New York State of Mind

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

New Food Police alert : Slurpies are Evil!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sugary drinks known to most Americans as big gulps and smaller drinks such as Snapples. Why the need for the ban? To save people from themselves combat obesity of course.

The proposed first-in-the-nation ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.

The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, wouldn’t apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday that he “thinks it’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

Hmm….considering Diet soda has been shown to also cause people to gain weight and that fruit juice has just as much sugar as soda, this is clearly drink discrimination. But, there’s a loophole!

But there’s speculation that customers will just buy two 16-ounce bottles instead of one 20-ounce drink. (Townhall)

Maybe while getting a little weed and a little blow on the street you can get a black market 20 oz Mountain Dew!! 🙂

Flee THE  Tax Man

New York thinks of itself as the place to be, but its high taxes have made it a place to flee. Those who have escaped the Empire State tax man could fill a major city.

The state of New York, with about 19.5 million people, has no known plans to erect concrete barriers or barbed wire fences. But from 2000 to 2010 it suffered an exodus of some 3.4 million New Yorkers — nearly a million more people than in Germany’s post-war experience and more than that of any other state.

And the outflow hasn’t stopped. The income loss for the state is $45.6 billion, the Tax Foundation says.

Granted, it’s not just one-way traffic. New York has plenty of immigration from abroad; its more than 4 million foreign-born residents give it the second-biggest immigrant population in America.

So net outward migration is about 1.3 million.

Most New York refugees are in sunny, zero-income-tax Florida. The Sunshine State, along with its rays, offer big relief from New York’s state tax on income, which starts at almost 6.5% and reaches nearly 9% for the overly successful.

On top of that are high sales taxes that approach 9% in New York City, but 7% in some other areas.

Heritage Foundation analyst Nick Kasprak said taxes play a role in people’s decisions to relocate.

“You generally see people moving from higher-tax states to lower-tax states,” he said. “Certainly, taxes are one way that states compete with one another.”

Florida wins that competition with New York hands down. It has no income tax and no estate tax.

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/migration/

New Yorkers who leave an estate of more than $1 million to their loved ones get hit with a state death tax reaching 16%, bringing billions into state coffers.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo admits that “working families can’t afford to pay the ever-increasing tax burden … and this state has no future if it is going to be the tax capital of the nation.”

But like a long line of New York politicians from both parties, what he dangles is relief from the state’s high property taxes, which are tied to state government spending mandates on localities — a longtime shell game showing no real signs of ending.

Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer (aka the Emperor’s Club escort agency’s Client No. 9), actually attained the governorship as a tax crusader of sorts, suing H&R Block for $250 million on fraud charges as state attorney general while simultaneously seeking the governor’s mansion.

But Spitzer didn’t, and Cuomo hasn’t, threatened New York’s status as “tax capital of the nation” with any substantive reform that changes the status quo.

Like those formerly enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, New Yorkers’ choice is a wrenching one: either escape by leaving home, or spend years waiting for a liberator to arrive.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Advertisements

SWATting the Opposition

The ever-lovable, ever-tolerant, ever-fair, Rev. Al Sharpton: “It seems like they [Republicans] act as though, some wiping out of people, some of the right-wing, is all right. It’s not all right to do to any innocent people,” Sharpton said. “If you had war and people — that’s one thing, but to wipe out innocent people just because of who they are like what was done in Hitler’s Germany, or what was done to Native Americans, is not justifiable.” (DC)

So now along with being Racists, Republicans are now genocidal murders in wanting! gee nothing like liberal “new tone” and “civility”. 🙂

And what do you bet no one in the liberal media cares. 🙂

“You know but Rev, I think and what is similar to Hitler’s Germany is that Hitler did not believe those people to be human,” New York Amsterdam News publisher Elinor Tatum said in response.

After Sharpton agreed, Tatum continued: “They believed them to be subhuman and that’s I think the same thing we think people are thinking here is that you know why would they even care about them because they’re not human. And that’s how we’re [Blacks] being looked at and that’s what the scariest part of this whole thing is.”

