by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Alan Krueger, Chairman Of the Council of Economic Advisors, soothed Americans on his White House blog post regarding the unemployment numbers released today.
As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available
Did you know that the White House said something similar the month before?
June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And the month before?
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And so forth. Like a parrot.
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the
context of other data that are becoming available.”
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
Parrots repeat the same thing over and over ad nauseum. But they can’t read. Maybe the White House figures that people won’t really read their blog too closely either. Isn’t the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, TAXES
A great piece by John Nolte on Tuesday documents the coordinated attack on Romney’s wealth in an attempt to insinuate some sort of financial impropriety.
Nevermind the fact that Romney has unequivocally been squeaky clean in releasing and documenting every bit of his finances.
Nolte goes on to discuss how both the Washington Post and Politico coordinated with Obama’s campaign to hint at potential indiscretions with Romney’s money while covering a pro-Occupy article in Vanity Fair.
Though both Politico and the Post lie through the act of omission by not telling their readers Romney has complied 100% with financial disclosure requirements, what both are doing here (and you can expect the rest of the media to pile on) is laying the foundation for a media-narrative that will demand more disclosure from Romney. The tactic is an old one, for the media knows that the simple act of demanding this kind of information is in and of itself a way of making Romney look slippery and dishonest — you know, like a rich jerk with something to hide — which is exactly how the Obama campaign (and therefore Politico and the Washington Post) intend to define Romney.
Not only is this an attempt to discredit Romney, it is also part of a larger Obama anti-rich campaign narrative. We’ve heard them before: “the rich need to pay their fair share”, “millionaires and billionaires“, “Buffett Rules” and other class-warfare rhetoric. Painting Romney as a rich shyster allows the campaign to continue to push the idea that Obama is one of us…not a big-bad-rich-guy.
Yet, back in January, when Romney disclosed his taxes, the media story then was similar too; Romney paid only about a 15% tax rate — which means (according to their playbook) he didn’t pay enough. Interestingly however, was one aspect of the tax return that went wholly unreported by many news outlets, and not just the overtly liberal ones either (remember in January, Romney was one of several potential GOP candidates). Having reviewed Romney’s returns, I noted that he paid taxes on more than $1 million worth of income that existed on paper only, due to the nature of hedge funds, IRS deduction rules, etc. You can read that report here. Yet no less than five news agencies — liberal and conservative — chose not to cover and discuss a story that had Romney paying “more than his fair share of taxes”. That wouldn’t sell. That didn’t fit the rhetoric. Would have it been different if the returns came out now, now that he is our nominee — and therefore we are more unified against Obama?
Reflecting on that, one thing is certain: we can expect more of these baseless, factless attacks on Romney from the leftist media as the summer marches on. Thankfully, articles like Nolte’s help to expose and dispel the bias and campaign mouthpieces that are indeed active.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Just to quickly note — a thoughtful piece by Sean Trende offering an interesting take on the Robert’s decision. The article is highly recommended in its entirety. However, here’s just a taste:
The simple fact is that almost all of us pay higher taxes each year than we otherwise would on the basis of things we forgo: whether it is not buying an electric car, not installing energy-efficient windows in our house, or not having that third kid. There’s no new ground being broken here
Robert’s ruling will be dissected for years to come. Looking at it from Trende’s angle is worthwhile.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
Signaling a slow down in the global economy is affecting U.S. manufacturers, June numbers showed production was down.
The trade group of purchasing managers said its index of manufacturing activity fell to 49.7. That’s down from 53.5 in May. And it’s the lowest reading since July 2009, a month after the Great Recession officially ended. Readings below 50 indicate contraction.
Though growth rates are already sluggish — 1.9% in January-March — the latest manufacturing numbers indicate growth is closer now to a mere annual rate of 1.5%.
Manufacturing Downturn — WSJ July2, 2012
This is not good economic news, which could worsen depending on the unemployment figures due out this week.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
Politico is reporting the quiet release of the White House’s annual salaries report.
Obama is doing his part to grow the economy and add jobs, because the numbers are UP:
A quick review found the White House payroll appears to have grown since last year, going from $37.1 million in 2011 to $37.8 million in 2012. The number of employees listed also grew — from 454 last year to 468 in 2012.
White House officials did not immediately respond to a message seeking explanation of the growth. Overall, the payroll has shrunk since 2009, when it totaled $39.1 million.
You can see the full report here:
The lowest paid positions (3), are $41,000, just slightly below the average median income for the U.S. This excludes (2) positions listed at $0.00, because it is unclear of the nature of the position (intern, etc).
The highest paid positions (20) are $172,200, and are all assistants to the President
There are 139 positions at or above $100,000, out of 466 — which is roughly 29%
There are 3 Calligraphers, who make between $85.9K and $96.7K
There are 2 Ethics Advisors, who make $136K and $140K
Jay Carney is paid $172,200 to lie to the American people as the Press Secretary.
Your tax dollars at work!
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
So, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that ObamaCare is constitutional because it is a tax. That settles it, right?
Not so fast.
On Friday, the day after the ObamaCare ruling, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the fine is still just a “penalty”.
Carney went on to say Friday that the “penalty” will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney said.
Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. “Call it what you want,” he said.
and more:
“You can call it what you want,” he said. “If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax. It affects one percent, by CBO estimates, of the population. It is not something that you assess like an income tax.”
It was unclear which Congressional Budget Office estimate Carney was referring to. Despite being pressed on the issue, though, the spokesman would not relent.
It didn’t even take 24 hours for the games and backtracking by the White House to begin. Don’t forget, they insisted to the American people — in order to get the bill passed — that it was not a tax. Clearly, they are worried about the tax narrative shaping the rest of the election season rhetoric.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, HYPOCRISY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The WSJ editorial this morning, The Roberts Rules, was excellent — as it dissects the inconsistencies within the ObamaCare decision. Read it through, but here are some highlights:
The remarkable decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is shot through with confusion—the mandate that’s really a tax, except when it isn’t, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren’t.
and this:
The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court’s conservative bloc, but he also said that the mandate fell within Congress’s power to tax, joined by the Court’s liberal bloc. In practice this is a restraint on federal power without real restraint—and, worse, the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it. The ruling will stand as one of the great what-might-have-beens of American constitutional law.
more:
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole.
and this:
But if the mandate is really a tax, why doesn’t the law known as the Anti-Injunction Act apply, which says that taxes can’t be challenged legally until they’ve been collected? The Chief Justice actually rules that the mandate is a tax under the Constitution and a mandate for the purposes of tax law.
Additionally, the WSJ lent some more credence to the assertion that Chief Justice Roberts was actually in agreement with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito (giving a 5-4 strikedown), but at the last minute changed his mind. “One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind”. This theory was floated yesterday first by Paul Campos and Brad Delong who noticed language confusion and tone changes in the opinion. Their ideas are examined more in depth here.
Now that we have a both a scrutiny of the dissonance and a peek at some silver linings, where do we go from here? It is clear that November must be our top priority — both at the Presidential level and Congress, especially the Senate. And then, we’ll see whether American can be preserved.
Update #1:…and the White House (Jay Carney) is already insisting today that it is NOT A TAX
by | FREEDOM, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
There are a few good aspects of the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the ObamaCare mandate as a tax. Among them are 1) the deception by which Obama’s administration passed ObamaCare in Congress; 2) the preservation of the Commerce Clause; 3) the ease at which ObamaCare can now be repealed and 4) the invalidation of the Medicaid expansion, which upheld State’s rights and may ultimately undermine the entire efficacy of ObamaCare.
For the first time in history, a major piece of legislation passed Congress as an intentional deception of the American electorate. The only way this law was passed in March 2010 was the result of a clear and patent lie by the Obama Administration. ObamaCare supporters, including the President himself, repeatedly and emphatically denied that ObamaCare was a tax, and instead pointed to the Commerce Clause to validate its existence. Then, in front of the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argued that ObamaCare was a tax. “Taxation Without Representation?”. This bait-and-switch tactic must be relentlessly hammered home between now and November. Between Obama’s aggressive use of the Executive Order and now this clear example of deceit, the American citizens must be continuously reminded that Obama will use any tactic to get what he wants — and is a tax-raiser too.
That being said, the Supreme Court opinion gave us five clear votes that this law would not have passed muster under the Commerce Clause. Thus this ruling clarified, strengthened and protected the Commerce Clause while establishing a precedent from further Congressional usurpations. The Supreme Court has now firmly stated Congress does not have the power of commerce coersion. It also upheld the separation of the three branches of government – that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to prevent Congress from passing a bad law (and thus a check against overt judicial activism); rather its function was solely to interpret the constitutionality of said law. ObamaCare however, is still bad law.
Furthermore, ruling that ObamaCare is a tax creates the opportunity for a simpler repeal than if it was considered valid under the Commerce Clause. Here’s how: the ObamaCare mandate is now a constitutionally established tax to be levied. It becomes revenue provision of a budget, and therefore can be subject to the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. During such a process, the number of votes necessary to appeal it is a simple majority: 51 votes. Ironically, this reconciliation process was the same procedure that the Democrats used to pass the bill in Congress. Ultimately then, an ObamaCare repeal would not be subject to the filibuster process.
Finally, the Medicaid provision may be the lynchpin for undermining ObamaCare’s efficacy. Remember, the reason so many states sued the Administration was because the Medicaid expansion program would have caused severe fiscal distress to the states while simultaneously creating expansive and coercive Federal spending power over States Rights. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that the such an act was unconstitutional. Therefore, this established that not only can the federal government not compel the states to participate in expanding Medicaid, it also cannot withhold existing funding for it as a punishment. States can now decline to participate. So, what happens if enough states do just that?
Even though ObamaCare was not struck down in its entirety, the rulings on various parts of the law had some positivity. It preserved the integrity of the Commerce Clause while simultaneous restricting the federal government’s ability to coerce spending onto states. Firmly establishing ObamaCare as a tax greatly enhances its probability for successful repeal, and also stamps Obama and its Congressional and political supporters as tax hikers for the November election. All in all, not an entirely bad outcome for a very bad piece of legislation.
Update: Here’s a take on the dissonance in the ObamaCare Ruling
Update x2: Jay Cost over at the Weekly Standard has a good analysis as well.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMACARE, TAXES
21 New Tax Increases
My View From Inside the Court room – More Good than Bad in the Obamacare Decision
Stocks Tumble After Ruling
I am Not Down on John Roberts
Cantor: House Will Vote on Repeal on July 11
VA Attorney General Cuccinelli: “Dark Day for American Liberty”
Is Roberts Outfoxing Us All? Roberts Steals A Move From John Marshall’s Playbook
Weekly Standard: Marshalling Precedent: With Nod to Predecessor, Roberts Affirms Mandate
Limbaugh: ObamaCare is the Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World
Fornier: Roberts Labels Obama a Tax Raiser
NRO: Chief Justice Robert’s Folly
George Will: Conservative’s Consolation Prize
Breitbart: Did Justice Roberts Give in to Bullying?
by | CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, POLITICS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
The act of defiance of our President against our Constitution and Congress is the latest in a string of executive activism that defines Obama’s administration. The content of the Dream Act is, in and of itself, not that controversial. What Obama announced was a policy very similar to Mark Rubio’s undrafted legislation that was expected to enter Congressional debate very soon. Instead, the controversy lies with Obama’s blatant disregard for the proper function of our government.
The astonishing thing is that Obama didn’t even try to work with Congress. Remember, Obama was the guy who was supposed to bring everyone together – and he just ran roughshod over everyone. Now compare Bush to Obama. I’m not much of a fan of Bush in general; however, he did try to get his somewhat unpopular ideas passed through Congress – and a fairly hostile Congress at that (remember Social Security reform, immigration reform, etc). Yet Bush didn’t circumvent our Constitution – and he wouldn’t have even considered the idea. Obama, on the other hand, did precisely that, with no attempt to work together, and no notice that the Executive Order was coming other than a few hours prior to a press statement.
With this action on a very volatile and polarizing issue, Obama is purposely catering to a particular voting bloc in order to gain for himself the election in November. He attempted this with his HHS mandate, expecting the majority of women to support his initiative…which he found was not quite the case. What’s next? Speculation has it that it will be marijuana legalization in October, mainly to bring independents, youths, and libertarians to the voting booth.
It is not the issue itself –immigration — that is the problem in this case. Rather, it is the willful disregard for our Constitution for the sake of an election power grab. Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to toss aside our founding document on a major and specific issue as a means to sway a large segment of the population. If Obama can cheapen the presidency by begging for donations vis-a-vis gift registries, and if he can imperialize the presidency through his continued unchecked actions, this country is in grave danger for November. Obama doesn’t have to commit blatant voter fraud anymore; he merely has to Executive Order it done.
