Efficiency In Government? Not For Obama
Dec 15, 2011 Political
He talks a good game but he does not follow up on what he says and most of what he says never applies to him. The he is Barack Obama and the little king is great when it comes to spelling out rules and talking about doing things better but when it comes to actual practice he fails to follow the rules.
Obama published an Executive Order (13589) that deals with efficiency in government and it lists things that government employees are expected to do to ensure they do not waste taxpayer money. One of those things is to be more prudent in the way business is handled and travel is one of the areas that is specifically mentioned.
Obama wants federal employees (in the Executive Branch, the only one he controls) to travel efficiently, and to use technology if at all possible. That would mean to use teleconferencing for meetings rather than flying around for face to face meetings. Many federal workers (in the Executive Branch) have to certify that the mission cannot be accomplished via technology use before travel will be approved.
One would assume that being efficient in travel would apply to Obama and his family but that does not appear to be the case. Obama is scheduled to head for Hawaii on vacation and it was discussed that his wife and kids would go on without him if he got delayed in DC. It appears as if the first Klingon is unable to wait to get to Hawaii so she will be leaving before her man child husband. This trip will likely cost TAXPAYERS (at least) an additional $100,000.
MeeChelle will have a separate flight that will cost tens of thousands of dollars, she will have her staff and she will have limousines and other equipment that must be flown there. She will also need a security detail though one would suspect she could get by with her bat’leth.
This same thing happened last year and the Obamas cost the TAXPAYERS a great deal of money. This year is more of the same. As Congress argues over some kind of budget to keep government running and prevent a shut down this weekend (which might explain why the Klingon is leaving early) the man child king is allowing TAXPAYER money to be wasted so his wife does not have to wait to get to Hawaii. There are families who would love to have a job let along vacation time and those who do get a vacation are lucky to afford a week off near home so few will have sympathy with people who feel they are entitled to live off the TAXPAYER in first class accommodations in a luxury place like Hawaii.
The liberal morons (but I repeat myself) use to become apoplectic when George W Bush went to his ranch in Crawford Texas. Now they sit silently as their messiah wastes TAXPAYER money on a Hawaiian vacation that incurs extra costs to send his wife early.
But Big Dog, Bush went to his home when he took time off. Why do you deny Obama that same thing?
I don’t. Obama has a house in Chicago Illinois and that is listed as his residence. If he and the first Klingon want to head to Chicago for vacation they are more than welcome to so long as she waits and travels with him.
Remember, the rules do not apply to the elites so Obama ignores them.
November 2012 cannot come quickly enough.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, chicago, elitists, hawaii, klingon, michelle, Obama, taxpayer
Someone Can’t Face Reality
Dec 2, 2011 Political
I received a message via my contact page from someone using the name L-Dog. The message came from an Alaska.gov server. More specifically, it came from the Department of Administration (or through their server, anyway). This is the message I received:
So if tax cuts create jobs, where are they. We have 7 or so years of the bush [sic] tax cuts and no job growth. So stop lying.
A lie, by definition, is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Since I did no such thing, then it is not a lie. But let us explore.
The Bush tax cuts took place in 2003 and went into full force in 2004 so yes, it has been about 7 years though there were earlier tax cuts. After the Bush tax cuts, 5 million jobs were created and the revenue to the Treasury increased. This is not to say things were great because Bush was a big spender. He and Congress spent far more than we took in though now those numbers pale in comparison to Obama.
The linked chart shows that from about 2000 to 2003 revenue decreased. There are a number of reasons including 9/11 and a recession. The Clinton tech bubble was bursting as well and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates 6 times from 1999-2000. From 2003 to 2007 revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. In 2007 Democrats took control of Congress and revenues again began to decrease. We were also heading into another recession. It is also important to note that the first tax cuts of 2001 were to be phased in over several years and the economy and job production lagged in the early years.
Heritage published a report about the tax cuts and this, in part, is what that organization had to say:
In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.
Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:
- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
- The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.
