The Prez vs The Strawman: Round 4

He used this strategy to argue for the passage of: the stimulus, health care deform, the pending financial over-regulation and now for his pledge to address our record budget deficits. President Obama has declared war on the strawman. You see, in our president's mind, if you don't support his vision for what's good for our nation, you don't support doing anything at all and you best just "get out of the way".

Over the weekend in Toronto:

President Obama on controlling the debt: "Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics. I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff. We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics."

Forget for a moment that President Obama was actually pushing the other G20 members to increase deficit spending, not pledge to actually cut budgets. The Wall Street Journal recaps the action:

The meeting's concluding statement, a compromise between two competing visions of the international economy, masked divisions between the U.S. and Europe evident in the run-up to the summit. The U.S. has warned that moving too fast to cut deficits and reduce stimulus spending could risk another global recession. European nations, especially Germany, have cautioned that moving too slowly could produce unsustainable debt loads, higher interest rates and even defaults.

and

Germany, which has held itself out as the champion of austerity, took some potshots. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble used an interview in the French newspaper Le Monde to throw a jab at the U.S., saying Mr. Obama's giant stimulus spending has had little impact on the country's jobless rate, which remains well above 9%.

It was Angela Merkel's vision that carried the day, not President Obama's. After being bested by Iron Angie our president picked a fight with a much easier opponent: the strawman. If you watched professional wrestling in the early 80's you will no doubt remember the personification of our president's dream villian. My brother and I never knew his name, to us he was simply the "albino in the powder blue trunks". Unlike your typical wresting match which was designed to be a back and forth affair with the hero usually emerging triumphant; the albino never seemed to land a punch, he was expected to take his "beating" and be pinned. The same thing goes for Obama's strawman. In the world of political theatre, he's created by the president's political shop and receives his beatdown via the bully pulpit. Because he's a fictional creation, the strawman can never win.

The only problem is that even a president isn't entitled to his own facts.

Heritage fellow Brian Riedl details:

Washington will spend $30,543 per household in 2010—$5,000 per household more than just two years ago. While some of this spending is a temporary result of the recession, President Obama’s latest budget would replace this temporary spending with permanent new programs. Consequently, by 2020—a time of assumed peace and prosperity—Washington would still spend nearly $36,000 per household, compared to $25,000 per household before this recession (adjusted for inflation).

There is a way out of this deficit nightmare: stop spending. If the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Too ambitious? Just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019. There is a way to stop this spending nightmare. We just need the will.

The U.S. budget for the year 2000 was $2 trillion, for 2010 it's $4 trillion. Now, they haven't finished the census yet, but I'd be willing to wager that the population of our country didn't double. In short, the federal government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The good news is that there's an intervention scheduled for Nov. 2.

America simply can't afford a government as big as President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid envision. Don't believe the president when he tells you that he's cut government to the bone and he simply has no choice but to raise taxes. Ignore the strawman that the president creates to confuse and confound you and look at the numbers, unlike our president they don't lie.

Duffer-In-Chief

President Obama is in Toronto for the G8 summit. With unemployment in America just shy of 10%, an environmental disaster in the Gulf, record budget deficits that the Fed Chairman has repeatedly called "unsustainable", one would hope our president's mind would be focused like a laser beam on issues that affect Americans. Nope.

When U.S. President Barack Obama stepped off his helicopter in Huntsville on Friday, the first thing he said was, “You’ve got a lot of golf courses here, don’t you?” Industry Minister Tony Clement told the National Post in an exclusive interview.

It would appear that President Obama's priorities are as follows:

1) Expand the power of the federal government into all sectors of the economy, but let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do the heavy lifting.

2) Beat Eisenhower's record for most rounds of golf played in one term of office.

Hopefully, he doesn't get a shot at Ike's eight year record.

President Obama Declares War On Arizona

A member of the Redstate community attended a townhall by Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) and filmed this bombshell.



The White House is calling Sen. Kyl a liar. Meanwhile the are going to sue the state of Arizona over its decision to enforce our laws. What started it all?

Fourth-generation Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was found murdered March 27, slumped over his all-terrain vehicle, a murder victim. Authorities traced the suspected killer's footsteps to the Mexican border 15 miles from Krentz's ranch.

In a case of he said/he said between Sen. Kyl and the White House how can you tell who's telling the truth?

Byron York of the Washington Examiner has more:

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

and

Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't. "What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."

Meanwhile at Arizona's border with Mexico



And those 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama ordered to the border? They're nowhere to be found. In this case of he said/he said it's pretty clear that Sen. Kyl is telling the truth. The White House has no interest in securing our border unless amnesty for illegal immigrants is part of the deal.

There Are Two Americas

It seems John Edwards had a point about there being "two Americas", he just got the players wrong. How you have fared during the great recession largely depends on whether you work in the public or private sectors.

Here's a theory that explains the "two Americas" concept better than Edwards. In his new book "The Battle", Arthur Brooks posits that our country is split into 70-30 coalitions and that we are facing a new culture war with our country's future in the balance:

This is not the culture war of the 1990's. This is not a fight over guns, abortions, religion and gays. Nor is it about Republicans versus Democrats. Rather, it is a struggle between two competing visions of America's future. In one, America will continue to be a unique and exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, increasing income redistribution, and government controlled corporations. These competing visions are not reconcilable: We must choose.

The $862 billion stimulus amounted to little more than a government union member full employment plan. Now that most states have blown through their first bailout, they have their hands out for more. President Obama pressed Congress to borrow another $50 billion to send to profligate state and local governments to ensure they don't have to cut back on spending. Since Congress hasn't authorized the second round of bailouts, some politicians are starting to panic and mention the word "layoff"; which considering how much money government employee unions spend to elect(and keep) Democrats you can imagine the panic is genuine. After all, fewer government workers, means fewer union dues and ultimately less money to promote their common dream of ever expanding government.

The potential loss of more than $600 million in federal aid once deemed a sure thing has had Massachusetts Democrats scrambling to rebuild the state budget behind closed doors, warning publicly of layoffs and steep program cuts if the funds fall through.

From todays Boston Herald we have two stories of Mr. Brook's 30% coalition in action:

House and Senate dealmakers nixed a 24-hour hotline to report illegal aliens and refused to force the attorney general to agree in writing to enforce federal immigration law. And they would not put into law language barring state schools from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.

and

State probation department staffers banged in sick more than 11,000 days last year - the equivalent of 30 years - in a workplace epidemic that has private sector leaders shaking their heads in disbelief, a Herald review finds.

That’s obviously an absurd statistic,” said Robert Ahearn, chief executive of the Plymouth-based IGS Systems, a high-tech firm that was forced to lay off 27 people over the past three years.

“That would be an enormous impact on our business, and we couldn’t tolerate it,” he added.

On Capitol Hill Sen. Tom Harkin is threatening to use a "lame duck" session of Congress to aid his union allies.

One such law is the so-called “card-check” bill, which takes away employees’ right to vote secretly against unionizing and skews the balance in favor of labor unions during negotiations with newly unionized employers. Labor unions see the bill as essential in saving their many under-funded multi-employer pension plans. The bill’s binding arbitration provision could force many employers to enter the unions’ underfunded pension plans, taking away their employees’ opportunity to contribute to tax-deferred 401(k) retirement plans.

I encourage public employees who are unfamiliar with the term to google "layoff" because they are about to get a big, ugly dose of the real world.

Jeff Jacoby wrote this last September. Sadly it's just as true today as it was then. That's what happens when unions spend $400 million to make sure the politicians watch their backs at taxpayers' expense.

Americans increasingly fall into one of two camps. Those who work for the government - about 15 percent of the labor force - tend to enjoy sumptuous perks, virtually indestructible job security, and pensions that are guaranteed for life. The rest of us work in the private economy, where millions of jobs can be wiped out by a recession, defined-benefit pensions are disappearing, and competition and downsizing are facts of life.

What does this mean in dollars?

In 2008, total federal civilian compensation averaged $119,982 - more than twice the $59,908 in wages and benefits earned by the average private-sector employee. This gap has doubled since 2000.

It isn’t only at the federal level that the political class so handsomely takes care of its own. “State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33 percent higher that the private sector’s $19,’’ Forbes magazine reports. “Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42 percent.’’

Remember in November.

Our Jobs President At Work

President Obama travels to Ohio to promote the $862 billion failure otherwise known as the stimulus's 10,000th project, causing hundreds to lose a days pay. Way to go Mr. President.



Maybe these guys can receive their lost wages from the $100 million fund that BP set up to help out of work oil-rig workers. After all, the president's six month ban on drilling caused the need for the fund in the first place, just as his need for a photo op caused the construction workers to hit the bricks. When all else fails blame BP, but don't return their campaign donations. Sure they're evil incarnate, but there are elections to win and a country to re-make. Besides, BP supports cap and trade.

More Obamacare Stinkbombs

Just in case you thought we had learned all the nasty little surprises in our new health care regime, think again. This is what happens when you "pass the bill to see what's inside it" in the hopefully immortal words of Speaker Pelosi, instead of reading it first.

Karl Rove in the Journal:

Which brings us to President Obama's many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

and

Health plans would no longer be grandfathered if a business changes insurance companies (a common practice when employers shop for lower prices), raises deductibles more than 5%, drops any existing benefits, or even increases co-pays by as little as $5.

Complying with these new rules would raise costs for companies who provide coverage, reduce competition among health insurance companies, and discourage efforts to make employees more price conscious. The Obama administration itself estimates that these draft rules could cost up to 80% of small employers and 64% of large employers their grandfathered status. This translates to between 87 million and 115 million Americans losing their current coverage.

To paraphrase Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), whose office was just vandalized, "You lied Mr. President".

These nuggets were passed on to me, but I couldn't verify them on snopes.com. Take them with a grain of salt and a stiff drink if they're true:

A Real Estate Tax?

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate
transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new
taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama's re-election). You
can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for
this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.

Taxing your health benefits?

Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired ? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get the dollar value (cost of what the company pays for your insurance) will be considered income and added to your gross pay. You will be taxed on the total.You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.

Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 % that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases..

Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I read:

On page 25 of 29 :

TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec . 9001 , as modified by sec. 10901)
Sec.9002. "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.

Kiplingers is subsciption only, so I couldn't check this out. Come to think of it, I may just have that stiff drink after all.

Remember to vote on 11/2/10 and do everything you can to help a deserving candidate before then. The future of our country is at stake.

Sen. Brown Goes To Bat For Government Unions

From the Wall St. Journal:

The Senate is moving closer to passing legislation that would require states to grant public-safety employees, including police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, the right to collectively bargain over hours and wages.

The bill, known as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would mainly affect about 20 states that don't grant collective-bargaining rights statewide for public-safety workers or that prohibit such bargaining. State and municipal associations, as well as business groups, oppose it, saying it will lead to higher labor costs and taxes, at a time of budget deficits.

The bill, backed by at least six Republicans in the Senate, prohibits strikes and leaves to states' discretion whether to engage in collective bargaining in several areas, including health benefits and pensions.

If the legislation passes and states choose not to grant the minimum collective-bargaining rights outlined in the bill, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor-management relations for federal employees, would step in and implement collective-bargaining rights for these workers.

You can bet that once the federal government becomes involved that the states will be over-ruled by a board packed with labor allies. The police and firefighters will soon be receiving the gold-plated benefits of federal employees. It doesn't matter if the municipalities and states can afford them or not. They will be compelled to raise taxes. We shouldn't be spreading the budget busting policies of CA, NY, NJ and MA to states' that haven't become hostage to the demands of public union yet.

Police and firefighter unions are the biggest advocates of the legislation. "A year after this law passes most of these executives who are fighting it won't be able to remember what they were scared of," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the 325,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. He said unions wouldn't be able to negotiate wages and benefits that governments couldn't afford.

Yeah right, all these union folks will be looking at what Ed Kelly squeezed out of Boston. A 2.5% raise just for taking a drug test will go national.

The other Republican co-sponsors in the Senate are Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Here's a look at what Sen. Brown is supporting. This is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. As Gov. Christie is talking about a "day of reckoning", Sen. Brown is trying to make it worse. The wages and benefits of public employees are already greater than those in the private sector to the point that they are threatening to overwhelm budgets across our country. They should be treated like an epidemic, quarantine them and fix them where they are, don't let them spread. Has Sen. Brown missed what is happening in Greece, Spain, Britain, Italy? The $50 Billion for public union workers that Bailout Barry begged Congress to pass on Saturday?

Are State Public Pensions Sustainable? Why the Federal Government Should Worry About State Pension Liabilities

Assuming future state contributions fund the full present value of new benefits, many state systems will run out of money in 10-20 years if some attempt is not made to improve the funding of liabilities that have already been accrued. The expected shortfalls raise the possibility that the federal government will be faced with a decision as to whether to bail out states driven to insolvency by their pension programs.

Enough is enough Sen. Brown