Category Archives: President Obama

Brantley agrees with Obama that the rich should pay more

November 23, 2011 – 1:57 pm

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory

Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they are wanting?

Higher Tax Rates on Rich Won’t Increase Revenues

by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press 2006).

Added to cato.org on September 13, 2011

This article appeared on Investor’s Business Daily on September 12, 2011.

In last week’s campaign speech disguised as an address to Congress, President Obama said, “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.”

Writing recently in The New York Times, the famed chairman of Berkshire Hathaway complained that his federal income tax last year was “only 17.4% of my taxable income” — less than $7 million on a taxable income of about $40 million.

Buffett claimed that, like himself, other “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earnings,” but that is not at all common. The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5% in 2009.

Obama used Buffett’s uniquely low 17.4% tax as proof that “a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” That is not true.

To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous.

Anyone whose income is almost entirely composed of realized capital gains or dividends would “pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earning.” Investors with modest incomes also pay a tax rate of 15% on dividends and capital gains, although that rate is scheduled to rise to 18.8% under the Obama health law (and much higher if Congress enacted the “reforms” Obama will propose next Monday).

Before 2003, when the tax on dividends was made the same as the tax on capital gains, Berkshire Hathaway was a handy tax dodge — a way to own dividend-paying stocks without paying taxes on the dividends. Buffett is famous for collecting stocks with a generous dividend yield without Berkshire itself paying any dividend.

The dividends Berkshire receives are reinvested in buying more stocks, so the holding company ends up with more assets per share which results in capital gains that would be taxable only if the shares are sold.

Warren Buffett is the second wealthiest person in America, but he reports surprisingly little taxable income for someone who owns more than $50 billion of Berkshire shares. Increasing the tax rate on salaries and interest income would barely affect him.

He pays himself a salary of just $100,000, which explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes. He dodged the estate tax by donating his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He doubtless reduces his taxable income with other donations to charity, which explains why he repeatedly refers to taxable income rather than adjusted gross income.

Mr. Buffett ends by appointing himself tax czar and declares he “would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more … (he) would suggest an additional increase in rate.”

Since he only reports $100,000 of salary, he has nothing to lose by advocating a higher tax rate on salaries. Nearly all of his income in 2010 consisted of capital gains on sales of Berkshire shares, because those shares pay no dividends. But Buffett could just as easily hang onto appreciated shares rather than selling them, or he could donate them to charity.

Raising tax rates on dividends and capital gains sounds easier than it is. Nobody with substantial wealth can be forced to realize taxable gains by selling appreciated assets. A realized gain is no more valuable than an unrealized gain. On the contrary, it is less valuable by the amount of the tax.

Nobody can be forced to hold dividend-paying stocks either. They can instead buy Berkshire Hathaway shares if the tax on dividends goes up, as Buffett understands.

Despite his personal and professional dependence on capital gains, Buffett nevertheless feigns total ignorance of who pays the capital gains tax and why. He says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”

Well, the Dow Jones industrial average was 831 at the end of 1977 — down from 969 at the end of 1965 — so somebody was having trouble finding investments that would still look sensible after paying a 39.9% tax.

In any case, for Buffett to focus on the act of buying stocks or property is all wrong. The capital gains tax is not a tax on buying assets. It is a tax on selling assets. If you don’t sell, there is no tax. And when the capital gains tax is high, very few people are willing to sell.

In 1977, when the capital gains tax was 39.9%, realized gains amounted to less than 1.57% of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the capital gains tax was 28%, realized gains rose to 2.3% of GDP. Since 28% of 2.3 is larger than 39.9% of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.

From 2004 to 2007, when the capital gains tax was 15%, realized gains amounted to 5.2% of GDP. Since 15% of 5.2 is larger than 28% of 2.3, the lower tax rate again raised more tax revenue. The government cannot afford to raise this tax, particularly on those most likely to pay it.

Buffett focuses on the 400 tax returns with the highest reported incomes, which are often one-time capital gains from the sale of a business or real estate.

“In 1992,” he writes, “the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”

In 1992 only 39% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because those tax rates were so high. With most reported income coming from salaries, the average tax rate was high.

Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press 2006).

 

More by Alan Reynolds

By 2008, 67% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because both were taxed at 15%. That diluted the average tax rate, yet nevertheless resulted in much more taxes paid because the amount of reported income was so much larger.

The big change was not in actual income, but merely in what the IRS counts as income. People were hiding more of their wealth in 1992 than they did in 2006-2008, and they were hiding even more in 1977.

It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.

The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.

With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.

To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

Uploaded by on May 28, 2008

A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.

By Everette Hatcher III | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

The Cato Institute: The state of the economy under Obama

November 16, 2011 – 1:43 pm

The Cato Institute: The state of the economy under Obama

It is truly said how far to the left our country has gone.

Happy Fiscal New Year (with an Unhappy Obama Hangover)

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Today, October 1, is the first day of the 2012 fiscal year.

And if you’re wondering why America’s economy seems to have a hangover (this cartoon is a perfect illustration), it’s because politicians had a huge party with our money in FY2011.

We don’t have final numbers for the fiscal year that just ended, but let’s look at the CBO Monthly Budget Report, the CBO Economic and Budget Update, and the OMB Historical Tables, and see whether there’s anything worth celebrating.

o The federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in FY2011, more money than any government has ever spent in a 12-month period in the history of the world.

o The FY2011 budget is nearly double the burden of federal spending just 10 years earlier, when federal outlays consumed “only” $1.86 trillion.

o The federal budget in FY2011 consumed about 24 percent of national output, up sharply compared to a spending burden in FY2001 of “just” 18.2 percent of GDP.

o Defense spending is too high, and has increased by about $400 billion since 2001, but the vast majority of the additional spending is for domestic spending programs.

o Federal tax revenue in FY2011 will be about $2.25 trillion, an increase of 7-8 percent over FY2010 levels.

o Economic stagnation has affected tax revenues, which are lower than the $2.6 trillion level from FY2007.

o Federal receipts amount to about 15.3 percent of GDP, below the long-run average of 18 percent of GDP.

o The Congressional Budget Office does predict that revenues will rise above the 18-percent average – without any tax increases – by the end of the decade.

o Record levels of government spending, combined with low revenues caused by a weak economy, will result in a $1.3 trillion deficit.

o This is the third consecutive deficit of more than $1 trillion.

o The publicly-held national debt (the amount borrowed from the private sector) is now more than $10 trillion.

With budget numbers like these, no wonder America has a fiscal hangover.

And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor.

Fortunately, there is a solution. All we need to do is restrain the growth of federal spending, as explained in this video.

___________________

But we also know that it is difficult to convince politicians to do what’s right for the nation. And if they don’t change the course of fiscal policy, and we leave the federal government on autopilot, then America is doomed to become another Greece.

The combination of poorly designed entitlement programs (mostly Medicare and Medicaid) and an aging population will lead to America’s fiscal collapse.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Is a lack of money the problem for our public schools?

October 26, 2011 – 12:53 pm

Is a lack of money the problem for our public schools?

Everything You Need to Know About Public School Spending in Less Than 2½ Minutes

Posted by Adam Schaeffer

Neal McCluskey gutted the President’s new “Save the Teachers” American Jobs Act sales pitch a good while back, as did Andrew Coulson here. Thankfully, it seems a lot of senators agree it’s a bad idea.

Last week, a $35 Billion piece of the president’s new “stimulus” plan, which included $30 Billion to bail out government schools—again—went down in the Senate:

Our public education problem is huge; we’re spending far too much and getting way too little. But most people don’t know the basic details. They still think we need to spend more on education.

So, for all of you who want to get the details but don’t have much time, or have family and friends who need to be introduced to reality, I present to you . . . Everything you need to know about public school spending in less than 2½ minutes.

Watch it, “like” it, post it on Facebook, email it around, comment, and generally get the word out . . . because we really do need to get the word out.

Public School Spending in Less than 2½ Minutes

Uploaded by on Oct 21, 2011

Everything you need to know about public school spending in less than 2½ minutes.

