-important Democrats in the House of Representatives voted FOR Obamacare; this despite the fact that the majority of Americans had repeatedly told them that they did not approve of the proposed legislation.
Before the House vote was taken, 56% of American voters said they opposed Obama's plan while 40% approved of it. And for six months before the House vote, all major national polls demonstrated close, but consistently negative, public attitudes of both Obamacare and Obama himself, to say nothing about House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid.
|
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently wrote a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed column with the title, “Capitalism and the Right to Rise,” and the striking subhead “In freedom lies the risk of failure. But in statism lies the certainty of stagnation.”
In this uncommonly short political polemic, 751 words, Gov. Bush expands on the right-to-rise phrase coined by Rep. Paul Ryan. It deserves your full read, but here’s the gist of the piece.
Congressman Paul Ryan recently coined a smart phrase to describe the core concept of economic freedom: “The right to rise.”
Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn’t seem like something we should have to protect.
But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. … fight for business… take risks… fail… suffer the consequences of bad decisions… [and] enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.
That is what economic freedom looks like…. But we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws….
We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed
— only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation,
— where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and
— where the state decides how a massive share of the economy’s resources should be spent.
Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well… where the government’s role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.
Obama’s failure to seek unity trough personal leadership — coupled with his increasingly antagonistic and divisive rhetoric — worries many national leaders in business and government. Many of those individuals speak privately about how destructive this behavior is, and will be, yet few dare share their opinions with Obama and the public for fear of retribution.
However, internationally respect investor and financial advisory — the son of Polish immigrants — has just aired his well-founded opinions in an “Open Letter” to Obama. The full letter is available at this link to another Sirens Promise page; and the final paragraph is presented below. We endorse all of Cooperman’s statements.
“With due respect, Mr. President, it’s time for you to throttle-down the partisan rhetoric and appeal to people’s better instincts, not their worst. Rather than assume that the wealthy are a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot who must be subjugated by the force of the state, set a tone that encourages people of good will to meet in the middle. When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerrilla campaign against a far superior force. But you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be. You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it.
Obama claimed in a LinkedIn Town Hall that, “As I said, we’ve actually cut taxes for small business 16 times since I’ve been in office. So taxes for small businesses are lower now than they were when I came into office.”
Even the Democratic apologists, The Washington Post, in its Fact Checker section, has to admit that Obama’s claims are largely BS when they are not wildly exaggerate.
A couple of Post examples of the small business tax cuts include, “tax deductions for cell phones… in other words, fewer reporting requirements [and] reducing the penalties for investing in tax-shelter schemes.” Now, there’s and idea that hits, well, practically no small business.
The Post’s Fact Checker concludes that ”Obama is engaging in some grade inflation.”But what do you expect for a community organizer more accustomed to shaking down Chicago businesses than actually trying to learn how to run a democracy.
Read the whole analysis here.
At 11%, Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the US is at the lowest level since Obama took office, and just a 4 points ahead of Bush’s all-time low of 7% in ’08-’09, which set the stage for the Obama win.
Obama’s 11% “abysmal satisfaction level,” says the Gallup organization, ties his equally dismal number American voters gave his administration last month (August ’11).
Broken down by self-identified party alignment:
- 3% of Republicans are satisfied with Obama, the lowest level since Bill Clinton took office in 1993. Gallup says that Republicans’ satisfaction has been in single digits through much of 2011, including 5% in April.
- 9% of Independents are satisfied with Obama’s stewardship;
- 20% of Democrats are satisfied.
Clearly scary numbers for a guy who is hoping to get reelected — so he can provide more of the same.
A colleague from one of America’s “i” states — those territories that occupy the vast reaches half way between the Left Coast and the East Coast — reminds us of the contrast between what was at the time of our nation’s founding and what is now.
As we read the words Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington, we were reminded that America’s founders were uncommonly clear thinkers — especially when their commentaries are juxtaposed with today’s political behavior. Unfortunately, today’s politicians seem to have lost sight of that vision, and have brought our United States to the current and very dangerous precipice.
Three of those reminders offered from the Midwest follow.
Taxing future generations
“”And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity in the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Taylor, 1816
Dangers of taxation
“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome. There can be no doubt that in order to a judicious exercise of the power of taxation….”
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 35, 1788
A collective patriotism
“Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations [sic.]. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits, and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts — of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, 1796
For Rep. Charlie Rangel, the disgraced New York Democrat, to question Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s qualifications to run for President is the epitome Harlem Chutzpah.
After all, we seem to recall that kingpin Rangel’s own ethics were called into question and he was censured on 11 counts of ethical misbehavior by the United State Representative. His ethical breaches included, according to The Washington Post:
 Rep Rangel of Harlem
- 17 years of unpaid personal income taxes on property owned in the Dominican Republic;
- More than $500,000 in undisclosed financial assets; and
- Inappropriately raising millions of dollars for a New York City college from corporations with business before the Ways and Means Committee, of which he was the chairman.
According to The Hill, Rep. Rangel unexpectedly showed up at Pappasito’s, where an event was prepared for Gov. Perry, who had not yet arrived.
Rangel, the report says, immediately took advantage of the gaggle of assembled reporters claiming he had “no idea it was a Republican event.” Right, and he wants to sell you a bridge, too.
When reporters asked what he thought of Perry, Rangel said that “the Republicans have a major problem with their candidates.” Including Perry?” ”You bet your life.”
Pot calling the kettle black?
 Obama and team react of accusation of prevarication “President Obama made a defiant call on Monday for $1.5 trillion in new taxes,” reported The Washington Post and surely every other media outlet in the United States.
While such a tax plan is broadly conceded by pundits as being Dead on Arrival, Obama’s utterance reminds us of his previous comments on taxes and the recession — and how this crafty former law professor parses his words.
In August, 2009, a network TV reporter asked Obama during a stand-up interview in a factory to respond to a question posted by Scot, a letter-writer, regarding taxes during a recession. Here’s the exchange:
The reporter read Scott’s question: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy…?”
“Well, first of all, he’s right. Normally you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t, huh, and why, instead, we’ve cut taxes. So, I guess, what I’d say to Scott is his economics are right; you don’t increase taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
“But, you might for some of the wealthy?”
“We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress, which, by the way, were different than the proposals I put forward, still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession is over. So he’s absolutely right: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses, uh, in a further hole.”
Read or listen to Obama’s words carefully; notice the nuanced construction. His responses to the questions are very qualified, lawyerly, seem to say one thing yet leave plenty of room for him to maneuver. (They remind us of President Clinton’s legalistic squirming following the Monica Lewinsky debacle when he said, “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
We dissect Obama’s comments.
Taxes in general…
- “Well, first of all, he’s right.” Very good style. Obama complements the questioner, Scott, and seems to answer the question right there. Many listeners might just turn off after that statement. But, there’s more to it.
- “Normally you don’t raise taxes in a recession.” Of course, “normally” is the key word. This may be an abnormal situation, in which you could raise taxes. This obviates the totality of the “he’s right” statement.
- “What I’d say to Scott is his economics are right.” He reaffirms the integrity of the question, again giving casual listeners reason to tune out to succeeding comments.
- “We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.” He re-enforces this position as an historical statement without reference to what he might do.
Taxes on “the wealthy”…
- “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession.” This leaves open having proposed such taxes that would take effect at a later time, but it sounds like ”We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy,” which is a sly semantic ploy.
- This statement about taxes “in the middle of a recession” leaves open the possibility of such taxes later in a recession, say, toward the end, or any time other than at that moment.
- Even tax proposals by Congress “still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession,” and they are “different than the proposals I put forward.” This goes unexplained. How are they different?
- Then he reaffirms the questioner one more time, “So he’s absolutely right,” and restates his qualified answer about taxes “in the middle of a recession.”
This all very good politics, very cagy, and leaves Obama open to do almost anything he wants without actually contradicting himself.
Policy commentary like this very much resembles Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was characterized by oratory bloated with grand generalities, broad overarching images, and lofty aspirational commentary. Together they captured audiences with their cadence, and engulfed them in the fog of his speech while neglecting meaningful, tangible content to measure actual performance.
