Global Warming Science Revealed

President Obama’s former campaign operation is asking supporters to choose the most “embarrassing” Republican climate change deniers in a March Madness-style fundraising email.

Organizing For Action sent the “Climate Change Fantasy Tournament” message to liberal supporters Monday, asking them to choose among the “Embarrassing Eight,” modeled after the popular playoff brackets in which college basketball fans try to pick the winner of the annual NCAA tournament.

The fact that Global warming is a fantasy will not, ironically, occur to them. 🙂

The GOP roster includes Speaker John Boeher of Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

“We’re getting even closer to crowning our champion, the worst climate change denier in the country,” said Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, in the email. “These folks have made it this far because they’re deeply committed to publicly denying the science behind climate change.”

He said the advocacy group will “make sure we celebrate the winner — in a very public way — back in their home district.”

The message doubles as a fundraiser. If the viewer chooses Mr. McConnell over Mr. Inhofe, for example, the next screen offers donation options ranging from $15 to $1,000 or more to OFA. (WT)

The real “science” behind Global Warming, Political Science!

Childish, churlish, authoritarian.

The Campaign donation to Obama and The Liberal Democrat Machine.

So the truth is revealed.

Set your way back machine to the 19th Century!  Steam Punk Reality.

Sign me up. Not really…

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Connections

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Barack Obama, knight of the peevish countenance, illustrated William F. Buckley’s axiom that liberals who celebrate tolerance of other views always seem amazed that there are other views.

America can be the society it was when it had a spring in its step, a society in which markets — the voluntary collaboration of creative individuals — allocate opportunity. Or America can remain today’s depressed and anxious society of unprecedented stagnation in the fourth year of a faux recovery — a bleak society in which government incompetently allocates resources in pursuit of its perishable certitudes and on behalf of the politically connected. (George Will)

Speaking of connections…

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Nothing to see here… 🙂
The Childish Attack
The endless array of childish attacks and ad hominems that Liberals can come up with is psychologically fascinating, if your into psychosis and pathological behavior.
“When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” Obama told Denver supporters. “The real Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy.”
And the Democrats were the ones complaining after the debate about respect. 🙂
Developing?

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors use “largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.”

The Democrats cheating? Naw, never happens. <fake cough> Voter ID fraud…

We’ll see if this come to pass and if it does how fast the Ministry of Truth will try to nuke it and bury it.

Racist! Again…

Mitt Romney “slyly” proved he’s a racist last night while describing his tax plan. Did you notice? No? Anyone? Harper’s Magazine’s Kevin Baker embarrassed himself in accusing Romney of trying to lock down his allegedly-racist base during last night’s debate.

“[Obama]didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Baker laments today. “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.”

Actually, the entire debate audience laughed at Romney’s clever, innocuous way of rebutting Obama’s attack. Here’s what Romney said to Obama, per the White House transcript:

I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals.  I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case.  Look, I’ve got five boys.  I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. (Laughter.)  But that is not the case, all right?  I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

Baker is tilting at windmills, at best. Why? “Maybe it helps their self-esteem to pretend that, instead of defending a failed presidency and a lousy economic recovery, they are living 50 years ago, standing alongside freedom riders and marchers in the segregated South,” The Washington Examiner speculated recently in response to liberal pundits endless ability to connect modern politics to slavery.

After all, if you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist! 🙂

George Will again…

Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to ObamaCare’s creation of “an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of (medical) treatment you ought to have,” Obama said, “No, it isn’t.” Oh?

The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.

The Statist Course

Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.

These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”

By ObamaCare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.

Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”

But unless and until the Supreme Court — an unreliable guardian — overturns it, IPAB is a harbinger of the “shock and awe statism” (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ phrase) that is liberalism’s prescription for curing the problems supposedly caused by insufficient statism.

Before Denver, Obama’s campaign was a protracted exercise in excuse abuse, and the promise that he will stay on the statist course he doggedly defends despite evidence of its futility. After Denver, Romney’s campaign should advertise that promise.

And beat him to political death with it.
FEAR IS HOPE!
And Change is Bad!
The new “Hope and Change” theme of the Obama Campaign.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Take Your Medicine, America…

It’s A Penalty and Not a TAX!

But first a little capitalist greed…

Anything for a Buck (gee, I though that was just capitalists):

“Keep cool while you’re canvassing this summer,” the Obama campaign tweeted Saturday evening. The message contained a link to a $30 Obama tank top. “Our Vote Obama Tank Top is a stylish and fun way to show your support,” the campaign says.

The campaign was pushing the tank tops as record heat combined with a loss of power following storms to create a humanitarian emergency in several states. (Washington Examiner)

Gee, I thought taking advantage of people’s misfortunes for a buck was a an evil capitalist White Republican thing to do! 🙂

President Obama warned top donors that he believes Republicans can take Congress and the White House this year and criticized the media for “hyperventilat[ing]” about Mitt Romney raising more money than his campaign in May.

