Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Mitt Romney, Bain Capital's Record, Obama's Failed Investments
The Obama Campaign, noted for its brilliance, oddly seems to want to have a debate about which of the two candidates is more qualified to run the world’s largest economy. Obama’s economic policies vs.Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital? Um, you might want to rethink that.
Obama has made it clear that he really doesn’t understand the concept of profit. Liberals are often taught that profit is a bad thing that the rich sometimes do to line their disgusting pockets and pay for their yachts.
It is obvious that the administration is a little unclear about just how jobs are created. Today’s dismal jobs report makes that very obvious. Three and a half years later is really too late to keep blaming George W. Bush. At what point does the economy become Obama’s? When the recession is over? That happened in June of 2009, officially, from the agency that makes those decisions.
The Obama team does understand hiring, and have done a lot of it, creating new government departments and issuing new regulations; but they miss the detail about who pays for what. Government jobs are just another bill for the taxpayers to pay. From the president on down to the lowliest janitor, taxpayers pay their salaries and benefits. Government has no money of its own, a fact that liberals forget until they need more revenue, at which point they expect taxpayers to pony up without complaint funds which, when received, will become ‘government money.’
Bain Capital buys failing companies that they hope to revive, with private money from themselves and from investors. They look at the books carefully before they invest, and determine what is needed— money, better management, eliminating a sector that is losing money, a new business plan — and consider what they can successfully provide. If the business still fails, Bain and their investors will lose money, and have a harder time raising investment money the next time. Not every business can be made to succeed, but under Mitt Romney more than 70 percent of their businesses did succeed, many dramatically so. It’s a very good record.
The Obama Administration has picked businesses to fulfill their ideological interest in green energy. They have listened to promoters’ talk of capacity and potential, and had the benefit of having supporters or campaign bundlers in charge or as investors so there were some familiar faces.
They did not ‘invest” their own money, but invested billions of taxpayer funds in speculative businesses that had no track record nor no evidence of expertise or professionalism. When one of those businesses goes bankrupt, it is just another total loss for the taxpayers. The administration’s goals are policy driven — intended to fulfill green ideology, not return on investment driven. We’re still looking for one clean energy success. Just one.
Mitt Romney showed up at Solyndra’s empty building to make the point that when the administration invested in Solyndra, it wasn’t the administration that lost money, it was the taxpayers. The Obama campaign is trying to claim that Romney’s policies in Massachusetts were an economic failure because during his tenure, Massachusetts unemployment rate was 4.7%. Um, 5% unemployment is usually considered full employment.
Obama has big problems arising from his inexperience. He has made universally bad bets. Attempting to invest in “green” energy in spite of the abundant evidence from Spain and other European countries is folly. You would need extensive investigation from trained professionals in the technology and business prospects. Making investments with politically connected business ventures has led to charges of corruption and cronyism. The largest bets went to friends and contributors to Mr. Obama. The biggest losses went to the taxpayers.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Election 2012, Politics, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Fear Of The Future, Fist Quarter Revised Downward, Unemployment Up
The economic news is all bad. First quarter economic growth has been revised downward to 1.9% growth, which is downright anemic. Now the preliminary May jobs report shows the unemployment rate (U3) rising to 8.2 with only 69,000 new jobs. All momentum is gone. This is the third subpar tally, with downward revisions for the two prior months.
The U6 unemployment rate which tracks the marginally employed or completely discouraged — increased to 14.8% from 14.5%. Labor earnings are almost, but not quite, keeping in line with the growth in inflation.
Obama doesn’t seem to understand that businesses create jobs. If businesses don’t make profits and expand, they don’t create jobs — yet here is Obama out on the campaign trail criticizing Mitt Romney for making profits.
Well, today, faced with such dismal news, Obama hopped on Air Force One, at your expense, to fly to Minneapolis for “official business” at an event at a Honeywell factory in a Minneapolis suburb (which excuses putting the trip on the taxpayer bill. That there just happen to be six fundraisers on the schedule is just a coincidence. At the first, the president will address a group of 100 guests ($5,000 a plate), followed by two small roundtables of deep-pocket supporters ($40,000 a plate) and ($50,000 a person).
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that businesses are holding back on investing for the future because, “In short, there is a fear of the future.”Tax Armageddon still awaits us on January 1. and a new survey shows that uncertainty in the tax code is causing businesses to sit on the sidelines. Most financial officers, according to the tax firm Alvarez & Marsal Taxand, rate eliminating uncertainty in the tax code as their top issue. “Confidence in knowing precisely what the tax code will require has become more important than how much it will cost them.” They are operating in holding patterns.