Katie Pavlich: What does the far left do when they disagree with conservative bloggers? They call the police from a phone program pretending to be (insert conservative blogger here), say something horrific such as “I just shot my wife,” hang up and then laugh as a local SWAT team descends on the house of (insert conservative blogger here) for no real reason.

Insert sniggering Bart Simpson. Ay Carumba! That’s hilarious! Heee heee heee….

CNN contributor and Red State editor-in-chief Erick Erickson:

Last week we spent a lot of time writing about Brett Kimberlin and the incident involving blogger Patterico where someone spoofed his phone number and told 911 he had shot his wife.

Tonight, my family was sitting around the kitchen table eating dinner when sheriffs deputies pulled up in the driveway.

Someone called 911 from my address claiming there had been an accidental shooting.

It wasn’t nearly the trauma that Patterico suffered, but I guess the Erickson household is on somebody’s radar.

Luckily it was two sheriffs deputies who knew me and I had already, last week, advised the Sheriff’s Department to be on the look out for something like this.

The attack on Erickson came after an attack on conservative blogger Patterico, who was contacted during the radio show Darby-Stranahan by someone claiming to be his SWATter. The caller also mocked conservative Michelle Malkin for her cousin Marizella, being missing.

A person claiming to be my swatter called in twice to the show: once at 50:18 and again at about 65 minutes in. I was on the show and the person claiming to be the swatter addressed me directly, twice. He called me “buddy,” mocked me for having been swatted, laughed at me repeatedly, and mocked Michelle Malkin for the situation where her cousin is missing. He asked me what it was like to be swatted, and absurdly claimed that he was present that night, watching me led out in handcuffs.

On Tuesday, former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams wrote that the Justice Department “could stop this behavior quickly because it almost certainly constitutes a federal crime.”

But then he should remember who the Head the Justice Department and know that not only would they not stop it, but I bet they are laughing their collective asses off about.

This Justice department only enforces laws it feels like enforcing.

Remember, they had the Black Panthers red-handed and  convicted and Holder took over and blew it off , then has sued 3 states, refused to allow ID for Voting, etc.

“I don’t know! I don’t know why I did it, I don’t know why I enjoyed it, and I don’t know why I’ll do it again!”– Bart Simpson

The FBI says each swatting incident costs law enforcement an average of $10,000 in resources.

But man it’s funny to see them racist conservatives rushed by SWAT teams, man that just so funny it makes me pee my pants!!! 🙂

***********

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Jay Carney explains the difference between Solyndra and Bain Capital, so try to keep up

  Reporter: Last thing. If that’s the argument, how is that different from Romney’s argument on Bain Capital, which is that many succeeded and a few failed?

    Carney: Look, there, there, there is the… the difference in that… your overall view of what your responsibilities are as president, and what your view of the economic future is. And, and the president believes, as he’s made clear, that a president’s responsibility is not just to, uh… those who win, but those who, for an example, in a company where there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that, you know, we have to make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work, and that’s part of the overall responsibility the president has.

Okay? Do you understand the difference now? Are we done here?

Well then, you’re just dumb, I guess.

Update: Oh, nice try, wingnut…

    Melissa Clouthier @MelissaTweets
Difference between Bain and Solyndra: Romney’s enterprises made investors money. Obama’s lost taxpayer money. (DC)

The real difference: One was a liberal, so that’s ok. The other was mean, rich,white, racist, evil capitalist pig!! 🙂

Maybe they should SWAT his house. Man that would be funny! (sarcasm) And ABC,NBC,CBS, MSNBC would be all over it!!

It would bring joy to the Grinchy Left’s heart.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

 

 

Education

Audiences at a graduation ceremony were left aghast when Congressman Barney Frank told a black degree recipient that his graduation gown finally gave him a hoodie that he could wear ‘and no one will shoot at you’.

The Democrat made the controversial remarks while speaking at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth graduation on Sunday.

And no one in the Liberal Media will bat an eye.

Barck Obama’s Dreams of My Father: Here’s a quote from pages 100 and 101:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.

Thomas Sowell: “Education” is a word that covers a lot of very different things, from vital, life-saving medical skills to frivolous courses to absolutely counterproductive courses that fill people with a sense of grievance and entitlement, without giving them either the skills to earn a living or a realistic understanding of the world required for a citizen in a free society.

The lack of realism among many highly educated people has been demonstrated in many ways.

When I saw signs in Yellowstone National Park warning visitors not to get too close to a buffalo, I realized that this was a warning that no illiterate farmer of a bygone century would have needed. No one would have had to tell him not to mess with a huge animal that literally weighs a ton, and can charge at you at 30 miles an hour.

No one would have had to tell that illiterate farmer’s daughter not to stand by the side of a highway, trying to hitch a ride with strangers, as too many college girls have done, sometimes with results that ranged all the way up to their death.

The dangers that a lack of realism can bring to many educated people are completely overshadowed by the dangers to a whole society created by the unrealistic views of the world promoted in many educational institutions.

It was painful, for example, to see an internationally renowned scholar say that what low-income young people needed was “meaningful work.” But this is a notion common among educated elites, regardless of how counterproductive its consequences may be for society at large, and for low-income youngsters especially.

What is “meaningful work”?

The underlying notion seems to be that it is work whose performance is satisfying or enjoyable in itself. But if that is the only kind of work that people should have to do, how is garbage to be collected, bed pans emptied in hospitals or jobs with life-threatening dangers to be performed?

Does anyone imagine that firemen enjoy going into burning homes and buildings to rescue people trapped by the flames? That soldiers going into combat think it is fun?

In the real world, many things are done simply because they have to be done, not because doing them brings immediate pleasure to those who do them. Some people take justifiable pride in working to take care of their families, whether or not the work itself is great.

Some of our more Utopian intellectuals lament that many people work “just for the money.” They do not like a society where A produces what B wants, simply in order that B will produce what A wants, with money being an intermediary device facilitating such exchanges.

Some would apparently prefer a society where all-wise elites would decide what each of us “needs” or “deserves.” The actual history of societies formed on that principle — histories often stained, or even drenched, in blood — is of little interest to those who mistake wishful thinking for idealism.

At the very least, many intellectuals do not want the poor or the young to have to take “menial” jobs. But people who are paying their own money, as distinguished from the taxpayers’ money, for someone to do a job are unlikely to part with hard cash unless that job actually needs doing, whether or not that job is called “menial” by others.

People who lack the skills to take on more prestigious jobs can either remain idle and live as parasites on others or take the jobs for which they are currently qualified, and then move up the ladder as they acquire more experience. People who are flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s on New Year’s Day are seldom flipping hamburgers there when Christmas time comes.

Those relatively few statistics that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time show them moving massively from one income bracket to another over time, starting at the bottom and moving up as they acquire skills and experience.

Telling young people that some jobs are “menial” is a huge disservice to them and to the whole society. Subsidizing them in idleness while they wait for “meaningful work” is just asking for trouble, both for them and for all those around them.

Now the Liberal Thought Police will coming to your door because remember, Liberals “evolve” when they are two-faced hypocrites after all.  So you need to “evolve” and be “re-educated”. 🙂

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)- Karl Marx

You are “entitled” to a “living wage”, health care, a car, a home, a big screen tv, and lots of money you never earned…

Chuck Norris: On May 23, President Barack Obama told more than 1,000 jubilant, uniform-prepped-and-polished graduates of the U.S. Air Force Academy that the world has a “new feeling about America.” He declared: “I see it everywhere I go, from London and Prague to Tokyo and Seoul to Rio and Jakarta. There’s a new confidence in our leadership.” If only it were true.

Obama boasted, “We can say with confidence and pride: The United States is stronger, safer and more respected in the world.”

“Stronger, safer and more respected”?

“Stronger,” as in Obama’s plan to initiate more than $500 billion in automatic cuts to the defense budget over a decade, starting next January. Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the Democratic-controlled Senate voted May 24 to authorize another reduced spending package for the Pentagon.

“Safer,” as in the report card from the Bipartisan Policy Center, including many of the original 9/11 Commission members, which reported on national preparedness 10 years after those catastrophic terrorist attacks: “Our country is undoubtedly safer and more secure than it was a decade ago,” but “we fail to achieve the security we could or should have.” The report concluded that the federal government has failed to meet nine of the 9/11 Commission’s 41 recommendations.

“More respected,” as in The Washington Times’ report that according to a poll by even two left-leaning groups, “a majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than two years ago and believe President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security.”

In February, Gallup reported that “Americans continue to express much greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the United States’ position in the world, and their views have improved little since hitting a low point in 2008.”

Why do we have such a weak, unsecured and disrespected U.S.?

Maybe a significant reason is that Obama paraded U.S. weaknesses and mistakes to the world in his 2009 “apology tour.” (Check out http://bit.ly/JIG7J1 to see The Heritage Foundation’s report on the top 10 decries of America by Obama.)

Sandwich all of those apologies and countless others since then with the apology in March for the unintentional burning of Qurans in Afghanistan and we have a perfect recipe for America’s global disrespect and dissolution.

Mr. President, you don’t build national or leadership strength, safety and respect by groveling and groping.

If you want examples of how America could become “stronger, safer and more respected,” then look no further than to our amazing, exemplary, courageous U.S. military personnel — especially those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and republic, including some of the people I met on my two trips to Iraq. They are the ones who truly create the good U.S. qualities and deserve the credit for them.

One thing we can say for sure: Though the federal government and this administration have weakened our standing in the world and despite the lack of leadership by the commander in chief, our dedicated service members are responsible for strengthening our republic. To all who have served or are serving our great country, I salute you!

My father fought and was wounded in World War II, in the Battle of the Bulge. I served in the U.S. Air Force in Korea. I am also an honorary Marine. My brother Aaron served in the U.S. Army in Korea. And our brother, Wieland, served in the Army in Vietnam, where he paid the ultimate price June 3, 1970. Wieland was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star with “V” device (first oak leaf cluster) for his heroism. His name is etched among those of more than 58,000 other fallen service members on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. (Go to http://bit.ly/JQd0Nt to watch my 91-year-old mother speak about Wieland in her interview on Fox News Channel’s “Huckabee.”)

It’s fitting for a soldier like Wieland that Memorial Day falls every year a week or so before the anniversary of when he gave his life for the cause of freedom. Though we didn’t win the Vietnam War, my brother did not die in vain, just as the case is with other service members today.

Whether they be for our freedom or another’s, the words of Jesus are true for all: “There is no greater love than this: that a man lay down his life for another.”

About such patriots, Gen. George S. Patton was right: “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”

 

Memorial to the Left

The Left for you: A spokesman for a leading veterans organization criticized MSNBC’s Chris Hayes for arguing on his television show that that he’s “uncomfortable” describing American soldiers who died in battles as heroes.

“If Mr. Hayes feels uncomfortable, I suggest he enlist, go to war, then come home to what he expects is a grateful nation but encounters the opposite. It’s far too easy to cast stones from inexperience,” Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis told The Daily Caller on Sunday.

Hayes, a liberal writer who hosts the weekend show “Up with Chris Hayes,” said he is “uncomfortable about the word [hero] because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”

“I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, he said, “and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism — hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic.”

And these are the people who will stop Iran from nuking the world? 😦

“Like anorexics, who think they are grossly fat when they are very thin, the American body politic is suffering from a national version of body dysmorphia, with nearly half the country believing taxes are high, when they are comparatively and historically low.”
— Reuters global editor at large Chrystia Freeland
“I keep hearing we’re a centrist country and that candidates, after they get through their primaries, have to pivot back to the center, because that’s where we all are. And yet, you have a Republican Party that is in no way in the center, in terms of their issues. They’re clearly out of the mainstream on rolling back, on really rolling back 70 years of legislation.” — CBS’s Lesley Stahl (MRC)

The Origination Clause in Article I, Section 7 states: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” In addition to clarity, this provision has an even greater virtue: It serves a very good purpose.

The Founding Fathers required revenue measures to originate in the House because they wanted this authority to belong to the legislative body closest to the people. Plus, the Framers wanted the larger states to enjoy the most influence on matters of taxing and spending, which is the case in the House (whose seats are allocated according to population) but not the Senate (where each state gets two seats regardless of population and smaller states have outsized influence). “This power over the purse,” James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58, “may, in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has taken to thumbing his nose at this clear mandate. Recently, he publicly dismissed the Origination Clause as a “hyper-technical budget issue,” raised by his Republican opponents as “a fig leaf to hide their blatant obstruction.” The matter arose as Reid orchestrated a high-profile Senate floor debate on the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, prior to House consideration of this or any other revenue bill. Also known as the “Buffett Rule,” the Senate measure would impose a hefty new tax on millionaires.Aware that the Republican House would no more propose new, economically debilitating taxes than Warren Buffett would voluntarily follow the rule that bears his name, Reid opted to move unilaterally. Why let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of making sure a red-meat, eat-the-rich proposal like this gets maximum media exposure during an election year?

It does not stop there. In its version of the legislation extending federal price controls on student loans, the Senate included a hefty tax increase — again absent the requisite House action. Then there is the Violence against Women Act, which contains a new $30 fee for immigrant visas, another Senate revenue provision that violates the Origination Clause. When House leaders uncovered this constitutional infirmity, they quickly issued a “blue slip” notification, effectively killing it.

Remarkably, as Congressional Quarterly reported, the House move “blindsided” the many constitutional illiterates in the Senate. One unnamed Senate staffer even speculated that the House’s fealty to the Constitution “may be part of some Republican plan.” This is all in keeping with how the leftist intelligentsia has viewed previous efforts to ignore the Origination Clause. The New York Times characterized one such mishap as an “arcane parliamentary mistake” the enforcement of which was designed “to block . . . everything else Mr. Reid is hoping to accomplish,”(NRO)
Private Equity Vs. Public Equity

After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider a few examples:

Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection this year. The plant has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story.

According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government: “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Worse, according to CBS News, the company is “under investigation for insider trading,” and Karner has been subpoenaed “for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.”

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported in October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “after a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.'”

First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30% of its workforce.”

Abound Solar. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.'” Last fall, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million.

And let’s not forget Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

Obama has declared that all of the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book “Throw Them All Out,” 71% of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week that it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

The cronyism and corruption are catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.

Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Romney’s record at Bain “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private-equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own public-equity failures as chief executive of the United States. (IBD)

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we’re facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we’ve recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”

But look, I mean, whatever it takes because right now we need somebody to spend, and that somebody has to be the U.S. government.- Liberal “economist” Paul Krugman (Newsbusters)

So let’s all have a moment of silence and on this Memorial Day when we remember those who have fallen in War, remember the Death of Common Reason and Rational Thought on the Left.

But…

Some bad news for the vehement anti-war set: they’ve lost the spending argument. A new chart reveals that in the last decade, spending on national security, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined paled in comparison to entitlement spending — 19% to 65%, respectively. Over to you, infographic:

Photobucket

“About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements,”Paul Miller writes. “By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB.”

In other words, Miller says, “Afghanistan is the second-cheapest major war in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service.”

And of course, it’s worth noting that war spending is about to decline, as our efforts abroad wind down, but entitlement spending will only grow as more people retire. For all President Obama’s talk of a cheaper, “leaner” military, that’s clearly not the area in need of a trimming.

But:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon if international pressure fails.

“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

“This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons,” ISIS said in its analysis.

BUT:

Some astoundingly grim news on the “economic recovery” front: half of American households are receiving government funds to support themselves. No matter which way you slice it, this number isn’t good news for the Obama administration — they can spin the jobs numbers by ignoring the number of people who dropped out of the workforce, but this statistic is pretty straightforward.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multi-generational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

It seems that Newt Gingrich’s nickname for President Obama rings true: he really is the “food stamp president.” More people than ever are relying on the state to support their families, and that’s a major indictment on Obama’s first term.

