Is This Guy Serious?

I'm all for working class Americans paying less in taxes, although I certainly wish it was coupled with reductions in spending at the federal level. That being said, the amount of self-congratulatory back patting going on at the yesterday's press conference with the President was beyond the pale.

In the video below, the President claims his tax relief plan has allowed families to buy their first homes, send children to college, invest in retirement plans, and start new businesses. He also claims to have lifted 2 million Americans out of poverty presumably with the approximate $600 a year in relief of the tax burden for most American workers.

Mr. President, we're talking about $13 a week. That's about the cost of two Starbucks trips per week. It's a little more than one tank of gas per month in tax savings.

Who are you kidding?

The Better Budget

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) writes in this morning's Wall Street Journal of the GOP's alternative budget and its benefits for American taxpayers and families of all income levels. Republicans plan to push forward an alternative budget in Congress which will not exponentially increase debt, will provide solutions to the pressing problems of energy, health care, entitlements, and the tax code, and will lead to stronger job creation than what is offered under the President's plan.

The GOP's Alternative Budget

By Paul D. Ryan
Wall Street Journal

...Here's an outline of what we propose:

- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.

- Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.

- Energy. Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.

- Entitlements. Our budget also takes steps toward fulfilling the mission of health and retirement security, in part by making these programs fiscally sustainable. The budget moves toward making quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans by strengthening the relationship between patients and their doctors, not the dictates of government bureaucrats. We preserve the existing Medicare program for all those 55 or older; and then, to make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to work like the health plan members of Congress and federal employees now enjoy. Starting in 2021, seniors would receive a premium support payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. This would be income related, so low-income seniors receive extra support, and high-income seniors receive support relative to their incomes -- along the same lines as the president's Medicare Part D proposal.

We strengthen the Medicaid safety net by converting the federal share of Medicaid payments into an allotment tailored for each state's low-income population. This will enhance state flexibility and sensitivity to spending growth.

In one of the most valued government programs -- Social Security -- our budget begins to develop a bipartisan solution to the program's pending bankruptcy by incorporating some of the reforms advocated by the president's budget director. Specifically, we provide for a trigger that would make small adjustments in the benefits for higher-income beneficiaries if the Social Security Administration determines the Social Security Trust Fund cannot meet its obligations. This is a modest but serious proposal which would not affect those in or near retirement, but is aimed at helping develop a consensus, across party lines, toward saving this important retirement program. We also assure that benefits for lower-income recipients are large enough to keep them out of poverty.

- Tax Reform. Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. In fact, we cut taxes and reform the tax system. Individuals can choose to pay their federal taxes under the existing code, or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with few deductions and two rates. Specifically, couples pay 10% on their first $100,000 in income (singles on $50,000) and 25% above that. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In an effort to revive peoples' lost savings, and to create an incentive for risk-taking and investment, the budget repeals the capital gains tax through 2010 for all taxpayers.

On the business side, the budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate -- currently the second highest in the industrialized world -- to 25%. This puts American companies in a better position to lead in the global economy, promotes jobs here at home, and strengthens worker paychecks.

We hope the administration and Democratic leaders in Congress do not distort and preach fear about our Republican plan. Some may be tempted to appeal to the darker emotions of envy and insecurity that surely run high in times like these. Yet we know Americans are stronger, smarter and prouder than this ploy assumes.

In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.

Mr. Ryan, from Wisconsin, is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Price Tags Prove Priorities

Bailing Out Wall Street: $170 billion

AIG gets more than $170 billion in bailout funds. Now top executives want to use taxpayer funds to fund $165 million in bonuses paid to themselves.

The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

Protecting Small Businesses: $15 billion

Small businesses have created roughly 70 percent of jobs in the last decade according to President Obama himself. Today, Obama announced a $15 billion plan to aid small businesses and their owners.

President Barack Obama is unveiling a $15 billion package to help small businesses.

Where do President Obama and Democrats' priorities lie? Just study the price tags.

Obama's "New Era" Begins With Business as Usual

There is one area on which I will never question President Obama. The man certainly has audacity.

"The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past," Obama said. "So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability."

President Obama is never short of grand rhetoric, just short on putting meaning to his words. The President pursues a hyper-partisan agenda and pats himself on the back for reaching across the aisle. He claims to oppose "extreme" government-run healthcare during the campaign and then makes it a centerpiece of his agenda. He promises to bring an end to the partisan bickering in Washington and has his staff attack Republican leaders and icons. He pledges to balance the budget while taking on more debt than the country ever has before.

This is a new one though. It takes a unique brand of audacity to proclaim a new era by doing more of the same. President Obama. Nothing changes but his words.

Is Obama Really Removing Politics from Science?

Is that even possible? Robert George and Eric Cohen write to answer that question in today's Wall Street Journal.

First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.

Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.

For those who believe in the highest ideals of deliberative democracy, and those who believe we mistreat the most vulnerable human lives at our own moral peril, Mr. Obama's claim of "taking politics out of science" should be lamented, not celebrated.

Not only is President Obama unable to remove politics from science, it is undesirable to do so. Scientific inquiry should be encouraged and developed at our universities, in research labs, and in private industry but it should not be at the price of avoiding the pressing moral questions of our day. Questions of morals and ethics ought to be grappled with in our communities and not covered over with disingenuous language that the day of debate has passed. This is America. The day of debate never passes. We engage in the discussion because issues of life and death matter to us all.

Most of us, unfortunately, have stood at a bedside or in a hospital as a family member or friend succumbed to a debilitating disease presently uncurable. Scientific breakthroughs in treating and preventing these diseases are exciting. Research targeting adult and amniotic stem cells, like that being done at Wake Forest University, are providing opportunities to expand scientific inquiry without calling into question the value of human life.

No matter the scientific advancements of a still new century, issues of life and death will not soon be obsolete. The way to honor our lost loved ones memories is not to devalue the significance of human life. The more compromises we make when it comes to what constitutes life, the less that is left worthy of protection.

Stock Market Like a Tracking Poll? Not Really

Facing criticism that his economic policies have been greeted with a steady decline on Wall Street as the stock market hits lows not seen in a decade, President Obama tried to deflect criticism yesterday.

"The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics,'' said the president...

The stock market is not like a tracking poll. In fact, it's not like politics at all. When families are having their savings and 401ks wiped out, it doesn't feel like a bad poll. It feels like their future is slipping away. President Obama is entirely too flippant about the economic realities we are facing. Half of all Americans have money in the market that they are counting on in planning their future. For them, this is not a joke. Leadership is about more than finding other people to blame. It's about finding solutions that actually work.

Food for Thought: Obama Rejecting Basis of Capitalism?

As offered up by Michael Gerson in today's column for the Washington Post.

While discussing the new Obama agenda of increading taxes only on the prosperous who are most likely to invest capital and create new jobs:

This is not merely the rejection of "trickle-down economics," it is a weakening of the theoretical basis for capitalism -- that free individuals are generally more rational and efficient in making investment decisions than are government planners.

As Obama Agenda Becomes Clear, Support Erodes

As the Obama administration rolls out massive new government spending bills by the week, support from those in the center of the political spectrum is quickly eroding. Already this week, numerous political commentators and newmakers are questioning the direction of the Obama administration.

David Brooks wrote for the New York Times this week that moderates are not pleased with many early actions of the new administration.

The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.

The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.

The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.

Manu Raju observes for Politico that moderates in the Senate are already becoming disillusioned with the influx of spending coming from the President.

Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and
have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president
who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced he is breaking ranks with his party and voting against the $410 billion spending bill currently before Congress. He wrote for the Wall Street Journal urging his colleagues to do the same.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither. ...

But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. ... this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate. ...

Congress should vote "no" on this omnibus and show working families across the country that we are as committed to living within our means as they are.

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, Part 3

Is President Obama playing a shell game with his promises to cut the deficit? Study the numbers and judge for yourself.

Obama's Deficit Charade

By Terence Jeffrey
Townhall
February 25, 2009

President Obama posed as a fiscal conservative Monday when he hosted a "fiscal responsibility summit."

Close inspection reveals that what he is actually proposing, however, is a massive increase in government debt -- thus raising the already unsustainable burden of government that is certain to fall on our children unless the welfare state is somehow curtailed. ...

President Obama said Monday that his "administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit" for fiscal 2009.

The extraordinary size of that deficit is due, of course, to what one would have hoped were passing circumstances and one-time policies: a recession, a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry and that part of the $787 billion "stimulus" President Obama signed last week that will actually be spent in this fiscal year.

"And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office," President Obama said at his summit.

But what does that mean? The administration says President Obama's promise to "cut the deficit we inherited in half" means he will reduce it from $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $533 billion in fiscal 2013.

This $533 billion deficit -- that President Obama vows will be the lowest annual deficit he runs in any of the next four years -- is larger than any deficit the profligate President Bush ran before this recessionary year.

In fact, President Obama's planned $533 billion deficit for fiscal 2013 is more than twice as large as the $248.1 billion deficit Bush ran in 2006 and more than three times as large as the $162 billion deficit Bush ran in 2007.

In other words, President Obama is planning to permanently increase the scale of government borrowing -- even before we are hit by the fiscal tidal wave that will come when the bulk of the baby boom generation retires and begins collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The truth is this: Our federal government has been wading ever deeper into red ink for a full half-century, and President Obama is now planning to wade deeper and faster than any president who has gone before him. ...

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, Part 2

What is the President really planning to do? You may be justifiably confused if you listen to what he says and compare it to what he does.

Editorial: Obama's proposal, goals don't line up
He promises fiscal discipline and expensive new initiatives

The Detroit News
February 25, 2009

Credit President Barack Obama for heeding calls to strike a more hopeful tone in his address to Congress and the nation Tuesday night. Americans needed a break from the relentless predictions of economic doom and to instead hear that things will indeed get better.

But the programs, policies and promises laid out in his speech are a mess of contradictions that the president will have to reconcile if he hopes to keep the public's confidence.

An overriding theme of the address was fiscal responsibility. Obama repeated his promise to halve the federal deficit, now well in excess of $1 trillion, by the end of his first term. Even if he does that, it will merely take the deficit back to where it was before the stimulus spending began late last year. Overspending revenues by a half-trillion a year doesn't shout fiscal discipline. ...

And pledging a tax hike on those Americans who invest the most private money in the economy would seem to work against the president's stated goal of creating jobs by stimulating private investment.

For a guy who claimed not to believe in bigger government, Obama promised to make it much bigger with an array of new initiatives from energy to education. Financing those programs will require higher taxes on a far broader swath of Americans than the 2 percent of wealthiest citizens he said he would limit the tax punishment to. ...

The lack of a detailed financial plan from the administration is eroding investor faith in its ability to handle the job and is contributing to the ongoing stock market decline. ...

The president ought to simplify. All Americans want him to do right now is get the economy moving. Policies that work at cross-purposes won't accomplish that goal.

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, Part 1

Polls and pundits are praising President Obama for his speech last night as audiences gave the President high marks for his delivery. But was it the President's plans or his rhetoric that people were approving? They may not be the same thing.

Conservative words for a liberal agenda

By John F. Harris and Jonathan Martin
Politico
February 25, 2009

In his programs and promises, President Barack Obama Tuesday night offered the nation by far the most expansive agenda for the national government in decades.

In his words and mood, however, Obama presented this breathtakingly ambitious vision in a way intended to convey caution, moderation, sobriety.

The 52-minute address outlined more commitments by the public sector, more intervention into the private economy, and more spending than anything Washington has undertaken at least since the Great Society and more likely the New Deal.

The substance reflected Obama’s bet that the country—alarmed by the economic crisis, repelled by the failures of the president who preceded him—is ready to move in a decisively more liberal direction.

The rhetoric, by contrast, reflected his apparent belief that most Americans remain instinctually conservative, leaving him and his agenda acutely vulnerable to backlash. ...