by | BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
Did anyone else notice Justice Antonin Scalia’s headgear at the inauguration today?
Richmond Law Professor Kevin Walsh notes on his blog that
“The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner”.
(more…)
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY
Obama continuously tells us he has made jobs a priority. ”I will not rest until everyone has a job, a good wage, and benefits.” -Barack Obama, July 8, 2010.” So how does this assertion square with the revelation that Obama’s Jobs Council has not met in a year? (more…)
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
From the Government Printing Office *and* the Heritage Foundation, here is the full text of Obama’s 2006 speech arguing vehemently against raising the debt ceiling (when Bush was President). (more…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Under law, the White House must submit a budget this year by February 4. According to the Hill,
Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president’s budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law,”
Only 1 budget out of 4 have been submitted on time — the budget in 2010. The rest of the years, the budgets were late. That year, the budget failed in the Senate 0-97. And last year, the President’s budget failed 0-414. Not one Democrat or Republican voted for them or was willing to sponsor them, because they were so outrageous.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we actually have a functioning budget for the United State. The Senate has not passed a budget since April 29, 2009 — which is currently 1356 days and running.
It’s okay to break the law when it comes to submitting a budget but dammit, we MUST NOT break the law when it comes to our ability to spend bumping up against the debt ceiling, or else “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed”, Obama sternly warned today.
And yet, in 2006, Obama voted against the debt ceiling. The NRO reports that Obama said at the time,:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better”.
We certainly wouldn’t want to know what kind of spending proposals and debt problems are in Obama’s new budget now, would we?
Obama once again, is the president of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
There are two important fiscal dates coming up in February: February 12 and February 15.
February 12 is the scheduled date of Obama’s State of the Union speech, which is also Lincoln’s birthday.
It also happens to be three days before the “X Date”, February 15, the estimated date that the Treasury may not be able to pay its bills. The debt ceiling deadline.
Does anyone want to speculate as to whether the President of the United States is going to announce during his State of the Union Address that he will be unilaterally bypassing Congress to raise the debt ceiling?
Picture the all-too-familiar scenario: it’s February 12th, and Congress will be deadlocked over raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending, raising taxes, and sequestration scenarios. We know that there will be no decision by then, because deadlines mean nothing in Congress – as we just witnessed with the fiscal cliff debates running down to the wire.
The Senate Democrats have already set up a plan in preparation. Senator Harry Reid sent a letter to Obama saying,
“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of an unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary”
Such fiscal urgency from the same group that has failed to pass a budget since April 29, 2009.
Can Obama do this? That’s up for debate, as both sides of the aisle have given their evidence for or against such a move.
But wait. Does anyone remember the “We Can’t Wait” policy implemented by Obama in the fall of 2011, following the last debt ceiling showdown? The White House describes the program:
“President Obama is not letting congressional gridlock slow our economic growth. Without a doubt, the most urgent challenge that we face right now is getting our economy to grow faster and to create more jobs…. we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.”
The narrative is being shaped. We have Obama’s program “We Can’t Wait” in place. According to the whitehouse.gov , Obama has issued 45 Executive Orders under this program. Couple the program with Reid’s letter, the time frame for the State of the Union and the potential default of the Treasury, and you have a perfect storm.
Be prepared. Be prepared for Obama to trot out imagery, language and ideas from Lincoln and work them into his State of the Union address as a backdrop to an announcement on the debt ceiling. Obama can, and will, propose that “We Can’t Wait” for Congress to act (or not act) on a potential default – since it is certain they will be gridlocked – and will use an Executive Order lifting the debt ceiling limit. This will change the ensuing discussion on taxes, spending, and sequestration. But will it also change forever the nature and function of the presidency?
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, TAXES
Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama noted that raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”.
Why would raising the capital gains tax be a revenue loss? The effect of higher taxes on jobs and income would slow the economy. The two sides of the equation are the ones who think that a loss of jobs is worth the potential increased revenue, while others insist that the any positive revenue amounts would be fairly small and not worth the damage to jobs and the economy.
Certainly, at a time like this in our country when the economy is quite sluggish and unemployment is high, the last thing we need is a policy that hurts more jobs and income. Yet such a policy was just implemented. A hike in capital gains makes it more expensive for a business to raise the capital it needs to operate. What’s more, couple that with the new 3.8% surtax on investment income that begins here in 2013 (from the Obamacare legislation) and you have now an 8.8% tax hike for some people. Throw in the hike for those who make over $400k/$450K and you have even more taxes – on the very type of taxpayers who have money to create jobs and/or invest.
One has to wonder if the budget scoring being done by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on this tax will actually bill it as revenue collected, even though economists –and Obama — acknowledge it as a revenue loss.
The capital gains rate hike was a ruse, a shell game. Any revenue raised will be offset by slower economic growth. Is it worth it? Right now? It’s a shame for this country that Obama continued to push for a policy that would have a negative effect on jobs and the economy in an effort to promote “fairness through taxation” and try to level the field on his terms.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS
While the country was discussing the Fiscal Cliff, guns, and Hurricane Sandy, a new bill was introduced in Congress on Friday.
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY 15) put forth a bill, now called “H.J. Res. 15”, that proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President”.
According to GovTrack, it was then “[r]eferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”. Further, “[t]his resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So here we have one of the first bills introduced in the new Congressional session, which proposes removing term limits for the Presidency. Time to pay attention!
You can go to Govtrack and sign up for free to track this and other legislation.
Here is the Congressional page for Rep. Jose Serrano if you wish to contact him.
While this type of bill has been introduced in the past by Serrano (in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 [HJR 5] and 2011 [HJR 17]), the difference now is that Obama is in his second term of office and is not running for re-election anymore. He has less to worry about.
UPDATE: Serrano also submitted a bill on Friday that amends the Social Security Act and proof of citizenship…
by | BLOG, POLITICS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Rep. Jose Serrano, the Democrat from NY who proposed H.J. Res 15, also put forth another bill — H.R. 211 — on Friday.
This bill proposes “To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to waive the requirement for proof of citizenship during the first year of life for children born in the United States to a Medicaid-eligible mother”.
Govtrack notes, “This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So the longtime Congressman who introduced the legislation to amend the Constitution and repeal term limits for President also wants to amend the Social Security Act with regard to citizenship.
What is the point of this legislation? Why is proof of citizenship in this situation not a positive thing? Thoughts?
