Even for a president known for his dunderhead economic ideas, it was stunning to watch Barack Obama stump for raising taxes to the tune of $1.5 trillion to reduce the deficit. In a futile attempt to defend his soak the rich plan, the president dredged up feckless justifications.
Obama bellowed that it wasn't fair that secretaries coughed up more money for taxes than millionaires and billionaires, borrowing a line from gazillionaire Warren Buffett. There was only one problem with the Buffett-Obama assertion. It is factually incorrect.
Households earning more than $1 million pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, while those with incomes of $50,000 pay an average of 12.5 percent. The numbers clearly underscore the fallacy of the president's argument about tax fairness.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 percent of the households with the highest incomes pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Where is the fairness in that?
Those aren't the only flaws with the president's wrong-headed plan. Obama claimed that his tax increases were aimed at millionaires and billionaires. However, his proposal actually would lift federal taxes for individuals with $200,000 and above in income.
There is ample evidence to suggest that raising taxes on any group while the economy sputters is a prescription for economic disaster. Instead of raising government revenue, a tax hike likely would have the opposite effect because it would cripple job creation thus worsening the economy and suppressing wage growth. Total tax revenue will decline under that scenario.
A robust economy is the most reliable way to fuel more jobs. However, the nation's economic growth in the most recent quarter was an anemic one percent. That followed growth of a puny 0.4 percent in the first quarter. Increasing taxes will strangle the tiny economic development the country has experienced.
Increasing taxes will stifle small business job growth. One-half of individual and household incomes above $250,000 annually are attributable to small businesses revenue. These firms create more than 60 percent of all new jobs in the economy. Raising taxes on these individuals will leave less money for them to invest in their firms.
Under the president's plan, higher taxes also would apply to investment partnerships. The tax will be acutely felt by real estate and oil and gas developers. That will quell capital deployment among small business partnerships in these industries, further suffocating job growth.
In addition, the president's plan targets tax-exempt income from municipal bonds issued by states and cities. By reducing the tax benefits for individuals, these bonds will become a less attractive investment. As a result, infrastructure projects, often cited by the president as job creators, will lack proper funding.
Despite the adverse economic impacts, the Obama-controlled media has swept these obvious deficiencies under the rug and donned a cheerleader outfit to extoll the benefits of forcing the wealthy to pay an even higher portion of their earnings to the government.
Unfortunately, there are too many Americans who think confiscating more money from the rich will solve the country's debt problems. Even if everyone earning $200,000 and above were taxed at 100 percent of their income, it would hardly make a dent in nation's $14 trillion debt.
America does not have an income problem. The country has a spending problem. Even the economically illiterate should be able to understand that. Too bad that logic still eludes the president.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
American Amnesia Over 9/11 Attacks
In recent weeks, the mainstream media hyperventilated over the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, regurgitating remembrances of the horrific attacks. A plethora of newscasts, newspaper reports and magazine perspectives focused on healing, forgiveness and profound personal stories about the deliberate assault on America.
However, the untold story of 9/11 in the intervening years is how many Americans have forgotten the lessons of that fateful day that changed the country forever. Too many citizens believe luck, religious outreach and coddling our enemies will keep us safe from another attack.
In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll found that 43 percent of Americans think U.S. "wrongdoing" motivated the attacks. The research should come as no surprise because the media and many politicians have spent the last ten years blaming their country instead of the terrorists for the attacks.
Overall, most Americans believe that we are no safer today than we were a decade ago. Pew found that 62 percent of those polled think terrorists have either the same or a greater ability to launch another major attack.
It is understandable why people feel that way. The public is deeply divided over the anti-terrorism policies and tactics undertaken by its government. Many are convinced their leaders have gone too far in trying to stave off another attack.
Likewise, a majority of Americans believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have either increased the risk of attacks or made no difference. This is a somber reminder to the U.S. military and their families of the fickle nation they serve. No soldier should ever be put in harm's way if its citizens do no support the mission.
The Pew research stands in stark contrast to a united nation that faced events on the day after September 11th. Americans demanded punishment for the perpetrators. They insisted the government beef up its intelligence apparatus. They wanted to travel without fear. They called for tighter borders.
