As we see more government intrusion into our everyday lives, Americans are beginning to pay more attention to what is going on in Washington.  The runaway spending of the past few years coupled with the special deals made to some states to secure healthcare reform votes has caused many of us to distrust the people running the country.  The rise of the alternative media has also allowed many of us to learn things about decisions made in Washington that have given us cause for concern.  There are difficulties in governing a country the physical size of America.  The communication between the voters and their representatives is limited simply by the number of people a Congressman is expected to represent.  There is a gap between what the voters want and what the Congressman may assume that the voters want. 

As we watch the recent growth of government–taking over banks, industries, the attempted takeover of healthcare, and the coming attempt at putting every industry in the country under government control by way of climate-change legislation, some Americans are wondering how to stop this runaway train.  Well, the Virginia legislature has made, at least, a beginning effort.

According to Fredericksburg.com, a House committee in Virginia passed a bill saying that the federal government should have no say in commerce involving goods made and sold within the State of Virginia. 

According to the article:

“This is basically another ‘get Washington off our backs’ bill,” Cole, R-Spotsylvania, told the House Commerce and Labor committee. “It goes back to the original intent of the 10th Amendment and the Constitution, that Congress would regulate interstate commerce, but it would be up to the states to regulate commerce with-in their borders. I know this is a statement bill, but I think it’s a statement that is timely and needs to be made.”

The bill passed 16-3, and now will go to the full House for a vote.

There is opposition to the bill.  It is also expected that if the bill is passed, the federal government will mount a legal challenge to it.  Nevertheless, I think now is a really good time to remind people that there is a 10th Amendment.  We are meant to be a country made up of individual states, each existing with its own unique personality.  There are areas where uniformity is needed, but the states were intended to govern themselves.  The federal government was supposed to remain small.  We need to think about finding that model again and following it.

Today’s Washington Times reported on the defeat of Presidential nominee Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.   Scott Brown, the newly-elected Massachusetts Senator who was not supposed to be sworn in until tomorrow, voted against the nominee.  Two Democrats also voted against the nominee–the vote was 52-33.  The two Democrats who voted against the nominee were Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and  Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.   Both Senators are in serious danger of losing their Senate seats in the upcoming elections, and we can expect both of them to turn sharply right in order to stay in office.  Nebraska is a right-to-work state, and Senator Nelson wisely realized that the confirmation of Craig Becker would not be welcomed by his constituents.

The fear on the part of the Senators who oppose Mr. Becker’s nomination is that he will institute policies through the National Labor Relations Board that the Democrats were not able to pass by way ofthe legislative process.  His appointment would probably mean that card check (the end of the secret ballot in union elections) would be implemented through the Labor Relations Board, rather than having to be passed in Congress. 

The article points out:

“A review of decades of writings by Mr. Becker have revealed that he has advocated for the most radical theories of labor law,” said Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “In addition to his writings, Mr. Becker has spent the majority of his career serving as counsel to the two largest labor organizations in America, which has raised questions about his ability to fairly adjudicate cases involving those unions.”

One of the problems that the Obama Administration is having right now is that it is seen as anti-business.  This nomination was seen as anti-business.  This perception of the Obama Administration is also one of the factors that is slowing down any financial recovery that is beginning.  Until business owners feel that it is ‘safe’ to run a business and make a profit, they will not be taking any risks in growing their businesses and hiring people–no matter what tax incentives they are promised. 

The war in Afghanistan seems to be the focus of our military right now.  Historically, this is a war that generally seems to calm down a bit during the winter and start up again in the spring.  This is due at least in part to the unforgiving climate of that country. 

My best source of information on Afghanistan is Michael Yon.  As I have explained before, Michael is a former Green Beret, native of Winter Haven, Fl. who has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.  No other reporter has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars.  Michael’s dispatches from the frontlines have earned him the reputation as the premier independent combat journalist of his generation.  His work has been featured on “Good Morning America,” The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, ABC, FOX, as well as hundreds of other major media outlets all around the world. 

