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?

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."

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.

Stimulus Was Wasted According CNN Poll.

Findings of a CNN poll released on January 25th reported that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the Federal stimulus plan has been wasted.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/poll.stimulus.money/index.html?hpt=Sbin

"A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday morning also indicates that 63 percent of the public thinks that projects in the plan were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit, with 36 percent saying those projects will benefit the economy."

Do you remember this?

I wrote a post on February 10th, 2009, the headline which was Real Stimulus. In it, I regaled you with the higher points of a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers that bespoke, in alarming detail, the continued decay of our national infrastructure. It identified nearly $1.6 trillion in repairs to U.S. bridges, roads, locks, the power grid, and water treatment systems. Fixing these would not only create many hundreds of thousands of jobs, it would create a legacy of a healthy national infrastructure for decades to come.

Nope. They would rather pay for wetlands studies on the coast of California, or improvements to the Las Vegas Strip.

Count me with the 63%.

News Flash -- Capitalism Works

On January 27th, Ford Motor Company announced that had a profit of $2.7 billion in 2009. While this was no doubt achieved with the help of the misguided "Cash for Clunkers" program that ran in the fall of 2009, the stunning fact is this: Ford, the only US based auto manufacturer that did not accept any stimulus or "bailout" money from the US Federal government was the only US based auto manufacturer to report a profit.

It is clear to this writer that Ford is exhibiting a better level of fiscal discipline and program management than either Government Motors or Fiat's Chrysler division. Ford is providing a quality product at a competitive price and consumers are buying. And the same attributes that made it possible for Ford to avoid living on the government dole are now paying in newfound profitability.

Congratulations are in order for CEO Alan Mulally and his company. I only hope that other American companies and THEIR GOVERNMENT take notice.

Meanwhile, even though I've always been a Chrysler kind of guy (RAM truck, Crossfire Coupe), my next car will probably have to be a Ford.

MacroEconomic Theory Rap

This is priceless.


Simply proof that anybody that is arrogant enough to think that we can design, much less control something as complex as macroeconomics shouldn't be working for the American people. The best we can do is bump the highs and try to shorten the duration or magnitude of the lows.

Italian Minister Slams U.S. Haiti Aid Effort.

Reported on January 25th Mr. Guido Bertolaso, Italy’s top disaster relief official lambasted and impugned the so-called “U.S.-led” relief effort in Haiti as a “pathetic” failure.

The confirmed death toll for Haiti is now 150,000, which if true represents nearly 1.5% of Haiti’s total population. It is estimated that nearly three million Haitians are now homeless, which would be about 1 in 3 Haitians. Reports from Haiti indicate that the government is all but gone with little or no native police or military presence in ravaged neighborhoods and that mobs of looters have been ravaging the remains of both retail businesses and private residences alike. Further, vigilante mobs have been executing suspected looters without due process or trial. Haiti is on the verge of reverting to the “law of the jungle”. And yet, Mr. Bertolaso believes that the U.S. has confused “military intervention” with “emergency intervention”.

I would invite Mr. Bertolaso to identify just exactly what he would do if given unlimited opportunity. For myself, I have seen angry mobs in the U.S. and they will turn violent if not controlled. And never in the history of our nation have we had to deal with a crisis on the level with the situation the Haitians face. At the same time that the U.N., with assistance from numerous nations, tries to distribute food, water, clothing and medical supplies to desperate Haitians, it has to deal with the fact there is essentially no effective Haitian government that could assist in controlling the victims from violence.

Desperate people will perform desperate acts. We have seen over and over again where well-meaning missionaries or aid workers have been attacked, injured or even killed while trying to distribute supplies to victims of disasters. We have also seen over and over again where those same supplies tend to go to the strong instead of the weak and helpless unless armed men oversee such operations. Strength respects only greater strength, and 13,000 armed soldiers trained in the art of imposing its will on organized enemy resistance will likely find little opposition from bands of thugs trying to monopolize on the supplies being provided by the generous people of the world.

I further suspect that had the United States simply decided to take over coordination over the relief effort, that Mr. Bertolaso would then have lambasted the arrogance of the Americans in taking over what should be a U.N. operation. So the U.S. is damned either way. In such a case, I support the U.S., considering our overwhelming contribution to Haitian relief, to just go ahead and take over the relief operation.

Oh yeah, to date, the United States has delivered about $184 million in aid to Haiti. By the same date, Italy had contributed about $9 million. By my math, that means that the U.S. response to this tragedy is about twenty times the size of the Italian response. That apparently is a fact that Mr. Bertolaso did NOT get quoted on.