From the Government Printing Office *and* the Heritage Foundation, here is the full text of Obama’s 2006 speech arguing vehemently against raising the debt ceiling (when Bush was President). (more…)
According to National Review Online, in 2006 Obama gave a speech arguing against raising the debt ceiling. But you wouldn’t know it from Senate records anymore… (more…)
Under law, the White House must submit a budget this year by February 4. According to the Hill,
Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president’s budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law,”
Only 1 budget out of 4 have been submitted on time — the budget in 2010. The rest of the years, the budgets were late. That year, the budget failed in the Senate 0-97. And last year, the President’s budget failed 0-414. Not one Democrat or Republican voted for them or was willing to sponsor them, because they were so outrageous.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we actually have a functioning budget for the United State. The Senate has not passed a budget since April 29, 2009 — which is currently 1356 days and running.
It’s okay to break the law when it comes to submitting a budget but dammit, we MUST NOT break the law when it comes to our ability to spend bumping up against the debt ceiling, or else “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed”, Obama sternly warned today.
And yet, in 2006, Obama voted against the debt ceiling. The NRO reports that Obama said at the time,:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better”.
We certainly wouldn’t want to know what kind of spending proposals and debt problems are in Obama’s new budget now, would we?
Obama once again, is the president of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
The question of additional taxes on the wealthy is really a liberty and equity issue, impinging on the very entrepreneurial environment that made our country great. At the heart of any monetary decisions should be free will, not a free lunch.
Stop and think about it for a minute. In my adult life, in a free country such as ours, it is entirely my judgment as to whether or not I want to work hard and try to earn a lot of money, and/or risk my money via investments. Such choices are made only after careful deliberation. And one of the factors going into that decision is how much tax I will pay on my winnings, my successes. That is why it is unequivocally immoral that our government – or any government – should feel it has the place and authority to come along after I earned my success and basically declare that because I have done well for myself, I should have to pay more to that government. This is legal plunder.
I have right and the liberty to factor into my decision making process what the government states I must owe under law, and decide whether that amount and calculation would be amenable to my overall situation and goals. The government has no right to retroactively come along and declare that I must detract from my commitment to invest in my self, my education, my career, or anything else because it needs a greater revenue stream. Why should I, who have proven myself to be successful (according to the government) have to give my success over to people who have proven to grossly mismanage our country’s finances?
When people say things such as Exxon makes X so many billions of dollars a year and therefore they can afford to pay more, such a statement only reflects the gross naivete and ignorance of basic financial rules. Without a frame of reference, unless that number is coupled with how much money was invested or needed to be invested in order to earn that earnings figure, such a statement is worthless rhetoric. If a company makes $10 billion, but has $100 billion invested in the company (which is quite typical for major corporations), that would be a 10% return.
When put into that perspective of how much was invested to get that ROI, 10% isn’t quite so much. Would you invest millions or billions for the risk of a 10% return or the risk of losing it all? Most would not. If you have money invested in something like a bank that is a very safe investment, but you also get a pretty low return. If you are investing in something in which you have the chance of losing, you risk everything hoping to get that 10, 15, 20% return. With any investment, be it oil or a bowling alley business, you would not have access to that kind of risk capital unless it was strongly anticipated to get that larger-than-safe-return: you risk losing it all. And yet, many companies and individuals still make the investment. Good for them.
So then with those who were able to make a decent return on investment, Obama’s tax policies are simply a death wish for our country. If we go out in the free market looking at companies and individuals investing millions and billions a year, and the government leaves alone the ones who do poorly on their investments but leeches onto the winners, the successful ones, this is what it essentially tells them: you were so successful, we want and deserve a piece of your success. We are happy, though, to allow you to lose your money alone.
Doesn’t everyone see the lunacy and disingenuousness of going after the oil companies when oil is $100 a barrel but ignoring them when oil is $20 a barrel? Or screaming about their 4% profits yet say nothing about the government’s gas tax of about 18 cents per gallon? This type of targeted hypocrisy only supplies us with 1) more political posturing and talking points and 2) attempts at additional revenue streams.
Having a policy to target the winners with an additional tax after they become winners will eventually destroy those winners because no one will want to invest or earn over a certain threshold. This will stymie and financially ruin our country, founded upon the backs of small businesses, hard work, entrepreneurship, free minds, free society, and free economy.
Those who are prosperous should be given the same liberty to manage their success as any other citizen, not additional tax penalties. How can we honestly and morally take extra money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who manage to continuously and egregiously squander income?
There are two important fiscal dates coming up in February: February 12 and February 15.
February 12 is the scheduled date of Obama’s State of the Union speech, which is also Lincoln’s birthday.
It also happens to be three days before the “X Date”, February 15, the estimated date that the Treasury may not be able to pay its bills. The debt ceiling deadline.
Does anyone want to speculate as to whether the President of the United States is going to announce during his State of the Union Address that he will be unilaterally bypassing Congress to raise the debt ceiling?
Picture the all-too-familiar scenario: it’s February 12th, and Congress will be deadlocked over raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending, raising taxes, and sequestration scenarios. We know that there will be no decision by then, because deadlines mean nothing in Congress – as we just witnessed with the fiscal cliff debates running down to the wire.
The Senate Democrats have already set up a plan in preparation. Senator Harry Reid sent a letter to Obama saying,
“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of an unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary”
Such fiscal urgency from the same group that has failed to pass a budget since April 29, 2009.
Can Obama do this? That’s up for debate, as both sides of the aisle have given their evidence for or against such a move.
But wait. Does anyone remember the “We Can’t Wait” policy implemented by Obama in the fall of 2011, following the last debt ceiling showdown? The White House describes the program:
“President Obama is not letting congressional gridlock slow our economic growth. Without a doubt, the most urgent challenge that we face right now is getting our economy to grow faster and to create more jobs…. we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”
The narrative is being shaped. We have Obama’s program “We Can’t Wait” in place. According to the whitehouse.gov , Obama has issued 45 Executive Orders under this program. Couple the program with Reid’s letter, the time frame for the State of the Union and the potential default of the Treasury, and you have a perfect storm.
Be prepared. Be prepared for Obama to trot out imagery, language and ideas from Lincoln and work them into his State of the Union address as a backdrop to an announcement on the debt ceiling. Obama can, and will, propose that “We Can’t Wait” for Congress to act (or not act) on a potential default – since it is certain they will be gridlocked – and will use an Executive Order lifting the debt ceiling limit. This will change the ensuing discussion on taxes, spending, and sequestration. But will it also change forever the nature and function of the presidency?
I’ll be on the opening show of the third season of American Complaint Department, a radio show hosted on blogtalkradio.
You can tune in here at 11:45pm EST to listen live.
The American Complaint Department does just what they say — complain. They have a panel of moderators: liberal, conservative, and libertarian, so on the show and online, you’ll get views from all sides of the spectrum.
Tonight we’ll be discussing my views on the Fiscal Cliff. Enjoy!
Update: You can listen to the show here. I’m at the 45:00 mark.
The Democrats made the rounds over the weekend with their new talking point that they’ve already made substantial spending cuts. Here’s how it goes:
The Democrats are counting $917 billion from the Budget Control Act, passed in the summer of 2011, as proof that they’ve cut spending. By pitting it against the $620 billion in tax revenue hikes from the Fiscal Cliff deal last week, the Democrats are able to say that the ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes has been a 3:2 ratio so far.
The results of this math? The Democrats are poised to ask for further tax increases, because it’s “not enough”. Don’t forget, Obama said that the rich still weren’t paying their fair share in his January 3rd video.
What’s more, both Ben Cardin of the Senate Finance Committee and Chuck Schumer want to include interest savings in calculations, suggesting that the spending cuts are somewhere between $1.1 trillion and $2 trillion — making the ratio sound even larger.
The narrative is shaping up for a new tax fight with the impending debt ceiling debate. The Democrats are going to repeat this “talking point” as a justification for new taxes — saying that the past deals have been tilted toward cuts. Get ready to hear the Democrats repeat these numbers ad nauseum.
While the country was discussing the Fiscal Cliff, guns, and Hurricane Sandy, a new bill was introduced in Congress on Friday.
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY 15) put forth a bill, now called “H.J. Res. 15”, that proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President”.
According to GovTrack, it was then “[r]eferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”. Further, “[t]his resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So here we have one of the first bills introduced in the new Congressional session, which proposes removing term limits for the Presidency. Time to pay attention!
You can go to Govtrack and sign up for free to track this and other legislation.
Here is the Congressional page for Rep. Jose Serrano if you wish to contact him.
While this type of bill has been introduced in the past by Serrano (in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 [HJR 5] and 2011 [HJR 17]), the difference now is that Obama is in his second term of office and is not running for re-election anymore. He has less to worry about.
UPDATE: Serrano also submitted a bill on Friday that amends the Social Security Act and proof of citizenship…
Rep. Jose Serrano, the Democrat from NY who proposed H.J. Res 15, also put forth another bill — H.R. 211 — on Friday.
This bill proposes “To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to waive the requirement for proof of citizenship during the first year of life for children born in the United States to a Medicaid-eligible mother”.
Govtrack notes, “This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So the longtime Congressman who introduced the legislation to amend the Constitution and repeal term limits for President also wants to amend the Social Security Act with regard to citizenship.
What is the point of this legislation? Why is proof of citizenship in this situation not a positive thing? Thoughts?
Imagine an employer gives a turkey to his employees each year for Thanksgiving. Then one year, the cost of the turkey doubles, but he still gives everyone a turkey anyway. That year, the employee is getting an increase in the value of their pay (the extra cost of the turkey).
The same logic applies to a person getting insurance with their job. If a person gets a 2% pay increase, but the medical benefits costs for the employer also increases $30 more a month then the employee pay goes up 2% plus the $30.00. Many people don’t understand those “hidden” costs regarding benefits and compensation, but that’s how it works.
In the same way, if the cost of providing a defined benefit plan costs your employer now 25% more, or goes up by X dollars more, that X dollars is ultimately additional pay going to you, whether or not you tangibly see it. Nowadays, mainly government workers and some unions are typically the only ones who have defined benefit plans; most employers have moved away from them to a defined contribution plan because of the spiraling costs inherent in a defined benefit plan. A downside, however, is that regular people in private sector jobs with 401Ks critically need to put more of their own money away for retirement because their money investment is growing so slowly.
On the other hand, Obama’s administration is doing two thing that are directly and substantially increasing the cost of employers to maintain a defined benefit plan: 1) keeping interest rates so low that employers just have to invest more just to get a decent rate of return; and 2) increased regulations, which slow the growth of business and impede business gains, thereby slowing the rate of return. On top of this, the government is ignoring the huge increased cost of fringe benefits they provide (i.e, the turkeys) in their budgets – something a private company simply cannot ignore. If a private company were to do so, then it risks going out of business . Therefore, it must account accurately and completely for its costs.
The government however, won’t ever go out of business. It merely passes off these huge costs to the employee – or worse, to the taxpayer. Higher costs to the taxpayer means less money for you. Less money for you means harder savings for the future.
Overall, you will need to put away more for retirement. If you have a defined benefit plan, the long-term projections and promises may be scaled back at some point in the future once the plan proves to be unsustainable. In a defined contribution plan, continued sluggish growth for investments make it difficult for retirement plans. Whatever your strategy, know that you will definitely need more than you think you do right now.