More hatches battened against Obama than hurricanes
Except for a ground level big black Canadian bus manufactures celebration through white bitter clinger flyover country, President Barack Obama’s best jobs strategy-to-date may well have been his vacation with Irene on Martha’s Vineyard.
Apparently the only jobs lost were those under contract for the weekend series in Flushing between the Braves and the Mets. No word yet from Rev. Al Sharpton on whether President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn’t impose forced busing from Harlem to higher Hastings-on-the-Hudson ground because they don’t care about black people, but I digress.
I suppose that this disappointed Braves-Gamecock roosted on the dry ground of Stone Mountain of Georgia (and the rest of the record 36% of American males without needed gainful employment) should be happy that the President’s vacation is a working one, after which his administration will unveil a “very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs and to control the deficit.”
There is much life to be lived between now and Obama’s expected return to his autobiographical duties after Inauguration Day, 2013 and there is always reason to hope for improvement. After all, Barack recently scored a 37 after ten full frames of bowling. In 2008, he quit after only 7 frames.
So maybe the President has learned something about the economy from Irene’s visit to the Bay State, if not the last 2.5 years of failure:
“With Hurricane Irene threatening a full-force hit,” The New York Times tells us this morning, “New York City on Thursday ordered the evacuation of nursing homes and senior centers in low-lying areas and made plans for the possible shutdown of the entire transit system.”
Prudent behavior this, and as I argued on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business program yesterday, the East Coast is reacting to the approach of Irene as the private sector has to the full fury of Obamanomics. Both are battening down the hatches and boarding up the windows. Capital, like the tourists, is fleeing. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the NLRB, the EPA, the endless demands for higher taxes are causing employers to hunker down.
Perhaps as we pray for the storm to pass without loss of life or serious damage, we can add a small one that the president might wake up to the effects of his storm of regulation and taxes. – Hugh Hewitt
Debt ceiling battle exposes the lie of those that claim most low income Americans don’t pay federal income taxes
File under the category that a rose by any other name smells as sweet
Outside Martha’s Vineyard, Americans are suffering the natural result of super-majority Democratic Party economic policies. Natural Law and history compel the expectation of one party Republican rule in Washington after next year’s elections, but only GOP super-majorities would have the power to repeal ObamaCare and other anti-job creation policies passed the first two years of President Barack Obama’s Administration.
One way to ensure that conservatives will not maximize their opportunity to duplicate the historic 2010 Republican landslide is to antagonize lower income workers generally favorable to the Democrats by continuing to insult their intelligence by insisting that they “don’t pay any federal income taxes.”
Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity et al need to cease and desist from their semantic game, especially after the debt ceiling battle exposed the Social Security Trust Fund as a fiction and before the expected debate on tax reform begins as a means to avoid the sequestration of national defense when the Super-Committee is inevitably deadlocked on Thanksgiving Day.
Yes, presidents and congresses since the 1980s have incrementally exempted more and more income from federal income taxes. But the federal government taxes every dollar earned by low income workers under the “FICA”, i.e. Social Security rubric (as well as Medicare) and commingles those dollars with the “Federal Income Tax” dollars and other government receipts (and borrowed funds) to pay for all domestic and defense spending as well as Social Security payments.
There simply is no difference between the two and it is long past time for Republicans to quit talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue.
Money taken out of one’s paycheck by Washington is no less taken out by differences in labeling. Those that continue to do so insult the working poor and qualify as Gore Lock Box Know Nothings.
Conservative fealty to the U.S. Constitution in the Age of ObamaDems’ Great Depression II and the Race for 2012
The occasion of America’s first great depression saw the exponential growth of a heretofore limited central government that was thought to have been a key ingredient of the 1789 Miracle at Philadelphia that had made our country exceptional.
The post-WWII military retrenchment remained unrecognizably large by pre-Hoover standards and has been growing ever larger ever since. That inexorable growth sparked a conservative movement intent on domestic retrenchment of the national government and a return of Tenth Amendment power to the states.
Conservatives claim a fealty to the Rule of Law instead of men, which requires resort to a source of absolute authority, i.e. The Constitution of the United States which also just happens to advance the principles that produce wealth enough to buy superior arms and a middle class dominating a Fruited Plain.
America now languishes in the longest dire economic circumstance since the 1930s. Then, as now, massive Democratic Party-ordained deficit government spending is not proving remedial, as Republicans frequent Iowa cornfields as the first step in the process of choosing their champion to reverse course.
Kill bad policy at the ballot box
Yet, a disturbing number of Grand Old Party musings from the Hawkeye State do great violence to the great document that replaced the Articles of Confederation, thus allowing a great nation to secure its manifest destiny.
Non-severed portions of health care law are destroying the private health insurance industry now and even if a President Romney could grant waivers to all businesses in America, that destruction would continue.
DeVine Law is happy with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals:
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 health care law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.
DeVine Law is not happy with ObamaCare regulations that require private health insurers to cover more applicants and at lower prices than risk assessments deem prudent, but it is not the courts’ role to correct supposed Congressional mistakes, unless those mistakes are unconstitutional. Even a court filled with my fellow Federalist Society lawyers understand that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce.
In fact, one of the great anomalies of the United (Regulatory States) of America, founded circa 1933, is that Congress has not used their power to break up state health insurance monopolies. One of the main reasons that the Founders scrapped the Articles of Confederation soon after winning our Independence was to draft a constitution that would unite the states economically.
Other than repealing ObamaCare, Congress could take better action that would lead to lower medical costs and insurance premiums than to allow the selling of health insurance policies across state lines. Neither tort reform, nor medical malpractice reform comes close to the positive effect of ending state monopolies, but I digress.
The better conservative position for a judge is to rule as narrowly as one can to resolve a case and to respect the acts of elected representatives in as broad a fashion as possible. In that regard, the fact that ObamaCare did not include a “severability” clause is irrelevant, and it was right for the federal appeals court not to impose one since the separate provisions are not interdependent in their operation.
A so-called ObamaDem-dubbed “tea party downgrade” would have occurred before, not after, the debt ceiling was raised.
Standard & Poors cites “weakened effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions” as reason for historic downgrade of America’s credit rating.
The credit downgrade did not occur when tea partier Republican congressmen made known their preference for not raising the debt ceiling. The downgrade did not occur when the House passed Cut, Cap and Balance and Boehner I.
The tea partiers favored $4T in spending cuts. S&P stated before the final compromise bill was signed by President Barack Obama, that a bill cutting at least $4T would prevent a downgrade. The bill signed by President Barack Obama didn’t come close to meeting tea partier and S&P demands.
No, the downgrade occurred after the passage of a bill opposed by many tea partiers.
So, are we to believe the description of the S&P downgrade by Obama adviser David Axelrod and Senator John Kerry as precipitated by tea partiers? Upon what basis? Was it the tea partiers that promised default on two different dates, months apart, during which time there was and would always have been more than six times the cash on hand in the U.S. Treasury needed to pay bondholders and thus prevent default?
Of course not.
The Tsu-nami admits culpability in death and destruction near shorelines but claims airtight hemispheric alibis concerning jobs killed further inland and asserts that The Obama-nami is responsible for compensated-labor homicides across the, now, Less-Fruited Plain.
The lawsuit was precipitated by the following exchange that took place last Thursday between White House reporters and President Barack Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney, who is thought to be an un-named co-conspirator in the Jobs Murders Case, when the Dow was down over 350 points and on its way to the ninth largest one day decline (512 points) in history:
Q: I believe the Dow has gone down — and obviously the day is not over — but I believe the Dow has gone down now more than during the controversial TARP vote. And analysts are saying that the reason that this is happening is because of uncertainty about the American economy, that we are entering a double-dip recession, or at the very least a period of real softness and weakness for the U.S. economy. What is the administration doing to prepare for that?CARNEY: Well, the analysis I saw today did not — was not about the American economy, particularly in terms of what’s happening, but there are obviously — there are a lot of global issues that affect the global economy and that obviously affect the American economy.We strongly believe, as I’ve said, that we will continue to grow and we will continue to create jobs and we need to take the measures necessary to do that. We have encountered in this calendar year a number of economic headwinds that could not have been foreseen — the tsunami — earthquake and tsunami in Japan that disrupted global supply chains, the unrest in the Middle East, which had an impact on oil prices, and the situation in Europe.So obviously that has hurt the economy globally and has slowed growth and job creation, but we believe that growth and job creation will continue.
The accused, Barack Hussein Obama-nami had earlier pled the Fifth Amendment concerning allegations that its economic policies had economic effects but, curiously, also blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush for job deaths after he left office.