http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/08/demint-comes-out-against-tax-deal-says-gop-... > Sen. Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who bucked his party leadership during the midterm elections, was back at it again Tuesday night, saying he would not vote for the tax cut deal brokered between the GOP and President Obama because it increases the deficit. Jim DeMint (talking to Hugh Hewitt): >> I’m glad the President recognizes that tax increases hurt the economy. I mean, I guess that’s progress. But frankly, Hugh, most of us who ran this election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit. This does. It raises taxes, it raises the death tax. I don’t think we needed to negotiate that aspect of this thing away. I don’t think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it, and without making some modifications such as turning it into a loan at some point. It then encourages people to go back to work. So there’s a lot of problems with it. I mean, and frankly, the biggest problem I have, Hugh, is we don’t need a temporary economy, which means we don’t need a temporary tax rate. A permanent extension of our currenttax rates would allow businesses to plan five and ten years in advance, and that’s how you build an economy. DeMint is of course correct on the specifics. I wish he had been in on the negotiations. It's good that there's criticism from the right. Maybe we make some changes after the new Congress is seated. But at this late date, I think we have to take the deal.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Obama, GOP Reach Deal on Taxes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003441518282986.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
President Barack Obama reached agreement Monday with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year and give more favorable treatment to business investments.
Jennifer Rubin comments on the news:
There really is no other way to say it: the Republicans won, the liberal Democrats lost, and the president sided with the Republicans. The subject, of course, is an agreement to extend all the Bush tax cuts. The president tonight announced a "bipartisan framework" for agreement on, among other things, to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years. A Republican House aide tells me tonight it is "a damn good deal." And so it is, from the perspective of conservatives.
My comments: If they had not extended the capital gains rates, there would have been a huge stock crash in the next couple of weeks as everyone sold off. This was a reasonably good deal for the Republicans, made to look better by the gnashing of teeth on the left. The truth is that it merely avoids making things worse, it doesn't necessarily help much. But it's probably the best we could hope for from the Lame-Pelosi congress.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Haley: Obama might let S.C. opt out of health care
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/dec/02/haley-obama-might-let-sc-opt-out-of-health-care/
Haley says she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.
"I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill," she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. "I pushed him further and said if that's the case, because of states' rights, would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?"
Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, she said, if the state could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for preexisting conditions and allowing insurance pooling.
I doubt anyone believes that Obama would actually let a state opt-out, but it's worth a try. I give Haley credit for standing up to the president and putting him on notice that he's got a fight on his hands.Haley said she also asked the president if he would honor the federal government's commitment on developing a nuclear waste repository. When he said he would not revisit opening Nevada's Yucca Mountain, "I said, 'Then give us our money back.' "
The site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was proposed to house more than 4,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste from South Carolina's Savannah River Site. The state and Washington have sued over Obama's attempt to kill plans for the storage site after decades of study.
"SRS has done a good job, but that was a temporary solution. It was never meant to be a permanent solution," Haley said she told him. "The federal government has reneged on its promise, and the people of South Carolina want their money back."
South Carolina's power plants and its customers have contributed more than $1 billion over nearly 30 years to a permanent repository.
She says Obama pledged that he would have Energy secretary Steven Chu call her promptly.
Democrats Give Charlie Rangel Standing Ovation
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40357
House Democrats proved it by openly applauding the concept of a ruling class completely above the law, able to break both House rules and federal tax law with impunity. Their applause was a frank declaration of war by the Democrat Party against the law-abiding American citizen. The only penalty Rangel ever faced was a tiny measure of humiliation. The standing ovation was an attempt to erase even that.The 111th Congress was far from “the most honest, most open, and most ethical” in history.
Rangel and some of his defenders characterized his tax cheating as a “mistake,” thus assuming their listeners are complete imbeciles. Rangel chaired the panel that writes tax laws. He under-reported his income by hundreds of thousands of dollars for a decade. He was eventually compelled to pay federal and state treasuries $16,000 in back taxes, with absolutely no penalty or interest. Republican John Carter of Texas introduced a bill called the “Rangel Rule” to extend this penalty-free privilege to all taxpayers in 2009, but of course it went nowhere.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
House censures Rangel for ethics violations on 333-79 vote
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/131779-house-censures-rangel-for-ethics-violations-on-xx-vote
The House has voted to censure Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the once-powerful chairman of the Ways and Means panel, for a string of ethics violations.
Nothing to see here, time to move on...
Zuckerman: The Danger of a Global Double Dip Recession Is Real
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/11/29/the-danger-... > But now we are running annual deficits of $1.4 trillion, about 10 > percent of the total economy. We have compounded the deficits we > accumulated over the last decade, so they now reach 61 percent of > GDP. Only once before has the ratio of federal debt to GDP come in > above 60 percent. That was after World War II. And our federal debt > ratio today doesn't even take into account Social Security and > Medicare. Total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and > Social Security were about $62 trillion at the end of the last > fiscal year, tripling from the year 2000, according to the > calculations of former Comptroller General David Walker. Sixty-two > trillion dollars is $200,000 per person and $500,000-plus for the > average household. As Walker put it, the problem with these trust > funds is "you can't trust them [and] they're not funded." Therefore, > he asserts, we ought to count them as a liability, which would bring > the debt-to-GDP ratio to 91 percent. > In the United States, gloom has spread to our policymakers on how to > deal with our economic dilemmas. Monetary policy is relatively > ineffective because we are in, or near, liquidity trap conditions. > Our economy is so weak that lower interest rates and other monetary > tools are not working. In the liquidity trap, no matter how much > money is thrown into the system, people have so little confidence > that they tend to hoard it. Similarly, fiscal policy is beginning to > reach its limits. High debt levels can raise concerns about the > creditworthiness of our government. This in turn could lead to > higher long-term interest rates that would aggravate the economic > contraction.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
There's No Escaping Hauser's Law
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=hauser
More from Veronique de Rugy on The Corner:None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.
Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Charles Krauthammer - Don't touch my junk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111804494.html
We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to ensure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety - 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling - when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.
The junk man's revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.
Charles Krauthammer - Don't touch my junk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111804494.html
We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to ensure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety - 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling - when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.
The junk man's revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
House panel finds Rangel guilty on 11 ethics charges
He's guilty of course. He'll get a slap on the wrist, and nothing will change. If a Republican had been convicted of these charges, his own party would disown him. The Democrats waited until after the election to hold his trial -- during the lame duck session -- to avoid any serious consequences. Well played, Speaker Pelosi. Next time, Charlie might not be so lucky.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/16/1928881/house-panel-finds-rangel-guilty.htmlA congressional ethics panel found Rep. Charles Rangel guilty Tuesday on 11 counts of violating rules of the House of Representatives and is now weighing how to punish the New York Democrat.
A special eight-member bipartisan panel of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced its findings against Rangel after deliberating for hours behind closed doors following a rare trial.
"We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the fact of law," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the chairman of the full committee. "And I believe we have accomplished that mission."
Rangel, 80, was accused of failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and assets, improper use of several rent-controlled apartments in his district, questionable fundraising efforts for a college center in New York that bears his name, and failing to pay taxes on property he owns in the Dominican Republic.
Rangel, who was elected to a 21st term earlier this month, could face expulsion from the House, censure or a reprimand. Congressional experts say that he'll likely be reprimanded, the mildest form of punishment.
Rangel, the former chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax law, wasn't present when Lofgren read the ethics panel's findings. He refused to participate in the proceedings after it declined his request Monday for a postponement because he didn't have - and couldn't afford - legal representation after already spending $2 million on his defense.
GOP Senate leader McConnell backs down, agrees to earmark ban
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/129207-senate-gop-leader-mcconnell-agree... > Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced Monday that he would join a GOP effort to ban congressional earmarks, a stunning turnaround that reflects a huge victory for the Tea Party movement.>> A senior member of the Appropriations Committee, McConnell has been one of the Senate’s strongest proponents of local pork, but watched the practice fall into disfavor amid growing public anger over Washington spending that fueled GOP victories in this month’s midterm election.
>
>
>> “There is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight,” McConnell said Monday in a speech on the Senate floor.
>> “And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government,” he said.
Monday, November 15, 2010
The ever-expanding Obamacare escapee list
Michelle Malkin links to the waiver list:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/14/waiver-mania-the-ever-expanding-obamacare-escapee-list/The list of most recently approved refugees is here. Make no mistake: Team Obama isn’t granting the waivers out of bleeding-heart compassion for the affected workers, but out of a panicked urgency to avoid a public relations disaster.As I’ve boiled it down before:Old Democrat promise: Everyone gets to keep their health insurance.New Democrat promise: You can keep your health insurance…if you BEG hard enough for an Obamacare waiver.Yep: The only way for hundreds of thousands of workers to keep their health insurance is to exempt them from the government-imposed “fix.”
Plus:
Jim Hoft notices that a bunch of major unions are on the waiver list, including SEIU. We're up to 111 waivers and counting. Wouldn't it be easier to make ObamaCare opt-in only?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
A 'Separate But Equal' Whip for the Democrats
The Politico.com report: "House Dems reach deal on leaders" http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=439EB99F-01BA-B8B4-ACE481453B08E785 > House Democrats have reached a deal to keep both Reps. Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn in the leadership, with Hoyer (D-Md.) serving as minority whip and Clyburn (D-S.C) taking a new, as-yet-still-undefined number three position.>> Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calf.) who is seeking the minority leader's job in the next Congress, reached an agreement with Clyburn on late Friday night, and Democratic leaders quickly announced the deal.>> Clyburn's title and responsibilities were not specified in the announcement from Pelosi's office, and Democratic leadership aides scrambled to explain the deal to reporters.
> A source close to Clyburn said one of his "primary concerns was maintaining a diversity in leadership that reflected" the makeup the Democratic Caucus. Clyburn gets the honorary diversity post without any official duties. He'll need a big office and a staff to develop new diversity programs for the Democrats who survived Pelosi's speakership. I didn't notice any Blue Dogs getting a diversity appointment but I'm sure the new minority leader will deal with them soon enough.
> A source close to Clyburn said one of his "primary concerns was maintaining a diversity in leadership that reflected" the makeup the Democratic Caucus. Clyburn gets the honorary diversity post without any official duties. He'll need a big office and a staff to develop new diversity programs for the Democrats who survived Pelosi's speakership. I didn't notice any Blue Dogs getting a diversity appointment but I'm sure the new minority leader will deal with them soon enough.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Government Salaries Soar Under Obama
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Government-Salaries-Soar-Under-Obama-5739
In the last five years, the number of federal employees making $150,000 or more per year increased tenfold, according to an investigation by USA Today. Those high wages increased by twofold under the Obama administration. "The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years," the paper reports. "Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Deficit Commission proposal
Rush Limbaugh recommended this article:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/What-Am-I-MissingPutting aside all the minutiae and detail, the crux of the proposal comes down to two points: capping federal government expenditures at 22% -- and eventually 21% -- of GDP, and capping revenues at 21% of GDP. And each of these represents a BIG problem. The first is on the spending side. Except for the anomalous stimulus/bailout/recession years of 2009-2011, federal government expenditures haven’t reached 21% of GDP since the collapse of the Soviet Union – and since World War II only exceeded 21% of GDP during the Reagan-Bush military buildup of the 1980s and early 90s. For virtually all of the Clinton and G.W. Bush years – and during all the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon years – federal expenditures ranged between 18 and 20% of GDP. So while the 21% figure represents something of a cut versus the out-year projections of the President’s most recent budget, it leaves plenty of headroom to establish and make permanent even more government than we had in the immediate pre-Obama years.
The more important problem is on the revenue side. According to Office of Management and Budget figures, federal revenues have NEVER reached 21% of GDP. In fact, only in Bill Clinton’s final year in office – and during WW II – did revenues even exceed 20% of GDP. During the whole time from 1960 through 2008, federal tax revenues almost always fell between 17 and 19% of GDP, only occasionally rising above 19% (chiefly in Clinton’s second term) or below 17% (G. W. Bush’s first term). Even President Obama’s FY 11 Budget has federal revenues rising only to around 19% of GDP by 2015. So the 21% “cap” represents two full percentage points of GDP above what we have experienced even during historically “high” tax environments.
By way of comparison, the last time we had a “balanced” federal budget – FY 2001 – revenues were 19% of GDP and expenditures 18%. The Commission’s draft, in effect, proposes solving our deficit problem by allowing the federal government to grow 15-20% larger than it was under Bill Clinton, then raising taxes as much as necessary to pay for it. It institutionalizes President Obama’s expansion of the role of government – maybe not quite as much as he and Nancy Pelosi would like – and lays the burden squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers.
As several commenters have pointed out, the Federal Government should not be entitled to a percentage of GDP. The taxpayers are not here to serve the government "needs". The politicians should balance the budget by spending less.
Earmark Myths and Realities - By Sen. Tom Coburn
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253028/earmark-myths-and-realities-sen-tom-coburn#
As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.
Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.
Read the whole thing.
This is a test for the GOP. I'm not sure the Senate Republicans appreciate how serious the Tea Party activists are about this. If the senators vote to keep earmarks, they will face primary opposition next time, and the Republican party isn't going to save them.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
What Happens When a State Goes Bankrupt?
Richard Epstein on Ricochet.com:
http://ricochet.com/conversations/What-Happens-When-a-State-Goes-Bankrupt[T]here is no obvious mechanism for state bankruptcies, even if there are some procedures, I believe, for municipal bankruptcies. This is a ticklish issue because states are sovereigns and it is a frightening prospect to think that when mired in bankruptcy, they could not discharge their essential functions because they could not pay their pension obligations, among others. So the battle over the form of bankruptcy will be acute, and I have no idea how this would play out -- except badly.
[...] I don’t think that full-fledged bankruptcy is a realistic prospect as of now. I think that the much more sensible approach is to side-step the bankruptcy proceedings and find ways to attack the union pension obligations directly, given their enormous size. It is odd that these days the only sacred contracts are those which the state enters into with unions for the benefit of their members.
I doubt that any state could actually go bankrupt. Where would they file in the first place? They might default on bonds and debts, but the creditors will not be able to collect anything without the cooperation of the state. I can't imagine the Feds telling California to pay up ... or else? Maybe they might threaten to withhold highway funds. That's really going to scare Jerry Brown! It's much more likely that the Feds will decide that California is too big to fail, so the rest of us must pitch in with our federal tax dollars to bail them out. There will be harsh words and demands for reform, but the money will be air-dropped before chaos breaks out. Eventually everyone will forget how the state got into such trouble in the first place, and re-elect Jerry Brown, who did such a wonderful job of dealing with the federal government to save California.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Jim DeMint: Welcome, Senate Conservatives
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
Lastly, don't let your re-election become more important than your job. You've campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election—like breaking your word to voters.
At your swearing-in ceremony, you will, as all senators do, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Most will fail to keep their oath. Doing these five things will help you maintain a focus on national priorities and be one who does.
Read the whole thing.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Sowell: Spending Money Does Not Work
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251822/guess-who-thomas-sowell
uess who said the following: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?G
Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. He added, “after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in New Deal or Raw Deal?, a must-read book by Prof. Burton W. Folsom Jr. of Hillsdale College.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