President Obama has been notably silent on the prospect of keeping the United States from heading over a fiscal cliff. Speaker John Boehner has announced that the House will vote in July to prevent tax rates from rising. The Senate should so the same. There is time for Washington to take action, but the fiscal cliff is not all that far away. Where is the Corporate tax reform? Ours is still the highest in the world. And, unsurprisingly, corporate profits rose at the slowest pace in more than three years.
The White House has fallen once again back on its old theme (foregone briefly yesterday) it’s all George W. Bush’s fault. Nearly four years and the man cannot take responsibility for anything slightly negative, and makes up everything slightly positive out of whole cloth.
I wish I believed that the president was deeply concerned about the economy because of the misery it is causing the American people, but I don’t. It’s all about the election.
Why do people move? Packing up all your stuff and moving to a new location is not an easy task, and it’s not fun. Trust me, I’ve done it a lot. It’s one thing if you decide you can finally afford your dream house, and quite another when you downsize.
But think of the boundless courage that sent the Pilgrims across months of the North Atlantic in a leaky ship, or even the Puritans, a little later, in the Winthrop fleet. Taking all your earthly possessions and leaving everything you have known to strike out for the completely unknown is something else entirely. Americans continued to up and move — across mountains, looking for better farmland. They pushed into what is now Tennessee and Pennsylvania. And consider those who embarked on wagon trains to cross an unknown Indian territory bound for an unknown Oregon.
Fast forward to today. California, the ‘Golden State’ has, in the last two decades, lost four million more people than have come to California from other places. Lots of reasons. High taxes, if you don’t own a big chunk of Google or Apple, your chance of owning a home in the Bay Area is close to nil. Environmental extremism, with a goofy cap-and-trade law resulting in skyrocketing energy costs drives out jobs and business. Jerry Brown believes that green jobs will replace vanishing industry.
New York’s high taxes have made the Empire State a place to flee. In the past ten years, it has suffered an exodus of some 3.4 million New Yorkers, nearly a million more people than those who escaped East Germany for West Germany or West Berlin from 1949 to 1961 — an exodus that led the Communists to construct the Berlin Wall in 1961.
The outflow hasn’t stopped. New York State’s income loss for the state is $45.6 billion, according to the Tax Foundation. There is still plenty of immigration from abroad. It’s not surprising that most refugees have headed for sunny, income-tax free Florida. New Yorkers who leave an estate of more than 1 million get hit with a state death tax reaching 16%.
Governor Andrew Cuomo admits the problem, but hasn’t threatened New York’s status as “tax capital of the nation” with any substantive reforms.
I don’t know why it is so hard to understand, but people who live in high tax states are moving to states with no income tax. States with high energy costs and high taxes are losing businesses to low tax states with reasonable regulation. Some of the folks who are moving are the hated rich, and they seem to be rich because they run their businesses — which they are also moving — efficiently, and find it more profitable to do business in states where taxes are low, energy costs are low, and the states are preferably right-to-work.
Oddly enough, most of the states with a business-friendly climate seem to be run by Republican governors who go for balanced budgets and low taxes. Must be a coincidence.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Chairman Paul Ryan, Former Chrm. Austan Goolsbee, Fox News Sunday
I don’t know if you watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I cannot embed the video, but you can watch it here. The debate was between former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama,Austan Goolsbee, and Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan mops the floor with Goolsbee.
Goolsbee demonstrates why the economy is still in the doldrums. It’s a pretty clear demonstration of how far apart the two sides are. If you believe in Keynesian stimulus, wasting taxpayer money on government bets on improbable energy companies invariably run by Obama bundlers or buddies, then you will find nothing untoward with Mr. Goolsbee’s claims. I would tell a kid of mine to avoid his classes. If you enjoy political confrontation, this is great fun.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Eduardo Saverin, Facebook IPO, Senator Charles Schumer
One of the founders of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, relinquished his U.S. citizenship in September 2011 , before the company announced its planned initial public offering of stock, which appears this week. He owns an estimated 4 percent of Facebook and stands to make an estimated $4 billion when the company goes public. The move is assumed be a financial one, for as a permanent resident of Singapore he would face no capital gains taxes.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), lifetime politician, is outraged. The Democrats are in the midst of a War on the Wealthy, and waging war on Saverin will help the cause along if he can rouse up enough public indignation about the young man renouncing his citizenship. It is not like Saverin in escaping all taxes, expats have to pay a 15 percent tax on all unrealized capital gains when they renounce their citizenship — which would be more than he would have to pay if he doesn’t sell his Facebook shares. Only the shares he sold would be taxed. Saverin was born in Brazil, and has lived in Singapore since 2009.
Let’s assume that he decided to renounce his citizenship for financial reasons. Barack Obama with all his talk about “the Buffet Rule” has never grasped that nobody, including Warren Buffett is simply dying to pay more taxes. Obama simply thought he’d rouse up the envious, as a political ploy. Walter Wriston, onetime CEO of Citibank put it very succinctly in The Twilight of Sovereignty:
Capital will go where it is wanted and stay
where it is well treated. It will flee from manipulation
or onerous regulations of it value or use
and no government power can restrain it for long.
With the election of the new socialist president of France Francois Hollande, wealthy Frenchmen are in the process of moving to Britain. Californians are departing the Golden State for states with no income tax like Florida, Texas, Nevada or Washington. Wealthy residents of New Jersey, Governor Christie complains, are moving to other states and he wants to fix New Jersey’s tax system. The wealthy have options. Doctors from New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut are moving to Texas. John Kerry, the wealthiest man in the Senate, was famously mooring his yacht elsewhere to avoid Massachusetts taxes.
Democrats are ever so sure that if they just raise taxes on the wealthy high enough, they will raise revenue enough to take care of the budget deficit and the debt that the Republicans are always complaining about. If you get down into the details of taxation and revenue, you find that raising taxes usually brings in less revenue, and lowering taxes significantly raises revenue. It is counterintuitive, but true. When taxes are low, the well-to-do have more income to invest, and more expectation of profit from their investment — which is exactly what happens. And the government gets more revenue and more economic activity. When there is more investment, more people are put to work, and they pay taxes too. Outraged Democrats, who are sure that taxes on the richest nearing 100% will being in lots more money, have never been able to grasp that simple fact. They sneered, and called it “trickle-down economics” which was a misnomer.
Well, Schumer wants to charge anyone relinquishing their citizenship a whopping fee for the privilege (?). Next thing they’ll be building a wall to keep people in. Well, it’s all a political ploy, and you shouldn’t pay much attention. Saverin must be punished for following the law that the liberals wrote. Schumer also wants to punish him, if he does evade the taxation net, by barring him from ever returning to the U.S. Schumer wants to apply the law retroactively to all expatriates for the last ten years.
Pathetic, Mr. Schumer, really pathetic.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Law, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Compulsive DoGooders, Opposed to Liberty, Regulation and Red Tape
The Stamp Act of 1765 was a was a tax that the British Parliament imposed on their colonies in British America. Printed materials such as magazines, legal documents, newspapers had to be produced on stamped paper made in London that carried an embossed revenue stamp. The tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in Colonial paper money, and its purpose was to help pay for the British troops stationed in America.
The British government thought that the colonies were the prime beneficiaries of the military presence and should pay at least a portion of the expense. It was a last-straw of sorts, and both colonists and British Parliament got their respective backs up. Protests, opposition, even from British merchants and manufacturers. The Act was repealed, but Parliament emphasized their power in a series of new taxes and regulations also opposed by the colonists. Well, we know where that led.
Massachusetts, unfamiliar with their own history, has decided to outlaw school bake sales. Out with the cupcakes and cookies. No selling tasty goodies to make a bit of money for the benefit of the kids. Some bureaucrat thinks there are too many calories. No holiday parties, no celebrations, no door-to-door candy sales, and no goodies at football games. Parents are angry.
New York City’s Nanny Bloomberg has ordered homeless shelters to refuse any donated food that isn’t nutritionally “assessed.” He would rather see the homeless go hungry than eat officially unapproved food. City hall says that it cannot analyze food that organizations have been donating for years, so the shelters must turn the food away. A new document from the bureaucracy dictates serving sized, salt, fat and calorie limits, fiber minimums and condiment recommendations. Many of the city’s churches and synagogues would drop off freshly cooked surplus food from church events.
Bloomberg has already banned smoking in all commercial locales and the serving of trans fats in all city restaurants — though no one has found trans fats unhealthy.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been tasked with devising stricter regulation of appliance labels. The agency intends to prohibit manufacturers from hanging yellow EnergyGuide labels from clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators. Instead adhesive labels will be required. The labels must be attached by the manufacturer, be easily removable with just water, but of significant adhesive so they will stick until the purchases removes them (size, adhesiveness, paper weight, and peel adhesion capacity are all specified). They haven’t decided whether to require “QR” codes that can be read by a smartphone.