Yeah, you’re job is to hyperventilate about how great I am and how evil they are. Don’t get caught in the horse race when you’re already biased for this horse!

“[T]he media hear these numbers and hyperventilate over it, and there’s a tendency to blow them out of proportion. But it does make the process more transparent. We see where we stand. And right now on a month-to-month basis, we’ve fallen behind.” (WE)

And god knows, the He and Democrats promised to be “the most transparent administration ever” 🙂

So to make up for it, he has George Clooney doing events for him…IN SWITZERLAND!!

Talk about “outside money”…

***************
Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends this morning that nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

“It’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”

Obamacare: It’s not just a big f***ing deal (to quote VP Biden) It’s a big f***ing tax.

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters praised the court’s ruling but told The Daily Caller that she personally has “not decided” whether or not to call the mandate a tax.

The former Speaker is saying ObamaCare is a penalty, not a tax, that is enforced by the tax code…or something.

David Gregory: Is it a tax?

Pelosi: No no, no no.

Is this what Pelosi meant by “passing the bill to see what’s in it?” The Supreme Court saw what was in ObamaCare, ruled it a tax, and she, along with top White House officials, are saying it’s a tax. It is very clear the Democrats have their talking points together.

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court upheld it BECAUSE it was a TAX. 🙂

And yet, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is accusing Republicans of being deceptive about the “Affordable Care Act.”

“When it came to championing the health care legislation, President Obama made sure that al though everybody — the vast majority of Americans have health insurance coverage, we want to make sure that if you’re a free rider, if you roll the dice and get sick and use the emergency room as your primary access point for health care. Those health care costs are going to get shifted to all of us. And if you choose not to carry health insurance, this legislation says you’re going to pay a small penalty so that we don’t have to pay for you rolling the dice,” DNC chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said on MSNBC today.

And the costs STILL Get shift and because of the law says that a pre-existing condition (like not having insurance) cannot be denied the premiums will go up anyhow and that person will still buy insurance, be treated, then drop it because it’s too expensive. Solving nothing but a 90 year old wet dream of liberals.

“That’s what the health care reform law says and the Republicans are engaging in deception if they say anything else,” she said.

Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter To The Blaze’s Will Cain:

“Well, let’s break that down for a second,” Cutter responded. “What John Roberts said is that we have the power to impose this penalty on people through the taxation clause. It’s a penalty. Let’s talk about who this impacts. Most people have private insurance. I’m assuming everyone at this table has private insurance, so it doesn’t apply to us.”

“So you said, it’s a penalty?” Cain asked.

“It’s a penalty.”

“But yesterday we learned it was a tax.” (The Blaze)

“It’s a penalty. That, if you choose not to get healthcare, and you’re imposing a hidden tax on all of us because we pay for your healthcare, then you’ll pay a penalty.”

HUH?

If you can’t dazzle them with intelligence baffle them with Bullsh*t!

Boy the Democrats have a lot of squirming and spinning to do on this one.

Watch this liberal say EXACTLY what he complains just seconds later that he  didn’t say when it’s pointed out to him.

http://townhall.com/video/katie-pavlich-takes-on-nyt-columnist-#

Boy this is going to be Orwellian Doublespeak overload on the Tax that is a Penalty that has been declared a Tax but is still only a Penalty by a TAX collection agency and assessed on your TAX refund. 🙂

It’s a penalty. It’s a penalty. It’s a penalty. This is what White House officials are arguing despite Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare classifying the healthcare legislation as….a tax.

Today, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew argued the same thing. Remember, ObamaCare was “sold” or shoved down the throats of the American people as a penalty to avoid the Obama administration looking like President Obama was raising taxes on everyone.

The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on Fox News Sunday that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision” and that the presidential campaigns should focus on the economy and jobs.

“What we need to do is go forward with the implementation” of the law, Lew said.

So stop talking about the TAX…I mean penalty! let’s focus on the Economy that I’ve f*cked up!! 🙂

Watch the Spin and the Talking Points:

CBO also estimated the income levels of those 3.9 million uninsured who will pay higher taxes.  More than 3/4 of them are not rich.

Income relative to
federal poverty line
# of people
paying tax 
Income range
(single)
Income range
(family of 4)
Below poverty 400,000 $0 – 11,800 $0 – 24,000
100% to 200% 600,000 $11,800 – 23,600 $24K – $48K
200% to 300% 800,000 $23,600 – 35,400 $48K – $72K
300% – 400% 700,000 $35,400 – 47,200 $72K – $96K
400% – 500% 500,000 $47,200 – 59,000 $96K – $120K
> 500% 900,000 > $59,000 >$120K
Total 3,900,000    

 

Reading the first line of this table, CBO says that under this law in 2016 there will be 400,000 people below the poverty line who will be uninsured and pay the tax. (More will be required to do so — this is the number who will comply with the law.) Singles in that income range will have annual income less than $11,800, and families of four in that range will have annual income less than $24,000.  These are 400,000 poor uninsured people who will be forced to pay higher taxes.

And remember, The CBO was a darling of the Left during the ObamaCare debate.

But it’s still a penalty not a tax!

They think If they just lie about it often enough then they can change the reality.

Problem is, the ruling is in black and white and it’s a TAX! 🙂

And then there’s the Waivers, remember them?

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.

However, what’s slightly unsettling is the fact that the majority of the waivers were handed out to labor unions.

labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers. (DC)

There were 1700+ total.

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Be these are not “freeloaders”. 🙂

obamacare.jpg

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Small Business Saturday

Remember the outrage from the administration over hefty bonuses paid to AIG executives in 2009? Back then, shortly after AIG was bailed out by American taxpayers, the company went through with already planned bonuses to top executives.

The bonuses, which totaled $165 million, sparked a hot national debate over how much freedom private companies should have to pay large bonuses after they had become dependent on taxpayers. The House and Senate passed measures calling for the taxing of executive bonuses for bailed-out companies to the tune of 70-90 percent.

The president reacted forcefully: “”[I]t’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

Last week, another set of bonuses for bailed-out companies got decidedly less bad press. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to whom taxpayers have already given hundreds of billions, doled out $12.79 million in bonuses to its executives for meeting modest goals.

One could argue that there’s no outrage from the administration over the Fannie and Freddie bonuses because the total amount of bonuses is so much smaller.

But in fact, the average executive bonus is far larger.

Fannie and Freddie spent $12.79 million on 10 bonuses for an average of $1.27 million per bonus.

AIG spent $165 million on 400 bonuses for an average of $412,000 per bonus.

That’s about three times the level of bonus for bailed-out Freddie and Fannie execs compared to AIG. Some have argued that the AIG bonuses were different because they went to people who caused the problem, which is true, but only partly. A lot of them were going to people outside the parts of AIG that caused the trouble, but the criticism of AIG remains valid.

At Fannie and Freddie, the bonuses are going to those who are attempting to mitigate taxpayer losses, and the argument is that Fannie and Freddie have to compete with private sector salaries in order to get the best to do the mitigating.

Nonetheless, lawmakers are moving toward limiting bonuses for these executives. Even if true, it is a galling argument that we must shell out more money to Fannie and Freddie simply because they’ve already lost so much of our money that we need to give them lots of our money to prevent the loss of more of our money.

Doesn’t the president wonder, “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” (Mary Katherine Ham)

Nope. From what I hear, he’s been off golfing again. Gotta have your priorities. 🙂

After all, wouldn’t you want to make millions of running your company into the ground!!

WACO, Ga. — A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company’s trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

“New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.”

“Can’t afford it,” explained the employer, Bill Looman, Tuesday evening. “I’ve got people that I want to hire now, but I just can’t afford it. And I don’t foresee that I’ll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C.”

Looman’s company is U.S. Cranes, LLC.  He said he put up the signs, and first posted pictures of the signs on his personal Facebook page, six months ago, and he said he received mostly positive reaction from people, “about 20-to-one positive.”

But for some reason, one of the photos went viral on the Internet on Monday.

And the reaction has been so intense, pro and con, he’s had to have his phones disconnected because of the non-stop calls, and he’s had to temporarily shut down his company’s website because of all the traffic crashing the system.

Looman made it clear, talking with 11Alive’s Jon Shirek, that he is not refusing to hire to make some political point; it’s that he doesn’t believe he can hire anyone, because of the economy. And he blames the Obama administration.

“The way the economy’s running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn’t be able to do any hiring,” he said. 

Looman did receive some unexpected attention not long after he put up his signs and Facebook photos. He said someone, and he thinks he knows who it was, reported him to the FBI as a threat to national security. He said the accusation filtered its way through the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and finally the Secret Service. Agents interviewed him.

“The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing,” Looman said. “I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time.”

So Bill Looman is keeping the signs up, and the photos up — stirring up a lot of debate.

“I just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps protecting the rights of people… the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment and the [rest of the] Bill of Rights,” he said. “Lord knows they’re calling me at 2 in the morning, all night long, and voicing their opinion. And I respect their right to do that. I’m getting a reaction, a lot of it’s negative, now. But a lot of people are waking up.” (11alive.com)

Comment on website: Herbert Hubbel · Howell High School

Last year I was unemployed the early part of the year. I had one very good position that I was first in line for. But as soon as Obamacare passed and he learned more about it from his insurance carrier, he cancelled hiring me or anybody else. I am still in touch with the company owner and he still has not hired anybody due to his benefit cost and other expenses climbing rapidly due to Federal Government rules and regulations implemented by the Obama administration.
#2: We are not hiring because there are not enough sales to support more employees. The view over the horizon, because of Obama, is cloudy and risky, at best. We are already in precarious positions and just trying to hold on. Many, many businesses have folded. Many, like me, have put all our retirement funds into the business just to keep the minimum number of employees just to hold on, waiting for the next election, hoping for anyone but the destroyer of this economy. The economy goes up and down. Obama is using the bad economy as a tool to accoumplish his goals. Read his books. Listen to his words. He gets more of what he wants when we are suffering and vulnerable. OWS is a great example.

The US economy is resilient and will recover on its own, excluding the unthinkable decisions Obama has made. If those decisions are not obvious to any of you, then you are not paying attention, or you wouldn’t believe them if they were explained to you. But just a very few are the housing failier and domestic oil. Obama gets an F-. How about Cash for Clunkers and $8500 for home purchases, all at the expense of gov. spending at taxpayers expense. Union payoffs for political campaign funds. The list is endless.

 It’s not that businesses want to punish Obama by not hiring. Businesses exist to make a profit, hire and expand, and make more profit. We have no choice now in not hiring because Obama’s decisions are destroying this economy and our futures. We have no choice until sanity returns to DC. Don’t forget to vote against EVERY Democrat US Senator. It will take real power to undo what has been done.

Fascinating…

Because what celebration of small business would be complete by the Obama administration without reaffirming the mounds of red-tape that Obama and his confederates have saddled small business with?

“Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion,” reports Heritage. 

In contrast, there were only six deregulatory actions by the Obama administration saving $1.5 billion says the Heritage report. 

And those costs were just the cost by the government to implement the regulations, not the overall cost to industry- that is; not the costs to you and I.  

In terms of the overall impact on the economic health of the country, the figure is much higher. 

“More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion,” writes the federal government’s own Small Business Administration.

Heritage reports that that’s nearly twice the amount that the government collects annually in individual income taxes. Ouch!

The costs are a hidden tax, not just on the rich, says Heritage, but on everyone equally.

But because regulations prevent the creation of new jobs, it hits the poor and middle class particularly hard, “while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent difference between the costs incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts),” says the SBA.

In other words, small employers take it on the chin at the rate of $3,810.60 per employee more than the big guys do.

It’s not hard to figure why the Obama administration is creating jobs at a post-war low. Jobs aren’t the goal. Fundraising is. That’s why dog and pony shows like Small Business Saturday loom so large for Obama and his corporate pals.

They serve as a reminder that Obama “cares” about little guys [cough, hack], while giving him an opportunity to put the squeeze on the Big Guys. 

If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Obama is the Great Fabricator.

For Obama, every day is just another episode of the Beltway Unreality show, where acting is much more important than actually doing something; where pop-culture trumps substance. (John Ransom)

And as we all know, it’s all about him.

 

All Warriors are Class Warriors!

But now he wants $1.5 Trillion in new taxes now so he can allegedly cut $4 trillion over 10 years (so how much would he SPEND in 10 years, you should be asking yourself before you fall for this accounting trick and that 1/2 of it was for things that were already going to happen or are cuts in increase – not decreasing at all).

You should ask. But then you’d be an “obstructionist” “tea-bagger”  now wouldn’t you… 🙂

“Tickets to Monday’s [fundraising] dinner were $35,800 per person, with $5,000 going to the Obama campaign and the rest going to the Democratic National Committee. That’s the maximum contribution allowed by law.”

So it’s no wonder the president didn’t mention his plan to hike taxes on the rich!

Hours after delivering a White House speech that called on wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes, President Barack Obama dined with some of these very Americans in New York. He was expected to raise more than $2 million for his reelection campaign.

He didn’t mention his plan to tax the rich, at least not in front of reporters.

Instead, the president seemed to think he was speaking to “ordinary folks,” according to Politico

Despite the well-heeled nature of the audience, Obama suggested at one point that the group was intimately familiar with the devastation caused by the economic downturn. “A lot of people in this room have seen directly the damage that’s been done by this recession,” the president said. “Ordinary folks have been hurting badly,” he added later in his remarks, before commenting on the unemployment rate and other “hardship.” (weekly standard)

No one here but us “ordinary folks”. Are millionaire ideologues stupid and not listening to what he’s saying? Bet they are.

So in the presence of rich people he talk about “ordinary folks hurting” but when in the presence of those ordinary folks he talks about how unfair, greedy and rotten the rich are.

Playing both sides against each other. Divide and Conquer.

Fascinating…

It’s not just millionaires who’d pay more under President Barack Obama’s latest plan to combat the deficit.

Air travelers, federal workers, military retirees, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries and people taking out new mortgages are among those who would pay more than $130 billion in government revenues raised through new or increased fees.

Airline passengers would see their federal security fees double from $5 to $10 for a nonstop round-trip flight and triple to $15 by 2017, raising $25 billion over the coming decade. Federal workers would face an additional 1.2 percentage point deduction from their paychecks to contribute $21 billion more for their pensions over the same period. Military retirees would pay a $200 fee upon turning 65 to have the government pay their out-of-pocket Medicare expenses. They’d also pay more for non-generic prescription drugs.

And it’ll cost corporate jet owners a new $100 fee for each flight.

The fees aren’t taxes. They’re charged to people who use government services or receive benefits such as taxpayer-subsidized health care, and they typically defray the government’s cost of providing a service. The fee on corporate jets and other private passenger planes, for example, would raise about $1 billion a year to help finance the cost of air traffic control. Recreational flyers won’t have to pay.

Many of Obama’s proposals are retreads from earlier budget proposals, including those submitted by his predecessors. Most have been rejected year after year. Some ideas, like requiring wealthier veterans to pay more for their health care, stir up opposition from powerful interest groups. Others, like the bigger security fee for flyers, seem too close to a ticket tax increase.

Administration budget documents describe the fees as savings.

Would this be like the “fees” in Obamacare that weren’t taxes until they got into a court and suddenly the fees were taxes but when you pressed them about it they became fees again.

Orwellian confusion. Classic.

“Why (would) the administration … propose a Social Security payroll tax holiday in its jobs bill, but simultaneously suggest a tax increase for middle-class federal workers?” asked Joseph Beaudoin, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

Another new fee would increase by one-tenth of a percentage point the fee that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders to guarantee repayment of new mortgage loans. The administration says the fee increase would add $15 a month to the monthly cost of an average new mortgage. Even without existing mortgages being affected, the fee increase would raise $28 billion over 10 years.

Some of the fees tilt toward the arcane. There’s a plan to save $3 million a year by developing an electronic records system for hazardous waste shipments. Another would produce $7 million more a year by giving the federal government a 50 percent share of receipts from geothermal leases on federal lands instead of 25 percent, with the remainder going to the states.

Another proposal would charge $4 an acre on non-producing oil and gas leases on federal lands, raising $1 billion over a decade. The idea is to prod energy companies to get their leases into production or give them up and allow others to develop them.

You mean the oil moratorium that the Obama Administration imposed so that you can’t use those leases anyhow or it will take Millions of dollars and 10 years or more to develop, maybe. remember, the last Nuclear Plant built in this country was 33 years ago. When was the last oil platform built? 🙂

So now he can tax them and prevent them from using the leases. That will get them to give up completely on fossil fuels. That’s what he wants anyhow, so why not make some money on it.

Ingenious. I won’t let you use this land. I will tax you because you don’t use this land I won’t let you use.

Brilliant.

HAS ANYONE MENTIONED ACTUALLY CUTTING SPENDING? Or LIVING WITH IN OUR MEANS?

Of course not. Divide and Conquer Class Warfare. Page 1 of the Liberal Playbook.

It could almost make your head spin. With an economy on the front end of another recession, President Obama’s tax attack on the folks who are most likely to succeed, invest, start new businesses and create jobs is nothing short of staggering. Only liberal-left class-warfare ideology can explain this.

Remember that the top 1 percent of income-tax payers shoulders 40 percent of all income taxes. They are paying their fair share. Then remember that 50 percent of income-tax filers don’t pay any income tax at all.
But you’re not supposed to remember that. It’s just not “fair”. 🙂

Clearly, the logic here is political, not economic. And it’s equally clear that Mr. Obama is now catering to his liberal-left base. I guess his logic is that even though so many people don’t have jobs, they’ll feel much better knowing that 22,000 rich people will have a higher tax rate.

Make sense?

Adding to this bizarre scenario, Obama knows full well that the debt-ceiling deal now moving to the phase-two super committee rules out tax increases. He also knows full well that none of these tax hikes will ever get through the GOP House. Perhaps, as Congressman Paul Ryan notes, class warfare makes for good politics. But lousy economics. Perhaps.

Today, the president’s militant tax-hike threats, along with Obamacare and unmanageable regulatory costs, are holding back job-creators.

And lower growth means higher deficits
At the end of the day, it sure looks like our president wants to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations in order to spend more and enlarge the size and scope of government. From the standpoint of jobs, growth and prosperity, it just won’t work. (Larry Kudlow)
But you have to ask yourself, what it’s supposed to work for then.
From the standpoint of Orwellian Liberal Ideology it’s perfectly acceptable.
And the Grand Deception continues.
So his purpose isn’t to help the economy but to push a false image of the GOP as obstructionists in a “do-nothing Congress” (read: republicans)  into voters’ minds for the 2012 election.
Say a lie often enough, and 24/7 on the Mainstream Media, and people will start to believe it.
Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole!
Now, don’t you “feel” better. 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Disappointment

After 2 continuing resolutions a lot of no real action to head of massive bankruptcy I’m with talk show host and columnist Mark Steyn.

On Thursday’s “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” Steyn likened Boehner to failed 1996 presidential candidate and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and said they still don’t understand why what happened in November 2010 happened.

“No, I don’t. I don’t, to be honest,” Steyn replied. “I think John Boehner has been an incredible disappointment. I think John Boehner has basically climbed into the Bob Dole suit, and I think they misunderstand the lessons of the 2010 election, which is that the tea party chose to work within the diseased husk of the Republican Party it loathes. And it still hasn’t forgiven for 2006 and 2008. So for the Republicans to demonstrate that ‘hey, we’re back to 2006 again,’ except on Obama-level spending, is not a good idea.”

Steyn explained the recent small cuts the Republican majority in the House had been able to achieve through continuing resolutions were inadequate.

“We need Republicans to at least take the lead in broadening public discourse,” he continued. “This country is broke. It’s the brokest country in the history of the planet. And the idea of arguing over itsy-bitsy, half a billion here and half a billion there, and continuing resolutions staggering forward every ten days, is preposterous. It’s inadequate to the task. It’s inadequate for the challenge facing America”

Based on the reluctance of the GOP to take charge, Steyn wasn’t optimistic about the country’s ability to change course fiscally.

“Yes, and in fact, I think it’s teaching a lesson that’s actually more dangerous than that, which is that the political institutions of the United States are simply impervious to course correction,” Steyn said. “And there are no good conclusions to be drawn from that, because basically what we’re being offered it one party that wants to floor it and put its foot on the pedal as we go over the cliff, and another party that says, ‘Oh, no, no, no, it’s OK – vote for us. We’re only going to go over the cliff in third gear.’ That’s not enough of a choice for a functioning two-party system.”

It seems more likely that what we have is a two-tiered system.

There’s Washington and there’s everyone else. You are either for one or the other.

The two don’t seem to mix.

And the one has the power to destroy the other by it’s actions.

Despite the looming possibility of a government shutdown, federal layoffs and furloughs, there’s at least one thing members of Congress from both political parties can readily agree on these days: partying.

Morning, noon and night, more than 150 fundraising parties are scheduled all over Washington this week for Democratic and Republican politicians…(WT)

That is not balanced either.

And Washington can’t even be honest about the debt.

The CBO, the liberal gold standard for partisan figures:

A new assessment of President Barack Obama’s budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama’s February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama’s budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

But don’t worry, we aren’t “broke”, everything is getting better. Hey, look we can even start another war!

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.

Like I said.

But Liberals hate it when you use the CBO (used to justify ObamaCare) against them.

Then there’s Social Security.

Democrats never miss an opportunity to pander to older voters by demagoguing on Social Security — and Brooklyn Rep. Anthony Weiner seems only too glad to lead the way.

Weiner, who dreams of becoming mayor, has introduced a bill to require a two-thirds majority in Congress to enact any changes in Social Security — a near-impossible hurdle.

His goal: to “defend” an entitlement system he insists is “fiscally responsible” and fundamentally sound.
“We shouldn’t assume the program is on the brink of collapse just because Republicans say it is,” Weiner wrote last year — even as Social Security reached the so-called “tipping point,” when it paid out more in benefits than it received in tax revenue.
President Obama’s bipartisan deficit-reduction commission seems to differ, having recommended cuts in Social Security benefits and a hike in the retirement age.
Weiner and other like-minded Democrats cite the claim by Obama’s budget chief, Jack Lew, that the Social Security trust fund is solvent through 2037.
But, as Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer notes, the same Jack Lew — in his days as Bill Clinton’s budget director — conceded that the trust-fund balances are merely a “bookkeeping” device. (See Below)
Weiner & Co. don’t want to accept what’s apparent to anyone who has actually studied the issue: Social Security needs changes to remain solvent.
You’d think someone aspiring to a position of responsibility, as Weiner likely is, would act a bit more, well . . . responsibly.
In his case, we guess not. (NY Post)

This is the same guy who has a mad on for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and wants him recused from the eventual case on ObamaCare (so that the liberals can win) or removed from the bench entirely (which is unconstitutional-but what do liberals care about that? Nothing!! if it advances their political power).

It’s all Politics. It’s all Washington.

It’s all very disappointing.

But don’t worry, the American people are smarter than this.

I beg to differ.

When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

The current conflict over government spending illustrates the new dangers of ignorance. Every economist knows how to deal with the debt: cost-saving reforms to big-ticket entitlement programs; cuts to our bloated defense budget; and (if growth remains slow) tax reforms designed to refill our depleted revenue coffers. But poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like. A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent. A Jan. 25 CNN poll, meanwhile, discovered that even though 71 percent of voters want smaller government, vast majorities oppose cuts to Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), and Medicaid (70 percent). Instead, they prefer to slash waste—a category that, in their fantasy world, seems to include 50 percent of spending, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.

But I bet they can name all the winners of American Idol, Survivor, and The Housewives of (whatever) or Jersey Shore!

So with that backdrop….

Charles Krauthammer: The week before last, President Obama’s budget chief, Jack Lew, took to his White House blog to repeat his claim that the Social Security trust fund is solvent through 2037. And to chide me for suggesting otherwise. I had argued in my last column that the trust fund is empty, indeed fictional.

If Lew’s claim were just wrong, that would be one thing. But it provides the intellectual justification for precisely the kind of debt denial and entitlement complacency that his boss is now engaged in. Therefore, once more unto the breach.

Lew acknowledges that the Social Security surpluses of the last decades were siphoned off to the Treasury Department and spent. He also agrees that Treasury then deposited corresponding IOUs — called “special issue” bonds — in the Social Security trust fund.

These have real value, claims Lew. After all, “these Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government in the same way that all other U.S. Treasury bonds are.” Really? If these trust fund bonds represent anything real, why is it that in calculating national indebtedness they are not even included?

We measure national solvency by debt/GDP ratio. As calculated by everyone from the OMB to the CIA, from the Simpson-Bowles to the Domenici-Rivlin commissions, the debt/GDP ratio counts only publicly held debt. This means bonds held by China, Saudi Arabia, you and me. The debt ratio completely ignores the kind of intragovernmental bonds that Lew insists are the equivalent of publicly held bonds.

Why? Because the intragovernmental bond is nothing more than a bookkeeping device that records how much one part of the U.S. government (Treasury) owes another part of the same government (the Social Security Administration). In judging the creditworthiness of the United States, the world doesn’t care what the left hand owes the right. It’s all one entity. It cares only what that one entity owes the world.

That’s why publicly held bonds are so radically different from intragovernmental bonds. If we default on Chinese-held debt, decades of AAA creditworthiness is destroyed, the world stops lending to us, the dollar collapses, the economy goes into a spiral and we become Argentina. That’s why such a default is inconceivable.

On the other hand, what would happen to financial markets if the Treasury stopped honoring the “special issue” bonds in the Social Security trust fund? A lot of angry grumbling at home for sure. But externally? Nothing.

This “default” would simply be the Treasury telling the Social Security Administration that henceforth it would have to fend for itself in covering its annual shortfall. How? By means-testing (cutting the benefits to the rich), changing the inflation formula, raising the retirement age and, if necessary, hiking the cap on income subject to the payroll tax.

You can plug in whatever combination of numbers you prefer for the definition of “rich,” for the slope of the sliding scale of benefit-reduction, for the rate of the retirement-age increase or for any other variable.

Whatever the formula, we will ironically have been forced to adopt the very reforms needed to keep Social Security in balance for years to come — the kind President Obama’s own deficit commission recommended. Arguably, that would add to U.S. creditworthiness by finally demonstrating to the world our seriousness about bringing our unsustainable pension liabilities under control.

Invoking the “full faith and credit” mantra for those IOUs in the trust fund is empty bluster. It does not change the fact that, as the OMB itself acknowledged, those IOUs “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

Yet Lew continues to insist that these “special issue” trinkets will pay off seniors for the next 26 years. Nonsense. That money is gone with the wind. Those trust fund trinkets are nothing more than a record of past borrowings. They say nothing about the future.

Consider: If Treasury had borrowed twice as much from Social Security in the past — producing twice as many IOUs sitting in the lockbox — would this mean the trust fund is today twice as strong? Solvent for 50-some years instead of just 26? Of course not.

The trust fund “balances” are mere historical record-keeping. As the OMB itself admitted, future payouts will have to be met by future taxes and future borrowings — or by Social Security reform that, by reducing benefits, makes such taxing and borrowing unnecessary.

There is no third alternative. There is no free lunch. And there is nothing in the lockbox.

And 10,000 people a day for the next generation are coming to see what’s in the box of goodies for them…

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Hypocrisy Manifesto

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’ (June 14, 2008)

So much for those evil “gun metaphors” 🙂
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”
Civilized discourse, anyone?

Political Cartoon

But the prize for insensitive slander, however, goes to Michael Daly of the New York Daily News. Under the headline “Rep. Gabriel Giffords’ blood is on Palin’s hands after putting cross hair over her district,” Daly wrote that Palin, by designating 20 congressmen as targets in 2010 for voting for ObamaCare, “added to a climate of violence.”

And then there’s the Democrat’s “target” map from 2004:

But don’t worry, I’m sure this is Sarah Palin’s or Bush’s fault too!
This kind of two-faced crap is very much the providence of the LEFT and they aren’t capable of owning up to it.
Then there’s the Left’s and The Media’s complete meltdown on  not “jumping to conclusions” over the Foot Hood Shooting for weeks on end ad nauseum.
But the media jumped so fast to conclusions on this one that it was practically before the bodies were in ambulance.
Again, the Left and Media are not intellectually honest to own up to their own duplicity.

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?

Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican” and the blue arrows are “Stimulus Money”.
You’ll never guess where I found this map. That’s right, it’s on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. (Verum Serum)
WHOOPS!
Giffords, a former Republican and self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrat, participated in the reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor and voted against Nancy Pelosi for House speaker. She was a strong supporter of gun rights as enshrined in the Second Amendment and voted to lift the ban on guns in Washington, D.C. Palin and the Tea Party wish there were more Democrats like her.
Never mind that in 2008, Moulitsas (Daily Kos Founder), disappointed with Blue Dogs such as Giffords, had his own “target list” of “Democrats who sold out the Constitution.” Giffords was on the list in bold type. Moulitsas said: “Not all these people will get or even deserve primaries,” Moulitsas said, “but this certainly puts a bull’s-eye on their district.” Target? Bull’s-eye?
WHOOPS!
But again, the Left will not be honest enough to own up to it. I bet they don’t even remember it. And if you confronted them with it they’d tell you it was photoshopped and it was set-up and it was fake, et al. (because I have done that to liberals online and THAT IS the reaction I’d get!!).
Unfortunately, they’re too busy exploiting this tragedy.
Some even talk of the political bounce that Clinton got from the Oklahoma City Bombing and Bush got from 9/11 so NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE!
And a tragedy is the perfect time to take political advantage.

Political Cartoon

There’s even a Democrat PAC (Founded by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and The Daily KOS with the SEIU) that is fundraising through emails using Anti-Palin rhetoric.
Disgusting. Disrespectful. And just plain wrong.
But utterly predictable.

Then there’s this:  In a video message posted Monday on the Web site of the rabidly gay-hating cult Westboro Baptist Church, cult leader Fred Phelps announced that he and his followers will picket the upcoming funerals of the six victims who lost their lives in Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson — even targeting that of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. “That child was not innocent,” the cult said in a press release. “That child is better off dead, so the cup of her iniquity will not overflow!”

There are no words to express how disgusting this group of real life nutjobs are. I’m hoping they aren’t coming and are just stirring up the pot.

Their disrespect for the dead is beyond the pale.

There is already a movement by Liberals and Conservatives here that are going to band together against these disgusting people. Good for them. I wish I could be their to shield the families but I have to work.

Pima County Loon Sherriff (who is a leftist Democrat and pro-illegal):

“The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information,” [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”

Neither is your Sheriff, but I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand it.

But he tows the party line very well as always.

When liberals say we must civilize our discourse and watch what we say, they mean conservatives should shut up. We need not apologize for the Constitution or our free speech rights. Saying the Tea Party made him do it is not a rational explanation.

When Maj. Nidal Hassan shot up Fort Hood in 2009, everyone said don’t jump to conclusions and blame all Muslims. Yet they blame all conservatives for this shooting even though the alleged shooter is from their side of the aisle.

By all accounts so far he was a mentally unstable, pot smoking, leftist who worshiped skulls and whose favorite books were Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. Not exactly Palin or Limbaugh material.

There were no liberal charges of inciting violence or creating a climate of hate in 2004 over Gabriel Range’s film “Death of a President” depicting the assassination of George W. Bush. In fact, it won an award at the Toronto Film Festival. Dissent is not hate, and demonizing your opponents is not democracy.

With all the Tea Party rallies and town hall meetings in 2009, there were no recorded acts of violence perpetrated by Tea Party members. It is they who are the targets of hate, venom and character assassination. Beck put half a million people on the Mall in Washington with not so much as a candy wrapper thrown in anger. (IBD)

But that doesn’t matter. Scoring cheap political “victories” with your base of nutjobs is all that really matters.

Even Hillary in Dubai talking to Muslim students, “We have extremists in our country,” Clinton said. “A wonderful and incredibly brave young woman Congress member was just shot by extremists in our country. We have the same kinds of problems.”

That’s you right-wingers and Tea-Partiers you’re moral equivalent to Middle Eastern Radical Muslim terrorists!

Not us Liberals though, we are as pure as the driven snow!

The political left is always prowling for ways to curb freedom and exert more government control over society. With six killed and 20 shot at a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, including the intended target, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the left now has a tragic event to help push its agenda.

“Sensitivity” and “Compassion” go right out the window when it’s time to score cheap, childish, soul-satisfying partisan political points and push the Agenda forward.

After all, “targeting” a politician, say who is for ObamaCare, will be outlawed as hate speech. Or maybe Global Warming, or Cap-and-Trade.

The right to disagree with your government will disappear in puff of political where-there’s-smoke-theirs-an-opportunity!

Who cares if it’s true or not, they surely don’t. Who cares if it’s unconstitutional. They surely don’t.

It just feels good to blame Palin, Bush, Limbaugh,Beck and every conservative who has ever gotten your Liberal dander up.

It has to be their fault, everything else in life is why not this.

And it feels so good to HATE THEM!! 🙂

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon