Economy, Media, Politics

Democrat Governors Want "New Strategy"

Democrat governors at the National Governors Association’s weekend meeting, are troubled about President Barack Obama’s track record on responding to Republican political attacks and urged him to better connect with anxious voters. Some calling for ‘a new election-year strategy focused on the economy.’

A new strategy? Focused on the economy? The truth finally comes out. Despite what the administration said all last year, and the media dutifully repeated, the focus never was about reviving the economy. Contrary to what candidate Obama said to get elected, that turning the economy around, fixing the home mortgage crisis, and creating jobs was going to be his top priority, once in office that priority quickly shifted to a takeover of health care .

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered this advice to Obama: “Rapidly decide what we’re doing on health care and then move to jobs and the economy.”

Bad advise Governor Bill. Democrats’ best chance of saving their political butt is to drop their version of health care. Recognize the fact that the folks (after 70 years) still don’t like it. Stop attacking businesses, and do something to promote economic activity outside of government deficit spending. Do something to help in the private sector, where money is made and jobs, permanent jobs, are created.

Unfortunately, the governors showed no regrets for the huge debt incurred with little to no results. Gov. Richardson, I think that’s Obama’s problem.

Not taking responsibility for anything he messes up is another. Community organizers like to form commissions. Takes the heat off of them, puts it elsewhere. Obama doesn’t need a commission to tell him how not to spend money he does not have. All he needs to do is what we have to do. Look in the checkbook. If you see red, don’t spend, don’t borrow, and don’t steal.

AP: Democrats worried about Obama track record.

Florida, Pensacola, Politics

Let Me Be Clear, Liberals And Free Speech

9 Comments

Liberals, including the so-called mainstream Democrats in Escambia County, continue to demonstrate how very un-democratic they are. Their actions speak louder than their words.

The new Chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, James Turner, endorses Alex Sink in his first press release. Months before the Democratic Primary, bypassing the ‘democratic’ process. Not totally surprising either when you consider that the Florida Democratic Party has already given one candidate, Alex Sink, $1,321,502.20. What’s the point in the primary process again?

Then there’s the way Liberals treat Conservatives. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve had the pleasure of being banned from Mike Papantonio’s website, ‘by popular demand’ according to Scotty the administrator.  That’s lawyer-speak for Mike doesn’t want any conservatives posting on his website, which tends to be populated by a handful of lemmings that are just as rabid as he is. I guess the big talker can’t handle it. The Pensacola News Journal however, tends to respect political discourse even though they don’t engage in it themselves. I’m still waiting, however, for their editors to engage in some. Nine months and counting. . .

My next experience of being ‘banned in Pensacola’ is on Escambia Democrats.org. The official website of the Escambia County Democratic Party. They have a peculiar way of welcoming users. I was a registered user there yesterday. After participating in the public forum for registered users, today I get this:

Login

Your login is blocked.

And when I go to any other page on the website, this blurb pops up.

“Login denied! Your account has either been blocked or you have not activated it yet. Did you not get an activation e-mail and follow the validation link?”

Showing an unwillingness to deal with, discuss, or debate issues seems to be a soft spot over there. Here is the explanation from the admin, Henry Coe, Jr.

The reason you were blocked is because what you typed in response to the article had nothing to do with the article. Being that you are treasurer for Escambia County Libertarian Party, what ever that is, I suggest you post your political spin crap on your own website.

I’m not apposed to real debate or real conversation in relation to articles, but you were redirecting the topic and interjecting spin with your posting on our forum. I have better things to do than to spend my time keeping up with people who are manipulative and abusive.

Have a nice day.

The forum article was about man-made global warming mis-statements or some such. I suggested that, in light of more revelations from the Jones guy, that that post should be updated, and something like isn’t it time to move on? But since it and my comments were removed, I think Mr. Coe’s note makes my point. And for further clarification, here is a portion of the Escambia Democrats’ ‘about’ page . . .

This web site is designed to help people be informed.

Specifically it is designed for Escambia County Florida Residence. More specifically than that is it is use to help support, educate and inform Democrats in Escambia County Florida, though we are glad to share and thank you for finding and using our web site.

.

.

We have a forum where topics can be started by anyone and forum conversations can be had by anyone who is a member of this web site.

So you can see why I was surprised to see the ‘blocked’ response. I didn’t see a ‘Democrats Only’ notice. I wonder if I would be accepted if I changed my voter registration to Democrat? They have such an open tent. At least that’s what they claim. RicksBlog is not as sensitive to speech, although all of my comments there are queued for moderation, including one on the ‘IN rising star.’

Other traits, aside from the normal name-calling, of Left-oriented blogs or websites is the tendency to keep their blogrolls free of conservative blogs. There seems to be this need to create a cocoon of liberal opinion and not allow opposing views or blogs that may contain an opposing view. Reference Coe’s comments above, and RicksBlog and the Pensacola Beach Blog blogrolls for example. The latter of which has some old and inactive blogs listed. You will see that The Lunch Counter is not on either of their blogrolls. And it’s not because I haven’t politely asked.

Now let me be clear, (oh I like that pompous phrase, don’t you?) bloggers have control over what they include or exclude on their sites. I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m merely noting the pattern of liberal bloggers as I see it. Your mileage may vary.

A look at the LINKS page here will show that I encourage all opinion, no matter how nuts it is. I have a special category for The Left because I think people ought to be able to see what others have to say. So I offer up the most vocal and rabid among them. Especially since some of them have the eyes and ears of The White House.

Aren’t political blogs in Pensacola fun?

Fair Tax

The FairTax Basics

5 Comments

The FairTax happens to be the most thoroughly researched tax reform plan in recent history. Below is a quick introduction to the FairTax and tax reform. Note also that the implementation of the FairTax and the subsequent increase in economic activity that ensues will all happen without increasing the debt or selling bonds to foreign countries. It is a pure economic stimulus all on its own.

Scholarly research tells us that . . .

  • The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces.  [1]
  • The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan.  [2]
  • Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.  [3]
  • Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place:  1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.  [4]
  • The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.  [4]
  • Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.  [4]
  • The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.  [4]
  • By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent. [4]
  • Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups.  Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system. [5]
  • Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively.  [6]
  • Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax.  [7]
  • Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20.  [8]
  • On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base.  [9]
  • The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent.  [10]

References

[1] Bachman, Paul, Jonathan Haughton, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and David G. Tuerck, “Taxing Sales under the FairTax:  What Rate Works?” published in Tax Notes, November 13, 2006. Click here to read the full paper.

[2] Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Paul Bachman, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “A Comparison of the FairTax Base and Rate with Other National Tax Reform Proposals,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007.  Click here to read the full paper.

[3] Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. Click here to read the full paper.

[4] Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006.  Click here to read the full paper.

[5] Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and David Rapson, “Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation,” NBER Working Paper No. 12533, revised October 2006.  Click here to read the full paper.

[6] Jokisch, Sabine and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, “Simulating the Dynamic Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax,” National Tax Journal, June 2007.  Click here to read the full paper.

[7] Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Paul Bachman, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, and Phuong Viet Ngo, “A Distributional Analysis of Adopting the FairTax:  A Comparison of the Current Tax System and the FairTax Plan,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007.  Click here to read the full paper.

[8] Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, Sara Dinwoodie, and Paul Bachman, “The FairTax and Charitable Giving,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007.  Click here to read the full paper.

[9] Tuerck, David G., Paul Bachman, and Sylvia Jacob, “Fiscal Federalism:  The National FairTax and the States,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, June 2007.  Click here to read the full paper.

[10] Walby, Karen, and Dan Mastromarco, “Promoting home ownership:  How the FairTax’s benefits for homeowners exceed the mortgage interest deduction,” Americans For Fair Taxation White Paper, August 2006. Click here to read the full paper.

Karen Walby, Ph.D., Director of Research, Americans For Fair Taxation, Jan. 5, 2008.

Politics, War On Terror

Biden Re-writes History On Iraq

Seems like only yesterday that the current administration, before they became the current administration, was poo-pooing General Paetreaus’s plan for the surge in Iraq, which he expected would bring about the change needed to prepare Iraq for self-governance. From the moment it was proposed to months before Gen. Petreaus’s first progress report, the mantra was, the surge won’t work and the war is lost. In fact, Sen. Biden’s plan was to partition Iraq into three pieces.

But last week on the Larry King Show, Vice President Joe Biden said this about Iraq . . .

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

Why the sudden shift in strategy when they could just blame Bush? For some evidence in Vice President Biden’s re-writing of history, follow any of these links:

Link: Biden Takes Credit for Iraq’s Progress

Politics, War On Terror

Cheney, Biden, And The War On Terror

In his interview on Meet The Press today,Vice President Biden affirms Cheney’s assessment that this administration is not fighting the enemy as our enemy. I would add that the administration does not know or will not acknowledge who the enemy is.

MR. GREGORY: What about the general proposition that the president, according to former Vice President Cheney, doesn’t consider America to be at war and is essentially soft on terrorism? What do you say about that?

VICE PRES. BIDEN: I don’t think the vice–the former vice president, Dick Cheney, listens. The president of the United States said in the State of the Union, “We’re at war with al-Qaeda.” He stated this.

Biden’s answer obfuscates who the enemy is. It’s Biden and Obama who are ignoring reality, if not re-writing history.


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The real enemy here is Islamic extremists all over the world. It is not only alQaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In that respect, Cheney is right and Biden is just trying to spin his way out of Obama’s inability or unwillingness to express the truth of exactly who our enemy is and what it is we are fighting.

For a real look at who our enemy is and the religious fanaticism that is aimed at killing us, check out this piece from David Horowitz from 2002 entitled Know The Enemy.

Link: ‘Meet the Press’ transcript for February 14, 2010 |  David Horowitz, Know The Enemy

Energy, Politics

New Energy Strategy? Not!

President Obama called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” in his Jan. 27 State of the Union speech. According to the AP,  “He wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to shift energy policy.”

Right, and he also wants Iran to quit its nuclear bomb ambitions, and Republicans to participate in health care reform in a bi-partisan fashion from square two instead of square one.

Don’t buy this as a new shift in energy strategy. It is his community organizers way of appeasing his critics, which is everyone to the right of  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The other thing that community organizers do to avoid personal responsibility, like voting ‘present,’ is to appoint commissions. It is how he allows the environmentalists to shape America’s energy policy. Which explains why Obama has cut funding for the long-planned nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository started in 1987, was approved by Congress in 2002, and in 2009 Mr. New Energy Shift cut funding for it. Instead, he has appointed a commission to find a ‘safe’ solution for dealing with nuclear waste, but in the meantime the government has no long-term plan to store commercial radioactive waste. ‘Safe’ for Obama must mean politically safe, not materially safe.

So what’s the end result? There won’t be any new nuclear plant construction unless and until a place to put the waste is operating. That, and higher energy cost, continued dependence on foreign energy sources, and the crippling of our economy on the energy front.

Link: Obama nuke plant loan reflects new energy strategy

Politics, War On Terror

Criticizing The President Strengthens Our Enemies?

According to White House assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism John Brennan, if you criticize the President, you’re helping the enemy.

Imagine that? Gee, I thought John Brennan’s wanting to release the remaining Gitmo detainees from Yemen back to Yemen would strengthen the enemy.  Silly me. Flashback to January 4, 2010 . . .

According to John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counter-terrorism, sending them back to Yemen isn’t a problem. Today on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, he said . . .

“We are making sure that we don’t do anything that’s going to put Americans at risk,” Brennan said. {emphasis added}

Sorry, anyone with our national security in mind would conclude that sending these folks back to Yemen is doing way more than ‘anything’ to put us at risk.

Besides all that, the short memory span of this White House hack (and winner of the M.R.I.O.T.D. award) is breathtaking. That, and criticism of the President or the administration apparently is only warranted when a Republican is in The White House. Need a few examples? Who’s politicizing the war effort again?

Remember the Hillary screech? Here it is . . .


Link: Criticizing The President Only Strengthens Our Enemies – haystack’s blog – RedState.

Media, Pensacola

How Independent Is The News Media?

Not to belabor the point that there is a bias in news reporting because in a general sense that notion isn’t even debatable. But what do you call it when news is not published, not printed?

Rather than call that a bias, it seems to me to be a matter of independence. Left talkers like Mike Papantonio say that the media is owned by the political Right. Ridiculous I know, but that’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

So here’s an example of bias by omission, where a news media outlet doesn’t print a legitimate news story, when on the same subject and with the same players, the news story was front page, above the fold, and front cover.

Speaking of the debut of Air America Radio host Mike Papantonio and his Ring of Fire radio program. In January 2004 it was big news in the Pensacola News Journal, front page, above the fold. In the Independent, another local weekly paper it earned a front cover. Two of them in fact. Including a spot on ABC’s WEAR-TV

In 2007, AAR filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The PNJ printed a 2 column inch AP syndicated blurb. Nothing else. It was portrayed by the Independent as entering its Golden Age. Later in 2007, Independent publisher Rick Outzen credited AAR as being a good thing. Providing a ‘refreshing voice’ for talk radio. He also said this . . .

News media should give perspective to the news. More voices are better. Then the public will truly be informed.

So last month, when Air America filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, liquidating all remaining assets, did you even know? Not if you depend on the Pensacola News Journal and the Independent for your news and information.

I know it shouldn’t be the case, but do you think that online sponsorship and advertising dollars has a deleterious effect on a publisher’s independence when it comes to reporting the news? Specifically these publishers?

Seems like Papantonio has caught on to the same game that he accuses the political Right of doing because his advertising ‘investments’ in the PNJ and the Independent seem to have payed off.

Belly up to the counter. Politics are on the menu and Ross is on the grill.