Another Fiction-Based Policy Brought To You By The Obama Administration

The Daily Caller today is reporting that the policies that are part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‘s plan to fight global warming will cost the economy $2.23 trillion. The debate over global warming continues, but so does the runaway cost of fighting it–courtesy of the EPA.

The article reports:

“Higher energy prices as a result of the regulations will squeeze both production and consumption. Since energy is a critical input for most goods and services, Americans will be hit repeatedly with higher prices as businesses pass higher costs onto consumers,” writes Nick Loris, a Heritage Foundation economist and co-author of the report.

“However, if a company had to absorb the costs, high energy costs would shrink profit margins and prevent businesses from investing and expanding,” Loris adds. “The cutbacks result in less output, fewer new jobs, and less income.

Let’s wait until we are sure the problem actually exists before we throw tons of money at it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Ego With No End

Fox News is reporting today that the Obama Administration has made some small additions at to biographies of former Presidents–going all the way back to Calvin Coolidge. I am sorry that anyone has the power to tamper with biographical information on the official White House site, but I guess if you are the President, it comes with the territory. President Obama has added little fact boxes at the end of the biographies of former Presidents relating his accomplishments to theirs.

The article reports:

For instance, the following line was added to the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan: “In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.” 

Well, that kind of egotistic ridiculousness deserves a response, and the people at the Daily Caller were more than happy to provide one. A few of their suggestions:

On his desk in the Oval Office, President Harry Truman had a sign that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” After three years in the White House, President Obama’s 2012 campaign has internalized a similar motto: “The Buck Stops with George W. Bush.”
Coca-Cola was first sold at Jacob’s Pharmacy in Atlanta, Ga., in 1886. One of the two main ingredients in the original recipe was cocaine. In 1929, Coca-Cola became completely cocaine-free. During the 1980s, it is unclear if Barack Obama was totally Coca-Cola-free, but unlike Coca-Cola, he definitely wasn’t cocaine-free.

 In 1905 Theodore Roosevelt became the first sitting president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He earned the prestigious award for helping end the Russo-Japanese war. In 2009, President Obama became the third sitting president — and the fourth president overall — to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He won the award for not being George W. Bush.

Please follow the link to the Daily Caller to read the entire article. It is the correct response to the meddling with the presidential biographies at
Enhanced by Zemanta

A Good Idea On How To Shrink The Deficit

This is rather obvious–it wouldn’t solve the deficit problem entirely, but it would help. President Obama has been promoting the Buffett Rule to increase the amount of taxes that the wealthy pay. It won’t really put a dent in the deficit, but politically it sounds good. John Hinderaker at Power Line has a better idea–he calls it the Geithner Rule which is: everyone pays what he owes under existing laws. Wow, what a concept!

During the time that President Obama’a Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the IMF did not pay withholding taxes on his income.

The article at Power LIne reports:

When he worked for the International Monetary Fund, the fund did not pay withholding taxes on his income, but rather paid Geithner a specifically-designated additional amount which Geithner was supposed to use to pay self-employment taxes. Geithner kept that money, but didn’t pay the taxes.

When Secretary Geithner was later audited,  he paid what he owed for 2003 and 2004. But he didn’t pay what he owed for 2001 and 2002 because the statute of limitations had run on those years. Later, when he was nominated for Secretary of the Treasury, he paid 2001 and 2002 taxes.

The article reports:

Geithner is not the only tax cheat working in the Obama administration. As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out repeatedly, no fewer than 41 of Obama’s White House aides owe back taxes to the IRS, adding up to $831,000. But they aren’t alone: 638 Congressional staffers owe another $9.3 million, and federal employees, altogether, owe $1 billion in back taxes.

 How about we pass a law that prevents anyone who owes back taxes from working for the government until they pay their taxes?

Requiring high government officials to actually pay their taxes would not end the deficit, but it would help. Preventing tax delinquents from serving in government might also encourage them to be more conscientious in paying the government what they owe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Sound Of Crickets Chirping

The sound of crickets chirping is what you hear when you ask President Obama what his plans for lowering the deficit are. Mark Steyn wrote a wonderful article in the National Review today encapsulating the current budget debate. He points out that the Buffett Rule the President keeps touting will balance the budget in 514 years. Wow! Fiscal responsibility at its best!

The article gives us some perspective on the amount of the federal debt and what the Buffett Rule would accomplish:

.,..For what Obama’s spending, there aren’t enough of them, or us, or “the rich” — and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffett. He is the third-wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffett is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who’s the fourth-richest guy? He’s French. And the fifth guy’s a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He’s American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffett between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next-richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she’s barely a semi-Buffett. So her $25 billion will see you through a couple of days of the second week. There aren’t a lot of other semi-Buffetts, but, if you scrounge around, you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffetts: If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for a year.

The article reminds us that President Obama has been saying horrible things about the Paul Ryan budget. The President’s budget was defeated in the House of Representatives by 414 to 0. Where is his alternative plan?

Please follow the link to the National Review to read the entire article. Mark Steyn has a very entertaining way of explaining where we are in terms of spending and taxing and what we need to do about it.


Enhanced by Zemanta

When Reality Is Inconvenient Skew It !

One of my favorite bloggers is da tech guy at He posted a story today about recent polls touted by the Washington Post about the election in November and how voters feel about various issues. His story is based on a story posted at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey.

The secret to getting any poll to confirm anything you want confirmed is in determining who you ask the questions. The recent Washington Post/ABC poll is the poster child for this technique.

Datechguy points out:

In a poll that is only 23% republican

  • Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney draw 42% and 44% respectively nearly double the GOP sample
  • The president draws no better than 52%.

In a poll only 23% republican and with a 11 point Democratic advantage:

  • the president can only manage a 3 pt advantage on jobs.

In a poll with only 23% republicans Obama can only manage

  • A 55% rating on Woman’s issues
  • A 53% rating on international affairs
  • and a 55% rating on being “inspiring

In a poll with only 23% republicans the president can’t crack 50% on:

  • Protecting the middle class
  • Understanding people’s problems,
  • Dealing with Healthcare
  • Supporting small business
  • Handling terrorism
  • Taxes

In a poll only 23% republican Romney holds an advantage over Obama on the issues of:

  • Energy Policy
  • Handling the Economy

and holds a double digit lead on dealing with the deficit.

America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. He has polarized the country along economic and racial lines, he has spent money like there was no tomorrow both personally and publicly, and he has politicized all the areas of the government he could in the time he has been in office. We need to clean house–get rid of all the political hacks in high places and replace them with people who love America. President Obama does not seem to understand the whole concept of loving America–he is too busy getting even for those things he considered the wrongs of the past. When he stated that the Buffett Rule tax was not about raising money, but about fairness, he told us all we needed to know.



Enhanced by Zemanta

How Much Do You Actually Gain From Soaking The Rich ?

Fox News has a video posted showing President Obama stating in April of 2008 that, despite evidence it doesn’t increase revenue, he’d raise the capital gains tax on America’s richest Americans. Then-candidate Obama used one of his favorite words by saying it would be the “fair” thing to do! So it’s not really about revenue–it’s about redistributing wealth–taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. How does that make our society better?

Then there was the ‘Buffett Rule’–the idea of taxing the rich just because we can. President Obama has repeatedly stated that putting a surtax on millionaires would balance the federal budget and restore “fairness” to the tax system.  Yesterday Hot Air ran the numbers on the Buffett Rule to see what the result would be of imposing higher taxes on millionaires.

The article reports:

A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on people earning more than $1 million a year would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press. That would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.

Just to put this in perspective, here are Obama’s budget-projection deficits for the next four years, from the CBO using Obama’s rose-colored glasses economic scenarios:

  • FY 2012 (current year) – $1.3 trillion
  • FY 2013 – $977 billion
  • FY 2014 – $702 billion
  • FY 2015 – $539 billion
  • FY 2016 – $529 billion

That $3 billion per year amounts to:

  • 0.23% of the FY2012 deficit
  • 0.31% of the FY2013 deficit
  • 0.43% of the FY2014 deficit
  • 0.56% of the FY2015 deficit
  • 0.57% of the FY2016 deficit

This is not about raising revenue. This is about punishing those of us who are successful. That is not the recipe for a thriving economy.


Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Buffett Rule…

Pat Robertson on the 700 Club revealed some numbers his research people came up with regarding the taxes of Warren Buffett and Warren Buffett’s secretary. They are as follows:

Warren Buffett’s 2010 Taxes:

Adjusted Gross Income              $62.9 million

Taxable Income                          $39.8 million

Income Taxes                             $6.9 million

Warren Buffett’s secretary in 2010

Forbes Magazine estimated her income at somewhere around $200,000

Her estimated tax burden was approximately $70,000 or slightly higher

A significant amount of Mr. Buffett’s income came from sources that the government had already taxes at 35% (corporate taxes). There is no reason to tax that money again. Mr. Buffett’s secretary did not pay more in taxes than he did. That is a lie.




Enhanced by Zemanta

One More Short Note On The State Of The Union Speech

We all heard about the excessive tax burden of Warren Buffett’s Secretary (who makes more than $200,000 per year), but my sympathy for this lady is running a little thin. I am glad she makes what she makes, but the fact that she is overtaxed has nothing to do with what Mr. Buffett pays in taxes–it has to do with the fact that the government is overspent.

Yesterday The Smoking Gun pointed out that this poor overtaxed lady just bought  a second home in Arizona, complete with a swimming pool and a “professional PGA putting green,” according to real estate records.

The article reports:

The principal Bosanek residence is in Bellevue, Nebraska, several miles from Buffett’s corporate headquarters in Omaha. The couple’s 2568-square-foot home, built in 2000, also has four bedrooms and two-and-a-half baths. But the modest property, which Sarpy County assessors last year valued at $217,716, offers no outdoor amenities for swimmers or golfers.

All  of us are overtaxed. Mr. Buffett is not undertaxed. The government is overspent.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Something That Wasn’t Mentioned In The State Of The Union Speech

I haven’t written anything about the State of the Union speech because I thought it was a political exercise. This is the ‘silly season’ and truth is a rare commodity in political speeches right now (not that it is always there in other times). However, the Wall Street Journal posted an editorial today that makes some very good points.

This is the chart from the editorial:1buffettrule

As you can see, the federal tax rate on long-term capital gains has varied a lot over the years. The article points out the fallacy of the “Buffett Rule” that President Obama is proposing which would make wealthy Americans give more of their money to the government. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is actually about 29.5%. That is the rate you come up with when you include all federal taxes–such as the distribution of corporate taxes. That is about twice the 15.1% rate paid by middle-class families.

Investment income has already been taxed once. There is no reason to tax it again unless you are trying to redistribute wealth.

The article points out:

As the nearby chart shows, the rate has never since risen above 28%, and the last time it moved that high was in 1986 as part of the Reagan-Rostenkowski tax reform that also cut the top marginal income tax rate to 28% from 50%. With income-tax rates so low, a differential was arguably less necessary—though it’s worth noting that capital gains revenues fell dramatically after that rate increase.

A decade later Bill Clinton agreed to cut the rate back to 20% as part of the balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich. Capital gains revenues soared, helping to balance the federal budget. Nearly every study estimates that the revenue-maximizing tax rate from the capital gains tax is between 15% and 28%. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, says that a 30% tax rate “is almost surely above the rate that maximizes tax revenues.” So it’s likely the Buffett trick would lose revenue for the government.

So if we are in a time of federal deficits, why would you change the tax code in a way that would lose revenue for the government? Unless you are using the tax code to redistribute wealth, it makes no sense.


Enhanced by Zemanta