March 19-21, 2009
Mar 19 03:13 Thank You, Mr. President Mar 19 10:46 The Coach K Smackdown Mar 19 11:40 Blogger Conference Call Notes Mar 20 03:01 Identifying The Real Problem At Treasury? Mar 19 22:17 I Don't Think We're Apathetic Mar 20 03:13 Gottwalt Townhall Meetings Scheduled Mar 20 09:51 We Waited This Long For That Budget 'Solution'? Mar 21 02:07 Obama's Legacy Written: Trillion Dollar Deficits
Thank You, Mr. President
Thanks to President Obama's bailout fever, irresponsible spending and his breaking every major campaign promise, Republicans are now being seen in a better light. In this week's WSJ column , Karl Rove highlights why President Obama has helped Republicans for 2010:
With the Dow at 7,486 and unemployment at 8.1%, Mr. Obama says the economy is fundamentally sound. Does he suppose the nation won't recall him attacking John McCain last September for saying the same thing, when the Dow was at 11,000 and unemployment at 6.2%?I'm becoming convinced that President Obama believes he can whatever he wants and get away with it. I think that's because he's gotten away with that for his entire adult life. Yesterday, I wrote about President Obama's incompetence in this post . Included in that post was proof that President Obama isn't helping Democrats in the run-up to 2010. I'm officially nicknaming the this phenomenom the Obama Effect. Here's what I'm talking about:
Candidate Obama vowed to end "the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics." Yet his administration geared up MoveOn.org to lead a left-wing coalition to pressure Republicans and centrist Democrats, organized a daily conference call to coordinate liberal attack dogs, and strategized with Americans United for Change on ads depicting the GOP as the party of "no."
Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district's Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.At a time when the economy is the all-consuming issue, President Obama isn't offering a steady hand in times of trouble. People got upset with the way Congress pushed the stimulus bill through without reading what's in their bill. People got upset with President Obama for pushing the bill's quick passage. The people felt cheated because they knew that their senators and representatives didn't read the bill before voting on it. They felt cheated because they knew about all the pork contained in the bill.
They're more furious now that they're learning about the AIG bonus exemption provision inserted in the bill by Christopher Dodd at the Treasury Department's request.
The GOP's resurgence isn't only about President Obama's irresponsible policies either, as Mr. Rove notes here:
Republicans sense the opportunity. The House GOP leadership deputized the top Budget Committee Republican, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to prepare an alternative budget. The GOP budget won't raise taxes, gets spending and debt under control, and will result in a stronger economy with more jobs. House Republicans plan a major selling effort back home during the coming recess. Minority Leader John Boehner is already up on YouTube extolling the plan.Giving Rep. Paul Ryan the responsibility of crafting an alternative budget is a smart tactical move because he's gaining the reputation of being the smartest man in the room on economic policy. Based on what I've seen, he's looking like this generation's John Kasich in terms of budgetary matters.
Senate Republicans will not prepare a complete alternative, but they will offer a robust package of amendments, with a wave of proposals for each of the three weeks the upper chamber will devote to the budget. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander foreshadowed the GOP's theme by saying the Democratic budget taxes, spends and borrows too much.
Mr. Rove notes this information, which should give Democrats heartburn:
For example, the liberal Center for American Progress recently found that 61% of Americans say government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient , and 57% think free market solutions are better than government at creating jobs and economic growth . A late February poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61% were concerned "the federal government will spend too much money" and "drive up the budget deficit" versus 29% concerned the government "will spend too little."Liberal pundits can't stop talking about President Obama's popularity, though they don't mention how unpopular his policies are. Ruy Teixeira still insists that we're living in a new progressive America. While progressives won alot of races the last two cycles, that doesn't mean we've suddenly morphed into a center-left nation only four years after pundit after pundit said America was a center-right nation.
There's several political lifetimes between now and the midterm elections so lots of things will happen to change the trajectory of the election. Still, at this point, it's still worth Republicans' while to thank President Obama for his stumbling, erratic administration.
Technonrati: Economy , President Obama , Bailout Fatigue , Stimulus Bill , AIG Bonuses , Earmarks , Democrats , Paul Ryan , John Kasich , Fiscal Restraint , Conservatism , Polling , Generic Ballot , Election 2010
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Originally posted Thursday, March 19, 2009, revised 10-Apr 4:21 AM
No comments.
The Coach K Smackdown
Coach K isn't impressed with President Obama's bracketology skills for March Madness. According to this article , it's a safe bet (a little hoops lingo for you Vegasdwellers) that it isn't so much about President Obama's picks that's got Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski upset:
Of course, the president's choice drew a reaction from the Tar Heels' most intense rival.
"Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said from the Blue Devils' first-round site in Greensboro, N.C.President Obama is taking his role as First Celebrity seriously. Unfortunately, I can't say that he's taking his role of Economic-Problem-Solver-In-Chief seriously. The image President Obama is setting isn't that of a serious policymaker. It's sad that he isn't taking his responsibilities seriously when we're just weeks after we were staring at the possibility of a total catastrophe .
President Clinton inherited a growing economy but his actions proved that he was indeed "focusing like a laser beam" on the economy. President Obama inherited a mess but he's devoting time to evening bashes at the White House, guest appearances on Sportscenter and Jay Leno, seemingly focusing little attention to serious policymaking.
Frankly, it's time for President Obama to start taking his day job seriously. Wall Street's and Main Street's reactions tell us that they aren't confident in his abilities to solve the economic problems confronting us. His Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, still hasn't put a plan together that helps solve the banking system problem.
For that matter, they aren't monitoring how the TARP funds are being spent. If they were monitoring the TARP funds, they would've known that AIG was spending more than $450 million on retention bonuses. Instead, the White House said that they didn't know about these bonuses until after they'd been paid out.
After President Obama finishes his Celebrity Tour, I hope he returns to the White House with a newfound sense of seriousness. It's troubling to watch President Obama paying more attention to Jay Leno and Sportscenter than he's paying to America's economic difficulties.
The AIG bonuses flap has consumed the Beltway's chattering classes. The REAL SCANDAL is the fact that Tim Geithner isn't paying attention to how TARP money is being spent. I posted here that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can't even keep his stories straight:
THEN:That was the before version; this is the after version:
Jake Tapper, ABC: AIG, is the Administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
Press Secretary Gibbs: Is it confident - I'm sorry?
Jake Tapper, ABC: That they know, that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion?
Press Secretary Gibbs: Yes.
Question: Did you guys first find out about these bonuses last week?It's difficult taking Mr. Geithner to task for not paying attention when President Obama isn't showing proof that he's taking his job seriously.
Press Secretary Gibbs: I think that's true, based on what I read in the newspaper,
Question: But, Robert, to follow up on Jake's point, did Secretary Geithner make a mistake by not reviewing these contracts; they're a year old; before he cut a new check to AIG? Why didn't he do that?
Press Secretary Gibbs: I would certainly ask the Treasury; I'll ask the Treasury that.
Let's be blunt about something: It's time for this president to show the American people that he's taking his job seriously. At this point, I haven't seen proof that he's either serious or competent. It's time that changed.
Posted Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:49 AM
No comments.
Blogger Conference Call Notes
I just finished participating in a blogger conference call with Rep. Michele Bachmann. After a brief opening statement, during which she gave a rundown on what's happening in DC this week, Rep. Bachmann opened it up for questions.
Andy Aplikowski prefaced his question with a statement that the real scandal in the AIG fiasco was the billions of $$$ given to AIG in the first place. Rep. Bachmann said that she voted against giving bailout money to AIG. She then reminded us that the Dodd Amendment that allowed the payment of bonus money was stashed inside the Porkulus bill that was voted on before it was read.
I asked for Rep. Bachmann's thoughts on my opinion that it's a far bigger scandal that Treasury Cecretary Geithner doesn't know where the TARP money is going. Rep. Bachmann said that that's definitely a bigger scandal than the AIG bonuses, though she clearly wasn't happy with that part.
I also asked a question about the Cap and Tax Bill, saying first that the people who'll get hit the hardest will be those who can least afford it. Rep. Bachmann said that there's no doubt but that those people will be the hardest hit. She then said that President Obama's budget includes a projection that the Cap and Tax would bring in $646,000,000,000. Rep. Bachmann then said that it was let slip yesterday that they're actually expecting $2,000,000,000,000 from that tax increase.
That's a stunning, shocking figure. To put this in perspective, the US' GDP prior to the current recession was $14,114,000,000,000. The Cap and Tax revenue would take the equivalent of 1/7th of our GDP out of people's pockets and put it in the government's pockets. If that figure is accurate, and I believe it is, that tax increase alone will kill jobs and put us deeper into a recession than we're already in.
It's just my opinion but I'm worried about this administration's seriousness. They aren't monitoring how TARP money is being spent. They're proposing the two biggest tax increases in American history. Meanwhile, President Obama is filling out NCAA brackets and appearing on Jay Leno's show.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Rep. Bachmann's Majority Tracker Blog . It's worth noting, Rep. Bachmann said, that the Republican Party isn't the party of no, that they've had alternatives to every major economic bill that the Democrats have passed.
Majority Tracker is a great one-stop shopping center on the votes taken and the GOP amendments that were proposed. If you haven't bookmarked it yet, you definitely need to. It's an absolutely indespensible tool. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I talked with Dave Dziok about such a website. I made the suggestions; Dave put the blog together.)
It's time that this administration started paying attention to what's happening. Thankfully, Rep. Bachmann is taking her oversight and policymaking responsibilities seriously.
UPDATE: Yes, I admit I'm tired. The reason why I know I'm tired is because I didn't note that the $2,000,000,000,000 Cap and Trade revenues are what's forecast over an eight year period. I shouldn't have used the $2,000,000,000,000 figure as compared with the $14,224,000,000,000 annual GDP.
This Washington Times article does a great job reporting the details of the Cap and Trade bill:
A top economic aide to Mr. Obama told a group of Senate staffers last month that the president's climate-change plan would surely raise more than the $646 billion over eight years the White House had estimated publicly, according to multiple a number of staffers who attended the briefing Feb. 26.It's time to tell our senators and representatives that we can't afford this backdoor approach to ratifying Kyoto.
"We all looked at each other like, 'Wow, that's a big number,'" said a top Republican staffer who attended the meeting along with between 50 and 60 other Democratic and Republican congressional aides.
The plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances, although exact details have not been released.
At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president's cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration's early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.
Like Rep. Jordan said yesterday, this isn't smart policy because China and India still won't cap their emissions, putting us at a competitive disadvantage with those countries. That's gotta stop ASAP!!!
A paranoid person studying President Obama's policies might think that he's intentionally trying to ruin our economy for the next decade. Thank God I'm not paranoid.
Posted Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:22 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 19-Mar-09 12:56 PM
Wow, a conference call and the 1st question in a teletownhall meeting all in a matter of two days. It must be nice to have that kind of access to your representative.
Coincidence?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Mar-09 02:19 PM
I report things accurately. While I'm unabashedly partisan, that doesn't mean I won't ask important questions that gives voters the important information they need for making good decisions.
I don't have the biggest readership but that doesn't mean I don't have a great reputation for being a solid journalist.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 19-Mar-09 06:32 PM
Here's the crazy thing about this cap and trade idea. Supposedly, the intent is to set up an exchange whereby those putting up too much carbon buy credits in the "free market" from those who are putting up less carbon. If the government is going to take $2 trillion out of the economy, then this isn't a free market trading system, but a monstrous tax. Just that simple, obvious and hypocritical.
Even if it really was a "trade" system, it is a market in an artificial good that no one would willingly buy. Let's call it what it is (as you have), a cap and tax bill.
Identifying The Real Problem At Treasury?
Fred Thompson appeared on Hannity Thursday night with an interesting take on the Treasury Department crisis. Sen. Thompson agrees that Mr. Geithner hasn't done a good job. What caught my attention was Sen. Thompson saying that firing Mr. Geithner only means President Obama appointing another radical to replace the 'irreplaceable' Mr. Geithner.
That's when it dawned on me. The problem isn't just with Timothy Geithner. It's that the people that President Obama seems to prefer are radicals who believe in his radical agenda. Simply put, Wall Street won't put much trust in President Obama's economic team until he dramatically changes his agenda.
If President Obama's agenda stays as radical as it is now, replacing Tim Geithner with someone else won't change things a bit. I suspect that the dirty little secret Wall Street isn't talking about publicly is the fact that they've seen President Obama's policies and they don't see anything on his agenda that they think will put America on the path to prosperity.
I suspect that they've seen his plans to increase taxes on small businesses as hurting the economy. I suspect they've examined President Obama's Cap and Trade plan as a way of turning profitable energy companies into profitless companies. In fact, I'll bet that they see Cap and Trade as Kyoto with another title.
Let's remember that President Obama owes his presidency to the radical fringe of the Democratic Party. While he's certainly abandoned centrist-minded voters, he hasn't opened even a tiny gap between himself and the Nutroots.
I also suspect that alot of qualified people won't apply for Geithner's job because President Obama's agenda doesn't fit their agenda. Think of these potential candidates as 'Judd Gregg' candidates: people who'd love to serve in a presidential administration, just not this administration.
There's something that we should take President Obama at his word. When he says that the buck stops here, he means it. How can we argue with that considering the fact that we haven't seen so many bucks stop so quickly for such a potentially long period of time from the outset of a new presidential administration in a few generations.Technorati: Economy , Tim Geithner , Treasury , Wall Street , Investors , President Obama , Radicalism , Cap And Trade , Tax Increases , Small Business
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, March 20, 2009 3:03 AM
No comments.
I Don't Think We're Apathetic
Based on this article , David Axelrod must've decided that one Robert Gibbs schitck wasn't enough in this administration:
For the new administration, the bonuses were a distraction from what senior aides called the main focus: getting the economy working and people back to work. "People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG," Axelrod said. "They are thinking about their own jobs."If people don't care about AIG, then why did Prime Minister Pelosi rush CYA legislation to the floor taxing AIG bonuses to the floor? Why did the unconstitutional legislation pass by the embarrassingly large margin of 328-93 ?
Simply put, people shouldn't trust Mr. Gibbs's or Mr. Axelrod's spin. People care. That's why Prime Minister Speaker Pelosi rushed this CYA bill of attainder legislation to the House floor so faast. They care alot about AIG and all the money that's been spent on bailouts and the billions of $$$ being proposed for additional bailouts. They understand that this spending is standing in the way of economic growth and job creation. They understand that its only effect is to increase inflation and deepen this recession.
The more these people attempt to spin things like this, the faster their credibility disappears.
Posted Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:22 PM
No comments.
Gottwalt Townhall Meetings Scheduled
ST. PAUL - State Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, will host four Town Hall meetings in District 15A over the next couple of weeks.
Rep. Gottwalt invites anyone who wants to discuss legislative issues to these open and informal Town Hall meeting opportunities. Constituents are invited to come as they are, and there is no need to RSVP.
"As I'm listening to people, the economy remains the top issue," Gottwalt said. "These Town Hall meetings are great opportunities to sit down with the people I represent, and hear their concerns, needs and ideas. We're coming down to crunch time at the Legislature, and that local input is vital to good legislating."
Rep. Gottwalt also encourages people in District 15A (St. Cloud, Waite Park, St. Augusta and Rockville) to get in touch with him by e-mail at rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn or by calling toll free 1-800-683-0886.
Rep. Gottwalt will hold Town Hall meetings as follows:
Friday, March 27: 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Ultimate Sports Bar & Grill, 1101 Division St., Waite Park
Saturday, March 28: 9-10 a.m., Granite Edge Cafe, downtown Rockville
Monday, March 30: 9-10 a.m., Caribou Coffee, by Crossroads Shopping Center, St. Cloud
Friday, April 3: 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., The Hayloft, 22779 Hwy 15, St. Augusta (Luxemburg)
Posted Friday, March 20, 2009 3:13 AM
No comments.
We Waited This Long For That Budget 'Solution'?
I was right about the DFL's Cherrypicked Testimony Tour after all. It was political theater. In the end, the House DFL Majority leadership did what they always do: They resorted to job-killing tax increases to exert greater control over our lives. This they did today under the guise of fixing the budget deficit. First, the details:
Here are the basics of the House Democrats' budget targets released today:Rep. Gottwalt offers this perspective on the DFL majority's plan:
FY 2010-11
- No increase in K-12, early childhood or higher education spending
- An education funding shift $500 million larger than the governor's proposal
- Less Health and Human Services spending than the governor in 2010-11
- Cuts to veterans and public safety
- $4.4 billion worth of tax increases (no details yet on the new taxes)
FY 2012-13
- $843 million in reductions
- $1.77 billion K-12 payment shift (73/27), actually, a cut to our districts
- $1.5 billion in tax increases
- $750 million in federal deficit "stimulus" money
- $2.1 billion in reductions
- $148 million K-12 payment shift
- $2.9 billion in tax increases
- No federal deficit "stimulus" money
Frankly, I'm disappointed. Today, as Minnesota's unemployment rate hit 8.1 percent, House Democrats proposed $4.4 billion in tax increases on struggling Minnesotans. As I've emphasized before, we must focus on economic recovery by helping businesses retain and create more jobs.It's one thing to call for shared sacrifice. It's another to offer a plan that sends jobs fleeing to other states while making draconian cuts to public safety budgets. Personally, I'd call the House DFL majority's budget the 'Less jobs, more crime' budget. Here's some other names that come to mind: stupid, irresponsible, anti-prosperity, reform-free and irresponsible. (Yes, I'm repeating myself because it's worth repeating.)
Raising taxes by $4.4 billion is an absolute job killer! You can't say you're for jobs and in favor of tax increases. It's like saying you're for eggs, but you want to strangle the chickens. They also clipped tax aids and credits and workforce funding that help create jobs and economic opportunity.
To make matters worse, House Democrats plan to cut veterans and public safety funding, cut health and welfare spending, and offer no increase in education funding. They propose a $1.77 billion education funding shift that's almost $500 million larger than the governor's proposal they criticized just days ago. The Senate Democrats want to cut education funding 7 percent. Education Minnesota is not pleased.
The House DFL's proposal is possible the most irresponsible attempt at governance I've seen on the state level. Only this year's federal budget surpasses the DFL's budget in terms of irresponsibility and setting foolish priorities.
I don't doubt that the DFL wants to solve the budget deficit. Their 'good' intentions, though, mean nothing. They were elected to put coherent solutions to our biggest problems. Thus far, they look like a deer in the headlights: paralized and without a clue on what to do next.
Saying that that isn't what we hired them to do is understatement.
Technnorati: Budgets , Tax Increases , Public Safety , Budget Cuts , Education Minnesota , DFL , Steve Gottwalt , Job Growth , Prosperity , GOP
Posted Friday, March 20, 2009 9:51 AM
Comment 1 by Chad at 20-Mar-09 10:24 AM
The DFL has had months to figure out where they want to raise taxes yet they still haven't said where the tax increases will come from. Of course they'll tax the "rich" but there's only so much you can squeeze out of them before they get out of here. I have to assume there will be more regressive taxes that will only hurt the ones the DFL proclaims to want to help. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Mar-09 01:26 PM
At a local event a bout a month ago put on by Steve Gottwalt, SCSU Economics Department chairman King Banaian said that raising taxes the highest income tax bracket by 1 percentage point would yield the state $300,000,000. While that's a pretty big number, $6,300,000,000 is a much bigger number.
Raising the marginal tax rate 1 percentage point on 'the rich' gains you 5 percent of the amount you'd need to eliminate the deficit.
Comment 3 by Fred at 20-Mar-09 07:15 PM
Why should anyone be surprised with this kind of budget proposal. The DFL has never seen a tax they didn't like. Tax the rich, you say? Rich is anyone in Minnesota that has any kind of earned income. I sure hope none of this sees the light of day and I hope the Republicans in the House don't drink the cool-aid again, like they did last year.
Obama's Legacy Written: Trillion Dollar Deficits
According to this AP article , President Obama's legacy might well have already been written. It looks like we'll experience trillion dollar deficits for the next decade:
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.If the CBO's numbers are accurate, President Obama will likely become the first president to run trillion dollar deficits during his entire time in office. Unfortunately, that's only the tip of a Titanic-sinking sized iceberg. Rep. Michele Bachmann rightly points out in this Pi-Press op-ed that already-out-of-control spending is accelerating:
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
Washington is on a dangerous trend of excessive spending. In the past two months, Congress has already spent over $1.5 trillion of the American taxpayer's money, and the release of President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget is a good indicator that change is not imminent.President Obama's middle class tax increases will hurt alot of people at a time when they're already hurting. Trillion dollar deficits will cause another tax increase in the form of high inflation. Economists know that high inflation spikes are silent tax increases.
During President Obama's recent address to Congress, he promised the American taxpayers he would not raise taxes "one dime" on people making under $250,000. However, he has proposed new taxes that will impact every American. For instance, a cap on itemized deductions for mortgage interest, a limit on charitable donation deductions and a new tax on carbon emissions are just three examples of what Americans can soon expect.
We learned during the 2004 election that Herbert Hoover's administration was the last administration to have lost jobs. President Obama is in danger of repeating the Hoover administration's 'accomplishment'.
Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued this statement on the revised numbers:
"The CBO re-estimate confirms what Republicans have said all along: the President's budget spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. Our nation cannot sustain this level of spending and debt. Enacting the President's budget will only continue to sow the seeds of financial ruin at the expense of our children and grandchildren.Rep. Pence is right on. We can't, nor should we want to, maintain the irresponsible out-of-control spending that the House Democratic majority started with the stimulus bill.
For weeks the President has used the current economic crisis to promote billions of dollars in wasteful spending. But he then proposed a budget based on unrealistic assumptions to help justify even more government spending.
"Congress has a moral obligation to turn this ship around and put our nation back on a course of fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. In the coming weeks, Republicans will unveil an alternative budget plan that will do just that, and that serves the best interests of the American people. It is my hope that the President will work with Republicans to craft a bipartisan budget that puts our nation's hard-working taxpayers and the family budget first."
The silver lining to this news is that it's almost certain that there won't be support for universal health care, the mortgage bailout or another less-than-stimulating stimulus bill .
I said long before the 11th Congress got started that the Democrats would overreach . That wasn't the question. The only question was how badly they'd overreach. I'll admit that the amount by which they've overreached surprised me.
The only question remaining is whether their overreach will hurt the Democrats in the 2010 elections or if it'll hurt them alot in 2010. At this point, their overreach has been so noticed that people are starting to think that the Democratic Party doesn't have any appreciation for the notion of fiscal restraint. If that image solidifies over the next 3-6 months, the Democrats will face a stiff headwind in 2010.
Couple that with Geithner's ineptitude and the corruption of John Murtha, Christopher Dodd and all of the Obama appointees to cabinet positions that had tax troubles and it won't be difficult to hang the culture of corruption title on Democrats.
What do you call a political party that is corrupt but doesn't exercise fiscal restraint? In 2006, they were known as Republicans. They might be called Democrats in 2010.Technorati: Economy , Deficits , Budgets , Cap And TRade , Tax Increases , Recession , President Obama , Tim Geithner , Christopher Dodd , John Murtha , Corruption , Election 2010
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:09 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 21-Mar-09 01:13 PM
Gosh, I hope Obama's legacy is written based on his approach to the budget.
Obama's budget ( check out the title : "New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise" so maybe it isn't really a budget ) is different from past budgets -- includes : spending on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, physician reimbursements under Medicare, costs associated with natural disasters, and lost revenues from changes in the alternative minimum tax. , those were items that previously were handled as Supplemental expenditures , a very sloppy and totally inappropriate way to run a business much less a country.
And worst yet, Obama has the audacity to recognize that to Renew America's Promise, health care must be addressed , he could just ignore this (like done with Medicare) but instead he has included $630 billion (over ten years) funding for this. And Obama also recognizes the impact to our veterans by increasing veterans' affairs budget for healthcare funding, mental health services, and programs for homeless vets.
There should be a strong debate ... on where to spend the monies , but not on Obama's "New Era of Responsibility" . It's the right -- shall I say, fiscally responsible ; approach.
I, for one, do not want any politician thinking about 2010 elections despite your concerns that overreach will hurt the Democrats in the 2010 elections or if it'll hurt them alot in 2010.
Although I see that the Bachmann For Congress held a luncheon last week with suggested donations of $2000 for PAC to be co-hosts, so we know that she should be running again.
So if the budget needs to be cut, how about a strong look at the military weaponry component that perpetually has proven to be prone to cost overruns and includes funding for outdated equipment , or the NASA portion as maybe as Bush's trip to Mars should be put off until the national debt is under control.
Then again, maybe taxes have to be raised. Obama's plan includes retaining 80% of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire 2010 , then again, isn't that part of the problem , Bush cut taxes instead of properly paying for Iraq and Medicare prescription drugs.
Regarding Bachmann's concerns regarding a cap on itemized deductions for mortgage interest, that is an issue that should be discussed. Bush's President's Advisory Committee on Tax Reform recommended lowering the cap to somewhere between $277,000 and $412,000. Others (prodominately Republicans) have favored a FlatTax which would eliminate the home mortgage deduction entirely. This is not a new issue , but one that clearly favors high income taxpayers. Wealthy households are most likely to own homes and to itemize deductions. This may lead wealthy homeowners to buy bigger houses than they would without the tax breaks. In some ways, this is part of the overall housing problem where there are now homes with mortgages greater than the current assessed value (just ask Norm Coleman). 62 percent of households with incomes above $200,000 receive a mortgage interest tax break, averaging $7,219. In contrast, only 3.5 percent of households with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 receive any subsidy, averaging $317 ... and half of all homeowners do not claim deductions at all ... such is the sin for paying off your mortgage. My view is that Obama has put the issue on the table for discussion ... something that Bush never did.
The charitable contributions deduction rules have been changed before. A fair question that everyone should ask, would this change in tax deductibility affect my giving ? I suspect that the majority would say no. The Sch. A deduction charitable contribution deduction must be factored in with other deductions to see if the Standard is better. Let's ignore whether people "cheat" when claiming this deduction and remember that certain high income earners use this deduction to affect their tax bill. Have you ever noticed how many high profile athletes have foundations ... we hope they do this out of a good heart, but in reality, it allows them to control the monies. Another example is that charitable gifts of stock allow the donors to take a personal income tax deduction for the market value of the shares, while also nullifying the capital gains tax that would be due if the shares were sold. Bachmann is wrong if she thinks most of us will be affected by this ... but the US Treasury could gain some much needed monies.
The implications of Cap and Trade is too undefined at this time. With Coleman not in the Senate and Judd Gregg backing away, this will need a lot more supporters than the previous McCain-Lieberman legislation had since this will not be a partyline vote but one based on how each state will be impacted. Bachmann's concerns may be more alarmist than warranted.
Now, let's have a good debate ... about what to cut ... and how to pay for it. I'm a fiscal conservative and would much rather have a Real Budget discussion than how Bush and Congress operated over the past eight years.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Mar-09 07:25 AM
Given what Bush and Reagan did, running up huge record-setting deficits, GOP bleating about deficits appears disingenuous.
Gary, where were your criticisms when W was doing what you now say is wrong?
