Archive for the 'Policy' category

Barry’s “Plan” For Wall Street Vs. The New York Times

Apparently, The Grey Lady got the same email blast from the Barry Camp like I did

Senator Barack Obama this afternoon urged Treasury and Federal Reserve officials to include four conditions that he and other Democrats are seeking in the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for financial firms – though he stopped short of saying he would vote against the bailout if his terms were not met.

Adding some specificity to proposals he has already made, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, called for a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds; a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout; limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives; and aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

Hmm, why does all that sound suspiciously like what Democrats have been talking about since Friday? But, now it is Barry’s plan? As far as it goes

  1. Paying back the taxpayers? That will never happen. You know it, I know it, Barry knows it. But, it sounds good. Put it in writing, in clear, easy to understand language, Barry, and I’ll back it
  2. Bipartisan board? You mean like the 9/11 Commission?
  3. The money should not go to Wall Street execs, I’ll agree, but, a limit can’t be put on exec pay. Talent should be rewarded. Meanwhile, why don’t you tell your advisor Franklin Raines to give his golden parachute back?
  4. Why not have Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Tim Howard, all your advisors, Barry, give the money they got from companies they ran into the ground to homeowners, especially considering they were part of the creation of the housing problem.

If those four objectives are not met, Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here, he would recommend that federal and Congressional negotiators “go back to the drawing board” to restructure the bailout plan.

Well, thanks Barry. Glad your seniority and excellent attendance record in Congress is being put to good use.

But, what does a financial writer for the Times think?

Imagine, then, what it’s like to be in Congress this week. Most members of Congress have no expertise in the byzantine details of mortgage finance — or even have aides on their staff with such expertise.

“The problem here is none of us has that kind of advice,” Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who knows more about Wall Street than most of his colleagues, told me.

The blind leading the stupid. And here comes the shot at Barry’s “plan”

Their best shot at success depends on keeping the debate tightly focused on the questions that matter most. There are really only two: What steps are most likely to solve the immediate crisis? And how can the long-term cost to taxpayers be minimized?

Everything else — reducing executive pay on Wall Street, changing the bankruptcy laws, somehow slowing the descent of home prices — is either a detail or a distraction.

In other words, all the hot air flowing from Barry is not necessary at this time.

Anyhow, the article does do a good job of explaining how it should work, and why people should not get caught up in the price tag, but in the cost of the assets. What percentage of value will they be purchased at, so that they can turn around and sell them.

Will Obama Actually Decrease Tax Rates?

There has been a constant bleat from the Obama campaign and many compliant and complicit media outlets to announce to the American people that Barack Obama would decrease taxes for 95% of the American people. Beyond the fact that that would be impossible, this begs the question, since the Barry camp wants to deal with non-distractions, what rates does Barry propose?

Web CPA, which is concerned, rightly, about job and income loss for CPA’s, has this to say

Obama also is pushing to repeal the Bush administration’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts - at least the part of those laws that gave relief to upper-income taxpayers. But in order to “protect tax cuts for poor and middle-class families,” he has proposed limiting the rollback to taxpayers with incomes of $250,000 or more, as well as permanently extending marriage penalty relief and simplifying the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Obama has been against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for years. And, as John Feehery points out

History: When it comes to cutting taxes, Barack Obama is a virgin. He has never voted for a tax cut in his legislative life. He has had 94 opportunities to vote for a tax cut in his Senate career, and he has voted no each and every time. When you have a long history of voting to raise taxes, you can’t convince voters that you are a born-again tax-cutter. Sorry. Nice try.

Now, Barack has all sorts of refunds ($500 for singles and $1,000 for families) and stuff going on in his plan, but, consider: here are the tax rates for 2000

And for 2008

Let’s consider what this means. The average American income in 2007 was $50,233. So, in 2000 you would have paid $14,065 in federal taxes. In 2008 you will pay $12,558 (and people say tax discussions are boring?) A difference of $1,506. Of course, we are not considering any deductions and other tax wonkiness, just straight numbers.

So, Barry let’s the Bush tax cuts lapse. What does he replace it with? Will he actually keep the rates for those who are making less then $250k as families and $200k as individuals in place? Will he go back to Clinton era tax rates? Those are the questions. Because giving a rebate is not a tax cut, it is just giving you your own money back. And people rarely pay attention to the actual tax rates

And that does not even get in to the capital gains taxes Barry wants to double, nor shifting the tax burden to the middle class as “the rich” start spending less and sheltering their money, nor the raise in Social Security taxes.

We Know Where The Obama’s Stand On Illegal Aliens

Typically, we know that Barry speaks in generalities, skirts the issues, provides little of substantive policy. Good thing Michelle Obama is there to tell us what he really thinks and wants to do, eh?

Hispanics should not have to live in fear of raids by immigration agents, Michelle Obama told a Hispanic caucus to the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday.

Her husband, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, wants to reform immigration policies and provide illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, she said.

“We would have an immigration policy that brings 12 million people out of the shadows,” she told cheering caucus members who shouted “Yes we can” in Spanish.

Now we know. Rather then apply The Law, a President Obama would offer up to people who started their time in America by breaking federal criminal law a free pass to being citizens. You came illegally? You are stealing American jobs and illegally stealing American identities, harming peoples credit and their lives? Here’s a free pass. Vote Democrat.

Polls on the subject are rarely taken, but, most find that a majority of Americans are concerned about people coming here illegally, that they do not want them getting free government services, and that they should NOT be given a free pass to citizenship. I won’t say that Barack is completely wrong on some of his minor draft of an immigration policy points, but, we only have to listen to his wife to know that he prefers total amnesty.

Perhaps if the illegals made the attempt to learn English and did not seclude themselves off, not to mention the violence against Americans, people would feel different.

And, yes, Reagan did allow something similar, but for much fewer people, which was a mistake.

McCain says he has learned his lesson. He needs to prove it, though. His plan is more detailed, includes enforcement first, nails companies that hire illegals, then gets a little wishy washy on a path to citizenship. He does seem to want illegals to leave and then apply for citizenship like everyone else has to, though.

McCain Finally Comes Out For Offshore Drilling

From a press release Monday

“Tomorrow, I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. We’ve seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, the form of gasoline, and the form of threats of inflation, and indeed indications of inflation. We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternative energy sources. And, as I said, exploration is a step toward the longer term goal. And, I will repeat my advocacy of a gas tax holiday, which is impacting low-income Americans on a fixed income who are driving automobiles that consume gasoline at a greater rate, and they’re driving further, and I think that they deserve a break.

That’s a good start that goes to the heart of Conservatism: let the States decide. The Gulf Coast states should be no problem, North Carolina could be iffy, California is in a world of its own. The hard left leaning legislature will resist, and the Governator is a tossup. The People will demand drilling, but the hard left courts could stop it.

I think McCain is wrong on ANWR, but, moving on, Democrats, as usual, are blocking every meaningful attempt to extract oil from our won property. They think we should drill in the areas that already have leases, but, wait a moment

The latest example: the Democrats’ “use it or lose it” hoax. Rather than unlocking America’s vast natural energy resources both on land and in deep ocean energy zones – areas with known quantities of oil and gas reserves – the Democratic Majority is suggesting that there are millions of acres of federally-owned land right now under lease that energy companies are not bothering to tap. And they are demanding that the companies “use” the lands or “lose” their lease on them. But there are two problems with the Democrats “use it or lose it” hoax.

First, as House Republican Conference Adam Putnam (R-FL) notes, this policy already is the law of the land. Indeed, federal energy lease holders already must produce oil or natural gas within five to 10 years after drilling on the land begins – and the Secretary of the Interior has the power to cancel the lease if the energy company fails to comply.

Second, it takes years for an energy company to actually begin drilling for oil or gas on federally-owned land; it first must map the land and actually determine that there is oil and gas present before drilling can commence. And even so, according to today’s Wall Street Journal, the federal lands currently under lease for oil and gas exploration aren’t producing much oil and gas in the first place – only about a quarter of those lands are generating any energy, in fact:

“The industry and its backers say such arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the oil industry. Companies don’t know how much oil is under the lands they lease, so they buy up large swaths in the hope that a fraction will work out. Much of the area that isn’t producing, they say, doesn’t have oil or gas in commercially viable quantities.”

“Moreover, bringing a new field into production can require years of mapping, testing, drilling, and construction – during which time the land would show up in statistics as being ‘not in production,’ even as companies spend millions or even billions of dollars to bring it online.”

In other words, just because land is leased, doesn’t mean it is all worthwhile for oil extraction. But, that matters little to Democrats, who are more interested in helping their special interests than the American People.

House GOP Still Pushing For Drill

Credential Media finally notices after months of the issue being pushed hard. Reuters - House Republicans vow push on oil drilling

Congressional Republicans vowed on Thursday to make a major push for more U.S. oil and gas drilling and in the process force Democrats to cast difficult votes at a time of skyrocketing gasoline prices.

With the November congressional and presidential elections looming, Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are blaming each other for rising energy costs and gasoline prices that are topping $4 a gallon.

Republicans cited Democratic opposition to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more offshore areas to oil and gas exploration and drilling.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans would try to raise public awareness and force more votes on the issue. He said Republicans would back a comprehensive approach of more oil and gas drilling as well as energy conservation and moves toward alternative fuels supported by Democrats.

News for Reuters: this didn’t just happen on Thursday. They have been pushing for this for a long time. Matter of fact, the GOP has been pushing for this for decades, but Democrats keep blocking it. They are too beholden to their environmentalist fringe lobbyists.

Of course, the Democrats blame the oil companies for not drilling more of the areas that are allowed. Perhaps that is because those areas are not good ones. Instead, the Dems whine about use it or lose it, but, conveniently forget the facts.

And, then there is Nancy

“We cannot drill our way out of this,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California countered. Opening the wildlife refuge in Alaska would reduce U.S. gasoline prices by one penny per gallon, she said. She and other Democrats blame President George W. Bush’s energy policies for the gasoline price spike.

“A barrel of oil now costs four times more than it did when President Bush took office,” Pelosi said. “Two oil men in the White House, cost of oil four times higher. Price at the pump: $4 a gallon.”

And your plan is, Nancy? Hello? Nance? Bueller? It’s worth repeating that the price of gas was the same in Jan 2007 as it was in Jan 2006: $2.20. Now it is $4+. We cannot afford the Pelosi Premium. Her Democrat led House has done nothing to lower energy prices nor increase our supplies. No drilling allowed, no new refineries allowed, no nuclear power plants allowed. No mention of any sorts of new, viable, sensible alternatives to oil, coal, and nuclear.

In his weekly press briefing with reporters this morning, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) took the opportunity to highlight Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) dismal voting record on the issue of American energy production. While Boehner has voted 46 times in the past 18 years to increase the production of American-made energy, Speaker Pelosi has only done so twice. To view their complete voting record, click here.

The American people deserve to know why they are paying an average of $4.06 per gallon for gasoline today. One glance at Speaker Pelosi’s voting record makes it clear why. She and her Democratic colleagues have put up numerous roadblocks on America’s path to energy independence – roadblocks that have left our nation at the mercy of foreign competitors. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the American people have seen gas prices skyrocket 74% and they can’t afford to keep paying this Pelosi Premium.

and

Democrats in Congress are getting pummeled on the issue of gas prices these days. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) admitted he is just fine with higher gas prices, and not only have congressional Democrats blocked efforts to lower them, they have proposed higher gas taxes that will make the struggles of families and small businesses even worse. A story in The Hill highlights Republicans’ efforts to fight back and showcase their energy plan to lower gas prices

I hope Senator McCain is going to jump in to this issue, and become more vocal about highlighting that it is Democrats who are the ones blocking America’s ability to increase its own supply of energy.

James Rubin: Lying, inept hack

While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed the Left is pushing yet another blatant lie - that McCain wanted to have a dialogue with Hamas. Haha. As if.

Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.

The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks.
[...]
The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions.

More of the same distortions of the truth (aka lies) from the Lefty Liars, as usual. Nice try, chumps.

I wonder, will they go with this lie during the next blogger call?

Here’s the part they conveniently “forgot.” Notably, so did Obama (biggest liar ever to seek the Presidency, perhaps?)

(Cross-posted from MVRWC)

America in 2013

The new John McCain “2013″ video is posted below, and I want to add the transcript from McCain’s speech in Columbus, Ohio, today about what America will look like after a first McCain term.

THIS is what we’ve really been waiting for.

Read the whole transcript, reprinted in full below the break or at the link.

Show More >

Obama’s Jedi Mind Tricks

Also commonly known as “groupthink” or “brainwashing.”

That’s funny, but the idea of Barack Obama as President isn’t funny. I got the following via email and it sums up neatly why Barack Obama is WRONG FOR AMERICA, and the agenda for which he’s using his “Jedi Mind Tricks.”

Policy wise, Obama will push us gleefully towards socialism, which cannot be good to the average blue collar worker, teacher or trucker, much less business owner or corporation. His policies will cause gas prices to skyrocket even higher and faster than they currently are. He is opposed to drilling for more oil. He is in favor of more regulation, and even thinks he is smart enough to determine the salaries of CEO’s.

On abortion he has a 100% National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) rating. He is in favor of partial birth abortion, supports transporting minors across state lines for abortions, and is against holding accountable doctors who fail to provide treatment for babies born live after botched abortions.

On taxes he wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and will be happy as a clam to raise them. He is so far out of touch with reality that he doesn’t even think “we the people” want our taxes reduced.

On crime, he is against stiffer penalties against gang members, supports needle exchanges and is soft on sex predators.

On health care, he is a Hillary clone, and wants to create universal health care, which is just another term for socialized medicine…which hasn’t worked anywhere its been tried.

On education he supports sex education for grade schoolers and thinks anyone with a B average or above should get free college.

On guns, Barack is so extreme he doesn’t even put his position up on his campaign website. He proclaims his support for the Second Amendment, but is working hard to turn America into a “gun free” zone, where self defense is outlawed. Naturally, he is against concealed weapons.

Most politicians would be sunk with friends like Barack’s.

His associations with his pals are amazing — Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual mentor thinks God should damn America. Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, now a college professor stomps on the American flag and declares he wished he would have set off more bombs.

Barack’s pal Frank Marshall Davis who he looked upon as “father” is an anti-Christian radical and member of the Communist Party USA, while his official campaign blogger’s work appeared in a socialist magazine and he had a communist flag at his home.

Tony Rezko, of course is still in trouble with the law. Code Pink founder Jodie Evans not only raised money for Barack, but also for Islamic radicals in Iraq.

Is this guy actually qualified to be President?

Of course not, in the traditional sense. He got educated, has no business experience, cut his teeth as a community activist, breezed through a stint in the Illinois state legislature, and spent two years as a U.S. Senator.

“Qualification” when it comes to politics is different than the real world. Qualified to run for office merely means that you have connections, you have a fundraising base and you have supporters. That’s it. Many of us don’t, nor do we necessarily have the desire. But he does, and he has it all in a major way.

Is he actually ready to be Commander in Chief, to be the leader of the free world, to be the true hope of those living under oppression? Well, if you put it that way, the answer is no. His solution to Iran, radical Islam and the terrorists running rampant in Iraq and Afghanistan is to sit down and talk with them. He doesn’t get it. They are done talking.

Barack is a liberal forged from the same molten fire deep within the same mountain as Hillary Clinton. And since he is, and since she is so prominent, you’d think the Democrats would want a Hillary/Barack ticket, and not Barack at the top of the heap. After all, that would be the safest bet.

But no, Democrats are jumping ship on Hillary and swimming over to the S.S. Obama. Why? Almost nothing can explain it. . . except one thing.

And I am telling you it is not the obvious. It is not Barack’s message of Hope and Change that has struck a chord. No, just about every Democrat has been selling that same old swill for years.

Everyone knows that “Hope” to a Democrat means more money from you going to the government.

Everyone also knows that “Change” to a Democrat means jettisoning the Free Enterprise system and exchanging it for socialism.

Remember that.

(Cross-posted at MVRWC)

John McCain on Iraq


John McCain (Photo)

John McCain speaks on Iraq in a speech on April 11, 2008 at the Virginia Military Institute.

“Many in Washington have called for an end to our involvement in Iraq. Yet they offer no opinion about the consequences of this course of action beyond a vague assurance that all will be well if the Iraqis are left to work out their differences themselves. It is obviously true that no military solution is capable of doing what the Iraqis won’t do politically. But, my friends, no political solution has a chance to succeed when al Qaeda is free to foment civil war and Iraqis remain dependent on sectarian militias to protect their children from being murdered.

“America has a vital interest in preventing the emergence of Iraq as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11. By leaving Iraq before there is a stable Iraqi governing authority we risk precisely this, and the potential consequence of allowing terrorists sanctuary in Iraq is another 9/11 or worse. In Iraq today, terrorists have resorted to levels of barbarism that shock the world, and we should not be so naive as to believe their intentions are limited solely to the borders of that country. We Americans are their primary enemy, and we Americans are their ultimate target.

There’s so much good stuff in this speech that I have a difficult time picking out parts to highlight. But how about this section:

“What struck me upon my return from Baghdad is the enormous gulf between the harsh but hopeful realities in Iraq, where politics is for many a matter of life and death, and the fanciful and self-interested debates about Iraq that substitute for statesmanship in Washington. In Iraq, American and Iraqi soldiers risk everything to hold the country together, to prevent it from becoming a terrorist sanctuary and the region from descending into the dangerous chaos of a widening war. In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country’s interests. In Iraq, hope is a fragile thing, but all the more admirable for the courage and sacrifice necessary to nurture it. In Washington, cynicism appears to be the quality most prized by those who accept defeat but not the responsibility for its consequences.

“Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning not celebrating. And determining how the United States can avert such a disaster should encourage the most sober, public-spirited reasoning among our elected leaders not the giddy anticipation of the next election. Democrats who voted to authorize this war, and criticized the failed strategy that has led us to this perilous moment, have the same responsibility I do, to offer support when that failure is recognized and the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it or, at the least, to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality.

You can read the rest of the speech and McCain’s other speeches at his website.

John McCain John McCain
John McCain (Photos)


McCain on Iraq (Video)

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats