Stay committed to your decisions, but stay flexible in your approach.
Anthony Robbins
Editorial Quote of the Day: WSJ/"The Solyndra Economy"
Or "Obamanomics: Pick and Choose Your Way to Zero Growth"
"The proper role for government is to support basic research, not commercial ventures that become exercises in taxpayer risk but private reward. When government takes $535 million and invests in a loser, it not only wastes taxpayer money but it also denies that capital to some other project in the private economy that might have succeeded."
Comment: Spot on. Who do you expect would create the most jobs and with a buck: one of the most economically successful businessmen in the world, whom has skin in the game (his own money is at stake), or inexperienced, unknowing politicians and bureaucrats, spending other people's money? Do you think Obama learned a thing from the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which also socialized risk but privatized rewards--and "invested" in the 2008 campaign on behalf of one Barack Obama?
Federal Income By Year: An Interesting Observation
There are a few things to keep in mind about these data (expressed in billions of dollars). First, tax collections, particularly towards the end of the Clinton Presidency, were largely fueled by capital gains during the Internet bubble. A number of people (including myself) lost money during the 2000-2002 market correction. It's not just that we had underwater investments, but we are limited to the amount of net capital losses we can declare against income (the government wants all of the gains at the time they are earned, but it defers the recognition of any losses over $3000). Second, George W. Bush become the first American President to experience 2 recessions since Eisenhower: March 2001 through November 2001, December 2007 through January 2009 (the recession ended in June under Obama). The previous recession ended under Bush's father; Clinton inherited an economy already in recovery (the end of that recession was March 1991, nearly 2 years before Clinton took office). But ignoring currency/inflation factors, federal revenues have exceeded Clinton's best year of revenues since FY2005, despite what progressives have hated with a passion: the Bush tax cuts, particularly for high-earning workers.
2011 2173.7
2010 2162.7
2009 2105.0
2008 2524.0
2007 2568.0
2006 2406.9
2005 2153.6
2004 1880.1
2003 1782.3
2002 1853.1
2001 1991.1
2000 2025.2
1999 1827.5
1998 1721.7
1997 1579.2
1996 1453.1
1995 1351.8
1994 1258.6
1993 1154.3
1992 1091.2
Obama's Report Card:
Economics F
History F
You know when liberals start quoting Reagan to justify class warfare tax hikes, something is rotten, not in Denmark, but wherever a disingenuous progressive Democrat is speaking. Let us recall that Reagan brought the upper bracket tax rate from roughly JFK's 70% to 28%. Obama is trying to reinstate the top bracket tax rate almost a dozen points higher; the status quo tax rate is 35%. So what kind of revisionist smear is Obama trying to pull here? This, of course, is not the first time disingenuous Democrats have tried to pull this stunt: they've tried to pull the same crap with Romney's health care reform, claiming it was the precursor to ObamaCare. (This is demonstrably false, of course: Romney mostly shifted hospital subsidies to health care insurance subsidies, and his concept of individual responsibility did not require purchasing health care insurance if the resident could show evidence of financial responsibility, like a bond, for his health care expenses.)
What is Obama trying to pull here? We have to remember the general context. Reagan and later GHW Bush found the Democrats negotiating in bad faith. Neither Reagan nor Bush, Sr. wanted tax increases; to close the budget deficit, they were willing to consider where the Democrats would agree to multiple dollars of cuts to every single dollar raised by taxes. We know this Democratic standard trick by now: immediate tax hikes and future promises of spending cuts--THAT NEVER HAPPEN. Reagan agreed to close off some credits, deductions, etc.; Bush reluctantly agreed to an increase in the tax rate. Bush's famous abandonment of his "no new taxes" promise was a major factor in his not winning reelection. I do not know why they agreed to this stuff--the tax concessions, of course, remained intact even though the Dems failed to keep up their end of the margin. [I would have tried to negotiate a trigger, that if the Dems did not come across with the spending cuts, the Republican concessions would be rolled back.]
Pure and simple, the Dems think the Republicans are suckers. They pulled the same scam on Reagan and the elder Bush--certainly they should be able to pull it with Congressional Republicans as well. Remember this summer when during a debate the candidates were asked what sort of spending cut/tax increase ratio would they be willing to accept? 10 to 1? Nobody budged. Why? Fool me once--shame on you. Fool me twice--shame on me. Fool me three times? Are you kidding? The Republican Presidential candidates weren't being ideological--they were basically saying: been there, done that: we don't trust the Dems to ever follow through on broken promises.
So why is our snarky smartass President Obama quoting Reagan out of context? First of all, it's a snide attack of alleged GOP hypocrisy: how dare they pick and choose what Reagan said? Second, Reagan seems to be using class warfare rhetoric:
Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.But Steven Hayward points out what Reagan was championing a 1982 budget deal called TEFRA:
When Obama says, “fair share,” he means something very specific: higher marginal income tax rates on the group he calls the rich. This is the polar opposite of Reagan’s policy approach in 1982. All the “tax increases” to which Reagan agreed as part of TEFRA were temporary excise hikes on cigarettes and telephone calls. The bill also featured technical changes in the tax code (such as the elimination of depreciation schedules and the reduction of tax credits and deductions).Political Humor
"Sarah Palin won’t run for president. Who better to lead us out of the troubles of the world than a half-term governor from Alaska?" - David Letterman
[You're right, Dave. It's not like she is qualified like a half-term US Senator from Illinois with no executive experience...]
"Under Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, everything would be taxed at 9 percent. Now, Rick Santorum says he has a better tax plan called 0-0-0. Oh, sorry, that’s his chances of becoming president." - Jay Leno
[Of course, some people prefer Cain's 9-9-9 plan to Obama's 6-6-6 plan.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Moody Blues, "Question"
