Tag Archives: U.S. economy

Obama’s War on Energy is about Control

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 4.09.39 AM

When one thinks of energy, the thoughts about economic growth rarely come into play.  In fact, most take it for granted.  It charges our iPhones, laptops, and Kindles, but it also is the lifeblood that keeps our economy growing.  It’s also the critical element that keeps our health services running.  It allows us to channel our resources elsewhere – to be more productive during the day.  However, we’re starting to see a shift occur through the policies of the Obama administration.  This radical reconfiguration of our energy infrastructure will be disastrous in the long run, and some in the media don’t seem to care.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Thomas Pyle, President of American Energy Alliance, Robin Millican, Policy Director for Institute for Energy Research (IER), and Dan Kish, Senior Vice President for Policy at IER on October 26 to discuss this issue further – and how it’s currently shaping the outcome of the 2012 election.  I mentioned the study Professor Gabriel Calzada conducted on Spain’s green energy investments and how he predicted a bubble, which seems to be bursting on the Iberian Peninsula.  Most disconcerting was the fact that for every green job created – 2.2 jobs were lost as a result.  In fact, Professor Gabriel Calzada found himself targeted by liberals and the Center for American Progress, John Podesta’s bastion of progressivism, as a consequence of his study concerning Spain’s green energy economy.  Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome in Spain, President Obama plans to use it as a model and apply it here, which would enter a more aggressive phase if he were reelected on November 6.

Furthermore, IER conducted a study on the impact of green energy initiatives in Germany.  Here are the key points:

  • Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
  • In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
  • Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

 

  • Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.
  • Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

However, one area that is salient to American voters is coal.  Obama’s War on Coal has been brutal for thousands of families who live in states along the Appalachian Trail.  With new greenhouse gas regulations the EPA is doling out, it’ll prevent the creation of new plants and is scheduled to shut down 10% of existing coal plats that are operational today.

Pyle warned that there will come a time when the economy will begin to grow again and the energy infrastructure that President Obama and the environmental left envision for America will not be adequate to meet the demands of commercial expansion. There’s no special switch we can turn to get our power back to appropriate levels for economic development. Furthermore, it doesn’t help our long-term energy development when government shuts down coal mining, offshore drilling, or puts the kibosh on the Keystone Pipeline.  As a result, the Gulf States, Alaska, Colorado, and Wyoming are suffering under Obama’s war on energy.

While the Environmental Protection Agency has the reputation of being a ‘protector,’ they have recently become the heaviest portion of the boot that is on the throat of American enterprise.  One thing the United States can never compete in again is the labor market.  However, with the derivatives from oil/gas/and coal such as petrochemicals, smart phones, computers, Kevlar, shaving cream, toothpaste, and gum – we can still retain our economic vigor.   However, EPA regulations are making it harder to produce such products for American and international markets.

Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of Policy for IER, noted how the air is cleaner and the water is better. In fact:

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for:

  • 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent
  • annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent
  • PM10 , by 31 percent
  • Lead, by 78 percent
  • NO2 , by 35 percent
  • 8-hour CO, by 68 percent
  • annual SO2 , by 59 percent

Additionally, the EPA has affirmed this claim.

 As a result, life expectancy has increased dramatically – which is an effective metric at gauging the socioeconomic health of a nation.  Yet, the EPA feels that more needs to be done, despite that fact that states have their own safety and health provisions, which are tailored to accommodate the environments of each respective state.  However, given the dependency mentality of the Obama administration, the EPA insists on a one-size fits all model.  I guess the principles of federalism have taken a back seat.

Concerning coal, we have 497 billion short tons, which is enough to power the country for over 500 years – at our current levels of energy use.  When you incorporate Alaska into the picture, it dwarfs the lower forty-eight, with 10.38 trillion short tons for our use.  As a result, the United States is the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.  And not all coal is used to generate electricity.  Thirty-eight percent of coal can be used to make jet fuel.  Fifty percent of all freight loads carried in the country are comprised of coal.  In fact, 25% of all rail revenue is derived from coal transportation.  What happens if that were to disappear, which is what the Obama administration wants as the end game in this power play.

We current use 1 billion tons of coal a year.  China uses 4 billion tons a year.  As a result, even if coal were to cease of an arm of the American economy, the effects on global CO2 emissions would be de minimis at best.  Kish noted how coal consumption has increased in Europe.  The reason is simple.  It’s cheap.  It works great, and is good for electricity.

Pyle touched upon the moral aspect of energy, which is seldom reported on in the press.  He reiterated the fact how 40% of India’s population don’t have access to affordable energy.  Kish noted how villages in Africa keep their kids to school, although they would like to send them there, because every available hand is needed to collect biomass to keep the home warm, to cook, and possibly fend themselves from predators at night.  If those kids were able to go to school because they had affordable energy, and access to it, increased economic activity from their education would have a ripple effect upon their community. Energy allows people to savor and spend their time more efficiently and purposefully. Until the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy had flat lined around age thirty for years, which saw a dramatic increase when people were able to utilize their time more efficiently due to proliferation of energy resources.

An example of the economic benefits in expanding our energy development can be seen in North Dakota.  Dan Kish recently visited the state, of which 97% isn’t owned by the government, and noticed the economic boom that has occurred from extracting the shale oil from the Bakken formation.  Williston, North Dakota has the busiest McDonald’s in the country.  A entry-level worker could earn up to $90,000 in his first year alone working the rigs.  In fact, five to ten years ago North Dakota wasn’t even a player in oil production.  Now, it’s ranked #2 – behind Texas – producing 18 million barrels of oil in March of 2012.  In all, between 2008-09, it’s proved reserves have increased from 543 million barrels to 1046 million barrels.  Some farmers, who’ve sold their land rights, are earning as much as $150,000 a month from the royalties.  Although, the monetary values is based on volume, but it’s possible.

As a result, North Dakota’s unemployment rate remains at 3%, the GDP per capita is well above the national average at $50,096, it’s spurred a budget surplus of $ 1 billion dollars, and increased the workforce from 5,000 in 2005 to 30,000 in 2012.  Here’s to prosperity.

We have the resources to be energy independent.  Pyle mentioned that in 1944 it was estimated that America’s proven oil reserves amounted to about 20 billion barrels.  However, from 1945-2010, the United States production exceeded 176 billion barrels of oil.  That’s because proven reserves tend to increase in volume as we continue to explore for more energy resources.  Case in point, the Bakken Shale.  However, the boot of the EPA and government regulation seems to be aimed at halting this process.  It’s because government, especially the one we have now, is set on breaking the independent arms that are harvesting these resources to the will of the state.  It’s about centralization of energy distribution. It’s trickle down government incarnate.

Last May, IER Policy Director Robin Millican spoke at an Americans for Prosperity rally in McLean, Va. There she said that the military has become victim to these government policies.  In her speech, she noted how the Department of Defense signed a $12 million dollar contract with two biofuel companies to produce 450,000 gallons of the advanced liquid.  In short, it’s incredibly expensive.  This ludicrous expenditure is grounded in the words of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus who said “We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters…our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”  I’m sure the environmental left enjoys this change in course, but as Millican pointed out, the federal government has a portion of land in Alaska called the Naval Petroleum Reserve which is specifically set aside to meet the energy demands of the military.  Yet, we are going to pay companies to make fuel for our armed forces that is four times more expensive than standard fuel.

Additionally, Millican also delivered some remarks about the $500 million dollar loan allocated to Solyndra.  A company principally financed by George Kaiser, who was also a huge bundler for the Obama campaign in 2008.  In all, big government breed corruption, crony capitalism, and dependency. She aptly pointed out that these subsidies are not meant to better society, but are goodie bags to the politically connected.  She says, “look no further than a government funded program that relies on a stamp of approval from a group of unelected bureaucrats who have no technical experience.” The process in determining which system maximizes efficiency is not rigorous and comes down to nothing more than corporate welfare.  Continuing with the narrative of waste this administration has incurred due to its quest for clean energy initiatives, Millican detailed the Section 1603 program that has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties.  Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.

