Tag: BHO

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

By | | Comments 0 Comment

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

Tax plan just doesn’t seem to be fair

Tax plan just doesn’t seem to be fair

By | | Comments 0 Comment

President Barack Hussein Obama has been talking about his new plan to invigorate the economy and move us out of a double-dip or very long recession. I have to admit that I am confused by his logic.

First, a bit about myself. I hate taxes. I know that I need to pay them. I know that I make a good living (not from this blog mind you) and I need to pay into the system more than some others that don’t work as hard as I work. I get all of that.

In general though, I don’t want to pay taxes and I definitely don’t want to pay MORE taxes. I would much prefer that the federal, state, and local governments do a better job of using my money wisely. I would also appreciate that my money is not transferred to someone that won’t work (strong distinction from “can’t work” and “can’t find work”). In fact, if an adult WON’T work then I am perfectly comfortable with that adult starving to death and dying. Probably my only regret in that scenario is that my tax dollars will likely have to go to bury his sorry body. I realize that this isn’t a very Christian attitude but, frankly, God gave that adult man or woman 2 legs, 2 arms and a brain to use to work – not to live off of the generosity of others.

Now, back to the President’s proposals. I just don’t get it. Something doesn’t make sense. According to CBS News:

President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of jump-starting economic growth ahead of the November elections.

An administration official said the tax breaks would save businesses $200 billion over two years, allowing companies to have more cash on hand. The president will outline the proposal during a speech on the economy in Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday.

I understand that part on a simplistic level. It makes perfect sense to me that if businesses don’t have to pay taxes on capital investments, they will be able to justify more money (the original money plus the tax money they didn’t have to spend) on capital investments. They might even spend more money on that as the internal return on that investment would be a little bit better without the tax overhead. This would potentially mean more purchases of goods by businesses which, in theory, would spark more jobs to be created.

However, according to the Washinton Post:

Corporate America is hoarding a massive pile of cash. It just doesn’t want to spend it hiring anyone.

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.

This means that the businesses are doing well, even if people are not doing well. So the President’s message is that we need to give these rich businesses an incentive to have them spend the money and that incentive will be taxes. I guess that makes sense. How about doing the reverse though? Why not tax them on the cash that they leave laying around and don’t invest? That way the US coffers don’t go down but actually might go up if they don’t spend it AND we get the benefit of increasing capital expenditures.  In fact, we might get MORE business spending with my plan. Why not heavily tax any cash that is in excess of last year’s cash reserves for the company.

It gets a bit more confusing. When it comes to people, the President feels the exact opposite as he does on businesses. He is fully okay with taxing a person more if they make more money. He wants to increase taxes on those that make a certain amount ($250K seems to be the magic number right now). This is exactly the opposite of what he is doing for businesses. For people he isn’t incenting them to spend more money to jumpstart the economy, he is simply taxing them for making more money. 

If a person last year made $220K and then had a great year and made $275K, the President wants to sock it to that enterprising citizen. He wants to charge him more for the right to be a US citizen and live in this great land. That 25% increase is going to drive that individual to pay a much higher rate of income tax. But not the company that is in the same city as the individual. That company has increased its cash by 25% (according to the article cited above) and it is receiving a tax break, not a tax bill.

How about a similar offer to people, Mr. President? How about you say that you don’t have to pay taxes on anything that you buy that generates manufacturing jobs in the US.  Buy a car – get a tax write-off for your down payment.  Buy a house – get a tax write-off for your down payment. Replace the windows in your house – no taxes on that money.  Buy a pizza – that isn’t taxable either. Even your latte at Starbuck’s should have no taxes if you treated people like you treat corporations. Buy a TV or computer manufactured in China though and you pay income taxes. Sorry Best Buy and Apple – you get screwed in my plan but not really since it just remains status quo for you. The people that benefit are the people that live within the borders of the land of the free and the brave.

Like I said above, I don’t like taxes. I know that there has to be some taxes because I want to have those brave soldiers that rescue ships that are attacked by pirates. But how about a little common sense and fair play when it comes to the tax burden.

Will Clinton take over as VP?

Will Clinton take over as VP?

By | | Comments 0 Comment

A recent article on FoxNews suggests that Barack Hussein Obama should drop Vice President Joseph Biden from the ticket in 2012 and put Hillary Clinton in the job instead.

I don’t think she will do it.

She will stay Secretary of State for the balance of the first term. If BHO is re-elected, she will resign shortly into the second term and no one will blame her as the SecState job is brutal.  This will allow her to publish one more book and do the money-raising chicken-dinner circuit.  She will then run in 2016 to succeed BHO, taking credit for thegood that she did as SecState but distancing herself from BHO’s screwups.

If BHO would lose in 2012 , she would be even better positioned for ’16.

Also, dropping Biden in 2012 (unless he is sick) will be seen as intensely disloyal by the American voters.  No President has changed VPs for an election since FDR put Truman on the ticket.  Nixon ran through a couple VPs but that was because Agnew was even more crooked than Tricky Dick and even then it wasn’t for an election – it was mid-term and Agnew had to resign the position.

It would be near political suicide to switch VPs in the 21st century just based on politics. Even George W. Bush didn’t do it with Dick Cheney which would have been a good move for the party. Cheney had terrible numbers and was never a candidate for President in 2008. Putting a fresh face on the ticket would have allowed Bush to weasel out of some of his mistakes and would have setup a successor candidate (rather than the very limp and inadequate McCain).  For that matter, GWB could have put McCain on the ticket and given him a better standing to run for President with fewer competitors in the primary.

If Biden should become very ill, Clinton is the obvious choice for VP. I have nothing against Mr. Biden, so I don’t want anything bad to happen to him, but if for some reason he is faced with a life-threatening illness, Hillary will be the logical and politically-prudent choice for VP.

Biden is here to stay if he is healthy. Look for Clinton on the ticket in 2016.

Is this a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions?

Is this a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions?

By | | Comments 1 comment

I don’t know about you but I remember my federal government classes in high school (and grade school for that matter).  I even remember a cute little commercial by School House Rocks talking about how a bill becomes a law. Under the U.S. Constitution a bill has to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Barack Hussein Obama to sign anyway.

Under the “reconciliation” process, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process but is not truly unconstitutional as it is only Senate “rules” and not constitutional law.

But Pelosi fears she lacks the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for Harry Reid’s Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that Reid added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

So at the request of Pelosi, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, the chair of the House Rules Committee, may insert what’s known as a “self-executing rule.”  Under this procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

Democrats would then send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war flip-flops!

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.” This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes.

If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of Madison’s core checks and balances. As long as one party is in power in both houses and the Executive branch then legislation can simply be rammed through by the party leadership.

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn’t want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism.

Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.

The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn’t bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Or rather, “deeming” to have passed it.

It is no longer someone else’s mess

It is no longer someone else’s mess

By | | Comments 0 Comment

Every President, except for George Washington, inherited something from the previous administration. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it is bad.

President Barack Hussein Obama has been talking for quite some time about the “mess” that he inherited from George Walker Bush. He has made references to mops and other allegories to describe the challenges that he has faced. While that is all well and good for the first few days of the Presidency, at a certain point BHO needs to own the problem.

That day is today.

There is no defined time for the honeymoon period of a new candidate. Most people felt that September 11, 2001 was close enough to the inauguration of George Walker Bush (just under 9 months) that the attacks on that dreaded day were at least partially the fault of William Jefferson Clinton. The honeymoon is certainly longer than the first 100 days that are all the talk at the beginning of a term. Everyone seems to agree that it doesn’t extend beyond a year from the date the person is elected.

For the past 12 months, BHO has been the President or the President-Elect. Every day he has received security briefings. Every day he has had access to and influence over thought leaders on a wide range of issues. Every day, he could pick up the phone and call any world leader, banking leader, Senator, Governor, or Representative.

When a person inherits a farm or house or china from a parent, from that day on the item or property belongs to the heir. This is the same now for the issues within the United States. The mess no longer belongs to GWB – it is the sole ownership now of BHO and he better get to work fixing it and stop talking about mops!

President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics

President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics

By | | Comments 0 Comment

Currently, President Barack Hussein Obama is planning on going to Copenhagen to be a celebrity pitchman for the city of Chicago (and America in general) for the home of the 2016 Olympics. While there is plenty of controversy over this decision since there are probably hundreds of movie stars and celebrities that could be tasked with helping the cause, the concern that BHO is too busy to go is probably not relevant.

Currently, every head of state for a city that is in the finals is visiting the IOC.  BHO’s lack of attendance would be telling if he did not go.  If BHO stayed home and spent more time socializing our economy, he would be vastly criticized if Chicago lost their bid. It is the sad state of Olympics politics that the head of state needs to be involved in order to win since Blair did that 4 years ago to secure London’s hosting spot.

There is little danger in BHO going. He has already started the process of vastly increasing our taxes with a cap and trade initiative as well as screwing up the healthcare reform effort. Having him travel around Europe (where they love him) is probably a good thing.  Maybe while he is on that side of the pond, Iran can give him a quick tour of their nuclear facilities and missile program. Then he can come back and give a Chamberlain style speech!

There is no questioning BHO’s star appeal.  In fact, this was an issue during his campaign for the Presidency (and led to this hilarious video). Let him use this star power to bring the Olympics to Chicago – for no other reason than we will be able to see the events in primetime rather than tape delayed!!

Site info