White House to Tackle the Tax Code

In the biggest act of hypocrisy to date, the White House announced today that it would form a new task force to reform the US tax code.  Their hope is to recoup billions of dollars in lost revenue.

This should make us all breathe a sigh of relief.

Their goal is to address three main areas:  Tax simplification, tax loopholes and evasion, and corporate welfare.  (By corporate welfare, I assume they mean tax incentives that allow corporations to keep more of the money they actually produce themselves.)

During the White House announcement, budget chief Peter Orszag pointed to a 2005 IRS estimate that the US tax gap - the difference between what taxpayers ow and what they actually pay - exceeds 300 billion dollars a year.  He did NOT point out, however, that much of this difference was "honest mistakes" made by White House appointees using Turbo Tax.

"Three hundred billion dollars a year or more is a lot of money, and we are interested in being as aggressive as possible to reduce that number," Orszag said.  He did not state whether or not part of that strategy was keeping as many tax cheats as close as possible to the administration.

I wonder if this "tax reform" will increase taxes on small businesses who provide most of the jobs in the country?   Just a thought.

Read more...

Europe: the US is too Socialist

(Article)

A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

A day after his government collapsed because of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, Topolanek took the EU presidency on a collision course with Washington over how to deal with the global economic recession.

Most European leaders favor tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. has been pushing for larger economic stimulus plans.

Topolanek's comments are the strongest criticism so far from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from recent U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

They also pave the way for a stormy summit next week in London between leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized countries.

Welcome to the new era of "change" in which we "wow" the world and mend fences with other countries.

Read more...

We are the cutting edge...

One of the blogs I follow (I forget which one.  Sorry, because you may read this) began a few weeks ago calling Obama "The Tele-Prompter" and "The Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS)." I found that appellation made a point in a humorous way, and I have started doing the same thing on occasion, particularly when referring to Obama at a time he actually uses a tele-prompter.

The front page of the Fox News website (foxnews.com) has copied us.  They have a headline calling Obama the "Prompter-in-Chief", leading an article on his need for a teleprompter for a news conference.

Folks, we are the cutting edge in news.  Even Fox News is copying us.

Read more...

Obama and the Special Olympics

Obama (sans teleprompter) and Leno yuked it up on the Tonight Show last week.  This is a good thing, because we need a few laughs after watching the stock market over the past few months.  And, after all, the less time Obama spends in Washington, the fewer federal programs he will create to spend more of our (future) tax dollars on.

Unfortunately, without a teleprompter, Obama has a tendency to say ... well ... stupid things.  (We have already documented a number of those, so I won't rehash that issue.)  Last week, Obama insulted the most vulnerable and defenseless group of Americans with an unfortunate crack about the Special Olympics.  (He was joking about his poor bowling skills, in case you missed it.)

The Washington Times editorial board defended the harsh remark, saying that although is comment was in poor taste, he meant no harm.

"The fundamental right of freedom of speech in this country applies to presidents as much as anyone. Obama is allowed to say impolitic things as long as they don't hurt the country....  Most importantly, the President has real problems to address beside hurt feelings.  The PC police need to relax and learn to take a joke."

I have several problems with this defense of Obama from a major news organization.

First, I wonder if the same standard would be applied by the paper to others with regard to free speech. Suppose, just hypothetically, that someone, let's say Don Imus, would have said something "impolitic" that didn't hurt the country, like calling a sports team a bunch of "nappy haired ho's" or something like that. Would the Times have been so quick to rush to his defense?  Did the Times give George W. Bush a lot of leeway for making grammatical mistakes?  Hmmm ... let me think about that.

Second, I find it interesting that the times thinks the President "has real problems to address" so he doesn't have time to issue an apology to people he may have insulted, but he has plenty of time to appear on 60 Minutes, Leno and travel around on a "PR tour" to distract America from the horrible job he's doing. How long does it take to say "I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have said that." Probably less time than it took me to type it.

Third, I haven't seen anyone address (even in the few blogs I've read regarding the issue) the fact that that Obama was all over Imus about his "impolitic" remarks.  A couple of years ago, junior Senator Obama slammed Don Imus for his insensitivity and called for him to be fired by NBC. Obama said that if anyone on his staff had made such an insensitive comment, they wouldn't have a job.  Pot, meet kettle.

I don't disagree with the Times that the fundamental right to free speech applies to everyone. But the Times clearly doesn't want to make the distinction that it makes for others ... that free speech is one thing, and appropriate speech is something else entirely. Some people can't say some things. The Times would never have given George W. Bush a pass had he made the same comment.

Not that we didn't already know this, but this is more evidence that the MainStream Media is in the tank for Obama.  And they will continue their defense of Obama unless and until the tide of public opinion turns.

Read more...

Money Spent on War vs. Money Spent on Infrastructure

I was reading a news article yesterday in which the (obviously liberal) reported "defended" the Obama administration by saying that even though deficits will climb dramatically under Obama, that deficit spending on infrastructure helped the economy more than money spent on the Iraq war.

Is that true?

Initially, I read the statement without really questioning it.  He was, after all, a news reporter writing a news (not an opinion or commentary) article.  Surely that article had been researched, proofread and re-read by a number of editors and fact-checkers.  

But later in the day, I got to thinking about that comment (which wasn't the point of the whole article, by the way). And the more I thought about it, the more I thought, "That can't really be true, can it?"

It's not like money spent on the war gets sent directly to Iraq and is blown up. Money spent on the Iraq war is money that is for the most part spent here, in the US economy. Weapons and ammunition are manufactured here.  Soldiers pay is mostly deposited in US banks and spent by the solders families here, or by the solders themselves when they return home. Vehicles, food, and other supplies are purchased here in the US and shipped to Iraq for use by the soldiers.  All that money goes back into the US economy. Or a large portion of it, anyway. That is, in essence, how World War II (not FDR's policies) brought us out of the Great Depression.

Much of the money spent on infrastructure stays here in the US, as well.  Think about all the asphalt spent on road construction, for example.  Where does that come from?  From ... uh ... oil, which comes from the Middle East. 

Okay, that was a bad example.

Certainly, the labor that helps create and update our infrastructure helps the US economy.  Many legal and illegal Mexican immigrants work on the crews that build our roads, bridges, railroads, and ..... then they send that money to Mexico ... no wait.  That's a bad example, too.

Let's consider ... Universal Health Care; a process in which the Federal Government becomes the facilitator in taking money out of the hands of working Americans in order to directly benefit non-working Americans as well as immigrants from Mexico and from .... wait a minute.  I guess that's not going to really help the economy, either.

Okay, I need a little help here ...

Read more...

Geithner is on Shaky Ground

Treasury Secretary Timothy "Turbo-Tax" Geithner is on "shaky ground" these days with Congress and many in the country, according to the Senate Banking Committee's top Republican.

Sen. Richard Shelby said Sunday he doesn't think Geithner will last long unless he starts doing a better job.

Shelby, who voted to confirm Geithner, said he has less confidence in the treasury secretary each day -- over the AIG bonus mess, solving the nation's financial troubles and helping turn around the economy.

"I said competence brings confidence to anything. I don't see a lot of things positively thus far that Timothy Geithner's been involved in," Shelby said Sunday on "Fox News Sunday."

"He's going to have to do a 180-degree turnaround, I believe, to be a successful treasury secretary," he said.

Attempting to avoid a major scandal in the first 100 days since the inauguration, a Tele-Promter still expressed faith in Geithner. The Tele-Prompter tells CBS' "60 Minutes" that if Geithner offered to resign, the answer would be, "Sorry buddy, you've still got the job."

Read more...

Too Much Anger

I started to post a reply to my last post in response to a comment left by one "Grey-Headed Brother."  Mr. Brother seems to think my blog contains too much anger and not enough love.

Perhaps he is right.

I've looked back over many of my recent posts and noted that some of them do contain a certain degree of anger.  Perhaps .... and this is just a thought ... but perhaps, it's because .... I'm angry.

I'm angry that the Tele-Prompter is taking us down a liberal-socialist path that will prevent the US from ever returning to the greatness we once enjoyed.

I'm angry that the MainStream Media no longer reports political news, but only reports the Democratic talking points and slants everything toward the left.

I'm angry that the national debt, by the time The Tele-Prompter leaves office (in four years, hopefully, if he's not drummed out sooner) could exceed $100,000 for every taxpaying American.

I'm angry that the Tele-Prompter has broken more campaign promises in the first 60 days in office than do most Presidents during their entire term, without so much as a whisper of anger from his supporters.

Perhaps, as a Christian I should show more love. 

If you met me in person, you'd find me a rather quiet, introspective, and pleasant person.  I'm nice to everyone.  But, I hold things in.  A friend of mine, who happens to have a degree in psychology, told me that it isn't good to hold frustrations and anger inside.

So I have an outlet.   It's called a Blog.  And here I can say what I really think and feel without  worrying about what anyone thinks. 

You don't like it?  Tough.  Big deal.  I don't CARE!!!  It's MY opinion.  You don't have to like it.

If you don't like reading what REAL AMERICANS think, go elsewhere.  CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, and all the other major MainStream News sources have a place for you, where you can go live in a "happy place" and feel good about things.

I live in a world where there are consequences.  And I'm not just going to sit by in my "happy place" and not say anything about what's going on around me.

Follow my blog if you like.  And if you don't like it and want to take your name off, that's fine by me.  I don't care if I have any followers or not.

I'd rather have a blog, than prozac.

Read more...

Headlines...

Oil Prices Up

Stock Prices Down

Unemployment Up

Federal Deficit Will Be Over A Trillion Dollars Higher Than the Administration Thinks

AIG Becomes a Scandal For Democrats, Involving Geithner, Dodd and the Democratic Congress

The Administration Focuses on Rush Limbaugh

Obama Picks Basketball Favorites and Goes on Leno

... It's the economy, teleprompter.

Read more...

California's Unemployment Rate Tops 10%

California's unemployment rate rose for the 11th straight month in February, hitting 10.5% as a recession-racked economy shed 116,000 jobs across all professions and industries, the state reported today.

The number was up from 10.1% in January, and it was the highest since April 1983.

Los Angeles County's seasonably adjusted unemployment rate reached 10.9% in February, the Employment Development Department said. (An earlier version of the story said the county unemployment rate reached 11% in February, but that was not the seasonally adjusted number.)

"It's pretty dismal," said Howard Roth, chief economist for the California Department of Finance. "Since October, we've been getting these increasingly larger losses of jobs." Layoffs in February were the largest for a single month in at least 19 years, he said.

And, it appears the rate will continue to rise for the remainder of this year.

Read more...

Have We Gotten What We Voted For?

I ran across an interesting comment on a blog a while ago that set my mind off on a tangent.  The comment was that (in effect): Our government has always reflected the voters.  We have the situation we have right now because America is fractured with no common goal and no core beliefs.

While I don't totally agree with the premise, that government really reflects the electorate (I'm more inclined to think that our Government reflects what the MainStream Media tells the electorate they are), there is some truth to the comment.

For at least the past 40 years or so, the American educational system has denied that there is a God, that there are absolute truths, that there is such a thing as good and such a thing as evil, and that traditional Judeo-Christian morality and values should be instilled in American Children.  What has resulted is a society that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.  A society that can't distinguish between truth and a lie.  A society that sees evil as good and good as evil, based on popular secular humanist thought.

One group says that eating meat is evil; another says driving cars is evil; another says that making a profit in business is evil; another says that denying a woman the right to kill her unborn child is evil... And so it goes.

It seems our leaders can now say anything, do anything and blame the results on someone else without suffering any consequences.  

All this leads me to a question.  In the past, if our leaders were corrupt or were liars or were leading from the standpoint of evil and corruption, they would have eventually been exposed and voted out (if not forced out sooner.)  That's no longer happening.  

Can America ever recover from this?

I contend that it cannot.  Tomorrow I may feel differently.  (I reserve the right to change my mind on this). Right now, it seems to me that we have gone down a path of no return.  We will from now forward have politicians that are unaccountable, and a government that runs amok.

Thoughts?

Read more...

Budget Deficit Will Be Higher than Obama Wants to Admit

President Obama's $3.55-trillion budget has stumbled into a series of economic and political pitfalls that threaten to undercut his grandest ambitions.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday projected deficits far higher than the Obama administration had calculated, possibly as much as $1.6 trillion higher over the next 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to issue a similar assessment today.

That bad news, combined with other recent developments, portends a rocky road for the Obama budget, which was initially hailed by congressional Democrats for promoting such liberal priorities as expanded access to health insurance and curbs on global warming.

In the three weeks since the budget was unveiled, fiscally conservative Democrats have raised concerns about proposed spending increases. Leaders of the House and Senate tax-writing committees have criticized some of Obama's proposed tax increases on wealthier Americans. And influential Democrats are backing away from using a legislative shortcut that may be Obama's best hope for passing his far-reaching health and energy policies.

An additional multibillion-dollar bailout for banks and other financial institutions, which the administration will soon propose, is expected to add more pressure to the federal government's finances.

Into that tinderbox, a lit match has come from new deficit estimates.

Where Obama's budget foresees rolling up $7 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next 10 years, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Thursday pegged the deficits at $1.6 trillion higher over that period.

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the figure was calculated by his panel's Democratic staff members.

The Congressional Budget Office report today is expected to reflect a worsening deficit outlook in part because economic conditions have deteriorated in the two months since the administration set its budget assumptions. The office is expected to project lower revenue and higher spending than what Obama's budget assumed.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of about 15 moderate Democrats concerned about Obama's spending levels, said the White House might have to reassess its priorities in light of the new estimates.

"That will influence what we might think is the appropriate level of spending -- what might be put off to another budget, what we can pursue incrementally," said Nelson, a member of the budget panel.

"I think this budget is in for some tough sledding," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "Some components of his budget are going over like a lead balloon."

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) won't let facts and projections get in the way of her liberal agenda.

"Our priorities are the same," Pelosi said. "You can't say we are going to do less because those numbers are pessimistic."

The White House also said the projections would not force a change in the socialization of America.

"It's not productive to constantly be chasing your tail and, as things change every day, revise your numbers," was the spin from Kenneth Baer of Obama's budget office.

In other words, "Bush spent too much money and had huge deficits.  This is all his fault.  In order to get us out of this mess, we're going to have to spend even more money and have even bigger deficits!"

Read more...

Connecticut Voters Outraged

The New York Times Publishes the following:

Connecticut Senator Draws Voters’ Ire for His Bonus Role

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and THOMAS KAPLAN

Published: March 19, 2009

Clarence Randolph, a 50-year-old dump truck driver from New Haven, has been out of work for two months.

He is not happy that financial firms bailed out by the government are paying bonuses to their executives. And he does not understand why one of his senators, Christopher Dodd, allowed it to happen.

“Why would he do it?” he said as he was about to enter the New Haven Free Public Library to search online for jobs. “Why are they going to take taxpayers’ money — my money — and give all these people bonuses? I think that’s terrible.”

Across Connecticut, anger is erupting against Mr. Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, whose stature in Washington once reflected the state’s beneficial ties with the financial industry. Now, he finds himself a symbol of the political establishment’s coziness with tainted corporations and a target of populist wrath over their excesses.

(Read the Article)

Read more...