Posts

Tax Warning: Will Barack Obama Do to America What Leftists Already Have Done to Illinois…and England…and…?

Now that the debt-limit fight is basically over (the Senate will join the House in approving it later today), we need to immediately prepare for the next stage in the fight to stop big government and restore economic liberty.

President Obama and other leftists clearly have signaled that they want the new “super committee” – which will recommend $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction before Thanksgiving – to be a vehicle for “balance” and “shared sacrifice.” But if you look in a Statism-to-English dictionary, you learn that “balance” is a code word for higher taxes and “shared sacrifice” means class-warfare taxation.

I’ve already explained that a truly balanced approach requires nothing but spending restraint. And I’ve explained why Obama’s class-warfare taxation is misguided.

Today, let’s look at three real-world examples. We’ll start with the President’s home state. Early this year, using sneaky maneuvering, Illinois politicians raised the state’s income tax rate. I warned that this would drive jobs and businesses out of the state. That was an easy prediction, of course, and we’re already seeing results.Here’s a blurb from a Chicago Sun-Times story.

It’s becoming a habit around here — another day, another stalwart of financial services in Chicago threatening to leave town. On Thursday, it was the Chicago Board Options Exchange suggesting that higher corporate taxes in Illinois could cause it to take jobs out of state. The CBOE’s warning came a day after CME Group Inc. said the same thing. CME owns the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. The options market, with its headquarters and trading floor at 400 S. La Salle, employs about 580 people, not including traders who use its facilities. A CBOE spokesman said in a statement that “economic realities” could force a move.

Because the CME and CBOE are so high profile, I suspect Illinois politicians will provide some sort of one-off tax holiday or back-door subsidy to prevent this from happening. That won’t solve the problem, of course, which is that high tax rates inexorably will undermine the state’s competitiveness and that ordinary people will pay the highest price.

Read More by Dan Mitchell

Boehner, McConnell Agree to Let Obama Borrow Another $2.4 Trillion

House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) have reportedly agreed to give President Barack Obama the authority to borrow as much as an additional $2.4 trillion—thus allowing him to get past the November 2012 election without having to seek another increase in the legal limit on the federal debt.

A pleased President Obama announced the deal in a briefing at the White House press room at 8:40 p.m. on Sunday.

“Most importantly,” Obama said of the deal, “it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.”

Neither Obama, nor Boehner, nor McConnell released the details of the deal on Sunday evening.

The New York Times reported that the money to increase the debt limit would come in an initial installment of $900 billion followed by a second installment of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. The first $900 billion would include an immediate $400 billion to allow the government to pay its immediate bills. Both the initial and second installment, according to the Times would be subject of disapproval votes by Congress which would cancel the debt limit increases, but that these disapproval votes would be subject to a veto by President Obama—meaning that both houses of Congress would have to vote by two-thirds majorities to prevent the debt limit increases from happening.

Read More at CNSNews By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com

Going Galt without even knowing it

A blogger named David McElroy recently wrote of a Birmingham (Alabama) businessman who,after listening to a room full of moochers and leeches piss whine and moan about the evils of business, publicly threw in the towel regarding his attempt to open a new coal mine.

David compared what happened to a scene right out of “Atlas Shrugged” and then mused,“But I wonder how long it’s going to be before businesspeople really do start walking away and deciding it’s not worth doing business in America today. Or is it already happening and we just don’t know it?”

Well,David,it’s going on right now all around us and we do in fact know all about it. I have a good friend from high school who was drafted in the Vietnam era,then earned his civil engineering Bachelor of Science degree afterward at N.C. State via the GI Bill. He started his own construction company, and has run it ever since, directly employing dozens of people and spending millions annually on equipment and materials, thereby employing countless others. Until now; until Obama was elected.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Obammunist economic policies,and then Obamacare de-exempted small construction companies from the 50-employee exemption as demanded by the unions so they could kill all non-union construction companies. Well it worked.

My friend said he was finally fed up and was finally able to say what Obama has demanded that all productive people must say, namely,“I have enough money”. He said he figured he had worked hard all his life, saved his earnings, and it was finally it was time to enjoy his savings. My friend fired all his employees,gave away all his equipment (which was fundamentally worthless anyway since everyone else was dumping their equipment too) and retired. Like many who enjoy the work they do,he probably would otherwise have died with his boots on,contributing to society right until the end. But Obammunism forced his hand,and for him personally it was a good thing because he is developing health problems,and in the not-too-distant future would have eventually been unable to enjoy his hard-earned savings.

Read More at Coach is Right  By Basil Irwin, Coach is Right

Congressman: Only ‘theft’ would detour Social Security checks

 

Did Barack Obama have one of those unwelcome political moments when the harsh reality of truth accidentally spills out when he said he couldn’t assure Social Security recipients that their checks would be mailed in August unless he got the debt ceiling increase he wanted?

Possibly.

Because, the facts are that although there is a specific Social Security trust fund in which Social Security taxes are tabulated, and the government reports there is a $2.7 trillion balance in that account, the taxes go into and the retirement and disability checks come straight out of the nation’s general fund.

That circumstance has prompted U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., to propose, along with half a dozen other House members, legislation that would make certain the payments to senior citizens are made in a timely manner.

The president’s comment came during an appearance recently on CBS.

Read More at WorldNetDaily By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Obama Prison Blues

The “Gang of Six” Deal is the Antithesis of Reform

The media frenzy over Republican Senators and Barack Obama making nice over the debt ceiling crisis exposes for all Americans to see the extent to which both parties are aligned with Wall Street interests, and against the interests of Main Street and small business. The subject of this latest bipartisan love fest is the Gang of Six plan.

Americans want reform. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives was swept into office by promising reform. The Gang of Six solution is the antithesis of reform.

Supposedly it offers the “balanced approach” of which Obama rambles on about endlessly. But in reality, the Gang of Six is one-sided. It offers only vague language about spending cuts. At best the Gang of Six plan might cut $500 billion, and even these cuts cannot be guaranteed. In real terms, government would continue to grow.

Also the Gang of Six solution would dramatically increase taxes. It calls upon the Senate Finance Committee to craft a tax reform plan that would actually increase taxes by $2.3 trillion over a 10 year period. Some members even cynically call it a tax reduction by using a baseline that everyone knows is phony. This is a baseline that predicts all of the middle class tax cuts signed into law by President Bush was repealed.

All of this because rejecting the debt ceiling increase would require the U.S. government to right size itself and begin a pay as you go diet.

Read More at Floyd Reports by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports

MSNBC Distorts Reagan Position on Debt Ceiling, Says Media Watchdog Group

Cable network MSNBC has been distorting the late President Ronald Reagan’s position on raising the debt ceiling, in the midst of a current-day political debate over raising that ceiling between President Barack Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill, says an analysis by the Media Research Center (MRC).

“At least five MSNBC anchors since Tuesday have promoted a cherry-picked House Democratic Caucus video that distorts President Ronald Reagan’s position on the debt ceiling, inaccurately asserting that President Barack Obama is more in line with Reagan than the Republicans,” MRC News Analyst Alex Fitzsimmons reported in a BiasAlert on Wednesday.

The five MSNBC anchors are Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Thomas Roberts. They each played or cited an excerpt from a Reagan speech given on Sept. 26, 1987. In the excerpt, Reagan expressed the need to raise the debt ceiling.

However, the cable network did not acknowledge that later in that same speech Reagan insisted on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

MRC President L. Brent Bozell III expressed outrage at the network on Thursday.

Read More at CNS News by Fred Lucas, CNSNews

C.S. Lewis vs. Barack Obama on Economics and Government

As Americans prepared to mark the birth of their country with the usual outpouring of celebratory events, pundits on the political right were scratching their heads over President Obama’s most recent comment about America’s free-enterprise system.

This time, corporate jet owners got the hit, no fewer than six times during Obama’s late June press conference, apparently for taking advantage of Bush administration tax breaks at the cost of “your child’s safety.” Such financial obscenities were matched by continued tax breaks for “millionaires and billionaires,” whose wealth the political Left covets and whose sheer selfishness, in their view, has driven a stake through the heart of the president’s vaunted recovery summer. All the while unemployment rates remain stubbornly high, large and small businesses refuse to take their plunge into the world created by Obamacus Economicus, Americans by large majorities believe the country is going “in the wrong direction,” and administration officials remain puzzled by it all. The question is how to explain all this.

Two observers, one a 19th-century Frenchmen and the other a 20th-century Englishmen, offered words of wisdom about the consequences of centralizing political control and, we shall argue, the moral relativism that accompanies such a development.

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous warning in Democracy in America about the peculiar type of despotism to which democracies are especially vulnerable included comments about “an immense tutelary power” hovering over a mass of citizens, for whose happiness it “willingly labors, but it chooses to be a sole agent and the only arbiter,” leaving nothing for individual determination. “What remains,” de Tocqueville asked, “but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” The result is a power that “prevents existence,” that “compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people,” to the point where they can no longer be considered human beings at all.

Or if they can, they have no chests. This designation was made famous by that bête noire of British moral relativists, C. S. Lewis, noted for his writings on Christian apologetics as well as his Narnia series and the space trilogy. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man consists of three lectures he gave during World War II and was not about politics per se, but rather about the perils of assuming that science can dismiss statements of moral sentiments as purely subjective reactions. He noted that dismissing value statements’ objective meaning has the effect of emasculating humanity; that is, ripping out the “spirited element” of personhood—one’s chest—which hosts “indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man.”

Read More at Floyd Reports By Marvin J. Folkertsma, Floyd Reports

Kincaid: Obama Poised to Win Budget Battle and Slash Defense

Another discussion by liberal talking heads on CNN yesterday depicted House conservatives as fanatical budget-cutters standing in the way of a “deal” on federal spending and debt. But the Cut, Cap, and Balance Bill, which has been portrayed as draconian and fiscally conservative, actually raises the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion. Nine House Republicans voted against the bill for this and other related reasons.

Coverage of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (H.R. 2560) has been extremely misleading. The coverage is reminiscent of how the media portray cuts in the rate of growth of federal spending as actual cuts.

In this case, however, the House Republican leadership went along with the ploy, in order to portray themselves as serious budget cutters. The liberal media were only too willing to oblige, setting up a final showdown in which Obama stands to come out the big winner and make cuts that will undermine our national defense—a constitutional obligation of the federal government.

Indeed, one of the “popular” alternatives, now being touted by some in the liberal media, is a plan by “conservative” Senator Tom Coburn to cut $1 trillion from the U.S. defense budget. His options include cancelling aircraft carriers, “reforming” the Joint Strike Fighter program, delaying production of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle, terminating a mobile air defense system, reducing nuclear weapons, and reducing purchases of the V-22 Osprey.

At Commentary magazine, Alana Goodman writes of the Coburn plan that “it’s far more radical than Obama’s own recommendation to slash the defense budget by $400 billion.” She adds, “Military spending is not the reason why we’re in a fiscal crisis. Getting rid of wasteful spending in the defense budget is one thing, but strangling it with cuts will endanger our troops and dangerously diminish America’s standing in the world.”

Read More at GOPUSA  By Cliff Kincaid, GOPUSA