Furthermore, this puts even more pressure on the economic aspect of the presidential election. There’s no way to cut the deficit until fewer people are on the government payroll — unless, of course, Congress imposes massive (and sure to be massively unpopular) tax hikes.

Really, if this is the direction we’re headed, how many people want to keep going “forward?” (townhall.com)

So do you think the people for austerity and spending cuts or to tax you more to give to them?

And what will Anti-War Anti-Military Bush-Iraq obsessed psychos do now?

Reality is a Bitch and causes partisan Divide and Conquer politics a real problem.

But also, it causes conservatives a real problem that a majority of  people will have the choice of voting to sacrifice themselves or you.

Those are the questions and they aren’t so easy.

 

 

3 Rules

“You know, he left out some facts. His speech was more like a cowpie of distortion,” Obama said to hoots of laughter from a crowd of 2,500 inside the Knapp Center at the Iowa State Fairgrounds.

Very Mature. Very Presidential.

Politics Rule #1: Get Elected.

Rule #2: Get Re-elected.

Rule #3: Everything else must work for rule #1 and 2.

“Five trillion in new tax cuts? That is like trying to put out a prairie fire with some gasoline,” the president said.

Yeah, $6 Trillion in spending and millions out of work has worked out very well for all of us so far.

“What happens is the Republicans run up the tab, and then we’re sitting there, and they’ve left the restaurant and then they point, ‘Why’d you order all those steaks and martinis?’ ” he said. “What he did not also tell you was that after inheriting a trillion-dollar deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law, so now I want to finish the job.”-Obama

See yesterday’s blog to discover how dishonest this line of attack is. But it’s not like they care.

“But what my opponent didn’t tell you is that federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” he said.

Again, see yesterday’s blog to see just how dishonest this truly is.

But since it’s the only “economic” meme he can run on because the honest truth is not something he or the liberal media will talk about it’s all he’s got.

And he’s praying you are stupid enough to believe him.

Like in 2008 if he tells the same lies over and over again the Liberal Media will make it the truth.

In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about eating green eggs and ham. As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”

He would smoke it here and there. He would smoke it anywhere.

But he was never arrested.  He got into Ivy League Schools and everything. And it’s not supposed to be spoken of, except by partisan “racists”.

But bring up an alleged “bullying” 50 years ago that even the relatives of the now-deceased “victim” says is crap is very,very newsworthy.

So once again, a Liberal can get away with anything and say anything and if you object that’s YOUR fault.

“When they were chooming (smoking weed) in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

The Liberals can go on for days about Romney as a “bully” and a “cultist” and a corporate raider but if you go here, in Obama’s own words and from people who knew him then and watch a Liberals blood pressure explode into apoplectic fits.

BAIN Bane

Much like the silly episode with Bill Maher where Obama and liberal started a “War on Women” over calling Sandra Fluke a slut and then taking $1,000,000 from a guy (Maher) who has said vastly worse things and poo-pooed any hypocrisy, Obama is at it again.

As mentioned yesterday, BAIN Capital the new Boogeyman of the Left for 2012, gave more in campaign donations previously to Democrats over Republicans.

Well, they’ve also given to Obama.

Though the Obama campaign has repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney for his career at Bain Capital, President Obama still accepted $7,500 in campaign contributions from two Bain executives. His campaign press secretary, Ben LaBolt told The Politicker the president has no intention of giving the money back.

“No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for President highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation, when in fact, his goal was profit maximization,” said Mr. LaBolt.  ”The President has support from business leaders across industries who have seen him pull the economy back from the brink of another depression, manufacturing and the auto industry revived, and support his agenda to build an economy that lasts where America outinnovates and outeducates the rest of the world and economic security for the middle class is restored.” (Solyndra, his tireless tirades against fossil fuels, $6 Trillion Dollars, and Pro-Union kickbacks, and other things like them being a great example).

Don’t so as I do, do as I say. I can do anything I want, you can’t.

“But that’s not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some.”– Obama

As long as you do it my way and pay homage to my greatness or it’s the highway for you. I pick the winners and losers.

You are either an Apparatchik or you’re not.

Speaking at TPI Composites, which manufactures wind blades for wind turbines and employs 700 people, the president told the crowd that extending the tax credit is “a big deal.”

“This industry — thanks in large part to some very important tax credits — has now taken off,” the president told the crowd largely made up of TPI workers. …

However, he said “that progress is in jeopardy. If Congress doesn’t act, those tax credits I mentioned – the ones that helped to build up the wind industry and bring it here to Newton – will expire. If Congress doesn’t act, companies like this one will take a hit. Jobs will be lost.”(townhall)

Just Solyndra, Light Squared and all the other “green” boondoggles….Ooops! Can’t mention that to a liberal without getting attacked by the pit bull of  inconvenient truths.

I did a bit on wind turbines awhile back and how farcical they are. But it makes Liberals “feel” good so it must be better than nasty, evil fossil fuels. 🙂

And if, as the President claims, the wind industry has really “taken off,” why for pity’s sake does it need more subsidies? Because it hasn’t taken off, and the industry needs these subsidies to stay healthy. Ergo, The American Taxpayer is paying for unproductive jobs in a politically-favored industry, at the opportunity cost of actual economic growth and the creation of real, productive jobs. (townhall)

But you won’t here that from the Liberal Media.

After all, after every Solar plant goes under that got massive taxpayer subsides, it’s always the Chinese Government’s fault.

Liberals are never to blame for ANYTHING. It’s ALWAYS some one else’s fault.

The American Wind Energy Association’s 2011 annual report and related documents were quietly posted on the Internet last week by a wind power opponent upset by windmills’ negative impact on birds. The documents show the lobby’s efforts to frame its opponents as tax hikers, and to use opposition research against subsidy critics, some of whom it classifies as “libertarian free-market fundamentalists.” …

“AWEA’s message and champions have largely resided on the left,” the Revolution Agency stated in a strategy memo included in AWEA’s 2011 annual report. So the 2010 elections required AWEA to “pivot” from “green energy and Obama to jobs, manufacturing, business investment, and Conservative Republicans,” while still “taking care not to erode base support from the left.”

One core problem, the memo explained: The “debt-strapped, partisan, and Tea Party-infused Congress is reflexively skeptical of subsidies and many outside the windy red states have an inherently negative sentiment toward renewable energy.” …

AWEA plans “continued deployment of opposition research through third parties to cause critics to have to respond,” the battle plan states. In other words: When people attack AWEA’s subsidies, AWEA might feed an unflattering story on that person to some ideological or partisan media outlet or activist group.

Ahh, the seedy underbelly of the DC lobbying-scene. It’s kinda’ cute that greenie-hippie types think that by abiding by the dictates of environmental trendiness, they think they’re somehow ‘fighting the man’ and thwarting corporate/establishment interests. ‘Cause in reality, the environmental movement boasts one of the most intractable lobbies around.

Ever tried to get an Environmentalist to “compromise”. They don’t even understand the concept and their lobbyists are hard core. But they are Gods Chosen compared to evil Oil, Coal and Gas Lobbyists. So watch out and shut up!

If a form of renewable energy can start up its own ventures in the private sector and make a product that people willingly buy, then great! But as for the federal government ostensibly “making an investment” on behalf of public welfare, what incentives do bureaucrats have to be judicious in their “investments” when they’re gambling with other people’s money?

And losing repeatedly.

Government’s job shouldn’t be to tilt the field for one team or another, but to guarantee a level playing for everyone. (Hot air)

But liberals will continue to tilt at windmills because it makes them feel “good” and like any good Choomer it’s all about that next high.

Obama and Company will still take their money though.

Remember, there are only 3 rules. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The DNA of Dishonesty

Another great example of the Left’s Orwellian love affair with doublespeak occurred yesterday on America Live on Fox.

The Topic same sex/gay marriage. Our little cherub of Orwell said that 80% of Americas were for “marriage” so he didn’t see the problem.

When pressed he said same sex/gay/straight, it’s all marriage so he didn’t see any distinction and neither should you.

Much like “migrant” for illegal aliens the language is dishonest and manipulative.

Did you know that the “improving” jobs figures the Media touts are dishonest at best?

Simple, really, you announce the figures have gone down on Thursday when they come out. Then before the next Thursday when the figures are revised UPWARDS you just don’t mention that and when they go down again on the next Thursday you have “growth” and “improvement”.

The fact that it has been revised UPWARDS the last 47 weeks  (59/60 weeks total) straight is totally unimportant to you if you’re liberal or Obama.

And the love fest on the Mainstream Media can continue.

Sen. Patrick Leahy: I trust that he will be Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives. It’s the Supreme Court of the United States and the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us.

Leahy suggesting that a justice voting based on their personal beliefs, against Obamacare, would be committing conservative judicial activism (aka voting against ObamaCare is “activism”).

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”-Sen Leahy.

Mind you this is the same guy who after the Citizens United case decision didn’t go the Unions way:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political ads attacking candidates, calling it the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”(politico).

And we all know THAT was partisan decision and the Liberals obsess about to this day. It’s an open would that the Democrats are constantly pouring salt in.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and to overturn the actions of the people’s elected representatives in the Congress.  I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and Committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted. (Leahy’s own website)

You mean the partisan “summits”, the legal maneuvering,The bribes and horse trading, the distortions, the “pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, the exclusion of opposition and the most partisan vote in US History???

Oh that’s right, when Liberals do it it’s “fair”. 🙂

  They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people…

You mean the 60% that has been against Obamacare since it was born?

No, he doesn’t.

According a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the Affordable Care Act mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case “on the basis of the law.” (also from his website)

This, of course comes from the Washington Post, a very “fair” and “unbiased” member of the “journalist” community.

The actual Poll: Notice the difference in the Democrats (political) – of which their are two categories and the Republicans (law)- 1 category and then you average them together and you skew the poll in your favor and proclaim it as if you weren’t manipulating people dishonestly.

The health care case: Politics and the Supreme Court

That is until Obama gets the chance to appoint more leftists to the court and tip the balance in their favor, then it will be “fair” when they can just run over the conservatives like a steam roller… 🙂

But that wouldn’t be activism though… 🙂

SPENDING

Ann Coulter: It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.”

To be Precise- “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”–Obama in Denver (gatewaypundit)

Obama: I’ve “Cleaned Up” GOP’s “Wild Debts”–My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years.

There’s even a chart!  (See Below) I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on … This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.”

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

Everybody’s keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …” On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending?

Hey — we just found out that ObamaCare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Bros. collapsed.

By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money.

That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. This, too, is called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

American Enterprise Institute: Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

So what you do is raise the baseline AFTER you’ve spend the money, blame it on your predecessor, then proclaim how little you’ve spent since then with a straight face.

Now that’s “honest” and “transparent” isn’t it.

So the fact that the Debt was 10 trillion in 2009 when you took over and now it’s approaching rapidly 16 trillion isn’t his fault because he’s been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have! 🙂

Mr Nutting: Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond. (AEI)

<<Barf bag overload>>

So we end today’s listen in Liberal dishonesty with a bit of comedy:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) on CSPAN:

“Is the thrill still there?” asked Scully.

Matthews wasn’t thrilled with the question.

“I hope that you feel satisfied that you’ve used the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right-winger I ever bump into,” Matthews responded, after defending the comment.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses the chance to talk about it,” Matthews continued.

“And usually they say ‘tingle’ which says something about their orientation, but that’s alright,” he added. Later he interjected, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I have to throw that in.”

Yeah he wouldn’t want to be “homophobic” or “bigoted” now would he! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden