tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54731514666467472452024-03-19T05:14:09.246-07:00A View From the RanchThoughts and MusingsAthoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.comBlogger552125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-48234402663195848792012-12-17T11:21:00.000-08:002012-12-17T11:21:02.040-08:00Tragedy in Newtown, CTFriday the country was rocked as we learned a deranged man, after murdering his doting mother, charged into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and murdered 26, including 20 schoolchildren most aged 6 and 7.<br />
<br />
Every parent felt the impact of this senseless shooting - that innocent young children within their normal daily school routine, could be attacked and gunned down. We also feel the impact of the loss of those teachers, teacher's assistants, and school officials who were gunned down as they tried to protect their charges from the heavily armed deranged killed. As we think and pray for those lost, their families, we also have to consider those who survived - who witnessed the carnage and now have to process not only the grief of lost friends / co-workers but also the trauma of what they experienced.<br />
<br />
We still do not know what made Adam Lanza snap on that morning, execute his mother as she laid in bed, and arming himself with her weapons, decide to drive to an Elementary School to kill as many innocent people as possible before blowing his own brains out as the police arrived onto the school grounds. We may never learn the real reason why this individual felt compelled to rage against the innocent who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School. Evil does happen - and there are those in society who will lash out at society in violence in response to innumerable triggers to their rage and anger.<br />
<br />
As we seek answers to the questions around 'Why' - we are also starting to seek answers to the question around what steps can we take to try to prevent these acts of rage against society. What can we do to stop deranged people from arming themselves and preying on innocent people as they shop in a mall, attend a movie, or go to school? From Oregon, to California, to Colorado, to Connecticut - in the past few months someone has raged against society by attacking innocent people going about their lives in a mass shooting.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/FWEL1cd_1zU/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWEL1cd_1zU&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWEL1cd_1zU&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
During a prayer vigil held in Newtown, Connecticut for the grieving community, President Barack Obama spoke in general terms around answering the questions around what can be done to prevent another similar tragedy in the future. He spoke in terms of a solution not being an easy one. He also reminded us that it will likely take more than just a single step or action to make it harder for another deranged individual or individuals to attack society in a similar manner. But he also acknowledged the fact that inaction was not an acceptable course. Our society needs to do something to try to make it far harder for someone to arm themselves and fuel their murderous rage.<br />
<br />
What should we do?<br />
<br />
We need to try to make some sense from this senseless tragedy. We need to not only grieve, but take sensible steps as a society to try to prevent a similar act. In our rational minds, we know that we cannot prevent every act of evil or rage against others, but our goal needs to be to make these events as infrequent as possible while maintaining the core values of our society.<br />
<br />
Rather than looking at this question in a rational manner, it's unfortunate that there are those who seek to score political points from this tragedy. This is as unseemly and distasteful as the actions of some of the media - who circle this tragedy like vultures in the name of ratings / personal advancement of their careers.<br />
<br />
Those trying to score political points did so from both sides of the political spectrum. <br />
<br />
Just hours after we learned of this tragedy, the usual hard left progressives were railing about inadequate gun control laws and calling not only for draconian gun control laws - but a complete re-examination of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and the right for civilians to bear arms. <br />
<br />
From the other side of the spectrum, we have comments like those made by former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, who say that the problem is not soft gun laws, but on a lack of God in our schools and in our lives. <br />
<br />
Then there are those who look at society and blame our permissiveness towards violence in our media - television, movies, and video games which removes inhibitions and desensitizes us towards violence. <br />
<br />
Each advocate believes that they are right and that theirs is the 'best' answer to the question as to what our society should do. But there are also challenges and problems with each of these 'solutions'. None of them are the 'right' reason or answer. And as President Obama said - multiple steps are needed in order to make it far less likely similar heinous acts will occur.<br />
<br />
Banning guns or embarking on draconian gun control laws will not solve the problem of gun violence. In the wake of the Dunblane murders of school children by a gunman armed with a handgun, the UK banned handgun ownership. Gun crime soared 35% in the wake of that decision as the criminals remained armed. Beyond gun crime, violent crimes with knives and edged weapons also increased. [The same day as the tragedy in Newtown, a deranged man in China, armed with a knife, entered a school and slashed 20 children.]<br />
<br />
In Germany, a mass shooting in a school in 2002 killed 16 people. In response, that nation also passed draconian gun control laws. Yet, in 2009, a teenage gunman killed 15 during a rampage that began in school near Stuttgart.<br />
<br />
At the federal and state level, we have numerous laws addressing gun control already on the books. Some of these laws 'worked' with regards to Adam Lanza. Lanza attempted to purchase a rifle just four days prior to his murderous spree - but was prevented from making that purchase as he declined to undergo the required background check or the mandatory waiting period.<br />
<br />
Pro-gun control advocates, progressives like Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and Carolyn Maloney, have focused on the weapons that Lanza carried, two semi-automatic pistols, a semi-automatic rifle, and multiple magazines for those weapons filled with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. They argue that these weapons are unsuitable for civilian use or access because of the rapidity with which they can be fired and reloaded. They believe that without the availability of these weapons - crimes like this will not take place.<br />
<br />
There is a certain hypocrisy with these progressives who have appointed themselves as the 'protectors' of our society and see the availability of guns or certain classes of guns as the primary causation for crimes like Sandy Hook.<br />
<br />
These same progressives insist on the 'right' towards the termination of a fetus - generally without restriction if the mother so desires. They support late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions as a defined 'right' of women defined within the US Constitution - even though it is not specifically mentioned in the text. Meanwhile they seek to eliminate a specifically named right - the right to bear arms - in the name of the 'greater good' of society. <br />
<br />
Reference any restriction around the 'right' of abortion - in particular around the timing or funding - and one is 'declaring war' on women and their rights. They believe if the mother wants to end a pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, and even if the fetus is viable and able to survive if born, not only is that the right of the mother, but that the government has an obligation to help fund the termination of that life using funds from the taxpayer - even if that taxpayer has a moral or religious objection to terminating the life of the unborn.<br />
<br />
We need to have a consistency in how we define 'rights' and how we value 'life'.<br />
<br />
I also find ironic, looking at some of the politically active progressives in Hollywood, the contradiction around violence in society. They speak out to condemn violence, yet within their careers and actions, they enrich themselves on violence in television, movies, and video games. Progressives like Quentin Tarantino and Jamie Foxx pontificate against violence and racism as they promote their latest film - which is said to be one of the most violent of the year. Foxx, appearing on SNL, joked that the best part about this latest movie was 'killing white people'.<br />
<br />
Where is our consistency here - and why aren't we holding these people accountable for their hypocrisy?<br />
<br />
The left laughs at Bill O'Reilly and others as they speak out against the 'War on Christmas'. The anti-religion minority in this country attacks the Christian faith and all of its symbols. They believe their rights are superior to the rights of believers - that they have a constitution right to not be 'offended'. They claim that referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance, or on our coinage, displaying the Ten Commandments, a Cross, or a nativity scene on government / public property is 'establishing' a state religion and a violation of their right to not believe in a God or religion. They forget the rest of the First Amendment which also prohibits the free exercise of one's religious beliefs.<br />
<br />
Is there a link between the rise of these actions and the claimed decline in society and societal values?<br />
<br />
There's another similar aspect in play when we look at the mentally ill in this country. Is there a challenge with structuring our society to be reactive when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill - only after they've proven a risk to themselves or someone else - as opposed to attempting to treat or institutionalize those who represent a risk to themselves or someone else? Connecticut is one of only 6 states that does not have a law in place to ease the institutionalization and mandatory treatment of someone who represents a risk. A bill was introduced earlier this year to remedy this - but progressive politicians and organizations like the ACLU defeated it by arguing that the individuals rights exceeded those of society as a whole.<br />
<br />
Adam Lanza appeared to have some mental challenges which may have manifested themselves in his murderous act. His doting mother may have believed that these challenges would not or could not manifest themselves in this manner - and may or may not have pushed for more or different treatment for her son. Her first sign of his rage against society might have been as he executed her. This is one aspect that we may never know. But do we need to re-examine how we treat those troubled and mentally ill in our society - where we achieve a better balance between the rights of the individual and the need to protect society?<br />
<br />
What I advocate is that the action we need to take in the wake of this tragedy needs to be across a spectrum of issues. These issues relate not only to how we approach guns, but also the values of society, and rights of individuals and the rights of society as a whole. We need to step away from both emotion and political ideology as we take a rational look at these issues.<br />
<br />
As noted earlier, we have reams of gun control laws in place at multiple levels. Are we enforcing them adequately? Do we, for example, have similar restrictions and educational requirements related to the possession and use of firearms, a deadly weapon, as we do with automobiles - also a deadly weapon? We restrict automatic weapons - do we need to take similar steps for semi-automatic weapons? Is cap and ball (black powder muzzle loaders) the only acceptable weapon - or should we just return to the sensible step of limiting the size of magazines to 5 or 10 rounds of ammunition?<br />
<br />
What steps can we undertake to mandate the proper stowage and security of firearms in the owner's home? We can't envision or protect against every possible eventuality - but what steps can we do to work the vast majority of the times to prevent unauthorized people gaining access to the weapons and ammunition?<br />
<br />
What more can we do to ensure that the people in our society who need help from mental health professionals get that help even if they don't want the help? <br />
<br />
At what point does the need for society to protect itself exceed the rights of the individual to do their own thing their own way? We see the need to protect the rights of those in the minorities from the tyranny of the majority - but we also need to protect the rights of the majority from the tyrannies of the minorities. Where is our consistency in our values and rights? Is all life precious or just some? Can we do better than condoning violence with one face while enriching oneself celebrating violence with another face? Is it all about 'me' or do we have an obligation towards a 'greater good' or shared values of society.<br />
<br />
Change isn't always for the better. It's not always 'progressive'. And as you think about this - ask yourself, if these tragedies are becoming more or less common and reflect on that as you contemplate the changes in our society over time.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-48671201253959000852012-12-12T12:00:00.000-08:002012-12-12T12:00:06.721-08:00Quick Hits - December 11-12, 2012<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/10/obama-this-michigan-right-to-work-nonsense-has-nothing-to-do-with-economics/" target="_blank">Barack Obama was campaigning in Michigan on Monday</a> - and chimed in on the (then) pending vote before the Michigan House on two 'right to work' bills scheduled for Tuesday. It's an interesting example not only of projection as well as a blatant canard, but where ideology trumps reality...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WHOxc-3taF0" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. … <b>These so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics; they have everything to do with politics.</b> What they are really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money. … We don’t want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. America’s not gonna’ compete based on low-skill, low-wage, no workers’ rights — that’s not our competitive advantage. … It’s also what allows our workers to then by the products that we make, ’cause they’ve got enough money in their pockets.
</i></blockquote>
What a 'pot meet kettle' moment - as so much of the President's approach towards 'fundamentally changing' the country have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics and ideology. Projection is making the accusation towards one's opponents of taking actions that one is already doing - justifying those actions because 'the other side is doing it'.<br />
<br />
The canard comes immediately afterwards - 'giving you the right to work for less money'. Welcome to one of the big lies. 'Right to work' doesn't deliver lower wages - in fact, in right to work states, wages are higher than in the union / progressive dominated states.<br />
<br />
Remember the SEIU's Wednesday before Thanksgiving march on LAX (Los Angeles International Airport) intended to disrupt travelers on the busiest travel day of the year in order to highlight the 'plight' and poor treatment of union employees by the companies providing services at the airport? Over a thousand SEIU thugs were bused into the area because none of the employees 'victimized' by the company participated. One reason none of the employees participated was that earlier in 2012, a majority voted to withdraw and decertify their union. Once they tossed the SEIU out - their wages increased. Not only did their wages increase, as the company passed on the benefits of their lower costs, but the workers also gained from not having to pay union dues - worth at least a day's pay.<br />
<br />
Michigan moved towards 'right to work' laws for the same reasons that Wisconsin embraced 'right to work' - to address the major fiscal issues that resulted from public and private sector unions and their grab for power and wealth. Since Wisconsin took these steps in 2010, the state's fiscal picture has changed. The state is no longer moving in the wrong direction with a deepening fiscal crisis. The state budget deficit is gone and school districts across the state are no longer held hostage by union greed. Red ink has disappeared in most of those districts - and services / programs for students once cut are being restored.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the unions, and their political allies (progressive democrats), responded in a manner similar to that done in Wisconsin - by calling out the thugs and advocating / embracing violence in an effort to intimidate people to opposing 'right to work' legislation. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/12/ever-so-helpful-ap-tells-readers-right-work-name-misleading" target="_blank">Unsurprisingly, the Goebbels-like mainstream media propaganda forces also joined in the attacks on the 'right to work' legislation, hiding and minimizing the violence being perpetrated by union thugs, and pulling out all rhetorical stops in lying about 'right to work' legislation.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-thugs-use-punches-not-persuasion-in-michigan/article/2515686?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">The Washington Examiner, writing today about the union thugs and the violence they launched, was one of the few media outlets that attempted to honestly and accurately portray what 'right to work' laws really do...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>Right-to-work laws do not ban unions.</b> They merely ensure that workers can no longer be coerced to pay them. They also create workplace conditions under which even union members are no longer a captive audience, forced to bow to whatever decisions the union leadership makes.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>And that’s what the union leaders fear most.</i></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18046" target="_blank">Teachers across Michigan called in sick to protest the House vote on the 'right to work' legislation - resulting in the cancellation of classes for over 26,000 students.</a><br />
<br />
The irony with this is telling - as the teachers, and their powerful union, own much of the problems the state is facing with unions thanks to their collective bargaining agreements and union rules which limit the accountability of teachers, rewarding effective teachers, eliminating ineffective teachers, and drive up costs for school districts as taxpayers find themselves not funding education - but union coffers. In Michigan's largest city, Detroit, itself on the verge of bankruptcy after three plus decades of progressive political leadership, only 7% of the 8th graders are proficient in reading. Courtesy of the progressive political mindset - these results call for rewarding the teachers and the union as opposed to putting the needs of the students first and asking why are so few are proficient at reading.<br />
<br />
As Michigan's House passed a 'right to work' bills affecting both private sector unions and public sector unions, largely by 58-51 party-line votes, pro-Labor Democrat progressives on the floor of the House threatened 'blood' will be spilt because of the actions taken by the democratically elected Legislature. Not long after than threat - union thugs tore down and vandalized tents on the Capital grounds occupied by supporters of the 'right to work' legislation and assaulted a Fox News contributor, Steven Crowder for the simple act of exercising his free speech rights to speak in favor of 'right to work' legislation.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GtbWbw66KrI" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
This is, unfortunately, no different from the violence perpetrated by union thugs in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and in other states when the people, and their elected representatives, consider or enact legislation intended to rein in the power and corrupting control that unions have on politics.<br />
<br />
The same nimrods who spout off about 'tolerance' and 'rights' are the first to demonstrate that they are really liberal fascists - the modern day brown shirted thugs who believe they have the 'right' to destroy and assault those who oppose their agenda.<br />
<br />
Yet much of what we hear from the progressive mouthpieces who marginalize and justify the thuggery of unions are arguments about how important unions have been and the role that they paid in the past. No one denies that the labor movement at one time was needed and doing the right thing to protect the rights of workers from unscrupulous business leaders and dangerous work environments. Their efforts to focus the argument on this is nothing more than the use of fallacies to deflect the debate around the actions and values of unions today and their excesses.<br />
<br />
Unlike in the past, we have in place laws at the federal, state, and local levels which are designed to protect the rights of workers - whether they are in a union or not. On top of the numerous laws, we also have a litigation system that also holds employers accountable for their actions. Workers have the freedom to leave a job that they do not like - and find a new job that offers more.<br />
<br />
With all of this, one has to ask themselves just what value do unions really provide for the majority of their workers beyond the political clout and power to advocate their hard left political ideology? <br />
<br />
We are constantly increasing our spending for education - yet despite the tens of thousands per pupil we spend - we are not improving the level of education of these students. Each year fewer graduate high school or have the basic levels of proficiency to get and hold jobs or attend college. In the majority of colleges, much of the first year is spent on remedial studies to bring students up in skills to be able to function at the college level.<br />
<br />
Collective bargaining agreements force school boards to purchase the health insurance used to provide this benefit to teachers and the administrators from the union itself - which it then marks up substantially above free market rates. This greed means fewer dollars are available for school boards for real educational programs. These funds, along with the dues collected by forced membership (in non-right to work states), are in turn used as political contributions to promote pro-union progressive democrats - who when elected then 'repay' the unions by offering even more favorable (to the unions) collective bargaining agreements.<br />
<br />
This is the corrupt cycle that Wisconsin, in 2010, and Michigan, yesterday, voted to end...and launched the violent reaction by the union brown shirts. At least those states are taking steps to end that cycle and restore their states to a path of fiscal responsibility that respects the taxpayer. In California, now approaching 40 years of progressive political leadership, the problem - and the state's fiscal crisis - are approaching the point where bankruptcy is nearly here and a middle class exodus is underway.<br />
<br />
In 2011, 100,000 more residents left CA for other states than it gained. This was the first year where the state, in this category, had a net loss of population. Prior to this, California with its weather, natural resources, and opportunity, was a destination.<br />
<br />
The reason for this exodus has to do with the progressive political agenda at work throughout much of the state. The state remains in a fiscal crisis - despite the passage of Proposition 30 which hikes $6B in taxes to address a $16-$25B budget deficit. The state consistently spends far more than it brings in via revenues. The progressive dominated legislature is at war with business - consistently ranking the state as not only the worst run in the nation, but also one of the most anti-business states in terms of their taxation and regulatory policies. <br />
<br />
As it passes higher taxes - more people and businesses leave. In my area, our economic development company spends its time touting how many businesses it has persuaded to remain (57 in 2012) than it does touting how many businesses it has persuaded to come to our community. We don't talk about 'jobs created' but about 'jobs saved'.<br />
<br />
Recently I talked about how the State Comptroller noted that state revenues continue to fall well behind the overly optimistic estimates built into the current state budget. <br />
<br />
AB32 is the name of California's 'Cap and Trade' legislation intended to 'prevent' climate change and 'protect' the environment. In the legislation, auctions were set-up to bring in revenues to fund climate change prevention, protecting the environment, and more recently, targeted by our Governor, to help fund the $100 billion high speed rail network boondoggle. Oh, and also provide revenues to help reduce the budget deficit.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/11/stunner-californias-cap-and-trade-system-delivers-14-of-promised-revenue-in-first-auction/" target="_blank">Unsurprisingly, the first cap and trade auction was a complete bust - delivering only 14% of the promised revenue to the state.</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>While they count on money from the auctions, California officials have imposed new costs on businesses, raised utility rates and put the state’s industrial products at a competitive disadvantage so that it can set an example for the world on how to reduce global temperatures. Democratic officials argue that the new green-energy model will energize the state’s business climate, but even the Air Resources Board admits that the state will suffer from what it terms jobs “leakage.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The “leakage” might be a “floodage,” according to Dave Roberts, who reports for the website CalWatchdog. A study sponsored by pro-business groups estimates that the state will have 262,000 fewer jobs in 2020 because of the climate-change law. Roberts also cited a Boston Consulting Group finding that as many as 51,000 jobs might be lost due to refinery closings alone. California farmers and food processors are concerned that the rising state-mandated production costs will cause job losses as low-cost Chinese and Mexican processed-food imports take some of their business.</i></blockquote>
So, in addition to passing 'climate change' legislation that will result in the loss of a quarter of million jobs over the next 7 to 8 years and making California products less competitive in the marketplace, we're only bringing in a fraction of the additional revenues needed to keep the state from spending 30 cents on the dollar more than it brings in....and that is before we spend one years state budget on a high speed rail network that not only we don't need - but has no viable business plan.<br />
<br />
What is California spending its money on? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/-822-000-worker-shows-california-leads-u-s-pay-giveaway.html" target="_blank">We are spending most of our money on salaries, retirement payments, and healthcare benefits for government workers - nearly all of whom are members of public sector unions.</a><br />
<br />
Progressives in this state, like those at the national level, never stop telling us that we have a revenue problem. In reality, like at the national level, the problem is not revenues - but with the massive overspending that takes place. Overspending on salaries of a bloated government, on the excessive retirement and benefit payments that come from politicians 'repaying' their union supporters via overly generous collective bargaining agreements.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-11/go-west-young-man-new-normal-dream-job-california-state-workers" target="_blank">Since 2005, in California, the compensation level of government employees has increased by more than 100%!</a></b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRvWa2bxJQ8GCD8YgvUUDucz8csgtuLJypdpc97Vt2R3QyUfKMEvsy3dGR1nj_tranDJZ_42Oaz6gufCXaWCE-xlbBv9t2xEQP_XnglVucOrgfn3tdVitFD_1kBxjBmVfinWaepzAZ7d4/s1600/CAs+Very+Generous+Government+Employee+Compensation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRvWa2bxJQ8GCD8YgvUUDucz8csgtuLJypdpc97Vt2R3QyUfKMEvsy3dGR1nj_tranDJZ_42Oaz6gufCXaWCE-xlbBv9t2xEQP_XnglVucOrgfn3tdVitFD_1kBxjBmVfinWaepzAZ7d4/s1600/CAs+Very+Generous+Government+Employee+Compensation.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>The numbers are even larger in California, where a state psychiatrist was paid $822,000, a highway patrol officer collected $484,000 in pay and pension benefits and 17 employees got checks of more than $200,000 for unused vacation and leave.</b> The best-paid staff in other states earned far less for the same work, according to the data.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>...</i><br />
<i>Mohammad Safi, graduate of a medical school in Afghanistan, collected $822,302 last year, up from $90,682 when he started in 2006, the data show. Safi was placed on administrative leave in July and is under investigation by the Department of State Hospitals, formerly the Department of Mental Health.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Another perk of public workers in Cali? $200,000 in accrued vacation pay:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The disparity with other states is also evident in payments for accumulated vacation time when employees leave public service. <b>No other state covered by the data compiled by Bloomberg paid a worker more than $200,000 for accrued leave last year, while 17 people got such payments in California. </b>There were 240 employees who received at least $100,000 in California, compared with 42 in the other 11 states, the data show. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie calls such payments “boat checks” because they can be large enough to buy a yacht.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Topping the list was $608,821 paid to psychiatrist Gertrudis Agcaoili, 79, who retired last year from the Napa state mental hospital after a 30-year career. Agcaoili said in a telephone interview that it was her right to take the payment.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Can California afford to pay those wages? Of course not:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><b>Across the U.S., such compensation policies have contributed to state budget shortfalls of $500 billion in the past four years and prompted some governors, including Republican Scott Walker of Wisconsin, to strip most government employees of collective-bargaining rights and take other steps to limit payroll spending.</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>…</i><br />
<i>The result isn’t only a heavier burden on California taxpayers. <b>As higher expenses competed for fewer dollars, per- pupil funding of the state’s public schools dropped to 35th nationally in 2009-2010 from 22nd in 2001-2002. </b>Californians have endured recurring budget deficits throughout the past decade and now face the country’s highest debt and Standard & Poor’s lowest credit rating for a U.S. state.</i></blockquote>
This is why the claim pushed so often by Governor Jerry Brown and the other progressives that tax hikes are needed for students is such a canard. If California would follow the model of Wisconsin or Michigan in adopting right to work laws, limited the power / corruptive influence of public sector unions, took a private sector based approach towards limiting the size and scope of government, and a more common sense approach towards public sector employee compensation, and the state would have not only a balanced budget, but also plenty of money for education. State tax revenues, even after an across the board 10%-20% tax rate reduction, would increase because the state's economy would grow. A rising tide lifts all boats.<br />
<br />
But to undertake these steps - those in leadership positions have to have the state's well-being, the general 'good' in the forefront of their thoughts. That is not the case with either the union leadership or the progressives that dominate the state's elected officials and legislature. <a href="http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/11/californias-pampered-public-employees/" target="_blank">As 'The American Interest' noted as it talks about California's pampered public employees - -</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>“How bad is California’s public employee compensation problem? If nurses collecting $1 million in overtime pay and highway patrol officers making $500,000 are any indication, ‘bad’ doesn’t cover the half of it. . . . <b>Public sector unions in states like California have squeezed every fringe benefit out of the state government you can imagine, from ‘arduous-duty’ pay, to bonuses for ‘the complex workload and level and knowledge required to receive and respond to consumer calls.’ </b>These are not the demands of people who have the state’s well-being in mind.”</i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBuBxp_qtmAXM3Alc4UT7ZMHatf87TYZxqeNw53JL_02ypmagS-t0kAycEnNOB7-aa5isuksUU-P9fXYiq8V8-U-2PWxofOPf_dWKN9PnBoNXNd4ZdgIjxZ5BDMK7yH_jRmoBSpB9ID9g/s1600/dontworry.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBuBxp_qtmAXM3Alc4UT7ZMHatf87TYZxqeNw53JL_02ypmagS-t0kAycEnNOB7-aa5isuksUU-P9fXYiq8V8-U-2PWxofOPf_dWKN9PnBoNXNd4ZdgIjxZ5BDMK7yH_jRmoBSpB9ID9g/s640/dontworry.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The nation is rapidly catching up to California in terms of fiscal irresponsibility - courtesy of the ideological progressive agenda of Barack Obama. He and his fellow progressives continue to insist that the nation has a revenue problem - when it's plain to see that we have a spending problem.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCsQbrXkWFLBydFD2F2vGN77_wWG_xQ2SovC0xPnUhE9kkLVQOFZKNKwOnKFWY7qzJeRanLFOFVXIfe1KsurkJ_zzYB15mdLkcYmNUBBRbpW0_ZE7kBAX_ViZDRsWdZSfE8ftCA3FNyqo/s1600/wheredebtcomesfrom.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCsQbrXkWFLBydFD2F2vGN77_wWG_xQ2SovC0xPnUhE9kkLVQOFZKNKwOnKFWY7qzJeRanLFOFVXIfe1KsurkJ_zzYB15mdLkcYmNUBBRbpW0_ZE7kBAX_ViZDRsWdZSfE8ftCA3FNyqo/s1600/wheredebtcomesfrom.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-xbeHjKPmPvN6w1IsX18mNopW9qHXlxTstWBZuAtIULxllBZiZl7iltPZuTsbpvfXsCAtDnjuSUZPomartCW1eFXFdsFzvG_FxY3Xs6hs-6d3F8wDxQ5ABUwZvip_a380HXsT6wCa8nI/s1600/fedspending111yrs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-xbeHjKPmPvN6w1IsX18mNopW9qHXlxTstWBZuAtIULxllBZiZl7iltPZuTsbpvfXsCAtDnjuSUZPomartCW1eFXFdsFzvG_FxY3Xs6hs-6d3F8wDxQ5ABUwZvip_a380HXsT6wCa8nI/s640/fedspending111yrs.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the current 'talks' around avoiding the 'fiscal cliff' just three weeks off, the President is insisting on a 'balanced' approach of tax increases and spending reductions to ensure 'fairness' - ie taxing the 'wealthy' more. He is demanding $1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next decade in order to address the deficit / national debt challenge. But even that is a lie.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html" target="_blank">75% of the proposed tax increases the President is demanding are slated to go to NEW SPENDING - not reducing the deficit or the debt.</a><br />
<br />
If that is the case, then why does the President, his team, and the mainstream media continue to shovel the lie that the President is pushing for increased revenues in order to 'reduce' the deficits? He's the most proliferate spender since the days of the Second World War. We're spending 24% of our GDP - and with all of this spending, the economy barely is managing 1% to 2% annual GDP growth. [The latest estimates for the 2012 4th Quarter GDP is a barely growing 1%.] Real unemployment continues to exceed 11% - and that's not counting the effects of the millions who are underemployed.<br />
<br />
I note that many reports in the press continue to push towards blaming the GOP for the failure of an agreement around the 'fiscal cliff' - just as the above cartoon by Michael Ramirez highlights.<br />
<br />
Reports are coming from the GOP Congressional leadership that they are telling the members of the GOP caucus to plan on working through the Christmas break -and that January will also be a very busy time.<br />
<br />
The problem is - Speaker John Boehner is approaching these talks in entirely the wrong way. We know the President is not interested in a solution - just the opportunity to inflict massive political damage on the GOP. We also know the President is not being honest - at all. So the answer is to not play the President's or the MSM's game.<br />
<br />
What the GOP needs to do in the House of Representatives is pass a bill to address the fiscal cliff and the spending / debt crisis we face. Pass one bill - send it to the Senate and go home to enjoy the holidays.<br />
<br />
What should be in this bill?<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Make the current personal income tax rates for everyone permanent.</li>
<li>Really fix the AMT so that it does not affect middle class or those earning less than $300K / yr.</li>
<li>Set a Corporate Tax Rate at 25%.</li>
<li>Lock in Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Rates at 15%.</li>
<li>Stop DoD sequestration.</li>
<li>Roll back all discretionary non-defense federal spending to FY2007 levels plus inflation and population growth.</li>
<li>Set a $50,000 maximum itemized deduction limit for wage earners making more than $1M per year.</li>
<li>End the 2% temporary Social Security payroll tax reduction.</li>
<li>Eliminate the Estate Tax.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Then in January, take up legislation to:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They are between 50 and 75 years old and need modernization.</li>
<li>Reform the Tax Code to eliminate loopholes and broaden the base. Everyone has to pay something - that is 'fairness'.</li>
<li>Halt the implementation of Obamacare until annual GDP growth is 4% or more and the total national debt is less than 80% of GDP.</li>
<li>Pass a FY2014 budget - set a model to achieve a balanced federal budget in no more than 5 years.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Pass those and send them to the Senate. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then use every chance possible to highlight that the GOP led House has taken steps while the President and Democrat majority controlled Senate have done nothing / are sitting on the bills from the House. Put the President and his Senate sycophants on the defensive. </div>
<br />
<br />
The Chief Executive Officer of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, who also is the Chair of the President's Jobs Council - tasked with working with the WH to promote job growth, and interestingly hasn't met since early this year, has looked around the world and found a political / economic model that works and generates 'economic success'....<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sxXYFjYLabM" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
Immelt declares that 'state-run communism' actually works and points to the People's Republic of China as an example of economic success.<br />
<br />
I wonder if the US, to achieve a similar level of success emulating the PRC, will have to also invoke a police state and murder between 50 million and 80 million of its citizens?<br />
<br />
Un-effin-believable.<br />
<br />
Another leftist standing on his 'principles' is making news in Europe. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/12/10/gerard-depardieu-moves-belgium" target="_blank">Gerard Depardieu, the French actor, has decided to flee France and move to Belgium</a> in order to avoid French President Holland's new 75% income tax rate on the country's wealthy as well as a new tax being imposed on the assets of the wealthy.<br />
<br />
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has declared martial law ahead of the country's constitutional referendum to adopt a new constitution based on Islamic Shari'a law - eliminating women's rights, free speech, and bringing back slavery. The declaration, which provides additional powers for the country's military to make arrests, is empowering the Islamists within the Egyptian military and reducing the reach and power of more secular military officers. If the new constitution passes, I fully expect Morsi to re-establish the dictatorial powers he gave himself and then reversed.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama has decided to reward Morsi's declaration of martial law by agreeing to send the Egyptian military 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets.<br />
<br />
Feckless no longer describes the Obama foreign policy. Dangerous. Irresponsible. Naive and inept - all of these seem to fit better than just feckless.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-40729593792218638142012-12-10T13:50:00.000-08:002012-12-10T13:50:11.911-08:00Quick Hits - Weekend Edition December 7-10, 2012<b>BS from the BLS...</b><br />
<br />
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the November jobs data. Holiday cooking isn't the only cooking that is going on, as the books are continued to be cooked when it comes to job data. The sycophants in the mainstream media touted the 146,000 jobs added in November, and the drop in the 'official' unemployment rate to 7.7% as signs that the economic recovery is real. ABC Radio News led the announcement with - 'Despite Hurricane Sandy's impact, the economy added nearly 150,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%....'<br />
<br />
The LA Slimes leaps to tout the numbers with this example of rhetorical gymnastics...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-economy-jobs-20121206,0,4378298.story" target="_blank">"The nation's employers added an <b>unexpectedly large but still moderate </b>146,000 jobs in November, despite the disruptions caused by severe storms in October."</a><br />
<br />
Unexpectedly large, but still moderate. Sounds so much like 'Fake, but accurate'.<br />
<br />
What wasn't mentioned in the mainstream media's 'celebrations' of the November jobs report was that the 146,000 jobs added (after seasonal adjustment) barely covers our population growth. On top of that, the only reason the 'official' unemployment rates dropped were because BLS decided to drop 546,000 from the labor pool - bringing the labor participation rate to 63.6%. This is just 0.1% higher than the 2012 low - and represents a 30 year low in the labor participation rate - and well below the rate that existed in January 2009 when Barack Obama took office. If we were using the same labor participation rate as in January 2009, we would be looking at a 11% 'official' unemployment rate.<br />
<br />
Even more quietly announced than the over half a million Americans dropped from the labor pool were the downward revisions of the September and October job creation numbers. The BLS dropped the October numbers by 20% (33,000 fewer jobs) and the September numbers by 11% (16,000 fewer jobs). How convenient that after the Presidential election we find out that Barack Obama's economy created nearly 50,000 fewer jobs than they took credit for.<br />
<br />
CNBC's Rick Santelli took to the airwaves to also highlight another critical fact that is buried within the BLS numbers - that 73% of ALL THE NEW JOBS CREATED IN THE LAST 5 MONTHS are in GOVERNMENT....<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" height="380" id="cnbcplayer" width="400"> <param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/> <param name="quality" value="best"/> <param name="scale" value="noscale" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/> <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/> <param name="salign" value="lt"/> <param name="flashVars" value="startTime=000"/> <param name="flashVars" value="endTime=000"/> <param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000134005/code/cnbcplayershare" /> <embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000134005/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object>
</div>
<br />
<br />
"They love to lie about statistics...."<br />
<br />
Even a former Obama Economics Adviser is starting to highlight the obvious - that the decline in the unemployment rate is due entirely to the drop in labor force participation...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZLo24rls-dk" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<br />
In another example of a stagnating economy, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/Poll-Small-biz-hiring-intent-plummets" target="_blank">Gallup is reporting that small business hiring, the fuel for the economic engine, has fallen to a FOUR year low.</a> This is the lowest level of small business hiring since November 2008 - in the midst of the 2008-2009 recession. Adding to the grim picture are 21% of the country's small business owners who expect to decrease the number of jobs they have in 2013.<br />
<br />
Not only is government hiring providing the only 'spark' on the job creation front, the spending of the federal government has also increased. We're only 2 months in the 2013 Fiscal Year for the Federal Government, but the Obama Administration has already borrowed $292 billion in order to fund the massive expansion of government. This puts us well on the path towards our 5th consecutive year with an annual budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion. We're borrowing $4.8 billion every day - a spending level equal to that of 2009 - and on path for a $1.4 - $1.5 trillion deficit that is well above the $1.1 trillion deficit the Obama Administration projected for 2013.<br />
<br />
One of the biggest impacts on the massive spending is the ongoing unprecedented expansion of the federal welfare sate.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4GFkVyyMw2IDm-fO3jp2cn18Rm7cHDNErsfnZS4FVXp0_EyhhUVwDm6u6W0mK4EVSEiX5tWsdT5SdgXoWEUYnIj5UVePFAmbuVeVAb7NyrngzSn6JKQxFeMyH2R0PiLIU59EvgavqVF0/s1600/welfarespending.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4GFkVyyMw2IDm-fO3jp2cn18Rm7cHDNErsfnZS4FVXp0_EyhhUVwDm6u6W0mK4EVSEiX5tWsdT5SdgXoWEUYnIj5UVePFAmbuVeVAb7NyrngzSn6JKQxFeMyH2R0PiLIU59EvgavqVF0/s1600/welfarespending.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html" target="_blank">"The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty", the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee finds."</a><br />
<br />
In the QH for Dec. 6th, I talked about the entitlement 'iceberg' that we are steaming full speed towards - a crash that makes the 'Fiscal Cliff' 22 days off seem far smaller...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiK9fsx0K-OcAGIvkGq7mr7Pf1eRNA_ZK5JjEmGbthiJxSPV7_yTgi0_WUuZFcO-ZCi1FyQRGLb3fgL80dtGm32hvmy_pODx_8mFFuvhhkAn0Q9gKjpv2yrwkfqqmVNWut_8j4hQRaac/s1600/entitlement+iceberg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiK9fsx0K-OcAGIvkGq7mr7Pf1eRNA_ZK5JjEmGbthiJxSPV7_yTgi0_WUuZFcO-ZCi1FyQRGLb3fgL80dtGm32hvmy_pODx_8mFFuvhhkAn0Q9gKjpv2yrwkfqqmVNWut_8j4hQRaac/s1600/entitlement+iceberg.png" /></a></div>
<br />
These entitlements focus primarily on the three major drivers - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid....but welfare spending is slated to soar under the Obama Economic Plan...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GwZ99KVa2ItzfGDLKQrTluZD8K1mMQfzB-xALjIDCAy0j9ees9zNptoX9juX4VFmHXRXY4N6dvwA9eeJf1Y65-lljoatz5VNbTU0Kngr_8O2-Uzt0rtevuZCStP3K35FEz3X5LHQgwc/s1600/growingwelfareterm2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="468" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GwZ99KVa2ItzfGDLKQrTluZD8K1mMQfzB-xALjIDCAy0j9ees9zNptoX9juX4VFmHXRXY4N6dvwA9eeJf1Y65-lljoatz5VNbTU0Kngr_8O2-Uzt0rtevuZCStP3K35FEz3X5LHQgwc/s640/growingwelfareterm2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Much of my previous QH post focused on the fact that we do not have a revenue issue - but a spending issue that is one of the most key drivers towards the 'cliffs' that this country faces. In my discussion around the Obama solution to the January 2013 Fiscal Cliff, I talk about the President's core beliefs and principles which are in plain view in his 'solution'. I reference his background as a disciple of Saul Alinksy - and how he's fully implementing the Alinsky plan in his 'solution'. <a href="http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-fiscal-cliff-and-alinsky-president.html" target="_blank">Another blogger has picked up on this linkage...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>When one strictly adheres to the principles of Saul Alinsky, you don't negotiate, you intimidate. You don't take a stand, but make the other guy take a stand and then you demonize it. You create so much static with class warfare rhetoric that it drowns out reason and fact.</b> A good case in point is the President's insistence that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. He has been saying this for so long, it is almost an accepted fact by some. The real truth is that the top one percent of wage earners have gone from paying 20% of the total tax burden in the 1980s to 40% today. The percentage of the total income they earn is around 25%. If one extrapolates out the tax burden to include the top 10% of wage earners, the total share of the tax burden paid by that group is 70%. Their total percentage of the income earned is around 38%. These facts come straight from current IRS data.
<b>No fair-minded person could conclude from the empirical evidence laid out in the previous paragraph, that the wealthy in this country are not paying their fair share. And yet, the President spews out this categorically false narrative and a certain percentage of the population laps it up like kittens lapping milk from a bowl. This is also what followers of Saul Alinsky practice, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth in the minds of the masses.</b></i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq4hyphenhyphenZH5-nWyZjZUuXXmNsvpjovE5Q2qz9rbC9wW4lLSjO2HGH0RjM2nsRFevNvXfKqpkoefyQd9ty4WXtJnD8uLXtcVdayFaSjnaHFiEPfXGHQlMucqgHU2y5aZp-7spPOHBTcQbhksc/s1600/better+investment.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq4hyphenhyphenZH5-nWyZjZUuXXmNsvpjovE5Q2qz9rbC9wW4lLSjO2HGH0RjM2nsRFevNvXfKqpkoefyQd9ty4WXtJnD8uLXtcVdayFaSjnaHFiEPfXGHQlMucqgHU2y5aZp-7spPOHBTcQbhksc/s640/better+investment.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/120612-636009-obamas-budget-proposals-arent-serious.htm?p=2">Columnist Charles Krauthammer's December 7th column hammers the President's 'plan'</a> -
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Obama has never shown interest in genuine debt reduction. He does nothing for two years, then spends the next two ignoring his own debt-reduction commission.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>In less than four years, he has increased U.S. public debt by a staggering 83%. As a percentage of GDP, the real marker of national solvency, it has spiked from 45% to 70%.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Obama has never once publicly suggested a structural cut in entitlements. On the contrary, he created an entirely new entitlement — ObamaCare — that, according to the CBO, will increase spending by $1.7 trillion.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What's he thinking? Doesn't Obama see looming ahead the real economic cliff — a European-like collapse under the burden of unsustainable debt?</i></blockquote>
Obama sees the cliff - as an opportunity, not a problem. An opportunity for to 'fundamentally change' the country.<br />
<br />
A close examination of the Obama 'solution' highlights that not only will this 'solution' expand government spending via a new 'stimulus' program, but it also fails to highlight just where all of the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue will come from. As noted before on these pages, taxing the 'wealthy' their 'fair share' will only generate about $400 billion (best case) in new revenues.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-fact-of-day.html" target="_blank">Even the New York Times is starting to wonder where the additional $1.2 trillion in tax revenues will come from...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Even if Republicans were to agree to Mr. Obama’s core demand — that the top marginal income rates return to the Clinton-era levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent after Dec. 31, rather than stay at the Bush-era rates of 33 percent and 35 percent — the additional revenue would be only about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Obama wants to collect over 10 years.</i></blockquote>
So where will the other 75% of the additional tax revenues come from? The President has not explained that. He, and his Congressional allies, are unwilling to say. They don't support reforming the tax code - that is one of the core GOP positions. Just about the only place these additional funds can come from is from EVERYONE else - the Middle class and the Poor.<br />
<br />
Which makes me also wonder why people aren't finally starting to pick up on another massive canard spread by Barack Obama and his sycophants - that the Bush 'tax cuts' "only benefited the rich".<br />
<br />
We've been told this for the last 4 years - that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich. <br />
<br />
Just how does a 10% across the board tax reduction for every tax payer only benefit the rich? Every single person who pays personal income taxes got the same 10% reduction in 2001 / 2003. And if the 10% across the board tax reduction done in 2001 / 2003 only benefited the rich - why did their percentage of the federal income tax receipts increase after the rates were dropped? Isn't paying a greater percentage of the federal income tax receipts right in line with 'paying their fair share'?<br />
<br />
No wonder the media isn't talking about this. The President and his supporters have been trapped by their own rhetoric in their argument over the solution for the 'fiscal cliff' - and are exposed as hypocrites.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin are out speaking to whomever who will listen that the GOP's refusal to surrender to Obama's 'solution' is going to hike taxes on the middle class when the 10% across the board tax reduction enacted during the Bush Administration, and extended by the Obama Administration in 2010 expires. <br />
<br />
But if it didn't benefit the Middle Class - then how are the Middle Class going to be damaged by its expiration? And if the Middle Class will be damaged by the expiration of the 2001 / 2003 tax rates - then how does the establishment of those rates only benefit the 'rich'?<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration is not serious in wishing to address either the January 2013 'fiscal cliff' - or the other cliffs that we face as a result of our soaring spending and national debt. Unfortunately, neither are the GOP leadership under Speaker John Boehner who don't want to stop the bleeding - just slow it down a bit.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/09/White-House-Considering-Delaying-Withholding-To-Bully-Republicans-On-Taxes" target="_blank">In another step that will screw over the American people, in particular the middle class and poor, the Administration is considering in maintaining the current withholding tables in the event no deal is reached and personal income taxes increase across the board by 10% on January 2, 2013.</a> The 'justification' for this decision is to prevent people from seeing the impact of the tax increase in their paychecks. The problem is that this only masks the effect via withholding. When taxpayers sit down in early 2014 to prepare their 2013 Income Tax Returns - they are going to see the impact of the Administration's shell game when they have to write checks to the IRS to cover the difference between their tax obligations and the amounts withheld by the IRS.<br />
<br />
Keeping on the subject of the 'Big Lies' advocated by the Obama Administration and their sycophants and economics, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/09/newt-gingrich-schools-lawrence-odonnell-clinton-tax-hikes" target="_blank">we have one of MSNBC's most moronic hosts, Lawrence O'Donnell, trying to advocate the 'Big Lie' around the canard that the Clinton 1993 tax increase sparked the 1995-2000 economic boom while appearing on NBC's 'Meet the Press'.</a><br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the clueless O'Donnell, Newt Gingrich was also on the program. The former Speaker then schooled O'Donnell in the simple truth of the matter - that it was the balanced budget / spending controls plus a drop in the capital gains tax rate pushed by the GOP Congressional Majority and signed onto by President Clinton, combined with the Internet bubble, that sparked the economic growth - not higher tax rates.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/118966" title="MRC TV video player" width="640"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>In fact, the Gross Domestic Product shrank in the first year after the Clinton tax hikes to an annual rate of 2.9 percent down from 1992's 3.4 percent.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>That's right: the economy as measured by GDP was better the year before Clinton took office and raised taxes than it was the year after.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>By far the best years under Clinton came after the Republican tax cuts when the GDP grew annually by 4.5 percent, 4.4 percent, 4.8 percent, and 4.1 percent from 1997 to 2000.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The best job creation also occurred after the Republicans took over Congress with less than seven million new jobs created in 1993 and 1994 compared to over sixteen million in the next six years.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>As for the fiscal impact of the Clinton tax hikes, the left always ignores that we ran budget deficits in his first term. It was only after the Republican tax cuts that surpluses occurred.</i></blockquote>
Also not referenced - federal government revenues post the 2001 / 2003 'Bush Tax Cuts' were greater than than the revenues the federal government received during the higher Clinton tax rates. FY2007 set a record for federal revenues at $2.7 trillion. <br />
<br />
Which reminds me - the President also still hasn't told us how he intends to average $4.7 trillion in federal government revenues over the next decade in order to limit the growth in the national debt to just under $7 trillion. We hit our record revenues 5 years ago - and just how the hell are we to exceed that record by $2 trillion per year when we have sub-2% annual GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of over 11%?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF" target="_blank">Remember reading all those progressive newspapers touting the end of California's fiscal crisis with the passage of Proposition 30 - hiking the state sales tax by .5% and raising the top state income tax rate to 13.3%? </a> Well, reports of the end of the fiscal crisis are, unsurprisingly very premature. State tax revenues are in freefall - running 10.8% below the November budget predictions and spurring concerns that California is going to learn the same lesson the French, British, New Yorkers, Marylanders, and others who punitively hiked taxes on the wealthy - that the wealthy taxpayers will leave in order to avoid the punitive tax.<br />
<br />
Gas prices are dropping across the country - down an average of 46 cents per gallon in just the last two months. Fueling the price drop is substantially lower demand for gasoline - on par with the level of demand we saw in the winter of 2001. <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/08/msnbc-host-energy-is-just-too-darn-cheap/" target="_blank">This is an untimely blow for MSNBC loon Chris Hayes, last seen denigrating the American service members, who believes that energy prices are far too low. </a> Hayes wants the President to substantially hike gas prices so that renewable (green energy) alternatives become immediately economically viable despite the negative impacts such a move would have on the economy and in particular the poor and middle class.<br />
<br />
Speaking of the government picking winners and losers in green energy, A123 Systems, a battery manufacturer for electric cars which received over $500 million in government grants and tax subsidies before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, was sold to a Chinese company today for about $247 million.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/09/CA-District-That-Owes-1-Billion-On-100-Million-Loan-Not-The-Exception-In-Cash-Strapped-State" target="_blank">In another example of government incompetence, we have the School Board for Poway, California who will pay $1 billion in order to retire their $100 million bond...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>These bonds in question are known as Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs), and they are unlike typical bonds because they allow "districts to defer payments well into the future — by which time lots of interest has accrued."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>California's State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has determined that nearly 200 school districts in the state have borrowed nearly $3 billion in CABs and are on the hook for a combined $16 billion. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>According to NPR, Lockyer said such bonds are the “the school district equivalent of a payday loan or a balloon payment” where “you have a spike in interest rates that's extraordinary." </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Lockyer is "poring through" a database to determine which districts are at most risk but has come to the conclusion that most of these bonds cannot even be refinanced.
One such district is West West Contra School District, which is just outside of San Francisco. In 2010, the district took a $2.5 million bond in order to get $25 million to build an elementary school, which seemed like a net gain of $22.5 million for the district at the time. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Not so fast.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>That $2.5 million bond will ultimately cost the district a whopping $34 million to pay over its term. </i></blockquote>
As the article notes - this is not an isolated example of fiscal irresponsibility inside California.<br />
<br />
California is not, despite the massive need to, invoke similar reforms to those done in 2010 by Wisconsin to reduce the power and control of unions. <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/michigan-is-the-new-wisconsin/" target="_blank">However, Michigan's legislature is enacting legislation to make the state the next 'Right to Work' state. </a>Unions in the state are promising massive disruptions, protests, and political turmoil if the Governor moves forward and signs the legislation into law. They are pointing to the discord and division they promoted in 2010-2012 in Wisconsin and insisting they will do the same in Michigan. OK - as I am sure that those in Michigan are also hoping that the what happened in Wisconsin, economically, also happens in Michigan - a major fiscal turnaround.<br />
<br />
We'll wrap this weekend's edition of QH with Bill Whittle's latest 'Afterburner' edition - Unserious People...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/VWiE_EzbAyo/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VWiE_EzbAyo&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VWiE_EzbAyo&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-14738378465018537102012-12-06T13:41:00.001-08:002012-12-06T13:46:07.883-08:00Quick Hits - December 6, 2012Bashir al-Assad, Syria's dictator, placed his toes on the edge of the Red Line last night as multiple sources confirmed the Syrian military had completed preparation for loading Sarin gas onto delivery systems. <a href="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite" target="_blank">For the next 60 days, the 'half-life' of the nerve gas, only an order from Assad prevents the Syrian military from using WMD on their own people.</a><br />
<br />
If that line is crossed - what will the US or NATO do? That is one of the questions that Assad has to be asking himself as he tries to decide whether to stay in Syria until the bitter end or bolt to a convenient exile location like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador. <br />
<br />
How will Barack Obama deal with this 3AM call?<br />
<br />
We already know how President Obama is reacting to the 3AM call he's received from Egypt over the escalating violence around the Islamist Morsi granting himself dictatorial powers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbo8I5gZ-AomvigQWwSQ1YgGat0QCvcBpQdFNitE2aqcSfZsBKY_E9i2xGziW6stbVpNU4B-c-B3PcqGfrgP5Z2gHg4twQWhaguTo58-nSqS4rawhpmHmNsPtUe1HKyekFHiH4b35i5kE/s1600/ramirez-egypt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbo8I5gZ-AomvigQWwSQ1YgGat0QCvcBpQdFNitE2aqcSfZsBKY_E9i2xGziW6stbVpNU4B-c-B3PcqGfrgP5Z2gHg4twQWhaguTo58-nSqS4rawhpmHmNsPtUe1HKyekFHiH4b35i5kE/s1600/ramirez-egypt.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
We also know how the President decided to address the 3AM call from Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Pretty much the same way as he needed his beauty sleep before attending a morning campaign fund raiser in Las Vegas. <br />
<br />
What makes the fiasco of Benghazi even worse is that the Islamist terrorists who launched the 8 hour long attack on two US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi were armed, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/06/nyt-obama-admin-approved-secret-weapons-deals-that-ended-up-arming-islamists-in-libya/" target="_blank">according to a report in the New York Times this morning</a>, by a secret weapons deal approved by the Obama Administration.<br />
<br />
How nice that the NYT has decided to report this AFTER the Presidential Election. It's stunning the amount of valuable info that becomes available after they shilled for Barack Obama's re-election. Like the other disclosure where the New York Times admits that <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/05/NYTimes-Finally-Admitted-Reaganomics-Worked" target="_blank">'Reaganomics worked'.</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><a href="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/11/after-30-years-the-new-york-times-admits-reaganomics-worked/#ixzz2EEODVWbW">AEI columnist James Pethokoukis notes</a> that the heart of The Times' article is that in 2010 Americans "paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Pethokoukis points out that some tax hike advocates think this means that America's tax burden is too low and time has come for a hike. But Pethokoukis disagrees.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Maybe I’m crazy, but I think the reduction in the tax burden — staring with the Reagan tax cuts — has been a huge competitive advantage for the U.S. We should keep that edge. Check out these numbers. In 1981, France’s per capita GDP was 81% of U.S. per capita GDP, Germany’s 83%, Italy’s 81%, Britain’s 69%.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>In 2010, France’s per capita GDP was 73% of U.S. per capita GDP (down 8 points), Germany’s 81% (down 2 points), Italy’s 68% (down 12 points), and Britain’s 76% (up 7 points).</i></blockquote>
<i>Pethokoukis reminds readers that Europe was closing the gap with U.S. wealth by 1980, but after Reagan's tax cuts that trend stagnated and in other cases even began to reverse.</i></blockquote>
This is a good segue to the main focus for today's post - Economics, Fiscal Cliffs, and how we, the American people, are losing regardless of who 'win's' the current negotiations.<br />
<br />
First, let's understand something very simple. The fiscal cliff, 'Taxmageddon', the 'witching day' of January 1, 2013 when a host of bills expire and subject the American people to a number of significant tax increases, is not an accident. It's not happening by chance. <a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/120512-635835-fiscal-cliff-is-the-lefts-policy-dream.htm" target="_blank">It's happening by design and by policy.</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Year after year, the Democratic-controlled Senate, ignoring the law, refuses to pass budgets.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Year after year, Washington makes big government cheap by charging Americans only $6 for every $10 of government services, borrowing the difference. And the biggest purchaser of U.S. government debt is not China but ... the U.S. government, largely through the Federal Reserve.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Yet what supposedly is horrifying is a sequester that would cut less than 3% of federal spending over the next decade? Or horrible Grover Norquist.</i></blockquote>
George Will, writing the above, just starts to touch on the issues. Yes, issues - plural. And it's all according to plan.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is a true disciple of Saul Alinsky. He's acting on his deep rooted ideological roots intending to 'fundamentally change' what he sees is a broken country - one that is 'unfair', that 'oppresses the poor', and is based on the foundation of an economic system (capitalism) that is fundamentally flawed. He sees his role as providing 'justice' for those 'wronged' by that fundamentally flawed economic system. For ensuring the equality of results. That government and the state is the only and best tool to manage the economy to ensure 'fairness', 'balance', and deliver 'social justice' to all the people. The government has to right the wrongs of the past two hundred plus years in order to move beyond it's history. Among these wrongs that he has to fight are 'racism', 'sexism', and the greed of wealthy who obtain their gains on the backs of the disadvantaged. <br />
<br />
He, and his progressive liberal fascist supporters, highlight and call out 'racism', 'sexism', and use the meme of class warfare to target, personalize, and demonize those who wish to maintain that fundamentally flawed system. To him, and his allies, the use of projection is second nature -and he (they) do not see anything wrong with it because to further their ideological agenda, to achieve the utopia they envision, they have to be all in. <br />
<br />
To achieve what he believes in his core is the only 'fair' system - Barack Obama doesn't care if the country goes over the cliff. This cliff is a creation of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress. They are the ones who planned to set the expiration dates of the 2001-2003 Tax Reductions, the Temporary Payroll Tax Reduction, and the hitting of the new Obamacare taxes for January 1, 2013. Add to these, the plan by Obama and the Congressional Democrats to set the next confrontation around the debt ceiling around the same time.<br />
<br />
Crises are opportunities in the Alinsky school. They offer the ability to expand the agenda via 'fixing' the problem as well as a circumstance to affix blame, demonize, and personalize the opposition in order to sway the opinions of the masses. If they do not occur naturally - create one in order to create the meme to 'justify' the solution. <br />
<br />
Even failures are no longer issues or impediments. Failures do not occur because the ideological agenda is flawed, failures occur because of the adverse action by opponents to the actions, or that the action was 'watered down' as the result of previous negotiations - and not implemented thoroughly enough. In that case, then the 'solution' is the more ideologically 'pure' implementation. Once the door is opened, and the foot is across the threshold, there is no going back in the Alinsky model.<br />
<br />
For example, Obamacare, as it is currently designed is intended to fail. The ultimate goal of the progressives was to obtain a single-payor government controlled healthcare system not unlike Britain's NHS. They were unable to do this, so what was created was a manner to open the door and get the foot across the threshold - pass the law and then have it survive electoral and judicial review. When Obamacare 'fail's, the solution will not be to 'roll back' Obamacare and return to the 'unfairness' of a free market system - but expand government control of healthcare. <br />
<br />
[This was the same philosophy Jacques Delors, the principal architect of the Euro, followed as he pressed for the EU and single European currency. What was actually implemented was flawed and known to be flawed - but a step towards a complete Union which was the ultimate goal. Now in the midst of the Euro-crisis, the leading 'solution' is moving more to a complete Union - not moving back.]<br />
<br />
Assisting Barack Obama in achieving his goals are the incompetents of the GOP Congressional Leadership - particularly Speaker John Boehner, who lack the fortitude to stand on and defend conservative principles and traditional American values. They appear far more concerned about keeping their power and popularity in the short term than taking a stand for the benefit of the country in the long term. As they pontificate about their 'hard-line' positions, all they are offering are just a slightly smaller, slower incremental step towards the progressive agenda advocated by Barack Obama. They are acting as if they fear the effect of the propaganda of the progressive mainstream media more than they fear the effects of their voters / base.<br />
<br />
To make a historical analogy, if Winston Churchill acted like these 'leaders' during his years of political exile in the 1930's - he would never have sounded the alarm over Hitler and Nazi Germany. He never would have pushed for the re-armament of Britain. He never would have stood alone against Nazi Germany in June 1940 - and likely would have sought a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany during the summer of 1940.<br />
<br />
So why am I, a conservative, castigating the Speaker of the House and other GOP Congressional leaders, in these negotiations? Because they aren't negotiating based on conservative principles. They aren't fighting. They aren't making their case in the media or taking it to the American people. All they are offering is just a watered down / slower approach to the progressive agenda of 'fundamental change'.<br />
<br />
This is the problem. Neither side is working towards FIXING THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM we are facing which is the <b>excessive spending</b> and expansion of the Federal Government.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3iz18I3jNge6Uo58ij3xSq7HA8scw0dXGzNSbXzRObm1T0iM0dP9gcDTVN9XZxkgAFBXeulknPk-XsCd7OWIgP51IqhbhtvlPLaUoybLa4jtYIFbzoeaxg74k8TIJoMqxQYTML4M3dQ/s1600/fedspending111yrs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3iz18I3jNge6Uo58ij3xSq7HA8scw0dXGzNSbXzRObm1T0iM0dP9gcDTVN9XZxkgAFBXeulknPk-XsCd7OWIgP51IqhbhtvlPLaUoybLa4jtYIFbzoeaxg74k8TIJoMqxQYTML4M3dQ/s640/fedspending111yrs.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Barack Obama's 'offer' to the GOP to avert the 'fiscal cliff' is basically the President's rightfully maligned FY2013 budget plan. Despite getting exactly ZERO votes in the House and the Senate when brought for a vote earlier this year - this is the President's plan and agenda. It's all about 'fairness', 'balance', and 'social justice'. It's also ALL ABOUT SPENDING.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf" target="_blank">According to the President's plan</a> - between 2013 and 2023, he intends the Federal Government to spend $47 trillion dollars. Let that set in for a second... Over the next DECADE, he wants to spend an average of $4.7 trillion dollars PER YEAR. He's spending about $3.8 trillion dollars this year, which is about $1 trillion more than we spent in FY2007 - the last all GOP budget. So, over the next decade, he's intending to increase spending nearly another $1 trillion per year.<br />
<br />
The current spending, when compared to the size of our GDP, is about 24% of GDP. This is matching the all-time - which last occurred during the Second World War. From 1960 to 2008, federal government spending averaged 20.2% of GDP. <br />
<br />
Our GDP, is struggling to grow at a 1.5%-2% rate per year - well below the 4-5% rate that the President expected and projects in his budget plan. At the projected rate of spending increases, we will remain spending nearly 20% more than we did between 1960 and 2008.<br />
<br />
In 2012, the receipts of the federal government were approximately $2.6 trillion - about $200-$250 billion below the all-time high receipts which occurred in 2007 (and when the budget deficit was only $161 billion). Obama's economic plan projects a nearly 20% increase in federal government revenues in 2013 and 2014 - an then about 8% annually for the remaining 8 years of the next decade. All told, his plan says that over the next decade the federal government will bring in about $40.3 trillion of revenues. <br />
<br />
The annual average of revenues the President projects? $1.2 trillion higher than our ALL-TIME HIGH.<br />
<br />
The end result of this spending and revenues - ADDING ANOTHER $6.7 trillion to the $16.35 trillion national debt that has been already accrued. <br />
<br />
Let that sink in - if the President gets what he wants - and the economy / tax policy performs as they believe, <b>we will expand our national debt from $16.35 trillion to $23.05 trillion</b>. Or - to look at it this way - about $13 trillion more than it was when it took office on January 2009.<br />
<br />
But even this is an incredibly optimistic and unrealistic scenario.<br />
<br />
Our economic growth is a third or less than what is being projected. While spending is soaring, the President is claiming that new tax 'fairness' will generate revenues. But returning the 'wealthy' to the Clinton-era tax rates only brings in about $80 billion in additional revenues -IF WE ASSUME THE HIGHER RATES DO NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY. That $80 billion, or $800 billion over the next decade is only about 20% of the total revenues the President projects will be raised over the next decade. <br />
<br />
Where are the OTHER REVENUES GOING TO COME FROM? Economic growth? Not hardly. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/06/howard_dean_the_truth_is_everybody_needs_to_pay_more_taxes_not_just_the_rich.html" target="_blank">They will come from even more taxes - not only on the wealthy, but also on the backs of not only the middle class, but everyone.</a> And it still will only be enough, if all works out, to limit the increase of the national debt to $6.7 trillion. <b>[Realistically, I expect it to be far closer to $10 trillion over the next decade.]</b><br />
<br />
In his 'offer' to 'avert' the fiscal crisis - the President calls for $4 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. He seeks, over the next decade, to reduce the debt by about $1.2 trillion via this formula.<br />
<br />
If we assume the speculations are accurate, this means that the President is willing to change his plan so that rather than increase the national debt over the next decade by $6.7 trillion (to a $23.05 trillion total), he will ONLY increase the national debt by $5.5 trillion ($21.85 trillion total). <br />
<br />
The national debt will still increase - and by an amount in the next decade only a less than what Barack Obama added in his first 4 years [as he added as much as the combined totals of President's 1 through 42 plus the first half year of 43's term].<br />
<br />
The debt crisis is not being averted. It will get worse under the President's plan over the next decade.<br />
<br />
The President is, as I've noted before, running the progressive agenda. He seeks to increase taxes, expand government and government control to manage the economy, increase the size of government to instill 'fairness', 'balance', 'social justice' [pick winners and losers] so that the country 'is a better place'. Wealth gets redistributed via the 'fairness' of the government. Poverty and racism end.<br />
<br />
The conservatives stand on different principles. They believe in lower taxes - keeping wealth within the private sector, moving the government out of the way of the private sector to encourage growth, and generate the funds to pay for government with a lower, simplified tax code where economic growth is the fuel behind higher revenues. They believe in equality of opportunity as opposed to the equality of results - and individual rights and accountability.<br />
<br />
But these aren't the principles that Speaker John Boehner is standing on for his 'negotiations' with Barack Obama to move us away from the fiscal cliffs we are racing towards.<br />
<br />
Speaker Boehner's 'solution' is to agree to $800 billion (over the next decade) of higher taxes, while calling for about $3 trillion of spending reductions over the next decade. In sum, what John Boehner sees as a solution is to reduce what we are going to spend over the next decade by about $3.8 - $3.9 trillion.<br />
<br />
So, rather than increasing the national debt over the next decade, $6.7 trillion, he wants to ONLY INCREASE the national debt by $2.8 to $2.9 trillion.<br />
<br />
This isn't cutting the national debt - it's just a proposal to SLOW DOWN THE GROWTH of the national debt. Furthermore, if we look at a more likely $8-$10 trillion increase the Obama agenda will deliver over the next decade, Boehner is only proposing to slow down the rate of spending by 30-35%.<br />
<br />
How is that going to help us? That's a fix?<br />
<br />
All John Boehner is doing is offering to let the country bleed a little slower - we'll still bleed to death. <br />
<br />
The crises we face require far more drastic measures than are being offered by the GOP Speaker of the House. It also requires far more fortitude than the Speaker has. The longer we wait to fix the fundamental problem we have around spending and debt - the harder the fix will be. To 'win' - all Obama has to do is make it 'too hard' to reverse his agenda...once the tipping point has been reached it will not be reversible and the country will have become 'fundamentally changed'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-79868177890274224802012-12-05T16:15:00.002-08:002012-12-05T16:23:10.763-08:00Red Lines Redux - UPDATEDIn usual parlance, the term 'Red Line' is meant to imply a line or barrier that cannot be crossed without some severe ramification... like an engine's RPM exceeding it's 'Red Line' maximum after which point the engine is at risk of 'blowing'.<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration has putting this term's use into overtime these days - defining red lines for the actions of the bloody Assad regime in Syria regarding it's chemical weapons as well as defining red lines for the negotiations that are supposed to be taking place between the White House (on behalf of Congressional Democrats) and the GOP Congressional Leadership. <br />
<br />
In the last several days, the President or his minions have announced 'Red Lines' regarding not bringing any discussions or negotiations about entitlement reform into the scope of the fiscal cliff debate - excluding the three largest programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) which are part of our federal spending. <br />
<br />
They have announced 'Red Lines' around the President's flip flop in new revenues, insisting that new revenues come from higher income tax rates on the wealthy.<br />
<br />
They have also announced 'Red Lines' around the usual vapid qualifiers on any agreement - saying that any solution that doesn't meet their (slightly warped) definitions of 'fairness' or 'balance'.<br />
<br />
The effects of these 'Red Line' qualifiers? To define, for all practical purposes, that the President sees no personal or political downside for taking the country off the fiscal cliff.<br />
<br />
He knows very well that his sycophants in the mainstream media will attack and blame the GOP for their failure to 'compromise' - or as most of define it, surrender.<br />
<br />
Thinking about this, I've noted a couple of other interesting aspects.<br />
<br />
First, one can only have wished, as the we look at the Middle East - and in particular the rise of Islamic Jihadist and al-Qaeda in the region over the last couple of years along with Iran's accelerating efforts to produce a nuclear weapon, that the President was as insistent and active with tossing 'Red Lines' at the Islamic fundamentalists and Iran as he is with tossing them at the GOP.<br />
<br />
Second, if there was any doubt that the President intends to take the country over the cliff in his effort to destroy the GOP, that disappears with the latest buzzword being used from the President, to Jay Carney, to SecTreas, and others in the Administration to demonize the GOP. Because starting today, all of the above are insisting that the GOP, in their refusal to surrender and accept the President's ludicrous offer, are now holding the process 'hostage' and forcing the President to shoot / take the country over the cliff.<br />
<br />
This rhetoric will do little to prevent plunging off the cliff - and only frames the argument that the intransigence of the GOP is the problem when the person / entity being intransigence is the President who is insisting not only on hiking taxes, but getting a carte blanche approval from Congress to have sole control on the debt ceiling.<br />
<br />
There's been no counter-offer from the President - and no clearly no response from the President that demonstrates any willingness to reduce spending - even though the President has increased spending over 30% in the past 4 years. He continues to insist that our challenges are related to insufficient revenues- not too much spending. Even more laughable is that his 'solution' for revenues will only cover about 7% (at best) of the current annual deficit. What about the other 93%?<br />
<br />
But perhaps the most asinine insistence from the President, beyond the GOP's outright surrender, is the demand that he gets carte blanche on setting the US National Debt Ceiling - which is basically an intent to eliminate that debt ceiling.<br />
<br />
Let's put that request in a form that all of you understand... It's like going to your bank, where you have a large credit card debt balance, and since you are at your credit limit, demanding bank grant you an unlimited credit limit in order to allow you to reduce your credit card balance.<br />
<br />
Why doesn't the President just demand that all banks also eliminate their credit limits too if that is such a great solution for massive indebtedness?<br />
<br />
These economic ideas can only come from a community organizer.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">UPDATE</span></b> - <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/05/huh-thats-odd-harry-reid-declines-to-bring-a-vote-on-obamas-cliff-plan/" target="_blank">Maybe that is why Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader is declining to bring the President's 'fiscal cliff' plan to a vote in the Senate.</a>..<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="338" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JHQFe1qrxSo" width="450"></iframe></div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>If the President’s proposal was made in good faith, Democrats should be eager to vote for it.</b> So I’m surprised the Majority Leader just declined the chance for them to support it with their votes. <b>I guess we’re left to conclude that it couldn’t even pass by a bare majority of votes, and that they’d rather take the country off the cliff than actually work out a good-faith agreement that reflects tough choices on both sides.</b> … I think folks should know who actually wants to raise taxes on family farmers and manufacturers, and who thinks we can solve our fiscal problems without doing anything serious to our real long term liabilities. Democrats are so focused on the politics of this debate they seem to forget there’s a cost. They’re feeling so good about the election, they’ve forgotten they’ve got a duty to govern. A lot of people are going to suffer a lot if we go off this cliff. That’s why we assumed Democrats wanted to avoid it. We thought it was the perfect opportunity to do something together. Apparently we were wrong.</i></blockquote>
<br />
'Pinky' Reid's response? It's all just a 'stunt'.
<br />
<br />
A 'stunt' like defining 'Red Lines' and using rhetoric that the GOP is holding the country 'hostage'?<br />
<br />
<b>There is no good faith intent by the President or his allies to prevent the country from going off the cliff.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>That's a feature - not a bug. </b><br />
<br />
Because one doesn't let a crisis go to waste - and if you don't have a convenient crisis - create one.<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-80902592907897713652012-12-05T12:04:00.001-08:002012-12-05T12:04:26.150-08:00Quick Hits - December 5, 2012Last year, during the Debt Ceiling / Budget negotiations between Barack Obama and the GOP Congressional leadership, a deal in principle had been reached between the President and Speaker John Boehner where $800 billion in new revenues would be raised in conjunction with about $3.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. But before the deal could be finalized, Barack Obama reneged on the deal, demanding that the Speaker accept $1.2 trillion in revenues. Angered by the bait and switch conducted by the President, the Speaker torpedoed the deal.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama took to the airways to complain about the action by the Speaker - noting that the entire $1.2 trillion of new revenues would not increase anyone's tax rates - but was achievable via eliminating deductions and loopholes in the tax code.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Pp2HaiGh_U" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, in his negotiations with the GOP Congressional Leadership this week, staked out two absolute 'Red Lines' for the President. The first is that any reform of Social Security is entirely and completely off of the table. Even though Social Security is one of the three largest drivers of the fiscal spending challenges we face,<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/03/geithner-and-carney-drawing-a-fiscal-cliff-line-in-the-sand/" target="_blank"> the President and SecTreas contend that Social Security is not a 'driver of the deficit' </a>- and that the negotiations will only address the 'drivers of the deficit'.<br />
<br />
Drivers of the deficit? Here's a simple graph that reflects what will happen if we really address the 'drivers of the deficit' that include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - and that happens if we do not.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiK9fsx0K-OcAGIvkGq7mr7Pf1eRNA_ZK5JjEmGbthiJxSPV7_yTgi0_WUuZFcO-ZCi1FyQRGLb3fgL80dtGm32hvmy_pODx_8mFFuvhhkAn0Q9gKjpv2yrwkfqqmVNWut_8j4hQRaac/s1600/entitlement+iceberg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiK9fsx0K-OcAGIvkGq7mr7Pf1eRNA_ZK5JjEmGbthiJxSPV7_yTgi0_WUuZFcO-ZCi1FyQRGLb3fgL80dtGm32hvmy_pODx_8mFFuvhhkAn0Q9gKjpv2yrwkfqqmVNWut_8j4hQRaac/s640/entitlement+iceberg.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This country is the SS Titanic - and we're speeding at top speed, blindly, into the path of the 'entitlement iceberg'.<br />
<br />
[Side observation - one of the groups that turned last month's election to Barack Obama was the youth vote - those under the age of 29. They overwhelmingly voted for Obama and his 'gifts' and promises courtesy of the government. Yet, these are the one's who will be screwed the most by the President's irresponsible and ideological driven policies. They voted to let Obama spend their inheritance, the wealth they hope to earn and accumulate in their lifetimes, today. They will be the one's that will be holding the bill if we don't take action today.]<br />
<br />
The other 'Red Line' - that any deal has to have a tax increase on the income tax rate paid by the 'wealthy' - those Americans who earn over $250,000. <br />
<blockquote>
<i>Between Obama’s fiscal cliff proposal and subsequent vacation, and Carney’s and Geithner’s comments, the Administration is finally making its intentions clear: tax the so-called “rich,” cut next-to-nothing from the budget, and claim that this will bring back the glory days of the Clinton era. Never mind that the entire argument ignores at least seven major Clinton-era fallacies, and that a return to the Clinton-era tax rates on the “wealthy” only raises 1.88% of the next decade’s expected spending.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Spending cuts, entitlement reform, and tax reform are the three major keys to economic recovery and preventing the transformation of America into today’s Greece. Unfortunately, Obama’s opening negotiations on the fiscal cliff are not hopeful signs that he takes any of them seriously.</i></blockquote>
This 'Red Line' was reinforced by an unnamed 'Senior White House Official' who set the President's position,<a href="http://news.nationalreview.com/?FpZSX6hY4vNDDsxiHFcotolFpx5sOalYF&https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/275743695536525313" target="_blank"> <b>'If GOP doesn't agree to higher rates for the top 2 percent, we'll go over the cliff and the American people will hold them responsible."</b></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgRELLBdWwF-4Iwge3x1fzsXf-9dFw_vOlFId6GsEeBiDhmGmUtqe6zIww-Hm-ycRT6nmuSjmk7GMxaRX5YzWzGKIlO2cBiSWvnXfYjSxwC_VE3BkfVtOv_VxRBUx3RuA3ywqxz9SuNiU/s1600/badsign.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgRELLBdWwF-4Iwge3x1fzsXf-9dFw_vOlFId6GsEeBiDhmGmUtqe6zIww-Hm-ycRT6nmuSjmk7GMxaRX5YzWzGKIlO2cBiSWvnXfYjSxwC_VE3BkfVtOv_VxRBUx3RuA3ywqxz9SuNiU/s1600/badsign.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It is the fear of being held 'accountable' that seems to be driving the actions of the current GOP Congressional leadership - and in particular Speaker John Boehner. He seems more concerned about his own reputation and the possible smearing of himself and other GOP leaders by the feckless Obama sycophants in the mainstream media than with addressing the immediate needs and best interests of the country.<br />
<br />
His counteroffer to the President's ludicrous initial offer for $1.6 trillion in new taxes and a vague promise of $400 billion in spending cuts was to effectively move directly to what the President and he originally agreed to last year - with the $800 billion in new revenues coming from not higher tax rates, but from closing loopholes and limiting deductions for the wealthiest Americans. <br />
<br />
This is a major concession by the Speaker - and one that is very troubling even though he is appearing to hold the focus on revenues being derived from tax code reform. <br />
<br />
First, he has positioned himself to accept a 'compromise' revenue increase of at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade by immediately going to the $800 billion of the 'last deal'. The issue we face, as I've covered, is not a shortage of revenues - but too much spending. Lower tax rates and other efforts to stimulate economic growth actually result in higher government revenues as we've learned from the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush (43) tax reduction programs.<br />
<br />
Second, in his fear of confrontation, he has made some incredibly bad decisions that call into question his suitability to serve as the Speaker of the House. It's asinine to be concerned about the media. He's a Republican and supposed to be a conservative - he'll never get a fair shake by the mainstream media. Even if he agrees to give Barack Obama everything he wants - he'll not get fair treatment by the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/05/Conservative-Reps-Boehner-Planning-Tax-Hikes" target="_blank">Another is related to what seems to be a purge underway of Tea Party Conservatives from crucial House Committees - in order to remove them from having a position of influence to argue for a stronger conservative negotiation position or case.</a> This is what the Democratic caucus does to enforce groupthink and groupspeak. This is what the Soviet Union and other tyrannies did to punish those who would not tow the 'official' line. This is not what the GOP stands for. <br />
<br />
Finally,<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/04/House-Republicans-Not-Consulted-On-Boehners-Budget-Proposal" target="_blank"> the Speaker also issued his 'response' to the President's absurd offer without sharing it or discussing it with the GOP caucus in the House.</a> It was done entirely outside of the caucus - all in an effort to avoid debate. Again, this is not how the GOP should operate...and reflects the insecurity and arrogance of the Speaker.<br />
<br />
While many conservative bloggers and commentators have been focused on the near instant dimissal of Boehner's offer by the President - particularly around their continued use of the buzzwords 'balance' and 'fairness' - which is fair game, others are not taking a hard look at the actions of the Speaker and raising questions about them or the Speaker's proposal.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi13tSeLwl87v3see4gFXcBMwMtXX7WG8zjqQDKLOjv6in0i7cj10hru2TZeOBUyBobCmEGlxvKO-S1z2BT2egIm-p9doPHtfq3pechHtkjfMVctmVlC8SYMSoD_xBCZFjZaC88hQiYTRg/s1600/temptations.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi13tSeLwl87v3see4gFXcBMwMtXX7WG8zjqQDKLOjv6in0i7cj10hru2TZeOBUyBobCmEGlxvKO-S1z2BT2egIm-p9doPHtfq3pechHtkjfMVctmVlC8SYMSoD_xBCZFjZaC88hQiYTRg/s640/temptations.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's some hard facts for the Speaker -<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The Obama Administration is not interested in a negotiation or a compromise. They only want a surrender.</li>
<li>The press will castigate the GOP and defend Obama regardless of the results - as long as Obama does not surrender. And if he does surrender, they will stop castigating him within weeks. Furthermore, if the economy turns around - Obama will get the credit for the turnaround.</li>
<li>Obama is not interested in what is in the best interests of the country. He's only interested in what is in the best interests of his hard left progressive agenda - and destroying the viability of the GOP.</li>
<li>'Fairness' is not about fairness.</li>
<li>'Balance' is not about balance.</li>
<li>The Obama Administration does not see spending as an issue - and have no interests in reducing spending or reforming the major entitlement programs. They see any resulting crisis as an opportunity to advance their agenda and increase the size / scope of government.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Just because the media will castigate you - and your policies, doesn't mean that you do not take to the bully pulpit and make your case. You can't assume that the American people will learn from their 'pain'. They've been feeling pain from the President's feckless economic policies for the last 4 years - and they've not learned anything.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Mr. Speaker, since the President does not want to return to the Clinton-era tax levels - across the board, or the Clinton-era spending levels - across the board - both of which he and his economic advisers said delivered the 1995-2000 economic boom that was so much better than the 2004-2008 economic boom, and since the President will also ignore the recommendations of his own blue ribbon commission [Simpson-Bowles] to solve the fiscal challenges we face all in favor of hiking taxes on those earning more than $250,000 which will cover about 7% or less of our annual deficit - and has no plan to find the other 93% other than from more taxes [capital gains, dividend, corporate, and inheritance] - then you can either surrender or hold to our core values.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
We know that if the President seizes 100% of the assets of the top 1% (or even 2%) - he barely covers the scope of this year's annual budget deficit. But with those [formerly] wealthy now without 1 cent of assets - how will he cover his massive spending plan for next year or the one after that? He can't - without massive taxes on the middle class. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Spending cuts and entitlement reforms are needed. Social Security is 70 years old. Medicare is nearly 50 years old. These programs need to be reformed / modernized to reflect the new demographics and new realities. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
But you, Mr. Speaker and your fellow GOP leaders, have to also make the commonsense argument for the American people.... </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-confessions-of-a-confused-misfit/" target="_blank">Victor Davis Hanson, in his latest column notes this about the position of the President and his supporters observes...</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i>But what we cannot stomach is all the sermonizing about “fair share” and “play by the rules” and “the one percent” from those who seek to be exempt from their own rhetoric. <b>Can’t Warren Buffett keep quiet and just leave his $50 billion to his heirs — and let the wonderful federal government do what it must with a $30 billion estate tax on his earnings? Can Bill Gates’ people really manage the Buffett $50 billion better than HUD or HHS? And if so, why a HUD or HHS? His estate will dodge more tax liabilities than what millions of his proverbial overtaxed secretaries pay.</b> Why isn’t George Soros one of the despised money speculators of the sort that Occupy Wall Street was enraged about? Isn’t trying to break the Bank of England a bit too much money-grubbing? So weird what constitutes good and bad riches!</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><b>I guess the rub is not big or small money, or what you must do to get it and keep it. No, the lesson instead is what you say when you get it.</b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Look at California - which has been running the progressive agenda since Jerry Brown's first term as Governor in the mid-1970's....</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><a href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/but-its-all-about-fairness-144000.html" target="_blank">Today, 144,000 HOUSEHOLDS in California, account for 50% of the State's income tax receipts.</a> </b>With the passage of Proposition 30, the Governor's plan to 'fix' the state's fiscal challenges, the top 10% of wage earners in California will account for 80% of the total income tax receipts. This is also the state where middle class wage earners, those earning $48,000 per year (state median income is $54,000), pay a 9.3% income tax rate - a rate higher than the TOP income tax rate in 47 other states.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are about 12 million households today in California. Even with these tax increases - or the excessive dependence of tax payments on a shrinking number of people - California's structural fiscal problems are not being solved - but exacerbated.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How many of these 144,000 households or top 10% will remain in California despite it's great weather and natural resources? How many have to leave before this collapses? And leave many will as the other policies of the state, the fecklessness around cap and trade, water management, illegal immigration, identity politics, and the power of the public sector unions all drive up costs and push businesses out of business. At what point is the value of the great Californian weather offset by the pain of all of the other factors? For thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of people - we're already at that point. California's population is barely growing - as illegal immigrants, dependent on low wage jobs or government entitlements, flood in numbers that barely offset the exodus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is what the US will look like if the GOP does not hold to its core principles. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The GOP has more to fear from its abandonment of its core principles and values than it has to fear from the castigation from the progressive mainstream media or the baseless attacks and campaigning conducted by the Obama Administration. We're already in a 'Gimme' electorate - where the majority of people who cast their votes last month want something from the government and are willing to sacrifice their rights to get something 'for nothing'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That is the mindset we have to change. That's not the mindset that made this country great. That's the mindset, shared by over 50% of Democrats and 25% (!!) of Republicans, that embraces socialism and fascism over capitalism and freedom. <a href="http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20264712/detroit-councilwoman-to-obama-we-supported-you-now-support-us" target="_blank">That's the mindset echoed by the failed progressive city leadership of Detroit - now bankrupt after four decades of implementing the progressive agenda - when they demand their 'quid pro quo' from the President - reminding him that since they overwhelmingly voted for him on Election Day, he OWES them billions to bail the city out.</a> Not so the city can change its approach - but so the city can continue down the same path that bankrupted it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, it is Einstein's definition of insanity in action.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My fear is if my hope that the GOP leadership will get smart is also an example of Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-15155283294666881292012-12-05T10:41:00.001-08:002012-12-05T10:41:32.136-08:00Quick Hits - December 4, 2012The fecklessness of the Obama foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, is seizing attention today.<br />
<br />
In Syria, which the President's team is handling 180 degrees different than it handled the popular uprising against a rabid dictator in Libya, signs are starting to appear that could reflect the regime of Bashir al-Assad is on its last days - after killing over 40,000 Syrians in the last 20 months. Fighting remains heavy in the suburbs of the Syrian capital of Damascus - and the Damascus International Airport has been intermittently shut down.<br />
<br />
Opposition fighters are using newly supplied (from Libya?) portable anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Syrian attack helicopters and jets flying close air support missions for the Syrian army. Signs are being detected that the Syrian military is either starting to relocate elements of their large stocks of chemical weapons or more ominously preparing some of these weapons for use in a last ditch effort by Assad to remain in power. Rumors are that Assad's people have been reaching out to Cuba and Venezuela to explore those countries as being hosts for his possible exile.<br />
<br />
The US and NATO have both issued stern warnings to the Syrian regime that any use of chemical weapons in the current conflict would be crossing a 'red line' - and imply that such a step may precipitate a military response.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, from all information, it appears as if the primary elements of the Syrian opposition are forces linked with radical Islamic jihadists - including a resurging al-Qaeda in Iraq which has been rebuilding itself since Barack Obama yanked US forces out of Iraq. Not only has the group been increasing their terror activities in Iraq, but it is also establishing operations in Syria - and threatening to do so in Jordan. [So much for the President's inept claim that al-Qaeda is on the run - it's becoming one of the major regional forces since the US pulled out of Iraq.]<br />
<br />
Conditions in Egypt are continuing to deteriorate in the wake of President Mohamed Morsi's unprecedented power grab - where he gave himself near dictatorial powers to push the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Immediately after emasculating the Egyptian courts, the sole remaining 'check and balance' for his efforts, his Islamist allies rammed through a new Egyptian Constitution which supports the power grab and embraces Shari'a law as the basic legal process for Egypt.<br />
<br />
On top of locking Shari'a into to the Egyptian Constitution, the new Islamist Constitution also eliminates the right of free speech in Egypt, the equality of rights for women, and restores the legality of slavery throughout the country.<br />
<br />
Tens of thousands of Egyptians, who oppose the radical Islamists, have taken to the streets in Cairo - including massive demonstrations at Tahir Square. During one march - the demonstrators approached and drove President Morsi out of the Presidential Palace. <br />
<br />
Unlike during similar demonstrations protesting the regime of the former Egyptian strongman, Hosani Mubarak, the Obama Administration and WH has remained silent over not only supporting the 'will of the people', or freedom, but also in denouncing the power grab launched by Morsi. <br />
<br />
Why the difference in actions between Morsi and Mubarak? Between Libya and Syria? <br />
<br />
How can the Obama Administration remain silent over a Constitution being rammed down the throats of Egyptians that eliminates free speech, women's rights, and RESTORES SLAVERY?<br />
<br />
Feckless, naive, and incompetent describe the Obama Administration's approach to foreign policy.<br />
<br />
But these traits aren't just the purvey of Barack Obama when it comes to foreign policy. Large elements of the State Department also embrace these same traits.<br />
<br />
In the Wall Street Journal, a former US Ambassador to one of the 'stans, noted that he had to fight several times with officials based in Washington DC who were insisting on reducing the security protection for his Embassy, his staff, and himself because of budgetary concerns being raised by Administration bean counters. This is exactly the same moronic decision making that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens had to deal with - as the security for US diplomatic facilities in Libya were reduced because that country had become 'save' in the wake of 'democratic' elections and the rise of Islamic organizations - including a surrogate of al-Qaeda.<br />
<br />
There are some 'professionals' in the State Department that make a career on being incompetent and testing new bounds of the Peter Principle - including one who is still rumored to be on the short list to replace SecState Hillary Clinton - Susan Rice.<br />
<br />
Susan Rice's record of feckless incompetence dates back to the 1990's and her stint during the Clinton Administration as an Assistant SecState for Africa. In her role, she actively supported the rise of some of central Africa's biggest and most violent thugs. She campaigned during the Rwandan genocide to not only prevent any US humanitarian intervention to end the genocide, but actually pushed to encourage the Administration to not use the term 'genocide' in any description of the Rwandan violence as use of that term would politically damage the Clinton Administration. Rice also performed in a similar manner as millions died in the Democratic Republic of Congo - advocating that the Administration do nothing. Finally, Rice was also the strongest advocate in the Clinton Administration against US efforts to provide HIV / AIDS and Malaria medication throughout the continent - saying it would only enrich US pharmaceuticals. How many died before President George W. Bush overruled this inept policy and spent billions to assist the region?<br />
<br />
Yet, despite this record of incompetence - the progressive nimrods in the media continue to push for her to become the next SecState - and attack conservatives who continue to demand accountability by Rice not only for her past actions, but specifically her role to lie to the American people and provide political cover for the Obama Administration in the wake of the Benghazi terrorist attack which killed the US Ambassador to Libya, a State Department official, and 2 State Department / CIA security officers in an 8 hour attack on September 11, 2012.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/11/30/washington-posts-marcus-claims-rices-false-benghazi-comments-were-basi" target="_blank">Ruth Marcus, one of the WaPoo's more moronic columnists, took to the editorial pages of that paper to invoke the 'Fake, but accurate' meme in an effort to provide cover for Susan Rice.</a><br />
<br />
This is just the latest effort to protect Rice by attacking and defaming those who call Rice out for her dismal record. Protest Rice, and one is called a racist and misogynist. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2012/11/30/flashback-media-failed-condemn-house-nigga-cartoon-regarding-condi-rice" target="_blank">Yet these same nimrods who toss these pejoratives were silent as liberal progressives smeared Secretary of State Condi Rice - calling her a 'house nigga' for President George W. Bush.</a> Racist? Absolutely - but in the mindset of the looney left, it's legitimate because Condi Rice is a conservative and worked for a Republican.<br />
<br />
If not for double standards, they would have no standards whatsoever.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/27/Amanpour-Noted-Hater-Of-Religious-Jews-And-Christians-To-Host-ABC-Series-About-History-Of-Israel" target="_blank">Anti-Israel and anti-Christian hard left 'journalist', ABC's Christiane Amanpour, aka Mistress Death, is going to be hosting for ABC News a 2 part primetime special about the history of Israel and the Bible.</a> I'm sure that there will be no bias or hatred in this - right? In reality, I expect this to be about as objective, unbiased, and accurate as Oliver Stone's History of America [Showtime] ....which is neither objective, unbiased, or factually accurate.<br />
<br />
It's that time of season again - the annual 'War on Christmas' being waged by the liberal fascist progressives - in their efforts to demonize and marginalize Christianity and it's role in defining some of the traditional core values of the United States.<br />
<br />
Bill O'Reilly, on The Factor, is, once again, jumping into the front lines to fight against this war...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<script src="http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1998628636001&w=466&h=263" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.insider.foxnews.com">video.insider.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Many liberal progressives deny that they are waging a 'War on Christmas' or ridicule efforts like those of BOR to call their efforts to marginalize Christianity and Christmas a 'War'. But this is part and parcel of the liberal secular progressive attacks on Christianity and core US values for decades. <br />
<br />
For example, in Santa Monica, CA - a Nativity scene has been displayed in Palisades Park for decades. However, in the last few years, Atheists have attempted to block the display of the Nativity scene in the public park citing the provisions of 'separation of Church and State' - and claiming that the display reflects an endorsement of Christianity by the local government. In an effort to come to a 'fair' resolution - the City permitted others to also place Holiday season displays - representing not only other faiths, but also the viewpoint of the Atheists. Those viewpoints were basically open attacks on Christianity and Christian beliefs as opposed to advocating atheism. Then the atheist groups attempted to crowd out the religious displays.<br />
<br />
Finally, this year, as they commenced their latest attack on the Nativity Display, they admitted what was obvious to all - that their intent is not for 'fairness' or having all faiths / beliefs on display - but eliminating the display of the Christian faith.<br />
<br />
That's right - tyranny of the minority. They are offended by Christianity and insist that their right to not be offended trumps the rights of others to see a Nativity display.<br />
<br />
BOR interviewed several days ago a leading US atheist on his program - and the arrogance and mindset of this tyranny of the minority comes through...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/n8gO-VTaOwU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The 'War on Christmas' is just one front of the basic 'War on Traditional American Values' that has been waged since President Woodrow Wilson.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-75455955607671062732012-12-03T14:16:00.001-08:002012-12-03T14:16:54.336-08:00Quick Hits - December 1-3, 2012Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner took to a number of the Sunday morning talk programs to continue the PR push for Barack Obama's plan to avert rushing over the fiscal cliff - Taxmageddon - that we face in less than 30 days. The message of the SecTreas continued by focusing on the importance of increasing tax rates for the 'wealthy', those earning over $250,000, in order to reduce the deficit and achieve 'fairness' -<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-gop-holding-middle-class-hostage/article/2514770?custom_click=rss#.ULkU0ZWuUlE" target="_blank"> points that the President made on Friday at a toy manufacturing plant outside Philadelphia, PA.</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>President Obama took to the road Friday to sell his plan to avoid a looming series of tax increases and spending cuts, using a campaign-style event to accuse Republicans of holding the middle class “hostage” during deadlocked negotiations.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><b>“It’s unacceptable for a handful of Republicans in Congress to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage,”</b> Obama said at a toy manufacturing plant in a suburb of Philadelphia. “Let’s give families all across American the sense of security they deserve this holiday season.”</i></blockquote>
Middle class tax cuts? There weren't any middle class tax cuts offered in the 'solution' offered by the White House to the GOP Congressional leadership. KEEPING THE TAX RATE THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST DECADE IS NOT A TAX CUT. Preventing the tax rate from rising 10% is NOT AN EFFIN' TAX CUT.<br />
<br />
But this and similar lies and misrepresentations are now standard operating procedure from Barack Obama and his sycophantic shills within the Administration - and within the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
The appearance by SecTreas Geithner on Fox News Sunday hosted by Chris Wallace offered another one of the standard lies and misrepresentations offered by the President in their proposed 'solution' to our fiscal crisis - the bogus and ludicrous claim that 'war savings', savings from ending military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, count as part of their spending reductions - efforts to reduce the massive spending of the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/03/video-geithner-busted-on-war-savings/" target="_blank">Finally, a journalist / host calls this for the scam that it is...</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/96QOlerycqs" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<br />
As noted on HotAir's commentary - why not add another $200 billion to the 'savings' category that will come from the $200 billion we aren't spending to invade..... [name any country here].<br />
<br />
The tax dodging Secretary of the Treasury, while on Fox News, also drew a new line in the sand in front of Congressional Republicans, by insisting that no deal will be done unless tax rates increase for the 'wealthy'.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P_sdmy0E0M4" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
All of this posturing by the Obama Administration, in the name of 'fairness' and 'balance', is part of their claim that the fiscal challenges we face today are the result from inadequate revenues - tax rates that are too low to fund the government that 'we need', ensure 'social justice', and make certain that those who became wealthy in this country pay their 'fair share'.<br />
<br />
What is being ignored, because of the ideological blinders the President and his supporters wear, is that the fiscal challenges are not related to the 'unfairness' of our progressive income tax system, the lack of 'social justice', and tax rates that are too low.<br />
<br />
Our fiscal challenges today are the direct result of one simple problem - WE SPEND TOO MUCH. In fact, we spend way beyond our means / revenues. <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/01/if-you-dont-think-spending-is-at-the-roo/singlepage" target="_blank">SPENDING IS THE ROOT PROBLEM we have to address. </a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>When Bill Clinton so famously "balanced the budget" with the Internet boom and all the taxes from those stock sales, the GOP and Newt Gingrich passed a budget (yes, Congress used to do that) of $1.7 trillion in expenditures. <b>Adjusted for inflation, our federal government would be spending $2.3 trillion today and collecting $2.5 trillion in "revenues," resulting in a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today.</b> Democrats, who believe we have a "revenue" problem instead of a "spending" problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem.</i></blockquote>
Let that sink in for a moment. If we maintained the spending level of the Federal Government as it was under those 'boom' years of President Bill Clinton, adjusted only for inflation, we would have an annual budget of $2.3 trillion today. <br />
<br />
In Fiscal Year 2007, the last year of the GOP control of Congress, Congress and President Bush approved a budget that called for $2.7 trillion in spending.<br />
<br />
Yes, President George W. Bush was a spender. That was one of his biggest challenges with conservatives - he started us down the path of spending too much. But, he also undertook steps to increase the revenues for the Federal Government - via his tax cuts. Under President Bush (43), we had record setting revenues for the Federal Government. FY2007 had a budget deficit of $161 billion. We've had MONTHS since 2009, where the monthly deficit exceeded $161 billion. On Black Friday of this year, just the one day, the Federal Government borrowed nearly $25 billion - about 16% of the entire 2007 annual deficit.<br />
<br />
But while President Bush (43) was a spender, President Barack Obama has taken that crown and dramatically increased our spending by a THIRD (!) - resulting in four (soon to be five) consecutive years of an annual deficit of over $1 trillion.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVviO6OSrjJ4WAi6hKMRf7RA3JnIcQH2Wt_jiH0K7Vef_fPRkCX7WJbsrPSaLoMY43hLXOHErnx5qc3H6FnY2ZJn_jRHM3JjdZ5vlr2EbCUU__2dLdVgl1MRJgbMoQS92pmJkxjH8Se6o/s1600/wheredebtcomesfrom.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVviO6OSrjJ4WAi6hKMRf7RA3JnIcQH2Wt_jiH0K7Vef_fPRkCX7WJbsrPSaLoMY43hLXOHErnx5qc3H6FnY2ZJn_jRHM3JjdZ5vlr2EbCUU__2dLdVgl1MRJgbMoQS92pmJkxjH8Se6o/s1600/wheredebtcomesfrom.png" /></a></div>
<br />
This is where our debt and fiscal crisis comes from. We anticipate this year's federal government receipts will be about the same as they were in 2004 - perhaps a little higher. Receipts are down largely because of the continued stagnating economic conditions that we face. But rather than running a FY2004 level budget deficit (about $400B), the massive overspending undertaken by President Obama will add about $1.1 to $1.2 trillion to the national debt.<br />
<br />
Here's another way to look at this issue -<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3narZNOifQj3rKUzIAR7Ha3b47FNYcXvmjZVTVmj00Wn6KkosR_hJDPIn0DlFQeABNNMxHo0zTU2TFpz89BRsP4q7q3jfommiGlSLbzMhBeakVBy9lyFFBoM4vNnKYAdyUSnLZ3pOM0g/s1600/Bushtaxcuts_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3narZNOifQj3rKUzIAR7Ha3b47FNYcXvmjZVTVmj00Wn6KkosR_hJDPIn0DlFQeABNNMxHo0zTU2TFpz89BRsP4q7q3jfommiGlSLbzMhBeakVBy9lyFFBoM4vNnKYAdyUSnLZ3pOM0g/s1600/Bushtaxcuts_1.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm" target="_blank">As the Investors Business Daily noted, using the Federal Government (Obama Administration's) own data, </a>the claim by Barack Obama that President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 / 2003 were the cause of the massive deficits we've experienced over the past 4 years is nothing but a base canard. The economic stimulative effect of the Bush tax cuts, 10% across the board for every single taxpayer regardless of income level, reduced the budget gap that was forming from the increased spending of the Bush Administration and Congress.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: “What I’m not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can’t afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.”
During the White House press conference, he added, “If we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don’t want to go back to Republican policies that “cost” the Treasury revenues and “blew up the deficit,” as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they’re driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><b>But the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers</b> — including ones certified by Obama’s own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House. . . . Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018. . . . <b>Obama’s economic report shows that the average deficit-to-GDP ratio during the entire Bush administration — 2001 to 2009 — was 2%, which is well below the 50-year average of 3%. During the Obama years, in contrast, the same deficit ratio has averaged 9.1%.</b><br /><br />
The Bush tax cuts did not "cost" the Treasury revenues. Nor did they increase income inequality.<br /><br />
<b>When fully implemented, they increased the portion of the income tax burden that fell on the wealthiest Americans.<br /><br />
The top 1% of taxpayers went from paying 38.4% of overall taxes to 39.1%, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 3.4% to 3.1%.</b><br /><br />
And as a percentage of the economy, deficits shrank to historically low levels.
Record red ink flowed much later as the housing market toppled and government spending shot up.<br /><br />
New spending on welfare programs and Obama's $1.9 trillion national health care entitlement threaten only to compound the budget crisis.<br />
</i></blockquote>
I suspect that these facts are the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334607/fiscal-cliff-negotiations-john-fund" target="_blank">primary reason why the President does not want any of the fiscal cliff / debt reduction talks with GOP Congressional leaders to be made public as the GOP leaders are insisting.</a> If they were public, and outside the spin control of the WH / Mainstream media shills for the President's progressive agenda, the American people would be able to see which side is lying about their agenda and which side is actively trying to address the challenges the country is facing.<br />
<br />
As Mark Steyn noted in his column on Friday,<a href="http://patterico.com/2012/12/01/steyn-if-you-want-european-sized-government-the-middle-class-must-pay-european-style-taxes/" target="_blank"> if the American people want a Euro-style government based around 'social justice', 'fairness', and massive entitlements, then the American middle class will have to pay Euro-style taxes...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in the New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year's federal deficit. And after that you're back to square one. It's not that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share," it's that America isn't. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it's not willing to pay for. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. <b>If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.</b></i></blockquote>
Throughout the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his key spokespeople repeatedly hammered the fiscal / taxation plans of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan saying that the only way that those plans could work is if taxes were massively increased for the middle class.<br />
<br />
This was nothing but another case of projection by the President and his allies - as well as smear campaigning. The Romney / Ryan plan would have avoided massive tax increases on the middle class - because the plan focused on reforms and reducing the massive overspending of the federal government. The plan that does need massive tax increases on the middle class is the Obama plan that we are currently enacting. Only via massive tax increases on the middle class can the US avoid becoming Greece.<br />
<br />
What should the position of the GOP Congressional leadership team be regarding their response to the President's ludicrous 'offer' to avoid the fiscal cliff? <br />
<br />
Should we go over the cliff with the hopes of being able to pin the ownership of the resulting economy on the President and his allies?<br />
<br />
We couldn't pin the President's stagnant economy on him for the past election - so what makes us think that we will be able to do this in 2013 / 2014? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/simpson-bowles.php" target="_blank">I'm beginning to think / agree with a number of other conservative commentators</a> that the best response might be to take some action in the GOP led House before the Christmas break and pass / send some bills to the Senate - demanding the Senate / President act on those bills.<br />
<br />
Since the GOP has already laid out their key factors around a deal (House FY2013 budget - the Ryan plan) - and they have been utterly rejected by the Administration and their allies, let's try a slightly different approach that represents a real 'compromise' in the GOP position. <a href="http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf" target="_blank">Pass the full recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission </a> regarding taxation and spending and send that onto the Senate / President saying that they are adopting the plan of the President's own blue ribbon commission as the best compromise program to put the country back on a path towards fiscal responsibility.<br />
<br />
While Simpson-Bowles isn't perfect in terms of tax and spending, in particular around the tax increases advocated and the lack of real reform to the major entitlement spending programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), it is a compromise - and should be the 'best and final' offer from the GOP leadership.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the GOP Congressional leadership should announce that they will be sending forth by the end of January 2013 bills for the reform of those three massive entitlement programs in order to ensure their continued viability.<br />
<br />
Within that announcement, let's also remind the American people of the President's past positions regarding debt / spending solutions - where he's gone from demanding $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes (September 2012 during the Presidential campaign) to pushing now for $4 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts - and asking how that is 'fair' or 'balanced'?<br />
<br />
Just how focused is the President and his Congressional allies in trying to prevent us from going over not only this first cliff, but the debt and entitlement cliffs that follow? <br />
<br />
Think about this.... Barack Obama, via Tim Geithner, is pushing for the extension of the 2% temporary payroll tax reduction that has been the cornerstone of his 'tax cuts for 95%' campaign line. But in order to achieve the appearance of supporting a 'tax cut', the President is also taking Social Security into immediate insolvency - unable to fund its current liabilities with the payroll taxes collected and forcing the need for even more borrowing. The purpose of this temporary step was to 'stimulate' the economy by putting $480 more into each worker's pockets. Yet, the economy remains stagnant because this is an unproductive tax cut and offers a very little stimulative effect when income taxes and other taxes (Obamacare) are increasing.<br />
<br />
Another aspect about the President's plans where the math doesn't work (to use one of the President's favorite pejoratives towards GOP fiscal plans), is on the investments that the President wants to make / expand on the 'War on Poverty'.<br />
<br />
We've been fighting a war on poverty for nearly 50 years - since President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' launched us down this path. Hundreds of billions of dollars, if not multiple trillions, have been spent on programs and people to end poverty in this country.<br />
<br />
In the private sector, one of the key measurements of success on a program is to calculate the ROI - return on investment - for that program. Did we or will we get a viable and acceptable return on the investment we've made or are being asked to make? If yes, then it was a good program - or we should proceed. If not, then it was not a wise investment or is an investment that should not be made - or the program should be looked at to try to modify it so we can get an acceptable positive return on the investment.<br />
<br />
In 1975, the poverty rate in the US was 26%. That means 26% of the US population was at or below the 'poverty' rate. Today, 37 years and hundreds of billions later, we are still at a poverty rate of 26%. Was all those billions worth the investment? Did we end poverty? <br />
<br />
How about education spending - another favorite topic / target of the progressives. We're told that we need to funnel more billions, tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions towards education in order to 'fix' our educational system. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333709/re-starve-beast-jonah-goldberg" target="_blank">What has our ROI been on our past massive investments into Education?</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8v6ICrTC57k5yyn_t0ACuM-0Jlc1GY1DxOVeIXjo7lBWtVNlJEvQqLtDdJwgh5TRbAOD8J-DCO9-uYGdS0zABoGiLEp-Ypqr4oyOEg9_hxuWxIHT-0QzvG3pYQdQZXmsxsNRTqqa7ecA/s1600/RoI+on+Education+Spending.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8v6ICrTC57k5yyn_t0ACuM-0Jlc1GY1DxOVeIXjo7lBWtVNlJEvQqLtDdJwgh5TRbAOD8J-DCO9-uYGdS0zABoGiLEp-Ypqr4oyOEg9_hxuWxIHT-0QzvG3pYQdQZXmsxsNRTqqa7ecA/s1600/RoI+on+Education+Spending.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Our spending has shot up dramatically, but our children aren't getting the benefit of these investments. Their test scores aren't improving. But the teacher's unions are getting more powerful and wealthier. <br />
<br />
Continuing the tax and spend mentality - <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Feds-propose-fee-on-health-insurers-in-new-market" target="_blank">HHS is now proposing a new tax to be imposed as part of the Obamacare healthcare reform.</a> This new tax is being called a 'user fee' of 3.5% which is being put on the premiums collected by health insurers who offer their policies in the new federal exchanges coming in 2014 as part of Obamacare. This 'fee' or tax, is going to result in higher health insurance premiums, already soaring, as insurers who participate in the exchanges pass their higher costs on to the consumer.<br />
<br />
But since the economic rule around taxes is - the more tax something, the less you get of that something - is the intent for this new fee going beyond just taxing the insurers- and creating an environment where the private insurers choose to avoid participating in the exchanges - creating a planned failure of the exchanges?<br />
<br />
We've seen this in Europe as well as in the US - deliberately creating a failure so as to build a case for an even greater power / regulatory grab than would be available if the program worked or wasn't even in place? Never letting a crisis go to waste - even if they have to create the crisis in the first place?<br />
<br />
Wrapping up today, 2 more quick items about the economy.<br />
<br />
In NYC, the famed Stage Deli in Manhattan is closing its doors after 75 years in business. It is unable to remain open and compete with the higher costs that it is facing - with a major rent increase being the final straw that broke the eatery's back.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/manufacturing-ism-plummets-lowest-print-july-2009" target="_blank">Providing a harsh contrast to the economic message coming out of DC just prior to the Election - and in its immediate aftermath that the economy is recovering, the manufacturing sector has dropped to its lowest level of productivity since July 2009 </a>- actually reflecting a contraction in what is a common precursor for a recession on the immediate horizon. The contraction in manufacturing will also increase downward pressure on GDP - and making the 3rd Quarter estimate of 2.7% growth a real outlier - boosted entirely by massive federal spending pre-Election Day.<br />
<br />
We could be looking at another recession in early 2013 even if we do not go over the cliff- thanks to the economic policies of the President.<br />
<br />
<b>Hows that Hopey Changey thingy working out 2.0?</b><br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-23557672988365856812012-12-01T07:39:00.003-08:002012-12-01T07:39:34.617-08:00Quick Hits - November 30, 2012The likelihood of a deal to prevent 'Taxmageddon' on January 2nd in the wake of the President's laughable plan presented to GOP Congressional leaders yesterday appears extremely remote as the President doubles down on his rhetoric while making a campaign stop today in Pennsylvania. Appearing at a toy factory in Philadelphia, the President continued to press his case for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, tens of billions in new stimulus spending, a demand that Congress cedes its responsibility for managing / controlling the national debt limit to the President, and vague references for a possible $400 billion in spending reductions <a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112912-635124-obama-democrats-unserious-on-spending-cuts.htm" target="_blank">in a manner that even staunch media allies, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, called 'disingenuous'.</a><br />
<div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<i>Even the liberal press is exposing Obama’s disingenuousness. The New York Times noted on Wednesday that Obama “has barely discussed how he would pare back federal spending, focusing instead on the aspect of his plan that plays to his liberal base.”</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i>The Los Angeles Times on Thursday observed Obama “hasn’t said anything publicly about his targets for entitlement savings or cuts in discretionary spending. Instead, he’s tacitly stuck with the proposals in his fiscal 2013 budget, which Congress has already rejected.”</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i>Obama touts what he calls a “balanced approach” in which Republicans raise tax rates, and he promised during the campaign this year to “cut 2-1/2 dollars” in spending “for every dollar in increased revenue.”</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i>But now, with signs that Republicans will agree to increase taxes, the L.A. Times reports that “Democrats seem to have become more entrenched in their resistance to the other half of Obama’s formula.”</i></blockquote>
As we've noted before, the President's 2013 budget approach was not just 'rejected' by Congress - but utterly and completely rejected as the proposal failed to receive a single vote of support in either the House or the Senate, falling 0-415 and 0-97 earlier this year.<br />
<br />
In an effort to embrace the mantra of his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama seems hellbent on taking the country over the fiscal cliff in order to create another 'crisis' that he believes he can capitalize on to further his hard left tax and spend 'fundamental change' agenda. As I noted yesterday, in his non-stop campaign, he is continuing to redefine simple and basic words in order to promote the propaganda that his proposals will not plunge the country into a far deeper economic crisis than we are seeing throughout the Eurozone. In addition to redefining 'Balanced' and 'Fairness', Barack Obama and his allies today focused on two new words to redefine - 'Cuts' and 'Compromise'.<br />
<br />
Since 2009, Barack Obama and his allies have insisted that 'Compromise' is what happens when the GOP / Conservatives surrender their values and positions and fully adopt the values and positions of the President and liberal fascists. This flies in the face of the real definition of 'Compromise' which is where both parties in negotiations achieve an agreement based on either a common middle ground - or one where each side surrenders a little in order to achieve an agreement. Today, in the wake of a narrow Election Day victory that highlighted how close the divide in this country is between right and left, the President launched new rhetoric that demanded the GOP to surrender their values entirely or pay the price.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM5ra0-S4tUXAXr4GbcTGZrAErVBJ4_nKtwSJtvMm4LUvQ-KyC0bz5ERQqXcC8R7a3DnFVkQ1ZrqMQXMekWJFd0i9zzCS-5G8-q4BTZBGMPQdHqwUXYroeCi0S5iAon2qxiuuG70xhrj8/s1600/Compromise.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM5ra0-S4tUXAXr4GbcTGZrAErVBJ4_nKtwSJtvMm4LUvQ-KyC0bz5ERQqXcC8R7a3DnFVkQ1ZrqMQXMekWJFd0i9zzCS-5G8-q4BTZBGMPQdHqwUXYroeCi0S5iAon2qxiuuG70xhrj8/s1600/Compromise.png" /></a></div>
House Minority Leader, the insufferable Nancy Pelosi, took her pleas to the sycophantic mainstream media today to press the case for Obama's proposal - calling the offer the President's press for 'Middle Class Tax Cuts'. <br />
<br />
A Tax Cut? For the Middle Class?<br />
<br />
In the tortured (or is it 'enhanced') logic of the dim former Speaker, the President is making the entire $1.6 trillion in new taxes entirely on the backs of the 'wealthy' - those who earn more than $250,000 - even though increasing their taxes 10% will only raise around $400 billion (not the 'nearly $1 trillion that the media is trying to shovel us) to $600 billion over the next decade. In the new normal of $1 trillion annual deficits, this is little more than a few drops into the bucket. We're to expect that adjusting deductions for these same wealthy will make up the balance of the more than $1 trillion in new taxes the left is pushing for? That defies belief. The only way that the President will achieve $1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next decade (which still will do nothing to reduce the deficit / debt level) will be to increase taxes on the middle class.<br />
<br />
Then we have the asinine re-definition of the word 'Cut' pressed today by both Pelosi and Obama. To them, keeping the middle class personal income tax level at the same level that it has been for the last dozen years, is a cut. That's right. A cut is now defined as preventing an increase in the tax rate. Just as a cut in spending is now defined as a minor slowing down of the relentless increase in spending levels.<br />
<br />
Adding to these insults to the intelligence of normal Americans, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/30/obama-were-going-to-have-a-really-scrooge-christmas-if-congress-doesnt-do-what-i-want/" target="_blank">the President then tries to apply his 'charm' to the festive season by reminding us all that if his intransigence takes the country off the cliff -- it will be the GOP that has 'Scrooged' us all.</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc585d5a" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50027844&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc585d5a" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50027844&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
<br />
<div style="background: transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 420px;">
Visit NBCNews.com for <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; color: #5799DB !important; font-weight: normal !important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none !important;">news about the economy</a></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/28/Washington-Post-Shocked-to-Discover-Obama-s-Approach-is-Not-Balanced" target="_blank">In today's Captain Renault moment, even the Washington Post is shocked, shocked I say, to discover that Obama's 'balanced approach' to achieve meaningful deficit reductions is neither balanced or will achieve any deficit reduction.</a> This is 'package check time' people - and in particular for the GOP 'negotiators'. The President is not interested in a compromise. He is also unconcerned about the impact to the country if he drives the country off this first fiscal cliff. For him, his goal is the political destruction of the GOP and conservativism - what's best for him not what's best for the country. <br />
<br />
So at this point, either the GOP holds the line here and now - making Obama and his liberal fascist allies own the economy and the effects of his actions - or you will offer what amounts to an unconditional surrender of your core values. Yes, holding firm will be unpopular with many because of the ramifications of the fiscal cliff. Yes, the President's sycophantic allies in the mainstream media will browbeat, castigate, and demonize you. <br />
<br />
But guess what. <br />
<br />
No matter what happens or what you do, you WILL be browbeaten, castigated, and demonized by the sycophants in the press. Accept that. That is the reality of the situation. <br />
<br />
No matter what you do - you will lose in the eyes of the press. <br />
<br />
Stand firm - they will browbeat, castigate, and demonize you. Surrender - they will browbeat, castigate, and demonize you for cravenly surrendering after tossing a few fluff pieces your way on day one....and then demand even more surrenders. But it is imperative that a counter-offer to the President's laughable offer is made and touted. And that counter-offer needs mirror, to a large extent, our core positions.
<br />
<ol>
<li>Not only does a deal need to require a major revision in the national tax code - but for the first step of that revision we need to permanently freeze personal income tax, capital gains, and dividend tax rates at the current level while cutting corporate tax rates to 25%. Then we need to reform and simplify our tax code so its no longer a full employment act for tax attorney's or accountants. That means maintaining only a minimal number of tax deductions - and scaling these deductions to income. Higher income levels are limited as to how what percentage of these deductions they can claim. As we close the loopholes and deductions, we change the tax rates. The final goal, a 10% or 25% personal income tax rate, capital gains and dividends taxed at 15%, and in the corporate environment, continue to allow companies to deduct their investments into research and development. The estate tax gets eliminated.</li>
<li>The Alternative Minimum Tax that exists today has to be scrapped / reformed. All taxpayers will pay at least 5% of their gross income to the Fed as a minimum tax to ensure that everyone has 'skin in the game'. If deductions bring their tax liability below 5% - they still pay 5%. That's a hard floor.</li>
<li>Real and significant spending reductions and program elimination has to take place. Ethanol subsidies, rural electricity, 'Obama' phones, farm subsidies, taxpayer funded abortions / contraceptives, contributions and grants to the arts, public broadcasting, and similar items are gone. Earmarks end.</li>
<li>In step 2 of real spending deductions - all other programs and spending are permanently capped at the FY2007 levels plus adjustments for inflation and population growth. From this point, every department, agency, and taskforce is then examined and re-justified with the goal to eliminate redundancies and increase efficiency and accountability.</li>
<li>Obamacare is delayed until the Debt to GDP ratio is below 75% and the U-6 unemployment rate is below 9.5%. While it is delayed - it should be reformed to address fundamental structural changes that are needed - tort reform, sales of health insurance across state lines, vouchers, and open market principles as opposed to government control and built-in inefficiencies.</li>
</ol>
<div>
More is needed, in particular reform to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but these are the first steps that are needed to bring our fiscal house into some semblance of order.</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
If we needed yet another example of how dysfunctional government is today in this country, we don't have to look much further than California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, or.... Louisiana.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
Unlike the massive attacks on President Bush (43) and the Federal Government in the wake of the massive destruction on New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the mainstream press has been silent in the wake of the truly incompetent and dysfunctional response to the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey. Pretty much, other than photo ops, little has been done by the Federal Government to assist the victims - or the local / state authorities. </div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Even the state authorities have been severely challenged in responding to the disaster -lacking funds, people, and most importantly, effective disaster relief / mitigation plans to help those in need or commence the rebuilding process. This seems to match the general lack of effectiveness in government around being able to act decisively or effectively like private sector organizations are forced to do by market conditions.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
But in Louisiana, we're seeing the latest example of how feckless and dysfunctional government is - and why it is sheer folly to depend too heavily on government being effective and efficient. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/11/28/but-the-levee-was-dry/" target="_blank">The US Corps of Engineers, in the wake of Katrina, built the 'Rolls Royce' of flood protection and flood control for the city of New Orleans - all designed to prevent a repeat of the flooding that occurred when the levees failed when hit by Katrina.</a> Now complete, the Corps is turning over the management of the system to municipal officials. However these municipal officials have neither the inclination or the funding to do anything to manage or maintain this system. It's not theirs, and the city lacks the revenues to absorb the millions needed each year to manage and maintain the system. So, the system will atrophy and ultimately fail - quite probably when it is most needed.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
Where was the planning around this? Or the coordination to ensure that the municipal leadership allocated funding for the management and maintenance of this system? </div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
These are basic functions that exist within the private sector. If they aren't considered or acted upon, competitive forces will drive those managers / businesses out of business. But in government? </div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
Are we really wise in putting more and more dependency on the decision making and effectiveness of government?</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
California was named this week the worst run state in the United States - and given it's fiscal challenges and decades of enacting the progressive liberal fascist agenda - it's no wonder. Half a century ago, California was the Golden State - near the top in the country for education, agricultural production, industrial production, and infrastructure. Millions moved to California for jobs and opportunity. Today, millions are moving out of California [primarily the middle class and business owners / job creators] and are being replaced by illegal immigrants and the poor.</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbvUtLvCGtE3BRmVeIkCaj5mVxLQjm3QOtWOP68YzMsQYOpI_FxaerIR7ai1k8zlSnaNQydWi9zEZAu2l_w_BBifzjueEtr85dcXimCgxJS6SmqJdxGayy87MKCqgG2i1USEs1L8vSCI/s1600/The+Promised+Land.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbvUtLvCGtE3BRmVeIkCaj5mVxLQjm3QOtWOP68YzMsQYOpI_FxaerIR7ai1k8zlSnaNQydWi9zEZAu2l_w_BBifzjueEtr85dcXimCgxJS6SmqJdxGayy87MKCqgG2i1USEs1L8vSCI/s640/The+Promised+Land.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/11/29/nyts-nagourney-credits-californias-economic-recovery-tax-hikes-he-helpe" target="_blank">In more loyalty towards the progressive liberal fascist agenda, the mainstream media is continuing to hype the propaganda about California - now promoting that California's fiscal challenges have ended with the passage of Proposition 30</a> - massive tax hikes 'on the wealthy' intended to raise $6 billion in additional tax revenues. The New York Times and other progressive mouthpieces are touting that just the mere passage of the bill - well before one new penny has been added to the state coffers - has not only solved the states fiscal crisis, but sparked an economic recovery that has turned the state around in three short weeks.</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
This is just laughable - and defies all common sense. It's about as economically accurate as the fallacy that the higher tax rates of the Clinton-era' ignited the 1995-2000 internet fueled economic boom, or that Barack Obama's fiscal solutions are 'balanced', 'fair', and reflect a willingness to 'compromise' and 'cut' in order to return us to a path of fiscal responsibility.</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
What do higher taxes on the 'wealthy' actually do? Well, let's look to France which is implementing a new tax rate of 75% on those who earn more than one million Euros per year - - the vast majority of those in this category are relocating to Belgium, Switzerland, and the UK - and selling their lavish chateaus. (Looking for a multi-million vacation home in France? The prices of these are cratering as inventories increase from more and more seeking to sell and relocate.)
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html" target="_blank">In Britain, where the top tax rate for the 'wealthy' increased to 50% two years ago, the UK's Daily Telegraph is reporting that two thirds of British millionaires fled the country.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this country, we have the same experience. When New York and Maryland passed new 'millionaire' taxes several years ago - they saw not only a large scale exodus of their millionaires to other states, but a net drop in their tax revenues. </div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
Maybe California is different now that it's economy is 'booming' in a 'recovery' fueled by higher taxes ripping funds out of the private sector? What was that about Einstein?</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
On a final note - tomorrow, December 1st, the USS Enterprise, CVN-65, the world's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and the 2nd oldest commissioned warship in the US Navy (behind the USS Constitution, commissioned in 1798), is being struck from the active list of the US Navy and retired after 52 years of service.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23904174&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbart&w=640&h=480" width="640"></iframe> </div>
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-6669933663397179192012-11-29T18:08:00.003-08:002012-11-29T18:08:48.879-08:00Quick Hits - November 23 - 29, 2012If nothing changes, we will drive off the fiscal cliff in about 33 days...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK7wzH0AaE_GgGZ30tB3zJKtiUAd8Aq99sCKCbcs8o2AatpVk0Zo5itqx_fqputkjrwSIngPs3gklyDXAkhJHI8uKlXREvVpveUMLVZz7z7BSgb1jgi3G4KqoiTtuK_VilXsWaW4bQ4Vk/s1600/forward2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK7wzH0AaE_GgGZ30tB3zJKtiUAd8Aq99sCKCbcs8o2AatpVk0Zo5itqx_fqputkjrwSIngPs3gklyDXAkhJHI8uKlXREvVpveUMLVZz7z7BSgb1jgi3G4KqoiTtuK_VilXsWaW4bQ4Vk/s640/forward2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
While this cliff is not nearly as high as the other cliffs that we are rapidly approaching, the debt cliff and the entitlement cliff, the effects of driving off of this cliff without taking real steps to address our spending, debt, and entitlement liabilities will be very painful in an economy that is continuing to stagnate except for massive government spending.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMohPyL1FXA3onUVorVMiI07cKuz8klO6LVRSCqQffqhUDLdjSlOJpW2M42HIUrxpAqfWKm_azA5fBCQeJhdffqK5igcSaOeIwxEVR8JtHlHPuDYQmZToDOJHJPSax8QlvhyphenhyphenyuOFb7MR0/s1600/fiscalcliffchart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMohPyL1FXA3onUVorVMiI07cKuz8klO6LVRSCqQffqhUDLdjSlOJpW2M42HIUrxpAqfWKm_azA5fBCQeJhdffqK5igcSaOeIwxEVR8JtHlHPuDYQmZToDOJHJPSax8QlvhyphenhyphenyuOFb7MR0/s1600/fiscalcliffchart.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Every single taxpayer will get a 10% across the board tax increase as we go off the cliff. On top of this, the 2% temporary payroll tax reduction pushed by Barack Obama (and touted as his 'tax cut' for 95%) will end. The estate tax will resume - at a punitive level. The tax rate for Dividend income will soar from 15% to 43%, while the tax rate for Capital Gains will jump from 15% to 23%. Hundreds of thousands of the middle class will find themselves trapped by the Alternative Minimum Tax - paying substantially higher income taxes as the AMT once again is not adjusted for inflation. On top of these tax increases will come nearly a dozen new taxes designed to fund Obamacare.<br />
<br />
Between now and the end of the year - we're also going to hit hard up against the debt ceiling which will prevent new government borrowing to fund the greater than $1 trillion annual budget deficit that has become the new normal. <br />
<br />
And that brings us to the other major effect of our fiscal irresponsibility - the massive spending, the massive expansion of the size and scope of the federal government, and the unprecedented expansion of government entitlement programs.<br />
<br />
Like the Dependency Agenda...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9W6A5nj3lzY" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
...which has transformed the US into a different country...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXHN-P1mzrvSJeAt4QiW8eJrGsRrVujGqtTBeCzvpiZEtD0wE0Oj5rw8SGtszwLQssmZ9JrgSMIYv9l5607l4nSixw0vCIXNb2ic-YtxFB7UnpZC-ZUS1PdtWb9v1wR-ENWDcE-GPwSQg/s1600/governmentburden.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXHN-P1mzrvSJeAt4QiW8eJrGsRrVujGqtTBeCzvpiZEtD0wE0Oj5rw8SGtszwLQssmZ9JrgSMIYv9l5607l4nSixw0vCIXNb2ic-YtxFB7UnpZC-ZUS1PdtWb9v1wR-ENWDcE-GPwSQg/s1600/governmentburden.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Which brings us here...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_Du8Mzco7nxtvGSh_XtBoXxAz4_lJ-X-WOwTcm9BOo671pUo5SxuLNV7DD_QTzxXkkf1OCcmSqgOvLtYLMhH-KrPzvpKJENYG1msKmcWCxvMV5otz4TIEdqcjUWbqBtp3jr1VTEGx-KE/s1600/gimme.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_Du8Mzco7nxtvGSh_XtBoXxAz4_lJ-X-WOwTcm9BOo671pUo5SxuLNV7DD_QTzxXkkf1OCcmSqgOvLtYLMhH-KrPzvpKJENYG1msKmcWCxvMV5otz4TIEdqcjUWbqBtp3jr1VTEGx-KE/s400/gimme.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
One would think with the near immediate effect of the January 1, 2013 'Fiscal Cliff', or the $16.4 trillion in national debt (and growing by more than $1 trillion per year), or the $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities related to the three largest elements of government spending - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - the President would be focused on ensuring that we do not just rush headlong off these cliffs at full speed.<br />
<br />
One would also think that with the economy killing effects of new tax increases, the burden of Trillion dollar plus annual deficits, the massive expansion of government entitlements (in both costs and numbers of people dependent on the government), the rapidly approaching insolvency of the three largest entitlement programs, and the one-third growth in spending - the President and his supporters, if they really feared taking the nation over these cliffs, would be looking at reducing spending, reforming the tax code, and getting people off of government dependency as their primary solution to the problems we face.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, we now live in a universe where normal logic has been replaced by political expediency - and the definition of many words have been quietly re-defined to fit the combination of political expediency and ideological agenda.<br />
<br />
Despite Election Day being a little over three weeks ago, the newly re-elected President has declined to lead and instead continues to campaign and plot the demise of his political enemies, the GOP. This agenda is being supported and enacted by the same media allies who helped facilitate his election win. These allies, despite the President's reelection win, continues to focus on attacking the GOP as sexist, racist, and fiscally evil putting partisan ideology before what is best for the country.<br />
<br />
They combine to hammer the GOP position that one of the key fiscal challenges we face are not our revenues, which are nearly pre-recession 2008 highs, but the irresponsible and excessive spending of the federal government. They continue to focus on the importance of new revenues for the federal government irregardless of the damage done to the economy by touting the need for 'fairness' and 'balance'. <br />
<br />
We're told that we need to have 'balance' - addressing the fiscal challenges by a combination of tax increases (new revenues) and spending reductions. We're also told that we need to balance out these tax increases in the name of 'fairness' - by putting the burden of new taxes on the wealthy who can afford to pay more in order to reduce the national debt.<br />
<br />
But rarely are we told how specious these terms really are - or that for the President and his progressive allies, going over these cliffs are necessary steps to facilitate their "fundamental change" of America.<br />
<br />
Various pinheads spew forth the fallacy that the reason we had a large economic expansion from 1995 to 2000 was because of the 'Clinton-era tax rates' which were 10% higher than the rates we've paid for the last 10-12 years. But where is the balanced approach to match these 'Clinton-era tax rates' with Clinton-era spending levels - and the acknowledgement that the reason why 1999-2000 ended up in budget surpluses were because of strong private sector economic growth and reduced levels of federal spending?<br />
<br />
Or where is the balanced approach towards addressing spending by including the three largest elements of federal spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with Defense spending and all of the other elements of federal spending? Do we really need to spend over $300 billion in farm subsidies, rural electricity subsidies, ethanol subsidies, and other entitlements funded by either borrowing or yanking more funds away from the private sector where they fuel growth?<br />
<br />
How about the fallacy around 'fairness' - were the President wants to focus on the 'wealthy' to pay their 'fair' share in order to reduce the debt? <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf4URxCXnhVJs-06u7jSr9O1LcVjPRI6SYmhSYkr4yfktG0abiFpW54zxlBmwTReJMIAmSYmes_CD_pDOkcfAU9BAeV4wuzQO2OWGVjHm8ZHaCalbjUaBtLUYwn2z1zJQWWUIb7_5_qTg/s1600/top10-percent-income-earners-606.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf4URxCXnhVJs-06u7jSr9O1LcVjPRI6SYmhSYkr4yfktG0abiFpW54zxlBmwTReJMIAmSYmes_CD_pDOkcfAU9BAeV4wuzQO2OWGVjHm8ZHaCalbjUaBtLUYwn2z1zJQWWUIb7_5_qTg/s1600/top10-percent-income-earners-606.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Where's the fairness when half pay no taxes whatsoever - or that the top 5% of tax filers, who account for 32% of the nation's total income, already pay 59% of all the taxes?<br />
<br />
In the President's 'solution' to our problem - we're told that the 'wealthy' have to pay more taxes, 10% higher, in order to reduce the deficit. But one has to wonder just how far $40 billion in additional revenues from taxing the wealthy their 'fair share' will go into an annual federal government deficit of $1.2 to $1.4 trillion? And that $40 billion of 'new revenues' is assuming that 'taxing' the 'wealthy' will not damage the private sector...which would be the case despite the misrepresentations of the President to the contrary...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4UpeSRPAPRpLF_aJmb1S0Shhll-l8SWNvuSh7wRTa8FNf-dMTjlfs0rvIvJj6SSvDfYcYoMYjMXPqUyColhZ83O2XOok-hDRdsWjkxP6SjVKStxXa5wym941VQX8YzwSUCuVFzUdF6lA/s1600/taxhitjobcreators.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4UpeSRPAPRpLF_aJmb1S0Shhll-l8SWNvuSh7wRTa8FNf-dMTjlfs0rvIvJj6SSvDfYcYoMYjMXPqUyColhZ83O2XOok-hDRdsWjkxP6SjVKStxXa5wym941VQX8YzwSUCuVFzUdF6lA/s1600/taxhitjobcreators.png" /></a></div>
<br />
All of this debate, however, pales in comparison to the actual offer that the President made towards the GOP Congressional leadership earlier today [Nov 29th] as their solution to prevent the nation from plummeting off this first cliff.<br />
<br />
The offer, made by SecTreas. Tim Geithner to senior GOP members of Congress, including Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, clearly demonstrated that the President could care less not only about taking the nation over the cliff, but in achieving a compromise with the GOP. He seems firmly convinced that if the country goes off the cliff, the blame would rest [courtesy of media propaganda] entirely on the GOP - and the more dire the conditions become, the more likely he will be able to get what he wants along with more 'fundamental change'.<br />
<br />
The offer focused on several key demands. First was the demand for $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Second was the demand for a new round of stimulus spending - to the tune of several hundred billion dollars per year. Third was for Congress to completely surrender their oversight of the national debt ceiling - effectively ending the ceiling. Finally to 'balance' these, the President agreed to some vague spending reductions - in amounts far less than the amounts of the new spending levels demanded - which would need to be negotiated over the next year and be non-guaranteed. In other words, if an agreement couldn't be reached on which programs to cut - no programs would be cut.<br />
<br />
In fact, the President has no real plans for any significant spending cuts...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZUCYlcTvKfs" width="560"></iframe> </div>
<br />
The offer was so one-sided and absurd that Senator McConnell's initial response was to laugh out loud at it.<br />
<br />
I seem to recall in 1986, Democrats approached the President and made a solemn promise - if President Reagan would agree to several tax increases in order to boost revenues, the Democrats would guarantee to respond by supporting spending cuts so that the compromise would result in deficit reductions.<br />
<br />
Ronald Reagan is still waiting for those promised spending cuts...as are the rest of us. I don't think they're coming. <br />
<br />
I think we need to factor this into whether or not we believe the current promise for spending cuts tomorrow if we give them tax increases today.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikw81Kuf79tdaNlVCSS5zIbKnNeCP1ftHnU_nIVeXYSH9VA-oBm1Wd8Z5jN-DDCwkG8jBERs4oxiL4oXcYkkkEqWjdbT2JvcRE0EcWV3EB50hTM-SzKcE08phAikygptrFZ5Ei3rG-sNE/s1600/justraisetaxes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikw81Kuf79tdaNlVCSS5zIbKnNeCP1ftHnU_nIVeXYSH9VA-oBm1Wd8Z5jN-DDCwkG8jBERs4oxiL4oXcYkkkEqWjdbT2JvcRE0EcWV3EB50hTM-SzKcE08phAikygptrFZ5Ei3rG-sNE/s400/justraisetaxes.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Perhaps the Mayans were right after all....<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivGGoAE95d9abCAqkuWElDMvSL0PmLe2u8YQbcm98Soz0rulwNpN8LduCyFXQ2URYXaMf7lUhgiuny1GDO3gvmhUR75RMKwR80zGAF1tHzfKYfEJjZcV-kH-QSoGFG0tBsjDjGgtKGE4A/s1600/TruthMayanCalendar.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivGGoAE95d9abCAqkuWElDMvSL0PmLe2u8YQbcm98Soz0rulwNpN8LduCyFXQ2URYXaMf7lUhgiuny1GDO3gvmhUR75RMKwR80zGAF1tHzfKYfEJjZcV-kH-QSoGFG0tBsjDjGgtKGE4A/s320/TruthMayanCalendar.png" width="259" /></a></div>
<br />
The saddest part is that this is not the limit of the absurdity around the fecklessness of the Obama Administration or the Progressive agenda or the anti-Western Agenda. Over the next several days we'll look in more detail at:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Susan Rice </li>
<li>Reports of California's Economic Turnaround </li>
<li>Time Magazine's Person of the Year</li>
<li>Egypt</li>
<li>Syria</li>
<li>UN General Assembly granting the so-called Palestinian state official status as a non-observer member</li>
<li>Eurozone Crisis - Our Future?</li>
<li>Media Bias</li>
</ul>
<div>
Hold on - as the ride will not be getting any smoother....</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-37101555125923068822012-11-23T10:41:00.002-08:002012-11-23T10:41:36.407-08:00Quick Hits - November 20-22, 2012Perhaps it is just me, but I continue to be stunned when so many of us completely fail to learn the lessons of history - or embrace Einstein's definition of insanity as we continue to try the same thing again and again while expecting different results. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-18/2013-looks-a-lot-like-1937-in-four-fearsome-ways.html" target="_blank"> Bloomberg News looks back into history and highlights the links between how things look today (2013) and how they looked in 1937</a> - as the nation continued to wallow in not only the effects of the Great Depression, but the real failures of FDR's New Deal to stimulate a real economic recovery.<br />
<br />
But for many, 1937 is like ancient history - too far back to really understand how the FDR initiatives around entitlements and labor are still vexing and creating problems for us today. I don't believe we need to go that far back into history to see this cycle at work. We only need to go back to the mid to late 1970's, in the US, and in Britain, to see the effects of the course we are currently on.<br />
<br />
How many people remember the near bankruptcy of New York City -<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFe_9t74h6G0lMxaJe5SaFGm-EPlSTEDzpKaHlben7IrIOHsCAuu1e-htLPgj5vq9VXtnahDl5SQT5SmhRW02TBn2HFMknuqmE0n-ZrtUijdPmAJD5URAKM4HJUHz6ok5c8PI003Yqj0/s1600/Ford+to+City.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcFe_9t74h6G0lMxaJe5SaFGm-EPlSTEDzpKaHlben7IrIOHsCAuu1e-htLPgj5vq9VXtnahDl5SQT5SmhRW02TBn2HFMknuqmE0n-ZrtUijdPmAJD5URAKM4HJUHz6ok5c8PI003Yqj0/s1600/Ford+to+City.jpeg" /></a></div>
- or the similar fiscal challenges that affected nearly every major US city?<br />
<br />
The 1970's started with the first US Postal Strike - one of the 10 greatest labor actions taken in the US, and continued with the first Major League Baseball strike as well as newspaper strikes in NYC, a NYPD strike, 1974's Baltimore municipal worker, teachers, and police strike which crippled the city, coal strikes, UAW strikes against the auto industry, and sanitation strikes - all of which were designed to generate massive increases in wages and benefits for unionized workers. The strikes against cities directly contributed to massive fiscal challenges as the cities tried to hike taxes and fees to cover their higher costs - but found that costs and entitlements always seemed to outpace revenues....and efforts to hike revenues via taxes only created new problems as people fled the cities to avoid the higher taxes and fees.<br />
<br />
A common element throughout all of these troubled cities was the progressive political leadership of those cities - and their implementation of the progressive agenda which effectively set those cities on the path of stagnation and destruction in the cases where the progressives remained entrenched in power. The industrial belt cities of the Midwest soon became the rust belt cities of the region - with Detroit becoming the poster child. Look closely at a city that is trapped within stagnation, massive fiscal challenges, declining population, and ineffective schools, and you will find the common elements around decades of progressive political leadership and politically powerful unions.<br />
<br />
Today, these challenges have moved beyond just cities - as there are now states that share not only the same symptoms - but the same cause and effects. California, the once golden state that in the late 1960's early 1970's was one of the top ranked states in nearly every possible measurement, now ranks in the bottom 5 of states in almost all of the same measurements. Public and private sector unions dominate and control the political process with hundreds of millions of union dues flooding the airways advocating both the progressive and union agenda. Politicians elected by the float of these millions now approve sweetheart deals for union workers that cripple businesses and the state.<br />
<br />
California's largest city - Los Angeles, is the newest poster child of the fiscal disaster that results from a progressive and pro-union agenda. The City Council, one of the few across the country that officially endorsed the odious OccupyWallStreet movement, is now bringing a measure to LA voters that will hike it's already highest in the nation sales tax by .5% to try to cover it's growing deficits....despite evidence that hiking these taxes will not result in higher city tax revenues.<br />
<br />
Wednesday, one of the biggest travel days of the year, the SEIU union bussed in over 1,000 activists to disrupt traffic going into Los Angeles International Airport - under the guise of complaining about 'unfair labor acts' conducted on workers by a company that provides laborers for the airlines to operate services at the terminals for passengers. The biased media wasted little time to hype the union demands that the company pays workers far below a 'living wage' and is seeking to eliminate their healthcare coverage (an effect of Obamacare) - but fail to mention the truth of the situation.<br />
<br />
One year ago, the workers of that company voted by a 52% majority to remove themselves from the SEIU and the crippling union rules and dues. Since decertifying their local and leaving the union, their wages have gone up and their benefits have expanded - as the company returned to the workers much of the additional profits they have made. As a result, of the 1,000+ union demonstrators marching - not one was an employee of the company.<br />
<br />
The union thugs were there to send a message to other locals at LAX who see their labor contracts expiring and might be contemplating following the example of the other workers - as well as sending a message to the companies doing business at LAX - kowtow to the union or else.<br />
<br />
Today on Black Friday, at numerous WalMart stores across the country, union thugs are attempting to disrupt shoppers in their ongoing effort to expand their tentacles into WalMart stores. In direct violation of current labor laws, a number of unions have spent months / years trying to 'organize' WalMart stores even as employees resist the efforts - seeing no direct benefit to them to unionize. WalMart has attempted to fight back by filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board - which is responsible for the enforcement of national labor laws - and gotten nothing back from the NLRB but the sounds of crickets chirping. Under the Obama Administration, the NLRB has been moved from an unbiased board set on enforcing the labor rules to a pro-union advocacy group that has as its mission of expanding union power and control - not to mention membership.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-20/hostess-mediation-fails-liquidation-proceed-furious-former-workers-now-turn-labor-un" target="_blank">Hostess Brands Inc, employing 18,500 workers, received approval from their bankruptcy judge to commence the liquidation of the company after the one day mediation effort with the Bakers union, 6,000 Hostess employees strong, failed to generate a compromise that would permit Hostess Brands to remain in business and cost-competitive.</a><br />
<br />
The Bakers union, part of the AFL-CIO, refused to accept an 8% pay cut and 15% in benefit cuts in order to reduce the costs to the company and allow it to compete / exit bankruptcy. This despite the Teamsters, representing the largest number of company employees, agreeing to accept the cuts in return for an equity stake in the company as well as seats on the Board of Directors. So adamant was the union about rejecting any cuts - the President of the Bakers union didn't even bother to attend the mediation session.<br />
<br />
What is amazing of all of this is not the stupidity of the union leadership playing chicken with 18,500 jobs - but with the moronic and asinine rules imposed on the company by the unions which made the company unprofitable and unsustainable.<br />
<br />
Among the brands of Hostess were not only the iconic Twinkie, but Wonder Bread. <a href="http://links.heritage.org/ct/10347380:13842704764:m:1:210402076:41E76101CD021FFCAAAAD0D16763CBBE:r" target="_blank">But according to union rules, the company had to establish and manage two distinct distribution networks - one for the bread division and another for the snack cake side of the business. </a> Trucks making deliveries to grocery stores could carry either Wonder Bread or Twinkies - but not both. Each type of product had to have their own personnel move the product off the truck into the store - and then stock the shelves of the store. One worker for bread - another for snack cakes. With this overhead, it's no surprise that the company was unable to stay out of bankruptcy - the unions enforced massive inefficiencies in the operation of the company.<br />
<br />
Even with costing their membership, and every other Hostess Brand employee, their jobs, the Union leadership remains unapologetic for their intransigence - now seeking a government bailout to save the 18,500 jobs (just as the Obama Administration 'saved' the Auto Industry) or hoping that whichever organization acquires the liquidated assets will hire the unionized workers to continue their efforts to be irresponsible and greedy.<br />
<br />
In the 1970's, the labor unions directly contributed to the economic challenges with their demands for wages and benefits damaged companies and drove up costs for consumers. We're now repeating this cycle as part of the agenda of the Obama Administration and their progressive allies - as they enact a massive effort towards encouraging class warfare - and buying votes.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1978418600001&w=466&h=263" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript></div>
<br />
<br />
The above video is a controversial 'Talking Points Memo' from Bill O'Reilly that highlights the effects of the class warfare promoted by the Obama Administration and his union allies - effects which led to buying sufficient votes to re-elect Barack Obama. As BOR notes, 20% of those who voted on Election Day earlier this month earned less than $30,000 per year. Of these, 63% voted for Barack Obama - totaling 7 million more votes for Barack Obama than for Mitt Romney and well more than the 3.5 million votes that separated the popular vote totals between the town candidates.<br />
<br />
I disagree with BOR on two key points that he makes. First, the progressives know that their entitlement programs and open support for labor unions do 'buy votes' and they are quite comfortable with using the power of government to 'buy' votes. For them, the ends justifies the means. If they need to buy votes - then they will buy votes because doing so expands and empowers their agenda.<br />
<br />
Conservatives see capitalism as providing an equal chance of success with a focus on the individual's efforts and actions towards success. We also see the importance and need of a safety net that has to be in place that will provide help for those individuals who need a net for failing to achieve success or have been denied the basic tools with which to compete.<br />
<br />
Liberals, on the other hand, see their role as being the steward of ensuring success is achieved, of ensuring that 'fairness' exists - and doing so regardless of the actions of the individual. They also see and promote the division of society into 'special groups' with a goal of delivering 'fairness' to those groups as a collective as opposed to addressing the individual needs.<br />
<br />
The second point is with BOR's contention that Mitt Romney was unable to sell to the people the advantages of conservative economics to counter the social divisions and 'buying' of votes promoted by Barack Obama. I contend that Mitt Romney did a fine job selling conservative economics. But what Romney failed to do was effectively counter the massively negative character assassination he was subjected to via hundreds of millions of negative advertisements and the even greater contributions in-kind delivered by the massively biased media attacking both the GOP candidate and conservativism / capitalism.<br />
<br />
What the mainstream media basically did was enact a modern version of the Josef Goebbels propaganda campaign to defame and divide the electorate. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/19/msnbc-did-no-negative-stories-about-obama-or-positive-ones-about-romn#ixzz2Ci8Ptb1b" target="_blank">MSNBC, the 'Lean Forward' network of hard left progressives, did not do a single negative story in 2012 about Barack Obama - just as they also failed to produce a single positive story in 2012 about Mitt Romney.</a><br />
<br />
In fact, across the entire mainstream media, they were incredibly 'in the bag' for their candidate, Barack Obama - <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/19/report-media-coverage-of-obama-turned-more-favorable" target="_blank">flooding the airways in the days / weeks before the election with positive Barack Obama stories and negative Mitt Romney stories.</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBEaVNKioVeajSVTG-uLEPC5gNigbR7ooaLKyTSSUCfbSKjflFT3cE1I6YE2ZTIJ3042bU2dyKwD7B0LbgNtqY94rs2BtLb3E1eIWdPOAg7EXKcAJ074MY-QNeA0VVv-_-6oW8om11UVc/s1600/mediabiasatwork.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBEaVNKioVeajSVTG-uLEPC5gNigbR7ooaLKyTSSUCfbSKjflFT3cE1I6YE2ZTIJ3042bU2dyKwD7B0LbgNtqY94rs2BtLb3E1eIWdPOAg7EXKcAJ074MY-QNeA0VVv-_-6oW8om11UVc/s1600/mediabiasatwork.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Unsurprisingly, the media bias has not ended with the reelection of Barack Obama. The media is hard at work minimizing and marginalizing the increased assertiveness of the labor unions since the election. They are also hard at work protecting the Obama Administration in the wake of more information, and lies, becoming known over the Administration's incompetence and fecklessness around the Benghazi terror attack which murdered four Americans.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgujyql6amQCLAg3iSfGPoUFINrf41WZfAlLgNb0eDBFQpvoYnu4aWJqf_MTF3tkQsFwSC2vUONH024p3BpaOCD-i8CYt9nZuBXUTxMR98MM0G2nlIpdsD_uZ-82vgtVPzeinEzLdSF3V4/s1600/lying.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="451" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgujyql6amQCLAg3iSfGPoUFINrf41WZfAlLgNb0eDBFQpvoYnu4aWJqf_MTF3tkQsFwSC2vUONH024p3BpaOCD-i8CYt9nZuBXUTxMR98MM0G2nlIpdsD_uZ-82vgtVPzeinEzLdSF3V4/s640/lying.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
We now know where the edits were made in the original CIA assessment in the immediate wake of the terror attack which redefined the terror attack as a spontaneous demonstration based on an obscure You Tube video that turned violent - the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" background="#333333" flashvars="si=254&contentValue=50135517&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/?tag=socsh" height="279" src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425"></embed><br /></div>
<br />
This isn't the first time that James Clapper has demonstrated both his incompetence and his willingness to skew intel / testimony to Congress for political purposes. During the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored 'Arab Spring' demonstrations intended to overthrow Egyptian President Hosani Mubarak, Clapper attempted to spin the MB as a 'largely secular organization' and not a fundamentalist jihadist organization.<br />
<br />
Yet, since the MB took power in Egypt, via the election of Mohamed Morsi, we've seen government sanctioned persecution of Christian Copts, the push for the establishment of Shari'a as the legal basis, and today, President Morsi's unprecedented power grab where he assumes near dictatorial powers - including oversight and control of Egypt's judicial system which has so far been the only remaining obstruction to increased Muslim Brotherhood control of this major MidEast player.<br />
<br />
For almost 6 years of the tenure of President George W. Bush, the rabid left and mainstream media, castigated the Bush Administration for their 'obvious politicization' of intelligence information and attempts to mislead the US public (ie - No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite evidence being found and that there were, in the 10/10/02 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq passed by a bi-partisan Congress, 27 other reasons to justify the Iraqi invasion) - with little evidence of that Administration actually politicizing intelligence.<br />
<br />
But as is commonplace in the projection and moral equivalency fallacies promoted by the progressive left, they are the one's who have embarked down this path - all in the name of political expediency.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6TUVN6rfI_tX_1QcglayC1-1gUT1Gk2FaRaO656hMb2M2sh5dGmjy7BrUyQihduHucT9ICNKVzPqWYSCGVqAvwalI57fFHudj3hnHK4oyGdWOgDTd5wyiyfsFmqrDQW1xEDMzzJYrasc/s1600/TruthMayanCalendar.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6TUVN6rfI_tX_1QcglayC1-1gUT1Gk2FaRaO656hMb2M2sh5dGmjy7BrUyQihduHucT9ICNKVzPqWYSCGVqAvwalI57fFHudj3hnHK4oyGdWOgDTd5wyiyfsFmqrDQW1xEDMzzJYrasc/s320/TruthMayanCalendar.png" width="259" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm going to wrap this post with a large quote from a superb post by <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/percent-377975-america-vote.html" target="_blank">Mark Steyn - who writes about the Election Day vote earlier this month in California's Orange County Register - </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>On Fox News, Democrat Kirsten Powers argued that Republicans needed to deal with the reality that America is becoming what she called a "brown country." Her fellow Democrat Bob Beckel observed on several occasions that if the share of the "white vote" was held down below 73 percent, Mitt Romney would lose. In the end, it was 72 percent, and he did. Beckel's assertion – that if you knew the ethnic composition of the electorate you also knew the result – turned out to be correct.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>This is what less-enlightened societies call tribalism: for example, in the 1980 election leading to Zimbabwe's independence, Joshua Nkomo's ZAPU-PF got the votes of the Ndebele people while Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF secured those of the Shona – and, as there were more Shona than Ndebele, Mugabe won.</i><br />
<i>…</i><br />
<i><b>Everyone talks about this demographic transformation as if it's a natural phenomenon, like Hurricane Sandy.</b> Indeed, I notice that many of those exulting in the inevitable eclipse of "white America" are the same people who assure me that demographic arguments about the Islamization of Europe are completely preposterous. <b>But in neither the United States nor Europe is it a natural phenomenon. Rather, it's the fruit of conscious government policy.</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>According to the Census, in 1970 the "Non-Hispanic White" population of California was 78 percent. By the 2010 census, it was 40 percent. Over the same period, the 10 percent Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>That doesn't sound terribly "natural" does it? If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80 percent black in 1970 to 40 percent black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on. Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14 percent Tutsi. Now it's just under 10 percent. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third. But, when the white population of California falls by half, that's "natural," just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.</i><br />
<i>…</i><br />
<i><b>The short history of the Western Hemisphere is as follows: North America was colonized by Anglo-Celts, Central and South America by "Hispanics." Up north, two centuries of constitutional evolution and economic growth; down south, coups, corruption, generalissimos and presidents-for-life.</b> None of us can know the future. It may be that Charles Krauthammer is correct that Hispanics are natural Republicans merely pining for amnesty, a Hallmark Cinco de Mayo card and a mariachi band at the inaugural ball. Or it may be that, in defiance of Dr. Krauthammer, Grover Norquist and Little Mary Sunshine, demographics is destiny and, absent assimilationist incentives this country no longer imposes, a Latin-American population will wind up living in a Latin-American society.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>… <b>Republicans think they're importing hardworking immigrants who want a shot at the American Dream; the Democrats think they're importing clients for Big Government. The Left is right: Just under 60 percent of immigrants receive some form of welfare.</b> … While Canada and Australia compete for high-skilled immigrants, America fast-tracks an unskilled welfare class of such economic benefit to their new homeland they can't even afford a couple of hundred bucks for the necessary paperwork.</i></blockquote>
We are more firmly on a very tenuous and dangerous path. We have to look back at history and learn from it - making the right observations over what has happened in the past - and undertaking the correct measures to put us back on the right path. My fear is that we are not only failing to learn from history - but repeating Einstein's definition of insanity by doing the same things all over again and expecting different results.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-16608551769727832312012-11-19T11:35:00.000-08:002012-11-19T11:35:03.697-08:00Quick Hits - November 17-19, 2012<b>Through the weekend, Islamic terrorists in Gaza - members of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad - fired over 840 missiles into Israel targeting Israeli cities and towns.</b> In response, the Israeli Defense Reports conducted dozens of precision strikes against not only the launching sites for these missiles, but against leading members of these terror organizations. Unfortunately, as is common place, the anti-Israeli / anti-Western elements of the mainstream media are quick to push the terrorist propaganda and blame Israel for the conflict and the civilian casualties.<br />
<br />
This propaganda ranges from pushing the meme that the multitude of missiles being fired into Israel are just in 'retaliation' for the Israeli strikes into Gaza targeting the missile launch points and terrorist leaders to parading the bodies of children before the jackals in the media claiming that their deaths were the result of Israeli war crimes and aggression. Here in the US, the leading media elements pushing these lines of crap include the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?hpw" target="_blank">NY Times</a> - which focused on an Israeli strike against a senior Hamas terrorist that killed 11 - including 4 children, to <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/11/17/abc-relays-terrorist-claim-we-wouldnt-fire-rockets-if-israel-wasnt-ki" target="_blank">ABC News</a> - which breathlessly touted the false meme that the Hamas missile fire was provoked by Israeli attacks, to <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/11/17/abcs-amanpour-suggests-israel-killed-too-many-civilians-2009-gaza-war" target="_blank">Mistress Death, Christiane Amanpour</a> who castigates the Israeli Defense Forces for their 'history' of indiscriminately targeting / killing civilians during the last major Gaza conflict, to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/18/Bloggers-Catch-More-Dead-Child-Fakery-by-Hamas" target="_blank">CNN</a> and the BBC hyping Hamas faking dead children for propaganda purposes - all in the embracing of the standard media justification, <b>'Fake but accurate'</b>.<br />
<br />
Lost within this flood of anti-Israeli propaganda is the truth. <br />
<br />
The truth around the fact that for virtually every day of this year 5 to 10 missiles are fired from Gaza into Israeli cities and towns. We're told by the media bigots that this is 'inconsequential' - that the warheads of the missiles are small (only the size of 500 pound bombs) and the number of casualties are 'uneven' - reducing Israeli civilian dead and wounded to being immaterial in the rush to embrace a moral equivalency argument.<br />
<br />
The truth that, in violation of international law, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorists launch their missiles from locations that are using civilian structures - apartments, schools, and mosques - as shields. That the terrorist leaders also have no compulsion to use their own families, including children, as human shields in order to try to gain additional protection from Israeli retaliatory strikes. That the terrorist thugs where civilian clothing and when killed are called civilians despite the fact that they were carrying arms and actively engaged in illegal hostilities against the state of Israel.<br />
<br />
In the above link where the media breathlessly touts a dead child as 'proof' of Israeli 'aggression' - none apply any skepticism around the stories that are spun by the terrorists - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/middleeast/in-gaza-tragic-result-for-misplaced-hopes-of-cease-fire.html?_r=0" target="_blank">or the fact that when the child was killed, no Israeli airstrikes took place - and that the damage is far more consistent with a missile fired from Gaza that malfunctioned and exploded into that Gaza home.</a> As the NY Times states in their own report - contradicting their own breathless report...<br />
