Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    March 2025
    S M T W T F S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Answering the Obama attack on entrepreneurs

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2012

The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass has answered the President’s contemptuous chiding of entrepreneurs in a personal and moving way:

When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father.

But I didn’t have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.

All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad’s car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.

He’d return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he’d begin to snore.

The next day he’d wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even forMcDonald’s. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.

There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.

Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. …

Read the whole thing. Please!

And watch this Romney internet ad on the same subject:


[YouTube link]

I’ve never contributed to a Republican presidential candidate (only congressional candidates, and those mostly via Club for Growth). But I’d contribute to the Romney campaign if my contribution could be earmarked toward airing that ad on TV.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s “Let them eat cake” moment

Posted by Richard on June 8, 2012

The President held a press conference today, and he didn’t do himself any favors re-election-wise. In an incredibly clueless answer to a question about the economy, he argued that “the private sector is doing fine” and the only problem with our economy is that the government sector isn’t big enough. Here’s the key minute:


[YouTube link]

He again called on the Republicans to pass his “Jobs Act,” which he said would create a million new jobs for construction workers, policemen, firemen, and teachers — in other words, more government workers and more workers on government construction projects — and he lamented that fact that governors and mayors weren’t doing enough hiring.

Plenty of Republicans have responded forcefully to this nonsense, including Governors Christie, Jindal, and Walker. I especially liked Jindal’s pithy observation that the Obama administration is “at the nexus of liberalism and incompetence,” and Scott Walker’s summation of the difference between the Socialist Democrats and the rest of us:

“There are two very different views in the country,” Walker said. “The current administration seems to think that success is measured by how many people are dependent on the government. I think success is measured by how many are not.”

To me, there’s a certain irony to Obama’s recent remarks on the economy. In addition to an insufficiently large government sector, he blames our economic problems on the problems of Europe. But this is the man whose quest to “fundamentally transform” America is a quest to make us more like Europe, with its abundantly large government sector. A lot of good that’s done them.

Well, at least the finger-pointing at governors, mayors, and Europe has led to less “blame Bush” rhetoric.

UPDATE: Ever since I heard the President say “the private sector is doing fine,” something in the back of my mind has been bugging me about that statement, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Finally, it came to me — this isn’t the first time I’ve heard almost exactly that phrase. It was last October that Senator Harry Reid (SD-NV) said:

“It’s very clear that private sector jobs have been doing just fine.  It’s public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers.”

I’ve got the whole story here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Crippling regulatory uncertainty

Posted by Richard on May 29, 2012

A friend who owns a condo showed me the latest condo community association newsletter the other day. An article in it illustrates in a small way why the economy in general and the housing market in particular aren’t going to get healthy as long as the Obama administration is in office.

Because they often attract first-time buyers with limited funds for down payments, condos are frequently financed with FHA loans. Let’s set aside for the moment the issue of whether the FHA program should exist — or needs to. It’s been in place for many years, guaranteeing loans with low down payments. To offset the increased risk, the government requires buyers to carry mortgage insurance until their equity in the property reaches 20%, and there are stricter rules on what properties qualify for an FHA loan.

Apparently for condos, HUD requires the condominium association to apply for FHA certification of its properties. And the process has become much more onerous under the Obama administration. For one thing, in this area as in so many others, the Obama administration has made regulatory uncertainty a way of life, as the newsletter explains (emphasis in original):

In November 2009, the federal government decided to change EVERYTHING with respect to the process and approval requirements for condominium associations only. Then they changed again in February 2011. And again in June 2011. …

Through June 2011, Westwind Management (our management company) was successful in recertifying all of its qualified condominium clients within HUD standards. Now, condominium associations are required to be recertified every two years. This is a time consuming and costly burden that was not necessary before 2009.

But it’s not just constantly changing regulations and burdensome paperwork. The managing agent has to keep HUD informed continuously of any information changes, possible defects, disputes among owners, etc. There are no doubt scores, and perhaps hundreds, of pages of hard-to-understand regulations detailing what the management agent is obligated to provide. And he or she is personally responsible for failure to comply:

The language is vague and the penalties are untenable. The penalty for a fraudulent package or not reporting changes is up to $1,000,000 in fines and/or a maximum of 30 years in prison.

Would you want that job? Or invest in a condo management company in this regulatory climate?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s “venture capital vampire”

Posted by Richard on May 27, 2012

The Obama campaign continues to hammer Romney for his association with Bain Capital, the private equity firm they portray as a “vampire” that profited from layoffs and plant closures. So Todd Shepherd at Colorado Peak Politics decided to play the ever-popular “sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” game.

It seems that former Denver mayor Federico Peña, who is again this year (as in 2008) Obama National Campaign Co-chair, is every bit as much a “venture capital vampire” as R0mney. Since 2000, Peña has been a partner in the private equity firm Vestar Capital. Shepherd documented some of the recent Obama campaign contributions of Peña and Vestar managing director James Kelley. Then he highlighted some of Vestar’s layoffs and plant closures at the companies it acquired, like Del Monte Foods and Solo Cup Company.

To his credit, Shepherd pointed out that Vestar Capital isn’t a bunch of “evil corporate raiders.” Neither is Bain Capital. These firms serve a valuable purpose, rescuing ailing companies when they can and redirecting resources to more valued uses when they can’t. Their goal certainly is (and ought to be) to make money. But in the process, they improve the economy and make us all better off.

Inefficient, uncompetitive companies failing and factories shutting down are an essential aspect of economic growth and progress, leading to more wealth and better products, jobs, and living standards for all. If that idea is new or strange to you, read about Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of Creative Destruction.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

US to blind Chinese dissident: Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out

Posted by Richard on May 2, 2012

Apparently, the Obama State Department was so desperate to get Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng out of the American Embassy in Beijing without further pissing off the Chinese government that they were willing to do or say almost anything. Including, according to Chen, passing along the Chinese government’s death threats against his wife.

The story isn’t playing well. Hillary Clinton’s visit to China looks to be something less than a diplomatic triumph. The Obama administration is about as good at negotiating this kind of public relations minefield as they are at stimulating the economy.

When they can’t get the “newspaper of record” to cover for them, you know they’ve screwed up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Obama taking credit for Leon Panetta’s courage?

Posted by Richard on May 1, 2012

If the Obama administration were a football team, its quarterback would have been penalized for excessive celebration. There’s that contemptible campaign ad in which Bill Clinton (who passed on numerous opportunities to get bin Laden) praised Obama’s courage and suggested that Romney wouldn’t have acted as decisively — an ad that even ultra-liberal Arianna Huffington declared “despicable.”

The President himself intimated that Romney would have failed to act (as Clinton repeatedly did). Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume joined Huffington in disapproving, describing his remarks with the words “unseemly” and “Yuck.”

And then there was today’s victory lap around Afghanistan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the President, whoever he is, visiting our troops and thanking them. But the timing — well, I’d say it’s unseemly, and yuck.

Michael Mukasey emphasized how unpresidential all this self-congratulation is (“It’s hard to imagine Lincoln or Eisenhower claiming such credit for the heroic actions of others”). He also pointed out that, according to a recently released memo, the President apparently approved the raid on condition of a “responsibility-escape clause” that basically said “It’s Admiral McRaven’s plan, so if it all goes south, he’s to blame.”

I agree that even if the President acted resolutely and decisively, this PR campaign is indeed unseemly and despicable. But I’d like to point out that that’s a big “if,” and I wish someone would remember the information I posted about on May 5, 2011, just days after the successful raid. Numerous sources at the time said bin Laden’s location had been known for some time, but the President had delayed making a decision. One anonymous White House source went further, providing a detailed (and believable) account of how the decision was finally made and who made it:

According to the source, Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and others had been pushing for weeks, maybe months, for an attack on the Abottabad compound. Valerie Jarrett was adamantly opposed. And the President couldn’t make up his mind. More than once, Obama seemed ready to agree and then, after Jarrett intervened, backed away.

With Clinton and Chief of Staff Bill Daley pledging their full support, Panetta went ahead with planning and preparation for the mission, and eventually gave the order for the SEALs to go in. The President was only informed (and rushed back to the White House) after the operation had begun.

So, is the President’s re-election campaign going to be centered around his taking credit for the courage of Leon Panetta?

Well, it can’t be centered around his domestic policy successes. He’s got nothing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The modesty of the Ryan budget plan

Posted by Richard on April 7, 2012

The President called the Republican budget plan put together by Rep. Paul Ryan “social Darwinism.” And he and his fellow Socialist Democrats have pulled out all the stops in denouncing it: children will starve, old people will die, our food will poison us, and the air and water will become toxic if these draconian budget cuts are enacted.

After a cursory look when it came out, I gave the Ryan plan two cheers. But after looking at the graphs and numbers Nick Gillespie put together (from Investor’s Business Daily and the Mercatus Center’s Veronique de Rugy), I’m taking back one of those cheers.

Under the Ryan plan, government spending grows slightly more slowly than under the Obama plan. I’m guessing that’s not entirely fair to Ryan — the Obama numbers are undoubtedly much more fudged than his, so the real difference is probably much greater than it appears.

Nevertheless, the Ryan plan is a pretty modest, timid, tentative start at addressing the impending fiscal catastrophe. That the Socialist Democrats are attacking it in such over-the-top fashion indicates either that they’re totally delusional and divorced from reality or that they’re cynically betting they can defeat the Republicans by scaring the bejeezus out of all the ignorant and stupid people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Obama ignorant or cynical?

Posted by Richard on April 4, 2012

James Taranto is one of many who were dumbfounded by the President’s suggestion that the Supreme Court has no business overturning an act of Congress and no history of doing so:

We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it’s no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law.

Taranto found further evidence of presidential ignorance in Obama’s answer to a question about his attempt to lobby/bully/denigrate the Supreme Court.

… He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner,right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

In fact, Lochner–about which more in a moment–was decided in 1905. …

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the “liberty of contract,” which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. …

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law–contrary to the president’s claim–and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

If the President really believes what he’s been saying about the Supreme Court, then he’s indeed remarkably ignorant for someone who once taught constitutional law. But Rush Limbaugh thinks Taranto and others are mistaken:

… I simply refuse to accept the notion that Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I refuse to accept the notion that he doesn’t understand judicial review, doesn’t know what Marbury v. Madison is. I think he’s doing something entirely different. He is appealing to the dumbest, the most uninformed, and what he’s basically telling them is: “This court is going to take away your health care that I’ve given you.” That’s what he’s telling them, and he’s counting on the dumb and the stupid to believe that, to not read any of these law professors who are correct. He doesn’t care.

I’m inclined to go with Rush on this. Obama may be weak on Lochner (I bet his Harvard Law professors taught little about Lochner besides how evil it was), but he certainly knows Marbury v. Madison. (Heck, I learned about John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison in high school. But nowadays …)

(Rush also suspects that one of the justices, probably Kagan, leaked the results of the vote to the White House, and that’s why Obama and his supporters have gone bat-sh*t crazy regarding the Supreme Court, including calls to impeach justices who vote to overturn Obamacare.)

Obama’s remarks about the Supreme Court are like his rant about the Ryan budget, which Guy Benson called “Obama’s Worst Speech Yet”:

…  Barack Obama managed to out-do himself by uncorking what very well may have been the most dishonest, demagogic, and bitterly partisan speech of his presidency.  I render that assessment as someone who has sat through and analyzed countless Obama lectures, some of which earned very high marks for deceit and ideological invective.  Indeed, today’s Occupy-inspired rant takes the cake.  It was a depressing and enraging preview of the next seven months, over which this president will unleash a barrage of sophistic and pernicious arguments deliberately designed to sow discord and divide Americans.  He will do so with no regard for the truth, history, or the Constitution he swore to uphold.  …

The President doesn’t really think that the Supreme Court has no business overturning an act of Congress. And he doesn’t really believe that the Republicans’ modest moves toward fiscal restraint in the Ryan budget are designed to starve children, kill old people, and poison our food, air, and water. His demagoguery is aimed at his natural constituency, those who can be led to believe these things.

For the past three years, this allegedly post-partisan, post-racial politician who was supposed to unite us all has used every possible opportunity to attack straw men, demonize anyone who opposed his policies, increase racial tensions, and promote partisan divisions. He’s redoubling these efforts for the election campaign, hoping to energize his base and fool enough of the ignorant and poorly educated to win reelection despite his administration’s disastrous record. Expect things to get even nastier.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Eating our seed corn

Posted by Richard on March 31, 2012

The economic recovery isn’t going well in a number of respects, according to Reason’s Tim Cavanaugh. Americans are earning less (after taxes and inflation) and spending more. So borrowing has increased and saving has collapsed. The cheerleaders for the Obama administration and the Bernanke Fed at CNN think this is good news.

Of course it is. Any farmer will tell you that the way to ensure bigger harvests in the future is to eat some of your seed corn.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama vastly expands government emergency powers

Posted by Richard on March 20, 2012

Chilling news from Simon Black:

Quietly, and with little fanfare, President Obama signed a “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order on Friday. As the name suggests, the order intends to shore up the country’s national defense resources in advance of a national emergency.

To be fair, this is not the first time that such an order has been written. Presidents Bush (II), Clinton, Reagan, and even Eisenhower provided directives in the same spirit as President Obama’s order– providing some level of government commandeering in times of national emergency.

In the past, these orders have related to things like production capacity for defense contractors, or giving FEMA authority to resolve disputes between other departments in federally designated emergency areas.

President Obama’s order, however, takes things much, much further.

Much, much further indeed! Read the whole disturbing thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Religious liberty in the Age of Obama

Posted by Richard on March 14, 2012

Item: The federal government has exempted an Indian tribe from the Bald and Golden Eagle Act to accommodate their religious beliefs.

A pair of Wyoming bald eagles now qualify as a really endangered species.

The Northern Arapaho Tribe secured an extraordinarily rare permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing the Native Americans to kill two of the national birds for religious use.

The national agency, in a 2009 report, said it has never issued a license for the killing of a bald eagle — making it likely that the tribe was the first group to ever get the legal go-ahead.

Federal law bars the killing of any bald eagle under almost any circumstance. The Wyoming tribe argued that the ban was a violation of their religious freedom.

Item: The federal government has refused to exempt Catholic institutions from the mandate to provide birth control and “morning-after” (abortifacient) pills to their employees. The Catholic institutions argued that the mandate was a violation of their religious freedom.

I’m not religious, or anti-abortion, or particularly pro-eagle. But I’d love to have someone explain to me on what rational basis the federal government can choose to accommodate one group’s religious beliefs, but not the others’.

Does the phrase “equal protection under the law” have any meaning at all anymore under the Obama administration?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Can the Obama administration simply ignore federal laws it doesn’t like?

Posted by Richard on February 22, 2012

That’s the question at issue, according to Van Irion, in U.S. v. Arizona. His Liberty Legal Foundation recently filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Arizona’s S.B 1070 says that when state law enforcement officers have legitimate reasons for detaining an individual, they should request information about the individual’s immigration status from the INS. The Obama administration ordered the INS not to provide such information, in violation of Federal law (8 U.S.C. §1373), which states in subsections (a) & (b) (emphasis added by Van Irion):

“Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual…no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) …requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service”

In Federal District Court, the Obama administration asked for and received an injunction prohibiting Arizona law enforcement agencies from requesting immigration status information from the INS. They cited subsection (c) of that same law (8 U.S.C. §1373), which requires the INS to respond to such requests. And they argued … well, I’ll let Irion explain (emphasis in original):

… You see, the Arizona Court and Obama both reason that because subsection (c) requires the INS to respond, if Arizona police make too many requests, then the INS will be too busy to “pursue other priorities,” as determined by Obama.

To summarize the argument: Because Federal law requires us to do this, if you make us do it we won’t be able to not do it. And that argument won the day.

This argument essentially asks the Judicial branch to validate the Executive branch’s decision to ignore the Legislative branch’s mandate. Do you see the danger to our entire form of government?

The amicus brief is quite short, simple, and commendably clear. I urge you to read it (PDF).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama administration supporting Islamists in the Middle East

Posted by Richard on February 21, 2012

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has posted a disturbing essay by Dr. Essam Abdallah, an Egyptian liberal intellectual and college professor, outlining how the Islamist lobby in the U.S., led by the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR, has shaped the Obama administration’s policies regarding the Arab Spring (emphasis added):

The most dramatic oppression of the region’s civil societies and the Arab Spring is not by means of weapons, or in the Middle East. It is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh, or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn’t the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?

Months into the Arab Spring, we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya’s Transitional National Council have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.

Read the whole thing.

To understand the disgusting behavior with regard to the Arab Spring by the Obama administration (and the left in general), take note of three things.

First, the old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Second, Barack Obama’s 2001 remarks dissing the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added):

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Third, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg’s recent advice to Egypt not to emulate the U.S. Constitution (and its “negative liberties”), but instead to emulate constitutions that are modeled after the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — a collection of “positive rights” (to a decent job, a nice place to live, plenty of food, free health care, etc.) creating a powerful government capable of redistributing anything and everything “equitably.”

The enemies of the Obama administration and leftists in general are those who embrace Lockean “negative rights,” individualism, limited government, and free markets.

The enemies of the Islamofascists in the Middle East are those who embrace Lockean “negative rights,” individualism, limited government, and free markets.

Thus the enemies of the Obama administration and leftists in general are also the enemies of the Islamofascists. Ipso facto, the Islamofascists are friends of the Obama administration and the left in general.

Politically, the Islamofascists are both authoritarians and egalitarians. Members of the Obama administration and leftists in general are both authoritarians and egalitarians. Authoritarians and egalitarians are inevitably drawn to each other. This is not news to anyone who’s read David Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

It’s not just the rich who’ll pay for Obama’s budget

Posted by Richard on February 15, 2012

According to Investor’s Business Daily, it’s not just the rich who’ll pay for the massive expansion of government envisioned by the latest Obama budget (no surprise; it can’t be just the rich because there aren’t enough rich people). And, typically, the administration is looking for an international way to cram their plans down America’s throat (emphasis added):

Discussing President Obama’s new budget, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economist, said “we need a global minimum tax” so no one escapes paying “their fair share.”

This idea is not just bad; it’s likely unconstitutional. In any event, it starkly reveals the underlying premise behind Obama’s latest budget plan: To hike taxes massively on all Americans to pay for an unprecedented expansion of federal government.

To pay for it, the president and his aides are using class-warfare to build a case for a big tax hike on “the rich.” But beware: The Obama budget includes a $2.8 trillion jump in total taxes over the next 10 years, $1.5 trillion coming from income taxes alone. That amount is so large it can’t come solely from the well-off. It will require huge new taxes on all Americans.

Americans for Tax Reform has just totaled up the tax increases in Obama’s budget. It makes for scary reading:

• ObamaCare alone includes 20 separate tax hikes.

• Tax rates on most small businesses are expected to go up to 39.6% from 35%.

• Tax rates on capital gains, the fuel for economic and job growth, will jump to 23.8% from 15%.

• Rates on dividends surge to 43.4% from 15%.

• The death tax will jump to 45% from 35%.

• Large businesses will take a job-killing $147 billion tax hit as the U.S. double-taxes overseas profits.

• Families will pay a $100 billion energy tax over the next decade as oil, gas and coal companies get hit with new levies that they will simply pass on to consumers.

• The proposed new “Buffett Tax” will hit wealthy Americans with a marginal tax rate of 90% or higher.

Such massive tax increases will cripple the American economy, retarding economic growth and ensuring high unemployment for the next decade. It’s hard to imagine that all the brilliant Ivy-league-educated people in the Obama administration don’t understand that. Either that’s their goal — to preside over the decline of America, to diminish this country — or they simply don’t care as long as their redistributionist goals are achieved.

The current administration and the Democratic Party leadership are going to destroy this country in the name of egalitarianism if they aren’t stopped. If only there were an opposition party leadership and an opposition party presidential candidate capable of passionately, articulately, and with conviction making that point and offering an alternative of freedom, opportunity, limited government, and individual sovereignty. If only there were someone capable of contrasting their own vision of a “shining city on the hill” with the grim future of dependence and shared poverty offered by the leftists/progressives. If only there were another Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Obama’s budget insanity

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2012

The Fiscal Year 2008 Bush budget (the year before Hank Paulson panicked Bush into bailout mode with warnings of impending economic collapse):

  • Spending: $2.9 trillion (that’s $2,900 billion)
     
  • Deficit: $455 billion
     
  • New taxes: None
     
  • Federal debt: $9.99 trillion
     

February 23, 2009 Obama speech to the National Governors Association:

“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,” he said. “That’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”

Obama said he would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule requiring any new expenditure to be set off by a cut in spending.

The Fiscal Year 2013 Obama budget:

  • Spending: $3.8 trillion (that’s $3,800 billion) in FY2013; $5.8 trillion in 2022; $47 trillion over 10 years
     
  • Deficit: $901 billion in 2013 (but AFP says “if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain. … The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget.  They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.)
     
  • New taxes: $1.9 trillion over 10 years
     
  • Federal debt: $16.2+ trillion for 2013; over $25 trillion by 2021, according to ALG’s Bill Wilson

So how can the administration claim to be cutting the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years and yet have annual spending grow from $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion (a 53% increase)? There’s the double-counting of last year’s “cuts” and a good helping of what AFP calls tricks and gimmicks. But mainly it’s the baseline budgeting scam, which I explained last August. ALG’s Bill Wilson has some numbers (emphasis added):

The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) baseline for 2013-2022 says outlays will total $47.053 trillion. Obama’s proposed budget takes that to $46.959 trillion. Since spending actually increases every year under Obama’s proposal, the only cut is off of the baseline — and that’s just $94 billion of so-called “cuts”.

Meanwhile, OMB says revenues over the next ten years will total $38.391 trillion. Under Obama’s proposal, that goes up to $40.274 trillion — an increase of $1.883 trillion in taxes, mostly on job creators.

By our count, that’s about $20 of tax increases for every dollar of “cuts,” and those are not even real cuts to the actual budget.  Spending would still increase every single year under Obama’s proposal. Meanwhile, the tax hikes are real.

The latest Obama budget would be laughable if the numbers weren’t so sobering and the consequences of continuing down this path weren’t so dire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »