by | ECONOMY, OBAMA
There is a persistent idea circulating that the current tax margins are really not all that high when compared to past rates. This line of thought is typically used as justifications that 1) the government deserves more revenue and 2) the wealthy taxpayers can afford higher taxes. The truth, however, is that obtusely higher rates in the past were rarely ever paid at that amount because they were easily offset by abundant tax deductions universally used by the wealthy. (more…)
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
Did anyone else notice Justice Antonin Scalia’s headgear at the inauguration today?
Richmond Law Professor Kevin Walsh notes on his blog that
“The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner”.
(more…)
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
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…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA
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…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
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”.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
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?
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS
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…
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Measure Number: H.R. 8 (Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012)
Measure Title: An act entitled the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
Alphabetical by Senator Name.
Those who voted NO or DID NOT VOTE are in bold
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Not Voting
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
by | ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
Consider this: if we go over the fiscal cliff, about $600 Billion will be taken out of the economy in a combination of tax increases and lower spending. This is certain to put a stranglehold on an already weak economy. Obama has had trillion dollar deficits each year of his presidency — the highest deficits of all the presidents in history. Even by reducing the deficit to about $500 Billion by the automatic fiscal cliff triggers, Obama would still be responsible for a deficit that is larger than all of his predecessors. Clearly, spending is at the heart of the problem.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, TAXES
Alan Reynolds over at CATO published a nice piece at National Review Online (NRO). He adeptly points out the fallacy of Obama’s claim that raising taxes on the top 2% will raise a princely sum of revenue to put toward our skyrocketing deficit.
The Treasury Department calculated that
raising the top two personal-income-tax rates — to 36 from 33 percent and to 39.6 from 35 percent on incomes above $250,000 and $377,000, respectively — would raise just $23.1 billion in 2013, barely enough to finance federal spending for two days.
How is this supposed to be a solution? It’s not, but it’s the stuff of which good rhetoric and sound bytes are made. Making the rich “pay their fair share” puts the onus on the wealthy — someone other than the average taxpayer — as a red herring to the hide the fact that our deficit problem is so large, a tax increase isn’t going to make a dent. But the Democrats can’t admit that their tax-and-spend mentality is falling apart.
Yet the real interesting part of the article starts halfway in. Reynolds goes on to make the case for cutting the corporate tax rate, an important point raised in the Simpson-Bowles package that has been all but forgotten. We are reminded that both Obama and Romney have suggested lowering the rates in the past, which are among the highest in first-world countries at 35%. Cutting the rates would be stimulative, as more money becomes readily available to businesses which have been struggling in this economy. It would also serve to entice businesses to relocate here, instead of our businesses continuously seeking lower tax rates outside the US (as they are now). We desperately need the economy to grow — to grow our way out of this slump, instead of trying to tax our way out of it (and putting ourselves back into a recession). Reynolds notes,
the positive impact on business investment, and on multinational decisions to locate new businesses in the U.S. rather than abroad, would be swift and powerful. There is nothing to lose from cutting the corporate tax rate, not even revenue, and the economic gains are likely to be quite astonishing.
Let’s hope for some real tax relief out of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Besides allowing the current tax rates to stay in place — perhaps permanently — so that we can stop being in a state of economic uncertainty, cutting corporate taxes should be a key item on the table.