This is all because the Government Accountability Office conducted surveillance at 30 stores in 2007, and 26% of the products had no EnergyGuide label. I believe I have read elsewhere that the EnergyGuide labels are largely hooey, but the labels must be there. U.S. Customs and Border Protection are proposing to turn away imports of any consumer products and industrial equipment that do not have the proper labeling.
Governor Christine Gregoire (D-WA) has decided that physicians should be required to prescribe generic drugs, and if they wanted to prescribe brand name drugs would have to go through a lengthy procedure to get permission.She does, I believe, have a law degree — she was Attorney General before winning the governor’s office, but as far as I know, no medical training whatsoever.
Liberals do these things for your own good, you see. They know what is best. They don’t think you are very smart or you would be doing these good things for yourself. It’s compulsive. When they give you all the good things that they bestow in order to win your vote, those things cost money. So in order to cut costs, they have to force you to follow their guidelines.
If you look at Obama’s “Life of Julia” and consider all the “beneficial things” that Obama has done for Julia in that light, Julia’s life doesn’t look quite so attractive — if you found it attractive in any way. If Julia doesn’t take advantage of the good works, you can bet that some bureaucrat will see that she does.
Democrats are perpetually discontented. They don’t like things the way they are, they want something different. They form their committees and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) so they have a larger voice in order to try to fix everything according to their lights. Liberty is not on their agenda. For Obama, leaving the individual citizen alone —without government help —is inconceivable. Yet this is a deep misunderstanding of the American people. America was founded by people trying to escape government regulation and government interference in their lives. We are a people hostile to committees and bureaus and bureaucrats.
The first thing a bunch of Democrats do is form a committee.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Election 2012, Freedom, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Explaining Taxes, It's Not the Government's Money, Taking Has Consequences
Keith Hennessey made an important point about taxes last week. “The government doesn’t give tax cuts, it takes more or less taxes.” The president spoke to a number of college crowds in favor of raising taxes on the rich to subsidize low interest rates on student loans. The President said:
How can we want to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them? I don’t need one. I needed help back when I was your age. I don’t need help now. (Applause) I don’t need an extra thousand dollars or a few thousand dollars. You do.
“Let’s assume,” Hennessey says “that you agree with the President — that a college student has a greater need for an extra thousand dollars than a rich person. By itself that judgment does not mean that raising taxes on the rich to further subsidize student loans is good policy. To make a balanced decision you also need to incorporate the harm done by taking money from someone, a factor the President’s quote ignores because it treats tax cuts as given rather than taxes as taken.” (emphasis added)
The language the President uses assumes that it is the government’s money in the first place and the government can decide whether to give it to college graduates to pay for their student loans or to give it to rich people. If we agree with this logic, then because the new graduates have greater need, government should give them the money. In this assumption, the money belongs to the government, so the government should distribute those funds according to need — then the government gives tax cuts to people only when government officials decide that these people need them.
What is ignored here is that the government only gets their government money by taking it from someone. And taking has consequences. It harms the person from whom the government took the money, and it weakens incentives to work and invest. The President’s vocabulary is full on “giving tax cuts” or “give tax cuts”.” Hennessey queried whitehouse.gov for that terminology and turned up 248 hits.
The President’s language puts us on a slippery slope. If we treat all tax revenues as if they originate within the government, then we create a moral parity between giving tax cuts and increasing government spending. That means we trust government officials to reallocate society’s resources to those whom they decide have the most need while ignoring the harm done by the taking. By ignoring the harm done by taking we set no limiting principle on the government’s ability to take that which we earn and own and give it to others. We make the rich pay more because they have greater ability to pay and less need. Sound familiar?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
(Karl Marx (Critique of the Gotha Program 1875)
A mark of successful and efficient government is not how much they spend, but how little they take of their citizens’ money. It isn’t the government’s money.
The government has not been successful nor efficient. The government caused an enormous loss of the wealth of their citizens. Instead of creating a business climate that made it easier for businesses to invest and hire, they did a lot more taking. And they invested their takings in brand new programs that the people didn’t want.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Education, Health Care, Progressivism, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Dependent on Government, Government Can Take Away, Whatever Governent Gives
The Obama campaign came up with “The Life of Julia” to extoll all the wonderful things that Obama was doing for an ordinary woman throughout her life, by making her completely dependent on the government.
Republicans had a wonderful time mocking this scenario that was so ripe for parody and ridicule. Google has 2,700.000 entries just for the last 4 days.
One of the best was The Life of Zachary, her son, compiled by Nicole Gelinas of City Journal— imagining how the next generation will fare in the Obama administration’s scenario. Enjoy.
Like this:
Filed under: Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Education, Health Care, Law, Politics, Taxes | Tags: Governor Scott Walker, Reform in Wisconsin, Union Thugs
EAGnews.org has produced an exclusive video report titled “Anarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left Embraces Chaos” disclosing who and what were behind the massive demonstrations, the occupation of the Capitol in Madison, and extreme tactics employed to stop Walker’s reforms from being enacted.
Remember the riots and the drums, the signs and the screaming mobs in the Capitol building? Lawmakers fled to Illinois to avoid voting on Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining law last year. The unions were enraged that government workers and union members were to pay 5.8% of their paychecks toward pensions and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums— a pittance compared to the average in private business.
Since Governor Walker’s reforms went into effect, the doom and gloom scenarios failed to materialize. Property taxes in the state were down 0.4% in 2011, the first decline since 1998. Wisconsin moved up four more places in an annual CEO survey of the best states to do business, after jumping 17 spots last year. The Governor’s office estimated that altogether the reforms have saved state taxpayers more than $1 billion, including $65 million in changes in health-care plans, and some $543 million in local savings documented by the media.
The school board president says the district saved $4 million as a result of last year’s reforms, including $2 million from pension reforms. Schools across the state saved an average of $220 per student because of the ability to introduce competitive building for health insurance. Unexpectedly, only 12% of Wisconsin voters say “restoring collective bargaining rights” is their priority.
The May 8 Democratic recall primary will determine who will run against Mr. Walker in the recall election on June 5. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the front runner, is focusing his campaign on jobs, education, the environment and safer communities. No mention of collective bargaining. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk is heavily supported by unions, but her she has made only passing reference to collective bargaining.
The union reaction was so ferocious because the reforms reduced the clout of Big Labor over state and local taxpayers and the lost ability to milk taxpayers year after year, unchallenged.
Democrats and unions liked to claim that Gov. Walker’s recall campaign was funded by a few wealthy donors. The head of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that Mr. Walker’s “shady, under-handed and even downright criminal dirty tricks to deny democracy” are funded by “extremist groups.” The language doesn’t vary much across the country, does it?
“Unexpectedly” according to receipts filed by the campaign, the governor received contributions from more than 89,000 donors, and 87% of those individuals gave $100 or less. 22.000 of the donations were from Wisconsinites., but people all over the country sent in contributions. You can join them at ScottWalker.org Political courage is all too rare, and should be honored. Governor Scott Walker is a courageous man.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Election 2012, Freedom, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Forward History, The Obama Campaign, What's the Theme?
In 2008, the Obama campaign organization came up with so many new and different techniques: the circle logo— now so recognizable; the campaign event, accompanied by a free rock band; the logo plastered on podiums, imitations of Air Force One; the Greek temple; and the poster portraits in red and blue with a single word. It was all new and exciting, for a handsome young black man with a mellow baritone voice and a dazzling smile.
In 2012, the campaign organization has lost its spark. There’s no energy, and the fumbles come one after another. There was “the Buffett Rule;” the War on the Rich (Mitt Romney is too rich to be President); President Obama killed Osama bin Laden, Romney wouldn’t have; Obama is Cool, Romney isn’t; the “War on Women;” “Fair shot, fair share, same rules.”
He went to Afghanistan for what was all-too-obviously a campaign speech to remind viewers that he ordered Osama bin Laden killed. Instead of making it an event thanking the military, it was once again all about him. And he got the war wrong. The troops assembled in Kabul have been fighting a war against the Taliban, not against bin Laden, and they must have been dismayed at the president’s words about “reconciliation” with the Taliban.
He tried out “We Can’t Wait” as a theme, but it fizzled and now it is the simple word, FORWARD, which has a long and unfortunate history of use by Hitler and by Soviet Russia as the theme for one program after another. Even Mao had his “Great Leap Forward.” It is a theme ripe for mockery from every conservative with Photoshop.
Never has there been an effort by a campaign that so cries out for mockery as the new “Life of Julia.” Only just released, over-the-top mockery is all over the internet, and no one can resist snarky comments. It is the clearest statement yet of Obama’s worldview. He has no respect for the American people and sees them as unable to get along without government (his) help. He has previously expressed his contempt for the idea that people should stand on their own two feet, as a dividing line between Republicans and himself — and so it is.
Republicans believe in empowering the individual, with low taxes, the rule of law, only truly necessary regulation, and a positive climate for business. Republicans do believe in a safety net, but safety nets for those who really need help — they are not meant to be “I will take care of you” promises to get votes.
Mr. Obama has been out on the campaign trail for weeks speaking to college students about lowering the interest rate on student loans. Those were official business, but the events held after May 1 are now actually campaign events. (Which tells you who pays for what). It is another attempt to buy votes with taxpayer largesse.
The Obama administration accomplishments are thin at best, even with spin added. The economy desperately needs jobs, but the administration assumes, incorrectly, that improving the business climate by reducing taxes, easing regulation, and making it easier for businesses to work, is just another false Republican lie. He is urging Congress to pass another “jobs bill,” which I assume is simply another Keynesian stimulus.It’s meant to be another trap for Republicans, who won’t pass it; and he can blame them for not wanting to create jobs.
Surely we can do better.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Taxes | Tags: Liberal Hypocrisy, Obama Administration, Political Irony
• Obama has claimed credit for advocating and signing the Lilly Ledbetter Law, which mandates equal pay for women when they are doing the same job as a man: Women in the White House are paid 18% less than the men.
• The federal government has been fighting a “War on Poverty” since the 1960s: The result is that today one in six Americans live in poverty—the highest rate for a generation.
• Obama says that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil: yet shutting down drilling in the Gulf, banning drilling on both coasts and in Alaska makes us more dependent on foreign oil.
• Obama says he wants to bring down the price of gas at the pump: yet he is trying to get a standard deduction for the oil companies that is available to all manufacturers eliminated as a “subsidy,” which will raise the price of gas.
• Obama claims that he wants to reduce partisanship in D.C. : then he resolutely refuses to meet with Republicans, and insults Republicans in public.
• The president has said several times that he favors redistribution in income: the redistribution he practices delivers taxpayer money to union supporters, campaign bundlers, and environmentalist supporters.
• Obama praised the troops coming home from Iraq, and invited soldiers and their wives to dinner at the White House to say thanks: as he is attempting to cut military pay and raise the cost of military healthcare.
• “I believe the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history” Obama said: yet he is resolutely increasing the size of government, government control and government regulation.
• Obama claims the gap between those at the very top, the 1%, and everybody else is growing wider and wider: the top 1% have a smaller share of total household income than they did in 1920, and the bottom 40% pay no taxes.
• Obama blames “the rich” for not paying their “fair share”of revenue: the rich did not create our debt, the government did with bad ideas, poor oversight, misguided laws and over-regulation.
• The president excoriates Republicans for being “against regulation”and thus wanting polluted air and water, and sick kids: businesses of both parties, in business organizations, corporate CEOs and small businesses have publicly told government that over-regulation and micro-management area problem that is keeping business from hiring.
• The Bush tax cuts meant 52 straight weeks of job growth, 8 million new jobs over 6 years. The unemployment rate averaged 5.3%, after-tax income per person rose more than 11%, and real GDP from 2000-2007 grew $2.1 trillion or 17%. The Bush recession ended in June of 2009. The Recession became Obama’s to deal with, but he has continued to blame it on Bush, and never accepted any responsibility except for admitting that there weren’t as many shovel-ready jobs as he thought.
• Obama has promised thousands of “green jobs”in solar cell factories, wind farms, insulating homes: Most of the jobs turned out to be overseas, nonexistent, only ‘green’ by redefinition, or simply temporary. When thousands of jobs were promised, and were ‘shovel ready’ (Keystone XL) Obama refused to authorize them. Canada will sell oil to China.
• CO2, carbon dioxide, is a colorless, harmless gas that we breathe out, and plants take in as natural fertilizer, and release oxygen. CO2 is one of the building blocks of life, without it there would be no life: Obama’s EPA is attempting to regulate it as pollution, and eliminate it as a ‘greenhouse gas,’ even though the amount in the atmosphere is unusually low.To eliminate CO2 would be to eliminate life itself.
• The Occupy Wall Street people, to protest the lack of economic opportunity and jobs, demanded that everyone skip work to protest in the streets, thereby damaging the economic opportunity they claim to want.