______________________

Adam Schaeffer • October 25, 2011 @ 10:54 am
Filed under: Education and Child Policy; Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Tags: , ,

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

October 25, 2011 – 12:56 pm

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

The time is finally here for the Supreme Court to hear this case.

Hans von Spakovsky

September 28, 2011 at 11:00 am

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit’s Obamacare decision.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had announced on Monday that it was not going to ask all 11 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the August 12 decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. This opened up a path to an appeal by DOJ to the Supremes.

Dan Mitchell gives 12 reasons Obamacare will fail.

__________________

However, with this petition, the NFIB jumped ahead of Eric Holder’s slow-moving DOJ (which until Monday had done everything it could to slow-walk this case filed by 26 states and the NFIB). The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.

The NFIB is asking the Court to overrule this holding, since “Congress itself deemed [the mandate] ‘essential’ to the Act’s new insurance regulations.” Given that the 11th and 6th Circuits have issued “directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of [Obamacare’s] mandate,” the case is one that the Court should obviously take up given its interest in eliminating conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal.

What also differentiates this particular case from the many other lawsuits that have been filed against Obamacare is the “all star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators that the NFIB and the 26 states have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court. It includes Michael Carvin, a former DOJ official who has argued (and won) numerous cases before the Court; Gregory Katsas, a former DOJ official who was a clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas; Kevin Marshal, another former DOJ official and Thomas clerk; Hashim Mooppan, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk; and Randy Barnett, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown.

The lawyers for the states include Paul Clement, former Bush Administration Solicitor General; Lee Casey, another former DOJ official who clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is now the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit; and David Rivkin, another Supreme Court litigator with wide experience in the government, including in the White House and the DOJ.

The government lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General who will be arguing the constitutionality of Obamacare will have their work cut out for them.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Healthcare | Comments (0)

With Govt Spending at 41% of GDP should President Obama try to raise taxes?

October 21, 2011 – 3:07 pm

Cato Institute: Government spending is 41% of GDP

I love the Cato Institute because they give us the facts that liberals just can’t refute. Instead of trying to raise our taxes, President Obama should be cutting spending.

American Government Spending: 41% of GDP

Posted by Chris Edwards

My good friend Kathy Ruffing at CBPP takes me to task for testifying that government spending in the United States is 41 percent of GDP, which in my view is a very high and harmful level.

Kathy says that recent U.S. spending data is “exaggerated” because of the recession, and indeed, spending has soared not only here, but in most major countries because of the unfortunate popularity of Keynesian pump-priming theories. My point was that the American smaller-government advantage eroded both during the Bush growth years and during the Obama recession years, as seen in Figure 2 of my testimony.  

Kathy noted that the OECD data I used are different than U.S. national income accounts data published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Well, that’s right. Every country has quirks in the way they do their national income data. The advantage of using OECD data is that the economists at the OECD adjust for these quirks and create spending data that is comparable across countries. If Kathy has more accurate international comparisons, I’d love to see them.

Finally, Kathy says that just because American government spending divided by GDP is about 40 percent, that “doesn’t mean that government controls about 40 percent of the U.S.economy.” I don’t agree. She means that government does not produce 40 percent of gross domestic product, which is true. The broader figure of 40 or 41 percent includes not just government production but government transfers. And transfers do entail government control over resources because both the taxing and spending activities involved in transfer programs distort private sector behavior. Thus, the government misallocates resources both when it “produces” useless solar power activities in its own labs and when it subsidizes failed private solar companies.   

Anyway, thanks to Kathy for raising the important issue of the overall size of government because it is something that the policy community should focus more attention on. For data geeks, the OECD has all kinds of cross-country comparison data here. Government spending is Table 25.

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

The federal government is spending more per household than ever before. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)

Download

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional Budget Office.

Chart 1 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Steve Jobs to the President: “You’re headed for a one-term presidency,”

October 21, 2011 – 12:23 pm

I have posted a lot about Steve Jobs and I have the links below after this fine aricle:

Lachlan Markay

October 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm

 

Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder and digital pioneer, told President Obama in a 2010 meeting that his anti-business attitude and enthusiasm for federal regulations could spell doom for his re-election bid, according to an upcoming biography of the iconic entrepreneur.

Jobs specifically cited a number of impediments to job creation and future economic growth, including onerous business regulations and stubborn teachers’ unions preventing reform of the country’s education system.

The Huffington Post, which obtained an advance copy of the book – titled “Steve Jobs” – said the man “seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.”

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

If Obama did not become more business friendly, Jobs warned, he would be “headed for a one-term presidency.”

Jobs’s legacy, wrote Heritage President Ed Feulner, is antithetical to the president’s approach to governing. The man “was a living refutation of all that liberals constantly tell us about our country,” Feulner wrote.

Related posts:

Steve Jobs left conservative Lutheran upbringing behind

Steve Jobs was raised as a conservative Lutheran but he chose to leave those beliefs behind. Below is a very good article on his life. COVER STORY ARTICLE | Issue: “Steve Jobs 1955-2011″ October 22, 2011 A god of our age Who was Steve Jobs? A revered technology pioneer and a relentless innovator, the Apple […]

Occupy Wall Street vs. Steve Jobs

COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]

Steve Jobs’ Father

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs at Stanford

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs depicted at pearly gates with Saint Peter

It is strange that the New Yorker Magazine did no research. (If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible […]

 

___________________________

Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist

According to published reports Steve Jobs was a Buddhist and he had a very interesting quote on death which I discussed in another post. Back in 1979 I saw the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer and I also read the book. Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise […]

Steve Jobs and Adoption

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]

What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life?

I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]

Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs?

I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]

8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs

Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]

Steve Jobs was a Buddhist: What is Buddhism?

Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]

  Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]

 

Like this:

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Cook and Brummett: Rick Crawford will be an one term congressman

October 20, 2011 – 6:49 am

Let me start off with Brummett because he is not quite as emphatic as Cook. (Brantley has jumped in there too.) (Leftwing blogger Blue Arkansas is thrilled by this news too.)

On October 20, 2011, John Brummett wrote:

So with Arkansas famous for political eccentricity that defies the conventional wisdom ruling everywhere else, and even with Barack Obama at the head of the ticket dragging down Arkansas Democrats everywhere, there is a certain semi-logical basis for hope among Democrats.

Republican Rick Crawford got elected there last year in spite of himself and because of:

—The tea party revolt and general antipathy toward Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

—The retirement of Democratic incumbent Marion Berry.

—The emergence as Berry’s would-be successor on the Democratic side of a young congressional aide named Chad Causey, who was a satisfactory candidate but not a particularly strong one.

It is possible that the revulsion over health care reform has subsided a bit. Even Republican pollsters will admit that, while indicators still favor their further gains in Arkansas, the intensity of voter anger is less than in 2010.

Another thing: Congressional redistricting has extended the 1st District southward through the Mississippi River-adjoining Delta all the way to the Louisiana line. That’s a demographic advantage for Democrats, considering the heavy African-American population.

So now Crawford, a farm radio guy transplanted from Missouri and who has a little personal bankruptcy on his resume, could be in for a battle.

I heard Michael Cook say on the Talk Business episode of October 16, 2011 that he expects the Democrats to take back the First Congressional District and Rick Crawford will be  an one term congressman.  I don’t think that will happen like he thinks. President Obama is the gift that keeps on giving here in Arkansas. Why else are all the Democrats getting beat? Below are some thoughts from the blog Red Arkansas:

Today we turn to The Tolbert Report for the latest news on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s fishing expedition for a challenger for Rep. Tim Griffin’s Second Congressional District seat.

You may remember Mr. Griffin who enraged the left so much that the Arkansas Times’ Max Brantley was forced to publish a crudely-drawn cartoon to bolster Sen. Joyce Elliott to an eventual 20-point loss, and the DCCC’s man in Little Rock, Rep. Clark Hall, couldn’t hold things together during the Fayetteville Finger debate and ended up making AR-02 even more Republican.

According to Tolbert, the DCCC was rebuked by state Rep. John C. Edwards of Little Rock in their effort to recruit him to run against Congressman, Iraqi War Veteran and Army Reserve Major Griffin.

“I have no plans to run for Congress in 2012,” said Edwards. “I am running for another term in the Arkansas House. Earlier this year, I was contacted by the DCCC and told them the same thing.”

In case you haven’t heard of the Iraqi War Veteran and National Guard JAG Corps Colonel (hmmm… that resume sounds familiar), Mr. Edwards defeated Republican Kelly Eichler in 2008 by a whopping 78 votes.  He got a pass in 2010.

Mr. Edwards’ previous electoral claim-to-fame was finishing a distant third to Mark Stodola in the 1996 AR-02 Democratic Primary. Mr. Edwards also finished third in the key Democratic area of Pulaski County, trailing Mr. Stodola by nearly 11,000 votes.

So… really? This is the one of the best the DCCC could come up with?

Now that we can scratch Mr. Edwards off the list, here is a list of other would-be Democratic hopefuls that have taken a pass:

This leaves the man who makes Max Brantley come down with a case of the vapors: Surgeon General Joe Thompson, and the man who makes the AFL-CIO have a collective erection for more than four hours: former Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Mr. Thompson, whom we hear is looking at throwing his hat in the ring at least a couple of years from now, is now in the middle of selling Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges at the traveling roadshow put together by Gov. Mike Beebe, and that might be to tough a sell in a state so vehemently opposed to President Obama’s health care law.

Mr. Halter? Well, we all know who how Arkansas Democrats feel about him.

MEANWHILE…

According to Roby Brock, the DCCC’s man in Little Rock–Clark Hall–looks like he will avail himself of the opportunity created by the Fayetteville Finger situation and challenge Rep. Rick Crawford in AR-01.

No word on whether Mr. Hall’s “granddaughter’s color crayons” were used to design his campaign logo much like they were allegedly used to create the new lines for the First District.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Heritage Foundation Scholars respond to Obama debt reduction proposal (Part 6)

October 19, 2011 – 9:19 am

I love going to the Heritage Foundation website for articles like this:

Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Heritage Responds to Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Mike Brownfield

September 19, 2011 at 11:16 am

Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s debt reduction and tax increase proposal. Here are their immediate reactions:

_______________

Obama Vague on “Buffett Rule”

President Obama wants tax reform to adhere to his newly formulated “Buffett Rule” which states: Families and small businesses making more than $1 million should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle income family.

But the Congressional Budget Office shows that Buffett Rule is already in effect. The highest earners pay more than double the amount of taxes as a share of their income than middle income earners. The top 1 percent of earners currently pays 29.5 percent of their income in all federal taxes while middle income families pay 14.3 percent.

The President and his staff surely know this so the Buffett Rule likely refers to something else. It is impossible to say for sure since, as usual, the President’s plan is light on details. One likely direction the President may propose when details come out is to equalize the taxation of capital gains with the taxation of income for millionaires. The President wants the top income tax rate to be 39.6 percent like it was before the Bush tax cuts. And that’s just for starters. Perhaps the Buffet Rule would  then raise the capital gains rate to that level. This comes after three years of the President claiming he only wanted to raise the capital gains rate to 20 percent.

So kind of surtax on high earners is not a new idea. Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wanted one to pay for Obamacare. It went nowhere then when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress so it has no chance of passing now. The President proposes to further tax the rich not because he wants his class warfare policies to become law, but so he has a talking point for his re-election campaign.

Should the President’s misguided Buffett Rule become law who would lose more?  Millionaires or the economy? The so-called coddled rich, or America’s workers? The cost of capital would rise considerably. This would make it harder to businesses to expand and add new workers. It would also hamper entrepreneurs looking to get their ideas off the ground. And even if President Obama and Warren Buffet can “afford to pay a little more” it’s not like this money is just lying around idly in mattresses – it’s already at work invested in some way in the economy, whether it’s cash in the banking system which keeps the nation’s finances moving, or invested in businesses which create jobs.  Pulling money out and putting it into government spending will not help the economy. Ultimately the Buffett Rule would result in fewer jobs for American workers and lower wages for those employed. The punitive effect the rule would have on American workers is hard to reconcile with the President’s supposed new focus on job creation.

Curtis Dubay

 
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Are rich people as bad as “Dirty Dan?”

October 18, 2011 – 2:14 pm

Are rich people as bad as “Dirty Dan?”

The Little Rascals – “Fly My Kite” (1931) Part 1-2

Uploaded by on Apr 6, 2011

The gang loves Grandma, but her slimy son-in-law loves her money.When Dirty Dan tries to take away her retirement fortune, it’s the kids (and Pete the Pup) to the resue! Soon, the chase is on and Dan is caught faster than you can say “Granny get your gun”!

__________________________________

I enjoyed seeing that “Dirty Dan” got what was coming to him at the end of the episode below. If you listen to President Obama, and other liberals like John Brummett and Max Brantley then would get the impression that the mean rich folks don’t need to be so selfish and hand over the money to run the government for the rest of us.

Related posts:

War on poverty is a failure in USA

Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another “Economics 101″ video, and this one […]

The state of our economy under President Obama according to Cato Institute

It is truly said how far to the left our country has gone. Happy Fiscal New Year (with an Unhappy Obama Hangover) Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Today, October 1, is the first day of the 2012 fiscal year. And if you’re wondering why America’s economy seems to have a hangover (this cartoon is a perfect illustration), it’s because […]

Is soaking the rich fair?

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 […]

Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?

Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms? Sometimes I wonder what are the motives of those who oppose free trade. Eight Questions for Protectionists Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as […]

Three points where Brummett misses the boat in discussion versus Charlie Collins

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. […]

Obama wants to raise taxes on job creators

Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Aug 6, 2010 Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) filling in for Chris Jansing on MSNBC talks to Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute to compare Reaganomics to Obamanomics. __________________________ What should we do when we are caught in a slow economy? What did Reagan do in 1981? He lowered […]

Cato’s Jeffrey Miron: “The liberal hatred of the rich is a minority view…”

Maybe the tide is turning. Americans do not hate the rich like liberals would have us believe. Take a look at this article: Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair by Jeffrey A. Miron This article appeared on The Huffington Post on September 2, 2011. What is the “fair” amount of taxation on high-income taxpayers? To liberals, the […]

The Little Rascals – “Fly My Kite” (1931) Part 2-2

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Heritage Foundation Scholars respond to Obama debt reduction proposal (Part 5)

October 18, 2011 – 9:18 am


I love going to the Heritage Foundation website for articles like this:

Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Heritage Responds to Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Mike Brownfield

September 19, 2011 at 11:16 am

Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s debt reduction and tax increase proposal. Here are their immediate reactions:

_______________

Here’s How to Pay Your “Fair Share,” Mr. Buffett

President Obama proposes the “Buffett Rule” to make sure the rich pay their “fair share.” However, there is already a system in place for Mr. Buffett and all the other millionaires and billionaires to pay more without a new job-killing tax hike.

Here’s how. Warren and his rich pals can go to this website:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

There they can follow these simple instructions for sending more of their money to the Treasury to reduce the national debt:

How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040.

It is as simple as that. Now how can we stop seeing poor Warren every time we turn on the television incorrectly whining about his taxes are lower than his secretary?

Curtis Dubay

Where Will the Tax Hike REALLY Go???

Obama’s economics are at times stunning.  Proposing tax hikes in the midst of the highest and most persistent unemployment in decades is stunning.  Doing it to pay for a massive jobs package is also stunning.  But for a moment, set all that aside.

Set aside the terrible effect these tax hikes would have on jobs in America.  On investors.  On job creators.  On American competitiveness.  Set aside the cigarette tax that went to pay for expansion of SCHIP at the very beginning of the President’s term. Set aside the 18 new or increased taxes in Obamacare.  Set all that aside and consider this.

Do you believe for one simple moment that these new taxes will be used for paying down the deficit?  Or do you believe that past is prologue? The President’s own jobs package is proof: New taxes go to pay for new spending.

Alison Fraser

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)