The current entry at Michael’s blog is entitled Special Delivery.  It is the story of the role of the United States Air Force in supplying the American troops spread across Afghanistan.  Please follow the link to the article–the pictures of the airplanes and the Americans involved in the mission are fantastic. 

Michael embeds with the troops and travels with them whenever possible.  This is an example of his adventures:

“The small pieces of glass in front of each pilot are called “HUDs”, or Heads Up Displays.  Pilots say the HUDs are great because they can keep their eyes out the windows while still seeing critical information without looking down at the instrument panel.  Notice through the left HUD, a fighter jet is roaring down the runway.  (Just after the dogs left.)  My quarters on KAF are straight ahead past the far side of the runway, so it’s pretty loud here day and night.  Helicopters, C-130s, jets of all sorts.  The enemy has been firing more rockets onto the base, causing some casualties, but to my knowledge have destroyed no aircraft.  Years ago, the Mujahidin more or less ran the Soviet Air Force out of Kandahar with their rocket attacks.  The “Muj” once shot down a Soviet general, captured him, but killed him before they realized they had a general.  Today, the enemy shoots at lot with SAFIRE (Surface to Air Fire) at aircraft and sometimes sparkle the pilots with lasers.  If there is a surface to air missile threat, it’s not presented itself.”

Thank you, Mr. Yon, for your insight into what is going on in that part of the world.

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard posted a commentary today about dissent.  Mr. McCormack points out:

“John Brennan took to the USA Today to state that “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.””

The article lists the times the members of the current administration charged the Bush Administration with doing exactly this (and there are no actual incidents of that happening).

“…”If any Member of this Senate–Democrat or Republican–takes to the floor, questions this White House policy, raises any questions about the gathering of intelligence information, or the use of it, be prepared for the worst.  This White House is going to turn on you and attack you.  They are going to question your patriotism.” – Senator Durbin, 149 Cong. Rec. S9668, July 22, 2003.”

There are other examples of similar statements listed in the article.  Please read them.  In light of Mr. Brennan’s comments, they are quite entertaining.

The article concludes:

“Honest question: We’ve heard much about how the Bush administration supposedly questioned the patriotism of Democrats, but what are the specific examples? Anything on par with Brennan’s accusation that critics are serving “the goals of al Qaeda”? I honestly can’t recall an example of a Bush national security official questioning the patriotism of Democrats, but if someone can prove otherwise, I’d be happy to set the record straight.”

I really think that the basic problem of the Obama Adminstration is that President Obama is a product of the Chicago politics that put him in the White House.  He is not used to being challenged in the arena of ideas.  The concept that he might have wrongly handled a situation is a foreign concept.  According to the ‘Chicago Way’, the power of the office and the people he is connected with should be able to make dissent nonexistent.  I think the fact that he is having trouble grasping this concept may have a lot to do with his sagging approval ratings.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article with a graph showing public opinion on the President’s healthcare bill.  Generally speaking, most of us just want the bill to die a peaceful death so that we can start from scratch. 

The article comments on the President’s desire to make the bill bi-partisan by meeting with the Republicans (whom he has labeled as “The Party of No”).  Well, wait a minute.  Up until last week the Democrat party had a sizable majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  The Republicans simply did not have the numbers to stop anything the Democrats chose to do.  The only way a bi-partisan meeting on healthcare reform makes sense is if it starts from scratch.  Otherwise, it is a photo-op for the purpose of slamming Republicans and should be avoided.

The article states:

“The loyal opposition has to offer ideas that work, that put the patient in control. These include health savings accounts, fair tax treatment of individual insurance policies, interstate sales of individual policies, legal reform that will cut doctors’ malpractice insurance costs and encourage reductions in overtreatment, and an end to coverage mandates so more people can afford insurance.

“If the Democratic majority rejects such ideas that promote better care and lower costs, then it — not minority Republicans — should be labeled “the party of no.””

The first step in dealing with healthcare reform is be honest as to why the current healthcare reform bill has not passed–the American people do not like the current proposal or the arm twisting and bribery that went into getting it past the initial vote in the Senate.  When the Obama Administration admits that fact, healthcare reform may be possible.

I realize that this article is going to be controversial, but it’s a concept that needs to be understood.  When America was founded, her laws were based on a Judeo-Christian concept of law found in the Ten Commandments.  One of the underlying ideas was that every man was equal under the law.  The only really big mistake the founders made in that area was not to deal with the problem of slavery.  Unfortunately, though, had they tried to include solutions to that problem, the Union might never have been formed.  Anyway, generally speaking, we live in a culture that values each member, has a concept of law, respects women as citizens, and respects the rights of others.  Sometimes we mess up, but mostly we get it right.

On Saturday, Power Line reported on a story out of Turkey.  A sixteen-year-old girl was buried alive by her father and grandfather for talking to boys. 

The article points out:

“It also emerged that Medine had repeatedly tried to report to police that she had been beaten by her father and grandfather days before she was killed. “She tried to take refuge at the police station three times, and she was sent home three times,” her mother, Immihan, said after the body was discovered in December. Medine’s father is reported as saying at the time: “She has male friends. We are uneasy about that.””

“…There are around 200 “honor” killings annually in Turkey. Amazingly enough, they account for around half of all homicides.”

I have no problem with letting any person who comes to America practice his/her religion freely.  I do, however, want to make it clear that there are some customs tied to certain religions that should not be allowed to make their way to this country.

No, this is not an article about the Super Bowl (I was, however, rooting for New Orleans).  There was an election for Mayor of New Orleans on Saturday.  Mitch Landrieu won in a landslide.  Mr. Landrieu is a conservative Democrat whose first priority is to make the city streets safe.  He is the brother of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. 

The New Orleans Times-Picayune states:

“Landrieu also said he will ask several cabinet secretaries and Gov. Bobby Jindal to embed representatives in his transition team to make sure all recovery efforts are coordinated from the start.”

New Orleans is a very special city.  It needs good leadership to finally get past the incredible damage done to it by Hurricane Katrina.  One of my children and her family lived there during Hurricane Katrina and still own a house there.  In the times that I have been there since Katrina, I have seen evidence of recovery in some places and evidence of hopelessness in other places.  Good leadership from the new Mayor could make a big difference, and I wish him much success.  New Orleans is a beautiful city, and it would be wonderful to see it totally recover from Hurricane Katrina.

During the 1990’s, when terrorism was mostly an overseas phenomenon, it was generallly government policy to treat terrorists as common criminals.  When the World Trade Center was initially bombed in 1993, Andrew McCarthy handled the prosecution of the bombers, and it was handled as a criminal case.  We simply weren’t prepared for the plans the radical Islamists had for us, and we reacted according to what we knew.  Well, that was then; this is now.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wrote an article refuting John Brennan’s claim that the Republican leadership knew about the plan to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber.  Mr. Brennan stated that Senator Kit Bond and Representative Pete Hoekstra were briefed on the Administration’s intent to handle the case through the criminal justice system.  However, both Congressmen have denied that they were told of the intention to Mirandize Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“It seems ridiculous to claim that Bond and Hoekstra got fully briefed on the strategy for handling Abdulmutallab when DNI Dennis Blair, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others in the counterterrorist chain of command have already testified that they didn’t get briefed on that decision until it was made. If the White House didn’t consult Mueller or Blair, why would they have picked up the phone and called Bond and Hoekstra? Brennan’s claim that a call giving the two the outline of the attack somehow amounts to acquiescence of the point of Mirandizing a terrorist before fully interrogating him is ludicrous, and obviously self-serving. It’s almost as bad as Janet Napolitano’s “the system worked” spin on the Sunday after Christmas.”

