A&P on Brink of Chapter 11

from WSJ.com: Economy

A&P on Brink of Chapter 11: "Grocery-store chain A&P is preparing to file for bankruptcy-court protection as soon at this weekend."

UN Global Warming Talks Close In On Aid Agreement

from BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice

UN Global Warming Talks Close In On Aid Agreement: "Envoys at United Nations global warming talks are closing in on an agreement to protect forests, stimulate aid to developing nations and establish a body to advise countries on adapting to higher temperatures."

Clinton Takes Charge; Obama Takes a Powder

from Michelle Malkin by Doug Powers

Clinton Takes Charge; Obama Takes a Powder: "

**Written by Doug Powers

President Obama met with Bill Clinton today. Clinton agreed to publicly back Obama on the tax/unemployment extension agreement with Republicans. Obama then brought Slick out before a hastily assembled press corps, and then left Clinton alone with them to work his Bubba magic:

In terms of Washington political drama, Friday was an instant classic.

President Obama ushered former President Bill Clinton to the White House briefing room late Friday for an impromptu press session, then abruptly left the wonky and winsome Arkansan at the podium by himself to defend the Obama administration’s tax deal.

“I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I’m going to take off,” Obama said.

Clinton chuckled, joking, “I don’t want to make her mad. Please go,” and then quickly turned back to the microphone and began taking questions from the White House press corps, which had been given no advance notice of the two presidents’ trip to the briefing room.

The press corps will now report back to Obama’s very disenchanted left-wing base and the rest of those who are contributing to Obama’s perpetually foundering poll numbers of how it reminded everybody in the room of a happier, more competent time — and somebody on Team Obama thought this was good idea?

A few minutes in, President Obama excused himself because he had to “get to a Christmas party.” Clinton barely batted an eye while continuing to take questions for another half-hour under the “White House” backdrop, leaving onlookers with a palpable “let the adults take over now, Barry” feeling:

After the 2008 media deification of Barack Obama, that was like watching somebody who was billed as Zeus getting into a fight and responding by hiding behind his dad.

And what’s with leaving Clinton alone with a press corps increasingly disenchanted with Hope & Change? A bigger mistake hasn’t been made since Eddie Fisher agreed to let Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton share the same makeup trailer on the set of Cleopatra.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

"

Video: Democrats hurl f-bombs at Obama. Are they racist now?

from theblogprof by The blogprof

Video: Democrats hurl f-bombs at Obama. Are they racist now?: "Remember when the tea party was labeled as racist for opposing the Obama agenda? What about Democrats not only opposing Obama's so-called compromise on keeping tax rates at present levels but hurling f-bombs at him? Racist? Resisting his compromise because of the color of his skin? Not so much:

(via NewsBusters via memeorandum) When conservatives resist, it's racism. When liberals resist, they're speaking their conscience.

UPDATE: Which Democrat Said ‘F**k the President’?

"

Saudi Media Still Believes Obama Is a Muslim

from Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

Saudi Media Still Believes Obama Is a Muslim: "

The bow to the Sunni King didn’t help.



(Right Soup)

Evidently, the Saudis still believe Obama is a Muslim.

The leading Saudi papers reported as fact a recent joke made by humorist Andy Borowitz’s that Obama will admit to Congress that he is a Muslim.

AFP reported, via ROP:

When a US satirist joked that President Barack Obama will admit to Congress that he is Muslim in his latest compromise with Republicans, Saudi media took it seriously.

On Friday the online version of Al-Hayat newspaper and the prominent news website Sabq.org both reported straightforwardly humourist Andy Borowitz’s column that began:

“In his latest effort to find common ground with Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama said today that he was willing to agree that he is a Muslim.

“In agreeing that he is a Muslim, Mr. Obama is sending a clear signal that he is trying to find consensus,” Borowitz said in the column posted on the Huffington Post and The Borowitz Report websites this week.

Both Al-Hayat, one of the Middle East’s most influential newspapers, and Sabq, believed to be controlled by the Saudi interior ministry, apparently missed the joke.

“Obama doesn’t mind coming out as a Muslim if that will satisfy the Republicans,” the Al-Hayat headline said.

“Obama: ‘I’m ready to announce that I am a Muslim,’” led Sabq.

"

Socialism for Dummies

from New Zeal: Security Risk? More Evidence of Mary Jo Kilroy's ... by Trevor Loudon

Socialism for Dummies: "An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, 'OK,

we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan.'

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

Thanks to Kevin

"

Morning Bell: There is No Tax Deal

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Conn Carroll

Morning Bell: There is No Tax Deal: "

On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden reportedly told House Democrats that the tax deal cut with Republicans was a “take it or leave it” proposition that could not be changed. But by last night, after fierce opposition from his leftist base, President Barack Obama was singing a different tune, telling NPR: “My sense is there are going to be discussions between both House and Senate leadership about all the final elements of the package. Keep in mind we didn’t actually write a bill.”

Well now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) has submitted a bill, and it is clear that negotiations are still very much open … at least for the left. Politico reports that in order to buy the votes of Senators Maria Cantwell (D–WA) and Barbara Boxer (D–CA), Reid added cash subsidies for wind and solar corporations that were originally part of Obama’s first failed stimulus. And Senator Tom Harkin (D–IA) was also able to trade his vote for more ethanol subsidies. Other “sweeteners” added to buy leftist Senate votes include subsidies for energy-efficient appliances and mass-transit benefits for employees.

And the legislation can only get worse. Yesterday House Democrats voted to oppose the Obama tax deal, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) telling Politico: “In the caucus today, House Democrats supported a resolution to reject the Senate Republican tax provisions as currently written. We will continue discussions with the president and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote.” And by “improve the proposal,” Speaker Pelosi can only mean higher taxes and higher spending.

The deal originally cut by Republicans had some good economic policy in it, but it also had a lot of harmful provisions. The temporary two-year nature of the arrangement did not provide the long-term certainty that businesses need to make long-term investment plans that create substantial economic growth and jobs. Allowing the death tax to return, even at a lower rate, did not give small businesses the relief that a permanent repeal would provide. Finally, the original deal provided a costly $57 billion 13-month extension of unemployment benefits that was not paid for. This extraneous spending should have been stripped out of what should be a clean tax bill; instead, the left is only adding more spending and subsidies into it.

This fall, President Obama campaigned around the country promising to raise taxes on America’s job creators. By contrast, conservatives across the country campaigned on promises not to allow the left to raise taxes on anyone on January 1st. The American people chose the conservative position in what even President Obama himself described as a “shellacking.” The tax bill introduced by Reid is not what conservatives promised they would fight for during the elections. And the legislation will only get worse as more and more liberal votes are bought off with more and more deficit spending. Taxes should not be raised on the American people. Congress and the President would do well by the American people to jettison all the other side issues from this debate and focus first and foremost on preventing tax hikes.

Quick Hits:

• Instead of using it to pay down the debt, the Obama administration is taking unspent stimulus funds from failed high speed rail projects and giving it to bankrupt states like New York and California.


• Responding to reports that Republicans were caving on their earmark ban, Majority Whip to be Eric Cantor (R-VA) tweeted yesterday: “There will be no earmarks in the 112th Congress. Period.”


• Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled his DREAM Act before a vote yesterday, but promised a vote on the House version of amnesty before the end of the year.


• U.K. students protesting tuition fee increases attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall yesterday.


• Roger Helmer Conservative Party Member of the European Parliament reports from the UN’s Cancun Climate Conference.

"

Banned: New Fast Food Restaurants in South L.A.

from The Blaze - Stories by Jonathon M. Seidl

Banned: New Fast Food Restaurants in South L.A.: "

The Los Angeles City Council has banned new stand-alone fast food restaurants in South L.A., citing rising health concerns and the need for more food choices in the area.

“This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options,” councilmember Jan Perry told KABC in a seemingly contradictory statement.

KABC reports:

New stand-alone fast food restaurants have been banned from setting up shop in South Los Angeles, due to rising health concerns by the city council.

How many fast food eateries does one area really need? The Los Angeles City Council thinks South Los Angeles and South East Los Angeles need new choices as these regions face an over-concentration of such restaurants.

“This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options,” said councilmember Jan Perry.

Perry’s new plan bans new so-called “stand alone” fast food restaurants opening within half a mile of existing restaurants.

Such stand-alone establishments are on their own property, but those same restaurants are OK if they’re a part of a strip mall, according to the new rules.

“Give a grocery store and a housing combination a chance to come in,” Perry said.

The city says around 72 percent of restaurants in South L.A. are fast food establishments, which is much higher than West L.A. and countywide averages which range in the 40s.

"

Obama Adviser to Maddow: They‘re ’Obama Tax Cuts’ Not Bush Tax Cuts

from The Blaze - Stories by Jonathon M. Seidl

Obama Adviser to Maddow: They‘re ’Obama Tax Cuts’ Not Bush Tax Cuts: "

Obama’s chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee wants you to remember that Obama cut taxes. In fact, he even went as far as to scold Rachel Maddow for calling them “Bush tax cuts” on her show last night:

It seems odd that Goolsbee would try to assuage Maddow and Democrats’ anger by claiming that many of the Bush-era tax cuts are actually Obama tax cuts. That doesn’t seem like a good move. Additionally, the claim is debatable, and only technically true at best.

Goolsbee seems to be referring to tax cuts that went into effect this year as part of the stimulus package. Those cuts were part of a campaign promise by Obama to “cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.” PolitiFact looks into that claim:

“We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses,” Obama said. “We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.”

Democrats applauded, while Republicans were silent for the most part. In one of the unscripted moments of the night, Obama looked at the Republican side of the room, smiled and said, “I thought I’d get some applause on that one.”

Here, we wanted to check Obama’s statement that he cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.

The key word in his statement is “working.” Obama’s claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.

The tax cut was part of Obama’s campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama’s campaign promises for fulfillment.

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama’s tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama’s plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn’t get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut. [Emphasis added]

But if you look back at the campaign promise, it wasn’t that the president would cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, it was 95 percent of all Americans. The American Spectator covered the story back in 2008:

“We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans,” Barack Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It’s a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed “Obama’s 95% Illusion,” noting that more than a third of Americans don’t pay any income taxes, and that what Obama’s plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as “tax cuts.” His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes — as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to “spread the wealth around.”

So when Plouffe reiterated the 95 percent claim, I asked him a simple question aimed at clarifying whether Obama’s tax plan was about cutting rates, or merely handing out government checks. “What rates would actually go down”? I asked.

“Middle class people are going to see, systemically, their taxes reduced, and small businesses,” Plouffe responded.

“But what rate would go down for lower-income Americans?” I persisted, seeking more information.

“We’ll have to get you the exact details on that,” Obama’s campaign manager told me.

I followed up, recapping the claim he had just made moments ago: “Well, you said that there’s going to be a tax cut on 95 percent, so what rate would go down?”

He replied, “I’ll have to get you the exact rate differential.”

And to add insult to injury, the Associated Press fact-checked this spring the administration’s claim that Obamacare would cut taxes for businesses. That got hit with the old “bait and switch” tag:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldn’t get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. “It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch,” he said.

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its “broad eligibility” for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffman’s workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didn’t qualify.

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

It’s an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to help—people with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the law’s complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.

Maybe Goolsbee shouldn’t be so proud of those “Obama tax cuts.”

(H/T: Business Insider)

"

Leno Spoofs Obama’s Angry Press Conference

from The Blaze - Stories by Jonathon M. Seidl

Leno Spoofs Obama’s Angry Press Conference: "

The anger during President’s Wednesday press conference was so noticeable that not even Jay Leno could go without mocking it:

Leno also spoofed an earlier press conference:

"

FAA Loses Track of 119,000 Aircraft

from The Blaze - Stories by Jonathon M. Seidl

FAA Loses Track of 119,000 Aircraft: "

NEW YORK (AP) — The Federal Aviation Administration is missing key information on who owns one-third of the 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. – a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers.

The records are in such disarray that the FAA says it is worried that criminals could buy planes without the government’s knowledge, or use the registration numbers of other aircraft to evade new computer systems designed to track suspicious flights. It has ordered all aircraft owners to re-register their planes in an effort to clean up its files.

About 119,000 of the aircraft on the U.S. registry have “questionable registration” because of missing forms, invalid addresses, unreported sales or other paperwork problems, according to the FAA. In many cases, the FAA cannot say who owns a plane or even whether it is still flying or has been junked.

Already there have been cases of drug traffickers using phony U.S. registration numbers, as well as instances of mistaken identity in which police raided the wrong plane because of faulty record-keeping.

Next year, the FAA will begin canceling the registration certificates of all 357,000 aircraft and require owners to register anew, a move that is causing grumbling among airlines, banks and leasing companies. Notices went out to the first batch of aircraft owners last month.

“We have identified some potential risk areas, but I think we’re trying to eliminate as much risk as possible through the re-registration process,” said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown.

The FAA says security isn’t the only reason it needs an up-to-date registry. Regulators use it to contact owners about safety problems, states rely on it to charge sales tax and some airports employ it to bill for landing fees. Also, rescuers use the database to track down planes that are missing.

But the FAA has emphasized the security and law enforcement angle as the new measure has moved through the rule-making process over the past two years. The agency says the paperwork gap is becoming a bigger problem as authorities increasingly rely on computers to tighten aviation security in the wake of 9/11 and other terrorist plots.

There have already been cases of criminals using U.S. registration numbers, also known as N-numbers or tail numbers, to disguise their airplanes. In 2008, Venezuela authorities seized a twin-engine plane with the registration number N395CA on the fuselage and more than 1,500 pounds of cocaine on board.

Soon afterward, airplane owner Steven Lathrop of Ellensburg, Wash., received a call from a reporter.

“He sort of started the conversation with, `Do you know where your airplane is? … Your airplane’s in a jungle in South America,’” Lathrop said.

Lathrop’s Piper Cheyenne II XL was locked safely in its hangar at the Ellensburg airport. The smugglers had apparently chosen his tail number because the model was similar to their plane.

“Anybody with a roll of duct tape can put any number they want on an airplane,” Lathrop said.

Federal law requires all U.S. aircraft owners to register their planes with the FAA and carry the registration certificate on board. The registration number – all U.S. registrations start with the letter N – is painted on the fuselage or tail. The numbers are used on flight plan forms and by air traffic controllers to communicate with aircraft in flight.

The amount of missing or invalid paperwork has been building for decades, the FAA says. Up to now, owners had to register their planes only once, at the time of purchase. The FAA sent out notices every three years asking owners to update their contact information if needed, but there was no punishment for not doing so. As of 2008, there were 343,000 airplanes on the registry. By 2010, the number had risen to 357,000.

The U.S. registry includes 16,000 aircraft that were sold but never updated with the names of the new owners, and more than 14,000 aircraft that have had their registrations revoked but may still be flying because the FAA has not canceled their N-numbers. Other registrations are outdated because the owners have died or the planes were totaled in crashes. Some planes are simply derelicts corroding in barns or junkyards.

As a result, there is a “large pool” of N-numbers “that can facilitate drug, terrorist or other illegal activities,” the FAA warned in a 2007 report.

The problem became more acute after the government launched a new computer system for tracking flights called the Automatic Detection and Processing Terminal, or ADAPT, the FAA says. The system combines dozens of databases, from a list of stolen aircraft to the names of diplomats. It flags suspicious flights in red on a map.

Unreliable data in the system has led to cases of mistaken identity.

Pilot Pierre Redmond said his Cirrus was searched by Customs and Border Protection agents in fatigues and bulletproof vests last year in Ramona, Calif. They told him his tail number had been confused with that of a wanted plane in Florida.

In August, police in Santa Barbara, Calif., detained flight instructors John and Martha King at gunpoint after federal authorities mistook their Cessna for a plane that was stolen in 2002. The Kings are famous in aviation because they produce and star in a popular series of test-preparation videos for pilots.

The error in the Kings’ case was eventually traced to a law-enforcement database that is cross-referenced with the FAA’s registry, not to the registry itself. But Brown of the FAA called it an example of the real-world consequences of bad recordkeeping.

“It’s very, very scary,” Martha King said. “If this keeps happening to people, somebody’s going to get shot.”

To update the FAA registry, the agency will cancel all aircraft registrations over the next three years. Owners will have three months to re-register. In addition, the FAA will do away with its one-time registration certificate and adopt one that has to be replaced every three years. Those who fail to re-register will lose their certificate, and the plane must be grounded.

“We’re trying to model it more closely on some of the programs that are in effect for automobiles,” Brown said. “With the more regular renewal process, you will capture bad data much more frequently.”

Airlines, leasing companies, charter operators and banks agree there is a problem but have complained about having to repeatedly re-register planes.

The Air Transport Association of America, which represents airlines, warned in 2008 that the measure “had the potential to wreak havoc on the commercial air transportation system.” On Tuesday, ATA spokesman David Castelveter said airlines are still gauging the potential effect of the new rule.

Other groups noted that most of the aircraft with paperwork problems are smaller planes that pose little terrorist threat.

“I don‘t think we’re going to see a tremendous security benefit as a result of this,” said Doug Carr, a vice president of the National Business Aviation Association.

Banks and finance companies that hold loans used to buy planes will be among those hardest hit, said David Warner, general counsel for the National Aircraft Finance Association. A bank’s claim to an aircraft is often tied to the FAA registration, so lenders are having to hire more staff and buy computer systems to track hundreds of aircraft registrations, Warner said.

He said the FAA has exaggerated the danger.

“The threat of people wanting to do us harm is very real, but the focus on re-registration or stale registration data on aircraft is not where the risk is likely to be,” Warner said.

—

Associated Press writer Joan Lowy in Washington contributed to this report.

"

Mayor Bloomberg Imposes a Victim Tax on New Yorkers

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Rory Cooper

Mayor Bloomberg Imposes a Victim Tax on New Yorkers: "

Starting next summer, New Yorkers will get hit with a tax that is hard to believe even in the already overly-taxed metropolis of Manhattan. Firefighters will begin charging accident victims for their emergency services to the tune of hundreds of dollars, even if the victim was not at fault.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (I) newest tax would charge residents $490 for a car fire or accident with injury, $415 for a car fire without injury and $365 for any vehicle accident without injury. (New Yorkers must be relieved to know that they get $50 discount for not being injured!)

Beyond the economic absurdity, it is very obvious why this tax is such a bad deal. It discourages victims from reporting accidents, and even fires, and if reported, discourages victims from acknowledging injuries which may be life-threatening.

Some call it the “Crash Tax” but that unfairly presents the “event” itself as being taxed, as opposed to the victim. Words and integrity matter, and Mayor Bloomberg should be honest about who is paying the bill for the city’s fiscal incompetence.

Emergency services are a basic function of governance. The case could be made that those who drive recklessly or are repeatedly cited offenders could be deterred by a fee of some sort or increased citation fines. But this across-the-board tax is not designed for public safety, but rather to pay for out-of-control government spending.

Mayor Bloomberg has long proven himself to be a cheerleader for tax hikes and big-government interventions. Earlier this year, Bloomberg proposed taxing sugar drinks a penny an ounce since the Mayor takes issue with any city resident enjoying a Coca-Cola.

But his latest Victim Tax is a new low. It’s hard to contemplate how the FDNY will collect their new taxes. Will brave firefighters now have to carry around a credit card machine? Will the heroes of September 11 be forced to consider someone’s economic viability before responding to an emergency? Firefighters should not be put in this position, nor should their jobs be made harder by discouraging prompt and smart calls of distress.

New York City residents already hand over more than half of their paycheck to Empire State tax collectors for combined federal, state and city taxes. Any visitor to Manhattan knows the cost of the city’s exorbitant hotel taxes that discourage tourism. You also have the highest-in-the-nation cigarette tax, the banking corporation tax, the commercial motor vehicle tax, the commercial rent tax, the cell phone tax, the general corporation tax, the horse race admissions tax, the mortgage recording tax, the taxicab license tax, utility taxes, retail taxes and so on.

Mayor Bloomberg is facing a $4.5 billion budget deficit next year. This fiscal irresponsibility should not be put on the backs of those needing medical attention from heroic first responders.

"

The Obama Stimulus Super Train to Nowhere

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Conn Carroll

The Obama Stimulus Super Train to Nowhere: "

Obama Replaces Costly High-Speed Rail Plan With High-Speed Bus Plan

Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood rescinded nearly $1.2 billion in stimulus funds from Wisconsin and Ohio after the states’ respective newly-elected governors, Scott Walker and John Kasich respectively, said they would follow through on their campaign promise not to waste their states’ money on high speed rail. So what does the Obama administration plan to do with this $1.2 billion? Pay for unemployment benefits? Balance the budget? Pay down the debt? No, of course not. They are going to spend it of course.

Where? On other worthless projects like the Super Train to Nowhere in California. After the California High Speed Rail Authority approved construction for the first 65 mile leg of California’s project, The Los Angeles Times reported:

Costing at least $4.15 billion, the segment would run from the tiny town of Borden to Corcoran, an area hit so hard by the recession and agriculture declines that it has been dubbed the New Appalachia. Stations would be built in Fresno and Hanford.

Included in the plan are tracks, station platforms, bridges and viaducts, which would elevate the line through urban areas. The initial section, however, would not be equipped with maintenance facilities, locomotives, passenger cars or an electrical system necessary to power high-speed trains.

Critics of the initial segment selection, including Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Merced), have dubbed it a “train to nowhere.”

$4.15 billion. For just 65 miles of track. That will not even be able to support actual high speed rail. Between a town that is so small the U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t even keep official population estimates (Borden) and another that is best known as the home of Charles Manson. No wonder even Democrats are calling California’s super train a “train to nowhere.”

And now McClatchy is reporting that the Obama administration is going to give California another $624 million to waste on this boondoggle. How much track will that $624 million buy? Not much. The first 65 mile of track already used up virtually all of Obama’s $2 billion in stimulus funds. The project’s full phase is supposed to extend 500 miles and cost at least $43 billion at a bare minimum.

“No other state is as ready, as able, or as determined to develop a high-speed rail system in the near future,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told McClatchy. If the Californai project is the Super Train’s best hope, the Obama switch to Super Busses can’t be far away.

"

Historical Precedent: Treaties and Lame Duck Sessions

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Anna Leutheuser

Historical Precedent: Treaties and Lame Duck Sessions: "

As newly-elected members of the Senate pointed out in a letter to Majority Leader Reid: “no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame duck session.” Let’s go further: Has any major bilateral U.S. treaty ever been ratified during a lame duck session?

The 20^th Amendment (ratified in 1933) established the current dates of Federal office terms, and consequently made possible the modern Congressional “lame duck” session. Since 1933, there have been a total of eighteen lame duck sessions, including the current one.

A study of every treaty ratified by the United States would, though desirable, take more time than is left in the lame duck session. So we assembled a list of 34 significant United States treaties from 1933 to the present from multiple sources (including the State Department). [For the list of treaties examined, see our Webmemo: Treaty Ratification During Lame Duck Sessions.]

We then cross-checked the Senate ratification dates with the specific dates of each lame duck session. Our findings confirmed the assertion already made (that no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame duck session) and went much further. Though some treaties may have been signed or entered into force during a lame duck session, we found no major treaty that has been ratified by the Senate during a lame-duck session.

Important legislation has in fact been passed during lame duck sessions (such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994), but it must be emphasized that these were not treaties, but executive agreements. While congressional approval is not required for executive agreements, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The requirement for a supermajority makes ratifying a treaty one of the most significant legislative acts a Senate can perform.

The recent midterm elections have placed even more pressure on the passage of the New START treaty during the lame duck session. The Administration will have much more trouble passing the treaty in the new Senate. However, to force action on the treaty at this time ignores those elected to replace many of the Senators who would vote to pass New START.

The ratification of New START by the lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by American citizens in their election of new senators, but also defy the precedent set by American foreign affairs since 1933.

Co-authored by Matthew Kuchem.

"

Side Effects: Number of Waivers Grows As a Result of Obamacare Authors’ Sloppy Handiwork

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Kathryn Nix

Side Effects: Number of Waivers Grows As a Result of Obamacare Authors’ Sloppy Handiwork: "

Jamie Dupree recently reported for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the number of waivers granted by the Obama Administration for a certain provision in the new health care law has now reached 222. That’s double the amount of just three weeks ago.

The waivers apply to a provision of Obamacare prohibiting annual limits on health plans. For employers that currently provide their low-wage employees with so called “mini-med” health plans—which offer a limited benefit capped at a certain dollar amount—that provision presents a clear problem.

Since the new law doesn’t specify whether those plans count as major medical insurance or supplemental coverage, businesses have applied for waivers to ensure that the benefit limits on their mini-med plans aren’t increased or eliminated. Otherwise, employers would no longer be allowed to offer those plans, resulting in more than a million low-wage workers losing their current coverage. Without the option of a mini-med plan, most of those workers would likely go uninsured until 2014, when they would then be able to obtain a health plan paid for by new federal subsidies through the new state health exchanges.

The need to grant waivers highlights the irresponsible and careless way with which Congress drafted Obamacare. Authors of the legislation should have foreseen the dilemma presented by mini-med plans—if they had, it would have been easy to address within the language of the bill itself.

Heritage health insurance expert Ed Haislmaier writes that lawmakers could have delayed the implementation date of this provision to coincide with the creation of the exchanges and the availability of subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans. Alternatively, Obamacare’s authors could have statutorily defined mini-med plans as supplemental coverage (as, for example, dental-only plans are), which would have clearly exempted them from the new regulations on insurance policies.

The intent of the health law was to increase the number of insured and the quality of available coverage, but instead its supporters created a lose-lose situation for some workers. Absent waivers from the new law’s requirements, the number of uninsured Americans would instead increase between now and 2014. This is the result of bad legislation, plain and simple.

The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exercise its discretionary authority by issuing waivers to compensate for the defects of Obamacare raises a larger governance issue. In order to preserve the “rule of law,” when executive branch agencies exercise discretionary authority they should do so by setting clear, easily understood rules that apply equally to all affected parties—not by putting in place a waiver process that allows unelected bureaucrats to arbitrarily decide on a case-by-case basis who gets favorable treatment. This policy undermines the rule of law and favors larger firms and better-connected individuals over small businesses and average Americans.

The incoming Congress should exercise its oversight responsibility by instructing HHS to replace this waiver program with new, clear regulations that any business, no matter how small, can refer to and easily determine whether it needs to change its plan. That sort of clarity, certainty, and uniformity is what is meant by the phrase “the rule of law.” Without it, the exercise of government power instead becomes arbitrary and inequitable, and it invites abuse and corruption.

"

Two Black Georgia Democrats Leave for GOP

from JammieWearingFool by JammieWearingFool


Two Black Georgia Democrats Leave for GOP: "It's going to be getting pretty difficult for Democrats to keep trotting out accusations of racism when they're own members are leaving to join the GOP.Two African-American Democrats on Thursday announced that they were joining the Republican Party.Hall County Commissioner Ashley Bell and former state executive committee member Andre Walker said the Democratic Party had grown too liberal and"

Rush: I now hope this tax deal fails!

from The Right Scoop by therightscoop

Rush: I now hope this tax deal fails!: "Rush has now firmly placed himself in the “This deal is bad for America and Republicans’ corner. Rush says this deal is nothing but a bailout for the economic mess the Democrats have put this country in, and if we sign onto this mess continuing we will get blamed for it. But more importantly, this [...]"

More people realizing Obama IS a socialist

from USACTION NEWS by Editor


More people realizing Obama IS a socialist: "

Obama is a socialist. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” A socialist is “one who advocates or practices socialism.” – Terry Jeff

Accuracy in Media was one of the earliest to recognize and expose the socialist/Marxist early connections of Obama with posts like Conservatives Behind the Curve on Obama, The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part One , The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part Two , and Exposing Un-American Activities.

A Townhall.com article by Terry Jeffrey the Editor-in-chief of CNSNews.com cries ‘Hannity’s Right: Obama Is a Socialist‘. Mr. Jeffrey points out that Hannity has been claiming that Obama is a socialist for some time.:

Obama, for example, practiced socialism with General Motors.

Last year, he directed the government to take 60 percent ownership of GM. Congress had not enacted legislation authorizing him to do this. He simply took money out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which had been appropriated to buy assets from financial institutions (not manufacturers), and bought the federal government an auto company.

Obama’s greatest socialist act so far, however, is the national health care system he signed into law last month.

Recent books expose like Stanley Kurtz Radical-in-Chief research the socialist past of Obam. Another book, Dupes by Paul Kengor, makes use of Obama’s communist mentor, Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis which was first exposed by New Zeal blogger Trevor Loudon.

Even the mainstream Forbes ran an article proclaiming Obama as a Fabian Socialist as early as the day before the 2008 election. Considering what has happened in the two years since this was written it is amazingly prophetic:

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change.

That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That’s Obama’s world.

He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.

It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.

And now the popular American Thinker site ran an article by Dupes author Paul Kengor relating the interview with Obama’s fellow Marxist from his days at’Moscow of southern California’ Occidental College:

Kengor: You said that Obama was introduced to you at Occidental College as a Marxist? Because you were one [a Marxist] at that point?

Drew: Yeah, that’s embarrassing for me, but I studied Marxist economics when I was at the University of Sussex in England. I had a junior-year scholarship over there and I did my senior honors thesis on Marxist economics when I was at Occidental College. And I also founded [the] Democratic Student Socialist Alliance, you know, under a different name, in 1976.

Kengor: John, now you had told me before, and I’m reading from my own book here, “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met him in the fall of 1980. [Quotation from above continued.]“

Drew: Yeah, that’s exactly right. Obama believed, at the time I met him — this was probably around Christmastime in 1980 — because, you know, I had flown out during Christmas break from Cornell, where I was doing my graduate work. Young Obama was looking forward to an imminent social revolution — literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a kind of socialist utopia in the United States. I mean, that’s how extreme his views were his sophomore year of college.

Kengor: And you would know this because you were a comrade, so to speak.

Drew: Yeah, I was a comrade, but I was kind of more what Michael Savage called the “Frankfurt School” of Marxism at the time. I was, you know, I felt like I was doing Obama a favor by pointing out that the Marxist revolution that he and [our friends] were hoping for was really kind of a pipe dream, and that there was nothing in European history or the history of developed nations that would make that sort of fantasy — you know, Frank Marshall Davis fantasy of revolution — come true.

And there was the slip up Obama had with Joe the plumber during the election where he revealed his true philosophy of ’spread the wealth around’. And he is doing plenty of that. Every major bill Obama supports is a transfer of wealth. They either take directly from those who have money and give it to others or he uses deficte spending to force future generations to pay it. As Alan Greenspan said “Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.”

By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Exposing Un-American Activities

Why Barack Obama doesn’t much care for Britain

Understanding the roots of Obama’s rage

Obama’s Destruction Of Capitalism

Barack Obama’s Surrogate Father

How Obama Thinks – and why we are in deep doodoo

Marxist Obama: Why The Media Has Been Silent

‘Is Obama a Socialist?’

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Black liberation theology, Marxism and the 2nd killing of Christ

Obama’s Communist Mentor

Why Obama IS anti-business

Progressive Politics and Marxist Class Warfare

Conservatives Behind the Curve on Obama

Obama’s Radical Past – key to America’s radical future

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part One

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part Two

Weather Underground Manifesto – blueprint for the Obama revolution

Walter Williams on Leftists, Progressives And Socialists

"

Obama’s Emerging Enabling Act

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

Obama’s Emerging Enabling Act: "

In Germany, the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to virtually nationalize key industries – in fact, the whole German economy – allowing owners to “own” them but compelling them to take orders and conform to the government’s statist priorities. What is the difference then and now? Only the venue and the language.

Edward Cline at Capitalism Magazine

EXCERPTS:

We have a government intent on regulating, if not taking over, numerous realms of private productive activity, from travel to toys to tobacco to diets to the Internet to oil drilling and exploration to food and farming to medical care and insurance.

We have a government intent on regulating, if not taking over, numerous realms of private productive activity, from travel to toys to tobacco to diets to the Internet to oil drilling and exploration to food and farming to medical care and insurance.

…… it took an Obama to orchestrate it – to slam-dunk it, in populist parlance – not in the name of fascism (that would be bigoted “profiling”), but of “progressivism.” Also known in certain circles whose members remember the past, have learned from it, and who fear its repetition, as incremental socialism. Call it national socialism, if you will. It still means totalitarianism.

As deadly as Obama’s emerging Enabling Act might be, is the anti-principle, anti-morality, anti-philosophy of appeasing pragmatism, of cutting a deal to stave off disaster or to retain power. It sanctions and enables the evil that men can do.

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES:

More people realizing Obama IS a socialist

The Enemy Within

Exposing Un-American Activities

Why Barack Obama doesn’t much care for Britain

Understanding the roots of Obama’s rage

Obama’s Destruction Of Capitalism

Barack Obama’s Surrogate Father

How Obama Thinks – and why we are in deep doodoo

Marxist Obama: Why The Media Has Been Silent

‘Is Obama a Socialist?’

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Black liberation theology, Marxism and the 2nd killing of Christ

Obama’s Communist Mentor

Why Obama IS anti-business

Progressive Politics and Marxist Class Warfare

Conservatives Behind the Curve on Obama

Obama’s Radical Past – key to America’s radical future

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part One

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part Two

Weather Underground Manifesto – blueprint for the Obama revolution

Walter Williams on Leftists, Progressives And Socialists

"

Why I oppose the tax deal – Jim DeMint

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

Why I oppose the tax deal – Jim DeMint: "

The bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

By Jim DeMint

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I’ve carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

First, I do not want to see anyone’s taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It’s the people’s money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That’s a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we’re going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don’t have a temporary economy so we shouldn’t have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we’re not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

The President called Republicans “hostage takers” this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We’ve known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I’m not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I’m prepared to vote against this bill even if I’m the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party’s leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we’ll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

Respectfully,



Jim DeMint

United States Senator

Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

Here’s our take:

GOP loses the first round

Fearing to be labeled as Scrooges for not extending unemployment benefits at Christmas the GOP caved on more spending to get the Bush tax cuts extended.

By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com

Fearing to be labeled as Scrooges for not extending unemployment benefits at Christmas the GOP caved on more spending to get the Bush tax cuts extended. Even though Democrats never use the word Christmas its all we heard when unemployment was mentioned.

Obama and the Dems will be seen as compassionate defenders of the poor and down trodden while the GOP gets stuck with the friends of the rich label.

Although the tax cuts were important to prevent a further decline in the economy it will be hard to prove a negative. As even Fed chairman Bernanke has said, jobs and the economy are likely to continue at this precariously slow pace for the next few years. What will the GOP have to point to? Will they begin to use the Obama mantra of jobs saved? The economy won’t be boosted by extending the tax cuts. It might be saved from falling off the cliff into another deeper recession.

So the GOP is left with having stuck to its guns on extending tax cuts ‘for the rich’ while yielding its supposedly new principled cut spending philosophy. This shows us that we do not have the political will to make sufficient cuts in spending to save the US from economic collapse.

The US is already bankrupt. The only thing propping up our economy is that the rest of the world is bankrupt too. No one wants to admit that the fiscal house of cards is teetering.

We are still playing the same old games. The Democrats are using the same old tired rants to justify ever more government spending. All of which is now adding to the debt that is already insurmountable.

The average family of four owes $1,525,000 of which they are unaware due to the spending that is already passed and on the books. Every feel good bill that the Democrats get passed adds to that debt. The national and state debts are growing so fast most people cannot stand to look at the debt clock.

History shows us why this debt reduction effort is doomed to fail. Business Insider notes that “Deficit hawks including Thomas Edison, Calvin Coolidge, Strom Thurmond and Bob Dole have all failed to stop the national debt from growing. George Washington thought $83 million was bad. Today we’re close to $14 trillion.”

In an article in the WSJ former Federal Reserve Chairamn Alan Greenspan pointed out the problem [emphasis added]:

“The current federal debt explosion is being driven by an inability to stem new spending initiatives. Having appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars on new programs in the last year and a half, it is very difficult for Congress to deny an additional one or two billion dollars for programs that significant constituencies perceive as urgent. The federal government is currently saddled with commitments for the next three decades that it will be unable to meet in real terms.” [Alan Greenspan in WSJ]

This is exactly what happened with unemployment benefits. What’s a few billion dollars more if it helps someone or buys a few votes. Even the multi-billion dollar USDA discrimination settlement was primarily used to buy votes and effect elections. The Democrats blocked the continued funding of National Public Radio. If we can’t even do without NPR funding what can be cut?

Monstrous ethanol subsidies have been shown to be bad for the environment and raise the price of food yet a supposedly conservative Senator Thune and fourteen other senators sent a letter to the senate leadership pushing to keep it. Why? Contributions for the 2012 race come from its beneficiaries. The same thing happens with subsidies for big sugar corporations, bailouts for GE and so many others.

Our political leaders consistently fail to put the future of our country first. The self interest of remaining in power by most members of both parties will doom us to economic chaos. Actually it already has.

~ Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reid offers bribes to fellow Democrats to sweeten tax deal

Teaparty leader warns GOP on give away tax deal

Same old spending scams in the tax deal

GOP loses the first round

Mises on the solution

Frankenstein fuel may be part of tax deal

The Waponi Wu casino expansion bill

Huge fat gifts for the left on the government funding bill

Taxpayers subsidizing almost half of ethanol costs

Crony Car Capitalism – the mother of all union payoffs

More corporate welfare – sugar subsidies

The Pigford Shakedown: How the Black Farmers’ Cause Was Hijacked by Politicians, Trial Lawyers & Community Organizers — Leaving Us With a Billion Dollar Tab

"

Senator Denounces Federal Budget Bill as ‘Trojan Horse’ to Fund New Health Care Law

from USACTION NEWS by Editor


Senator Denounces Federal Budget Bill as ‘Trojan Horse’ to Fund New Health Care Law: "

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., noted that the Senate version would provide $19 million to the IRS for dictating health insurance under the new law; $6.25 billion to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for new health reform programs, and $210 million to the Health Resources and Services Administration for public health workforce programs.

FOXNews.com

EXCERPTS:

“Using the end-of-the-year spending bill as a Trojan horse to fund the new federal health care law is hardly the mandate from the November elections,” Coburn said in a written statement to FoxNews.com. “Yet this is what Congress is doing through the must-pass spending bill to fund government operations.”

Coburn noted that the bill spends $12 million on an unelected panel of bureaucrats that Coburn says “will issue costly mandates, make coverage decisions for all Americans, and could deny patient choice under the guise of ‘prevention.’”

“We already know the health law isn’t working,” he said. “Members who supported it are guilty of misleading advertising. During the last six months we have seen health insurance premiums increase, not decrease, because the new law. It’s time for Congress to extend current tax rates, pass a clean spending bill — a ‘continuing resolution’ — without extraneous and vague health care provisions, and go home.”

FULL ARTICLE

"

Video of Chris Matthews: Obama & Clinton "An Alliance Between God And The Democratic Party"

from theblogprof by The blogprof

Video of Chris Matthews: Obama & Clinton "An Alliance Between God And The Democratic Party": "An update on the preceding post: Video: Bill Clinton goes Gollum, takes over Obama press conference. Obama ditches. Chris Matthews gets.. tingles up his leg (click on pic for vid):

Exit question: which one does Matthews consider God? To Matthews: get a freaking grip, man!

"

Change! Obama Has Added to US National Deficit Every Month Since Inauguration (Video)

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

Change! Obama Has Added to US National Deficit Every Month Since Inauguration (Video): "

More hope and change…

The Obama Administration has added billions to the US national deficit EVERY SINGLE MONTH since his Inauguration in 2009.

"

Reid Adds $55 Billion Of Pork To “Tax Bill” Trying To Coax More Dems To The Table

from Red White Blue News by ThePundit


Reid Adds $55 Billion Of Pork To “Tax Bill” Trying To Coax More Dems To The Table: "

RWB News: This should help get more democrats to the table, we all know how they love the smell of other people’s Earned Money, but it better make more republicans get up and leave. Reid felt he had to slip in $55 Billion in Earmarks and Pork to help the “Class warfare” Libs in his party save face and vote for the Presidents compromise. Pretty sad that the only way Dems can get the liberals to go along with the President’s compromise is to waste more tax payer money all while saying “the “Rich” doesn’t deserve to keep the money they EARN.”

Remember the Dems own the House and Senate right now until January 1st. If this tax deal doesn’t get done and every American sees their paychecks get smaller they only have themselves to blame.

I thought this Bill was about extending unemployment(which we can’t pay for) and not raising taxes on any American in these tough times (a Tax is not a debt….we don’t have to pay for this because it really wasn’t our money to begin with, we just need to cut back spending) . This Bill is no longer a “Tax Deal” for all Americans and has become massive spending bill for the Dems going away party.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill Dec. 8. (AP Photo)

I love the way Obama admitted yesterday that Tax Cuts create jobs. Rush had a little different take.

Obama said: Every economist that I’ve talked to ooor that I’ve read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs. The average American family will start 2011 knowing that there will be more money to pay the bills each month, more money to pay for tuition, more money to raise their children. But if this framework fails, the reverse is true. Americans would see it in smaller paychecks; that would have the effect of fewer jobs.

Rush Responded: See? Right there, folks. He’s making my point. Now, do you believe that all of a sudden a lifetime of belief has just been thrown down the sewer and Obama all of a sudden has now become a true believer, a supply-sider? “Every economist that I’ve talked to or that I’ve read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years”? Folks, if he really believes that, this is time for the Republicans to make this a tax cut! This is time for them to propose an actual marginal income tax rate cut. Put him on the spot. He does not believe this — and furthermore he’s got a ton of economists, Democrat economists, who don’t believe this.

“The compromise tax plan he’s agree to with congressional Republicans will give businesses incentives to grow and hire and help create millions of jobs” Obama said yesterday. What part are the Liberal Dems upset about when we are talking about giving businesses incentives to grow and hire or helping create millions of jobs? I know what part it is, giving those mean rich business owners incentive to grow an hire…that is what “Class warfare” is all about isn’t it? Stealing money from people who earn it because they have to much of it. We do not have a Revenue Problem in this Country, we have a spending problem and Harry Reid is proving it by adding all this pork in the bill.

His pork covers a host of wasteful alternative energy credits, a potential salve for environmentally conscious lawmakers, as well as targeted benefits for everything from the film and television industry to mining companies to rum producers.

Fox News:

The sweeping tax cut bill introduced Thursday night by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is chock-full of sweeteners which could serve as a legislative pacifier for Democrats outraged over the concessions President Obama has handed to Republicans.

The stimulus-sized package includes about $55 billion worth of short-term tax extensions for businesses and individuals. They cover a host of alternative energy credits, a potential salve for environmentally conscious lawmakers, as well as targeted benefits for everything from the film and television industry to mining companies to rum producers.

Reid has set up a test vote on the package for Monday, which could clear the way for a final vote as early as Wednesday. The bill stands a good chance of passage in the Senate, but the House is less predictable as rebellious Democrats accuse the president of caving and clamor for changes.

Obama, in an interview with NPR News, predicted Congress would ultimately approve the tax-cut compromise, though he would not rule out more changes in the bill.

“Here’s what I’m confident about — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to see people’s paychecks smaller on Jan. 1 because Congress didn’t act,” Obama said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/10/obama-predicts-tax-passage-senate-presses-ahead/#ixzz17kIzcTjV

Click here to view the embedded video.

swenbwr"

Frank Luntz Focus Group Goes “Jerry Springer” On Fox News Over Tax Cuts(Video)

from Red White Blue News by ThePundit

Frank Luntz Focus Group Goes “Jerry Springer” On Fox News Over Tax Cuts(Video): "

Pollster Frank Luntz held a focus group for Hannity over the Bush Tax cuts and a Jerry Springer Show Broke out. The end gets pretty crazy.

Click here to view the embedded video.

swenbwr"