Relating to AFP’s media campaign, Millican discussed the $529 million dollar loan to Fisker, which produced the $100,000 dollar Karma automobile that is principally made in Finland.  Is this investing in America? Ms. Millican astutely pointed out that renewables only constitute 1.5% of our entire energy consumption, but get the majority share of the funds allocated from Congress.

If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States on November 6, it’ll be partially due to Americans’ disgust towards Obama’s war on energy – specifically coal.  The war on coal has affected thousands of families who live along the Appalachian Trail.  An aspect the Obama campaign should’ve taken more seriously since Virginia and Pennsylvania are both battleground and coal-producing states.  Currently, the small town of Grundy, Va is under siege by federal regulators who are preventing them from expanding their runway at the local airport because of coal.  It’s a three-year battle, which is really an assault on the American Dream.  The expansion of the airport would allow corporate jets to land, which could possibly spur economic development in Grundy and the surrounding counties.

Debra McCown reported on Grundy’s war with federal regulators back on October 17. I wrote, in a previous post, that since “the original airport was built on a piece of land made flat by surface mining by United Coal Co., which gave the land to Grundy,” the government won’t allow them to expand the runway.  It’s big government run amok.

McCown also reported in The American Spectator on October 22 “more than 5,500 people turned out Sunday afternoon at a mountaintop park in remote Buchanan County to show their support for coal.” She noted how the mood of the crowd exuded a certain dubiousness since most of these workers have an uncertain future, especially if Obama is reelected.   McCown quoted Jerry Shortt, who said, “the only promise Obama kept was to kill coal.”  “Jerry Shortt [is] a coal miner from Richlands who was laid off temporarily right after Labor Day — and learned Friday that for him, along with 189 other employees at the mine where he worked, the layoff would be permanent,” according to McCown.

She also noted that the EPA regulations that will be the harbingers of death for the industry.

First, new air emissions standards prompted utilities to announce the closure of dozens of coal-fired power plants, cutting the demand for coal and costing jobs. In some cases, utilities chose to convert those units to natural gas, which because of new technology for extraction has become relatively cheap and plentiful. Rules for coal-fired boilers have also affected factories and other facilities that use industrial boilers.

Second, a new proposed EPA rule would require any new coal-fired power plants to be constructed with technology to control carbon dioxide emissions — technology that’s not been fully developed. With this proposal, even state-of-the-art coal burning technology, like that being used at the new power plant that just opened in nearby Wise County, couldn’t be permitted, utility officials have said.

On the water pollution side, coalmines are now subject to new restrictions in obtaining the permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Targeted specifically at mountaintop mines in Appalachia, according to industry supporters, the change effectively prohibits modern surface mining and has also created significant problems for deep mining.

With the state in a statistical dead heat, the policies from the Obama administration to gut this business, and leave the families of those involved with coal mining in destitution – might be a deciding factor in how Virginia might vote on November 6.

The Washington Times’ Ben Wolfgang reported on October 23 that Obama’s crusade to destroy coal has put Pennsylvania in play.  More than anything, if Romney wins PA on November 6, it’ll be a very short election night.  While West Virginia was never going Democratic, Democrats there have eviscerated the Obama administration over recent coal miner layoffs.

Energy giant Consol announced Tuesday that it will idle its surface mining operations in Mingo County after failing to secure necessary Clean Water Act permits from the EPA.

The Miller Creek surface mine facility has been in operation for decades, and the company had planned to construct the new “King Coal Highway” as part of a reclamation project after mining is complete. Coal mine employees, Consol said, would eventually have been assigned to the highway project, once the coal supplies had been exhausted.

Democrats in the state, already angry with the administration’s “war on coal,” unloaded on the EPA on Tuesday afternoon.

“I am incensed and infuriated that the EPA would intentionally delay the needed permit for a public-private project that would bring so many good jobs and valuable infrastructure to communities that so desperately need them,” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said in a statement.

For those affected, it’s called a “regional genocide.”  For government, it’s a shift towards a cleaner future, despite the data suggesting otherwise.  At the end of the day, it’s about government controlling more of the means of production through our energy consumption.

America Deserves Better

Bad-Economy-High-Crime

The U.S. economy grew at a 2 percent annual rate in the third quarter.  The slight improvement was the result of more consumer and federal government spending.  Consumer spending improved from a 1.5 percent rate to 2 percent annual rate.

And federal spending surged.

Despite the modest increase, economic growth remains too weak to advance hiring.

This report is the last before Americans vote for president eleven days from now.

http://tinyurl.com/9vve7n2

Mitt Romney has consistently criticized Barack Obama’s economic record, correctly noting that the pace of growth has slowed over the past two years.  This year’s 1.74 percent annual growth rate lags behind last year’s 1.8 percent growth.

Hoping to boost his image and enhance his chances at re-election, look for the Obama campaign to use the pickup in growth as evidence that the economy is improving.

When convenient to building his image in the minds of his followers, Obama and his loyal bastion in the openly biased American news media love to compare him to President Ronald Reagan.

As a result of Reagan’s economic policies, at this point in his presidency the U.S. GDP was experiencing a growth rate of 7.2 percent.

That was a real recovery.

Since the current recovery started approximately three years ago, the American economy has grown at the slowest rate of any post-recession recovery since World War II.

Under new leadership, with the proper policies in place, America can do better than this.

America deserves better than this.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/america-deserves-better/

Mitt Romney Is Wrong On Defense Department Cuts

Pentagon

Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestration plan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.

There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.

For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.

The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.

There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).

Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?

The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.

Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.

But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.

This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.

**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.

Sen. McCaskill Testy Over Question about her Husband’s ‘Dining Room’ Deals

Screen Shot 2012-10-19 at 12.51.08 AM

Incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill got a little testy with Dana Loesch, editor of Breitbart’s Big Journalism, during a press conference after Thursday night’s senate debate where Loesch asked the senator about her husband’s business deals, which involved selling tax credits tied to stimulus money.  McCaskill’s husband, Joseph Shepard, allegedly conducted these deals in the U.S. Senate Dining Room. The Gateway Pundit posted video of the exchange last night.

The Daily Caller’s Matthew Boyle posted the story yesterday where these developments were exposed by “whistle-blower Craig Woods [who is] a longtime high-ranking official within Shepard’s business empire, serving first as chief financial officer and then as vice president and chief underwriter for Missouri Equity Investors LLC and JA Shepard Companies.” DC obtained audio of the senator’s husband cutting deals and Boyle reported that Woods’ “LinkedIn page indicates he left the company in January 2011, a few months before debriefing a Republican operative who made the recording.  According to the McCaskill campaign, Woods pled guilty in the 1990s in two different cases of felony larceny and spent some time in prison after that. The campaign also said that Woods lied to McCaskill’s husband about his past on his job application, and submitted a resume detailing “jobs” he held when he was actually in prison.”

Nevertheless, on the tape:

“He [McCaskill’s husband] did four projects — these were rural development deals where he came in and stole from a guy and he did the federal credits and he got Enterprise Bank to invest in those four deals and those have been really iffy,” Woods said on the tape. Woods said those four projects — housing developments — were “all here in Missouri.” He explained how Shepard brokered deals with investors who counted on high returns in the form of federal and state tax credits that came with these projects. In return for the deals, Woods said, the investors gave Shepard cash he could use elsewhere in his business. “The reason these [specific projects] were so attractive to him, the reason he wanted to do them, was they got ARRA funds, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds,” Woods said, referring to how some programs were tied to President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package. Woods said one such project, in Clinton, Missouri, got “$5.5 million in stimulus funds. They didn’t have to borrow a dollar.” Woods said Shepard “bundle[d]” that stimulus-funded project with two other projects that didn’t get stimulus money in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, and Hannibal, Missouri, and took the tax credits from all three to an investor in “the Baltimore-DC area.” Woods added the the “free cash” from the stimulus-funded project packaged with the other two projects was a more “attractive” tax credit deal for investors than three separate deals in which the tax credits from each project were sold separately.

As to why these business discussion were conducted in the Senate Dining Room, Woods said Shepard  “thought that was fantastic…he could take them to the Senate Dining Room and entertain them.”

The McCaskill campaign emailed the DC a statement on the subject saying, “there is absolutely no merit to these claims. It is shocking that Todd Akin would pin the hopes of his campaign on a twice-convicted felon and a proven liar, but I guess Todd Akin is incredibly desperate at this point. This is a despicable new low, especially for Todd Akin, and he should be ashamed of himself.”

However, Akin isn’t desperate.  McCaskill isn’t popular.  The people of Missouri want change and Akin’s within 2.3 points of Senator McCaskill, on average, despite his serial gaffes – one of which is the infamous “legitimate rape” slip-up.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Ed Morrissey wrote on October 15 that:

A new poll from Wenzel Strategies (via James Hohmann at Politico’s Morning Score) might show a glimmer of that hope, however.  The likely-voter survey puts Akin up four points over McCaskill, 48.9/44.7, with 87% of the vote firm.  The sample on this poll has a D/R/I of 38/37/25, more Democratic than the 2010 midterm turnout in Missouri of 34/37/28, although not as Democratic as the 2008 turnout model of 40/34/26 that nonetheless gave John McCain a narrow win in the state. However, a couple of points should be kept in mind.  First, this is a poll conducted on behalf of a partisan client, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, and Wenzel does a lot of work for Republicans.  We’d be suspicious of PPP polls, so it’s fair to note this.  Second, the poll also shows Mitt Romney ahead of Barack Obama by almost 14 points, 54.9/41.1, while the RCP average for MO is Romney +5.2%.  The last poll in that series, though, was conducted before the first debate, and it’s entirely possible that the race in Missouri has shifted significantly since.  It’s worth noting that Obama’s favorability in the poll is 49.5/49.1, so it’s not as though this has an overwhelming tilt.

However, the plot thickens when Woods alleges that Shepard doesn’t do anything without Claire’s full knowledge.  We shall see how this story plays out, but it certainly isn’t good press, especially since her husband also received $40 million in government funds for low-income housing projects.  This egregious feeding from the government trough demonstrates that ‘Potomac Syndrome’ has hit McCaskill hard.  It appears that her fiscal hawk credentials crumble when it comes to her husband. As a result, Akin has labeled McCaskill “Corrupt Claire.”

Originally posted on Hot Air.

Biden Unhinged in VP Debate, while Ryan exuded self-control

Screen Shot 2012-10-12 at 9.56.46 AM

 

Last night’s Vice Presidential debate did put more pressure on Vice President Biden, who was tasked with delivering the same old progressive talking points about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, and health care – albeit with a little more spiritedness.  However, the pervasive grinning, smiling, and interrupting came off as egregiously arrogant and condescending.  Biden conveyed a “I’m gonna kill that kid” demeanor with his impatience and exuded the same entitled disposition that plagued President Obama in his first debate with Gov. Romney.  You don’t get bonus points for being the incumbent – or at least you shouldn’t.

Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post wrote last night that:

…Biden’s aggressive performance is a sure winner for him (and the president) within the Democratic base. But, it felt to us like he went a little bit overboard and, at times, bordered on bullying Ryan.  Biden’s derisive smiles and laughs while Ryan tried to answer questions weren’t great optics for the vice president and his repeated interruptions won’t make those who think politics should be more civil happy. Biden’s agenda was clear during the debate: he was set on erasing the passive performance of Obama last week. That he did, but in so doing it felt like he went a bit overboard.

However, while Cillizza admitted that the Vice President acted like a ‘tool,’ that commentary was tempered since he also rated Biden’s last fifteen minutes in the debate as a win. Guy Benson cited The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan in his post on Townhall this morning reiterating Biden’s obstreperous demeanor.

Another way to say it is the old man tried to patronize the kid and the kid stood his ground. The old man pushed, and the kid pushed back. Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere.Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore’s sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off.

[…]

[Furthermore,] CNN’s Gloria Borger and NBC’s David Gregory both said Biden was condescending.

When you interrupt your opponent 82-96 times throughout the debate, you certainly deserve this criticism.

Paul Ryan, like Romney, had command of the facts that demonstrated how the Obama/Biden ticket had policies that are anathema to American business.  He showed that the Obama administration have no plans to deal with the looming fiscal crisis we face.  For all the left-wing agitation over the Ryan budget, it received more votes in Congress than Obama’s alternative and is empirical evidence that Republicans have a plan.  Obama’s secret weapon to pay down our debt and deficit still centers on raising taxes on the job creating and investing class. As Congressman Ryan said, if these individuals were taxed at 100%, it would only fund government for 98 days.  We would still have a $300 billion dollar deficit.  As many in the conservative movement have noted, increasing taxes on an incrementally shrinking base of  taxable recipients, while not reforming our welfare state, is the flawed logic of leaping a chasm in two bounds.

On taxes, Biden hurled ‘malarkey of his own.  As Human Events’ David Harsanyi wrote on October 12,  Biden “continually swatted away claims that small business would be hit by President Obama’s tax hikes, even though an Internal Revenue Service recently found that Bush-era tax rates would mean around 1 million companies would be hit with new taxes.There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending,’ Mr. Ryan said, attacking the central promise of a second term – tax hikes. ‘Watch out middle class, the tax bill is coming to you.”

However, Biden pivoted by invoking the middle class and defended the 47% of Americans ,who don’t pay any federal income taxes, who have been labeled as freeloaders.  Everyone knew this jab was coming, but when Biden said “it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy [Mitt Romney] who says 47% of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives,” he forgets that there is some truth to Romney’s remarks.  American liberalism is centered on destroying responsibility and filling that void with the government.  You saw this when the Obama administration called unemployment benefits and food stamps a form of economic stimulus, instead of viewing it as a temporary solution to keep economically hard hit Americans from becoming destitute.

Concerning health care reform, Harsanyi wrote that “Biden also claimed falsely asserted that the Obama Administration had not raised taxes on the middle class, when in fact there are over a dozen middle class hike in Obamacare alone. Relying on a single left-wing study, Biden continued to make the Obama campaign’s case that Romney’s tax reform plan was mathematically impossible, despite the fact that other studies find that it’s feasible. And Ryan laid out the job numbers in proper perspective – as stagnant.”

On the 15% of Americans living in poverty and the 23 million struggling to find employment, the vice president asserts that the Obama administration will focus on “leveling the playing field.”  Again, showing that American liberalism has radically shifted away from emphasizing equality of opportunity and towards equality of outcome.   In doing so, we must sacrifice more freedom to achieve that goal. This is an aspect progressives omit when they, for example, push for the expansion of social programs, which they feel enhances the public good.  By the way, the Dependency Index has increased 23% under President Obama – which is a whopping 67 million Americans who are sustained by at least one federal program.

On foreign policy, the vice president was again mistaken.  Regarding Syria, the vice president feels that Assad will fall.  However, with Iran flying over Iraqi airspace with impunity with supplies to keep Assad in power – that’s a presumptuous statement.  Assad’s army is still strong and there is a chance he can survive this insurrection, which we should stay out of at all costs.  Although, if the Obama administration wanted to ensure such an outcome, they shouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq.  Iraq doesn’t have the capability to protect its skies since we provided for their air defense.  Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised by Biden’s foreign policy inaccuracies.  He, after all, advocated to partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous countries along racial lines that would be “held together by a central government.”  It was an Iraqi version of the Articles of Confederation and we know how that turned out.

On Benghazi, some are saying Biden has damaged the administration irrevocably.  Instead of saying it was a terrorist attack, Biden decided to throw the State Department and the intelligence community under the bus. Oh – and did I mention that he lied about the need for security. He said last night “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Well, Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy magazine wrote yesterday that:

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Concerning the intelligence community, Bryan Preston at PJ Media’s Tatler posted early this morning that Biden’s insinuation that:

…the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest because that’s what the intelligence community told them. It’s possible that the presidentially-appointed head of the CIA, Gen David Petraeus, blamed the assault on a video. Petraeus was quoted on Sept 13 doing just that in a briefing to Congress. But by that point it was already evident that the assault was a pre-planned terrorist attack and the administration had begun its pushback against that view. The question is, did the larger intelligence community agree with Petraeus?

In a word, no.

Flashback to Sept 26: The US knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.

Flashback to Sept 28: The US listened in as Benghazi attackers bragged to al Qaeda.