Soon after the American military unleashed its might, politicians and the media began expressing a different sentiment. They wanted to engage our enemies in dialogue. They preached religious tolerance. They chafed at security measures. Amnesia set in as Americans bought into the idea that our safety could be purchased with rhetoric and an extended hand of friendship.
In Pew's poll, less than half of Americans say the main reason the country has remained safe is because their government is doing a good job of protecting its citizens. A full 35 percent think America has been just plain lucky.
Clear majorities of Americans now oppose data gathering to prevent a terrorist threat, according to Pew's research. Most reject the idea of government monitoring of telephone calls and emails of suspected terrorists, which majorities had previously supported.
Politics have clearly shaped American opinions. Pew reports that from 2001 through 2008, Democrats offered "decidedly more critical views of the government performance on terrorism." After Barrack Obama became president, Democrat voters' views have turned more positive, Pew reports.
Political pandering as well as the Pew research offer a sad commentary on American resolve to fight terrorism. While the nation contemplates the events of 9/11, many of its citizens and political leaders have forgotten the painful lessons the attacks taught us.
The country must be vigilant, prepared, united in purpose and militarily strong to protect itself from terrorism. Ten years ago Americans would not have needed to be reminded.
However, the untold story of 9/11 in the intervening years is how many Americans have forgotten the lessons of that fateful day that changed the country forever. Too many citizens believe luck, religious outreach and coddling our enemies will keep us safe from another attack.
In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll found that 43 percent of Americans think U.S. "wrongdoing" motivated the attacks. The research should come as no surprise because the media and many politicians have spent the last ten years blaming their country instead of the terrorists for the attacks.
Overall, most Americans believe that we are no safer today than we were a decade ago. Pew found that 62 percent of those polled think terrorists have either the same or a greater ability to launch another major attack.
It is understandable why people feel that way. The public is deeply divided over the anti-terrorism policies and tactics undertaken by its government. Many are convinced their leaders have gone too far in trying to stave off another attack.
Likewise, a majority of Americans believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have either increased the risk of attacks or made no difference. This is a somber reminder to the U.S. military and their families of the fickle nation they serve. No soldier should ever be put in harm's way if its citizens do no support the mission.
The Pew research stands in stark contrast to a united nation that faced events on the day after September 11th. Americans demanded punishment for the perpetrators. They insisted the government beef up its intelligence apparatus. They wanted to travel without fear. They called for tighter borders.
Soon after the American military unleashed its might, politicians and the media began expressing a different sentiment. They wanted to engage our enemies in dialogue. They preached religious tolerance. They chafed at security measures. Amnesia set in as Americans bought into the idea that our safety could be purchased with rhetoric and an extended hand of friendship.
In Pew's poll, less than half of Americans say the main reason the country has remained safe is because their government is doing a good job of protecting its citizens. A full 35 percent think America has been just plain lucky.
Clear majorities of Americans now oppose data gathering to prevent a terrorist threat, according to Pew's research. Most reject the idea of government monitoring of telephone calls and emails of suspected terrorists, which majorities had previously supported.
Politics have clearly shaped American opinions. Pew reports that from 2001 through 2008, Democrats offered "decidedly more critical views of the government performance on terrorism." After Barrack Obama became president, Democrat voters' views have turned more positive, Pew reports.
Political pandering as well as the Pew research offer a sad commentary on American resolve to fight terrorism. While the nation contemplates the events of 9/11, many of its citizens and political leaders have forgotten the painful lessons the attacks taught us.
The country must be vigilant, prepared, united in purpose and militarily strong to protect itself from terrorism. Ten years ago Americans would not have needed to be reminded.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Why Bozo The Clown Could Beat Obama
Hand wringing over the electability of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has replaced baseball as the national pastime. To listen to the political pundits, there is not a single GOP standard bearer with the mettle or the gravitas to oust Barrack Obama from the White House.
If the assertion wasn't so patently prosperous, it would be laughable. But the mainstream media has fueled the notion that the Republican candidates are so flawed, so intellectual bereft, so inexperienced as to have no chance of unseating the incumbent president.
Even Republicans have fallen prey to the crescendo of media blathering that has no basis in fact. GOP bosses and so-called political experts have openly pined for a white knight to ride to the rescue, suggesting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Florida Senator Marco Rubio or Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan enter the presidential fray.
Republicans need to quit looking at the 2012 presidential race through the media prism. To conclude that no Republican is electable, you have to suspend political reality. Polling data, history and an analysis of the last election suggest Barrack Obama is the most vulnerable president in modern history.
Just look at the president's poll numbers. They are as dismal as the economy. In the latest Rasmussen Poll, only 21 percent of likely voters strongly approve of Obama. Meanwhile, 43 percent strongly disapprove. By zeroing in on those with strongly held opinions, the data taps into the level of voter angst.
These results represent a stunning turnabout from January of 2008 when hope and change entered the American political lexicon. Back then, 44 percent of likely voters strongly approved of the newly elected president, while only 16 percent strongly disapproved.
According to Rasmussen, the negative ratings for Obama have plumbed nearly unprecedented depths. You have to go back to President Jimmy Carter to find this kind of dissatisfaction. No one should have to be reminded that Carter was trounced by Ronald Reagan, a candidate that the media deemed "unelectable" because he was too far right.
Rasmussen, a Democrat pollster who has been tracking presidential ratings for years, recently scored Obama's approval index at -23. That is unfamiliar territory but for a handful of presidents, all of whom were rejected by voters for a second term.
Many in the media like to point to President Reagan's low approval ratings in his first term to suggest Obama will recover. However, the media always conceals one important fact: Reagan's numbers improved only when the jobless rate began to decline.
That's why history cannot be ignored. No sitting president, except Franklin Roosevelt, has been given a second term when the unemployment rate was above 8 percent. In fact, in the last 12 president elections, no incumbent has escaped defeat when the jobless number was 7.5 percent or higher.
It is sheer folly for the media to gaze upon the August employment figures without concluding Obama's chances for reelection correlate with job growth: zero.
An even-handed analysis of the last presidential election scrubs the sheen from Obama's historic victory. While the president snared a lopsided win in the electoral college, he managed to collect only 52 percent of the popular vote.
In key swing states, Obama's margin of victory was paper thin. For example, in Ohio the president won by 217,000 votes out of more than 6 million cast. It was the same story in Florida, where Obama eked out a 144,000 vote margin in a state where 8.5 million people trooped to the polls. Virginia swung to Obama by 230,000 votes out of 3.7 million ballots.
As these numbers suggest, Obama' win hardly approached landslide proportions. Despite having every advantage, including the weakest Republican candidate in history and a looming recession, it was a surprisingly close election. In addition, he was aided by the highest voter turnout in 40 years.
The president will have none of these advantages in the 2012 election. His own base suffers from Obama fatigue. While McCain was reviled by conservatives, the current GOP front runners have no such albatross. The unemployment numbers are unlikely to improve substantially before next November. Voter anger at the administration has reached record levels, approaching those recorded by George W. Bush.
As one measure of voter discontent, consider these poll numbers: Just 34 percent of Americans think the country's best days are in the future. More than 60 percent are gloomy about the outlook. That level of pessimism usually energizes voters to toss out the incumbent.
Barrack Obama has only one thing going for him. The mainstream media is solidly in his camp. The same journalists who failed to vet Obama when he ran for president will spend all their energy investigating, debunking and demonizing Republican candidates.
But voters are savvy. They can sift through the media spin. In the last election, the Pew Research Center polled registered voters and found that 70 percent believed that journalists wanted Obama to win.
The media won't abandon Obama this election. However, no amount of media campaigning can conceal the fact that the country is worse off under President Obama. Voters have seen the real Barack Obama and they are clearly in no mood to make the same mistake twice.
For that reason, those who dwell on electability of Republicans are obviously delusional about the political reality facing Barrack Obama.
If the assertion wasn't so patently prosperous, it would be laughable. But the mainstream media has fueled the notion that the Republican candidates are so flawed, so intellectual bereft, so inexperienced as to have no chance of unseating the incumbent president.
Even Republicans have fallen prey to the crescendo of media blathering that has no basis in fact. GOP bosses and so-called political experts have openly pined for a white knight to ride to the rescue, suggesting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Florida Senator Marco Rubio or Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan enter the presidential fray.
Republicans need to quit looking at the 2012 presidential race through the media prism. To conclude that no Republican is electable, you have to suspend political reality. Polling data, history and an analysis of the last election suggest Barrack Obama is the most vulnerable president in modern history.
Just look at the president's poll numbers. They are as dismal as the economy. In the latest Rasmussen Poll, only 21 percent of likely voters strongly approve of Obama. Meanwhile, 43 percent strongly disapprove. By zeroing in on those with strongly held opinions, the data taps into the level of voter angst.
These results represent a stunning turnabout from January of 2008 when hope and change entered the American political lexicon. Back then, 44 percent of likely voters strongly approved of the newly elected president, while only 16 percent strongly disapproved.
According to Rasmussen, the negative ratings for Obama have plumbed nearly unprecedented depths. You have to go back to President Jimmy Carter to find this kind of dissatisfaction. No one should have to be reminded that Carter was trounced by Ronald Reagan, a candidate that the media deemed "unelectable" because he was too far right.
Rasmussen, a Democrat pollster who has been tracking presidential ratings for years, recently scored Obama's approval index at -23. That is unfamiliar territory but for a handful of presidents, all of whom were rejected by voters for a second term.
Many in the media like to point to President Reagan's low approval ratings in his first term to suggest Obama will recover. However, the media always conceals one important fact: Reagan's numbers improved only when the jobless rate began to decline.
That's why history cannot be ignored. No sitting president, except Franklin Roosevelt, has been given a second term when the unemployment rate was above 8 percent. In fact, in the last 12 president elections, no incumbent has escaped defeat when the jobless number was 7.5 percent or higher.
It is sheer folly for the media to gaze upon the August employment figures without concluding Obama's chances for reelection correlate with job growth: zero.
An even-handed analysis of the last presidential election scrubs the sheen from Obama's historic victory. While the president snared a lopsided win in the electoral college, he managed to collect only 52 percent of the popular vote.
In key swing states, Obama's margin of victory was paper thin. For example, in Ohio the president won by 217,000 votes out of more than 6 million cast. It was the same story in Florida, where Obama eked out a 144,000 vote margin in a state where 8.5 million people trooped to the polls. Virginia swung to Obama by 230,000 votes out of 3.7 million ballots.
As these numbers suggest, Obama' win hardly approached landslide proportions. Despite having every advantage, including the weakest Republican candidate in history and a looming recession, it was a surprisingly close election. In addition, he was aided by the highest voter turnout in 40 years.
The president will have none of these advantages in the 2012 election. His own base suffers from Obama fatigue. While McCain was reviled by conservatives, the current GOP front runners have no such albatross. The unemployment numbers are unlikely to improve substantially before next November. Voter anger at the administration has reached record levels, approaching those recorded by George W. Bush.
As one measure of voter discontent, consider these poll numbers: Just 34 percent of Americans think the country's best days are in the future. More than 60 percent are gloomy about the outlook. That level of pessimism usually energizes voters to toss out the incumbent.
Barrack Obama has only one thing going for him. The mainstream media is solidly in his camp. The same journalists who failed to vet Obama when he ran for president will spend all their energy investigating, debunking and demonizing Republican candidates.
But voters are savvy. They can sift through the media spin. In the last election, the Pew Research Center polled registered voters and found that 70 percent believed that journalists wanted Obama to win.
The media won't abandon Obama this election. However, no amount of media campaigning can conceal the fact that the country is worse off under President Obama. Voters have seen the real Barack Obama and they are clearly in no mood to make the same mistake twice.
For that reason, those who dwell on electability of Republicans are obviously delusional about the political reality facing Barrack Obama.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Obama's Regulatory Expansion Saps Business Growth
While the economy shrinks faster than the president's approval ratings, at least Barrack Obama can boast of growth in one area: regulatory agencies. Under his leadership, the federal regulatory regime has intruded into nearly every aspect of the lives of individuals and of American business.
Since 2008, the annual budgets of federal agencies have skyrocketed 15 percent, while the economy stumbles along with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of less than two percent this year. The annual taxpayer bill for this regulatory excess tops $54 billion.
Payrolls at federal regulatory agencies have increased 13 percent since Obama moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's a net addition of 281,000 government jobs. Meanwhile, private-sector job growth has dwindled since 2008, even with microscopic gains this year.
The Progressive Policy Institute studied the issue and found that in a one-year period federal regulatory jobs rose faster than either private or government payrolls. This shameless expansion has gone unnoticed by most Americans because the mainstream media has covered up the issue to protect the president.
With so many new employees on the federal dole, they are discovering more ways to punish business. In one single month this year, regulators unfurled 379 new rules that will cost businesses more than $9.5 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation.
In the Obama Administration's first 26 months, the foundation counted 75 new major rules that saddled businesses with $40 billion in additional expenses. Of course, those costs are ultimately passed on to unwary consumers, who always blame businesses for price hikes instead of the real culprit, federal excess.
A study last year by the Small Business Administration estimated that the annual price tag of complying with federal rules and regulations was a staggering $1.75 trillion. Small firms have suffered most. Research revealed that these companies spend 38 percent more per employee than large firms on federal regulatory compliance.
Unfortunately, Washington agencies are just getting warmed up. The Federal Register estimates that there are more than 4,200 new regulations in the government pipeline. And there is no end in sight because legislation passed by the Democrat controlled Congress the last two years created more superfluous agencies.
For example, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring at a frenzied pace. The agency, spawned by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, plans to add 1,200 people based in Washington with satellite offices in New York, Chicago and San Francisco.
The bureau has opened its doors for business, despite not having a director. The president has nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to the post. However, his appointment must be confirmed by the Senate.
Republicans and businesses plan to oppose the nomination as a way of neutering the agency. In signalling its opposition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the new agency is a "potent threat to the price and availability of credit" for businesses and consumers.
That warning will go unheeded by a White House unconcerned about the harm federal regulations are causing the economy. Obama and his team of Big Government advocates keep dreaming up new ways to burden businesses and cripple economic expansion.
This from a president who claims he is preoccupied with creating jobs. Based on the evidence, Barrack Obama's idea of job growth involves enlarging the federal bureaucracy at the expense of the private sector, while sticking taxpayers with the bill.
Since 2008, the annual budgets of federal agencies have skyrocketed 15 percent, while the economy stumbles along with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of less than two percent this year. The annual taxpayer bill for this regulatory excess tops $54 billion.
Payrolls at federal regulatory agencies have increased 13 percent since Obama moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's a net addition of 281,000 government jobs. Meanwhile, private-sector job growth has dwindled since 2008, even with microscopic gains this year.
The Progressive Policy Institute studied the issue and found that in a one-year period federal regulatory jobs rose faster than either private or government payrolls. This shameless expansion has gone unnoticed by most Americans because the mainstream media has covered up the issue to protect the president.
With so many new employees on the federal dole, they are discovering more ways to punish business. In one single month this year, regulators unfurled 379 new rules that will cost businesses more than $9.5 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation.
In the Obama Administration's first 26 months, the foundation counted 75 new major rules that saddled businesses with $40 billion in additional expenses. Of course, those costs are ultimately passed on to unwary consumers, who always blame businesses for price hikes instead of the real culprit, federal excess.
A study last year by the Small Business Administration estimated that the annual price tag of complying with federal rules and regulations was a staggering $1.75 trillion. Small firms have suffered most. Research revealed that these companies spend 38 percent more per employee than large firms on federal regulatory compliance.
Unfortunately, Washington agencies are just getting warmed up. The Federal Register estimates that there are more than 4,200 new regulations in the government pipeline. And there is no end in sight because legislation passed by the Democrat controlled Congress the last two years created more superfluous agencies.
For example, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring at a frenzied pace. The agency, spawned by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, plans to add 1,200 people based in Washington with satellite offices in New York, Chicago and San Francisco.
The bureau has opened its doors for business, despite not having a director. The president has nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to the post. However, his appointment must be confirmed by the Senate.
Republicans and businesses plan to oppose the nomination as a way of neutering the agency. In signalling its opposition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the new agency is a "potent threat to the price and availability of credit" for businesses and consumers.
That warning will go unheeded by a White House unconcerned about the harm federal regulations are causing the economy. Obama and his team of Big Government advocates keep dreaming up new ways to burden businesses and cripple economic expansion.
This from a president who claims he is preoccupied with creating jobs. Based on the evidence, Barrack Obama's idea of job growth involves enlarging the federal bureaucracy at the expense of the private sector, while sticking taxpayers with the bill.