Why I Will Be Voting For Anyone But Obama In 2012

Saturday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

Mr. Hamm was in Washington recently for a ‘giving summit’ with wealthy Americans who have pledged to give at least half their wealth to charity. He reports on his brief conversation with President Obama:

When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”

The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.” 

Evidently President Obama is blinded by the fact that many of his friends and major financial supporters have substantial investments in green energy. There is nothing wrong with green energy, but right now we have a need for oil and gas. It is a shame that our President is so blinded by self-interest that he is unwilling to address that need.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Warren Buffett Opposes The Buffett Tax

On Friday the Washington Examiner posted a transcript of an interview of Warren Buffett on CNBC where Mr. Buffett stated that he did not support President Obama’s new tax pollicy. Howeber, Mr. Buffett did state that Counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had called him to ask his permission to use his name for President Obama’s new tax policy.

The transcript states:

CNBC: Does that you mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes over $250,000?

Buffett: There is another program that I won’t be discussing. My program is to have on ultra rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. And it would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million.

It doesn’t sound as if Mr. Buffett is totally on board with the White House. The thing to remember here is that there is only so much money you can actually get by taxing the ‘rich.’ The rich have tax lawyers and CPA’s to help them avoid paying any more taxes than they are required to pay. When the government decides it wants more money coming in and does not want to cut spending, eventually it works out that the middle class pays more taxes because that’s the tax bracket that encompasses the majority of Americans. The best example of that is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which was originally only supposed to impact a very small number of Americans. In 1970, only 19,000 taxpayers owed an AMT. It is now estimated by the Congressional Research Services that if the cuts to the regular income tax are made permanent, the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will increase from about 1.8 million in 2001 to over 41 million by 2013. We need to remember as the President’s tax proposals are debated, that even when we are told that taxes are only going to impact the rich, they eventually impact the rest of us. New taxes are always a bad idea. Fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress and the President is what is needed.


 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Problems With Supporting A Palestinian State

Yesterday the Jerusalem Post posted an article detailing some recent comments about support for the proposed state of Palestine from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

According to the article:

Earlier on Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected the Palestinians’ UN statehood bid, saying any deal that accepted the existence of Israel would leave a “cancerous tumor” forever threatening the security of the Middle East.

As leader of a country under a long-standing threat of military action from Israel and the United States, Khamenei warned the Jewish state and its allies to expect “paralyzing blows” that a NATO missile shield could not prevent.

“Any plan that seeks to divide Palestine is totally rejected,” Khamenei told a conference commemorating the Palestinian Intifada.

The conference was commemorating the Palestinian Intifada as if it were a good thing. Do we really need another terrorist state?

The article further reports:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Saturday responded to anti-Israel comments made by Iran’s supreme leader, saying the Ayatollahs’ declarations of “their intentions to annihilate Israel, give credence to the government’s insistence on Israel’s security needs and our demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state.”

The Jews (and Israel) are the canary in the coalmine of the world. When bad things happen to the Jews, something happens to the fabric of society that causes the basics of civilization to break down. To allow the current entity that calls itself Palestine to become officially a state is to kill the canary in the coal mine. Until Palestine can demonstrate that it wants a two-state solution (not a one-state solution with it as the only state) to the question of Israel and Palestine, it cannot be allowed to become a state. Until Palestine recognizes Israel’s right to exist, it should not be allowed statehood.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Free Speech ?

April 30: George Washington becomes the first ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that tomorrow is “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” The event was created in 2008 by the Alliance Defense Fund to protest the limits on free speech imposed on church pastors.

The article reports:

Houses of worship, like other non-profit organizations, pay no federal income tax and can promise tax deductions to their donors. In return, the IRS forbids churches from attempting to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

Before I attempt to tear this argument to shreds, I need to explain where I am coming from. I attend a Pentecostal church. The church believes in the Bible and what it says about the moral issues that all of us deal with every day. Sometimes those moral issues are reflected in laws that are proposed or in political platforms. Isn’t it a pastor’s obligation to speak out concerning those issues?

The freedom of speech of pastors should not have any relation to their tax-exempt status. To connect those two things is to allow the IRS to control what is said in the pulpits of America. That is ridiculous.

I would also like to point out that all churches do not believe the same things. There is probably as much of the political spectrum represented in the pulpit as there is in the general population of America, so why do we need to restrict speech in our churches?

The Tennessean reported today:

The ban on nonprofit political endorsements dates to the 1950s. Lyndon B. Johnson was mad at nonprofits that opposed his re-election, so “he rammed these rules through to punish his opponents,” said Richard Hammar, editor of Church Law and Tax Report.

The IRS has not punished any pastors involved in Pulpit Freedom events. Hammar said both conservative and liberal churches often ignore the ban without consequences.

It is time to repeal this law. The church was the moral compass of colonial America. Our founders would be appalled at the idea that pastors would be prevented from speaking out on political issues. It wasn’t at all what they had in mind.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Speaking Of Incredible Coincidences…

Badge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firea...

Image via Wikipedia

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com is reporting that the Department of Justice wants to eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The move would involve the firing of 450 ATF agents. Some of the duties of the ATF would be transferred to other government agencies; for example, the enforcement of explosives and gun laws would possibly be transferred to the FBI and the DEA.

The article points out that the idea of eliminating the ATF comes just as the investigation of Fast and Furious is uncovering embarrassing links to some of the major players in the Obama administration.

The article points out:

Up to this point, the Department of Justice has denied all allegations or involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, yet journalists and the House Oversight Committee have proved allegation after allegation to be true. For example, during a Congressional  hearing in July, former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell, who has since been promoted to a position within the Justice Department, denied that his agency was trafficking guns to Mexico, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony from other ATF agents proving otherwise.

Ms. Pavlich concludes:

Last week, ATF offered 400 agents buy outs to avoid budget cuts and is expecting 250-275 agents to take the offer through Voluntary Early Retirement. These buyouts come at a convenient time for the Justice Department, which can eliminate ATF, then say it’s because of budget cuts, when really, it’s to cover their tracks.

As much as I love the idea of actually getting rid of a government agency, I don’t think this is the time to talk about getting rid of the ATF. It may be the time to look at what the agency did in Operation Fast and Furious, but it isn’t a good idea to eliminate an agency in the middle of a Congressional investigation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What 2010 Election ?

Tea Party Patriots

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

The 2010 midterm elections were not good news for the Democrat Party. The issues were runaway spending, Obamacare, and the economy in general. The Democrats lost six seats in the Senate, 63 seats in the House of Representatives, and six governorships. The Tea Party played a part in the Republican victories. The Tea Party (and the Republicans) made some mistakes, but overall, the election was a statement by the American people that they wanted less government, less spending, and repeal of Obamacare. Unfortunately, the current administration (and Democrat leadership and much of the Republican leadership) did not get the message.

Reuters is reporting today that the Democrat members of the debt super committee are insisting that the negotiations begin with raising taxes.

The article reports:

During the super committee’s initial closed-door meetings, “Republicans wanted to just talk about spending cuts and Democrats said, ‘No,'” the aide said.

Republicans strongly oppose tax hikes, arguing they will hurt an anemic economic recovery. But they have not ruled out closing some tax loopholes as part of tax reform. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, insist revenue increases must be part of any deficit reduction deal.

Democrats’ calls for increasing taxes on the rich may have been bolstered by a new Congressional Research Service analysis. The September 23 report obtained by Reuters concluded that letting decade-old tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of next year as scheduled “could help reduce budget deficits in the short term without stifling the economic recovery.”

On Thursday, The Hill reported why the Senate has not taken up President Obama’s bill to balance the budget:

“The oil-producing-state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies,” (Dick) Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bipartisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”

If the future of America were not at stake, this would be comical.  I agree with Rick Perry’s statement, “I’ll work to try to make DC as inconsequential in your life as I can.” That’s the attitude we need in Washington.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta