Site for Free Markets and Free People

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Happy New Year!

Let's hope that 2012 brings the removal of the most destructive president in the last century, along with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader...

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Obama Asks to Increase the Debt Ceiling by Another $1.2 Trillion

Remember when Obama increased the debt ceiling by $1 trillion back in August? Well, that didn't last long did it? Obama again wants his credit increased on the nation's credit card, this time by $1.2 trillion, to carry him through the election of 2012. Wanna guess why? And guess what? If an agreement is made until the end of 2012, and Obama were to win another, term, his credit card addictions will not end. In fact they will continue until the bitter end (2016) of what could be America's most bitter, darkest time in its history. I hope it doesn't come to this, and it doesn't have to. Here's what should be done:

Republicans come out with a simple plan, saying we want a balanced budget amendment, and saying we need to begin this process of balancing the budget THIS YEAR (oh i know it is controversial that we might actually see a cut in expenses). And it needn't be an enormous cut this year, but it needs to be a cut nonetheless of day $100 billion this year ($25 billion/quarter), and this needs to be followed by $200 billion next year. I don't want to hear anything about 15 year plans, which only exists inside Obama's community organizing brain. We need real time frames and real accountability. Most Americans will agree.

All Republican need to do is say the magic words: Balanced Budget Amendment, and stick with it, and make sure they begin to make cuts this year. Anything different, and Republicans will risk losing credibility with Americans, and they could also risk that Obama continues dictating to our country for another four years. Americans like a guy with backbone and they will support Republicans if they hold firm.

Media Aim at Re-electing Obama

Ok, this is going to be nothing new to most people, but I predict that over the next 11 months, the media's outpouring of love for Obama will intensify, while they will also attempt to cover up and/or help the president in embarrassing situations that do not show the president in a good light. Is this anything new? No, but it is an election year, and after three pretty record-breaking horrible years, the media knows that without their help, Obama doesn't have a chance. I will give you a few example of how the media has helped Obama look good, and where they have helped cover up potentially embarrassing situations during the past few days alone. First, here's what the main stream media reported this week:

1. Obama and his family released 4 sea turtles into the ocean.
2. Obama was photographed with American troops
3. Obama took his wife out for dinner
4. Obama was photographed with family friend Marty Nesbitt
5. Obama was photographed with baby
6. Michelle Obama was photographed with baby

Now, here's what the main stream media would have reported if Obama were Republican:

1. Obama golfed again, and he would have been asked how he feels golfing, being that 100,000 Americans are still at war in Afghanistan.
2. Not only did Obama golf again, but he golfed with a buddy who was jailed earlier in the year for soliciting prostitution.
3. Obama was not photographed driving a golf cart as that would be as bad as when John Kerry were photographed wind-surfing.
4. The $4 million cost of the trip, or $3500 would certainly have been mentioned if he were Republican. Romney's fictitious $10,000 wager was talked about for days by the media (or less than 3 days at Obama's resort).
5. Michelle Obama's $2000 dress wasn't mentioned
6. The media would have cornered Obama, asking him if he felt guilty that while he added another $1.5 trillion in debt this year, he was taking yet another lavish vacation.

I have no issues at all with Obama taking a vacation. I have no issues with his playing golf or spending time with his family. But my point is that when a Republican, like GW Bush, played golf, he was slammed by the media, meanwhile it is not mentioned for Obama, or he is praised for having some downtime with friends.

My other point is the spin. The media will help Obama in anyway they can over the next year, and they're just beginning. Keep a close eye out. It's there. I can't see it helping much, but they will try.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Payroll Tax Eliminated for Those Earning $110K

The TaxProf points out a little known provision as part of Congress' brilliant 2-month payroll tax cut extension. In it, there is this little "recapture tax" nugget, which says that anyone making over $110,100 will have to pay an extra 2% income tax on that amount over $110,100 during the period for which they get the "benefit" of the payroll tax extension.

So...let's forget about that whole $250K amount (Obama's definition of millionaires and billionaires). The new amount where Americans get screwed is just $110K.

Thanks Boehner - hell of a job!!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Obama EPA's "Historic, Great Victory"

When Obama said that under his energy agenda, electricity prices would "necessarily skyrocket" and that coal power plants would face bankruptcy, he wasn't kidding. Yesterday, his EPA took a huge step in that direction. From the WSJ:

The so-called utility rule requires power plants to install "maximum achievable control technology" to reduce mercury emissions and other trace gases. But the true goal of the rule's 1,117 pages is to harm coal-fired power plants and force large parts of the fleet—the U.S. power system workhorse—to shut down in the name of climate change. The EPA figures the rule will cost $9.6 billion, which is a gross, deliberate underestimate.

In return Ms. Jackson says the public will get billions of dollars of health benefits like less asthma if not a cure for cancer. Those credulous enough to believe her should understand that the total benefits of mercury reduction amount to all of $6 million. That's total present value, not benefits per year—oh, and that's an -illion with an "m," which is not normally how things work out in President Obama's Washington.

The rest of the purported benefits—to be precise, 99.99%—come by double-counting pollution reductions like soot that the EPA regulates through separate programs and therefore most will happen anyway.

Is this how Obama is sticking up for the "middle class?"

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Why is the Media Passing on Corzine-Obama Connection?

When Enron was indicted for fraud, the media was quick to make the Texas connection between Ken Lay and George W. Bush. They repeated this endlessly over years as they sought to tie the two guys together. According to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush never really liked Ken Lay and wouldn't give him the time of day, while the elder Bush had some ties, but wouldn't call them close friends. Anyway, I digress:

When it comes to Obama's personal connections, the media clams up. The media has refused to go into detail about the close relations between Obama and Blagojevich. They have refused to talk about Obama and another Chicago jail bird, Rezco. They have refused to connect the dots between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

And now, just when the media is going GA GA over the OCCUPY WALL STREET protests, and they are slamming Wall Street bankers every day. And in the middle of all this, a Wall St. firm, MF Global, run by Obama buddy Jon Corzine, goes BANKRUPT! Not only that, but his firm sequestered clients cash, which is illegal.

Sound like a juicy story? The president is best buds with a Wall Street firm who not only goes bankrupt, but stole clients' cash, right in the middle of the Occupy Wall Street Protests. To me it sound like it could be the story of the decade. But, if it sounds like a juicy story to you, then you're wrong. This story has all but been ignored by the media.

Why is the media refusing to report anything about Corzine-Obama?

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Condi for VP? Hope Not

I'm not sure who will be the GOP nominee, but whoever it is, I do hope that the Washington Times (which I respect as a publication) is wrong, that Condi Rice could be the VP choice. If you've read Dick Cheney's autobiography, you'll understand why. If you haven't, then I'll sum it up: I just don't see her as a true conservative. My belief is that GW Bush had a pretty good first term, followed by a pretty bad second term, and that a good part of the reason for the stark difference is that he followed Condi's advice a lot more often in his second term. (whereas he followed Cheney's advice more in his first term).

The risk of selecting someone because they are a different gender might be greatest with Mitt Romney, as he did select Kerry Healey as Lt Governor when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Now I don't know anything about her politics at all, so I am stereotyping a little, but I'd guess that she fits the mold as "moderate Northeast Republican" which I'm not entirely comfortable about.

To me, I think someone like a Jim Demint would be the perfect VP candidate. As none of the GOP hopefuls really satisfies the Tea Party Nation, he would at least satisfy this growing part of the GOP, who largely is responsible for their landslide victories in 2010.

Many continue to suggest that Charlie Rubio would be the best, but I'd say the people who say this say it for two main reasons: 1. he is Latino (and thus he is "ground-breaking" in many people's eyes, and 2. he is from Florida, which sometimes is a swing state. I can't argue with these two facts, except that I don't think number 1 is very important. Additionally, I'd point out that his resume is very incomplete at this stage, after only 1 year as Senator. I like some of the things I hear about Rubio, but frankly, I don't know where he stands on lots of things.

On the other hand, there are no doubts where Jim Demint stands on most issues, and if he is selected, the GOP can avoid the potentially impending disaster of having a 3rd party candidate to deal with.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Demint Slams Congress for 2012 Spending

Jim Demint describes what's been happening in Congress this year. It's happened a number of times already:

1. Republicans submit a bill to reduce spending
2. Democrats submit a bill to increase spending
3. Democrats threaten to shut government down if Republicans don't increase spending
4. Republicans give in

This just happened again, and Demint explains 2012 spending will be above 2011 by $21 billion dollars. Everyone just signed the 1000 page monstrosity so they could go on their Christmas vacations.

Demint puts a lot of the blame on Republicans for not being strong. Sure - it's the dems who are threatening to shut the government down, and the media will report it as the Republicans fault. But Republicans need to be strong, and they're not.

I will continue to blame McConnell and Boehner for this. They are the leaders and the ones who let this happen. I agree with Demint when he says:

We, as elected politicians, must do what we say. Our country is rapidly approaching dire consequences and Republicans must be willing to do everything possible to save this country.

Wish Demint would run for President. While he has great ideas in the Senate, he seems powerless to get anything done since he's not in charge.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

National Review's Love of Romney and Huntsman Absurd

I still read certain writers at the National Review, but I believe that the group of editors have changed over the last few years from strong conservatives to pragmatic Republicans (which I believe is why the Republican brand has been tarnished over the past decade to begin with). As Andy McCarthy of NR points out, the Editorial against Newt Gingrich was over the top and totally unbalanced. In it, they highlighted Gingrich's weaknesses but none of his strengths (including his defeating HillaryCare and balancing the budget). They side with the GOP who kicked Gingrich out of his leadership position but fail to mention that his replacements were anything but disciplined from an ethical or spending perspective.

So who do the NR editors prefer? Romney and Huntsman - those bastions of conservative discipline (chuckle). Huntsman is a joke and would be about the same or worse than John McCain - he used to say he really liked Obama until he realized Americans think he's a disaster. While Romney is probably better, he too has his faults which the NR editors neglect. The times seem to be changin' at the NR when they say that Romney and Huntsman are the two most qualified to be president.

Obama Still Promising to Prevent 100,000+ New Jobs

Despite passage of a bill to continue the payroll tax reduction and begin the Keystone pipeline, expected to create 100,000-200,000 jobs, Obama still seems to be indicating he will veto it.

More proof that Obama couldn't care less about jobs, the economy or the country. He needs to win an election to complete his revolution and he can't afford to upset the environmental wackos.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Light Bulb Saved!

Just as I was preparing to buy case loads of 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs, GOP leaders in Congress attached an override of the lightbulb ban to the spending bill that Obama is expected to sign.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Obama: Unemployment May Drop to 8% By Election

Obama says that there is a good chance the unemployment rate may drop to 8% in time for the election next year. And based on his Labor Department's continual arbitrary reduction in the U.S. labor force (those actively working or looking for jobs), he might well get there. After all, we would be at 11.5% unemployment if they didn't toy with the labor force number, but instead we magically have an 8.6% figure - which of course, is a fraud.

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Oops! Merchants Now Paying Price of Debit Fee Limits

As part of the Dodd-Frank bill, the government in its infinite wisdom to help merchants and therefore consumers by lowering debit card swipe fees, have done the exact opposite on smaller transactions. You see, merchants used to get discounts for smaller transactions, but with the new limits, banks have eliminated those discounts, which mean a big price increase for them - and therefore the consumer.

Many business owners who sell low-priced goods like coffee and candy bars now are paying higher rates—not lower—when their customers use debit cards for transactions that are less than roughly $10.

That is because credit-card companies used to give merchants discounts on debit-card fees they pay on small transactions. But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts.

Merchants now are trying to offset their higher rates by raising prices, encouraging customers to pay in cash or dropping card payments altogether.

Wow - who would have guessed that government intervention once again screws everything up? (Besides every Republican member of Congress and most of the American public, I mean.)

Friday, December 02, 2011

The Fraudulent Unemployment Rate

If you wonder how the unemployment rate dropped dramatically to 8.6% despite only adding 125,000 jobs last month, you're not alone.

The truth is that the Obama Administration has been reducing the labor pool numbers for two years now in what is an obvious effort to give the appearance of a jobs recovery. Most media outlets will not report it, Americans won't pick up on it and Obama will pretend that his prescriptions are working well. However, the reduction in the labor force is completely arbitrary based on what the Administration supposedly believes is a reduction for whatever reason. If they had not done this, the true unemployment rate would be a not-so-rosy 11.5% (with underemployment still much higher in the 16-17% range).

Once again, Obama is trying to fool the electorate in advance of next year's election. Will it work?