Undoubtedly, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout heard around the world, “You lie,” was actually correct, as the Congressman claims. Yet, accurate or not, Obama does not need prevarication because his facile negotiation of language gives him enormous maneuvering room, speeches full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Shakespeare put it better in his tragedy, Macbeth:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
The House of Representatives this afternoon approved legislation prohibiting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from dictating corporate decision about where to set up shop.
In a 238-186 vote, the House approved H.R. 2587 with eight Democrats joining Republicans who championed the bill; only seven Republicans voted against it.
“The bill is a response to the NLRB’s decision to sue Boeing for opening a manufacturing plant for its new 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina,” The Hill wrote in its online newsletter. “The NLRB sued Boeing, charging that the company picked South Carolina for new production in order to retaliate against its unionized workers in Washington state. South Carolina is a right-to-work state that generally bans union membership.”
Right to-work states have laws that “secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union,” according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The LDF, however, notes that even in those states “employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.”
Republican South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott sponsored the legislation that would prohibit the NLRB — which is led by an Obama appointee who formerly headed the Service Employees International Union, SEIU — from ordering a company to relocate its employment. “If the board’s complaint against Boeing is held up, the company would have to maintain the production line in Washington, though it would not be forced to close its South Carolina operations,” according to The Hill.
Even though the bill has little chance of even coming up for a vote in Harry Reid’s Democrat-controlled Senate, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will fight for a floor vote on the legislation.
Inasmuch as 21 states have right-to-work laws, we think that every one of them should support Sen. Graham’s effort to get the legislation onto the Senate floor and called to a vote. And to help with that proposition, following is a map of the RTW states and a list of Senators who should be contacted to motivate them to vote in the affirmative for the legislation. After all, the next election is coming up and they will be called to account for their actions, or in-actions.
The Senators from the RTW states are listed below. Get calling!
Alabama—Sens. Jeff Sessions, 202-224-4124; Richard Shelby, 202-224-5744
Arizona—Sens. Jon Kyle, 202-224-4521; John McCain, 202-224-2235
Arkansas—Sens. John Boozman, 202-224-4843; Mark Pryor, 202-224-2353
Florida—Sens. Bill Nelson, 202-224-5274; Marco Rubio, 202-224-3041
Georgia—Sens. Saxby Chambliss, 202-224-3521; Johnny Isakson, 202-224-3643
Idaho—Sens. Mike Crapo, 202-224-6142; James Risch, 202-224-2752
Kansas—Sens. Jerry Moran, 202-224-6521; Pat Roberts, 202-224-4774
Louisiana—Sens. Mary Landrieu 202-224-5824; David Vitter, 202-224-4623
Mississippi—Sens. Thad Cochran, 202-224-5054; Roger Wicker, 202-224-6253
Nebraska—Sens. Mike Johanns, 202-224-4224; Ben Nelson, 202-224-6551
Nevada—Sens. Dean Heller, 202-224-6244; Harry Reid, 202-224-3542
North Carolina—Sens. Richard Burr, 202-224-3154; Kay Hagan, 202-224-6342
North Dakota—Sens. Kent Conrad, 202-224-2043; John Hoeven, 202-224-2551
Oklahoma—Sens. Tom Coburn, 202-224-5754; Jams Inhofe, 202-224-4721
South Carolina—Sens. Jim DeMint, 202-224-6121; Lindsey Graham, 202-224-5972
South Dakota—Sens. Tim Johnson, 202-224-5842; John Thune, 202-224-2321
Tennessee—Sens. Lamar Alexander, 202-224-4944; Bob Corker, 202-224-3344
Texas—Sens. John Cornyn, 202-224-2934; Kay Hutchinson, 202-224-5922
Utah—Sens. Orrin Hatch, 202-224-5251; Mike Lee, 202-224-5444
Virginia—Sens. Mark Warner, 202-224-2023; Jim Webb, 202-224-4024
Wyoming—Sens. Higb Barrasso, 202-224-6441; Michael Enzi, 202-224-3424
For email addresses, please check the United States Senate Website.
In an amazing burst of candor, The Washington Post (writer David Nakamura) has published (8-26-11) an outline for the making of a one-term presidency for Obama. Below are the highlights, and the full story is here.
|
|
Recent comments