<blockquote>
<i>It is unclear who was responsible for the strike on Annazla: the damage was nowhere near severe enough to have come from an Israeli F-16, <b>raising the possibility that an errant missile fired by Palestinian militants was responsible for the deaths</b>. What seems clear is that expectations for a pause in the fighting, for at least one family, were tragically misplaced.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3mKOsPYfpVg?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
Where is the outrage of the Islamic terrorists in Gaza using civilians, schools, and mosques as shields? International law holds that the guilty party for the death of non-combatants in this situation is not the attacker but the one's who use civilians as shields. In the majority of the cases, precision munitions now allow pinpoint strikes on the military targets while limiting the damage to non-military sites and personnel. But in a number of cases, the human shields are held so close that it is impossible to avoid 'collateral' damage. <br />
<br />
One of the attacks over the weekend by the IDF that raised the ire of the righteous mainstream media was a strike on the tower in Gaza that housed the area's media center. But what these media nimrods didn't report is that on the <a href="https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson" target="_blank">second floor of the building, a top terrorist leader of the Islamic Jihad hid - believing he was safe using those same useful idiot journalists as human shields. The IDF launched a precision strike</a> on that floor - and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/19/Gaza-militant-group-says-top-fighter-killed" target="_blank">successfully killed the terror leader </a>- without killing any of the anti-Israeli media that were apparently quite happy to be used as a shield.<br />
<br />
I know I shouldn't be surprised by the fecklessness of so much of the media - putting their hatred and bias against Israel before any semblance of journalistic integrity. But it continues to shock me as they are spurring the carnage with their bias and hate. Even former 'allies' of Israel, like the reprehensible Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs, puts ideology and hate before any semblance of integrity and intellectual honesty. LFG has now started to out 'DU' the vile Democratic Underground commentators.<br />
<br />
<b>One of the most common aspects of creating and pushing a 'successful' lie is to have buried within the lie something that is true / factually accurate.</b> Whenever one is called on the lie, one only has to point to the minor aspect that is true and then declare that since that point is true, the entire statement has to be true. It's one of the most common fallacies that we see tossed at us in debates with the progressives (the others are simple projection and the moral equivalency fallacy).<br />
<br />
This is now standard operating procedure of the Obama Administration when it comes to their deflection of the lies they told in the name of political expediency regarding the Benghazi terror attack which killed 4 Americans. In the wake of former CIA Director David Petraeus's closed door testimony Friday where he stated that the CIA briefing to the White House identified the 9/11/12 attack as a terrorist attack launched by an al-Qaeda surrogate - and that this was subsequently scrubbed by someone outside of the CIA - the <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/18/wh-benghazi-talking-point-changes-dont-look-at-us/" target="_blank">White House has decided to push the big lie that they were not responsible for altering the intelligence and continue to obfuscate and cover-up their culpability...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>What we also said yesterday, though — because this question came up as to whether the White House had edited Susan Rice’s points and the points that were provided to Congress and the administration — the only edit that was made to those points by the White House, and was also made by the State Department, was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” since the facility in Benghazi had not — was not formally a consulate. Other than that, we worked off of the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community.</i></blockquote>
Only edit? I don't doubt that some pinhead in the WH changed the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' - that's the type of edit that someone embarking down a path of marginalization and CYA would undertake. But only? That is the part that stretches believability. This isn't a complex issue - and it should be pretty easy to identify who within the WH / National Security Office who has the authority to make edits to CIA reports. The problem is - with few exceptions - there is little interest to get to the truth or hold the Obama Administration accountable for their callous and arrogant behavior. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/17/media-Declares-libya-scandal-over" target="_blank">The mainstream media isn't interested in finding out the truth </a>- with the possible exception of Fox News which doesn't have it's lips locked onto Obama's rear end.<br />
<br />
To the MSM, this scandal is as newsworthy as the politicization of the DoJ, the dropping of racism / voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party, the massive election financing and fundraising fraud of the Obama campaign, the crony capitalism of Solyndra, A123 Systems, and Fisker, the EPA's war on fossil fuel and coal, the failures of FEMA to assist the victims of Sandy, and Fast and Furious. It doesn't matter that 4 are dead - just as it doesn't matter that the Obama Administration is directly culpable in the death of hundreds in Mexico. There is a 'D' after the name of the President - not a 'R'. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-calls-obama-homeboy_663632.html" target="_blank">[Which is also why Vice President Joe Biden can get a complete pass for calling his boss a 'Homeboy'.]</a><br />
<br />
At least key members of the House and Senate are not going to let the Benghazi lies disappear...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<script src="http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1976729287001&w=466&h=263" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.insider.foxnews.com">video.insider.foxnews.com</a></noscript></div>
<br />
Has Senator Chambliss notes in the above video, <i>'Everybody there was asked do you know who made these changes; and nobody knew. The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House.'</i><br />
<br />
Today, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/17/was-obama-briefed-that-benghazi-was-a-terror-attack-before-rice-went-on-tv/" target="_blank">we are now learning that in the Presidential Daily Brief - the daily intelligence and security brief provided to the President - 72 hours after the attack (that Friday - and 2 days before Ambassador Susan Rice's dog and pony show across the Sunday news programs) directly referenced the Benghazi attack as being an act of terrorism </a>by an al-Qaeda surrogate timed for the 9/11 anniversary. Yet, despite this specific information, the President and his surrogates spent another 10 days saying that this was not a terror attack and was the result of an obscure three month old internet video that allegedly insulted Muslims.<br />
<br />
Given that the President has only participated in about half of the daily security briefs - perhaps the latest effort to extend the President's 'plausible deniability' will be to say that the President missed this brief because of the demands of his campaign?<br />
<br />
<b>What is the media focusing on besides their anti-Israel agenda? </b> They're busy trying to tell the GOP just what they need to do in order to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans - become more like the Democrats.<br />
<br />
Across almost all of the Sunday morning talking head shows, 'experts' told us that the GOP has become too 'conservative' and needs to compete with the Democrats on the basis of expanding government and becoming progressivism / liberalism light. We're also being told that since the mainstream media dislikes conservatives - and will continue to run their propaganda against us - we need to counter this by being nice to the mainstream media, move to the center-left, and then the media will not hammer us incessantly.<br />
<br />
What a load of ________!<br />
<br />
None of these 'experts' or 'brilliant' and 'non-partisan' media nimrods have the best interests of the country or the GOP in their advice. These are the same idiots who not only routinely ignore the hypocrisy of the left - but embrace that hypocrisy. <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/the-permanent-campaign-hasnt-ended.php" target="_blank">As Powerline noted last week...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama criticized President Bush for being a partisan and running a permanent political campaign following his re-election in 2004:</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign–a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate.</i></div>
<i><br />
</i> <i>The ironies are thick. Obama, too, was re-elected by a 51-48 margin, but certainly hasn’t seen that fact as a “call to humility and compromise,” nor has the Democratic Party. Moreover, Bush genuinely sought bipartisanship, and it is Obama who knows no higher calling than extreme partisanship...</i></blockquote>
This hypocrisy is fully embraced by not only President Barack Obama as he seeks to interact with the GOP in Congress, but also by the mainstream media who sees their primary responsibility is to 'influence and change the world' as opposed to dispassionately report on facts.<br />
<br />
<b>We see this plainly in the 'negotiations' over the first major fiscal cliff that we face about 40 days from now.</b><br />
<br />
The President remains locked on demanding $1.6 trillion in new taxes over the next decade - on top of the nearly $3 trillion in new taxes from the 10% across the board tax increase that will take place on January 1, the near tripling of dividend taxes, the increase in capital gains and corporate taxes, and the collection of taxes being imposed to fund part of the Obamacare health insurance boondoggle. It doesn't matter that these steps will plummet the country back into a recession (just like the Eurozone), or cost 700,000 to 1.5 million jobs.<br />
<br />
No, we're hearing that Congressional Democrats are perfectly fine with running the country off this first major cliff.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWd3s90hjYh_T9Nv2lkcKp3hUjHT38kicbraAaid8qs17iu_6FpybD6gptGzT1gZQ0LdiwRCI8TuGwjYdxsOucWB2ocqcc3436fZxaDGf12nkGChFl3q2OqlIWHdVdp2iGrEpHpqKHyvc/s1600/justraisetaxes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="442" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWd3s90hjYh_T9Nv2lkcKp3hUjHT38kicbraAaid8qs17iu_6FpybD6gptGzT1gZQ0LdiwRCI8TuGwjYdxsOucWB2ocqcc3436fZxaDGf12nkGChFl3q2OqlIWHdVdp2iGrEpHpqKHyvc/s640/justraisetaxes.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
We've got mental midgets like the Marxist thug in charge of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, who believe that the fiscal cliff is overstated. Then there are the ideologues in Congress like Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin - who see the only solution is higher taxes because only the government can adequately determine how and where to spend money and control the economy. <br />
<br />
One has to wonder if we are watching the latest example of 'not letting a crisis go to waste' - even when one has to create a crisis. Are they making the cold Alinsky-ite calculation that killing the national economy is just a necessary step in order to expand their agenda? They obviously know quite well that their allies in the media will be writing incessant stories blaming the GOP for their stubbornness in 'compromising' which will be the 'official' reason we plummet off that cliff.<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration, the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media worked overtime during this past political campaign to hide and diffuse the grim economic statistics brought on by the failure of the Obama / Progressive economic agenda. They shamelessly cooked the books. Minions of progressivism argued that Bush, who left office 4 years ago, was to blame for the dismal economy we now have - and that an 'evil capitalist' Mitt Romney would unleash such horrors on the American people as not having the government provide women with free contraceptives or taxpayer funded abortions on demand.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111612-633815-bad-economic-news-emerges-after-election.htm" target="_blank">Investor's Business Daily lists out just some of the grim economic news that was withheld by the Obama Administration until after Election Day...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>** Real average hourly earnings dropped again in October</i><br />
<i>** The number of poor people in America climbed 712,000 in 2011.</i><br />
<i>** Food stamp enrollment exploded by more than 420,000 in August.</i><br />
<i>** The number of new jobless claims shot up to 439,000 last week, up 78,000 from the week before</i><br />
<i>** We also learned that the annual inflation rate climbed to 2.2%</i><br />
<i>** Coal plants are closing</i><br />
<i>** Small banks are shutting down</i></blockquote>
Shamelessly, the WaPoo this weekend published their look at the Obama 'recovery' compared to the average recovery from a recession since the end of the Second World War...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2XHmdhzRSOwKJPy3lr8VQo-dzYquoo63y67chpOcmXCTZBLv49W86BcIyOBfeigehGUnrFulDzkVfU4WXxeFdPJMPWSYMFMtMPu6PYa2NMxkNrnnJRiTgTLmJkq1nhbhLazAQInBPUdE/s1600/WaPoorecoverychart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2XHmdhzRSOwKJPy3lr8VQo-dzYquoo63y67chpOcmXCTZBLv49W86BcIyOBfeigehGUnrFulDzkVfU4WXxeFdPJMPWSYMFMtMPu6PYa2NMxkNrnnJRiTgTLmJkq1nhbhLazAQInBPUdE/s1600/WaPoorecoverychart.png" /></a></div>
<br />
That's a record that deserves reelection... doesn't it? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/18/homeland-security-promotes-welfare-to-new-immigrants-in-government-welcome-materials/" target="_blank"><b>The Department of Homeland Security's US Citizenship and Immigration Services now has a new mission</b> </a>- being the primary gateway for new immigrants to access government benefit programs like food stamps, welfare, disability, Medicaid, etc....<br />
<br />
Well, if they do as well as this mission as they do on their old primary mission of enforcing US immigration laws - perhaps the damage will not be that bad...<br />
<br />
<b>Speaking of mental midget union leaders,</b> Frank Hurt, the President of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union whose arrogance just cost 18,500 employees of Hostess Brands, Inc their jobs as he drove the company off a cliff, is now embracing the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2012/11/hostess-employees-hope-buyers-will-put.html" target="_blank">delusional wish that whomever purchases the assets of Hostess Brands, Inc will hire his members and put them to work </a>so they can drive another company off a cliff....<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Frank Hurt, president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union, told the WSJ he was comforted by the rush of consumers to purchase Twinkies and other products for fear the popular brands will go away.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“People are going crazy because they think they’re not going to be able to get any Twinkies or Ho Hos or Wonder Bread,” he told the WSJ. “They’ll be produced somewhere, some time and by our members.”</i></blockquote>
Would you rehire the same nimrods who forced their previous company into insolvency and liquidation? I didn't think so.<br />
<br />
<b>The World Bank is now confirming that they are yet another multi-national non-government entity that has moved into the 'utterly irrelevant' category</b> - joining other feckless entities like the United Nations and the Obama Jobs Council as they tout their latest fearmongering climate change report.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/world-bank-warns-of-4-degree-threshhold/2012/11/19/aa298dd0-3023-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html" target="_blank">This 'report' warns that a simple 4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures would likely trigger widespread crop failures and massive famine. </a> The only solution to prevent this catastrophe? The immediate adoption of far left socialism / statism / progressivism that replaces capitalism - combined with massive government spending to 'fix' the climate and therefore 'end' climate change.<br />
<br />
Not referenced in the report is that global warming / temperatures have not increased since 1997 or that the total temperature increase in the last century / 125 years has been a whopping 0.8 degrees Celsius. Also not referenced is how embracing a political ideology will effect climate change, how wealth redistribution from Western nations to everyone else will effect climate change, or the effects of solar cycles on climate change.<br />
<br />
Why let a few facts stand in the way, eh? Can't let a crisis go to waste - even if the crisis has to be created.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-86699942614592759152012-11-16T16:40:00.000-08:002012-11-16T16:40:34.239-08:00Benghazi <br />
Let’s recap….<br />
<br />
9/11/12 – On the anniversary of the 9/11/01 al-Qaeda attack against the US, the US Consulate and an Annex compound in Benghazi, Libya is attacked over a nearly 8 hour timeframe starting at about 9:40pm local time. In the Consulate, the US Ambassador to Libya and a State Department employee are murdered by the attackers. Several Americans escape from that compound and under rifle and RPG fire from attackers, flee to the Annex compound. Not too long afterwards nearly 200 heavily armed terrorists attack the Annex compound under supporting mortar fire. Two Security officers man a machine gun on the roof of the Annex to defend the compound and call for airstrikes / assistance – even lasing the attacking mortar positions for precision munitions. They are killed after running out of ammunition and after covering the escape of others from the Annex compound whom fled to the Benghazi airport and the protection of a State Department rescue team held in position at that airport.<br />
<br />
- No one ordered any rescue, relief, or support military missions to assist those in either of the compounds…. Yet these forces were within reach of the area and ready for orders.<br />
<br />
- The State Department had live / real-time video and audio from both compounds during the attack. An unarmed Predator drone circled overhead as well as communication with US personnel in both the Consulate and Annex compounds.<br />
<br />
- Units / people in Libya, Italy, Germany, at sea in the Med, and in Washington DC knew of these contacts.<br />
<br />
- The President was made aware of the attack – then went to bed prior to heading out from Washington DC to a Las Vegas campaign fundraiser.<br />
<br />
- The Administration – White House and State Department – initially defined the attack as a public / popular demonstration against the US sparked by an obscure video hosted in June on You Tube that was ‘insulting’ to Islam – a demonstration that turned bad and resulted in the storming of the Consulate / Annex and the four deaths. This coincided with other demonstrations and violence against US Embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Pakistan.<br />
<br />
- Secretary of State made several high profile speeches / briefs for the press condemning the obscure video and its creator as the cause for the demonstrations and violence – asking for an end to the violence since the US government neither condoned or produced the video.<br />
<br />
- The President and the Secretary of State participated in public service messages on Pakistani TV blaming the violence on the video and its creator and saying the US government had nothing to do with it.<br />
<br />
- According to the father of one of the murdered security officers, the Secretary of State told him at the service marking the return of the murdered Americans to the US, that the US government would ensure that the creator of the video was going to be prosecuted for his role in igniting the violence (ie creating the video).<br />
<br />
- The US Ambassador to the United Nations appears on all 6 major Sunday morning news programs to assert that that violence in Benghazi was a spontaneous popular demonstration against the US motivated by the obscure video that unfortunately turned violent. Denies all links to terrorism or the 9.11 anniversary.<br />
<br />
- The President calls for a full investigation into the attack and the government’s response / handling of the attack.<br />
<br />
- The President, appearing on ‘The View’ on Sept. 25th, continues to push the case that this was a demonstration motivated by an anti-Islam video on You Tube that unexpectedly turned bad – and that the investigation needs to continue to know details.<br />
<br />
- State Department spokesperson stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.<br />
<br />
- The White House stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.<br />
<br />
- Mid-level State Department employees testify before Congress that the State Department knew during the attack that it was linked to terrorists. They also acknowledge that the murdered security officers had requested military assistance which was not authorized or provided. [Later we learned that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods apparently killed 40-60 of the attackers as they made their last stand trying to defend the Annex compound as the attack took place over 2-3 hours. They even had a laser target designator scoped in on the terrorists' mortars ready for a requested air strike to assist their defense of the Annex compound.]<br />
<br />
- Memos and materials from the murdered US Ambassador to Libya, including materials recovered a week (plus) from the wreckage of the Consulate compound, show that the Ambassador had major concerns about a) security for the US facilities and people in Benghazi, b) requested additional security protection, c) noted that Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, including an al-Qaeda affiliate are expanding their power and control over Benghazi, d) that the new Libyan government had lost effectiveness and control of the city, e) that the security for the US facilities was provided by a small British firm that depended entirely on unvetted local personnel, f) that the local security not only fled just prior to the attack, that members of the local security were busy in the days prior to the attack obtaining intelligence on the people and buildings in the US compounds, and g) and a dedicated security team for Tripoli and Benghazi were ordered out of the country by DC one month prior to the attack.<br />
<br />
- In the wake of this information, and the State Department testimony, the ‘official’ description of the attack turned to be that it was a terrorist attack – but all references to being done by the local al-Qaeda surrogate continued to be scrubbed.<br />
<br />
- The President and his campaign team began to press the terror attack meme – including the claim that the President called the attack a terror attack as early as his statement on the attack made on September 12th from the WH Rose Garden. This became a major issue in the 2nd Presidential debate – when the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley substantiated the President’s claim during the debate – and disavowed the claim during a post-debate statement.<br />
<br />
- Attention started to focus on why the message from 9/11/12 to 9/26/12 focused only on the meme of a demonstration accidentally turned violent – in particular the statements of the President and Susan Rice.<br />
<br />
- The White House tosses the CIA under the bus – blaming the 2 weeks of incorrect messaging on the terror attack on incomplete and inconclusive intelligence from the CIA – despite the real-time communications / proof of the contrary from the State Department.<br />
<br />
- CIA Director David Petraeus chafes at the CIA being blamed for the Administration’s effort to spin the 9/11 attack – and instructs his aides to provide a CIA developed timeline of what they knew and when. [As this is happening, the DoJ and FBI are investigating the CIA Director over his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. The relationship started in fall 2011 and didn’t end until sometime late summer 2012 or fall 2012. The investigation began in May 2012. According to the AG, FBI Director, and WH – the President was never told that his Director of the CIA was being investigated over the affair or misuse of classified information.]<br />
<br />
- October 26, the CIA releases their timeline saying that they determined this was a terror attack from the start based on the evidence – including that evidence from the State Department. CBS News releases copies of the CIA briefing from the first week after the attack, used by Susan Rice for her comments to the press and American people, that does not reference terrorism or al-Qaeda.<br />
<br />
- In the wake of the release of the CIA timeline, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, begins to express doubts about CIA Director David Pretraeus.<br />
<br />
- On November 2nd, Clapper is briefed that the FBI has an active investigation underway into David Petraeus. [He claims he did not advise the President that the FBI is investigating the Director of the CIA.]<br />
<br />
- CIA Director Petraeus is asked to testify before Congress on what he and the CIA knew and when. Pressure increases on Petraeus from the DNI to support the Administration’s story.<br />
<br />
- When Petraeus refuses to play ball – the DNI tells the Director that the WH has lost faith / trust in him and that he needs to resign. Petraeus resigns, stating the affair as the reason, and it is accepted by President Obama on November 9th.<br />
<br />
- During a Nov. 14 Presidential Press Conference, the President notes that a) US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice only spoke on the basis of the intelligence on what she was briefed – that the CIA didn’t see the attack as related to terrorists or al-Qaeda until much later, b) that Susan Rice made the appearances on the 6 Sunday news programs at the behest of the White House, and c) Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, the intelligence, or the determination of what happened. This raises questions as to why, if she had nothing to do with Benghazi, the US Ambassador to the UN was sent out as the Administration’s official spokesperson on the attack, and why was she told that there was no evidence of terrorist / al-Qaeda involvement when the State Department knew this as the attack took place.<br />
<br />
- Former Director David Petraeus agrees to testify before Congress behind closed doors on Nov 16. On the 15th, the Wall Street Journal publishes a long story about the last days of Petraeus as the Director of the CIA and the confrontations between the Director, his aides, and the National Intelligence / National Security arm of the White House and their allies inside the CIA.<br />
<br />
- During closed door testimony before Congress, Petraeus says that the he and the CIA determined almost as the attack was still on-going that the attack was a terror attack being conducted by an al-Qaeda surrogate timed for the Sept 11 anniversary. He also testified that the assessment / brief from the CIA sent to the WH / National Security Office stated this – and that someone unknown outside of the CIA altered the brief to remove all references to terrorism and al-Qaeda / AQ surrogates – as the brief cited by Susan Rice and the WH was not the brief sent by the CIA.<br />
<br />
Beyond these facts – which continue to raise numerous questions about the WH / Administration, we also need to consider the following:<br />
<br />
The Obama standard campaign stump made the following claims:<br />
<br />
a) The Arab Spring was secular and pro-democracy – deposing dictators in numerous countries.<br />
<br />
b) The US / NATO assistance for the Libyan revolution was based on humanitarian grounds and to support and protect the Libyan Arab Spring uprising that ultimately overthrew the Libyan dictator Qaddafi.<br />
<br />
c) Democracy is expanding the Middle East because Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt held elections to form new governments.<br />
<br />
d) The expansion / control of these new governments by Islamic fundamentalist / radical organizations is not a threat to the interests of the United States in the region.<br />
<br />
e) Administration policies and actions against al-Qaeda, ranging from increased drone attacks to friendly outreach to Arab governments to killing the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, have reduced the reach, scope, and terror activities of not only al-Qaeda, but other Islamic fundamentalist jihadist groups. This is not only making the US safer, but the region / world safer.<br />
<br />
In the midst of the President’s reelection campaign – a successful terrorist attack which murdered an US Ambassador (the first in 31 years) conducted in an increasingly jihadist / radical Islamic Benghazi by an affiliate of al-Qaeda – discredits the Obama campaign stump.<br />
<br />
The knowledge that the Administration reduced security for the compounds - in the face of contrary evidence including numerous requests by the late US Ambassador to Libya would discredit the Obama campaign stump.<br />
<br />
The knowledge that the Administration refused to dispatch military / security teams to rescue or assist Americans under terrorist attack in Benghazi would discredit the Obama campaign stump.<br />
<br />
Blaming the attack on a demonstration unexpectedly turned violent would reduce the culpability of the Obama Administration in the failure to anticipate the attack, prevent the attack, or order rescue / support forces to the area [citing risk of ‘innocent civilian casualties’].<br />
<br />
During the first Obama term – <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/16/picket-flashback-fbi-counter-terrorism-lexicon-ski/">the FBI has scrubbed virtually all references to al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other jihadist organizations from their training manuals</a> – replacing references to Islamic jihadists with ‘violent extremists’ as part of their institutional policy to not focus attention on ‘jihad’.<br />
<br />
The only reason they Administration admitted it was a terror attack was because they could no longer hide the evidence / testimony of Executive Branch workers which stated that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure anti-Islam video from three months earlier.<br />
<br />
The reason the CIA information was ‘spun’ was to provide cover for the US Ambassador to the UN who was asked by the WH to become the ‘official’ WH spokesperson on the attack – and whom the President later told the American people ‘had nothing to do with Benghazi’ including the messaging. Questions still remain as to why the SecState, or some Dep. SecState, or National Security / DNI official did not make that ‘dog and pony show’ as the ‘official’ Administration spokesperson.<br />
<br />
When pressed for additional information or to answer contradictions – the President has offered that he cannot say more because of the ‘ongoing investigation’.<br />
<br />
And questions raised about Susan Rice’s selection / participation in the Administration’s messaging are now being called by Democrat members of Congress as ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ attempts to defame a senior African-American woman in the Obama Administration.<br />
<br />
Does any of this raise any questions or concerns with you? <br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-18483756843913063652012-11-16T11:33:00.000-08:002012-11-16T14:39:14.693-08:00Quick Hits - November 16, 2012 - UPDATE #3 ADDED<b>After</b> announcing the mobilization of 30,000 reservists yesterday, the Israeli Defense Minister has called for the additional mobilization of 75,000 more in the wake of continuing rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns launched by Hamas and other Islamic terror organizations in Gaza. Yesterday, one major 'red line' of Israel was crossed as Hamas fired on the Israeli city of Tel Aviv - and earlier today, several long range missiles from Gaza struck Jerusalem - another 'red line' defined by the Israelis.<br />
<br />
Today, the Egyptian Prime Minister visited Gaza - demonstrating 'solidarity' with the terrorist thugs who continue to pummel Israel with rockets - including those with warheads comparable to that of a 500 pound bomb. Leading anti-Israeli groups and media outlets, including the BBC and the New York Times, are focusing their attention on the Israeli counter-fire against the hundreds of missiles being launched per day - with numerous propaganda photo-ops of Palestinian 'civilian' casualties while ignoring the toll of the Palestinian missiles which have killed 4 Israeli civilians and wounded well over one hundred.<br />
<br />
Also lost within the biased reporting from the region - the common tactic of the Palestinian terror organizations of basing / hiding their missile batteries, launch sites, and missile storage facilities in extremely close proximity to civilian structures like schools, playgrounds, apartment flats, and mosques...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYjOV22nOzYB17byL2z4F0WwlYIVwNAR_mESVEPTgMgEl6xrp7ZDIZ-1bKnIoZd2LSfAZOSnKmwBGYahSPBulEUyCTq6GQi0z3f-W95heyEV-duD0MgJT9atBC6FRT7rsXzkov4AMzpOU/s1600/Gazamissilesitesamongcivilians.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYjOV22nOzYB17byL2z4F0WwlYIVwNAR_mESVEPTgMgEl6xrp7ZDIZ-1bKnIoZd2LSfAZOSnKmwBGYahSPBulEUyCTq6GQi0z3f-W95heyEV-duD0MgJT9atBC6FRT7rsXzkov4AMzpOU/s1600/Gazamissilesitesamongcivilians.png" /></a></div>
<br />
In the above photo released by the IDF - one major missile launch site was half a block away from a mosque and playground, in addition to a gas station and factories occupied by Palestinian workers. It is a standard operating principle of Hamas and other terror organizations to use their own civilian population and civilian structures as shields in an effort to protect their terror operations against Israel.<br />
<br />
With the continued escalations of Hamas and other groups in firing their missiles, it is more likely that this weekend will see a full-fledged invasion of Gaza by the IDF as the terror organizations continue to refuse to halt their constant rocket attacks on Israeli towns.<br />
<br />
These actions make it perfectly clear that these organizations, and by extension the Palestinian leadership, has no interest in a peaceful resolution to the issues in the region or recognition of the Israeli right to exist. They will continue to fire missiles and hide behind their own women, children, and the useful idiots of the mainstream media as they provoke retaliation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieIDhKvHHqP69_um5ZHUw_WooHkO8jpjwxCletfFR1by-uNeyPGUkGu2YIyVJ90H793N1-jGTDeieS3uZirLO-5gfnv1rZfmmdRsNMEKSNEAnruhAMqdJZyFyVh7-VK_B7brDzyKm2sTE/s1600/twinkie.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieIDhKvHHqP69_um5ZHUw_WooHkO8jpjwxCletfFR1by-uNeyPGUkGu2YIyVJ90H793N1-jGTDeieS3uZirLO-5gfnv1rZfmmdRsNMEKSNEAnruhAMqdJZyFyVh7-VK_B7brDzyKm2sTE/s320/twinkie.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Hostess Brands Inc</b> is petitioning their bankruptcy judge for permission to close and liquidate the company as the 6,000 member strong Baker's Union, the company's second largest union, continues to strike and oppose a court approved plan to restructure the current union contracts to lower costs to the company in an effort to keep the company solvent, competitive, and operational. Unlike the Teamsters, the company's largest union, the Baker's Union is opposing a plan to reduce wages and benefits over the next five years in exchange for a 25% equity stake in the company and an equal representation on the company's Board of Directors. The union is claiming [unsubstantiated] that when they took a pay and benefit reduction during a previous trip into bankruptcy - the management rewarded themselves with massive pay increases and bonuses.<br />
<br />
Because the Bakers Union is insisting on trying to get blood from a stone, and preventing the company from operating today, 18,500 employees are going to lose their job because of the intransigence of the Union leadership / membership.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess" target="_blank">The Teamsters, somewhat surprisingly, is laying the full blame on the decision to close the 82 year old company firmly at the feet of the Baker's Union - noting in their statement that the Baker's Union sandbagged both company management and the Teamsters</a> by walking out on strike as opposed to voting on the court approved resolution which was a major step to permit the company move beyond its bankruptcy filing.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/13/unions-drive-america-dangerously-close-to-the-twinkie-cliff/" target="_blank">Hot Air has some specifics on the deal that the leadership of the Baker's Union is refusing to accept - </a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>The proposed new labor deal consists of an immediate 8% wage cut and work rules more favorable to the company. Employer contributions for health insurance would decrease 17%. Hostess contributions to multi-employer pension plans would cease until 2015, at which point the current required level of funding would plummet from $100 million to $25 million. According to Rayburn, the proposal has been endorsed by Hostess’s key secured lenders, which are led by hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital. One estimate put cost savings for Hostess in the neighborhood of $200 million.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>For their part, the unions would receive two seats on a restructured nine-member board of directors and 25% of equity. That would make the unions part of Hostess’ capital structure for the first time.</i></blockquote>
The stupidity of the union leadership is just unfathomable. Rather than accept a reduction in wages and benefits in exchange for roughly an equal equity stake in the organization, the unions would prefer 0% wages, 0% benefits, and 0% equity stake not only for themselves, but the other 2/3rds of the company's employees.<br />
<br />
Since the progressives like to harp on 'fairness' as their mantra - here's my recommendation for 'fairness' regarding the decision by the clueless nimrods of the Baker's Union:<br />
<br />
If you are a member of the Baker's Union at Hostess Brands, you are not entitled to ANY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE in ANY FORM. No unemployment. No food stamps. No welfare. No job transition training. NOTHING. Meanwhile, all of the others at Hostess Brands who lose their jobs get all of the public assistance that they are entitled to.<br />
<br />
These safety net programs are designed and intended for those who lose their jobs from no fault of themselves. But if your own greed, arrogance, stupidity, and intransigence is such that you cost yourself your job - then you get bupkis. Decisions have ramifications people. Live the ramifications of your assinine decision - and the knowledge that you not only effed yourself over - but 12,500 of your fellow employees.<br />
<br />
Now, Hostess Brands will become the latest example of what is wrong with unions- and their unwillingness to partner with anyone to save a company already in bankruptcy and trying to claw their way out.<br />
<br />
<b>Earlier </b>this morning, David Petraeus testified before the House of Representatives on the Benghazi terror attack, the timeline, the causation of the attacks, and the Administration's deliberately confusing and misleading communication regarding the attack as they spun the meme for political expediency.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzpabSTQOcNDb7r29ZjZBCUeS_UMBooDmhaXImJiiacGIuJo7swU8-yZHglVnM04qpQ7rpRJGASsrJVS2xDO-5IYzsWMi8h8sn_p2-TA_TFGfzISSKW87jsp9Ifwl07xDagS4B9iVxww/s1600/petraeus.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzpabSTQOcNDb7r29ZjZBCUeS_UMBooDmhaXImJiiacGIuJo7swU8-yZHglVnM04qpQ7rpRJGASsrJVS2xDO-5IYzsWMi8h8sn_p2-TA_TFGfzISSKW87jsp9Ifwl07xDagS4B9iVxww/s320/petraeus.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Key around the testimony are the spinning of the Administration around the terror attack which killed four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya.<br />
<br />
Despite real-time video and radio communications from the US Consulate and Annex facilities during the attack which clearly show that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure You Tube video that turned violent - the primary message of the Obama Administration for two weeks after the attack was that this was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a video on You Tube seen by some to be anti-Islam.<br />
<br />
Messages from the President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and infamously, the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice to half a dozen Sunday news programs, all stressed that the attack was not a terror attack and the result of a demonstration sparked by the obscure video. Only when more detailed information and testimony before Congress took place in mid to late October did the real truth become fully known - that the attack was a deliberate terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11 launched by an affiliate / surrogate of al-Qaeda which had been expanding its power and influence in Benghazi since the end of the Libyan revolution.<br />
<br />
But even as the President, who on September 25th told the viewers of the ABC program, The View, the spin that this was a demonstration sparked by the video, he reversed course three weeks later in the second debate when he contended he 'correctly' called the attack a terror attack on Sept. 12th from the Rose Garden. He never called it a terror attack until the evidence that it was became public and could no longer be spun by the Administration.<br />
<br />
I've long contended that the President and Administration were lying about the terror attack from the start for the reason of pure political expediency. At that time, the President's standard campaign stump speech focused on the 'positive nature' of the Arab Spring replacing Arab dictators, 'establishing democracy' in the region, and the success of the President's policies in reducing Islamic terror and putting al-Qaeda 'on the run'. <br />
<br />
All of this would implode under the reality of the circumstance - where the Arab Spring replaced secular dictators with radical Islamic fundamentalists who hold the US and the West as their primary enemy, where 'democracy' is a joke, and where al-Qaeda is being resurgent in the region and increasing its violence against the US / West.<br />
<br />
In yesterday's QH, I detailed what we have learned since the resignation of David Petraeus - and the information / timeline that the his resignation had more to do with his decisions to not provide CIA cover for the Administration's efforts to lie to the American people for political expediency. The fawning and feckless mainstream media is ignoring their responsibility to question the President and other Administration officials on the obvious discrepancies in the Administration's spin. As the President himself noted to the silence of the press, Ambassador Susan Rice was selected by the White House to spin her story to the American people even though 'she had nothing to do with Benghazi'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguvsyJaiHGyvc89JMlkO1vtUgx8IYLyWuCwcuP21isSbUE_MdkHuNP7H5ryLkehX_k5LnbvuC0HpHJTwfMXu2JnlpUOAuajzF6u0xy_wzZY2-Pc9_ZICgWnnHEt4AGwryW8mPQhJckS14/s1600/goingaftertheliar.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguvsyJaiHGyvc89JMlkO1vtUgx8IYLyWuCwcuP21isSbUE_MdkHuNP7H5ryLkehX_k5LnbvuC0HpHJTwfMXu2JnlpUOAuajzF6u0xy_wzZY2-Pc9_ZICgWnnHEt4AGwryW8mPQhJckS14/s640/goingaftertheliar.png" width="640" /></a></div>
The 'excuse' offered for Ambassador Rice's pathetic spin was that she spoke based on the current and best intelligence the Administration had from the CIA that the Benghazi attack was a demonstration sparked by the You Tube video that spontaneously turned violent. CBS News highlighted the CIA talking points earlier this week - as the Administration sought to toss the CIA under the bus to protect itself. <br />
<br />
As Director of the CIA, David Petraeus, strongly opposed the tossing of the CIA under the bus when State Department officials had already testified that it was known DURING the 8 hour long attack that it was a terror attack launched by an al-Qaeda affiliate. This opposition brought him into conflict with the incompetent Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who is not only a loyal political minion of Barack Obama, but known best for calling the Muslim Brotherhood a 'largely secular institution' during the Egyptian Arab Spring.<br />
<br />
Now out of his position as the Director of the CIA, and with little left to lose, David Petraeus testified behind closed doors today. In his testimony, according to statements from members of Congress at the hearings, he stressed two primary points.<br />
<br />
First, he testified that he believed from the first that the Benghazi attack was a deliberate terror attack planned against the Consulate and Annex facilities timed for the anniversary of 9/11. Not only was this a deliberate terror attack, but al-Qaeda was ultimately behind the terror attack as an al-Qaeda affiliate / surrogate conducted the attack.<br />
<br />
Petraeus noted that the initial attack on the Consulate was more disjointed and uncoordinated than the later attack on the heavily defended Annex which included heavy weapons (mortars). One possible explanation for the lack of coordination on the earlier attack was that the attackers met far less resistance than expected and were unprepared to easily breach the main residence and key outbuildings - needing time to organize themselves as to what they would do.<br />
<br />
The second major point is that the initial CIA talking points / assessment of the attack as provided for briefing other Administration officials - like Ambassador Susan Rice - differed significantly from the talking points that were later released and claimed by Ambassador Rice and others to be basis of their comments. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233975/Petraeus-tells-Congress-Obama-administration-altered-CIA-talking-points-Benghazi.html" target="_blank">The initial assessment referenced terror and al-Qaeda </a>- but someone within the Administration or CIA 'altered' the talking points to fit the political message the Administration was pushing.<br />
<br />
The alteration of intelligence determinations to fit a political agenda / viewpoint is not unknown. Democrats accused the Bush Administration of doing this repeatedly throughout 2002-2008. But while there was / is no concrete evidence of this being done - we do have evidence of 'shadow warriors' within the CIA selectively leaking / preparing materials intended to politically embarrass the Bush Administration. Therefore, it is not much of a surprise that another of these 'shadow warriors' or politically motivated operatives buried within the CIA would alter the initial CIA assessment of Benghazi so that it would match the politically expedient message of the Obama White House as it was deep within an election campaign.<br />
<br />
David Petraeus said that he does not know who within the chain of command who was working on the CIA assessment made the change - but was adamant that the Administration altered the talking points to fit the preconceived meme of a video sparked demonstration that spontaneously turned violent.<br />
<br />
This is a major point - and reflects yet another callous and arrogant decision by the Administration to embark on a politically motivated CYA to hide their incompetence, fecklessness, and agenda despite the cost in lies.<br />
<br />
Fast and Furious is the DoJ program to 'justify' increased gun controls resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths from the weapons that the DoJ gave Mexican Drug Cartels. When exposed, the Administration embarked on a massive cover-up to hide the details about this feckless program and protect key Administration members.<br />
<br />
Now we have a similar undertaking with regards to the Benghazi terror attack, and the refusal of the Administration to do it could to protect / rescue American lives because to do so would expose the naive and incompetent Administration policies towards the Middle East and terrorism.<br />
<br />
We now know that the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was selected by the White House to lie to the American people because they knew she would be a loyal political operative and do so. We also know that the White House / Administration altered determinations by the CIA around the cause of the attack in order to protect the political expediency of the Administration. <br />
<br />
Unlike Watergate, the massive cover-up by the Nixon Administration undertaken to protect President Nixon, people died because of the machinations of the Obama Administration in Fast and Furious and Benghazi. Members of the Obama Administration lied in order to protect their responsibility and accountability around those deaths - proving once again how laughable it is to believe this is the 'most ethical and transparent' Administration ever.<br />
<br />
For this, we have to hold the President fully accountable as he dared us to do in his press conference earlier this week. And if the President is so arrogant as to nominate Susan Rice to replace the outgoing Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, we owe it to the four dead Americans to oppose her confirmation as Secretary of State. We need a diplomat in that role - not a partisan political hack.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Update I</span></b> - <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Unsurprisingly, pathetic wankers like the third highest ranking Democrat in the House, James Clyburn, and other House Democrats are wasting little time playing the race card against those who want to hold Susan Rice accountable for her willingness to shill and lie to the American people. No one is going after Rice because she is an African-American woman. We are going after Rice because she shilled for the Administration and lied to the American people in order to promote the politically expedient spin of the Administration. Her race and gender has nothing to do with it. It's her lack of judgment and ethics. We do not need a political dupe in the role of either SecState or US Ambassador to the UN - but that seems to be the requirement of the Obama Administration - that all senior officials need to be political dupes first and foremost.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Playing the race card in this manner only highlights that those who do play this card are reprehensible scoundrels - and that we are on the right path in our investigation and affixing accountability and responsibility.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>Update II -</b> In an interview between Fox News Megyn Kelly and Congressman Peter King, the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, the initial CIA talking points / assessment left Langley (the CIA Headquarters) containing the conclusion that the attack was a deliberate terror attack. At some point outside of the CIA - when the material was in the control of the Administration / White House (National Security office / State Department / White House proper), the references to the attack being a terror attack conducted by an al-Qaeda surrogate were removed. This places even stronger blame on Barack Obama and his Administration for their efforts to lie to the American people and mask their accountability / responsibility in the deaths of four Americans all in the name of selfish political expediency.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>Update III</b> - While several Democrat's, including California Representative Adam Schiff have rushed out to counter the testimony of David Petraeus by denying the former CIA Director testified behind closed doors that the CIA assessment had been altered once it was received by the White House - <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/16/petraeus-the-cias-initial-talking-points-about-benghazi-mentioned-al-qaeda-but-the-reference-was-removed/" target="_blank">more information comes out to confirm this from a separate House Intelligence Committee briefing by Director National Intelligence James Clapper and acting CIA Director Mike Morell:</a></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><i>Fox News was told that neither Clapper nor Morell knew for sure who finalized [the talking points the White House initially relief on]. <b>And they could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional Al Qaeda branch as well as the militant Ansar al-Sharia despite evidence of their involvement.</b></i> </span></blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Could not explain why they minimized the role of a regional al Qaeda branch despite evidence of AQIM's involvement....</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Let that sink in for a minute. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">How hard can it be to make this determination? It's about as hard as determining who gave the orders to NOT send relief forces to rescue the two security personnel trapped on the roof of the Annex and under heavy attack by the regional al-Qaeda branch. Someone has to give a 'Go' order - someone has to give a 'Do Not Go' order.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Someone, in or around the White House, is actively working to not only write al-Qaeda out of the Benghazi attack, but lie to all of us about the utter fecklessness and failures of the Obama Administration ranging from their observations and assessments of the region to their incompetence / unwillingness to protect American lives - finding that protection is less necessary than providing political cover for the President and his agenda / campaign talking points.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Someone is clearly lying here [not to mention in full on CYA mode] - and it doesn't appear to be David Petraeus or the Congressional Republicans who are asking for public hearings on the decisions and actions of the Administration. Hearings only threaten the incompetent and guilty.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><br /></span>Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-33222124581033086862012-11-15T12:28:00.002-08:002012-11-15T12:28:52.454-08:00Quick Hits - November 15, 2012The simmering conflict against Israel being conducted by Hamas has escalated to high in the wake of the IDF attacks in Gaza to counter the regular missile and rocket fire from the region into Israeli cities and towns. <br />
<br />
Since midnight, Hamas has launched over 300 missiles - including one which hit the suburbs of Tel Aviv - in their response to the IDF counter-strike yesterday over the 100+ missiles fired in the previous 5 days at Israeli targets. These strikes have killed 3 Israeli civilians. The counter-strike killed the top military commander for Hamas.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, the usual anti-Israeli collection idiots has taken to condemning Israel. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is planning major demonstrations against Israel as the Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, is planning a supportive visit to Gaza. Here in the United States - <a href="http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/15/radical-leftist-group-code-pink-defends-hamas-accuse-netanyahu-of-genocide-and-being-a-war-criminal/" target="_blank">we have the useful idiots of Code Pink demonstrating against Israel and calling Prime Minister Netanyahu a 'war criminal' who is conducting 'genocide'.</a><br />
<br />
But the best example of the fecklessness of the anti-Israeli morons <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/middleeast/israeli-strike-in-gaza-kills-the-military-leader-of-hamas.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121115" target="_blank">comes from the New York Times who put their bias in plain view in the lede of their story</a> on the escalating conflict....<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Israel on Wednesday launched the most ferocious assault on Gaza in four years <b>after persistent Palestinian rocket fire</b>, hitting at least 20 targets in aerial attacks that killed the top military commander of Hamas, damaged Israel’s fragile relations with Egypt and escalated the risks of a new war in the Middle East.</i></blockquote>
[Bold added]<br />
<br />
How dare those Israeli's defend themselves from 'persistent Palestinian rocket fire'.<br />
<br />
The Hill's special team of Obama sycophants bring us another comedic classic in the guise of a 'news article' as they write their summary of the President's press conference yesterday -<br />
<blockquote>
<i><a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/268115-obama-gives-no-hint-which-way-hell-lean-during-second-term" target="_blank"><b>'Obama gives no hint if he will lean to center or left during the second term'</b></a></i></blockquote>
One has to wonder just how effin' clueless these two nimrods really really are. Did they miss the latest 'I Won' statement made by the President during the press conference when asked about taxes and the fiscal cliff? <a href="http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/clueless-hill-reporter-obama-gives-no-hint-which-way-hell-lean-during-second-term/" target="_blank">Blogger JammieWearingFool brings the snark against the clueless Niall Stanage and Amie Parnes in his post...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Let’s see: The most radical leftist we’ve ever had in the White House gets re-elected and knows he has cadre of subservient media lapdogs to do his bidding. He’s calling for a massive tax increase, promoting a junk science agenda and plans to promote an incompetent hack as Secretary of State. He plays the class warfare card at every opportunity and we’ve never seen a president work so hard at dividing Americans. But other than that, nobody has any idea if he’ll be “leaning” left.</i></blockquote>
These feckless hacks work harder spinning the President's agenda than Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod, and Stephanie Cutter - and are the poster children for just a small part of what is wrong with journalism profession today.<br />
<br />
Providing evidence that we have a similar problem within the field of college education - we have the sycophantic fawning over 'The One' by a college professor who is busy collecting an undeserved paycheck from Florida A&M University as she shills in a book she wrote that...<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334928.php" target="_blank"><i><b>'Obama is an apostle sent by God himself to create 'Heaven on Earth''</b></i></a></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Yes, Barack had worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, especially those who elected him in 2008. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or “heaven here on earth.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Then, as I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor. Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth.” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.</i></blockquote>
No wonder so many of those under 30 believe in the Marxist-Socialist-Progressive utopian vision. Between the media and education professionals - they are subject to non-stop fawning propaganda over this morally, ethically, and fiscally bankrupt agenda. [More on this subject later....]<br />
<br />
During the President's hour long press conference, his first in 8 months, where he took 7 softball questions and 1 tough one, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/obama-talks-fiscal-cliff-republican-tax" target="_blank">the President spoke at length regarding the fiscal cliff, negotiations with the GOP led House, and taxes.</a> He wasted little time demolishing his campaign promise that he would be willing to work towards a compromise with leading Congressional Republicans - reminding all present that 'I Won' last week - and that, according to exit polls, more people support his tax and economic vision than the GOP tax and economic vision. [At least the President waited until Feb 2009 before tossing down the 'I Won' gauntlet after his first electoral victory- here he couldn't wait more than 8 days to gloat and toss the gauntlet.]<br />
<br />
President Obama also admonished the GOP plan saying that their 'math' doesn't work when it comes to addressing the effects of massive overspending and the unprecedented increases of the national debt over the past four years.<br />
<br />
But what's clear in the President's pontifications is that if someone's math isn't working - it's the math of the President and his uber-progressive agenda based around higher taxes, continued spending growth, and class warfare.<br />
<br />
The liberal Tax Policy Center, which the President repeatedly touted during his campaign, said in an October 17, 2012 report that their analysis of one key aspect of the Romney / Ryan plan to cap itemized deductions would generate significant additional revenues for the Federal Government. They found that if itemized deductions were capped for the 'wealthy' at $50,000 - over the next decade, $749 billion in additional revenues would be received. If the cap was set lower, at $25,000, we would realize $1.286 trillion in additional revenues over the next 10 years. Finally, if the cap was set at the level that Mitt Romney suggested at one point, $17,000, the Federal Government would receive an additional $1.747 trillion in revenues.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is making the case that the best and first solution would be to expire the 2001-3 tax reduction for the 'wealthy' (earning more than $200K individually, $250K families) - increasing their income rate by 10% - even though this would, in a best case and assuming the higher tax rate would not have a negative impact on the economy - only produce $823 billion in additional revenues over the next 10 years.<br />
<br />
That's just $82.3 billion per year - a fraction of last year's $1.1 trillion budget deficit or the projected $1.4-$1.5 trillion FY2013 deficit. So much for taxing the rich in order to reduce the deficit.<br />
<br />
So, which plan would actually do more (and at less risk of damaging the economy) to raise additional revenues for the Federal Government? Clearly, capping the maximum itemized deductions available to the 'wealthy' would do more towards addressing the growing debt issue - but this doesn't have the social / political cache of hiking the top tax rates for the 'rich'. <br />
<br />
But what should be even more of a red flag for all of us is that even this step does very little to address the current size and scope of our deficit. That is simply because we don't have a revenue problem - but a spending problem. Short of massive across the board tax increases and tax changes - impacting every single American - there isn't enough money, income, or assets among the wealthy to cover the levels of fiscal irresponsibility the President and his supporters have made the new 'normal'.<br />
<br />
The President really doesn't care about the fiscal cliff or the impact on the economy. His primary interest is on his agenda and his legacy. He no longer has to worry about voter accountability. <br />
<br />
Which is probably one of the reasons that the bulk of the sycophants in the mainstream media are not talking about<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/15/us-jobless-claims-up-to-43k-following-superstorm-sandy/" target="_blank"> today's dismal new jobless claims numbers which shot up to an 18-month high - 439,000 - well above the expectations of a number around 375,000.</a> Last week's numbers were also revised upwards by 2%, to 361,000. <br />
<br />
As we look at this agenda, let's look across the pond to Europe where they have spent most of the last half century embracing the same agenda - albeit at a smaller scale. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/15/eurozone-crisis-eurozone-recession-france-germany" target="_blank">The Eurozone, in the 3rd Quarter of 2012, has fallen back into recession - and anti-austerity demonstrations in Spain, Portugal, and Greece have turned violent in the last several days. </a> Greece is running out of cash - and has failed to hit any of their economic targets. Will they get yet another traunche of cash - or a needed 3rd bailout from the EU / ECB? Or are we finally looking at their default as they run out of road to kick the can down?<br />
<br />
Despite the bleatings of the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/15/Union-Boss-Trumka-Fiscal-Cliff-A-Manufactured-Crisis" target="_blank">Marxist union thug leading the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, who claims that the 'fiscal cliff' is just a 'manufactured crisis' that does not really exist </a>- we are facing not only the cliff but another recession in early 2013.<br />
<br />
Dogmatic ideologues like many who lead or are members in today's unions refuse to see that despite their fanaticism and beliefs, economic laws, like those of physics, do not change based on the votes of the people. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/14/Unions-May-Kill-Off-The-Twinkie" target="_blank">Hostess Brands, Inc, the company that is responsible for producing 'Wonder' bread and the 'Hostess Twinkie' announced yesterday that they are asking a bankruptcy judge to allow the company to close and liquidate in response to a union worker strike that has shuttered a number of key production locations. </a> They are saying that they cannot afford the union demands regarding salary and benefits and remain in business.<br />
<br />
This isn't unique for the private sector either - as Breitbart.com features an article as to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/14/How-San-Bernardino-Went-Bankrupt" target="_blank">'How Public Sector Unions bankrupted San Bernandino, California.'</a><br />
<br />
And don't doubt that unions have a major role behind the United States Postal Service's record breaking $15.9 billion loss this year.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/corzine_to_blame_isKGMGM7U1esbgnwth0PhK" target="_blank">The House released a 97 page report based on their investigation of the failure of MF Global and the loss of $1.6 billion in client funds - laying the bulk of the blame on the former Chairman / CEO of MF Global, Jon Corzine. </a> The report terms the collapse of the firm 'avoidable' and point to Corzine's authoritative rule and his incredibly bad bets / excessive control on the trading of the company which generate the huge losses which drove the company into insolvency. Corzine, a former NJ Governor, NJ Senator, Obama campaign bundler, and Goldman-Sach's Chief Exec, is still yet to be charged for his malfeasance which cost clients of MF Global $1.6 billion. He should have had his perp walk months ago.<br />
<br />
Hearings will take place today and tomorrow in both the House and Senate regarding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Consulate and its Annex in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the murder of 4 of Americans. Among those testifying will be the outgoing Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and former CIA Director David Petraeus who resigned late last week.<br />
<br />
The Administration has been actively lying about the Benghazi terror attack - and is continuing to do so as they prance around trying to spin their fecklessness and incompetence regarding the attack and subsequent efforts around pre-election political cover.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578119293804968764.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal has an interesting insight into CIA Director Petraeus's last days which raise more questions around the dishonest actions of the Administration to spin not only the political fallout from the terror attack, but the failure of the Administration's policies in Libya and their apparent abandonment of at least 2 of the 4 killed during the 8 hour long attack.</a><br />
<br />
During his final days as the Director of the CIA, David Petraeus saw his relationship with the chiefs of other US intell / security agencies and the National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, turn extremely contentious over the issue around the CIA breaking it's silence on the Benghazi attack and subsequent messaging in order to counter the criticism being leveled at the Agency and Petraeus. <br />
<br />
The Agency was chafing at the decision by the White House / Administration to blame the nearly two weeks of messaging that the attack was nothing more than a demonstration that accidently turned violent over an obscure You Tube video placed on the internet in June that was seen as insulting to Islam on bad intelligence from the CIA - and that not until more information was received did the WH / Admin know this was a deliberate terror attack timed for the 9/11 anniversary.<br />
<br />
Director Petraeus and his aides at the CIA wanted to push back hard at this message and release it's own timeline of the September 11 attack as well as what it knew when. DNI James Clapper wanted Petraeus to remain silent - but Petraeus ordered his aides to proceed. All of this started around October 26th, when the CIA released their own timeline - and culminated in Clapper telling David Petraeus on November 7th 'that the right thing to do would be to step down'. The Director would resign on the 8th, which President Obama would accept and announce on the 9th.<br />
<br />
But the official reason given for the Director's resignation is the effects and knowledge of the extramartial affair between David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell that took place between November 2011 and the early summer of 2012 -with Clapper's spokespeople saying quite clearly that the resignation had nothing to do with the CIA explaining its role during the Benghazi terror attack and messaging afterwards which raised more questions.<br />
<br />
As I noted yesterday, one of the challenges about lying is that one is then committed to telling the same lie in exactly the same manner going forward if they hope to keep the fact that it is all a lie hidden. Lies which beget new questions only point out the fact that someone is lying. That remains the real issue here (as it did in Watergate, or does with the Fast and Furious scandal).<br />
<br />
If the CIA, as their original timeline and via the testimony of David Petraeus to Congress on September 15th, was telling the truth that the Benghazi attack was from a demonstration sparked by the You Tube video and not a terror attack - why did President Barack Obama define it as a terror attack from the Rose Garden on September 12th as he famously contended in the 2nd Presidential debate?<br />
<br />
This is no different from the question we asked yesterday regarding the President's statement about US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice's appearance across half a dozen Sunday talk shows making the same claim - and the President's assertion that she only made the appearances at the request of the White House and had no 'real role' regarding Benghazi. If no 'real role' - then why send out Ambassador Rice?<br />
<br />
What is now coming out in the wake of the resignation of Director Petraeus is that the White House / National Intell apparatus / CIA allies of the WH are now attacking the management and leadership style of David Petraeus during his tenure leading the CIA - opening a new front to discredit David Petraeus prior to his Congressional testimony which could reflect a less than kindly view on the actions of the Administration over Benghazi. <br />
<br />
We're seeing that his 14 month tenure was marked with real challenges behind the scenes as few close to the President trusted or supported David Petraeus as he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a common reaction within a hierarchy that is focused on control of all things - in particular control of the messaging and protecting the President - and someone who is seen as being a challenge to control.<br />
<br />
Adding to this being the real reason behind pushing Petraeus out - and the ongoing efforts to discredit his tenure in the event that Petraeus retaliates against the Administration tomorrow - DNI James Clapper was told on November 2nd about the months long FBI / DoJ investigation into David Petraeus and his affair with Paula Broadwell. This is 5 full days before Clapper told Petraeus that he needed to resign. Looking at the timing, it seems far more plausible that the request had less to do with the affair / investigation and far more with the growing efforts of Petraeus and his CIA aides to not let the Administration toss him and his Agency under the bus regarding the Administration's lies about Benghazi.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to another question that we need to ask / get answered - <b>Is it believable that the President of the United States was not notified by either the Director of the FBI or the Attorney General that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was currently under FBI investigation?</b> After all, even the DNI was told about this on November 2nd - prior to Election Day. Didn't even the DNI mention this to the President on the basis of the national security risk?<br />
<br />
In addition to being a entity that promotes the political control of information - the Obama Administration, from the top down and throughout the highest levels of the Executive Branch, appear to embrace a very strong practice of compartmentalization of key agenda items and initiatives. <br />
<br />
It's as if it is designed to provide not only plausible deniability for Barack Obama and his closest advisers, but also provide legal and political protection for those times that their actions and agenda ignite a scandal - like the politicization of the DoJ, Fast and Furious, Solyndra and Crony Capitalism, DHS counter-terrorism failures, State Department policy failures, EPA, Dept of Interior, and etc.<br />
<br />
If someone appears to move out from that CYA mode - then they become a nail and the rest of the Administration becomes the hammer. And that is what is appearing is happening to David Petraeus - with the sycophants in the media now focusing on the sensationalism of the affairs / relationships as opposed to the malfeasance of the Obama Administration.<br />
<br />
It's going to be a very long 4 years....<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-77502154188613336852012-11-14T13:34:00.002-08:002012-11-14T13:34:26.982-08:00The Problem About LyingOnce one starts telling lies, for whatever reason, they have set a trap for themselves. As they move forward, they need to remember the specific lie they told in the past so that when they need to tell it again, they do.<br />
<br />
Where criminals / liars get caught is when they can't or don't repeat the old lie in the exact same manner. All it takes is a single minor variation, and that thread, when pulled, can cause the entire lie to unravel. And as that lie unravels, so does one's credibility.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama, during today's press conference, tripped himself up and clearly demonstrated to all that he's been lying all along regarding the terror attack - particularly with the efforts by the Administration to blame the attack on an obscure You Tube video and a demonstration gone awry as opposed to being conducted by an affiliate of a re-constituting al-Qaeda.<br />
<br />
Trying to talk tough, the President warned Republicans, in particular Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to back off of their attacks on US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who 5 days after the terror attack, took to the Sunday talk shows to insist that there were no terror connections in the attack and that it was a demonstration turned violent sparked by that You Tube video.<br />
<br />
The President continued to put forth the claim that his Administration had no information or idea that the attack was a terrorist attack until over two weeks had past - despite evidence and testimony before Congress that the Administration and key Departments knew it was a terror attack even before the 8 hour long attack had ended - resulting in the deaths of four Americans - Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and Security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the President confirmed today something that was long suspected, but not confirmed by the Administration - that Ambassador Susan Rice made her dog and pony appearances on the Sunday morning news programs at the specific request of the White House.<br />
<br />
While admonishing Republicans to 'back off' from attacking Ambassador Susan Rice, who the President said today 'had nothing to do with Benghazi', the President's efforts to spin the events around the September 11 terror attack now raises even more questions...<br />
<br />
For example, if Ambassador Susan Rice 'had nothing to do with Benghazi' - why did the White House (ie President) request that she embark on that dog and pony show to push the case that the attack was just a 'spontaneous demonstration' in response to the You Tube video? <br />
<br />
The President also claimed that Rice's comments were simply based on the intelligence briefs she had received - but again, if she wasn't involved, why briefed - and why didn't the brief match the information that came out later that it was determined during the attack it was being conducted by an affiliate of al-Qaeda and an Islamic jihadist organization?<br />
<br />
Many, including I, have speculated that for political expediency reasons, the President and his campaign team wanted to diminish or downplay a terror attack being conducted on the US in Libya on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attack. <br />
<br />
At the time, a standard element of the President's stump speech was to highlight the 'success' of the Arab Spring, particularly in Libya where a dictator was replaced by 'democracy', and the weakening of al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists / fundamentalists in the region as a response to the Obama foreign policy and actions.<br />
<br />
Telling the truth about this would reflect that the Arab Spring did not deliver 'democracy' - but replaced secular dictators with radical Islamic fundamentalists who openly supported jihad against the US and West. <br />
<br />Telling the truth about this would also reflect that al-Qaeda is actively and successfully reconstituting itself in the wake of the death of their leader, Osama Bin Laden, and continuing to engage in terror acts against the United States when and wherever possible.<br />
<br />
So faced with this - the President and his team decided to lie to the American people. Unable to find a credible loyal person to push the lies to the American people on the Sunday morning programs, the loyal Susan Rice was selected and promoted to push the lies by the White House. <br />
<br />
This is the same Susan Rice who is now being touted as the 2nd term Secretary of State - earning herself a promotion for being a loyal soldier willing to lie for the President.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, what we have here is just the latest example of the utter callousness and contempt that the President and his team has towards the American people and the integrity of the US Government. <br />
<br />
We already know that the this is far from the 'most open and transparent' US Government ever - as oft proclaimed by the President and his supporters - but at some point, when caught in obvious lies - there has to be a price this President has to pay.<br />
<br />
In the case of Benghazi - the myopic view of the Administration to see things how they want them to be as opposed to how they really are and their reprehensible failure to act to assist Americans under attack - cost the lives of four Americans. Rather than accept the accountability and responsibility fore their errors and failure to act - they decided to spin, obfuscate, and lie.<br />
<br />
This is the Administration we will have for the next four years...and these will not be the last lies or lives lost because of their fecklessness.<br />
<br />
Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-2665992720563563132012-11-14T12:41:00.001-08:002012-11-14T12:53:20.054-08:00Quick Hits - November 14, 2012The Middle East is continuing to be a major contention point for President Barack Obama's foreign policy initiatives. The reality of the situation in the region seems to be considerably different from the spin that is being offered by President Barack Obama, SecState Clinton, UN Ambassador Rice, and elements of the State Department / Defense Department. On top of this, there remains many questions, still unaddressed and unanswered, regarding the Administrations actions over the 'Arab Spring', the Benghazi terror attack, the rush to remove combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the carnage of Syria, and the actions of Iran - including their attack on a US drone flying over international waters that was withheld from the US people until after last week's Presidential election.<br />
<br />
Adding to the challenges that the American people are facing to get a factual story on the terror attack conducted on September 11 against the US consulate in Benghazi which resulted in the murder of US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, Diplomat Sean Smith, and Security Personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, we have the latest diversion - the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus related to an inappropriate relationship and questions about his testimony to Congress over the terror attack.<br />
<br />
The President and his Administration remains challenged with trying to answer the questions about not only their lack of response to the nearly 8 hour long terror attack on the two US facilities in Benghazi, Libya by an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization, but with nearly two weeks of messaging that blamed the attacks on an obscure You Tube video released nearly three months earlier as opposed to islamic terrorists affiliated with a resurging al-Qaeda.<br />
<br />
In today's press conference, the first in 8 months by the President, he referenced that US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, appeared on half a dozen Sunday talk programs pressing the attack was the result of demonstrators angered by the You Tube video - and not a deliberate terror attack conducted on the anniversary of the 9/11/01 terror attack - at the specific request of the White House. President Obama also noted that the Ambassador commented based on her / current intelligence information - despite the fact that we know today that before the attack was over, the CIA and other Administration elements had termed the attack a deliberate terror attack.<br />
<br />
Falling back on his standard use of strawmen to deflect from the truth, the President also pushed back against the press and members of the Senate, specifically John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are trying to take not only the Administration, but Ambassador Susan Rice, to task for not only not authorizing a military rescue while the attack was underway, but also lying to the American people about the nature of the attack.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/13/krauthammer-white-house-held-affair-over-petraeuss-head-favorable-tes#ixzz2CCRIbBuC" target="_blank">Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist, is looking at the Administrations actions (and lies) around this combined with the 5 months long investigation by the DoJ / FBI into CIA Director David Petraeus, and believes that the Administration has been using the investigation, only publicly released last Friday when Petraeus resigned, as leverage over the CIA Directo</a>r to ensure that his testimony to Congress over the Benghazi terror attack would provide favorable cover for the Administration's lies and cover-up.<br />
<br />
Lost within the sensationalized coverage of David Petraeus / Paula Broadwell and months of lies, obfuscations, and spin on Benghazi, are two other major flash points in the region. One of these remains the continued carnage in Syria perpetrated by the dictator Bashir al-Assad against not only his own people, but which is expanding to impact Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. Syrian air force and artillery units continue to fire into Syrian refugee areas in Turkey - while over the past weekend, Syrian artillery fire hit Israeli occupied Golan Heights prompting Israel's first military strikes in the region in decades.<br />
<br />
As this escalation is taking place, the radical Islamist organization Hamas, which refuses to accept the right of Israel to exist, has spent the last five days firing dozens of missiles each day from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns. During this period of time over 100 missiles were fired targeting Israeli civilians - which ultimately prompted the Israeli Defense Forces to undertake a surgical strike into Gaza earlier today...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P6U2ZQ0EhN4" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<br />
...killing Ahmed Jabari, the top Hamas military commander, and one of Israel's most wanted terrorists. <br />
<br />
The killing of Jabari has Hamas declaring war on Israel (how can one declare war when they are already at war with Israel?) and other islamic terrorist groups operating from Gaza calling for revenge and terror strikes on Israel. <br />
<br />
What makes this even more of a concern is the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt and that country's Islamist dominated government. Will they use this as a pretense to support terror actions against Israel or end the current peace treaty between Israel and Egypt?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the domestic fiscal situation is not improving either. Not only are we looking at a 5th consecutive year of annual budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion, but last month's deficit, $120 billion, is up 22% from the October 2011 monthly deficit - which set the pace for last year's $1.1 trillion deficit.<br />
<br />
Little of this was discussed during the questions in todays's presser on the domestic fiscal challenges - as the entire focus was on both the fiscal cliff the nation faces on January 1, 2013 and the President's latest demand for new revenues - ie taxes - that are needed to address the deficit, debt, and fiscal cliff.<br />
<br />
Just so we are on the same page - here's a graphic that highlights the impacts of the fiscal cliff....<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMohPyL1FXA3onUVorVMiI07cKuz8klO6LVRSCqQffqhUDLdjSlOJpW2M42HIUrxpAqfWKm_azA5fBCQeJhdffqK5igcSaOeIwxEVR8JtHlHPuDYQmZToDOJHJPSax8QlvhyphenhyphenyuOFb7MR0/s1600/fiscalcliffchart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMohPyL1FXA3onUVorVMiI07cKuz8klO6LVRSCqQffqhUDLdjSlOJpW2M42HIUrxpAqfWKm_azA5fBCQeJhdffqK5igcSaOeIwxEVR8JtHlHPuDYQmZToDOJHJPSax8QlvhyphenhyphenyuOFb7MR0/s1600/fiscalcliffchart.png" /></a></div>
<br />
In his proposal to prevent the country from rushing over this fiscal cliff, the President has laid out his demands that House Republicans will have to meet in order to get a deal. Key within the President's demands are not only the insistence that the 'wealthy', those earning more than $200,000 annually for individuals and $250,000 annually for families, would have to pay at least 10% higher taxes than they currently do, but that additional individual and corporate taxes would have to be increased in order to generate $1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next decade.<br />
<br />
This is a major change by the President - and is effectively tossing the gauntlet at the GOP at the 11th hour.<br />
<br />
During negotiations late in 2011, a deal was apparently reached between the President, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Democrats where in return for about $2.4 trillion in additional spending reductions over the next decade, the House GOP would accept $800 billion in new taxes. At the 11th hour, the deal was scuttled when President Obama reneged on the $800 billion in new taxes and demanded that the Speaker accept an additional $400 billion in new taxes. John Boehner rejected the additional demand. <br />
<br />
In the spring of 2012, when the President submitted his proposed FY2013 budget, he pushed for $1.6 trillion in additional taxes along with substantially lower spending cuts - particularly on discretionary domestic programs and entitlements (they focused primarily on National Security spending). This budget was so untenable, that it failed to garner a single vote of support in either the House (0-417) and Senate (0-97).<br />
<br />
Now the President seeks to pick up the last minute negotiations to prevent rushing over the cliff by demanding double the new taxes he did last fall - showing clearly what his priority is. <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334911.php" target="_blank">As Ace of Spades notes </a>- during the summer, the President campaigned for reelection promising the American people that he would support $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. <br />
<br />
During the debates, the President changed his promise, now saying that he would accept $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes.<br />
<br />
Now, post election, and believing he has a 'mandate', the President is arguing for $3 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts - something that will not only continue to damage the national economy - but ultimately bring us to a fiscal cliff that makes January's cliff appear tiny....<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GwZ99KVa2ItzfGDLKQrTluZD8K1mMQfzB-xALjIDCAy0j9ees9zNptoX9juX4VFmHXRXY4N6dvwA9eeJf1Y65-lljoatz5VNbTU0Kngr_8O2-Uzt0rtevuZCStP3K35FEz3X5LHQgwc/s1600/growingwelfareterm2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GwZ99KVa2ItzfGDLKQrTluZD8K1mMQfzB-xALjIDCAy0j9ees9zNptoX9juX4VFmHXRXY4N6dvwA9eeJf1Y65-lljoatz5VNbTU0Kngr_8O2-Uzt0rtevuZCStP3K35FEz3X5LHQgwc/s400/growingwelfareterm2.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
... as he proposes hiking welfare spending another 30% over the next four years. [Talk about buying not only this past election - but setting the stage to buy the next election as well.]<br />
<br />
Combine these actions along with the recommendations by clueless leading Democrats like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray, that we should go over the cliff in order to create a crisis that would provide the progressives with a stronger negotiating position to increase spending and taxes, and we have not only a very real possibility of a 2013 recession, but a country will continue to economically stagnate for the next four years as it emulates California, Illinois, New York, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and France.<br />
<br />
Despite California's fiscal challenges - and the growing exodus of the middle class and businesses from the state, today is the first day that the state begins to fully enact AB32 - the state's Cap and Trade controls targeting businesses in the name of climate control. These steps will significantly increases costs for businesses and consumers in order to attempt to address, at a state level, the alleged threat of man-made global warming / climate change.<br />
<br />
Among the negative impacts, raising California's already near highest in the nation's energy costs to businesses and consumers by at least a third.<br />
<br />
While cap and trade did fail during the President's first term, reading between the lines of the President's comments on climate change / global warming (and his touting of false data on temperatures and ice), it is very likely that cap and trade will be enacted via Executive Branch fiat during his 2nd term.<br />
<br />
Maine's new Senator, Angus King, a very liberal 'Independent', has surprised no one when he committed earlier today to caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate. This gives the Senate Democrat caucus 55 seats - still 5 below the 60 votes needed for cloture / ending a filibuster.<br />
<br />
Few questions are being asked, as is standard, by the mainstream media over a number of significant discrepancies that are being uncovered over last week's election. Voter fraud is something the progressive left will continue to tell us does not exist - except when there is an ID requirement for voters as that, according to them, represents voter suppressions and discrimination. <br />
<br />
Among the issues that are not being looked into - continued reports of key precincts / areas in battleground states where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters for those precincts / areas. Nor does anyone think investigations are needed in 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia where Barack Obama outscored Mitt Romney 19,605 votes to Zero votes. Attorney General Holder and the Department of Justice already set the precedent in 2008 that the New Black Panther Party, and African-Americans, could not commit voter intimidation on whites - so there is little that can be done for the NBPP doing the same in a number of Philadelphia polling places last week. <br />
<br />
Does it bother anyone that there is no rush to count 307,000 absentee and provisional votes in Ohio - which the press told us Barack Obama won by 107,000 votes last Tuesday?<br />
<br />
Or, finally, does it bother anyone that yet again, the policies of the Democrat Party is to disenfranchise our military voters?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGm_OmdV3fsGHZmBZA8wXuzyAfQNNpt98L-Kdtuea6JxlnZl7GyL-AuFwGm5QVJkYPamFG7Eyg_uWsyxapiOsYk7GQU4V5EBJkbIvpaQS2LJ2gV2e3oF1hr9DPowD7P4PrPnuKTSavjI/s1600/mrz111412dAPR20121114024536.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGm_OmdV3fsGHZmBZA8wXuzyAfQNNpt98L-Kdtuea6JxlnZl7GyL-AuFwGm5QVJkYPamFG7Eyg_uWsyxapiOsYk7GQU4V5EBJkbIvpaQS2LJ2gV2e3oF1hr9DPowD7P4PrPnuKTSavjI/s1600/mrz111412dAPR20121114024536.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-90193547755145208782012-11-13T10:55:00.001-08:002012-11-13T10:55:44.862-08:00Quick Hits - November 8-13, 2012<br />
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/everything-old-is-new-again/" target="_blank">Everything old is new again....</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>A new Star Wars movie.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Odd-even gas rationing.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Iran is threatening us, and it’s open season on Americans in the Middle East.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The United States has a president who solves all our problems by making them worse.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What’s next, disco?</i></blockquote>
Not to mention ugly clothing fashions...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwAksSb47666k5sILCnPzZibLRjpw1ztodnF5bcwdZawDin6H_Arl1qi314YxBe0LyQigGLA3EIFSJ6PNEUSDRVwk_M-SBQDcn0ChljObBhoAv-uLF_ns-uXsJgSSy2Mn0tBTDk1C8JF4/s1600/1970fashion.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwAksSb47666k5sILCnPzZibLRjpw1ztodnF5bcwdZawDin6H_Arl1qi314YxBe0LyQigGLA3EIFSJ6PNEUSDRVwk_M-SBQDcn0ChljObBhoAv-uLF_ns-uXsJgSSy2Mn0tBTDk1C8JF4/s1600/1970fashion.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Powder blue tuxedo's anyone? How about a hybrid AMC Pacer?<br />
<br />
Or rather than looking at the nostalgia of the late 1970's, are we looking at the nostalgia of the mid-1990's? Back in the era when, according to lefty pundits, higher taxes (thanks to the 1993 Clinton tax hikes) led to the economic boom of 1995-1999?<br />
<br />
Throughout several of the Sunday talking head shows, we had pundits, when asked about the fiscal cliff being faced on January 1st, bloviate about how the economy soared during the mid to late 1990's when the personal income tax rates were 10% higher then than they are currently.<br />
<br />
I'm continuously amazed by the incredible leaps of deductive reasoning and linkages that come from the minds of committed liberal progressives (fascists). Bill Clinton hikes taxes in 1993 - then the largest tax increase in US history. Not only does the tax increase not ignite an economic boom (which doesn't start until 1995-96) - but it is a major contributing factor for the 1994 midterm thrashing that the President takes - where he loses control of Congress.<br />
<br />
Not until the President decides to 'triangulate' and work with the GOP led Congress - leading to a reduction in capital gains tax rates to stimulate investment - which then was used to fuel the internet boom - did the economy begin to take off. That take off went on until around 2000 when the internet bubble burst - as the number of good ideas and investments disappeared and all that was left were ideas that had little to offer in terms of a viable business plan other than the word 'internet' or 'eCommerce'.<br />
<br />
What is going to be fascinating over the next couple of years will be watching to see if the Republican Party will throw itself off a cliff in an effort to 'learn' from last week's electoral debacle. My bet is that the GOP will continue to fundamentally misread the tea leaves, fail to learn from history, and spend far too much time listening to the progressive media pundits who clearly do not have the best interests of the GOP at heart with their irresponsible advice. [They don't even have the country's best interests at heart with their irresponsible advice. Ed.]<br />
<br />
In the past several days, we've got conservative bulwarks like William Kristol (Editor Weekly Standard) saying that hiking taxes on the 'wealthy' is not only 'fair', but a good move for conservatives. Or how about Charles Krauthammer who believes that the GOP needs to adopt support towards an amnesty program is needed in order to gain more Hispanic voting support. Even the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is busy practicing effective negotiating tactics by telegraphing his willingness to surrender on increased taxes in order to achieve a deal to 'avoid' the unavoidable - a fiscal cliff.<br />
<br />
What has become clear from last week's election is that the President, deliberately, made this an election of the party bases - the big government / entitlement society statism social justice fairness protect a women's right to taxpayer funded contraceptives and abortions at all times - and racial divide (African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians vs Old White Guys) against the GOP strategy of needing to change course to avoid an economic collapse smaller government lower taxes capitalism and supporting the private sector.<br />
<br />
Since over half of those under the age of thirty don't see anything wrong with socialism / statism - even as Europe begins to implode from their half century of embracing it - combined with the record numbers on food stamps, disability, extended unemployment, and other government programs - is it any wonder that the prediction of Alexis de Tocqueville made in his work, 'Democracy in America':<br />
<blockquote>
<i>“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” </i></blockquote>
or<br />
<blockquote>
<i>“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” </i></blockquote>
appear to fit so well with the circumstances today. One can make a cogent argument that with his spending - and $6 trillion in new national debt, Barack Obama bought his re-election.<br />
<br />
This is the challenge with the recommendations of the progressive pundits, Kristol, and Krauthammer as to how the GOP has to adjust in order to start winning national elections again. When one is seeking to compete against 'Santa Claus' - it's a fool's errand to start going down the path to try to out 'Santa Claus' Santa. It's also a fool's errand to surrender one's principles and try to adopt the principles of one's opponent.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEink4FXGA4W01lDirzj0IpS5PWXbBKvp5EEsVVgp2HKhQF5P9-MaCNjnhBIK9iXcCzBaPSXK6WAI2VlGe3ZzaeHOO9HaeRgwCcdnUQ0SH-JZvhsJ3UDt4xXdaR_mm5X7i0Mpn9U2aEoTy8/s1600/imwithstupid.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="444" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEink4FXGA4W01lDirzj0IpS5PWXbBKvp5EEsVVgp2HKhQF5P9-MaCNjnhBIK9iXcCzBaPSXK6WAI2VlGe3ZzaeHOO9HaeRgwCcdnUQ0SH-JZvhsJ3UDt4xXdaR_mm5X7i0Mpn9U2aEoTy8/s640/imwithstupid.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Conservatives are supposed to stand for smaller government, lower taxes, liberty, freedom, individual accountability, capitalism, and the private sector. We also stand for providing a safety net - a hand up to those who need it in order for them to recover or position themselves to try to advance themselves. We stand for fairness - but not social justice. We also stand on the rule of law. <br />
<br />
How are we to remain credible if we are willing to surrender these principles in order to chase popularity - when our opposition will not only be more than happy to 'outbid' us with higher taxes, more entitlements, more government, and more division - but be equally pleased to point out our hypocrisy over our principles?<br />
<br />
The GOP does have problems - and they match the problems that our nation has. <br />
<br />
It's a problem when capitalism and the private sector is seen as the problem - and socialism / statism is not despite what history teaches us about capitalism and socialism / statism....or what we are supposed to be seeing with our own eyes as we look across the pond to France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc.<br />
<br />
It's also a problem, as Winston Churchill once noted -<br />
<blockquote>
<i>“All men are created equal,” says the American Declaration of Independence. “All man shall be kept equal,” say the British Socialist Party.</i></blockquote>
- and there is no fundamental difference between that British Socialist Party and the modern Democrat Party - except that the new 'equality' is defined in a manner that is based on the perception of equality as opposed to the reality of equality.<br />
<br />
It's a problem when we're on a path where >15% real unemployment, trillion dollar annual deficits, sub 3% GDP growth, and 20% plus growth in government entitlements have become the new normal.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/333167/407000-votes-four-states-away-presidency" target="_blank">The National Review's Jim Geraghty, writing on his Campaign Spot blog,</a> took a hard look at the results from last week's election - and the exit polls. There were 120,556,000 votes cast in last week's national and local election. This is out of about 225,000,000 eligible voters...so a little over 100,000,000 people who could legally vote - chose not to vote. The GOP turnout / participation was down from both the numbers and level of both 2004 and 2008 - roughly 3,000,000 fewer voters in 2012 than in the 'down year' of 2008.<br />
<br />
Now, the Democrat turnout / participation overall was also down from the excitement of 2008 - but among key racial and age demographics, African-Americans, Hispanics, and those under 30 - the turnout was actually above that of 2008.<br />
<br />
What we're learning from crunching the numbers from last week is that the decrease in GOP turnout combined with the increase in the above three demographics from 2008 for the Democrats is what delivered the slim victory for Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
How slim was this victory? 407,000 more votes for Romney / Ryan in 4 battleground states - and we would be now talking about the formation of a Romney cabinet. 407K votes out of 120.556 million cast. That's just 0.003% of all of the votes that were cast. 190,000 more votes for Romney / Ryan in 3 other states and they would have gone for the GOP - and we'd be looking at a near inverse of the results from a week ago.<br />
<br />
The questions that conservatives need to be asking themselves and their party leadership is why was turnout down so significantly? Why did the GOP get out to vote effort fail so miserably?<br />
<br />
Was it the candidate? Was it the GOP message and strategy to focus on the dismal economy? Was it the decision in the latter debates to 'play it safe' and not go all out on attack mode?<br />
<br />
While I was not entirely thrilled with the message or strategy of the Romney / Ryan campaign - I think that we are making as big of a mistake focusing on this as the lesson to be learned as we are with embracing the concepts of amnesty, higher taxes, and bigger government entitlements.<br />
<br />
But messaging is part of the challenge we face.<br />
<br />
What we (conservatives) are unwilling to face / address / acknowledge is the massive impact of the bias of the mainstream media towards defining and affecting the message that is being sent to voter. This comes from not only what is being reported and focused on - but also what is NOT being reported and focused on.<br />
<br />
It also comes from the fundamental lack of real education the majority of the people of this country has - particularly around history, economics, and civics. We rarely teach critical analysis and reasoning anymore.<br />
<br />
Last week, I participated in 'Parent's Shadow Day' at our local high school - attending a day's of classes with my daughter. One of these classes was AP Euro History - a college level course on European history covering from the Renaissance to the present. It should be a fascinating class. But it's not. Part of this comes from the teacher and his approach towards educating those in his class. While he has some good ideas towards teaching the course - the bad ideas and laziness towards teaching far outweigh the good. <br />
<br />
The class is boring...very boring. The only real learning comes from the required reading from the textbook - and the requirement of comprehensive notes being taken from the reading. The notes are graded - which is a good idea - but there is no lecture / discussion / analysis of the topic being covered in class. What's covered in the class are 'group activities' that result in little learning, little critical thinking or analysis, and little ability to see or understand why some decisions were good or bad. When speaking to some kids in the class and describing how I would approach those missing aspects - I saw a lot of enthusiasm from the kids. They wanted to see / learn more about the topics and why decisions were good or bad....and how those lessons could contribute to making better decisions in the present and future.<br />
<br />
The other part of the challenge that we face is the big one. How do we, as conservatives, create and articulate a cogent counter-argument based on our principles that the masses can understand that does not pander to increased racial division, class warfare, 'Santa Clausism' of bigger government, and counters the massive negative campaigning and demonization that was a cornerstone of the Obama 2012 campaign?<br />
<br />
We can't depend on the mainstream media to get the message out - and whatever message we conservatives attempt to employ will be attacked and ridiculed. Yes, a rare 'great communicator' candidate might be able to do this - like Ronald Reagan - but given the differences we face today as opposed to thirty years ago, I have a real concern if Reagan could do any better today than what we saw from Romney / Ryan.<br />
<br />
How do we get conservatives to turnout? There are many flavors of conservatives. We have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national security / foreign policy conservatives. We don't demand and enforce the ideological purity of the Democrat's - nor should we ever. We are the one's who believe in real 'fairness' and real 'tolerance' - who can agree to disagree on some issues while focusing on the big priorities. There is already one party of dogma - if the GOP can avoid becoming another party of dogma, then we can try to build a coalition to oppose the progressive agenda.<br />
<br />
We lost last week because 3 million Republicans didn't see the need to vote - or the importance to cast their vote. They put their dogma (or apathy) before the needs and interests of the country. Perhaps they have decided to become takers - that they are 'entitled' or 'due'. Or perhaps they decided to spite themselves and the country because of a lack of ideological purity from Romney / Ryan. <br />
<br />
Either way - the dies's been cast and the Rubicon has been crossed.<br />
<br />
We now have the co-chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Patty Murray (Progressive fascists-WA), saying that taking the country over the fiscal cliff on January 1 might be a good thing - that the resulting crisis / catastrophe will help the liberal fascists get more of their agenda adopted. [Yes, never let a crisis go to waste - and if there isn't a sufficient crisis, create one. The other guys, courtesy of the MSM, will get the blame.]<br />
<br />
Crisis.<br />
<br />
We are nearly 2 weeks from the crisis / disaster in the NJ / NYC metropolitan area known as Hurricane Sandy. Are you appalled with the progress or lack thereof regarding assisting the millions affected by this natural catastrophe? I recall in the wake of Hurricane Katrina the drumbeat of stories about New Orleans and the 9th Ward - the thinly veiled accusations of racism affecting the relief efforts - the attacks on the President over the ineffectiveness of the federal government to provide assistance and relief. The stories of ridicule towards President Bush and FEMA Director Brown - 'You're doing a good job, Brownie'.<br />
<br />
Then I look at other natural disasters outside of the United States. The devastation around the Christmas Tsunami in the Indian Ocean which killed over a quarter of million. The devastation of Haiti and Port au Prince after the massive earthquake.<br />
<br />
Am I mistaken - or does the response / assistance of the US towards these foreign disasters seem better coordinated and organized than the domestic disaster response? For the foreign response, our 'first responders' are the US military as well as government and private aid organizations. But with these domestic catastrophes, the first responders are the local government entities (city / county / state) along with the public utilities. The federal government is supposed to step in and assist these local entities in their efforts - particularly around resources on a short term that they lack the ability to acquire.<br />
<br />
But if we look around the devastated areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy - I'm seeing far more failures of these local and federal entities to assist those in need. If not for the efforts of neighbor helping neighbor or private entity helping the local residents - far too many of these people would be in a far deeper crisis. FEMA has been ineffective in exercising their assistance efforts - which have to go beyond just giving out 800#'s and closing assistance offices when the next storm rolls in. Why are non-union utility workers being prevented from assisting by unions - unless they pay the union's off? NYC can restore 80% of their subway system in a week - but NJ Transit / PATH remains effectively crippled 2 weeks later? This is November in the Northeast - where is the federal government / military with generators and crews? Where are the coordinated centers linking government and industry (insurance companies) to ensure that claims are expedited, clean-up accelerated, 'fairness' enacted, and rebuilding is accelerated?<br />
<br />
I look at what is happening, and what appears to be are cases where none of the entities working to provide assistance have either developed a viable disaster plan, are exercising a viable disaster plan, or ever practiced / gamed a disaster to ensure that their planning and responses are effective and timely. <br />
<br />
Instead, I see a moronic television talking head celebrating the disaster because it permitted the President to look Presidential in a few days of photo ops in the disaster area. <br />
<br />
I see bloviating politicians and spokespeople patting themselves on the back as people continue to suffer. <br />
<br />
I see yet another example of the state being unable to respond and operate effectively as we continue to put more reliance and dependence on said state.<br />
<br />
Are we that captured by perception that we ignore reality? If so, then we've lost our traditional values and groundings - and we are already fundamentally changed.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-8404177433785190952012-11-07T16:07:00.000-08:002012-11-07T16:07:37.207-08:00California Votes to Become France + GreeceIf conservative Californians didn't think the sweep of statewide offices by progressive Democrats in 2010 wasn't bad enough, yesterday was worse.<br />
<br />
For all practical purposes, the state of California voted to become France + Greece - a Euro-statist entity that has decided to accelerate down the path of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of 'social justice' and 'fairness'.<br />
<br />
California has been heading down this path pretty much since Jerry Brown's first term as Governor in 1975. The recall of Grey Davis in 2003 did little to halt the embracing of the progressive statist agenda - and California seems to be right back at the forefront the country in terms of the sense of entitlement, embracing 'social justice', and the fallacy of government enforced 'fairness'.<br />
<br />
Despite running $16-$25 billion annual deficits, government spending running 30% more today than it did in 2003, and the size and scope of government also being nearly a third larger than it was a decade ago, a majority of Californians not only embraced Proposition 30 - advertised as a tax increase on the rich for the benefit of education - but appears to have provided a super-majority of progressive votes in the State Senate and Assembly which permits the Legislature to pass tax increases without requiring a single Republican vote.<br />
<br />
The two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases has vexed the progressives for years. They blamed the economic challenges of the state on inadequate revenues caused by not getting needed tax increases - while ignoring the effects of increased government spending and ever increasing 'paybacks' to the public sector unions in the guise of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.<br />
<br />
The lock has been taken off the cookie jar - and a ladder has been conveniently placed nearby to facilitate access to that cookie jar. <br />
<br />
Governor Brown, faced with $16B to $25B in annual budget deficits [and this is before the $100 billion boondoggle known as high speed rail], and seeking to increase revenues, embarked on the farce known as Proposition 30. The goal of Prop 30 - to raise $8.5 billion in additional revenues for the state coffers to offset the current annual budget deficit. In fact, not only would it offset a deficit double the size of the expected revenue increase - it would also restore $6 billion in funding to education - funding the state pulled back because it was more important to use those funds to reward public sector unions and their workers than to use for students.<br />
<br />
How would these revenues be raised? Why, mainly on the backs of the 'wealthy' - as well as a 0.5% increase in the nation's largest state sales tax [which is paid by everyone]. <br />
<br />
If Prop 30 wouldn't get passed - the Governor promised not to cut redundant government programs and agencies, not cut government staffing and overreach, not cut government salaries, pensions, and benefits - but cut further funds to the school districts in the state - and close all schools 3 weeks earlier.<br />
<br />
Yes, we were extorted to pass Prop 30 or else the school-aged children in the state would get it. Nearly 60% of the State decided to vote to pay the bill - because we were told it's only affecting the 'wealthy'.<br />
<br />
But since Prop 30 isn't enough to really address the size and scope of the state's fiscal irresponsibility- more 'revenues' will be needed. Prop 39 - a new tax on multistate businesses operating in CA was also passed - this is 'promised' to raise another $1 billion in new revenues. But we're still short - so we're likely to see this fiscal year an effort to end Prop 13 - and the cap it imposes on property taxes as well as more income tax increases and fee increases.<br />
<br />
Who will stop Excremento? The voter no longer has a recourse as the fiscal conservatives are well outnumbered in CA. In fact, the only remaining course for many in the middle class and upper middle class who will be the next tax targets is to flee the state for one of the few remaining red states that are not embracing progressivism, entitlementism, or statism.<br />
<br />
Over the last five years - California has lost several million of the middle class / upper middle class to other states - as well as thousands of businesses. The tax base has shrunk because those coming into California are immigrants and generally low income people. Tax revenues shrink - increasing the pressure for more revenues - which drives more people out - shrinking tax revenues.<br />
<br />
California owes more than any other state in the union. It's debt service costs are the highest of any state. It has the most resources, but between environmentalism and excessive regulations / fees, they are far underdeveloped. But it can still borrow money. It can still cook the fiscal books. It can now pass even more taxes, oops, I'm sorry, revenue enhancement plans. And if all else fails - it can get a bail out from the US government - just like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Goldman Sachs. <br />
<br />
Where's the downside? <br />
<br />
There is none - California has become Greece + France. <br />
<br />
Isn't it ironic that it rushes down this path even as Greece + France are failing? But then reality doesn't come into play when people want stuff and things - including entitlements from the government. Traditional American values are becoming extinct within America - and California, once again, is leading the way.<br />
<br />
Summary of California's Propositions -<br />
<br />
<b>Prop 30 - Tax increase on wealthy / state sales tax increase - Passed</b><br />
Prop 31 - Reform of State Local Government Budgets - Rejected<br />
Prop 32 - End Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction - Rejected<br />
Prop 33 - Auto Insurance Rates based on Driver History - Rejected<br />
Prop 34 - Repeal of Death Penalty - Rejected<br />
<b>Prop 35 - Increased Human Trafficking Penalties - Passed</b><br />
<b>Prop 36 - Weaken Three Strikes Law - Passed</b><br />
Prop 37 - Food Labeling - Rejected<br />
Prop 38 - Tax increase across the board - Rejected<br />
<b>Prop 39 - Multistate Business tax increase - Passed</b><br />
<b>Prop 40 - Accept gerrymandered boundaries - Passed</b><br />
<br />
LA County Propositions<br />
<br />
A - Advisory Vote - Keep County Assessor an Elected Position - Yes<br />
<b>B - Require condom use by porn actors - Yes</b><br />
J - MTA Sales Tax Extension - Rejected<br />
<br />
Measure J requires a 2/3rd majority to pass - it only got 64.72% of the vote - so it missed by just over 1.25%.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-22969093375447693792012-11-07T15:21:00.002-08:002012-11-07T15:21:48.067-08:00Quick Hits - November 7, 2012<br />
Dumbfounded.<br />
<br />
That's perhaps the best word that I can use to describe how yesterday's election left me. Not angered or bitter - just utterly and completely dumbfounded.<br />
<br />
Looking at the conditions prior to yesterday's vote - I worked off of the belief that the majority of people would be rational - they would use their own common sense and analysis to look beyond the ideological and emotional aspects of the issues to make their determination. I looked at 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010 - thinking that 2008 was the outlier - not expecting 2010 to be the outlier. But in many ways, that is, at this time, the outlier election.<br />
<br />
Yesterday was not a good day for Republicans, Conservatives, or, in my opinion, the nation. We could have witnessed the death of not only the Reagan Revolution - but the death of the concept of American exceptionalism and traditional American values. Here's how Bill O'Reilly noted it -<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5uqy5CBWjKw" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<blockquote>
<i><b>“It’s not a traditional America anymore. People want stuff.</b> They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. Whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. <b>The voters, many of them, feel like the economic system is stacked against them. And they want stuff.</b> You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. <b>People feel they are entitled to things. And which candidate between the two is going to give them things?“</b></i></blockquote>
It's hard to run against Santa Claus - particularly when Santa Claus is there promising that every day will be Christmas. People look at 'social justice' and see 'fairness' - and expect that they will be on the getting side far more than they will on the giving side. Half our country, according to the popular vote, is fully embracing progressivism and all that it stands for. <br />
<br />
They are doing this even as we can look across the 'pond' to Europe - and see the economic implosion that progressivism brings. They have no concept around the implosion or failure. There is always a bailout to lessen the pain, to lessen the affects of that implosion. If you are GM or Chrysler and mortgage your future to appease the auto unions - to the point that your firm is no longer viable - no worries, the government will step in to bail you out. If you are an investment bank and have your greed and avarice win out over good business practices and decisions - no worries, the government will step in to bail you out. If you are Greece, or Spain, or soon to be Italy and France, and become insolvent because of reckless spending, vapid fiscal policies, and a population that thinks the can can be kicked down the road forever - no worries, the population is right and some other nation will bail you out. <br />
<br />
Who will bail us out?<br />
<br />
Half our population accepts that wealth and income redistribution is the right thing to do. After all it's only 'fair' that those who risk and produce should provide for those who don't / can't risk or produce. [Let's not consider what happens next in human nature when those who risk and produce begin to realize that it's a lot easier to become a taker than to remain a maker.] This same half of the population is so self-centered and obsessed with trivia - that they are willing to let the nanny state take care of them, to pick winners and losers, and control the markets under the false promises of 'fairness' and 'social justice'. The government has a lot of 'wealthy' to tax - plenty of checks in the checkbook - and the ability to just print more money [QE] when they need to. Why worry about the details when we have 'fairness', 'social justice', and free contraceptives to hand out. Nothing imploded when we added $6 trillion in debt in 4 years - or didn't even pass a budget - we still managed to spend more than $1 trillion more than we took in each year.<br />
<br />
That is just one aspect of the lessons from yesterday.<br />
<br />
Another aspect is that the sophistry and propaganda from the mainstream media who want to fundamentally change this country into a 'heaven on earth' unfortunately works far too well. As does the practice of demonization, small and negative campaigning. This created a 'perfect storm' of messages which the self-centered, narcissistic, and those who think they are entitled to 'stuff' - lapped up. They never considered the ramifications - just the short term 'high' around being promised and getting stuff and things apparently for 'nothing' from the government.<br />
<br />
So, they voted to keep things as they are - with the appearances of a check and balances government. But even this is a mirage. The message isn't really so much coming from the 120 million + who voted, but the 13 million (10 million fewer for Barack Obama and 3 million fewer for the GOP candidate) who voted in 2008 and didn't see the need or importance to vote yesterday. These 13 million - and more who did not participate in the election - effectively voted present. Despite all signs to the contrary since 2010 - the GOP turnout in 2012 was effectively the same as it was in 2008. <br />
<br />
Too many didn't care. <br />
<br />
They didn't care that the President didn't have a record to run on - they bought the propaganda tossed at them by the mainstream media that 42 months of a stagnant economy was because of Bush - and Romney was just another Bush.<br />
<br />
The saddest part about this is that we, conservatives and believers in the traditional American values that made this country the wealth and powerhouse that it is, are clearly outnumbered by those who want stuff and believe they are entitled to things - and that the role of government is to give them stuff and things. We are the ones who have turnout in every election in order too offset being outnumbered.<br />
<br />
I'm afraid that we've crossed the Rubicon in terms of the direction of this country. Every day forward, it's going to be harder and harder to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Complacency and avarice are going to be difficult to overcome - because for the most part, we as a people no longer are willing to do something right if it is hard or painful to do. We're going to take the easy path....and that is path we've crossed to Rubicon to get on.<br />
<br />
The progressive left for a long time styled themselves the guerrilla fighting the establishment. Now they are the establishment - and we conservatives have to be the guerrillas.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL9UAu7LECmM5CH1FPfGJ8WGGcCEmGYafvkEHzzZusIbaz2K44Gfgp6ZaBUw9NFGUPMOJvfRhz8avw_FoG3HEk67SJvnIqkeG4D32NR7sZ_Uk7f1dwjui5dQEn4bznLTFWOR8v33GsUfY/s1600/110712guerillas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL9UAu7LECmM5CH1FPfGJ8WGGcCEmGYafvkEHzzZusIbaz2K44Gfgp6ZaBUw9NFGUPMOJvfRhz8avw_FoG3HEk67SJvnIqkeG4D32NR7sZ_Uk7f1dwjui5dQEn4bznLTFWOR8v33GsUfY/s1600/110712guerillas.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
I fear that too many Republicans or Conservatives are going to blame the Romney / Ryan ticket for the loss - pointing fingers at this or that tactical 'mistake' as being what cost the election. I also fear the effects of the message of having to sell out conservative principles in order to attract more minority support - as if a progressive lite party will either a) be able to defeat progressive heavy or b) not sell out traditional American values. Being more of what we oppose doesn't produce victories. But we need to move forward with our eyes fully opened at the scope of our opposition - and the power of the media pulpit they hold and use so effectively.<br />
<br />
We need to fight each step further to the left - while focusing on getting our message out via the new media that it are our values that offer real 'fairness' and real 'justice'. We also need to fight to ensure that we get our base out. That's why yesterday was such a bad day - we didn't turnout in the numbers needed in those critical battlegrounds - and we didn't get enough of the middle to embrace our agenda of traditional American values as opposed to 'free' things and stuff. Perhaps at some point common sense and reality will return when they realize that it can't be Christmas every day, and the things and stuff we're being promised aren't really free.<br />
<br />
The alternative is to surrender - and give in even though we know full well what the outcome will be. <br />
<br />
We cannot do that. 57 million Americans voted yesterday to not surrender - and if we boosted the turnout by just 10%, from 32% to 35% - today could be a very different day.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-30713296193768609992012-11-06T21:01:00.003-08:002012-11-06T21:01:48.575-08:00Barack Obama Re-Elected President - Romney Camp Questions Ohio Call<br />
8:17pm Pacific, Fox News and several other major networks called the state of Ohio for Barack Obama - effectively ending the 'inside straight' approach for Mitt Romney to achieve the 270 electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. Romney needed to win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado in order to have a path to 270 - and Barack Obama only needed to take one of those 4, particularly after Iowa was also called for him.<br />
<br />
But now, at about 8:30pm - 8:45pm Pacific, some real questions are being raised not only by the Romney team, but by some of the Fox News consultants, like Karl Rove, over the state being called with only 73% of the Ohio vote counted and Mitt Romney trailing in Ohio by roughly 991 votes according to Ohio's Secretary of State.<br />
<br />
Could this be another 2000 - when Florida was first called for George W. Bush, then called for Al Gore, then placed back into 'too close to call' pending the recounts which ultimately gave the state to George Bush by 517 votes? <br />
<br />
Or are we to accept that Barack Obama has been re-elected, and will serve a second term facing a Democrat controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House - basically a continuation of the conditions we are facing today?<br />
<br />
Fox News, for one, is not backing down from their call - their 'braintrust' who crunch the numbers are saying that the number of Obama votes still to be reported exceeds the possible number of Romney votes.<br />
<br />
With this - the political situation in the US is fundamentally unchanged. The Democrats will still hold a majority in the Senate. The Republicans will still hold a majority in the House. This means that President Barack Obama will need to govern with a split / divided Congress - just as we've had since January 2011.<br />
<br />
The President still trails in the popular vote - and may yet be able to take a lead in the popular vote - but does his re-election provide a mandate that would break the gridlock we've seen since January 2011? That is yet to be seen. As a conservative, and seeing how the President tried to govern in the last 2 years, I personally would hope that the House would continue to hold that line. But would the President then seek to use / claim more executive powers in his effort to break the gridlock and enact his progressive agenda?<br />
<br />
Much of this will still have to play out. <br />
<br />
But at this point of the night - who are the winners and losers tonight? At first glance, here's what I am seeing / feeling...<br />
<br />
<u>Winners</u><br />
<br />
1. Barack Obama<br />
<br />
2. Negative campaigning and 'small' campaigning<br />
<br />
3. Mainstream Media Sophistry<br />
<br />
4. Democratic get out the vote effort - a D+6 to +7 turnout made the difference<br />
<br />
<u>Losers</u><br />
<br />
1. The nation and traditional American values<br />
<br />
2. Our youth - who will have to pay the bill when it comes due<br />
<br />
3. Israel<br />
<br />
4. The Republican ground game and get out the vote effort<br />
<br />
<br />
One of our political parties has learned to bribe the American people with their own money - and is using that to obtain and hold onto power. And nearly half - or just over half of the American people seem to want the country to become France, Spain, or Greece - believing government is the answer, more government handouts are the answer, that the government picking winners and losers works better than free markets, and the bill never comes due because the can can still be kicked down the road.<br />
<br />
Part of me believes that we've crossed the Rubicon - and will be unable to roll back the 'fundamental change' that has been inflicted on this country. <br />
<br />
Pessimistic? Yes, I am.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-41887564724047211182012-11-06T11:21:00.001-08:002012-11-06T11:21:12.790-08:00Quick Hits - November 6, 2012 - Election Day<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFhN38tVGzDa41UA-mhsc3D1bdOpthphwH04cwNsZ_Tgfib1XpWHyv9j3JJTa0eysN_G8S_j0plujh-hAQlbTKm2RW2YU4Zyy_1rug7DnBvJ1MAiWjY4V6HNggcQ88GNTWGeHB_t_rqzs/s1600/2012+Election+Day.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="451" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFhN38tVGzDa41UA-mhsc3D1bdOpthphwH04cwNsZ_Tgfib1XpWHyv9j3JJTa0eysN_G8S_j0plujh-hAQlbTKm2RW2YU4Zyy_1rug7DnBvJ1MAiWjY4V6HNggcQ88GNTWGeHB_t_rqzs/s640/2012+Election+Day.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Michael Ramirez's cartoon for today hits the key points that each of us need to remember as we step into that voting booth today. <br />
<br />
Please vote - and do not get discouraged by the Democrat Media Machine which will be doing all it can to shill for Barack Obama and other progressive candidates - including trying to discourage Republican turnout. <br />
<br />
The vast majority of the mainstream media today has no remaining vestiges of objectivity, impartiality, integrity, professionalism, or journalistic ethics. They do not see their role or responsibility is to provide the objective and impartial first reporting of events for history and information - but as advocates to influence the attitudes of society towards their shared progressive point of view. They have moved from journalists to propagandists - from pundits to sophists. There remains very little difference between hard reporting and commentary / opinion analysis. Unlike opinion writers like me and other bloggers - they try to sell themselves as 'unbiased' and 'professional' - which is laughable.<br />
<br />
This is a turnout election - and those shilling for Barack Obama will do all they can to reduce / limit turnout so that their disappointing early voting numbers (down in Ohio by an amount equal to the amount that Obama won Ohio by in 2008) will not punish them. Throughout the 34 states that have early voting - the Democrat numbers of early voters are down substantially - reflecting the lower levels of Democrat enthusiasm for this election.<br />
<br />
Last night, Barack Obama wrapped up his campaign with rapper Jay-Z and rocker Bruce Springsteen in a half empty Ohio arena - a venue he easily packed in 2008. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney continues to draw huge crowds at each of this stops in key battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire. The differences in enthusiasm and excitement cannot be spun - we can see them with our own eyes.<br />
<br />
All of the major polls - on a national basis as well as in battleground states, can only generate a 'too close to call' topline if Democrat turnout is at or above 2008 levels and if Republican turnout is below 2008 levels. <br />
<br />
That is why I remain confident with my predictions for today.<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-42237921059521679102012-11-05T23:18:00.001-08:002012-11-05T23:18:40.703-08:00Quick Hits - November 4-5, 2012Time to vote.<br />
<br />
Do not forget to vote - this election, regardless of what state you live in, means too much. Every vote counts.<br />
<br />
Remember 1980?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMMQDzigqGX6X01MXAHmRzXV3yRKXWyrVvvaSgAsOP508KRrlro29aZN2nE2x_QkI_WIRtmtY7xkD_5yfgdGic7n-BsxqOzZ_4VeAiT6CxWekaumX0xwgWUYhti5NJH2FAHzPApTwHog/s1600/tooclosetocall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEMMQDzigqGX6X01MXAHmRzXV3yRKXWyrVvvaSgAsOP508KRrlro29aZN2nE2x_QkI_WIRtmtY7xkD_5yfgdGic7n-BsxqOzZ_4VeAiT6CxWekaumX0xwgWUYhti5NJH2FAHzPApTwHog/s320/tooclosetocall.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The polls being touted by much of the mainstream media continue to promote that 'it's too close to call' to a slight Obama advantage - as we look at the RealClearPolitic average of cooked polls.<br />
<br />
Which is more of a concern? The polls that have toplines that run 180 degrees to the internals within the polls? How about what your own lyin' eyes are showing you - with Mitt Romney getting 30,000 to stand for hours in near freezing temperatures in blue Bucks County, Pennsylvania - or 15,000+ attending a Romney rally in New Hampshire - or 35,000+ attending a Romney rally in Ohio.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Barack Obama's campaign is drawing fractions of what they did in 2008 - 15,000 vs 80,000 in Cleveland - even with Bruce Springsteen with him. Throughout this campaign - the polls and our eyes have been showing us that the enthusiasm and turnout for Obama campaign events are all down substantially from the 2008 levels - but we're expected to believe it when we're told that they'll turnout to the polls across the country at numbers 25% to 40% greater than they did in the year of 'Hope and Change' to pull the lever to put the first African-American into the White House?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334643.php" target="_blank">Over 30 major national newspapers have switched their 2008 endorsements from Barack Obama to endorse Mitt Romney in 2012</a>....and only 3 have moved from endorsing the GOP candidate to endorsing Barack Obama. In deep blue New York, and deeper blue New York City, only the ultra liberal / progressive New York Times is still endorsing Barack Obama in 2012. Newsday, New York Observer, and the New York Daily News endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and this year are all endorsing Mitt Romney for President because of Barack Obama's feckless leadership. They join the New York Post, the only NYC paper to endorse John McCain as supporting Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/report-from-bucks-county.php" target="_blank">Here's a first hand account of the Mitt Romney rally in suburban Philadelphia's Buck County - a very blue county...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Ragged at first, the cheers swelled to a roar as the Romney campaign bus wheeled into the arena. Mitt and Ann Romney emerged, and it was like a wall of sound fell on the crowd. The Romneys strode to the stage, embraced, and after immediate pleasantries, Ann introduced Mitt.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>I keep hearing how wooden Romney is on the stump. They must have meant some other Romney. This one was fluid, his voice at turns powerful and emotional. I don’t know how the crowd noise came across on TV, but in person, it was its own physical presence, vibrating everyone with its intensity. Except when Romney grew sober when relating a sad anecdote; then the crowd simply disappeared, for both the speaker and the listener. A rousing crescendo of a conclusion by Romney, capped off by a surprisingly good fireworks display, and the rally was over. It took some people more than three hours to escape the traffic.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Romney didn’t say anything new. But he connected with the crowd on both emotional and intellectual levels.</i></blockquote>
Where is the media coverage of this and other huge Romney crowds?<br />
<br />
One of the last major polls of this race captures all that is wrong - not only with the polls / pollsters, but with the complete and utter lack of integrity, professionalism, and competence of the mainstream media who cannot remain impartial, objective, and professional in their reporting of this election. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/cnn-poll-all-tied-at-49/" target="_blank">Let's look at CNN's last poll for the campaign - released late Sunday night. </a> They are promoting that the race is a perfect tie - 'too close to call' - just as in 1980. Obama 49% and Romney 49% in the national poll - razor thin as they say. <br />
<br />
Almost all of the media elements continue to tout that topline number - Obama 49% and Romney 49%. <br />
<br />
Read the details of CNN's own report, and they will tell you that the candidates are tied 'on ALMOST every major indicator'. But there is one key indicator that catches not only my eye - but the eyes of many who are objectively looking at these polls. That indicator buried within the internals of this last CNN poll? <b>Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by 22 points among self-described independent / unaffiliated voters.</b><br />
<br />
Let's pretend we don't work for the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, MSNBC, NBC News, CNN, CBS, Headline News, the Associated Press, and dozens of other news organizations and ask a simple question:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>In a poll where one is either a Democrat, Republican, or Independent - and one candidate has a 22 point lead among Independents - HOW THE 'EFF CAN THAT CANDIDATE BE TIED IN THE TOPLINE OF THE POLL?</i></blockquote>
It's a simple question -and one I've asked for months as we've tried to understand the polls this cycle. <br />
<br />
The answer is simple, clear, and one that I've covered before.<br />
<br />
The party affiliation split in the CNN poll is D=40%; R=30%; I=29%.<br />
<br />
In 2008, with that massive pro-Obama pro-Democrat enthusiasm and surge, combined with a matching disinterest on the GOP side, had a national party affiliation split of D=39%; R=32%; I=29%. Within the 53% of the popular vote that Barack Obama won - he won independents by 8 points.<br />
<br />
Not only this - but within the internals of the CNN poll, GOP voters have a 5 point advantage in the category of 'extremely enthusiastic' about the 2012 race.<br />
<br />
So, with all the poll data showing GOP voters are substantially (to far) more excited - are we to really believe that when Mitt Romney draws 30,000 in near freezing temps in blue Pennsylvania, 30,000 in Ohio, and 15,000 in New Hampshire - CNN is modeling their turnout model to include a Democrat turnout / enthusiasm larger than 2008 and a GOP turnout model 2 points (nearly10%) below the year of great GOP disinterest?<br />
<br />
Can you say 'cooked poll'?<br />
<br />
I knew you could.<br />
<br />
But that's not the only evidence to consider in this, or rather one of a long line of, BS polls.<br />
<br />
In 2008, Barack Obama won the gender gap by +14 points. He was +13 with women over John McCain, and +1 among men. But the internals of the above CNN poll show that Mitt Romney has a +9 point lead among men while Barack Obama only holds a +8 lead among women. <br />
<br />
We are then expected to believe that with Mitt Romney overcoming the gender gap (O+14 in 2008, R+1 in the CNN 2012 poll), he's still only tied?<br />
<br />
It's news like this that prompted <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/cutter-remain-calm-and-dont-let-tomorrows-early-tallies-get-you-down/" target="_blank">Obama Campaign Deputy Manager, Stephanie Cutter (yes, we know she has a challenge with the truth), to take to the airwaves to try to continue the Obama campaign effort to imitate 'all is well'</a>...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/zDAmPIq29ro?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
...while maintaining the importance for the Democrats to not be discourage and turn out in large numbers [while also discouraging Republicans from turning out as the election is supposed to be a fait accompli..]<br />
<blockquote>
<i>“My warning, we need to stay calm for much of the day,” Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said, touting thousands of early ballots already submitted by voters. “We’ve already banked a pretty big portion of our vote.” …</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“Keep calm and tweet on,” Ms. Cutter said. “So, no matter what you hear tomorrow about turnout in Republican counties or exit polls, particularly early in the day, please remember and remind your readers that, because of early votes, we’re where we need to be to win….I don’t think there’s going to be official exits until the end of the day, but if things leak out that aren’t validated or weighted, please stay calm.”
</i></blockquote>
When your campaign is in trouble - particularly when you are in the incumbent - you want to keep your side from panicking and do whatever you can to discourage the turnout of the other side. If they get complacent - then they might not turnout in the numbers needed to ensure a win. <br />
<br />
With the polls - this takes a slightly different twist. If it is tied, then it is a turnout battle. If your base is disinterested and discouraged, hearing that it's 'too close to call' will, hopefully, maximize their turnout.<br />
<br />
Is there a difference between punditry and sophistry?<br />
<br />
I think so - and it's often very easy to see in today's mainstream media. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/11/05/howard-kurtz-romney-win-would-be-crushing-blow-punditocracy" target="_blank">Writing in the Daily Beast, part of Newsweek (or is the partisan Newsweek magazine now part of the partisan progressive Daily Beast), Howard Kurtz says that a Romney win tomorrow would be a 'crushing blow for the punditocracy'.</a><br />
<br />
Huh?<br />
<br />
The mainstream media, largely progressive in their viewpoint, have moved well beyond punditocracy since 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and the present campaign - fully into the being little more than sophists.<br />
<br />
What a Romney win tomorrow will demonstrate, beyond a complete repudiation of the progressive / Keynesian agenda, is that far too much of the mainstream media are little more than sophists - without any pretenses towards objectivity or professionalism left in their definition. And they ridicule 'bloggers in pajamas'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7djz6hnnqqUmKYgdJ0VBfV7mVtEqTmaN-B_tKV0vgk1B-Vbdkj148ZCFZtX72D_xYaxmzOJGYna3uyGKJrdTSprzKsflzaQXOzca2LAMe078q7DiEcawIA88rIhrabn1i6bQZvrAX3tY/s1600/lookingintotheireyes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7djz6hnnqqUmKYgdJ0VBfV7mVtEqTmaN-B_tKV0vgk1B-Vbdkj148ZCFZtX72D_xYaxmzOJGYna3uyGKJrdTSprzKsflzaQXOzca2LAMe078q7DiEcawIA88rIhrabn1i6bQZvrAX3tY/s1600/lookingintotheireyes.png" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm the first to admit that my prediction for the Presidential race is an aggressive one. But now I'm seeing other prominent pundits that are not only predicting a Mitt Romney win based on their analysis of the state of the race, but predicting a win that is beyond just being a 'squeaker'...<br />
<br />
Karl Rove is the most conservative - saying that Mitt Romney will gain at least 279 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win.<br />
<br />
George Will is calling the Romney electoral vote total to be 321 - calling Minnesota to go Romney. Minnesota didn't even go GOP in Ronald Reagan's historic landslide win of 1984.<br />
<br />
Dick Morris is perhaps one of the most bullish of the professional pundits - saying that this will be 1980 like with Romney gaining 320+ electoral votes.<br />
<br />
Acclaimed Las Vegas oddsmaker, Wayne Allen Root, is calling for a 5-7 point advantage for Mitt Romney in the popular vote (52-47 at least for Romney) and 310+ electoral votes for the GOP candidate.<br />
<br />
Glenn Beck is seeing it pretty much as George Will does - and an earlier post touted Michael Barone's 315 EV level for Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
All of these are quite similar to my prognostication - and using similar analysis and justifications to reach their levels. <br />
<br />
But, yes, according to CNN, MSNBC, ABC / WashPoo, NBC / WSJ / Marist, and Quinnipiac - it's too close to call just like it was at this point in 1980 where we had another GOP candidate facing off against an arrogrant micro-managing incompetent progressive enamored in their cult of personality - and utterly failing at the basic responsibility of governance.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/choice-america-future-mitt-romney-article-1.1196299" target="_blank">In the New York Daily News endorsement of Mitt Romney, they had this to say...</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>“Four years ago, the Daily News endorsed Obama, seeing a historic figure whose intelligence, political skills and empathy with common folk positioned him to build on the small practical experience he would bring to the world’s toughest job. <b>We valued Obama’s pledge to govern with bold pragmatism and bipartisanship. The hopes of those days went unfulfilled. . . . The regrettable truth is that Obama built a record of miscalculations and missed opportunities.”</b></i></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/editorial-elect-mitt-romney-president-of-the-united-states-1.4182689" target="_blank">Long Island's Newsday had this to say in their endorsement of Mitt Romney....</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>“Had Barack Obama done the job of president with the same passion and vision he displayed in seeking it, he would likely deserve another term. He did not. . . . Romney’s potential to put America back to work earns him our endorsement.”</b></i></blockquote>
That's quite damning.<br />
<br />
What else is quite damning to Barack Obama are the realties of conditions in New York City ( incl. Staten Island) and New Jersey in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. I really believe that this is becoming Barack Obama's 'Katrina' - given the unpreparedness of the local authorities combined with the fecklessness and incompetence of not only the local authorities to provide direct aid and assistance to the victims, but also the incompetence and fecklessness of the federal government to provide basic assistance, water, food, electricity, security, clothing, and shelter to the victims - now 8 days after the category 1 storm hit.<br />
<br />
President Obama conducted a 'mission accomplished' / photo op / campaign stop through the Jersey shore - and received undeserved acclaim from Chris Christie for simply deciding to open the federal coffers (this time) for a state led by a Republican. But since that 'tour' - what has been done?<br />
<br />
To me, however, like Katrina, the federal government and President are not entirely at blame or fault. My deepest contempt is towards the local officials - ranging from Mayor Bloomberg in NYC to NJ State / County / City emergency preparedness officials. Did you really have a plan? If you did - have you ever tested the plan in a simulation that modeled a direct hit by a Cat One Hurricane?<br />
<br />
I've done this many many times in my career in IT - and have successfully managed large organizations through large scale disasters with minimal impact on systems or the organizations capability to operate. But in the NYC Metro area?<br />
<br />
Why don't we require every gasoline station to maintain an emergency power source to power gas pumps when off the grid? Why can't we quickly deploy trucks with potable water, fuel, food (even MRE's), and basic clothing / blankets into critically hit areas - beating out even the commendable efforts of civilians to organized food drives, blanket drives, and clothing drives. The only aid most of the critically damaged areas are getting today are not from the government - but from other residents giving of themselves to help their neighbors.<br />
<br />
Here is SoCal we live with the threat of a major earthquake. Some of us have real earthquake kits - food, water, clothing, shelter, supplies that will allow 2-5 days of living. Some of us have these kits for our pets as well. Unfortunately, many do not. <br />
<br />
But the rule of thumb we try to work with - to convince the citizens of this area that is needed - is to not count on government assistance of any form for at least 3 - 5 days in the event of a catastrophe. That means 3-5 days worth of food and water for each person / pet. Shelter that can be used for the same amount of time. Batteries for 3-5 days. Clothing for 3-5 days - across multiple seasons. Gasoline for at least one vehicle and a generator (if have one) for 3-5 days of normal use. If we prepare as individuals - then we lessen our dependence on a government that may be overwhelmed and unable to assist us 'little people' beyond photo ops and getting a 1-800-FEMA number.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGIxnlZDs17L649xyBTQEQXp-s6z2e3rEx-yBLnYfr3MjpMmSwqvxirGtbLkuvhLSZNdwzKU-7_7ii3VU9so8b8obtlDG2EOStPBraekeCHHrKViNzNOvyZSZtJLkbIJ9qi2V1npm34xY/s1600/Albatross.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGIxnlZDs17L649xyBTQEQXp-s6z2e3rEx-yBLnYfr3MjpMmSwqvxirGtbLkuvhLSZNdwzKU-7_7ii3VU9so8b8obtlDG2EOStPBraekeCHHrKViNzNOvyZSZtJLkbIJ9qi2V1npm34xY/s1600/Albatross.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Libya continues to be an albatross hanging from the neck of our government....<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/wrqW_BZu5Xk/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wrqW_BZu5Xk&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wrqW_BZu5Xk&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
The network of Dan Rather - 'Fake, But Accurate' bias - CBS has learned little since Dan's disgrace in October 2004. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" background="#333333" flashvars="si=254&contentValue=50134495&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50134495n" height="279" src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425"></embed>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
After burying the full interview between Barack Obama and 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft for nearly two months, as the Administration tried to spin their incompetence, fecklessness, and contempt towards American lives (when compared to their political expediency) - in response to some strong work done by Fox News on the issue of Libya - we now know that the spin that Obama called the attack a terrorist attack from day one is completely and utterly a lie.<br />
<br />
Not only is Obama's credibility shot - but so is that of CBS News - particularly since nothing has really changed around their integrity since October 2004. Is there any wonder why their viewership is cratering?<br />
<br />
Oh, I forgot that yesterday was supposed to be the 'Million Muppet March' - a mass demonstration to show the opposition to call from Mitt Romney to stop using taxpayer funds to subsidize PBS. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/11/04/lame-million-puppet-march-draws-hundreds" target="_blank">Reports are that the march only came 995,500 marchers short of their one million marcher target. </a> To me - this is a no-brainer - but what was interesting was yet another measurement of the lack of enthusiasm, reach, and influence of the Obama campaign team.<br />
<br />
Also yesterday, the anniversary of Iran's act of war against the US - the November 4, 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran - and the capture of 52 American diplomatic hostages. The holding of the 52 ended 444 days later - on January 20, 1981 - but from the actions of the Mad Mullah's of Iran - the intent to wage war against the US / Western Civilization continues still.<br />
<br />
It's still time to see the world as it is - and not as we want to see it (based on political bias).<br />
<br />
I'm working tomorrow - Election Day - but I will be posting in the evening if I can. It's a bit of a challenge here on the left coast - mid-evening (8-9pm) is 11pm-midnight on the east coast. PLEASE VOTE - and follow all voting laws. This is a critical election for our nation- and the people need to speak their voices. Our polls here in SoCal open at 7am - and I will be there shortly after 7 to cast my vote. It's my #1 priority for tomorrow -work comes 2nd. Here's some last points to ponder...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSxRGXU_DCYfrfAktmGFxk48uxHcD4qqBgOJ4xqZIeqFlT02Q6Iy6Uq1UlkINwEtpUi60OSss6OwZSZAgB6E5fI2cCXorZX-i6nercS9wiW-CVsMaFO5M9weEpMh4bXGtZ2gI2Lf3JtyE/s1600/shovelready.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSxRGXU_DCYfrfAktmGFxk48uxHcD4qqBgOJ4xqZIeqFlT02Q6Iy6Uq1UlkINwEtpUi60OSss6OwZSZAgB6E5fI2cCXorZX-i6nercS9wiW-CVsMaFO5M9weEpMh4bXGtZ2gI2Lf3JtyE/s320/shovelready.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
At the least, on Wednesday, I suspect I will either be celebrating or prepping a crow dinner to eat.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-64602902091109116162012-11-04T08:59:00.003-08:002012-11-04T08:59:40.633-08:00Quick Hits - November 1-3, 2012The Presidential race is entering the home stretch - the last weekend before Election Day on Tuesday.<br />
<br />
The blog is getting a bump in traffic over my series 'Wargaming the 2012 Election' - and my prediction for the Presidential race. I'm finding that there are a lot of people I know who are very worried over Tuesday - <a href="http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/03/re-marist-poll-in-ohio/" target="_blank">mainly because they are just looking at / hearing the top line reports on the polls as pushed by so many in the mainstream media shilling for President Obama's reelection.</a> Almost none of them have looked into the internals of the polls - the regular double digit lead that Mitt Romney has built among self-described independents or the sample weighting that is based on a Democrat turnout model and enthusiasm that is significantly greater than 2008.<br />
<br />
But among those who are looking closely at the polls and the internals, there is a growing level of confidence towards a Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan victory that is matching the growing crowds that the GOP ticket is getting.<br />
<br />
In my prediction, I am seeing something that is far closer to 1980 than many other observers / commentators. There are a couple of states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where I have moved out on the limb on. <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/02/michael-barones-prediction-romney-315-obama-223/" target="_blank">But seeing the prediction from one of the deans of political punditry, Michael Barone, made on Friday, I am not alone on that limb...</a><br />
<br />
Michael Barone is predicting Mitt Romney winning the election by gaining 315 EV to 223 for Barack Obama. He is going out on the limb and calling Pennsylvania for the GOP ticket - but not going as far as I do with Michigan (or allocating 1 EV from Maine towards the GOP).<br />
<br />
Barone also sees as substantial the wave of independents that are moving to supporting Mitt Romney - a move that started right around the first Presidential election. In PA - he also notes the stagnant economy and the effects of the Obama Administration's war on coal and fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Both candidates are busy making their closing arguments to the voters - and are crisscrossing the remaining battleground states. Everyone of these states were states that Barack Obama won in 2008. And several, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, are traditionally blue states. <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/boom-minnesote-thrown-into-toss-up-status/" target="_blank">Even in Minnesota - which didn't even vote for Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide, is now being considered in play</a> as the preference surge towards Mitt Romney gains even more momentum.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is on the defensive - running a strategy that is designed to protect just enough to try to hold onto 270 EV.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney is on the offensive. He has taken over the change mantra. His closing argument is focused on a positive and upbeat vision for the next four years.<br />
<br />
The Romney candidacy is also benefiting from a growing level of enthusiasm for each of his, and Paul Ryan's, campaign stops. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is seeing the enthusiasm and size of his crowds wane. In 2008, appearing in Cleveland late the in campaign, Barack Obama drew a crowd of 80,000. This week, in the same venue, Barack Obama only drew 4,800. Meanwhile, the same day elsewhere in Ohio, Mitt Romney had a crowd of 30,000 - 35,000. <br />
<br />
Even with surrogates, we're seeing a major difference in crowds and enthusiasm. Stevie Wonder, on the stump to help Obama, only brought out a crowd of 200 in Ohio. Sandra Fluke, appearing in Florida, drew a crowd of under 40. Well, I supposed I could call that a success, since she only drew a crowd of 10 in Reno, Nevada a couple of weeks ago.<br />
<br />
Looking at the comparison between the Obama and Romney events, on cable news, on C-SPAN, and the Romney campaign events today look like Obama events of 2008, and Obama events of 2012 look like McCain events of 2008.<br />
<br />
The pressure is getting to Barack Obama as I think he sees himself being that one-term President he predicted in early 2009 he would be if he failed to turn things around. He is making a number of gaffes and missteps that the new media is highlighting - and that the mainstream media continues to ignore in their effort to drag his campaign across the finish line.<br />
<br />
Hot Air's regular weekly feature - <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/04/poll-what-was-the-obamateurism-of-the-week-165/" target="_blank">'The Obamateurism of the Week'</a> highlights these gaffes made by the President both on the campaign trail and while he did his photo-op in NJ in the wake of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy.<br />
<br />
Reaching back to the Presidential debates, we have even more evidence that <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/29/obamateurism-of-the-day-857/" target="_blank">the Commander-in-Chief is totally unaware that bayonets remain standard issue in the US military...</a> as he misleads the American public over his real focus and agenda towards national security.<br />
<br />
He is touting his continued press for the government to not only pick winners and losers in industry, but continue the policies which have seen nearly $100 billion taxpayer dollars tossed down the drain of crony capitalism and over 50 failed green energy companies when he says, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/30/obamateurism-of-the-day-858/" target="_blank">'I want fuel efficient cars and long-lasting batteries and wind turbines manufactured here in China.'</a><br />
<br />
Forgetting that he has a Secretary of Commerce as a member of his Cabinet, as well as nearly three dozen unaccountable 'czars', Barack Obama now wants to expand government so that it controls business when he says, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/31/obamateurism-of-the-day-859/" target="_blank">'We should have one Secretary of Business.'</a><br />
<br />
This is the same President, during his photo op declaring success / mission accomplished over the government response to the devastation of Sandy, with millions still without power, telling those affected to <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/02/obamateurism-of-the-day-861/" target="_blank">'go to the internet for updates' </a>on what the federal government is doing for them.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama will not answer any questions regarding the failures of his Administration around the terrorist attack on 9/11 in Benghazi, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/State-Dept-Officials-Denied-Foreign-Emergency-Support-Team-For-Benghazi-Consulate" target="_blank">where someone in the State Department</a>, or White House, or Defense Department, ordered military units to stand down and not move to rescue those being assaulted - but he will tell the victims of Hurricane Sandy that, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/01/obamateurism-of-the-day-860/" target="_blank">'We leave nobody behind'</a>.... even as hundreds of thousands in lower Manhattan, in Queens, in Staten Island, in New Jersey, are not getting critical supplies of water, food, shelter, and clothing as temperatures drop into the 30's.<br />
<br />
What Barack Obama will say while on the stump, now, is that his supporters have a new obligation and cause for which to vote for - revenge...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a5urR_mTTcY" width="420"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
Revenge?<br />
<br />
Revenge for what? His failure to launch a vibrant economic recovery? Creating a large pool of unemployed? Vastly expanding the disability rolls? Creating a food stamp nation? Increasing the national debt by 50% - over $6 trillion in four years - after castigating his predecessor as being 'unpatriotic' for adding $5 trillion to the national debt across 8 years?<br />
<br />
To me, this sounds like someone who believes he is entitled and angry that he is losing - and wants people to vote for him in the name of revenge - revenge on the 'unbelievers' - revenge on the country that is no longer accepting the cult of personality around Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
To counter this, Mitt Romney has the response that encapsulates why Romney is winning and why Obama is losing -<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ShdiYQ1EHvA" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
The Romney campaign has also responded with a very strong closing argument advertisement that will run throughout the battleground states...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QgKGCkZjjO8" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
Friday was the release of the October jobs report - the last report prior to Election Day. The top line is what the feckless mainstream media and Obama campaign are focusing on - the 171,000 new jobs created during October according to the BLS. This number was slightly more than expected - but barely covers the pace of new jobs needed to keep pace with population growth. I suspect that this is also like the pattern of 2010 and 2011 - where stagnant employment numbers earlier in the year see a slight increase in the last quarter before falling back again the first quarter of the new year.<br />
<br />
The other main number was the 'official' unemployment rate - which increased to 7.9% - reflecting a far more realistic (and ungamed) household survey than in last month's outlier report.<br />
<br />
Labor participation edged up to 63.8% - which also contributed to the 0.1% increase in the 'official' rate - but let's keep this in perspective as well. In January 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the labor participation rate was 65.7%. That rate was also at 65.7% in June 2009 when the recession officially ended and the Obama 'recovery' commenced. When Barack Obama took office in 2009, the U-6 unemployment number, reflecting those underemployed as well as unemployed, stood at 14.2%. In Friday's jobs report, the U-6 number, 40 months into the Obama 'recovery', is 14.6%.<br />
<br />
All of these numbers are right around 31 year lows - where they were during the deep 1981 recession. These numbers reflect that the Obama plan to stimulate the economy has failed. In fact, the policies and agenda of the President has worked against the natural effects of the economy to recover and grow - and make the contrast between a Keynesian / Progressive plan and a Private Sector / Conservative plan even more plain.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 2009, while arguing for the passage of the $862 billion stimulus program, the President and his economic team were telling the American people that if the plan was passed and implemented, in October 2012, the 'official' unemployment rate would be 5.2%. It's not. It's 7.9%. That's quite a miss.<br />
<br />
One last dismal note from the Labor Department released on Friday - average hourly earnings for non-farm payrolls declined yet again in October - and after being adjusted for inflation, the average hourly earnings have dropped 4.8% since the end of the 2008-9 recession in June 2009. Think about it - nearly four years into a recovery - wages are down nearly 5% and still falling.<br />
<br />
Lost in the news focus on Sandy, on the closing weekend of the election, and the October jobless report, comes another example of the fecklessness of the Obama Administration - and their increasing willingness to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the American people in the name of political expediency.<br />
<br />
One of the strong knocks against the Obama Administration is their overreach into government regulations and the expansion of the power of the federal government. Combine this with the Administration's arrogance in that they do not believe they have to be accountable to the American people or Congress - and we have an Executive Branch that accurately reflects the hubris of the Chief Executive. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/SzUbSFrgysM/" target="_blank">Senator James Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, took to the airways to note that yet again the President is refusing to comply with a federal law requiring him to release his regulatory agenda</a> - and the proposed regulations being worked on within the Executive Branch - because the release of this information, showing the executive overreach and the 'terrible cost' it would have on the economy and jobs (costing 887,000 jobs annually), would damage the President's reelection effort.<br />
<br />
For those who think voter fraud isn't real and isn't happening... <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/nc-democrat-says-hes-voted-four-times-for-obama-already-will-vote-5th-time-on-election-day/" target="_blank">here's a clip from a North Carolina Democrat who is admitting on his Facebook page that he has already voted 4 times - and will vote once again on Tuesday. </a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Krw4Zp1c9pzEeTdIOQf3atFy8lZPKQrwKSjLk1Tj1fq0TIE1qsPT8MFUCemKbOGURkTkHu4ygs49vFoILkmTfNRFpNRalL7T_pNlXKYW_WfF9-0mqsfMnLIeXZORPia9PlHAOZdhdow/s1600/NCvoterfraud.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Krw4Zp1c9pzEeTdIOQf3atFy8lZPKQrwKSjLk1Tj1fq0TIE1qsPT8MFUCemKbOGURkTkHu4ygs49vFoILkmTfNRFpNRalL7T_pNlXKYW_WfF9-0mqsfMnLIeXZORPia9PlHAOZdhdow/s1600/NCvoterfraud.png" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm wondering when he will be arrested for voter fraud? Or does the 'D' provide him immunity - unlike a deluded Republican woman in Nevada who was arrested for voting twice in early voting in that state.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjadwgZ-0cvF0KM4hu_fMvTdAUBq_o-vU8v_zUkHj8IdsyGVyuyTP5WtOkFBi4jDDYNaTTbnmHuX2pIWr8gAzoOtCIQE21dF3Oy8lb4K-dNgQ9tT-xATcp8uuqa51UbVr6ZmIydCG1k2Oc/s1600/mediahypocrisy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjadwgZ-0cvF0KM4hu_fMvTdAUBq_o-vU8v_zUkHj8IdsyGVyuyTP5WtOkFBi4jDDYNaTTbnmHuX2pIWr8gAzoOtCIQE21dF3Oy8lb4K-dNgQ9tT-xATcp8uuqa51UbVr6ZmIydCG1k2Oc/s400/mediahypocrisy.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Libya continues to be a major scandal for the Obama Administration that the mainstream media, except for Fox News, Jake Tapper of ABC, and Sheryl Atkinson of CBS, is refusing to investigate or report on. <a href="http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/f1aeb8d4-5b19-4c0b-84ee-3f4dedae2c6a" target="_blank">Four Americans died - and it's becoming clearer that elements of the Obama Administration made a decision to abandon several of these Americans in the name of political expediency.</a><br />
<br />
The above cartoon reflects quite correctly the hypocrisy of the bulk of the mainstream media when it comes to their political advocacy - and the end of their credibility with their customers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV0IobKWq0MMl6cGi8JXQA06M1jq_uECIQqezwcXPDHgzvto6LVbe0fYCwyuvZmVs6jazZGeJuq2OTQloulHihXJVxirWQvA1UdIyj-VlA92n6cFez7bBwJmLcCDnEdikrVvyzs5lW-yU/s1600/uninstallobama.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="102" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV0IobKWq0MMl6cGi8JXQA06M1jq_uECIQqezwcXPDHgzvto6LVbe0fYCwyuvZmVs6jazZGeJuq2OTQloulHihXJVxirWQvA1UdIyj-VlA92n6cFez7bBwJmLcCDnEdikrVvyzs5lW-yU/s400/uninstallobama.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Oh, and my predictions for Congress?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In the Senate, the Democrats currently hold, counting the 2 Independents who caucus with them, a 53-47 majority. I am predicting a 4 seat gain for the GOP in the Senate - leaving them in a 51-49 leadership position. As for the House where the GOP holds a 25 seat majority? A R+2 or 3 seat gain.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGPzGbkk_WbxT5Sz8N2K2Y8iln8jO1DexWsUDBvVefLwWFkZFGyPghTgnHmsWKLtg7mybKkMSszRLlRyaBKl_KtEGCxDdp3zGoA2cnWRZ9nT9LiDLXyv5IjBztkKCXEt-l-Znkwa5yGg4/s1600/redink.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGPzGbkk_WbxT5Sz8N2K2Y8iln8jO1DexWsUDBvVefLwWFkZFGyPghTgnHmsWKLtg7mybKkMSszRLlRyaBKl_KtEGCxDdp3zGoA2cnWRZ9nT9LiDLXyv5IjBztkKCXEt-l-Znkwa5yGg4/s400/redink.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Finally, if you can, please donate to the private relief organizations who are working to bring assistance and needed materials to the victims of Hurricane Sandy -<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/11/hurricane-sandy-the-aftermath/100397/" target="_blank">The images from the devastation are astounding...</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5473151466646747245.post-48378391657684231092012-11-02T09:14:00.001-07:002012-11-02T09:14:54.862-07:00Los Angeles County, California Sample BallotWith 4 days to go before Election Day, it's time to take a look at my sample ballot - for Los Angeles County, California. We'll see the choices / considerations that need to be made - and I'll offer my recommendations on not only the candidates - but also the numerous ballot measures that have become so commonplace in California elections.<br />
<br />
As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies. We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels. The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste. It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions. If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges. <br />
<br />
Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that. Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending. In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.<br />
<br />
With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.<br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'</b><br />
<br />
This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state. If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.<br />
<br />
The Governor's approach is simply base extortion. It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis. It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years. It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>VOTE NO on PROP 30</b></span><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies. Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.<br />
<br />
This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments. We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time. Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE YES on Prop 31</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes. This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).<br />
<br />
This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage. It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support. <br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE YES on Prop 32</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier. It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.<br />
<br />
This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage. The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE YES on Prop 33</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.<br />
<br />
The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment. They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern. They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row. <br />
<br />
Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population. The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment. With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.<br />
<br />
We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty. Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed. So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote. Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Prop 34</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking. In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.<br />
<br />
This should be a no-brainer to support.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE YES on Prop 35</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent. Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.<br />
<br />
Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent. Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway. Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life. Keep the law as it is today.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Prop 36</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer. California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare. Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Prop 37</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences. First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'. Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly). Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.<br />
<br />
As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><b>VOTE NO on Prop 38</b></span><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'</b><br />
<br />
The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.<br />
<br />
This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California. It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California. Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles. Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Prop 39</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'</b><br />
<br />
In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party. In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state. <br />
<br />
While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat. During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.<br />
<br />
This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map. If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes. I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Prop 40</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>LA County Measure - A </b><br />
<br />
This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position. Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies. <br />
<br />
An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE YES on Measure A</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>LA County Measure - B</b><br />
<br />
This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County. The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.<br />
<br />
The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's. The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers. Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes. With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement? Is that really the proper role of government?<br />
<br />
It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure. If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this. <br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Measure B</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J</b><br />
<br />
This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County. Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.<br />
<br />
Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County. The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus. It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?<br />
<br />
This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities. We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE NO on Measure J</span></b><br />
<br />
In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.<br />
<br />
<b>President and Vice President</b><br />
<br />
The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration. The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery. They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas. It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt. The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies. <br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>United States Senator</b><br />
<br />
Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator. In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate. Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier. She is arrogant and feckless. Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is. California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Elizabeth Emken</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>United States Representative</b><br />
<br />
I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces. He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals. He deserves another term in office.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>State Senator</b><br />
<br />
I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting. Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney. He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.<br />
<br />
The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process. Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Todd Zink</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Member of the State Assembly</b><br />
<br />
This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office. The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California. In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company. Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Scott Wilk</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Los Angeles County District Attorney</b><br />
<br />
This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County. The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey. The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican candidate. Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA. Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment. While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.<br />
<br />
I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes). The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">VOTE for Jackie Lacey</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday. I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction. I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly. <br />
<br />
Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.<br />
<br />Athoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00891213691959563507noreply@blogger.com1