“After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan . . . government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.”
by Paul Sperry
While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise.
He might want to consult their data for the truth.
Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: “What I’m not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can’t afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.”
During the White House press conference, he added, “If we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way.” Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don’t want to go back to Republican policies that “cost” the Treasury revenues and “blew up the deficit,” as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.
The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they’re driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire. Continue reading
by George Landrith
With a long history of federal overspending and the recent explosion of more federal debt, it is obvious that the federal budget must be cut back to a reasonable size. We need an intervention. But the Budget Control Act — which would force an “automatic sequester” of $500 billion in across-the-board defense spending cuts over the next decade, in addition to the $487 billion in defense cuts already scheduled — is not a good solution to our spending crisis. Continue reading
“After the phony cliff, we face the terrifying one.”
by Conrad Black
Last week, Fareed Zakaria and Charles Krauthammer appeared in Toronto (where I live much of the time), and while I did not go to their main debate, I went to a tasting of it at a luncheon. There was, I regret to write, as a longstanding friend of both of them, a surreal aspect to the exchange. After the usual compliments one exchanges (as I know from my time on that circuit), they embarked on a dialogue of the deaf, and a mutual flight, joined at the wingtip like Jurassic pterodactyls, soaring above the mighty chasm of American fiscal problems below. The otherworldly discussion of whether the Republican leaders in Congress will reach an agreement with the president about the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts of a decade ago vastly overshadowed the issue of reinserting spontaneous growth into the U.S. economy and grappling with the deficit at last. Continue reading
With the budget and fiscal crisis facing the United States and difficult economic times surely ahead for the foreseeable future, President Barack Obama has vociferously argued that Republicans must agree to tax increases. He argues for what he terms are modest tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that are equal to the tax rates during President Bill Clinton’s time in office. Why is Obama only interested in Clinton era tax rates, but not Clinton era federal spending rates? Continue reading
by George Landrith
President Barack Obama repeatedly chided Mitt Romney’s budget plan during the presidential campaign on at least two grounds: (1) it lacked detail, and (2) the math didn’t add up. Perhaps, we should use these two standards to see how Barack Obama’s plan stacks up. There is more than a little irony in Barack Obama criticizing others for not providing details or for their math not adding up. Obama has always been short on details and his math has almost never passed even the straight face test, much less actually adding up.
Nonetheless, let’s apply these two standards — (1) are there sufficient details? and (2) does the math add up? — to evaluate Barack Obama’s proposals for solving the so-called fiscal cliff. Continue reading
“This whole controversy: Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?”
by Scott L. Vanatter
Ronald Reagan is well known for his multi-decade devotion America’s purpose and promise. By returning to these lofty ideas America would fulfill its destiny.
His July 27, 1981 speech was President Reagan’s main public effort to educate the nation on the benefits of a bipartisan bill to cut taxes and spending. He taught America, once again, how and why cutting taxes and spending (cutting the rate of growth of government spending) would make for a stronger economy — and help restore America’s latent greatness.
It was Reagan’s habit to speak on large themes. In this particular case he used a two-letter word to illustrate one of the largest of political themes. He stated that the people in electing him wanted to make a change from ‘by’ to ‘of.’ Succinctly put, “It doesn’t sound like much, but it sure can make a difference changing by government,’ ‘control by government’ to ‘control of government.’” Continue reading
After a long, tough campaign, Barack Obama won reelection by a slim 51% to 49%. Now Obama is claiming a broad mandate to increasing taxes and demands that Congress yield to his view that there must be a higher tax burden for the wealthiest Americans.
Obama is correct that he made tax increases an issue during his reelection campaign. But so did the Congressmen who comprise the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. GOP Congressmen won reelection opposing tax rate increases on any Americans. Continue reading
“Taxation is forced labor; and if it goes beyond reasonable bounds, it is a yoke of oppression.”
by Scott L. Vanatter
Nearing the end of his presidency, Ronald Reagan laid out a final challenge to the nation, its leaders and citizens. He sought to a.) summarize the principles which made possible his record economic growth, and b.) lay out a clear path to secure economic growth into the future.
The president spoke at an Independence Day celebration at the Jefferson Memorial at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event on July 3, 1987. Continue reading
Let’s fact check President Barack Obama’s debate statements. He spent a lot of time since the first debate and during the second debate complaining that what Gov. Mitt Romney said wasn’t true. Yet, the facts do not support Obama’s claims. Here is the proof on Obama’s poor record on truthfulness during the second debate:
The attack in Libya — a terrorist attack? Or a spontaneous protest that got out of hand because of an offensive internet video?
On the issue of Libya, Obama said, that the day after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, “I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
Romney challenged Obama’s characterization that he had identified the Benghazi attack as terrorism on day one. Obama doubled down. Just as Romney was about the snare Obama in his lie, the the moderator erroneously sided with Obama and claimed that he had identified the attack as terrorism. After the debate, the moderator admitted that she was wrong and that Romney was correct. But let’s not rely on her retraction and correction, let’s go straight to the record. Continue reading
By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.
Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his Vice President’s mistakes. Continue reading
by Victor Davis Hanson
The Obama narrative is that he inherited the worst mess in memory and has been stymied ever since by a partisan Congress — while everything from new ATM technology to the Japanese tsunami conspired against him. But how true are those claims?
Barack Obama entered office with an approval rating of over 70 percent. John McCain’s campaign had been anemic and almost at times seemed as if it was designed to lose nobly to the nation’s first African-American presidential nominee. Continue reading
by Peter Morici
This election should be about the economy — the recovery is too slow and Americans are hurting. The performances of President Obama and Vice President Biden in the debates on the campaign trail tell us why. Both say endlessly that they inherited a huge mess, but Americans have seen challenges like these before — and with better leaders, they licked those more quickly.
When Mr. Obama took office, financial markets were in turmoil. Unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009. Continue reading
by Scott L. Vanatter
What kind of economy did Obama inherit? Brit Hume put it this way:
“A central premise of the Obama campaign is that he inherited an economy in free fall, pulled it back from the brink and set it on the right path. But consider this. The economy fell into recession more than a year before Mr. Obama took office. By the time he was inaugurated the worst of it was over, the economy was still shrinking, but the steepest decline had occurred in the final quarter of the year 2008. It shrank less in the first quarter of 2009 and by June of ‘09 it began to grow again marking the official end of the recession. Mind you, this occurred before almost any of the massive stimulus spending Mr. Obama has signed into law had taken affect. ‘Yes,’ you might say, but in terms of job losses the worst was still to come when Mr. Obama came in.’ But that’s not so either. More than half the 8.7 million jobs lost as a result of the recession had been lost by inauguration day.”
How weak is Obama’s economic recovery? Continue reading
Post Debate Analysis: Biden was smug, arrogant, condescending, over-bearing and over-aggressive. I’ve never seen a debate where one person was so disrespectful and even contemptuous of his counterpart. He surpassed Al Gore’s famous boorish debate behavior. He is in danger of undercutting himself. That may play well for his base who were depressed after Obama’s almost comatose debate last week. But independents and women will find the rudeness and condescending smirking and laughing annoying. Even at the end when Ryan was thanking the moderator, the audience and Joe Biden for a good debate, Biden was smirking and mugging. That will come back to hurt him. And it shows the true political character of Joe Biden — a pretentious, smirking, condescending lightweight. Continue reading
Big Bird is a billionaire. A Warren Buffett, Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs billionaire, which is pretty impressive considering that he is not a real person but rather a giant, yellow bird (which is a kind of terrifying concept if you actually think about it for a second.)
Advocates for continued federal funding of the Public Broadcasting Service got their undies in a twist Wednesday night when GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that he would cut funding to the beloved TV station to reduce the national deficit. Continue reading