According to "the Sun", Taliban are being blown up by their own IEDs.
You can read about it here.
Boo hoo
Watch out for all the scams
20 hours ago
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tom Harkin D-Iowa Scores Huge Point on HealthCare Reform
Those of you who read my blog consistently know that if a good idea is presented, regardless of the political affiliation of the person that presented the idea, I'm all for it. Those of you who don't read my blog consistently believe (falsely) that if a Democrat comes up with a good idea that I will discount it out of hand.
Tom Harkin, Representative (D-Iowa) made, what in my opinion, what is one of the best points of this whole conversation.
Currently, insurance companies can and frequently will move a person who starts making large or frequent claims against their policies into a "higher risk" pool. Those "high risk" pools cost a LOT more money.
Mr. Harkin essentially stated that pools is a form of insurance "segregation". He is right on the money on that. What prevents an insurance company from going upside down on the risk is when you have a pool of insured with a relatively low fraction of them making claims.
He is right. Pools should be illegal. I support that.
Tom Harkin, Representative (D-Iowa) made, what in my opinion, what is one of the best points of this whole conversation.
Currently, insurance companies can and frequently will move a person who starts making large or frequent claims against their policies into a "higher risk" pool. Those "high risk" pools cost a LOT more money.
Mr. Harkin essentially stated that pools is a form of insurance "segregation". He is right on the money on that. What prevents an insurance company from going upside down on the risk is when you have a pool of insured with a relatively low fraction of them making claims.
He is right. Pools should be illegal. I support that.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Democrats in 2005 were Against "Reconciliation"
How times have changed. The world looks very different when you are the majority party. Here's how the Democrats felt about "reconciliation" in 2005.
Here's how the Democrats feel about "reconciliation" in 2010.
Here's how the Democrats feel about "reconciliation" in 2010.
Democrat Candidate *May* be Trying to Steal "Tea Party" Label
On the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday a caller stated that the State of Nevada had authorized a new political party, the "Tea Party", to participate in the 2010 Senatorial election.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fighting an uphill battle in his own state. President Obama has not been helping his Majority Leader by frequently stating that businesses shouldn't be blowing money on expensive conferences in "Sin City".
The national "Tea Party" movement, sparked by CNBC's Rick Santorelli's rant last year and then coalescing around Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, focuses on reducing federal government size, federal spending and the return of much of current federal functions to the states.
Interestingly, the secretary for the Nevada Tea Party is lawyer Barry Levinson, who is a registered Democrat. Their candidate for Senate is John Scott Ashjian. It has been noticed that he has only given e-mail interviews and barely returns phone calls. That does not sound like the response of an active campaigner fighting for an important Senate seat in a national election.
It is important to note that it is certainly possible that some fiscally conservative Democrats might find the Tea Party movement's mantra of responsible federal spending to be attractive to them. But I think it is very important that Nevada voters ask really hard questions about the legitimacy of Barry Levinson's Nevada "Tea Party" and the true intent of John Scott Ashjian.
Something else to consider is the effect a real third party candidate, especially a conservative candidate, could have on the election. If Harry Reid is in a standup fight against a the GOP candidate and a handful of other party candidates (Libertarian, Green, John-Birchers, etc.) then if the election were held today, he would lose by over 10 points. But you throw in a viable third party conservative, then you split the conservative vote and Harry Reid loses by only 1 point or possibly even wins it.
You Nevadans who oppose the progressive agenda, if you don't want 6 more years of Harry Reid then you better throw all of your electoral weight behind the GOP candidate or the "Tea Party" candidate (if he's proven to be a legit conservative), but not both.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fighting an uphill battle in his own state. President Obama has not been helping his Majority Leader by frequently stating that businesses shouldn't be blowing money on expensive conferences in "Sin City".
The national "Tea Party" movement, sparked by CNBC's Rick Santorelli's rant last year and then coalescing around Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, focuses on reducing federal government size, federal spending and the return of much of current federal functions to the states.
Interestingly, the secretary for the Nevada Tea Party is lawyer Barry Levinson, who is a registered Democrat. Their candidate for Senate is John Scott Ashjian. It has been noticed that he has only given e-mail interviews and barely returns phone calls. That does not sound like the response of an active campaigner fighting for an important Senate seat in a national election.
It is important to note that it is certainly possible that some fiscally conservative Democrats might find the Tea Party movement's mantra of responsible federal spending to be attractive to them. But I think it is very important that Nevada voters ask really hard questions about the legitimacy of Barry Levinson's Nevada "Tea Party" and the true intent of John Scott Ashjian.
Something else to consider is the effect a real third party candidate, especially a conservative candidate, could have on the election. If Harry Reid is in a standup fight against a the GOP candidate and a handful of other party candidates (Libertarian, Green, John-Birchers, etc.) then if the election were held today, he would lose by over 10 points. But you throw in a viable third party conservative, then you split the conservative vote and Harry Reid loses by only 1 point or possibly even wins it.
You Nevadans who oppose the progressive agenda, if you don't want 6 more years of Harry Reid then you better throw all of your electoral weight behind the GOP candidate or the "Tea Party" candidate (if he's proven to be a legit conservative), but not both.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wake Up America! We are going to have to both cut spending AND raise taxes.
America, we are in big trouble. We have allowed our political representatives, senators and even our President to hoodwink us in believing that we can have a chicken in every pot today without paying for it until tomorrow. This is not a new phenomena. Anybody that thinks that reckless spending without restraint has only happened under President Obama's administration is delusional. Only one President in the last 40 years got us even close to a reasonable budget and that was President Clinton, who was the beneficiary of the tremendous "peace dividend" bequeathed to him by President Reagan and to a lesser extent President Bush (41).
Republicans and Democrats alike have flimflammed us, the American people in believing that the government can improve all of our lives if we just give a little more. And when we the people aren't in the mood they take anyway by simply selling off some more debt to the Federal Reserve or to foreign investors and in the process they mortgage us and our progeny.
We are now at the point where our progeny will be paying for the arrogance and greed of the Boomers, The X'ers and Y'ers and who knows what we will call the current generation, for decades to come.
Congress just raised the debt ceiling to 14.6 trillion dollars. We had a budget deficit of 1.2 trillion in 2009 and 2010 is going to have a 1.6 trillion shortfall. Our national debt now represents nearly 85% of our Gross Domestic Product. I am told that when it exceeds 90%, "bad" things are going to happen. This rant however, isn't about what those bad things are. Instead it's a high level view of what it's going to take to start curbing the debt.
Take a look at this chart:
This image is referenced from Wikipedia.
From this graph it is clear that unless Congress is willing to trim back spending in some of the "sacred cows" of the Federal Budget we are going to go the way of Greece. Which is bankruptcy.
The progressives complain that we spend too much on Defense. They have a point. We do spend a lot. But when you look at that graph, you see that we spend more on each of the following: Treasury, which includes interest payments on debt, Health and Human Services and Social Security Administration.
The big four (Treasury, Defense, Health and Human Services and SSA) represent about 80% of the total money spent by the Federal government. Everything else represent only 20% of the budget. If we were to completely shut off spending for everything except the big four, we would roughly break even. That doesn't pay down the debt we owe. We simply wouldn't add any more to it.
We as the American people must be prepared to sacrifice some of our "sacred" entitlements. And some of that may take some time.
Examples:
Social Security was originally intended to be insurance against bad times for those who needed it. It was not an entitlement for all. Americans must once again plan for the future and start saving for their own retirements plans now. And the younger they start, the more likely they won't need to depend on the rest of us when they can no longer work. And in the immediate future, the SSA is going to have to freeze cost increases. Families are going to have to step in and help with their elderly parents and grandparents. 2009 funds spent: $720 billion.
Health and Human Services. Much of the activity under this branch of government isn't even mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Be that as it may, this branch is also going to have to be slashed. On their own website (http://www.hhs.gov/about/whatwedo.html) they state that "HHS represents almost a quarter of all federal outlays". Assuming that cuts CAN'T be made in Medicare and Medicaid (which I don't agree with but for the sake of argument) then we MUST cut the other functions, such as the FDA, Research grants, Head Start, and emergency preparedness. Those functions that can be handled by communities must be. 2009 funds spent: $790 billion.
Defense: Robert Gates did a bold thing when he canceled more purchases of the world's best air-superiority fighter, the F-22 Raptor. In the process, he made a lot of people very angry. Like the Air Force and the good folks who build it. But we need that kind of slashing at every level and in every sector of the defense industry and department. 2009 funds spent: $690 billion.
Since these three departments represent about 65% of the budget, if we were to look at the 2009 budget deficit of 1.2 trillion, that means that we would have had to cut the budgets in these three departments by a combined $780 billion dollars, or roughly $260 billion dollars each.
But don't forget, just slashing these budgets will make things worse. Because to slash these budgets to this level only balances the budget, meaning we aren't adding any more to the public debt. But we still have to REDUCE it. And in the process we would add another 10 million people to the unemployment lines.
So obviously we can't just cut spending. We must raise revenue. There are two ways to do this. We can grow the economy by making our corporate tax rates competitive with other industrialized nations, or we can pay it through income. It will actually be a combination of the two.
America, you must remember that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. In the final analysis, we let the politicians sham us. But it's our government, and therefore it's our responsibility.
The question is: Do we have the guts to make the hard call? Do we have the guts to force our federal elected representatives and senators to cut the budget where they possibly can? Are we willing to sacrifice our entitlements? Are we willing to start paying on the enormous spending spree debt that we have accumulated over the last forty years? Democrats sure don't have it in them to do that. Republicans could, if they were true to their principles. Tea party people, with their feet on the necks of the Republicans, do they truly understand the level of sacrifice that must be given by every single American to right our financial ship of state? Because let me tell you how it's going to happen.
Congress will slash the federal budget by 900 billion dollars. Conversely, they must raise tax revenues by the same amount to balance the budget. If we make America friendly for manufacturing again... if we make America friendly for business and industry again... we might make it without each taxpayer having to pay an additional 3,500 in taxes EACH YEAR. But unless we can grow the economy while simultaneously tightening our belts we'll never get out of this death-spiral that we're in and the U.S. as we knew it will vanish into the mists of history.
Republicans and Democrats alike have flimflammed us, the American people in believing that the government can improve all of our lives if we just give a little more. And when we the people aren't in the mood they take anyway by simply selling off some more debt to the Federal Reserve or to foreign investors and in the process they mortgage us and our progeny.
We are now at the point where our progeny will be paying for the arrogance and greed of the Boomers, The X'ers and Y'ers and who knows what we will call the current generation, for decades to come.
Congress just raised the debt ceiling to 14.6 trillion dollars. We had a budget deficit of 1.2 trillion in 2009 and 2010 is going to have a 1.6 trillion shortfall. Our national debt now represents nearly 85% of our Gross Domestic Product. I am told that when it exceeds 90%, "bad" things are going to happen. This rant however, isn't about what those bad things are. Instead it's a high level view of what it's going to take to start curbing the debt.
Take a look at this chart:
This image is referenced from Wikipedia.
From this graph it is clear that unless Congress is willing to trim back spending in some of the "sacred cows" of the Federal Budget we are going to go the way of Greece. Which is bankruptcy.
The progressives complain that we spend too much on Defense. They have a point. We do spend a lot. But when you look at that graph, you see that we spend more on each of the following: Treasury, which includes interest payments on debt, Health and Human Services and Social Security Administration.
The big four (Treasury, Defense, Health and Human Services and SSA) represent about 80% of the total money spent by the Federal government. Everything else represent only 20% of the budget. If we were to completely shut off spending for everything except the big four, we would roughly break even. That doesn't pay down the debt we owe. We simply wouldn't add any more to it.
We as the American people must be prepared to sacrifice some of our "sacred" entitlements. And some of that may take some time.
Examples:
Social Security was originally intended to be insurance against bad times for those who needed it. It was not an entitlement for all. Americans must once again plan for the future and start saving for their own retirements plans now. And the younger they start, the more likely they won't need to depend on the rest of us when they can no longer work. And in the immediate future, the SSA is going to have to freeze cost increases. Families are going to have to step in and help with their elderly parents and grandparents. 2009 funds spent: $720 billion.
Health and Human Services. Much of the activity under this branch of government isn't even mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Be that as it may, this branch is also going to have to be slashed. On their own website (http://www.hhs.gov/about/whatwedo.html) they state that "HHS represents almost a quarter of all federal outlays". Assuming that cuts CAN'T be made in Medicare and Medicaid (which I don't agree with but for the sake of argument) then we MUST cut the other functions, such as the FDA, Research grants, Head Start, and emergency preparedness. Those functions that can be handled by communities must be. 2009 funds spent: $790 billion.
Defense: Robert Gates did a bold thing when he canceled more purchases of the world's best air-superiority fighter, the F-22 Raptor. In the process, he made a lot of people very angry. Like the Air Force and the good folks who build it. But we need that kind of slashing at every level and in every sector of the defense industry and department. 2009 funds spent: $690 billion.
Since these three departments represent about 65% of the budget, if we were to look at the 2009 budget deficit of 1.2 trillion, that means that we would have had to cut the budgets in these three departments by a combined $780 billion dollars, or roughly $260 billion dollars each.
But don't forget, just slashing these budgets will make things worse. Because to slash these budgets to this level only balances the budget, meaning we aren't adding any more to the public debt. But we still have to REDUCE it. And in the process we would add another 10 million people to the unemployment lines.
So obviously we can't just cut spending. We must raise revenue. There are two ways to do this. We can grow the economy by making our corporate tax rates competitive with other industrialized nations, or we can pay it through income. It will actually be a combination of the two.
America, you must remember that our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. In the final analysis, we let the politicians sham us. But it's our government, and therefore it's our responsibility.
The question is: Do we have the guts to make the hard call? Do we have the guts to force our federal elected representatives and senators to cut the budget where they possibly can? Are we willing to sacrifice our entitlements? Are we willing to start paying on the enormous spending spree debt that we have accumulated over the last forty years? Democrats sure don't have it in them to do that. Republicans could, if they were true to their principles. Tea party people, with their feet on the necks of the Republicans, do they truly understand the level of sacrifice that must be given by every single American to right our financial ship of state? Because let me tell you how it's going to happen.
Congress will slash the federal budget by 900 billion dollars. Conversely, they must raise tax revenues by the same amount to balance the budget. If we make America friendly for manufacturing again... if we make America friendly for business and industry again... we might make it without each taxpayer having to pay an additional 3,500 in taxes EACH YEAR. But unless we can grow the economy while simultaneously tightening our belts we'll never get out of this death-spiral that we're in and the U.S. as we knew it will vanish into the mists of history.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Obama Administration is Completely Out of Touch.
Click for original story here.
Another indicator that the Obama administration is completely out of touch is that his administration (read: President Obama) is currently considering putting nearly a dozen nearly pristine landscapes, some larger than the state of Rhode Island, under protection as National Monuments.
With what money? How are we going to pay for this? China has been divesting itself of our bonds and treasuries to the point that Japan is now the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt. When U.S. debt securities went on the selling block earlier this year, the FED ended up buying most of them. The fearsome specter of higher interest rates being placed on our debt to cover the risk of default is raising it's head over the horizon.
We can't even spend the Stimulus money properly! I just wrote another article today where the Energy Department project to improve energy-efficiency in homes has spent roughly 500 million dollars on 9100 homes. That's over 50,000 per HOUSE!
Our politicians need to dial in on the fact that we must get our Federal fiscal house in order. And that means that their precious social agenda has got to take a back seat to deficit spending reduction and real progress towards reducing the national debt.
Another indicator that the Obama administration is completely out of touch is that his administration (read: President Obama) is currently considering putting nearly a dozen nearly pristine landscapes, some larger than the state of Rhode Island, under protection as National Monuments.
With what money? How are we going to pay for this? China has been divesting itself of our bonds and treasuries to the point that Japan is now the biggest foreign holder of U.S. debt. When U.S. debt securities went on the selling block earlier this year, the FED ended up buying most of them. The fearsome specter of higher interest rates being placed on our debt to cover the risk of default is raising it's head over the horizon.
We can't even spend the Stimulus money properly! I just wrote another article today where the Energy Department project to improve energy-efficiency in homes has spent roughly 500 million dollars on 9100 homes. That's over 50,000 per HOUSE!
Our politicians need to dial in on the fact that we must get our Federal fiscal house in order. And that means that their precious social agenda has got to take a back seat to deficit spending reduction and real progress towards reducing the national debt.
Another Argument for Government Not Running Your Healthcare Program
Original report can be found here.
LA Times bloggers Andrew Malcolm and Joanna Neuman reported today on that $5 billion in President Obama's stimulus money plan that was targeted to create 90,000 green-sector jobs and make 593,000 homes more energy efficient in the first year of implementation.
Well, it seems that like so many other government programs this one is falling a little short of it's goals. 98.5% short in fact. How about, only 9,000 homes so far?
Part of the problem is the rule of unintended consequences. The Pelosi-Reid stimulus plan includes an 80 year old legal provision requiring all federally funded programs to pay a prevailing wage to workers. The problem is...home weatherization under a "green-sector" industry niche hasn't really existed until now, so coming up with a "prevailing" wage for the over 3,000 counties in the U.S. has turned out to be a roadblock.
Free-market types would say: "Pay the workers what the market will bear." That's pretty easy, right? But apparently, the East Coast intellectual elite can't seem to accept that. There must be some "scientific" way to determine what the prevailing wage is.
Additionally, it looks like the National Trust for Historic Preservation must review most homes before contracts can be estimated or negotiated, with some states providing woefully adequate manpower for this task. Like Michigan, for example. With two, that's right, 2 people currently assigned to perform those reviews.
Finally, on the work done so far, $522 million has been spent on this program, improving 9100 homes. Let's do the math. Divide 9100 into 522,000,000, carry the one, and you get... $57,360 for every home fixed. Yup, that sounds like a government program to me.
Does any reasonable American tax-payer think that Obama, Pelosi and Reid can do a better job on managing national healthcare? My bet is ... not a chance.
LA Times bloggers Andrew Malcolm and Joanna Neuman reported today on that $5 billion in President Obama's stimulus money plan that was targeted to create 90,000 green-sector jobs and make 593,000 homes more energy efficient in the first year of implementation.
Well, it seems that like so many other government programs this one is falling a little short of it's goals. 98.5% short in fact. How about, only 9,000 homes so far?
Part of the problem is the rule of unintended consequences. The Pelosi-Reid stimulus plan includes an 80 year old legal provision requiring all federally funded programs to pay a prevailing wage to workers. The problem is...home weatherization under a "green-sector" industry niche hasn't really existed until now, so coming up with a "prevailing" wage for the over 3,000 counties in the U.S. has turned out to be a roadblock.
Free-market types would say: "Pay the workers what the market will bear." That's pretty easy, right? But apparently, the East Coast intellectual elite can't seem to accept that. There must be some "scientific" way to determine what the prevailing wage is.
Additionally, it looks like the National Trust for Historic Preservation must review most homes before contracts can be estimated or negotiated, with some states providing woefully adequate manpower for this task. Like Michigan, for example. With two, that's right, 2 people currently assigned to perform those reviews.
Finally, on the work done so far, $522 million has been spent on this program, improving 9100 homes. Let's do the math. Divide 9100 into 522,000,000, carry the one, and you get... $57,360 for every home fixed. Yup, that sounds like a government program to me.
Does any reasonable American tax-payer think that Obama, Pelosi and Reid can do a better job on managing national healthcare? My bet is ... not a chance.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Biden's Disingenuity on Iraq: "Great Accomplishment"?
Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's Larry King on Wednesday night (Feb 10, 2010) that the Iraq pullout could be one of the "great achievements" of the Obama administration.
What? Let me quote it exactly and see if it comes out any different:
"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 towards a representative government. I spent -- I've been there seventeen times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
Both then-Senator Obama and then-Senator Biden were in strong and vocal opposition to the "surge" that President Bush put into effect in the summer of 2007. Nearly all experts agree that the surge was instrumental in convincing sectarian leaders like Al-Sadr to turn away from violence and return to the political process.
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there..." -- Senator Obama, (MSNBC)
"...I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that it's going to make a substantial difference to the situation on the ground..." -- Senator Obama, Jan 14, 2007 (FOXNews)
"... this is a cylcle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000 Americans will not be able to solve."
"What is the President and my friend from Arizona and others insisting on? What can never be. A central government that is a democracy that is going to be fair to the rest of it's citizens. It is not possible. Mark my words. -- Sen. Joe Biden, March 2007 (CSPAN)
Joe... you're words are marked. And you were wrong.
I remind the reader that the August 2010 deadline to begin the pullout was actually defined in the summer of 2008, several months prior to the U.S. Presidential election and six month's prior to President Obama being sworn in. I further remind the reader, that according to the timeline currently being implemented, all U.S. troops are scheduled to depart Iraq by the end of the summer in 2011. All that planning, and that timeline (which to this day I think that timelines based on anything other than the success or failure of the campaign is a horrid idea) were all determined during President Bush's administration.
I consider it to be absolutely brazen and without character to now have the Vice President of the United States tell a national TV audience via Larry King Live that the legacy of a stable government in Iraq and the return of troops from that theater is one of the "Obama Administration's Greatest Achievements". For crying out loud, can't the current Administration give even a moment of thankful praise to the previous administration for having the guts to finish the mess they had created?
What? Let me quote it exactly and see if it comes out any different:
"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 towards a representative government. I spent -- I've been there seventeen times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
Both then-Senator Obama and then-Senator Biden were in strong and vocal opposition to the "surge" that President Bush put into effect in the summer of 2007. Nearly all experts agree that the surge was instrumental in convincing sectarian leaders like Al-Sadr to turn away from violence and return to the political process.
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there..." -- Senator Obama, (MSNBC)
"...I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that it's going to make a substantial difference to the situation on the ground..." -- Senator Obama, Jan 14, 2007 (FOXNews)
"... this is a cylcle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000 Americans will not be able to solve."
"What is the President and my friend from Arizona and others insisting on? What can never be. A central government that is a democracy that is going to be fair to the rest of it's citizens. It is not possible. Mark my words. -- Sen. Joe Biden, March 2007 (CSPAN)
Joe... you're words are marked. And you were wrong.
I remind the reader that the August 2010 deadline to begin the pullout was actually defined in the summer of 2008, several months prior to the U.S. Presidential election and six month's prior to President Obama being sworn in. I further remind the reader, that according to the timeline currently being implemented, all U.S. troops are scheduled to depart Iraq by the end of the summer in 2011. All that planning, and that timeline (which to this day I think that timelines based on anything other than the success or failure of the campaign is a horrid idea) were all determined during President Bush's administration.
I consider it to be absolutely brazen and without character to now have the Vice President of the United States tell a national TV audience via Larry King Live that the legacy of a stable government in Iraq and the return of troops from that theater is one of the "Obama Administration's Greatest Achievements". For crying out loud, can't the current Administration give even a moment of thankful praise to the previous administration for having the guts to finish the mess they had created?
Monday, February 8, 2010
John Murtha (D) 1932-2010
John Murtha, the Democrat Representative from Pennsylvania, passed away today (Jan 8 2010) at the age of 77 from complications arising from a gall-bladder surgery.
He was a Marine officer who served in the Vietnam War. As a Democratic representative he often steered funds not only to his home state and home town. He was an advocate for a strong national defense. This often brought him into conflict with his own party, which at times during the Bush administration tried to stop all military spending in an effort to shut down the Iraq war.
He gained notoriety for vehemently opposing the war in Iraq. Considering his strong pro-military position, this caught many in the political establishment by surprise.
He also gained a reputation for having never met a Congressional budget earmark that he didn't like and was under Congressional Ethics Committee investigation at the time of his death for certain earmarks he'd won for Pennsylvania firms.
Murtha's 2008 political opponent, William Russell, made this statement today: "Regardless of your political position, you always knew Jack had an immense love and loyalty to his family and the residents of the 12th Congressional District,'' Mr. Russell said."
He was a Marine officer who served in the Vietnam War. As a Democratic representative he often steered funds not only to his home state and home town. He was an advocate for a strong national defense. This often brought him into conflict with his own party, which at times during the Bush administration tried to stop all military spending in an effort to shut down the Iraq war.
He gained notoriety for vehemently opposing the war in Iraq. Considering his strong pro-military position, this caught many in the political establishment by surprise.
He also gained a reputation for having never met a Congressional budget earmark that he didn't like and was under Congressional Ethics Committee investigation at the time of his death for certain earmarks he'd won for Pennsylvania firms.
Murtha's 2008 political opponent, William Russell, made this statement today: "Regardless of your political position, you always knew Jack had an immense love and loyalty to his family and the residents of the 12th Congressional District,'' Mr. Russell said."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Backdoor taxes to hit middle-class.
On the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC she ran a piece about how Republicans don't support the President even when he is backing Republican issues like tax cuts for the middle class.
She then showed video of the President's State of the Union address where Pres. Obama declares that he has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. The left side of the aisle stands in thunderous applause and the right side of the aisle sits in stony and awkward silence. Pres. Obama then turns to the Republicans and says "I thought I would get some applause for that one."
Rachel Maddow than stated words to the effect that tax cuts will only be supported by Republicans when they are sponsored by Republicans.
What hogwash.
The Republicans didn't applause that portion of the State of the Union because it's not true.
To illustrate: The following day, Reuters publishes a story which is picked up by a number of news outlets: "Backdoor taxes to hit middle-class". The story is then almost immediately withdrawn. But the lovely thing about web-crawlers is that cached copies of these stories can often still be found.
Normally, I would link to this story but since it's disappearing as quickly as it appeared, I'm copying it in it's entirety here with apologies to its author.
Backdoor taxes to hit middle-class.
By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.
While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.
If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.
Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.
Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:
* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.
So when President Obama states that he has lowered taxes, it's a falsehood. Under his administration, EVERY American's taxes will go up. My taxes will increase by at least 3% simply because the "Bush" tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Additionally, since Congress has failed to change the "AMT" to index against inflation, millions more Americans face being included in this tax provision originally intended to soak it to the rich. Now, upper middle-class Americans are affected and soon, middle-class will also be affected. Additionally, the so-called "death tax" will reappear in 2011.
She then showed video of the President's State of the Union address where Pres. Obama declares that he has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. The left side of the aisle stands in thunderous applause and the right side of the aisle sits in stony and awkward silence. Pres. Obama then turns to the Republicans and says "I thought I would get some applause for that one."
Rachel Maddow than stated words to the effect that tax cuts will only be supported by Republicans when they are sponsored by Republicans.
What hogwash.
The Republicans didn't applause that portion of the State of the Union because it's not true.
To illustrate: The following day, Reuters publishes a story which is picked up by a number of news outlets: "Backdoor taxes to hit middle-class". The story is then almost immediately withdrawn. But the lovely thing about web-crawlers is that cached copies of these stories can often still be found.
Normally, I would link to this story but since it's disappearing as quickly as it appeared, I'm copying it in it's entirety here with apologies to its author.
Backdoor taxes to hit middle-class.
By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.
While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.
If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.
Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.
Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:
* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.
So when President Obama states that he has lowered taxes, it's a falsehood. Under his administration, EVERY American's taxes will go up. My taxes will increase by at least 3% simply because the "Bush" tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Additionally, since Congress has failed to change the "AMT" to index against inflation, millions more Americans face being included in this tax provision originally intended to soak it to the rich. Now, upper middle-class Americans are affected and soon, middle-class will also be affected. Additionally, the so-called "death tax" will reappear in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