In late 2007 the economy began to cool. By 2008, it entered a recession. The housing bubble burst, precipitating a financial crisis. But after 50 months of unimpeded growth, it is ludicrous to insist that the tax cuts caused the recession, let alone the global financial meltdown. Even after the Fannie and Freddie Mac-induced bust, there were still one million net jobs created during the Bush years.
So L-Dog of Alaska, the Bush tax cuts did indeed create jobs. The net gain was 1 million after a 5 million increase that was mostly wiped out by the government (read Democrat) induced trauma known as Fannie and Freddie.
Revenue increased, jobs were produced and the unemployment rate was in the 4-6 range. This happened despite a massive blow we took on 9/11.
Tax cuts, long term ones, create jobs because the private sector employers (government DOES NOT create jobs) know what to expect and are able to run their businesses accordingly. They can hire because they know what their tax burden will be. Uncertainty leads them to stop hiring and take a wait and see approach. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and he had tremendous job growth as well as increased revenue to the government.
If we could get government to stop spending what they take and then some we could get our house in order.
So, if tax cuts do not produce jobs why is Barack Obama running around claiming to be a tax cutter (he has raised them, not cut them)? Why did Democrats fight to keep the Bush tax cuts last year? They cited the problems with increasing taxes in a bad economy and how it would harm job growth so if tax cuts do not equal jobs why would they fight for the tax cuts enacted by a man they absolutely hated? Additionally, why did the Congress cut payroll taxes last year (the Social Security tax) if they thought it would not help.
A lot of things are working against any tax cuts and a major part is the out of control spending and the Keynesian economic policies that Obama embraces. You can’t keep spending money we don’t have to cure a spending problem. Tax cuts with discipline in DC will solve the problems.
When producers are taxed more it leaves them less capital to run their businesses and that means they can’t hire. When the tax situation is uncertain they are afraid to act.
So L-Dog, I hope this clears it up for you. I won’t call you a liar, just misinformed.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alaska, Bush, department of administration, jobs, l-dog, reagan, revenue, tax cuts
Would Obama Be To Blame If We Are Attacked?
Sep 9, 2011 Political
When Bush was president he received briefings about non specific threats from bin Laden and his terror network and the possibility of an attack. There were no specific plans or timelines and the briefing was no different than what had been given to Bill Clinton. There was a threat but when, where, and how were not defined.
The attacks of 9/11 came and the left blamed Bush. They claimed he ignored the warnings from the brief and went on vacation. Bush was to blame, according to the left, because he did not stop an attack that he was briefed about. The fact that the brief was non specific and did not pinpoint any information that could be used to stop the attack made no difference to the left because Bush was to blame. It is like Katrina. The local and State government of New Orleans and Louisiana failed miserably but Bush was to blame. Some claimed he blew the levees on purpose and that he steered the storm to that spot.
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is a few days away and security has been heightened because of the potential for attacks. Obama has been briefed on a non specific threat that indicates the terror network is working on using car bombs in DC and New York to attack Americans on or around 9/11. The brief is non specific and includes no real actionable intelligence. It is about the same kind of warning that Bush received.
So if, God forbid, we are attacked on 9/11, would Obama be to blame for not stopping it?
I did not blame Bush and certainly would not blame Obama. But the left was all over Bush and held him responsible so if we are attacked would Obama have the same blame since he has received the same kind of briefing for which liberals hold Bush accountable?
Just asking?
I hope we are not attacked but one never knows. Despite the denial by the left, there are people who want us dead.
Be vigilant…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, blame game, Bush, Obama, security brief, Terrorism
Obama In His Own Words – Again
Aug 24, 2011 Political
We already know that Barack Obama is not a leader by his own admission. In 2008 he said that when George Bush asked for a debt ceiling increase that it demonstrated a lack of leadership. Obama, as the White House occupant, asked for a debt ceiling increase which means, he lacks leadership. He fit how he defined it so he is it. He also voted against the debt ceiling increase Bush wanted but then he and his party labeled the GOP as hostage takers, terrorists and putting party over country for not voting to raise the debt ceiling (or agreeing to the stupidity the Democrats wanted).
It would appear that Barack Obama is irresponsible and unpatriotic as well.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. “That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic” ~ Barack Obama said July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D. CNS News
Barack Obama was talking about Bush and his record over an eight year period. In just under three years Barack Obama has increased our national debt by $4 TRILLION himself. Obama increased the debt in under three years by the same amount Bush did in eight years. Obama said that what Bush did was irresponsible and unpatriotic.
This means that based on Obama’s definition, he himself is irresponsible and unpatriotic.
It is also ironic that Obama mentions Bush taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children when his own Vice President, Joe Biden, is in China right now with his hat in his hand asking the Chinese to increase the credit limit on that bank card.
Even if Obama is only in office for one term it is certain that he will surpass the debt that George Bush added to our country and by quite a bit.
There is no way for him to avoid doing so because it is absolutely certain that Obama will not half our debt deficit** by the end of his first term, as he promised.
The GOP needs to take all these positions Obama had back then and use them against him in the next election.
Call the campaign “One and Done” and subtitle it, even Obama does not agree with what Obama has done…
**Thanks to Adam for pointing out it was deficit and not the debt. BD
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, china, credit card, debt, irresponsible, lies, Obama, unpatriotic
Jay Carney Then And Now
Aug 11, 2011 Political
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did his best to sweep away criticism of Obama and his family going on vacation. He did this in response to a question by Jake Tapper asking why Obama was going on vacation when he vowed not to rest until the jobs issue is resolved:
[…]It is also, as I think anyone who has covered in the past, either in this administration or others, there is no such thing as a presidential vacation. The Presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication and get regular briefings from his national security team as well as his economic team[…] Real Clear Politics
No one would begrudge our leader time off. It is a hard job and everyone recognizes that no president, in this administration or any other, is really off. These guys are really working and it is just wrong to say otherwise. What reporter or other American would question a president’s vacation time or say that there is a problem with president’s going on vacation?
Why, Jay Carney would.
Back in July, when they were planning what the President should do during his month-long vacation (as part of their effort to persuade the public that he wasn’t actually on vacation in the generally accepted sense of what vacation means — i.e., having fun and not working), the image-makers hit upon a clever idea. Every week, they decided, they would send the President somewhere outside Texas for a day or a day and a half to hold an event of some kind in which he would mix with “real Americans.” Time
So we should not begrudge Obama time off and to suggest he is vacationing (in the generally accepted sense of what vacation means) people should not criticize Obama because, as everyone knows, a president is never on vacation.
Except when the president is Bush and Carney is the reporter. Then it is a sin for a president to go on vacation and the photo-ops are just PR moves to make people think that he is not on vacation in the generally accepted meaning of the term.
Obama at Martha’s Vineyard is a working vacation and he is not really off. Bush at Crawford going out on photo-ops is a vacation and not real work.
See what a difference there is when it is a Democrat instead of a Republican?
All presidents work hard (though one might question what they are actually working at) and if they take time off, so be it. I think they and all members of Congress should stay in DC and solve our problems. They can take time off when they have actually earned it. However, all leaders take time off whether we like it or not or whether we think the time is appropriate or not.
The problem is, when Bush did it he was a lazy sloth who was really on vacation. When Obama does it he is not really on vacation because he still goes through presidential responsibilities while on his vacation. As if he is the only one and Bush never did the same.
One other thing; Carney goes on to say Obama is not out of reach and is not far from home. You know, he can respond on a moment’s notice.
So why did it take so long when the underwear bomber struck while Obama was on vacation?
How about we have the same standard?
Ole’ Jay was put in a tough spot by Tapper. Jay had to defend Obama for doing what he criticized Bush.
I love it when this comes back on them. They should call Carney the Press Sucks-retary and Tapper should be renamed Trapper…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, jake tapper, jay carney, Obama, vacation