Flashback to October 3: The Obama administration had been told Benghazi was a terrorist attack within hours.

Flashback to October 10: The State Department says that it never thought Benghazi resulted from a protest over a movie.

[…]

By calling out both State (on the security) and intelligence (on the video) during the debate, Biden did two things. He expanded the cover-up to now include himself, in front of the entire nation.

Concerning Iran, nixing a one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York – or with any other world leader for that matter – speaks volumes on how seriously this administration thinks about America’s image abroad.  It’s a second tier concern.  It’s not like Obama skipped out to be on The View – oh wait.  I’ll just leave it at that.

I think were Paul Ryan made his strongest points dealt with the social issues.  Concerning contraception and the HHS mandate, the vice president was fact checked today by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in this statement.

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.” [Vice President Joe Biden]

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

The bishops are right.  Furthermore, some colleges, like Franciscan University have dropped their coverage rather than submit to the unconstitutional assault on religious freedom led by the Obama administration.  However, it may be a cost saving move in the long run as Ben Domenech, Transom editor and research fellow for the Heartland Institute, wrote back in May – “the mandate is currently slated to be an annual tax penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee (or equivalent) beyond the first 30 workers. For some organizations, this will be a high price to pay. But they may find it worth it to retain their right to exercise their religious beliefs. And given the rising premium costs under Obama’s law–according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, premiums for a family policy exceeded $15,000 a year in 2011, increasing an average of $1,300 from 2010–this might actually make fiscal sense, too.”

On abortion, the debate took a more ordered and somber tone. Ryan told a poignant story concerning his daughter Liza and where he and his wife, Janna, first saw her heartbeat when she was seven weeks old.  He reiterated his belief that life begins at conception and how a Romney/Ryan administration would oppose abortion, except when in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.  Ryan also detailed the Obama administration’s war on religious liberty.

The vice president, on the other hand, walked a waffled line on abortion.  He accepted the church’s notion that life begins at conception, but stated that he does not wish to impose that view on others in this country.  He made the silly claim about the HHS mandate, as mentioned above, and basically said he was a pro-choice, pro-lifer on the subject.

In total, last night the vice president, as a man who ran for the highest political office twice before, came off as cantankerous and grossly unpresidential.  His schoolyard bullying persona was immensely off putting and immature.  Did he miss the early bird special at the Old Country Buffet or a nap?  His incessant need to interrupt Ryan, since he probably knows that Obama record is atrocious, may have delighted the left since it made up for Obama’s flaccid debate performance, but the impatience showed that he too didn’t want to be there.  Although, once you get Joe’s mouth running, one must begin praying that nothing ridiculous slips out.  In the end, grandpa and his facial expressions throughout the night read ‘how dare this kid challenge me.’  It’s an election, Joe.

As for Ryan, he had some faults minor faults as well. While I felt his composure and knowledge of the facts were positives that added to the narrative that, not only is the Republican ticket more serious about the economy, they have a better understanding of it.  However, Ryan should have pushed against Joe much more aggressively due to Biden being afflicted with diarrhea of the mouth.

In all, it was a slight victory for Ryan.  I only say that because all Joe Biden had to do was not come off as soporific, lazy, or disengaged like Obama.  Surely, the threshold for Biden was at shoe level.  For Ryan, all he had to do was not look out of his league on the national stage.  If some sort of event were to make a Mitt Romney unable to execute executive function, I would feel comfortable having the poised and presidential Paul Ryan to fill that role, instead of grumpy uncle Joe.  When George Will slammed some of the more opportunistic Republican candidates at the start of the 2012 race, he stated that their involvement in this election would produce a nominee”much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.

I think “careless, delusional, egomaniacal, and spotlight-chasing” are rather appropriate terms to characterize Joe Biden, who shouldn’t be anywhere near the nuclear football.

ICYMI:

Conservative Rap Video Going Viral

You know you’ve made liberals squirm when the Huffington Post writes a scathing article about you. And making liberals uncomfortable is just fine with Justen Charters, the brains behind The Six Trillion Dollar Man rap video that is all the buzz on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Charters is no freshmen to creating an internet buzz. As creator of Dear Citizen TV and Co-Founder of Resistance44, Charters is a conservative activist worth watching.

____________________________________________________________

See “Socialist Circle of Influence” by Justen Charter and Erin Haust here.

See Charters and Haust expose The Radical History of Rush here.

Buy The Six Trillion Dollar Man video on iTunes! Click Here!

Romney Destroys Obama in First Debate, Left-wingers Go Nuts

Screen Shot 2012-10-04 at 4.43.56 AM

Romney took Obama to school Wednesday night

We all got a shot of life Wednesday night from Mitt Romney.  I received a lot of flak, and some insults, for my previous post castigating Romney for lacking joie de vivre, but he came out swinging and left the president looking for his teleprompter.  While some posted polls in the comment section to show Romney’s campaign wasn’t in trouble since we’re in a dead heat – we should all be thanking Obama’s poor economic policies for that buffer. Regardless, Romney was prepared for battle, while the president was utterly unprepared and began to ramble towards the end of the debate.

Romney was animated.  He was, as Steve Schmidt put it, “clear, cogent, and concise.”  He also delivered his remarks in a tone we haven’t heard before. It displayed a sense of confidence that is a critical quality for the position Obama currently occupies.  In all, it was polished and presidential.  One could easily see Mitt Romney in the Oval Office with his cool delivery that seemed to make the president very uncomfortable.  However, detractors will say that he’s had plenty of debate preparation concerning the grueling Republican primaries, although I’m not sure how being prepared can be construed as a negative.  After all, the president called his own debate preparation a “drag.”  Even though it was made with facetious overtones, it conveyed a sense of arrogance and unseriousness that has been one of the main criticisms hurled at the president.  He assumed he would get bonus points for being the leader of the free world and he was grossly and ignominiously mistaken after his first bout with Romney.

Concerning Romney, I think it was for the first time that we saw him begin to understand what it means to be a conservative.  The comparing and contrasting between private markets and government-oriented programs within the health care market was a good example.  The notion that states are the “laboratories for democracy” was one of my favorite lines of the night.  However, when the question about the role of government was asked – Romney successfully channeled his inner Madison and reiterated that the role of the state is to”promote and protect the principles” outlined in the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, he stated that our rights come from our creator, not from government.  Our founders, especially Madison, believed that rights preceded government and drafted a constitution to embed those rights so that other may not take them away.  Adhering to that notion is a  ”severely” conservative affirmation.

While the president may have had a brief moment of exuding his presidential attributes with Medicare, he was often dominated by the litany of facts thrown at him by Romney highlighting the economic pain his presidency has inflicted upon the nation.  The right hooks Romney delivered on jobs, the economy, and the crony capitalism connected to green energy rendered Obama’s statement on corporate welfare for oil companies moot.  Furthermore, Obama seemed to sabotage his own efforts to scare seniors with the false narrative that Romney wants to destroy Medicare.  He agreed that Romney’s reforms to our entitlement programs aren’t that much different from his policies.

As a result, the president gave Romney the death stare midway through the debate.  There’s no doubt that the stare, coupled with the puckered up lips, were indicators that Romney got under Obama’s skin.  In an ironic twist, Obama seems to have become John McCain concerning the feelings of indignation towards those who dare to have opposing views on the issues.  For Obama, Romney disagreeing with him isn’t just wrong – it’s somehow reprehensible.

However, there are still some conservative critics, who agree that Romney crushed the president, but ceded policy ground.  Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner posted a buzzkill column on October 3 reiterating the:

…two reasons why for conservatives to keep their exuberance in check. In past elections, it isn’t uncommon for the rusty incumbent to come off lousy in the opening debate. This was the case when Walter Mondale won the first 1984 debate against Ronald Reagan and John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. In both cases, the incumbents recovered in the subsequent debates, and ended up winning the election.

Another reason for caution is that Romney, as part of his efforts to disarm Obama’s criticisms, made a number of policy concessions that could box him in and make it more difficult for him to govern as a limited government conservative if elected. At various times during the debate Romney said that he wasn’t interested in cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy; that he would cover individuals with pre-existing conditions; that he wouldn’t touch Medicare and Social Security over the next decade and would be willing to give more money to seniors for prescription drugs; and that he’d be open to hiring more teachers. Should he be elected president, all of the major fights – repealing Obamacare, overhauling the tax code and reforming entitlements – will trigger a massive campaign by liberals to portray him as trying to hurt the poor to the benefit of the rich. If he is so willing to concede policy points during the campaign, will he fight for limited government as president?

However, as Joel Pollack wrote on Breitbart, “on health care–which might have been Romney’s weakest issue–Romney argued for the repeal of Obamacare as the best Tea Partier might have done, attacking the board that the law sets up to ration care as a cost control mechanism. The best that Obama could do was remind voters–as if they did not already know–that Romney had passed a health insurance law in Massachusetts. He had to concede one of the best arguments Romney offered–that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of insurance so far.”

Furthermore, if you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign site, coupled with his support for the Ryan budget, you can see that not only will taxes be lowered for everyone – he’ll eliminate the death tax and push for tax reform.  However, the deductions he’ll eliminate has been a rather nebulous subject. Lastly, with an active and vocal Tea Party contingent in Congress – Mitt, if elected, would have to operate as a small government conservative since (a) he owes us and (b) nothing would get done with Democrats and Tea Partiers forming an unintentional coalition to block his agenda.  Democrats obstructing because he’s Mitt Romney and tea partiers obstructing because it doesn’t cut enough spending, reform the welfare state enough, or does enough to pay down the national debt.  Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows.  Lastly, the reaffirmation to uphold the principles of the constitution is a tacit agreement that Romney would adhere to the Madisonian ideals of limited government.  If he’s elected president and becomes squishy – he should be prepared for a primary challenge, despite the historical ramifications of such an action.

However, while Republicans rejoiced, Democrats must have felt like the world was ending.  It brought on reactions of disbelief and abject anger from MSNBC.  Chris Matthews, Obama’s number one fan, was quite agitated during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t. It didn’t mention all the key fighting points of this campaign. […] I don’t know what he was doing out there, he had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.

Romney on the other hand, came in with a campaign, he had a plan. He was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive. He was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively. He was going to relish the evening, enjoying it. Nothing to do with the words he spoke.

Here’s my question for Obama. I know he says he doesn’t watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don’t know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out tonight–about Social Security.

Listen to the stuff he got away with. He said, you know, emergency room–the latest thing we got from Romney because he said so was you know what I want to do with people when they’re poor? Shove them in the emergency room. Why didn’t Obama say that? Why didn’t he say that?

You talk about Social Security and Medicare people, they’re part of your 47 percent, you want to drop them from the list of eligible Americans. You don’t have any care for these people. What are you talking about? We’ve got it on tape, Governor! We’ve got it on tape what you think of these people! Don’t come out here and pretend you care about old people because you met somebody at some campaign event, you’ve written off 47 percent of the country before you even started!

Where was Obama tonight?! He should watch, well not just Hardball, Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O’Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate.

There’s a hot debate going on in this country and you know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we’re having this debate. We have our knives out, we go after the people on the facts, what was he doing tonight?! He went in there disarmed, he was like, ‘oh wait, an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing and I don’t even look at this guy.’

Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him.’

What was Romney doing? He was winning. […] If he does five more of these nights, forget it. […]

Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we’re watching, it’s like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff.

Ed Schultz’s blood pressure went through the roof lamenting how he was “stunned” that Obama was “off his game.”  I think liberals are finally coming to the realization that President Obama isn’t a good debater and lost almost every battle with Hillary Clinton back in the ’08 primaries.  Allahpundit posted about the mayhem from Twitter concerning the president’s debate performance.

Michael Moore tweeted:

Lastly, Bill Maher commented on Obama’s utter lack of direction during the debate with this:

Yes, liberals were in shock and awe concerning how bad the president, the best thing since the resurrection of Christ, performed, but that’s not to say it’ll be the same the next time Obama and Romney duke it out.  However, I’m confident that Romney won’t be the push over that some in the media were conveying before Wednesday night’s smackdown.

Mitt surely stepped up his game during the debate and I found myself enthused for the first time, in a long time, since Romney began his campaign for the presidency last year.  However, I admit that I backed Perry before his epic meltdown.  Nevertheless, Romney has shaken off the criticism that he’s robotic and proved to his skeptics that he’s passionate, hungry, and ready to lead this nation towards economic prosperity.  Mitt is definitely here.

ICYMI:

Originally posted on Hot Air.

The Debate #Fail No One is Talking About

Photo by Elizabeth Cromwell

It’s no surprise Obama lost the debate, even for his own campaign.

The Obama camp floated the idea that the president would be under-prepared for the debate early last week. Jim Messina, arguably the brains behind the president’s campaign strategy, had a nationwide campaign conference call outlining just that. Even the president himself joined the call & jabbed that Romney is far more proficient in debate performance. Mr. Messina commented that the president has been “doing his job” which doesn’t leave much time for debate practice. (Clearly high donor fundraisers, stumping in Vegas and photo ops with Beyonce are quite time consuming, but I digress.) One has to assume media traveling with the president were on the call that included Obama for America Field Directors from across the nation. The media, now acting shocked at the outcome, was well aware for at least a week that Obama would likely not be the debate winner.

More than just ill prepared, Obama failed his own plan B.

Knowing the possibility was there that the president would perform poorly, surely the campaign had a plan B, right? And in typical progressive fashion, it was time to play the victim card.

This administration, the Obama campaign and those on the progressive left have long used victimhood as a means to gain favor and earn votes. Whether it’s a stump speech centered around the sad story of a crumbling bridge, or at the State of the Union address claiming to read letter after letter from suffering people, or an entire Democratic National Convention pandering to the manufactured hardships of the war on women, the progressive left wins when they play the victim card.

Now, I don’t claim to have definitive inside knowledge, but I would be willing to bet, looking at the full scale attacks from leftwing media pundits and campaign spokespeople, that Team Obama fully intended to play the victim card following the debate. In fact, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter’s first interview sounded like a carefully memorized berating of Jim Lehrer saying, “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator…”

As if marching to a synchronized drumbeat, MSNBC pundits, ABC and CBS talking heads and others on the left immediately flashed the victim card claiming Lehrer had lost control of the debate. Some even went so far as to claim Romney was given an unfair amount of time to speak, though it was confirmed later on CNN that the president had actually spoken 4 minutes longer than Romney.

I think the president fully expected to be grilled by the moderator. I think the plan was to pander to the audience, play victim as much as possible, tug on heartstrings & when in doubt, blame those darn republicans. But I also think Obama was stunned to learn 10 minutes into the debate that the plan was foiled. Romney’s use of facts, history and his obvious passion (which had been lacking in the campaign to this point) rendered the president listless. He was simply unable recover without a teleprompter & pre-written speech. Obama was so off his game and bewildered that he sounded like the Miss Teen USA contestant that went completely off the rails when trying to explain why kids couldn’t find America on a map. When asked about the economy his answer was about education and medicare, when asked about deficits or taxes, his talking points were off-point and irrelevant.

Obama failed to effectively make the case that he is a victim and thus failed to gain control of the post-debate narrative.

Barack Obama Continues to Lie About Taxes – Part 1

I’ve written about this often: It seems that President Obama is taking the “throw it at the wall and see what sticks” approach to his campaign ads. This means that he is making claims, regardless of how false they are, and hoping they get enough viewership without the average American even checking on the validity of these claims themselves. Team Obama hopes that if repeated often enough, the electorate will simply believe these claims, without question, ultimately voting for a president based on lies and misinformation. For additional examples, see this post: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html. In fact, I highlighted the “science” behind the President’s campaign strategy here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html

In Obama’s newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,… why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are dumb enough to focus on Romney’s tax rate while ambassadors are getting mauled, 23,000,000 people are unemployed, and the national debt climbs to astronomical levels? I won’t answer that. Moving on and focusing on the facts that debunk Obama’s ad, let’s get some things straight:

– Mitt Romney has done NOTHING illegal. Nothing.

– Mitt Romney has paid every bit of taxes required of him.

– Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes in one year than an average American would pay in 448 years of work.

– Most importantly: Mitt Romney DID pay a higher tax rate than most Americans – I will address this specifically.

Let me see if I understand this: President Obama puts out the ad above and, in short, the ad uses creepy music and words like “probably” to make a claim about a guy who has done nothing wrong, all while lying about the tax rates of all Americans?

Okay, I will answer my own question: Yes, Obama truly does think Americans are that stupid. Allow me to elaborate.

First, with regards to the “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you” claim, did you notice the most important word? Of course, it’s “probably.” Why does Team Obama use that specific word? One simple phrase answers this question: “Plausible deniability.” Why didn’t Obama just say, “Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you?” Answer: Because Obama knows this is absolute baloney. His campaign can twist their claim any way they want… IF and when the American people question it. Team Obama hopes and knows they won’t. Using the word “probably” is like an insurance policy. Just in case a fire storm does hit, the Obama campaign cannot get nailed for being entirely dishonest.

To understand this overall picture, I submit to you: When you’re putting out a claim to the country as a whole (the “probably paid more than ‘YOU’ part”), you’re implying that > 50% of people fall in to the category. You can’t claim “you” if it’s one in 100 people. So yes, when Obama claims, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” he is implying Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most people. Hmmm. I want take a brief step back to some internet propaganda I analyzed earlier this year. Back in March, I investigated the ridiculous claim of Mitt Romney’s versus a teacher’s tax rates.

What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that “millionaires and billionaires” do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming “well, this doesn’t include payroll taxes…” You’re right. It doesn’t. But payroll taxes are a total of 7.65% of the first approximately $110,000 of earned income (BEFORE the payroll tax holiday). This means that for the average income, which is about $40,000, an American tax payer paid an income tax rate of 6.00% and a payroll tax rate of 7.65%. The conclusion: an average taxpayer pays about 13.65% in total federal taxes. Keep in mind this is the average. It’s a safe judgement to assume approximately 50% of Americans make more than and 50% of Americans make less than this average. Well, economics and math aside, if the majority of the country pays a tax rate of 13.65%, how can Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than most Americans when he pays around 14%? Keep in mind, these figures account for those Americans that DO pay taxes. When you factor those in that do not, all those Americans paying nothing significantly bring down the American average.

Now that the first Obama tax lie is debunked in theory, let’s talk about it in practice. Of course, as a good conservative economist, I wanted to look at some real IRS data to back my claim.

My analysis follows. First, be sure to look at the specific IRS tax data report I used for this analysis: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinbulratesshare.pdf

Let’s take a look. First, and this is a quick side note… we constantly hear the claim, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Well, the opening line of the IRS report says the following:

“Taxpayers filed 140.5 million individual income tax returns for Tax Year 2009. Of those, 81.9 million (or 58.3 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage of taxable returns in more than 24 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.”

What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 54-55% didn’t even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: Only 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn’t even pay income tax? Perhaps the argument is, “73% of Americans pay no income tax, if you add payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) in, 47% still pay nothing? Hmmm.

Anyway, the glaring charts that stand out in the IRS data are Figures B and B1. Take a look:

(Click on image to zoom in)

What do you notice? Ahhh yes… truth and fact. This shows the average tax rates of the 81.9 million who DID pay taxes. Yes, this means that the people who did not pay taxes have had their figures removed, no longer bringing down the average. So out of all remaining taxpayers, for example, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year paid a final tax rate (again, notice total income tax), of 6.4%. This is a different income range “bucket” from the discussion above, but it does paint the same picture.

 Now lets look at ALL TAX FILERS- including those who actually did file a tax return and didn’t pay any tax (about 41.7% of all tax filers). Check it out:

(Click on image to zoom in)

So… what did we find? Factoring in ALL TAX FILERS, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year (this chart shows ALL income earners), paid a final tax rate of 2.9%. This means that even if you added in the 7.65% payroll tax rate, the average final tax rate of someone earning between $30,000 – $50,000 is 10.55%.  Did you notice anything else? Yes, many people get more in a tax refund than they paid in total income tax. These people essentially receive tax payments from the government.

Why did I highlight the $30,000 – $50,000 income range? Well, though this data is slightly outdated, the average American earns about $40,000 each year (it’s safe to assume this hasn’t changed drastically since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States. To me, that’s the standard. If you claim, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” I respond with an question of, “what did the average income earner pay?”

In simple conclusion, as the bright-as-the-sun data have shown, since the average American did not pay anything close to the rate that Mitt Romney did, how can this claim by team Obama be anything but a lie? Every American needs to see this before they simply believe another Team Obama lie.

Part – 2, a summation of how President Obama vilifies Mitt Romney (and the wealthy in general) for using “loopholes,” “deductions,” and “write-offs” to reduce his taxable income while doing it more and to a greater extent, can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-2/

Political Speak Got You Confused? Don’t Worry, Here’s Your Translation Guide

Mitt Romney (top left), President Obama (top right), former President Clinton (bottom left), and former President G.W. Bush (bottom right)

Looking Confused: Mitt Romney (top left), President Obama (top right), former President Clinton (bottom left), and former President G.W. Bush (bottom right)

The Associated Press has compiled a dictionary, of sorts, to help you understand all the words, phrases, and other jargon that is used during the election season.

With such extreme focus on so many races this election cycle – from the White House down to state-level races – readers can use this, not only as a dictionary, but as a reference to better understand the lingo that has become second nature to so many journalists.

 

  • Democratic nominees – President Barack Obama, or Obama or the president. Obama will accept the nomination for a second term at the Sept. 4-6 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.  Vice President Joe Biden, or Biden or the vice president, will be the Democratic nominee for the same office as Obama’s running mate.
  • Republican nominee – Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, will become the Republican Party nominee when his delegates’ votes are tallied at the Republican National Convention Aug. 27-30 in Tampa, Fla. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, is Romney’s vice presidential running mate.
  • presidency, presidential – The terms are lowercase, except in a title: Commission on Presidential Debates.
  • House and Senate – At stake are all 435 House seats from all 50 states, currently with a 240-191 Republican majority. In the 100-seat Senate, 33 seats are being contested. Democrats currently hold a 51-47 majority, plus two independents. In the House, seats held by nonvoting delegates from the District of Columbia and other U.S. territories are also at stake.
  • Congress, congressional – Capitalize when referring the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives together. The adjective is lowercase unless part of a formal name.
  • congressman, congresswoman – Not formal titles, spelled lowercase. Rep. is the preferred title before the name of a U.S. House member: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
  • majority leader, minority leader – Capitalize as formal legislative title before a name: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, otherwise lowercase.

ELECTION TERMINOLOGY, ISSUES 

  • battleground states – Hotly contested states where one or both campaigns are spending money and polls show the electorate is split.
  • swing states – States where voters have vacillated between Republican and Democrat candidates in the last three or four presidential elections.
  • close race – Don’t describe a political race as close unless polls show it is and you reference polls.
  • conservative – Lowercase for a political philosophy, capitalize in a formal name: the Conservative Party.
  • convention – Lowercase except in formal name: the Democratic convention, the Democratic National Convention.
  • Democrat, Democratic Party – Both are capitalized. Don’t use Democrat Party.
  • the economy – Weak U.S. growth, the U.S. unemployment rate topping 8 percent and tax policies are the key issues.
  • Election Day, election night – The first is capitalized, the second is lowercase. Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012.
  • “fair shot,” “fair share” – Obama’s belief that the government has a role in creating conditions for prosperity, that the income gap is hazardous to the nation. His belief is that a stable middle class gives everyone a fair chance to succeed. The terms are in quotes on first reference.
  • first lady – Not an official title, spelled lowercase (except when starting a sentence: First lady … )
  • fundraiser, fundraising – Single words in all uses.
  • front-runner – Candidate who leads a political race; the term is hyphenated.
  • leftist, ultra-leftist – Avoid these terms in favor of more precise descriptions of political leanings.
  • liberal, liberalism – Lowercase for a political philosophy. Capitalize in a formal name: the Liberal Party.
  • majority, plurality – A majority is more than half the votes cast; a plurality is the largest number of votes, but less than a majority.
  • middle class (n.), middle-class (adj.) – Key voting group encompassing about 42 percent of U.S. households with incomes ranging from $25,000 to $75,000 annually, according to White House Council of Economic Advisers.
  • money bomb – A rush of small political contributions collected via the Internet. In quotes on first reference.
  • “Obamacare” – Informal term for the Affordable Care Act. Often used derisively by Republicans, so avoid it unless quoting someone. If the term is essential, say something like “also known as ‘Obamacare,’ ” with quotes around the word.
  • “opportunity society” – Used by Romney to describe a society in which people and businesses succeed based on merit and free enterprise, not government doling out benefits. Reducing the size of federal government is essential, he says. In quotes on first reference.
  • PAC, super PAC – Political action committee raises money for candidates or parties from donations by individuals, but not businesses or labor unions. A super PAC may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, including from corporations and unions, to support candidates for federal office but must operate independently.
  • political affiliation – The party of a candidate or officeholder is essential in any election or issue story.
  • policymaker, policymaking – Both are compounds.
  • polls and surveys – Consult the detailed entry in the AP Stylebook — print and online — on how to use results of public opinion surveys and avoid exaggerating the meaning.
  • populist – Supports the rights and power of the common people; advocates unorthodox solutions; often critical of establishment politicians and political parties.
  • presidential debates – Three national TV debates between Obama and Romney are scheduled Oct.  3, 16 and 22.
  • press secretary – Seldom a formal title and thus lowercase.
  • re-elect, re-election – Both are hyphenated.
  • Republican, Republican Party – Both terms are capitalized. GOP (Grand Old Party) may be used on second reference.
  • rightist, ultra-rightist – Avoid these terms in favor of more precise descriptions of political leanings.
  • small parties – Groups that often form around an issue, such as taxation, or support outsider candidates.  Also known as third parties, splinter parties.
  • tea party – Lowercase the populist movement that opposes the Washington political establishment. Adherents are tea partyers. Formally named groups in the movement are capitalized: Tea Party Express.

CLICHES AND ALTERNATIVES

  • ahead of – before
  • rainbow colors –  avoid  red, blue or purple for the political leanings of states. Use Democratic-leaning, Republican-tilting or swing-voting, etc.
  • barnstormed –  traveled across a state campaigning or campaigned across XYZ.
  • hand-to-hand campaigning – seeking support in face-to-face meetings with voters.
  • hat in the ring – a candidate decided to run for an office.
  • horse race – closely contested political contest.
  • laundry list – the candidate has ideas, proposals, etc.
  • messaging – the candidate’s pitch to voters.
  • pressing the flesh – shaking hands is preferred.
  • rope line – the physical barrier that separates a candidate from the audience. Instead, the candidate shook hands and posed for photographs with the audience.
  • state nicknames – avoid them in favor of the state name.
  • stump speech – campaign speech at a routine appearance (or standard or regular campaign speech)
  • testing the waters – considered entering the race or considered running for XYZ.
  • took his/her campaign to – specify what the candidate did.
  • veepstakes – the competition to be a candidate’s running mate.
  • war lingo - use criticized instead of attacked, or choose a better verb to describe what the candidate is doing, i.e., challenging, doubting, etc. Also avoidable: launch an assault, take aim, open fire, bombard.
  • war chest – use campaign bank account or stockpile of money.
  • white paper – a document of policy positions distributed by a campaign.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

  • National context to show the significance.
  • Sense of place. Atmosphere illustrates why people in any locale vote as they do.
  • Quotes from voters. Comments from named individuals help gauge voter sentiment.
  • Rely on polls sparingly. Determine whether an opinion survey is reliable before including it.

 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Lately, the phrase “Chose your neighbors wisely.” has become increasingly important.  For years, the significance as to what the government was doing, or how the government was growing, was a distant thought in my mind because my life itself was so busy and all consuming.  Like many people  I guess I had the mindset that our government was meant to protect us, and deal with all the cumbersome issues pertaining to our country.  I mean, honestly, how many of us sit there and read the bills and amendments and so on?   How many of us even truly understand the Constitution and the Republic we live in dispite the fact we take it for granite daily?

I realize now,  that most of us unknowingly sat idle, unaware, or preoccupied with our daily lives while the movement toward big government, economic downfall, and total government control grew out of proportion.  Its members blind-sighted us as they began to dismantle our Constitution from right underneath our feet.  Most recently, with the issue of gun control I have heard many people say, “I don’t like guns and I don’t own one anyway, so who cares?”  Clearly, the lack of knowledge pertaining to our Constitution would lead to that mindset.   It make sense to me why the liberal government controlled media, here in the U.S., chooses to portray people like Ron Paul as to far to the right, when in fact, he is one of a limited few who have a clear understanding of what is actually happening today in this United States of America.  Now realize this is not an endorsement for any one person or party, but rather an a wake-up call which will hopefully spark something in all American’s so they do some research, question, and find answers, as opposed to being “told” what they want to hear from either side.  It is truly a time in America to take the blinders off, and see for yourself what is going on with this government and our government in general for decades. Go out on a limb and see the movie 2016: Obama’s America. Learn about the author, read the Constitution, find out what all the talk is truly about, get involved in some way, most importantly teach your children.

I think for most American’s everything is black and white.  Rarely to they visit the shades of gray that make the mind ponder and question, for if they did, it would lead them to  research, learn about the issues, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as set forth by our forefathers. Rather, living in the black and white allows people to be led, misinformed, and it keeps them from visiting the elusive areas where the grays would eventually take them. That is precisely how we got where we are today, and why so many people are preoccupied with a sanctity they don’t even realize is disappearing before their very eyes.

The idea behind, “chose your neighbor wisely” was in an article I read recently.  While reading and doing further research I suddenly felt the sense of urgency behind that statement, and I knew precisely what it meant.  As our country proceeds in a direction of lost ideals and shattered fundamental beliefs, I have come to  realized my own importance not just as a writer or journalist, but as Oath Keeper sworn to protect the country and our Constitution and all it stands for.  We are all Watchmen in our right, but how many of you are seeing and truly understanding what the truth is, and are able to visulize the direction this Republic is moving?  How many even realize we, the United States of America, is not a Democracy it is a REPUBLIC ? How many people believe the fears that exist are just Republican’s using scare tactics?   How many Americans’ truly understand and see that the freedom they love,  cherish, and take for granite is gradually disappearing while government grows and its power becomes all inclusive?  The intrusiveness of our government, in our daily lives, represents the complete opposite of  the Constitution of the United States of American as well as the freedoms you think you have.

Don’t you feel as though you owe it it your kids and your grand-kids to seek out and find the facts on your own?  Isn’t it time to stop dismissing everything as some right wing radical ranting and raving, for lack of anything better to do?  Ask yourself if you sincerely believe government should control what you think, what you eat, learn, and speak?  Should they really be taking away rights set forth in the Constitution, but more importantly why are so actively pursuing these things in the first place?  Keep in mind these people running our country were put there by us, they are the same as us, so why are they getting richer, more controlling, and invading the lives of American’s?  Why is so important to them to create division in this country? Why?  What would motivate them to do this?  Why is government in education, banking, auto industry, or business anyway?  What is the motivation of this administration to destroy our economy, but more importantly what happens when they succeed?  Just trying to find answers to these questions, independent from the media, right, left, whom-ever will be an eye-opening experience — I guarantee it.

 

 

Under Obama, U.S. Economy Slips – First to Seventh in just three years

unemployment

As voters begin to choose the next President of the United States, a firm reminder of Obama’s failure to run the world’s most prosperous economy came to light. From 2009 to 2012, the U.S. economy has gone from frist place to seventh – the entire slip occurred under President Obama’s leadership.

A report released by the World Economic Forum today put the United States behind Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany when rated for economic competitiveness. Pointing to Obama’s distaste of free-market economics and attack on business owners, the report said that “some aspects of the country’s institutional environment continue to raise concern among business leaders, particularly the low public trust in politicians and a perceived lack of government efficiency.”

The World Economic Forum is a not-for-profit entity that ranks global economies on factors such as business climate, infrastructure, productivity and innovation.

Productivity in the U.S. has dropped drastically under the current administration as more Americans turn to government handouts for their subsistence instead of employment.

The Obama administration has spent much of its time lambasting entrepreneurs, the Chamber of Commerce and the successful in an all out class war. This anti-business climate along with the entitlement mentality being promoted by the President most-likely affected the ranking directly.

No Democrats, We Don’t Belong To The Government

Dem-convention-e1343891701255

 

Democrats have shown just how far off the sanity cliff they’ve gone in their video to open the Democratic National Convention.

Just to repeat, the narrator says, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to…we’re together as a part of our city, or our county or our state. Or our nation.”

There’s no spinning this. It’s worse than, “you didn’t build that.”

By saying, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” Democrats are going beyond liberalism. They are taking their platform to corporatism.

Phrases like “we’re all in this together” may seem like they were meant to look good on paper and to voters. But combining it with the phrase, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” goes into statements someone like Mussolini or Hitler or Lenin might make.

In fact, based on their praise of The New Deal, it’s possible they might even rise from their graves and cheer the DNC’s video.

According to Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals,” both German and Italian newspapers loved the tone President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in the 1930s. One German newspaper said Roosevelt’s speech demanded “collective good be put before self-interest.” Schivelbusch also discusses how Hitler saw Roosevelt’s ability to discuss self-sacrifice and duty as something which were “quintessential” to how Nazi Germany did things.

Isn’t what the Democrats of today are discussing something similar? Hasn’t the tone taken by the President echoed this line of thinking? When Obama tweets how donors “own a piece of this campaign,” or tells an union group, “think about everybody who depends on you,” it’s simply corporatism.

It’s making people think they’re no longer individuals but part of a group that operates as a whole.

Obama is banking people will want to be in the middle class. Be part of that amazing group of people who just have enough to live and save, but not enough to be in the upper class. By shuffling everyone into that group it makes him look like a benevolent leader who’s looking out for their interests.

The greatness of America and the states we live in, is that we’re individuals. We can take whatever job we want, live whatever life we want and if someone wants to make $20-thousand, $200-thousand or $2-million it doesn’t matter. Or as Clint Eastwood put it last week, “politicians are employees of ours!”

Saying “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” is dangerous and wrong. It shows how far Democrats, not Republicans, have gone in their ideology.

It’s not what America was created to be. And certainly not what it should become.

ObamaStamp: The Rising Food Stamp Crisis

obamastamp

As unemployment continues to rise, which has held steady above 8 percent during most of President Obama’s term.  While consumers are spending more of their shrinking income on food, gas, and energy that also continue to rise, the government continues to increase their food stamp dependency.  This temporary safety net created by the government, continues to be a lifestyle for many Americans. In addition to the economy continuing to flounder, and teeter on the edge of another recession, the government continues to support millions of Americans through what is suppose to be temporary safety net programs.  The participation rate of the food stamp program increased by 3.3 percent in June, which is higher than it was over a year ago at this time, increasing the total number of participants to 46.7 Americans.

Bloomberg is reporting;

Food-stamp spending, which more than doubled in four years to a record $75.7 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2011, is the U.S. Department of Agriulture’s biggest annual expense.

The increase in the usage of food stamps during the Obama Presidency has been criticized by republicans, and specifically that famous quote from Newt Gingrich, “food stamp president” which he used in a debate during the republican presidential primary.  Republicans continue to hammer President Obama over his massive deficit and debt, which is set to top 16 trillion dollars during the Democratic National Convention.  In addition to the republicans stressing the importance of reducing spending, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are also on the campaign trail telling the American people how important it is to reform Medicare in order to save it for those who are currently on it, and those will will receive the benefits in a decade from now.

However, the opposition party, the Democrats, have suggested during the Obama presidency that President Obama has done a great job handling the economy that he was “handed.”  Democrats have also said that the stimulus package that was passed in 2009, was not large enough and that is why the economy is still growing at such an anemic rate.  On Sunday, President Obama’s surrogates were on the talks shows, stressing the importance of the job growth that President Obama has done, and that without his leadership the economy would be in a much worse situation than it current is, if it was not for his choice decisions.  Democrats also believe that one reason why there are so many Americans on the food stamp and welfare programs, is because of the past “failed” policies that the republicans used, and are currently offering to move the country in.

Bloomberg has also reported that;

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is betting the new U.S. economy is the same as the old one as he lays out arguments for more stimulus to revive it.

One thing is clear, both parties agree that 8.3% unemployment is unacceptable.  23 million Americans unemployed and under-employed is something that both parties are completely happy with.  The current economic situation frustrates both republicans and democrats and each party realizes they must deal with.  This election cycle is about a choice, and both parties believe that their economic policies will be the best choice for America.  November 7th 2012, will be tell us which party the American people agree with, but for now, there are still many Americans without jobs, and living off of the government support systems.  The problem remains many Americans are hurting and America’s national debt is now over 16 trillion dollars and climbing, and America is still looking for an answer to the fiscal crisis at hand, and America will make that choice November 6th 2012.

 

 

Paul Ryan’s Defense Of 2008-2009 Votes

paulryandocs

One of the big questions since Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as is running mate is whether it would bring in small government conservatives and libertarians on the Romney bandwagon. Ryan is well-liked by people due to his “Roadmap For America’s Future” and his 2009 verbal destruction of Obamacare to the President’s face.

There are still a few questions regarding Ryan’s voting record in the House. He supported TARP, the auto bailout and the taxes on AIG bonuses. He also supported the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act. These are things conservatives and libertarians don’t support because they expand government power and ended up supporting crony capitalism.

Ryan’s defense of the some of these votes are very interesting. In a 2010 interview with The Daily Caller, Ryan points out voted against the original auto bailout because he didn’t want them to get the money. His reasoning for eventually voting for the bailout was because it was limited money at $17.4 billion.  As Ryan put it, he was concerned it would become a “slush fund” with no limit if it were connected to TARP. It’s a strange reason, considering that Ryan eventually voted for TARP, however he deserves a bit a credit for his original no vote.

The vote Ryan probably regrets the most, is the one to put a tax on the AIG bonuses. It’s a key example of politicians reacting to a situation, instead of responding to it.  Ryan himself admits he was angry and made a “snap judgement” on the bill. He makes a good point at saying TARP was becoming a new avenue of crony capitalism. This has been pointed out several times in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Throw Them All Out,” which everyone should read. It’s nice Ryan says he made a mistake, even if hindsight is 20/20.

The decision to vote for TARP is one of the most interesting, and logical, defenses out there.  Ryan says it was to keep an even bigger government agenda from sweeping the nation, as well as, preventing a Depression. His key worry was to keep from happening, “a complete evisceration of the free market system we have…” This argument is actually something not many politicians have used.

In fact, it sounds a bit like the justification behind the Louisiana Purchase.

According to Harlow Unger’s book on President James Monroe called “The Last Founding Father,” President Thomas Jefferson wanted Monroe to tell the Spanish and French what American traders believe about New Orleans and Louisiana. As Jefferson said, “They have a natural…right to trade freely through the Mississippi,” and authorized $9 million to buy New Orleans. Congress authorized only $2 million. Monroe ended up paying $15 million.

Jefferson wasn’t sure whether to approve the purchase because he believed it violated the Constitution. As Unger writes, he apparently had problems the Constitution, “did not grant the government authority to acquire foreign territory…” Jefferson decided to approve the measure because Napoleon was going to back out of the sale.

Ryan’s defense of the TARP bill sounds a bit Jefferson’s defense of the Louisiana Purchase. Both sacrificed their constitutional beliefs to make sure something worse didn’t happen. In Jefferson’s case it was losing out on Louisiana and New Orleans and possibly never getting a shot at it again. In Ryan’s case, it sounds he was worried about another New Deal coming which would have increased the government even more.

It’s not an argument most of the Tea Party would agree with, but Ryan does a better job at saying why TARP should have been passed than John Boehner does.

Someone should ask Ryan about his votes for the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. This type of information is important and we need to hear why Ryan did what he did.

To steal a line from Dan McLaughlin, Paul Ryan is a good pick for Mitt Romney because, while he’s not a complete Tea Party pick, he does hold more Tea Party values than Chris Christie. He’s also got a defined budget which isn’t perfect, but better than what the Democrats have. Which is nothing.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »