I am an avid reader of the National Review and I remember watching those famous debates at Harvard between John Kenneth Galbraith and William Buckley. You probably were at some of those debates. Below is a portion of an article that talks about your recent State of the Union address:
SAMUEL GREGG
There is always something surreal about a Chicago politician talking about “fairness” and “playing by the rules.” There is something even more bizarre about a president talking about the need to expand energy production after his administration has generally undermined significant progress in facilitating energy development for three years in the middle of a recession. And who would describe Detroit as “on the way back”? A stroll down the ghost town otherwise known as downtown Detroit — which is teetering on the edge of being put into administration — would suggest the opposite. It’s not often that I agree with very much said by the New York Times’s Maureen Dowd, but this State of the Union speech illustrated that the lady was dead right in describing the Obama presidency as a bubble within a bubble.
Who, after all, would use the slogan of a bailed-out car company — “built to last” — as a cornerstone theme of an address ostensibly about rebuilding the American economy? Government bailouts are, incidentally, a classic example of breaking the rules: i.e., that an insolvent business should be wound down rather than propped up by the federal government (which itself is wallowing in debt). “It’s time,’ the president said, “to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.” That sounds like the rhetoric of the Tea Party. But would anyone say that this has been the practice of the Obama administration? Solyndra, anyone?
A mixture of hot air, populism, contradictory promises, a disturbing stress upon yet more executive orders, an unseemly hectoring of the legislature by the executive branch — it must be election time.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
Question:
“Thank you, Mr. President. What kind of assurances did you give Prime Minister Netanyahu about the role that the U.S. would play if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to work to convince Iran’s leaders to change their behavior, and Israel goes ahead and prepares to strike a nuclear facility? What kind of assurances did you tell him? And shouldn’t we — I recognize the difference between debate and bluster — but shouldn’t we be having in this country a vigorous debate about what could happen in the case of a Middle East war in a way that, sadly, we did not do before going into Iraq?”
President Obama:
“Well, I think there’s no doubt that those who are suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be.
“I’m not one of those people — because what I’ve said is, is that we have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. We have put forward an international framework that is applying unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table. And we’ve got the opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays out.
“I’m not going to go into the details of my conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But what I said publicly doesn’t differ greatly from what I said privately. Israel is a sovereign nation that has to make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security. And as I said over the last several days, I am deeply mindful of the historical precedents that weigh on any Prime Minister of Israel when they think about the potential threats to Israel and the Jewish homeland.
“What I’ve also said is that because sanctions are starting to have significant effect inside of Iran — and that’s not just my assessment, that’s, I think, a uniform assessment — because the sanctions are going to be even tougher in the coming months, because they’re now starting to affect their oil industry, their central bank, and because we’re now seeing noises about them returning to the negotiating table, that it is deeply in everybody’s interests — the United States, Israel and the world’s — to see if this can be resolved in a peaceful fashion.
“And so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks, or month or two months, is not borne out by the facts. And the argument that we’ve made to the Israelis is that we have made an unprecedented commitment to their security. There is an unbreakable bond between our two countries, but one of the functions of friends is to make sure that we provide honest and unvarnished advice in terms of what is the best approach to achieve a common goal — particularly one in which we have a stake. This is not just an issue of Israeli interest; this is an issue of U.S. interests. It’s also not just an issue of consequences for Israel if action is taken prematurely. There are consequences to the United States as well.
“And so I do think that any time we consider military action that the American people understand there’s going to be a price to pay. Sometimes it’s necessary. But we don’t do it casually.
“When I visit Walter Reed, when I sign letters to families that haven’t — whose loved ones have not come home, I am reminded that there is a cost. Sometimes we bear that cost. But we think it through. We don’t play politics with it. When we have in the past — when we haven’t thought it through and it gets wrapped up in politics, we make mistakes. And typically, it’s not the folks who are popping off who pay the price. It’s these incredible men and women in uniform and their families who pay the price.
“And as a consequence, I think it’s very important for us to take a careful, thoughtful, sober approach to what is a real problem. And that’s what we’ve been doing over the last three years. That’s what I intend to keep doing.”
Question:
“Sir, I’m sorry, if I could just quickly follow up — you didn’t –”
President Obama:
“Jake –”
Question:
“You might not be beating the drums of war, but you did very publicly say, we’ve got Israel’s back. What does that mean?”
President Obama:
“What it means is, is that, historically, we have always cooperated with Israel with respect to the defense of Israel, just like we do with a whole range of other allies — just like we do with Great Britain, just like we do with Japan. And that broad statement I think is confirmed when you look at what we’ve done over the last three years on things like Iron Dome that prevents missiles from raining down on their small towns along border regions of Israel, that potentially land on schools or children or families. And we’re going to continue that unprecedented security — security commitment.
“It was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action. It was a restatement of our consistent position that the security of Israel is something I deeply care about, and that the deeds of my administration over the last three years confirms how deeply we care about it. That’s a commitment we’ve made.
Obama’s Budget: A Barrage of Economy-Slowing Tax Hikes – Curtis Dubay To no one’s surprise, President Obama’s budget contains a multitude of tax increases. In total they add up to $1.8 trillion in new levies over 10 years. This is a net total after subtracting for the roughly $88 billion in new tax cuts the President proposes. Many of the tax increases are recycled policies from previous budgets that Congress has repeatedly rejected. The small amount of tax cuts the President offers are mostly incentives for engaging in behaviors (including “green activities”) that the President favors. These are the type of economy-distorting tax policies that tax reform would wipe out, the exception being auto-enrollment in IRA plans. The average revenue collected by the federal government since World War II is around 18 percent of GDP. President Obama’s budget would blow past this upper bound on what Americans will tolerate their government taking from them. Under his budget, revenues would surpass the average revenue mark in 2014. By the end of the 10-year window, revenue would be 20.1 percent of GDP—well above the historical marker and almost equal to the all-time high revenue number set in 2000. Included in the President’s tax hikes are his old favorites, such as raising tax rates on families making more than $250,000 a year back to their level prior to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. President Obama would also curtail their deductions and personal exemptions, hike the capital gains tax to 20 percent (23.8 percent when including the new Obamacare surtax), and raise the death tax. Tax hikes on oil and coal companies are back again, as are higher taxes on U.S. multinational companies, which would only increase these businesses’ incentives to locate jobs in more competitive countries. More in-depth analysis of these tax hikes can be found here. The biggest new tax is President Obama’s proposal to tax dividends at the same rate as regular income: 43.4 percent after accounting for the top income tax rate rising to 39.6 percent and the 3.8 percent Obamacare surcharge. Of course, the dividends tax is a double tax, since the corporate income that dividends come from are already taxed 35 percent at the business level. The effective rate on dividends would stand at more than 63 percent if President Obama’s misguided policy became law. This would significantly curtail investment and slow economic growth. The President’s much-touted Buffett tax is not a fleshed out policy in the budget but is paid lip service in a half-hearted outline for tax reform. The President envisions his misguided rule as replacing the Alternative Minimum Tax as part of a broader redo of the tax code. Another policy the President hints at in his tax reform outline is eliminating deductions for families earning more than $1 million a year. Such a policy would eliminate their deductions for mortgage interest, saving for retirement, and health care expenses. The still frail economy cannot withstand the barrage of tax hikes the President calls for. Nor would it benefit from his vision of tax reform. Tax reform first and foremost is revenue neutral. The President’s outline calls for it to raise another $1.5 trillion for the government to spend. Congress should disregard the President’s tax proposals, as it wisely has in previous years, and focus on true tax reform like the plan laid out in The Heritage Foundation’s New Flat Tax.
___________________________________
I am glad that JFK and Ronald Reagan saw the wisdom of cutting taxes and these moves by them resulted in two of the biggest times of economic expansion by the US economy. However, this budget proposal for 2012 tries to take us back to some of the highest tax rates we have seen in over 30 years. Why would we want to go back to those levels again?
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
Question:
“Yes, sir. On the Middle East and as it relates to American politics, a little less than a year ago Moammar Qaddafi gave a speech, and he said he was going to send his forces to Benghazi, he was going to rout opponents from their bedrooms and he was going to shoot them. You frequently cited that speech as a justification for NATO, the no-fly zone and military action against Libya. In Syria, Bashar al Assad is killing people. There’s a massacre underway. And your critics here in the United States, including, most notably, John McCain, said you should start air strikes now.
“And on Iran, Mitt Romney, on Sunday, went so far as to say that if you are re-elected, Iran will get a bomb and the world will change. How do you respond to those criticisms?”
President Obama:
“All right, Mike, you’ve asked a couple of questions there, so let me — let’s start with the Iran situation since that’s been the topic in the news for the last few days.
“When I came into office, Iran was unified, on the move, had made substantial progress on its nuclear program, and the world was divided in terms of how to deal with it. What we’ve been able to do over the last three years is mobilize unprecedented, crippling sanctions on Iran. Iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way. The world is unified; Iran is politically isolated.
“And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon — because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. And we’ve been in close consultation with all our allies, including Israel, in moving this strategy forward.
“At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That’s not just my view. That’s the view of our top intelligence officials; it’s the view of top Israeli intelligence officials. And, as a consequence, we are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the community of nations by giving assurances to the international community that they’re meeting their obligations and they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
“That’s my track record. Now, what’s said on the campaign trail — those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not Commander-in-Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy.
“This is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it. And when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years, it indicates to me that that’s more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.
“Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.
Question:
“That goes to Syria as well?”
President Obama:
“With respect to Syria, what’s happening in Syria is heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you’ve seen is the international community mobilize against the Assad regime. And it’s not a question of when Assad leaves — or if Assad leaves — it’s a question of when. He has lost the legitimacy of his people. And the actions that he’s now taking against his own people is inexcusable, and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.
“On the other hand, for us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake. What happened in Libya was we mobilized the international community, had a U.N. Security Council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, Arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. This is a much more complicated situation.
“So what we’ve done is to work with key Arab states, key international partners — Hillary Clinton was in Tunisia — to come together and to mobilize and plan how do we support the opposition; how do we provide humanitarian assistance; how do we continue the political isolation; how do we continue the economic isolation. And we are going to continue to work on this project with other countries. And it is my belief that, ultimately, this dictator will fall, as dictators in the past have fallen.
“But the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, that hasn’t been true in the past and it won’t be true now. We’ve got to think through what we do through the lens of what’s going to be effective, but also what’s critical for U.S. security interests.
Spectrum Availability Is Crucial to Growth – James Gattuso
The President’s budget released today includes some $31 billion in revenue from the auction of spectrum licenses for mobile broadband use. Of this, $10 billion would be spent on a public safety broadband network, with the rest purported to reduce the deficit, although the amount received is far outweighed by new spending elsewhere in the budget and is only a one-time revenue infusion. But setting that aside, the auction of these frequencies, now used by broadcasters, deservedly has widespread support. The wireless industry is one of the few booming areas of the U.S. economy, but with demand skyrocketing, it is rapidly running out of spectrum to provide service. Making more spectrum available is crucial to maintaining that growth. Legislation is already moving in Congress to authorize such auctions. But there is a snag: The Obama Administration, as well as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), whose chairman is an Obama appointee, is insisting that any legislation allow the FCC to exclude the two biggest current users of spectrum—Verizon and AT&T—from bidding. The result would be not only to reduce the revenue gained but to starve the two leading providers of wireless service from the resources they need. Rather than pre-select the winners and losers, regulators at the FCC should conduct an open process, letting all participate and letting the market decide how this valuable resource is allocated.
_______________
The government is always looking ways to get more tax revenue and put in more regulation. I predict the government will probably mess this area up too. I wish more people were exposed to the simple wisdom that Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” gives us and that is we need less regulation and less taxes and not more.
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
President Obama:
“Good afternoon, everybody. Now, I understand there are some political contests going on tonight, but I thought I’d start the day off by taking a few questions, which I’m sure will not be political in nature. Before I do, I want to make a few announcements about some steps we’re taking to help responsible homeowners who’ve been struggling through this housing crisis.
“We’ve clearly seen some positive economic news over the last few months. Businesses have created about 3.7 million new jobs over the last two years. Manufacturers are hiring for the first time since the 1990s. The auto industry is back and hiring more than 200,000 people over the last few years. Confidence is up. And the economy is getting stronger.
“But there are still millions of Americans who can’t find a job. There are millions more who are having a tough time making the rent or the mortgage, paying for gas or groceries. So our job in Washington isn’t to sit back and do nothing. And it’s certainly not to stand in the way of this recovery. Right now we’ve got to do everything we can to speed it up.
“Now, Congress did the right thing when they passed part of my jobs plan and prevented a tax hike on 160 million working Americans this year. And that was a good first step. But it’s not enough. They can’t just stop there and wait for the next election to come around. There are a few things they can do right now that could make a real difference in people’s lives.
“This Congress should, once and for all, end tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas, and use that money to reward companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. I’ve put forward a proposal that does just that, and there’s no reason why Congress can’t come together and start acting on it.
“This Congress could hold a vote on the Buffett Rule so that we don’t have billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s just common sense. The vast majority of Americans believe it’s common sense. And if we’re serious about paying down our deficit, it’s as good a place to start as any.
“And finally, this Congress should pass my proposal to give every responsible homeowner a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage at historically low rates. No red tape. No runaround from the banks. If you’ve been on time on your payments, if you’ve done the right thing, if you’ve acted responsibly, you should have a chance to save that money on your home — perhaps to build up your equity, or just to have more money in your pocket that you can spend on businesses in your community. That would make a huge difference for millions of American families.
“Now, if Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them. Last fall, we announced an initiative that allows millions of responsible homeowners to refinance at low interest rates. Today we’re taking it a step further — we are cutting by more than half the refinancing fees that families pay for loans ensured by the Federal Housing Administration. That’s going to save the typical family in that situation an extra $1,000 a year, on top of the savings that they’d also receive from refinancing. That would make refinancing even more attractive to more families. It’s like another tax cut that will put more money in people’s pockets. We’re going to do this on our own. We don’t need congressional authorization to do it.
“We’re also taking a series of steps to help homeowners who have served our country. It is unconscionable that members of our armed forces and their families have been some of those who have been most susceptible to losing their homes due to the actions of unscrupulous banks and mortgage lenders. Over the last few years that happened — a lot.
“So as part of the landmark settlement we reached with some of the nation’s largest banks a few weeks ago, here’s what we’re going to do: If you are a member of the armed forces whose home was wrongfully foreclosed, you will be substantially compensated for what the bank did to you and your family. If you are a member of the armed forces with a high interest rate who was wrongfully denied the chance to lower it while you were in active serve, which banks are required to do by law, the banks will refund you the money you would have saved along with a significant penalty.
“The settlement will make sure that you aren’t forced into foreclosure just because you have a permanent change in station but can’t sell your home because you owe more than it’s worth. Some of the money will also go into a fund that guarantees loans on favorable terms to our veterans, and there will be more foreclosure protections for every man and woman who is currently serving this country in harm’s way.
“As I’ve said before, no amount of money is going to be enough to make it right for a family who has had their piece of the American Dream wrongfully taken away from them, and no action — no matter how meaningful — will entirely heal our housing market on its own. This is not something the government by itself can solve. But I’m not one of those people who believe that we should just sit by and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. There are real things that we can do right now that would make a substantial difference in the lives of innocent, responsible homeowners. That’s true in housing, and that’s true in any number of different areas when it comes to ensuring that this recovery touches as many lives as possible. That’s going to be my top priority as long as I hold this office, and I will do everything I can to make that progress.
“So with that I’m going to take some questions, and I will start with Mike Viqueira.
In this speech in Little Rock on October 1, 2011 former President Bill Clinton noted:
There is no example of a country in the fix we are in that can balance the budget without a combination of spending cuts, the people who can afford it paying more and growing the economy.
What was the secret of the Clinton Presidency? Clinton tells us in the same speech:
We decided to stop the politics of pitting one American against another by race…income, by anything else.
_________-
President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.
I just don’t understand how a politician can say two things in the same speech that cancel each other out? John Brummett and Max Brantley love to try to act like all of our problems would be solved if we could take the money from the rich guy. Below is an article that makes some great points concerning class-warfare:
Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at JeffreyMiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z.
What is the “fair” amount of taxation on high-income taxpayers?
To liberals, the answer is always “more.” Liberals view high income — meaning any income that exceeds their own — as the result of luck or anti-social behavior. Hence liberals believe “fairness” justifies government-imposed transfers from the rich to everyone else. Many conservatives accept this view implicitly. They oppose soak-the-rich policies because of concern over growth, but they do not dispute whether such policies are fair.
But high tax rates on the rich are not fair or desirable for any other reason; they are an expression of America’s worst instincts, and their adverse consequences go beyond their negatives for economic growth.
The liberal hatred of the rich is a minority view, not a widely shared American value.
Consider first the view that differences in income result from luck rather than hard work: some people are born with big trust funds or innate skill and talent, and these fortuitous differences explain much of why some people have higher incomes than others.
Never mind that such a characterization is grossly incomplete. Luck undoubtedly explains some income differences, but this is not the whole story. Many trust fund babies have squandered their wealth, and inborn skill or talent means little unless combined with hard work.
But even if all income differences reflect luck, why are government-imposed “corrections” fair? The fact that liberals assert this does not make it true, any more than assertions to the contrary make it false. Fairness is an ill-defined, infinitely malleable concept, readily tailored to suit the ends of those asserting fairness, independent of facts or reason.
Worse, if liberals can assert a right to the wealth of the rich, why cannot others assert the right to similar transfers, such as from blacks to whites, Catholics to Protestants, or Sunni to Shia? Government coercion based on one group’s view of fairness is a first step toward arbitrary transfers of all kinds.
Now consider the claim that income differences result from illegal, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate behavior. This claim has an element of truth: some wealth results from illegal acts, and policies that punish such acts are appropriate.
But most inappropriate wealth accumulations results from bad government policies: those that restrict competition, enable crony capitalism, and hand large tax breaks to politically connected interest groups. These differences in wealth are a social ill, but the right response is removing the policies that promote them, not targeting everyone with high income.
The claim that soaking the rich is fair, therefore, has no basis in logic or in generating desirable outcomes; instead, it represents envy and hatred.
Why do liberals hate the rich? Perhaps because liberals were the “smart” but nerdy and socially awkward kids in high school, the ones who aced the SATs but did not excel at sports and rarely got asked to the prom. Some of their “dumber” classmates, meanwhile, went on to make more money, marry better-looking spouses, and have more fun.
Liberals find all this unjust because it rekindles their emotional insecurities from long ago. They do not have the honesty to accept that those with less SAT smarts might have other skills that the marketplace values. Instead, they resent wealth and convince themselves that large financial gains are ill-gotten.
Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at JeffreyMiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z.
The liberal views on fairness and redistribution are far more defensible, of course, when it comes to providing for the truly needy. Reasonable people can criticize the structure of current anti-poverty programs, or argue that the system is overly generous, or suggest that private charity would be more effective at caring for the least vulnerable.
The desire to help the poor, however, represents a generous instinct: giving to those in desperate situations, where bad luck undoubtedly plays a major role. Soaking the rich is a selfish instinct, one that undermines good will generally.
And most Americans share this perspective. They are enthusiastic about public and private attempt to help the poor, but they do not agree that soaking the rich is fair. That is why U.S. policy has rarely embraced punitive income taxation or an aggressive estate tax. Instead, Americans are happy to celebrate well-earned success. The liberal hatred of the rich is a minority view, not a widely shared American value.
For America to restore its economic greatness, it must put aside the liberal hatred of the rich and embrace anew its deeply held respect for success. If it does, America will have enough for everyone.
Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]
Is soaking the rich fair? Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate […]
Take a look above at this clip. In his article “Class Warfare versus Pay it forward,” Sept 26, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, John Brummett tries to make the case that Obama is not involved in class warefare. He quotes Elizabeth Warren to prove his point. Unfortunately, logically this argument fails because although we all benefit […]
The Flat Tax: How it Works and Why it is Good for America Uploaded by afq2007 on Mar 29, 2010 This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the flat tax would benefit families and businesses, and also explains how this simple and fair system would boost economic growth and eliminate the special-interest […]
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. […]
President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]
Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]
I know that the liberals in Arkansas like John Brummett, Gene Lyons, Ernie Dumas and Max Brantley love to ridicule the Republicans, but when the Republicans are right then you need to be big enough to just say so.
Mark Darr has gone out and worked hard to raise money and I am sure he would like to have someone give him 18 million without him having to raise it. However, the way his potential 2014 Democratic opponent is going to use the tax payer’s money is just shameful.
Maybe the Democrats have forgotten that they no longer have 90% of the power like they did for 150 years.
You may have seen the latest commercial from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel on his new “Got Your Back, Arkansas” campaign. This is a new consumer education and awareness initiative “to equip Arkansans with the information they need to navigate the consumer marketplace and avoid scams and fraud” according to their press release.
But the $350,000 advertising campaign for the initiative – much of it to Stone Ward Advertising – has drawn criticism from some Republicans, including Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr.
“I wish my office had millions at its disposal to run my campaign ads,” tweeted Darr after the announcement. “It’s nice to know that Government official ‘got your back’ but unfortunately they really ‘got your back pocket.’”
Darr’s criticism reflects an ongoing criticism – particularly from those in the state legislature – of McDaniel using settlement funds, not necessarily improperly, but in a way he chooses with little legislative oversight. He has also been criticized for promoting projects that also promote him personally.
McDaniel’s office tells me the $350,000 initiative has $250,040 budgeted for “paid media, production and focus groups” and $99,960 for “personnel.”
The vendor for the project is Stone Ward Advertising, where chief of staff Blake Rutherford worked prior to being hired by McDaniel. A division of Stone Ward Advertising was also the vendor that produced a $6,000 video for McDaniel to announce settlement funds for an Arkansas State Police training facilities while he was out of town in Hawaii.
“Last fall, our office issued a request for proposals. A five-member team (including three employees from our Consumer Protection Division and two from the Communications Division) evaluated the proposals that were submitted and selected that agency,” said AG spokesman Aaron Sadler.
Pat Summitt, flanked by former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, speaks at the White House on Oct. 27, 1997, during a ceremony for Tennessee’s national championship win.
________
I have enjoyed watching Pat Summitt’s career over the years. My great uncle Blythe Hatcher and his sister Sara Lou used to tell me that the Vols should stop trying to get men’s basketball coaches and just let Pat Summitt coach both the boys and girls teams. Looking at this record below makes me see what they were talking about. (From Wikipedia)
Coach Pat Summitt orates during during a celebration of Tennessee’s NCAA national championship with President George Bush on April 20, 1989 at the White House.
UT coach Pat Summitt hugs her son Tyler as the Lady Vols celebrate their seventh national title by defeating Rutgers 59-46 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH on April 4, 2007.
Photo by Connie Grosch, News Sentinel file photo
Lady Vol coach Pat Summitt greets fans during a national championship celebration on April 1, 1991 at Thompson-Boling Arena. The Lady Vols won their third national title in five years with a 70-67 victory over Virginia.
The stooges join the “Women Haters” club and vow to have nothing to do with the fair sex. Larry marries a girl anyway and attempts to hide the fact from Moe and Curly as they take a train trip.
Director: Archie Gottler
Cast: Marjorie White, A.R. Haysel, Monte Collins, Bud Jamison,”Snowflake”, Jack Norton, Don Roberts, Tiny Sanford, Dorthy Vernon, Les Goodwin, Charles Richman, George Gray, Gibert C. Emery, Walter Brennan
In the article he noted, “A woman can argue for birth-control coverage in health-insurance policies without being [morally loose.]”
I would agree with Brummett here but I think that the real issue is religious liberty and it is being trampled on by Obamacare. How people are missing that is beyond me. As the government takes over more and more control of our lives these issues will continue to come up over and over. At least I got to post these two funny videos by the three stooges today and at least we can agree on how funny they were.
Now that Rush Limbaugh has apologized, will voters see the Democrats’ “war on women” language as overkill?
My response:
We’re in the season of rhetorical overkill. Rush Limbaugh’s vile attack last week on Sandra Fluke was reprehensible. So too is the Democratic campaign to paint a Republican “war on women” — not least because it treats women as a monolithic class, ignoring the many women who grasp what’s at issue here — liberty.
ObamaCare is a major step toward socialized health care. You can pretend otherwise — the “war on women” rhetoric aims at that — but the coercive elements inherent in any socialized scheme come to the surface when conflicts like the one before us arise.
And it’s only the beginning. Soon enough, as costs to “the public” mount (the only costs that matter in socialized arrangements), Republicans will be talking about a “war on the elderly,” and they’ll be right. After all, “We’re all in this together.” We have that on high authority. Welcome to the world of all against all.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until the law is repealed in full.
The Daily Hatch 