It seems to me that at some point, the administration needs to admit the whole episode of the Christmas Day bomber was a fiasco.  The fact that the man was allowed on the plane was the first mistake, and it went downhill from there.  Rather than try to deny their mistakes, they need to simply learn from them. 

On January 31, I posted an article about the sale of arms to Taiwan ( at rightwinggranny.com).  A friend of mine who grew up in Taiwan and served in their military as a young man was kind enough to offer his perspective on the sale.  These are his comments:

1.  The sale was negotiated and decided during the Bush Administration back in 2008, only now the Obama Administration “announced” it,
 
2.  $6B ?? How much of that is really for defending Taiwan? How much really is for our recession recovery money? Taiwan asked for the advanced F-16 C/D jets and submarines, which are what they really need, but President Obama didn’t give them the real defensive weapons.
 
3.  As you know, there is an increasing concern within the Congress that China has become the World superpower. The right wing Eagle Republicans, like Dick Chenney and others, have always been against any legislation in favor of China. Remember the recent G8 (or G10 now?) and APEC meetings between Obama and the Chinese Leader? Clinton said Obama is too young and inexperienced – I think he is right. I believe this is just a “balancing act” from President Obama.

Further comments are welcome.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article about the difficulties of bringing electricity to the City of Kandahar, Afghanistan.   Last spring, through the use of a power line from Uzbekistan, electricity came to Kabul.  It has not only changed life in the city, it has changed the way the people living there feel about the city.  Kabul is a city ‘on the way up.’

Part of the problem with bringing power to Kandahar is that the electric lines supplying the city have been cut numerous times.  It is unclear whether this is done on purpose or is simply a side effect of the fighting.  One of the other difficulties in bringing power to Kandahar is that the Kajaki Dam is in need of repair and the six-year plan to repair it is constantly delayed due to fighting and the difficulty of getting the supplies needed to repair it into the area. 

Electric power is an important part of winning the war because it provides employment opportunities for young men who might otherwise become Taliban fighters or suicide bombers.  People who go to work every day tend to look forward to the future.  Electricity also provides a way for people to access news and become better informed.

The people working on the electricity problem are considering their options.  Green energy may come to Afghanistan.  At any rate, I think the article points out the need to see Afghanistan as a complete picture.  Unless you can sets up some sort of viable economic model (other than the traditional drug trade), the effort in Afghanistan will not be successful. 

Just as a side note, in my opinion, the best source of information on Afghanistan is Michael Yon.  His web address is Michael Yon Online.    Michael  is a former Green Beret, native of Winter Haven, Fl. who has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.  No other reporter has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars.  Michael’s dispatches from the frontlines have earned him the reputation as the premier independent combat journalist of his generation.  His work has been featured on “Good Morning America,” The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, ABC, FOX, as well as hundreds of other major media outlets all around the world. 

When I want to know what is really going on, I check his website.
 

Thursday’s Washington Times reported that the Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine has told Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia that he was unable to investigate the dismissal of the voter intimidation charges against the Black Panthers because Congress had stripped him of that authority. 

According to the article, Mr. Fine stated in a letter to Representative Wolf:

“”Unfortunately, unlike all other OIGs which have unlimited jurisdiction to investigate all allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within their agencies, the Department of Justice OIG does not,” he wrote. “For several years, I have expressed my position that Congress should change this jurisdiction.

“”I have raised various arguments for this change including … the independence issues that arise because OPR reports to the attorney general,” he said.”

The article further states:

“In requesting that Mr. Fine’s office investigate the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, Mr. Wolf had challenged the independence of the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which has been reviewing the dismissal for the past seven months.”

Unfortunately, I suspect this incident will never be properly investigated.  My only hope is that enough people will get angry enough to make sure if anything like this occurs again, those guilty of voter intimidation will be treated according to the law.

Pint Glass (Pub): A common glass used for serving pints of beer throughout the world; this shape of glass is much less common in bars in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To anyone who might not be aware of it, this is a picture of an ale pint glass.  It has recently been reinvented.  According to the Houston Press, a new shatterproof pint glass is being introduced in the British Pubs.

The article states:

“According to British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, there are about 87,000 of these (glass) attacks every year, some very serious. We even read a story about a bloodbath in a London bar in which 50 pint glasses were smashed in a minute and one person’s eye popped out. Sounds more like a horror movie than a night out at the pub.”

I must admit I live in a very sheltered world–I wasn’t even aware of the problem.  I am glad they have come up with a solution to ‘glass attacks’ at the pub, but it occurs to me that you could still knock a person out with a well-placed hit on the head even if the glass didn’t break.  I’m not sure what the solution to that would be.

The article also points out that the new glass will keep the beer (or ale) cold longer.  Since the British drink their beer at room termperature, I suspect that would be more of an American selling point.  Oh well, I’m glad that some inventor has solved one of life’s problems.  Let me know when someone comes up with an idea of how to prevent the fights in the first place. 

Insensitive, maybe.  Racist, I don’t think so.  Where is our sense of humor?  Is corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick’s Day now racist?

The Los Angeles Times posted an article today about The Wakefield Study, the study of the relationship between children’s MMR vaccines and autism, published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 1998.  The Lancet Medical Journal has retracted the study.

“The Wakefield study seems to have had worse consequences in Britain, where vaccinations declined dramatically after its publication, than in this country. Even so, the anti-vaccination movement it unleashed — one that has been amplified by the Internet and a culture of skepticism toward mainstream medicine — certainly influenced decisions by parents in the U.S. not to have their children vaccinated. It’s hard to believe, for example, that anti-vaccine propaganda played no part in recent increases in measles cases or in the number of parents seeking “personal belief” exemptions from vaccinating their children.”

One of the comments I came across in researching this article was a comment by a doctor who observed that the initial symptoms of autism usually show up at about the same age that children are getting these vaccines, so it might appear in some cases that there is a relationship between the two.  I can understand how parents looking for a solution to a very difficult problem would draw the connection, but a scientist should be more careful.

Hopefully, now that this study has been proven false, more children will get these vaccines and avoid the diseases they prevent.

This blog was started in the late summer of 2008 because I was disgusted with the media coverage of the Presidential campaign.  I was not a big fan of John McCain (although I respect him as one of our country’s war heroes), but I felt that Barack Obama would not be a good president for our country.  The news coverage of the campaign was very one sided, and I felt someone had to tell the truth (even if only ten people read it)!

Well, here we are again.  Scott Brown is the new darling of Massachusetts, and the mainstream media is trying to tear him to shreds.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but let’s shed some truth on what has happened over the past few weeks.

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post yesterday posted an article about the arrival of Scott Brown in Washington.  As you remember, the Democrats keep calling for civility.  Well, this isn’t it.

Mr. Milbank states:

“So, in one of his first major decisions since winning election, the Republican made his choice: He would cave in to his conservative critics. He requested — no, demanded! — that he be seated promptly — no, immediately! — so that he could start to do the important work of being a senator. Democratic Senate leaders complied with his demand (they even let him have Ted Kennedy‘s primo office suite), and Vice President Biden made time to swear in Brown on the Senate floor at 5 p.m. Thursday.”

There are a few things she overlooks in this statement.  After Scott Brown was elected, Paul Kirk, Jr., continued voting in the Senate.  If that is not illegal, it should be.  Paul Kirk, Jr., was appointed Senator to fill the gap left when Ted Kennedy died.  The laws of Massachusetts had to be rewritten and the Massachusetts constitution violated to put Mr. Kirk in that seat.  Mr. Kirk was the President’s insurance policy that he could get his healthcare reform bill through by the end of 2009.  (No one at that point expected that a Republican would eventually win the seat).  When Scott Brown was elected, he was the rightful person to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.  Ted Kennedy won that same Senate seat in 1962 and was sworn in within two day.  Scott Brown should have been sworn in by January 21st.  He was well within his rights to ask to be sworn in Febrary 4th. 

Mr. Milbank states:

“But they don’t like the way he votes, so hours before Brown’s arrival, Senate Democrats used their 60-vote majority one final time, breaking a Republican filibuster and confirming Patricia Smith to be solicitor in the Labor Department.”

That may be a legal vote, but the people of Massachusetts were not fairly represented in it.

Mr. Milbank also referred to Senator Brown numerous times as “Senator Centerfold.”  So much for civility.   

CNN posted an article by Fortune Magazine yesterday stating that this will be the first time in 25 years that Social Security pays out more money than it takes in. 

According to the article:

“No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

“The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).”

This fiscal year ends on September 30th, at that point Social Security will have a balance of minus $28 billion.  The problem with Social Security is that when it has a cash surplus, Congress uses it to fund the budget (to hide the amount of red ink).  Now that well has run dry and there is a big hole that needs to be filled.

The article concludes:

“To be sure — three of the most dangerous words in journalism — the current Social Security cash deficits aren’t all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.

“But this year’s Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it’s a problem for the present.” 

I wonder how long it will be before Congress actually addresses this issue.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports on an exhange between Senator Judd Gregg and OMB director Peter Orszag.   The video of the exchange is available at the Hot Air link above.  Senator Gregg points out that the budget submitted by President Obama is unsustainable.  The discussion also covered Mr. Orszag’s request that the law be rewritten to allow TARP money to be used for purposes other than what the current law specifies. 

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“Gregg had good reason to add that codicil to the TARP bill. Normally skeptical members of Congress only supported TARP with the assurance that it wouldn’t become an Oval Office slush fund and that receipts would go directly back to paying off debt. Congress had better recognize the danger of this path before they inadvertently fund a perpetual imperial Presidency.”

To change the law as it is currently written is to ignore the purpose of the TARP law and the wishes of the American people.

Today’s Washington Examiner is reporting that the Democrats in Washington have been scrambling to get certain votes through the Senate before Scott Brown is seated as the new Massachusetts Senator later today.  It is amazing to me that with the election certified today, anyone would consider letting Paul Kirk, Jr., vote on anything.

One of the Obama nominees that is being opposed by Republicans and various business organizations is Craig Becker, because he is seen as anti-business and strongly pro-union. 

The article points out:

“He (Scott Brown) will become the chamber’s 41st Republican, which will give the party enough votes to block controversial nominees like Craig Becker, President Obama’s pick to fill one of three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board — someone who businesses fear will be able to implement pro-union changes that Democrats couldn’t achieve through legislation.”

The danger here, regarless of who is nominated, is the concept of laws being made other than through legislation.  That is a true danger to our country and Constitution.

On Monday, Patricia Smith, another controversial nominee, cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday with exactly 60 Democratic votes.  Paul Kirk, Jr., was the 60th vote.

I (and probably much of the country) will breathe a sigh of relief when Scott Brown is sworn in.  At that point the Senate seat he will be filling will be returned to the people of Massachusetts.  It’s about time.

I would like to point out here that I do not necessarily agree with Scott Brown on all issues, but I believe that he is a man who will pay attention to the voters and attempt to communicate with them.  That will be a refreshing change.

On Monday morning, Yahoo News published a story about the backdoor taxes that will hit the middle class in the proposed President Obama budget.  Shortly thereafter the story (at Yahoo News) was taken down and replaced with the following:

“The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.”

If you are, however, a curious person who would like to read the story that was taken down, you would have been able to find it at Yahoo News Canada, but it was taken down sometime between early this morning and 1:30 this afternoon.  The information below is from that story.  I believe it has been totally removed from the web at this point.  Evidently, someone has exerted pressure to have it removed from the US and Canadian websites.  Hmmm.

The original story lists the ways that the Obama Budget increases taxes for the middle class.  A few examples:

• When the Bush tax cuts expire, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
• Tax on dividends jumps to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increases to 20 percent from 15 percent.
• The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
• Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes.
• The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies is gone.
• The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses is gone.
• Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid.
• The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

It seems as if elections have consequences, and those elected don’t necessarily want you to know what those consequences are!

NOTE:  This is what you get now when you follow the link to this story at Yahoo Canada:

“The Feb 1 story headlined “Backdoor taxes to hit middle class” is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration’s budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story.”

Amazing! 

Somehow I don’t think this was what President Obama had in mind!  It seems that a few things have changed since the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.  Although the President seems to be permanently deaf to the wishes of the American people, some of the Democrats running for re-election have suddenly developed an acute sense of hearing.

Hot Air reported yesterday that two Democrats have joined a group of Republicans in supporting a bill to withhold the funds the President requested for trying terrorists in civilian courts.  Eighteen senators, including two Democrats and one Independent introduced the bill.  The Democrats are Jim Webb and Blanche Lincoln, and the Independent is Joe Lieberman.  Blanche Lincoln is up for re-election and down in the polls. 

Personally, I am wondering about the chances of a Democrat Presidential Primary in 2012.  It would be unusual, but unless President Obama’s approval ratings change and the economy improves (those factors are related), I think it could happen.  The challenge from the right would be Evan Byah and/or Hillary Clinton.  The challenge from the left would be someone like Howard Dean.  Because that would split the vote, I believe President Obama would win, but it would make for an interesting 2012. 

Meanwhile, it’s nice to know that some members of Congress are learning how to listen!

UPDATE:  According to an update at the Boston Herald website:

“U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown has demanded his official swearing in ceremony be pushed up to tomorrow afternoon saying there are upcoming vital votes in Congress.” 

This is one of the few times I am proud to be a Massachusetts voter!

——————————————————————————————————————–

Jay Severin at 96.9 Boston Talks has been one of the people speaking out for the rights of the voters of Massachusetts.  On January 19th, we voted for a new Senator, Scott Brown.  The appointed Senator, Paul Kirk, Jr., is still voting in the Senate.  Meanwhile, important legislation is being passed, and the voters of Massachusetts are not being properly represented. 

When Scott Brown was asked how he felt as an opponent of nationalizing healthcare running for Ted Kennedy’s seat, he replied, “Respectfully, this is not the Kennedy Seat. It is the People’s Seat.”  That was one of the best sound bites of the election campaign–a few words that spoke the truth.

Jay Severin rightly points out:

“The rationale, such as it is, goes like this: “Sure, sure – when a Democrat was elected in a special election, she was voting in 48 hours…and Yes, yes – an obvious, insidious double standard has been used to deprive us of our new voice – as the Kennedy stooge Kirk has been kept in this seat weeks after the election, so the losers (Obama, establishment politicians) can steal our vote on critical issues by having Kirk cast his against us…BUT it isn’t a problem because…Scott Brown is fine with being seated later; Scott is fine with February 11.””

The question then becomes, according to Mr. Severin, “what are You fine with?”  Mr. Severin points out that Scott Brown is being a total gentleman about the whole thing, but that really isn’t the point.  The seat does really belong to the people of Massachusetts.

He concludes:

“But we must never lose sight of the fact that this historic election, this Senate seat and everything connected to it is only fine if and when “We are fine with it”, too.”

Well spoken, sir.

Remember to say a prayer today for all our soldiers and their families.  Their wives and children also serve.

If you  read this site regularly, you know that I am very upset about the fact that our new Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, has not been sworn in.  This delay has allowed the raising of the debt ceiling without the input of the voters of Massachusetts (the appointed Senator was the decisive vote), and I am sure there will be other things going through before Senator Brown is sworn in.

Boston.com reports that Senator Brown is hoping to be sworn in February 11th–more than three weeks after the election.  When Ted Kennedy won that seat in a special election, he was sworn in within two days.  My, how times change.  Anyway, The Hill is reporting that Obama nominee for Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith, may be confirmed before Senator Brown is seated.  The problem with this nominee is that she seems to have lied to the Senate about her involvement with the Wage and Hour Watch program.

Ms. Smith said that she had no intention to expand the program throughout the State of New York, but the Washington Examiner reports:

“But the e-mails obtained through New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) suggest otherwise. Outside groups were being consulted as early as April 2008, and played a key role in developing the program. Smith herself was copied on e-mails discussing the program with these groups as early as November 2008. The program was announced publicly in January 2009, and Enzi’s memo contends that the businesses affected weren’t even allowed a meeting with Smith until March.”

According to the Washington Examiner, the program “was an effort to deputize unions to detect illegal employment practices — for example, by confronting and interviewing employees as they leave work, or even while they are on the job.”  It would open the door for all kinds of intimidation tactics toward employers and employees.  The question is not only what the program would do, but why she felt it necessary to lie about the program.

The Hill reported Sunday that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stated during an appearance on CNN that card check legislation will pass this year in spite on the fact that the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority.  Card check is the legislation that takes the secret ballot out of the unionization vote.  Tumka also stated that healthcare reform would also pass this year.  I have two reactions to these statements–the first is that he reinforces the need for all of us to pay attention to what is going on in Washington every day.  Both of these bills seemed to have died, but evidently they have not.  The second reaction is to wonder if he has accurate information and what it is based on.

Congress seems to have a temporary hearing problem.  I guess we just have to elect more Senators who will listen to the people to correct the problem.

I thought the purpose of a budget was to help keep your spending under control.  The document that President Obama has submitted to Congress does nothing of the sort.  It might be called an unbudget or a spendget.

Articles and information on the proposed budget are all over the internet.  My sources are the Washington Examiner, an article at Power Line concerning about the energy policy built into the budget, an article at Power Line about the increasing debt, and an article at The Hill.

The spin on this budget is that it will end the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ put in place by the Bush Administration.  We need to consider that the majority of those ‘rich’ are small business owners who because of the way they file their taxes appear rich although they are not.  These are the people who hire workers.  To raise their taxes at this time is to increase unemployment until that burden is lifted.  The budget also includes a tax increase on those making less than $ 95,000 a year. 

According to The Hill:

“The $3.8 trillion budget request rolled out by the White House on Monday would renew the Making Work Pay tax credit for fiscal 2011, but then would have it sunset.   That’s a switch from last year, when Obama’s budget called for making the tax credit permanent.”.

This is directly opposite of the promise of no tax increase for the middle class.  You can’t spend the kind of money this administration is planning to spend and not raise taxes.

Power Line points out:

“[Obama’s budget] contained $36.5 billion in new taxes over ten years on the oil and gas industries, while heaping new billions in taxpayer support for politically-favored energies.”

Power Line asks the question:

“If they claim tax hikes on the oil and gas industries won’t have any incentive effects on production or jobs, then how can they claim that “green investments” will create jobs in the solar and wind industries?”

This is all smoke and mirrors.  Power Line points out how much spending increases with this proposed budget:

“Today the Obama administration unveiled its budget for FY 2011. The budget ostensibly covers the next ten years, but its projections for future years are meaningless. The only year for which it has any significance is 2011, in which it anticipates $3.8 trillion in spending and an astonishing $1.6 trillion deficit. In 2006, the last year in which the Republicans controlled Congress, the deficit was $248 billion–one-seventh what Obama proposes for next year.””

I am in no way a budget expert, buy I know that when times are tough, you need to be careful what you spend.  I don’t know if there is a way to stop this budget and cut it down, but for the good of the country that needs to happen!