Obama's Pre-Election Lie On Taxing The Rich

Before the election, Obama said that all he wanted to do is to return to the Clinton-era tax rates for the rich; arguing that they wouldn't miss the extra money and that the economy actually did well when those higher taxes were in place.

Well, now that the election is over, guess what?  The President has doubled-down on taxes for the rich.  No longer is he just calling for a return to the Clinton-era taxes for those making more than $200,000, individually, and families making $250,000 and up; resulting in a supposed $850 billion dollar increase in tax revenues, he now has added an additional $750 billion in new taxes on the rich by capping deductions and imposing a minimum 30% tax for those making more than a million dollars a year; referring to the later as the Buffet rule.

Further, he argues that the new taxes should be imposed immediately and that we can look at spending cuts and tax law revisions later.  Obama calls this a balanced approach. But, I'll bet money that he will never agree to any significant cuts; unless, of course, they are in defense.  This is the same kind of crap that the Democrats pulled on George H. W. Bush.  The Congressional Democrats got Bush to raise taxes, first, by promising to address spending cuts later.  But, no cuts were ever legislated on.  Thus, Bush lost reelection by violating  his promise of "Read my lips.  No new taxes!" 

--- CNN Money: Obama's opening bid: $1.6 trillion in taxes: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-opening-bid-1-6-175700494.html

We Need Spending Controls On Obama -- Not Taxes On The Rich

Last month -- the first month of the federal government's new fiscal year -- the October deficit hit $120 billion; up 24% from $98 billion in the year prior.  On top of that, October's spending was up a whopping 16% or $42 billion from the prior year; from $262 billion to $304 billion. Together, those two percentages tell us that we are increasing spending while revenues are falling.  Or, in other words, the economy is stalling again and certainly not producing enough of the needed revenues to cover Obama's massive spending spree.

According to the number crunchers, taxing the rich would only result in about $85 billion a year in additional tax revenues; or, about $7 billion a month.  What good does it do to collect an additional $7 billion in revenues when this President keeps increasing his spending at rates that are 6 times that amount?  Even the dreaded "spending sequestration" -- which would cut federal spending by $10 billion a month -- wouldn't make a dent in the deficit when, in fact, you have year-over-year monthly spending increases of $42 billion.  You'd almost have to completely disband our military to offset the kind of increases that are we seeing and will continue to see if Obama is left unbridled.

The President is flat out lying when he says we need these higher taxes on the rich to solve our deficit problems and allow the country to spend more on other things; like teachers.  Obama spending is our deficit problem. Further, the U.S. Senate, under Harry Reid's direction, has not passed a single budget into law since Obama took office; giving Obama free rein to keep spending this country into oblivion.  Additionally, we are now approaching another debt ceiling showdown where it is expected that the President and the Democrats will ask for another trillion dollars plus in authorized debt expansion; thus pushing us well over $17.5 trillion dollars in federal debt in early 2014.  Obviously, his promise to cut the deficit in half was just another hollow campaign ploy that played well with a lot of stupid and gullible voters.

They say elections have consequences.  Well, this is one helluva consequence.

--- Reuters News: Budget deficit rises to $120 billion in October: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736--business.html

--- Washington Post: The Sequester, Explained:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-explained/

Get Your Lab Coats: Illinois And California's Supermajority Legislatures Experiment

While much of the talk has been about the results of the presidential election, something more interesting happened on that same night in two of the most liberal states in the union.  Both, California and Illinois voted to give their state legislatures a Democratic, supermajority.  In essence, the Republicans were simply turned into stone; with nothing to say about anything.  Of course, both of these states are high on the list of the 11 most indebted in the nation; mostly because of liberal, Democratic agendas.  So it's a real head-scratcher as to why the electorate would have even considered ushering in such a large number of the very same politicians who got their states in so much trouble.

With the supermajority, neither of these legislatures have to worry about a single obstacle in preventing them from doing whatever they want to do.  In fact, both have like-minded, Democratic Governors in charge to facilitate the final passage of any of their proposed liberal legislation.  No more having to go to the public with some election day propositions to raise taxes or increase spending on education etc.  No more debates with  Republicans.   It appears a progressive Santa came early this year.

Now, it will be interesting to see what happens.  In both states, Democrats have resisted any Republican suggestions that spending cuts are needed to lower the debt.  So, with the Republicans completely sidelined, it is my guess that these two bastions of liberalism will simply see new taxes as a means to a end.  Don't be surprised that at least one of these states institutes its own, first ever, carbon tax on almost every thing that uses energy.  And, I wouldn't be equally surprised that the debt will continue to rise along with unemployment because the business environment will deteriorate rapidly.  I'll even bet that both states will come to Washington and an obliging Obama to bail them out of their massive debt problems.

Basically, I'm guessing that these two grand experiments in progressive/liberalism will result in two major fiscal disasters.

Give Obama And The Democrats Their Wish On Raising Taxes On The Rich

Last Friday, I caught the first 40 minutes or so of the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show.  Early in the show he seemed to agree with a conservative writer who had written the following:  "...just get out of the way, Boehner and McConnell. Give Barry & Co everything they want; and let a corrupt media chronicle it. Harry 'Dingy' Reid wants to change the filibuster rule so tell them "No Need!" we are just going to vote 'present'.  Rush followed up by saying "He has a point...'

Well, I'm not sure that we should give a blank check to Democrats to do anything they want; but, I do think we've lost a lot of ground on the issue of tax cuts for the rich.  It appears that the general electorate believes Barack Obama when he tells them that the rich should pay their "fair share" by paying higher taxes, and, that "they won't miss it [meaning the money]", and further, that the economy flourished under Clinton when taxes were higher for the wealthy.  This Obama win was clearly borne out by the fact that, in the exit polling, 60 percent said they favored higher taxes on the rich.  In California, 54% of the voters approved Prop 30 which primarily target the higher taxes on the rich.

Of course, anyone with a modest understanding of how our economy works knows that raising taxes on small businesses and the job creators in our country will only result in an even weaker economy than we have now.   Maybe another recession.

As far as the higher taxes under Clinton is concerned, their impact was dwarfed by the fact that we were in a complete tech revolution in this country and in the industrialized world.  Many falsely believe it was just because of the dot-com explosion but, in fact, it was in everything tech; including PC's, home software apps, video gaming, cellphones, medical equipment, and so on.  More importantly, a lot of people who had never bought a stock before were making big money buying almost anything tech.  Of course, all this created an economy that wasn't "apparently" being hurt by Clinton's higher taxes.  I say "apparently" because as soon as anything dot-com came to a screeching halt -- this following the burst of the dot-com bubble in the stock market -- the economy headed south; with Clinton eventually handing a recession over to "W" Bush.  A not-so-small point that Democrats and the media seemed to have forgotten about those supposedly golden Clinton years.

Personally, I say: Republicans step aside and quit trying to hold the line on keeping the Bush tax cuts for the high income earners.  Only, then, will American voters learn the lesson that tax increases on anyone have consequences.  Even if those consequences have to be another recession and higher unemployment.  Once and for all, let's take the "tax cuts for the rich" issue out of theoretical argumentation and prove which political party is actually right. Maybe, then, in the 2014 mid-term elections, the Republicans can retake the Senate and reverse the mess that will have been created with Obama's higher taxes and ObamaCare.  It could also pave the way for a Republican president being elected in 2016.

On last thing.  If higher taxes were so great for the economy under Clinton, why shouldn't we be calling for all the tax rates that existed under his presidency?  In other words, let "all" the Bush tax cuts expire.  Surely, this economy would take off like a rocket!


--- United State Senate Democrats: On Taxes, The Voters Have Spoken:  http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/11/08/on-taxes-the-voters-have-spoken/

Petraeus and the Classic Femme Fatale Trap

Having served in the military and having had a high-level security clearance, I find it unfathomable to think that a top general, one so highly respected as General Petraeus, would have gotten himself in such a compromising position with an extramarital affair.   It's a violation of one of the first rules of security and a general violation of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.  A violation that "could" easily lead to being blackmailed in exchange for our nation's secrets. 

This is actually a classic femme fatale trap that so many powerful men fall into. History is littered with them.  Delilah.  Salome. Mata Hari.  Even Monica Lewinsky.  It doesn't really matter if any state secrets are compromised in the process.  The fact that Petraeus has had to resign is, in itself, a weakening of this country's security.  Make no mistake about it, the General was a very important asset to this country.  If he wasn't, he wouldn't have even been considered for the CIA leadership post.  Sadly, this asset is now gone due to another femme fatale.  This time, the femme fatale is Paula Broadwell; or, as the dictionary historically defines her: "an irresistibly attractive woman, especially one who leads men into difficult, dangerous, or disastrous situations..."

A Mexican Standoff On The Tax Cuts For The Rich Could Cause All The Bush Cuts To Expire

In the old West, when you had three bandidos confronting each other in anticipation of a gunfight, it typically resulted in nothing happening because each of those men knew that, if they drew first to kill one of the gunslingers, the other would kill them.  That failure to fight is commonly referred to as a Mexican Standoff.

In a strange way, a similar thing might just happen with regard to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on January 1st.  Our three bandidos, in this case, are the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and President Obama.  But, instead of thinking about who will draw first, in this scenario, we're talking about who will "cave first" on their particular stand on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

The House of Representatives is majority controlled by Republicans and is in favor of either extending all the Bush tax cuts -- including those for the rich -- or, even making them permanent.  Over in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is all for Obama's push to extend the them for everyone but the rich.  In fact, following the reelection of Obama, Harry believes he now has a mandate from the people to raise taxes on the rich.  Further, Patty Murray, also part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, has gone on record and threatened that, if the Republicans continue to push for keeping the tax cuts for the rich, her party is prepared to let them all expire; increasing heavy tax burdens on all Americans.  Then, too, the President -- a clear advocate for increasing the taxes on the rich -- says he will veto any bill that comes to his desk and doesn't include raising taxes on individuals making in excess of $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000.

So, there's our standoff.

Unless the Republicans cave, it just might be possible that the Democrats of the Senate will allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire by not voting on any extension of any of the cuts; leaving Obama out of the "apparent" loop on this because there will be no bill for him to either veto or sign into law.  In fact, Obama might just secretly favor this inaction; thinking he could use it as a mid-term, 2014 election issue by blaming the Republicans for the increases.  At the same time, increasing all the tax rates would help him out of the deficit hole he's created.  Of course, raising taxes at this time would also send this country spiraling into recession.

I personally think that there are enough Democrats in the Senate who probably believe that raising taxes on the rich, during this weak economy, is a bad idea and they will force Obama, Murray, and Reid to accept a year's extension of the Bush tax cuts in their entirety.  But, we'll just have to see.

--- New York Times: Senator Murray Says Democrats Will Let Tax Cuts Expire: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/senator-murray-says-democrats-will-let-tax-cuts-expire/

GOP: Stop This Woe-Is-Me-ing Over The Romney Loss

Ever since the election, Republicans and their pundits and political analysts have done nothing but try to understand why Romney lost.  All too often, they have concluded that the party needs to be more inclusive. That Romney lacked believability.  He had RomneyCare around his neck and, therefore, he couldn't take on ObamaCare in an effective manner. Then, there's all the other silly conclusions that people have come to; too many to waste time on in this blog.

But, they are all silly conclusions.   Romney, like Hillary Clinton, just couldn't win against such a historically significant Obama fact: The first black president of the United States.  After all, Hillary was a seasoned U.S. Senator with experience at being in the White House for eight years.  She was very well known on the world stage; because, as the President's wife, she met many world leaders and traveled to many countries.  Her en vitae stacked higher than her opponent's: A less-than-two year Senator from Illinois.  Even so, she lost to Obama.

People keep voting for Obama on an emotional basis and not on his past or current job performance.  Believe me, if he was white, he would have lost in a landslide; and, Romney's loss was not as significant as the GOP makes it out to be.  Enough with the "woe is me attitude".  The fact is that, in many ways, the Republican party is the dominant party in America.  Of the 50 states, 30 of the Governors are Republican.  26 states have GOP dominated legislatures.  In the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans own 242 seats; and, the Democrats have only 193.  And, yes, the Republicans don't own the Senate; but, they should have been a lot closer if two tea party candidates, Akin and Mourdock, hadn't stumbled on abortion.

Then, there's the Presidency.  Since FDR and the beginning of  our 2 term limit, there have been 6 Republican Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.  The Democrats, on the other hand, also had a total of 6 Presidents: Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  But, of those Presidents holding two terms, the Republicans lead 3 to 2.  So, even for the presidency, Republicans have not only held there own but, in terms of reelection, have actually done better.

Right now, many Republicans are calling for a change of their principals and values to be more inclusive and more attractive and more electable.  But, I say that, if you look at the above facts, the Republicans have always done well.  One 2012 loss to Obama doesn't tell the true story.  The fact is that history has proven the American electorate easily tire of both political parties.  That's why neither political party has ever achieved an extended string of presidential power. Clearly, if history repeats itself, there will be a Republican President the next time around.