What Are Obama’s Chances in 2012? Not Good

Matt Mackowiak,FloydReports.com

Presidential reelection campaigns are always about the incumbent — serving as
a referendum of that President’s performance in office and the results of their
policies. It’s a choice election. It’s not about the challenger. What the
incumbent tries to do is to make the other “choice”unacceptable,resulting in the
incumbent’s reelection.

I suspect the 2012 campaign will be waged on only two issues:the economy and
a referendum on ObamaCare. Consider that,as Virginia Attorney General Ken
Cuccinelli has already predicted,the Supreme Court will likely announce their
decision on the constitutionality of Obama’s sweeping health care law on the
last Monday in June next year. Such a time frame will likely be after the GOP
nominee has been chosen but before the national party conventions,during the
summer when the presidential general election campaign is not yet being waged
ferociously.

No matter what decision is rendered,ObamaCare is guaranteed to burn white hot
as an issue on the campaign trail in 2012.

Only after the 2012 election….

Read more.

Tax Hikes Are Coming, If Obama Gets His Way

Tax Hikes Are Coming, If Obama Gets His Way

May
17th, 2011

Dr. John A. Sparks

President Obama is now openly proposing tax increases on at least two
important fronts as part of his “solution” to the growing debt crisis.

The president’s favorite approach is to talk about the “wealthiest
Americans.” In his speech on April 13, he proclaimed that he will do away with
the “Bush tax cuts” for the rich as soon as he has the opportunity. Just a week
later, April 21, he said that wealthier taxpayers like him should be willing to
pay “a little bit more” to prevent various social programs for the elderly and
the young from being cut. Of course, this is his way of preparing high-earning
Americans for a jump in their federal income tax rates. Apparently, he believes
that they are not currently doing their part or paying their fair share.

Listening to President Obama talk, one would think that the present federal
income tax system is a flat-rate system where everyone, no matter what their
income, pays at the same rate. Of course, the current system is, and has been
for a long time, a steeply graduated tax system where the highest earners pay at
the rate of 35 percent on the topmost portion of their earnings while low
earners pay at the rate of 10 percent. Now, Mr. Obama wants to push the highest
rates even higher, to near 40 percent. President Obama believes, perhaps
rightly, that soaking the rich will not hurt him politically.

But the president is targeting more than the wealthiest. In fact, in his
desperation, he is apparently now prepared to impose heavier tax burdens on
middle-income Americans as well. How? In a recent speech he stated that he wants
to raise the “cap” on Social Security. The cap on Social Security taxes works
this way: If an employee earns more than the cap (currently, $106,800) in a
given tax year, Social Security taxes are not deducted from the amount
of earnings over the cap. So, for example, if an employee earned $126,800 in
2010, he would pay 6.2 percent in Social Security taxes on the first $106,800,
or $6,621.60. The employer would also pay 6.2 percent. On the overage—the
$20,000 of income beyond the cap—neither the employee nor the employer would pay
any Social Security tax.

However, if President Obama has his way and the cap is raised by….

Read
more
.

Save America; Get Outraged

Save America; Get Outraged

April 8th, 2011

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

Where’s the outrage?
Given what Barack Obama is doing to the Constitution, the economy and our
future, the American people should be up in arms (metaphorically speaking, civility-hysterics
take note). Citizens should be marching on Washington with pitchforks and
flaming brands in hand (also a metaphor).
Every city should see demonstrations to make the most raucous Tea Party rally
look like Sunday night in Pierre, South Dakota.
Instead, it’s a mental fog as usual. Hey, the unemployment rate is now
(barely) below 9 percent! Wasn’t that a cold winter? Gee, I wonder what zany,
drug-induced thing Charlie
Sheen
will do next?
So, while America burns, we fiddle with our iPhones and talk about the
upcoming HBO series about vampire bootleggers and Borgias duking it out in
Camelot.
Other than Tea Party activists, the public seems supremely unperturbed by
Obama’s relentless assault on America. The president’s March 21-27 approval
rating was 45 percent. At the same point in their first terms, Clinton’s
approval rating was only three points higher – Reagan’s three points lower. Both
were re-elected, you may recall.
It’s true that since Obama occupied the White House, his
party’s stock
has taken
a nose-dive
– a net
loss
of 9 governorships, 7 Senate seats, and 60 House seats. But there’s no
guarantee that trend will continue.
The leader of the party that whines incessantly about the influence of money
in politics has announced he’ll spend $1 billion to win re-election….
Read more.

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New Normal

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New
Normal

January 27th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

In his 2011
State of the Union Address
, Barack Obama gave himself five more years of
trillion-dollar deficit spending, a $678 billion income tax hike, a Social
Security tax increase, and the permanent extension of ObamaCare – and he gave
Republicans medical malpractice reform and a joke about a salmon.
Since his inauguration, the president has gone on a two-year spending orgy
unrivaled since the days of Lyndon Johnson or FDR. Faced with a national
backlash against towering debt, he has come up with a “compromise”: Americans
should accept the big government expansion he has forced down their throats and
move on. This follows the president’s familiar pattern of forcing through costly
and unpopular measures, then promising “discipline” after the fact.
The most reported aspect of the speech was Obama’s pledge to freeze
discretionary, non-military spending at their current levels – exempting such
major programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Homeland
Security.
At the risk of stating the obvious, which perhaps no one has yet stated,
there is no “savings.” As President Obama would say, “Let’s be
clear”: Savings is when you reduce the amount of money you are spending. The
president’s proposal is to spend the same amount of money. The only “savings”
would come from the fact that inflation
unleashed by deficit
spending
and quantitative
easing
will devalue the dollar – but this is hardly a cause for cheer.
History shows that spending freezes rarely freeze anything. The most
ambitious attempt was the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which attempted to
control deficit spending by future Congresses, but many of the same politicians
who voted for the bill decided they would not abide by its terms the next year.
Deficits continued to mount. To give a more recent example, last year Congress
approved slightly more
than half
of the whopping $11.5 billion in spending cuts Obama requested
last year.
The amount of the budget actually affected is rather modest, indeed. It would
apply to approximately
12 percent of the budget
. Alec Phillips, an analyst with Goldman Sachs,
estimates that if every Congress for the next five years holds to current
levels, it would “save” $200 billion. The New York Times noted its
higher estimate of “$250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3
percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is
expected to accumulate
over that time.” Obama’s plan would cost
half-a-trillion dollars more
than returning
to 2008 spending levels
, as proposed by the most moderate Republicans. Sen.
Rand Paul has proposed a half-a-trillion
dollar spending cut
this year, which includes cutting food stamps
and eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National
Endowment for the Arts. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Senator Jim DeMint
introduced a bill to cut
$2.5 trillion
over ten years, eliminating the aforementioned programs as
well as Amtrak and the president’s “high-speed rail” and rolling back spending
to 2006 levels. Obama’s freeze is small beer in its own terms and hypocritical
when paired with his calls for new spending.
The State of the Union made only passing reference to the greatest budgetary
crisis facing us: out of control entitlements (and most of his “solutions” are
bad ideas; see below). “Mandatory” spending alone exceeds projected federal
revenues – the amount of money the government took in all year. If we eliminated
100 percent of discretionary spending – privatized the Post Office, dismantled
the military, and fired every federal prosecutor and judge – we would still run a
deficit
.
Nonetheless, the president instructed us, “The final step to winning the
future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” As though we
are not already buried under a mountain of debt. As though this were not a
mountain of his own making. As though it were not one he wished to greatly
enlarge
.
What Obama intends to freeze is big government. His proposal to hold-the-line
comes after he jacked
up federal spending by 84 percent
. After inflating the federal government
beyond the free market’s carrying capacity, he now wishes to maintain the status
quo.
As usual Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, had the best analysis of Obama’s spending
freeze, calling it “a plan for deficit preservation.” The day
after the State of the Union speech, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
predicted the deficit for 2011 will be….
Read
more
.

Report: Illegal Aliens Pushing Us to Economic Crisis

Report: Illegal Aliens Pushing Us to Economic Crisis

December 6th, 2010

Kevin “Coach” Collins, CoachIsRight.com

A new Census Bureau report outlining the damage illegal aliens are doing to our economy titled   “Immigration and Economic Stagnation: An Examination of Trends 2000 to   2010,” paints a compelling picture. It suggests that we can not let the   recent exodus of illegal aliens fool us. The illegal alien problem is   not getting better merely because some of them have gone home. They   still present a serious threat to the employment stability of the   nation.

During the 1990s the number of new jobs we  created  reached 21 million. Since we were absorbing “only” 12.1 million   illegals the problem appeared to be more regional (California and the   Southwest) than we now recognize it to be.

While the Obama  recession and raising public awareness of the  problem have reduced the  number of illegals in our country by about one  million in recent  months, the past ten years have seen a net increase  of 12.1 million of  these unwanted intruders. In the same period our  economy gained just  one million jobs which explains the financial bind  we are in today.

Some of the findings of the report include….

Read more.

Christmas is About Jesus, Not More Debt

Christmas is About Jesus, Not More Debt

November 29th, 2010

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, FloydReports.com

During  this  Christmas season of cheer and good tidings, a  universal message  is going  forth.  They are all united — from Barack  Obama, to Martha  Stewart, to Wall  Street banks, to the Federal Reserve  — and even your  local mall agrees:  please borrow to spend more this  Christmas.

Americans  since 2008  have been tightening their belts, and they have  paid down  more than $150 billion in consumer debt.  This is a  remarkable feat and  a  testimony to the diligence, hard work, and  frugality of the  American  citizen. In contrast to the people, we are  embarrassed that  our  government is encouraging irresponsible and  spendthrift behavior.

Little   wonder the finances of the U.S. government and the Federal  Reserve  are in  a shambles. When times are tight, overspending and  excessive  debt is  never the answer. Americans intuitively understand  this and  they are  making tough choices to avoid bankruptcy.  Barack  Obama would  be smart  to follow their example.

But governments never really  tighten  the budget. We all learned  years ago the idiocy of government  accounting  when they proclaimed they  were making “budget cuts” when  spending and  borrowing was going up  every year.  This would be akin to  us saying, “We  want a Porsche, so we  will cut the budget and get a  Corvette,” when our  salary could only  cover payments on a Toyota  Corolla.

This upside-down idea was in the news again this week with the bailout of Ireland….

Read more.

Thanksgiving: An Economics Lesson

Thanksgiving: An Economics Lesson

November 24th, 2010

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, FloydReports.com

Every   fall in my Econ 101 course, during the last class period  before we  part  for Thanksgiving, I share a lesson from early American  history.  It is  particularly timely, because it deals with those we  credit with  the  first American Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims of Plymouth  Colony.

Upon   arriving in New England, the Pilgrims shared “their meat,  drink,   apparel and all provisions” in common. As inevitably happens  under   collective ownership, the incentive to work disappeared. The grim   result  was food shortages, hunger, starvation; indeed, half of those   who  sailed on the Mayflower perished.

With  the colony’s  survival in question, the survivors reintroduced  the  principle of  private property. Each family was assigned a plot of  land.  They  adopted the apostle Paul’s dictum, “if any would not work,  neither   should he eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). Thereafter, food  production   soared and the Pilgrims prospered.

The  political-economic lesson  here is obvious, and I won’t belabor  it.  Instead, let’s consider  another important lesson imparted by this   historical episode: We  humans need to be challenged.

Read more.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers