Obama On The State Of The Union
Here is part of the Obama SOTU and his response:
You know, I think that Obama might be on to something.
[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: Obama, response, state of the union
Obama In Trouble, Panders To Middle Class
Jan 26, 2010 Political
Still feeling the heat from the stinging loss in Massachusetts, Barack Obama will pander to the middle class in an attempt to get people to realign with his priorities. The first thing he will do is ask for a three year spending freeze on a very small part of the federal budget. This is in response to mounting concerns among voters regarding out of control spending. Remember, Obama was going to go line by line and cut out the waste.
Instead, he has signed bills, including the stimulus, loaded with pork. He has yet to go through and cut wasteful spending. Count that as another promise broken.
The idea for a freeze would be a start if it were not a ruse. The agencies that will be frozen have already seen budget increases as high as 50% so a freeze means little. They are being frozen at a high level of funding. In order to bring things under control the budget needs to be cut and Obama can start by going line by line as he promised.
The next thing he will do, which will be officially disclosed at the State of the Union Address, is to enact (or expand) programs for the middle class. Obama is expected to introduce the following:
-Nearly doubling the tax credit that families making under $85,000 can receive for child care costs, with some help for families earning up to $115,000, too.
-Capping the size of periodic federal college loan repayments at 10 percent of borrowers’ discretionary income to make payments more affordable.
-Increasing by $1.6 billion the money pumped into a federal fund to help working parents pay for child care, covering an estimated 235,000 additional children.
-Requiring employers who don’t offer 401(k) retirement plans to offer direct-deposit IRAs for their employees, with exemptions for the smallest firms.
-Spending more than $100 million to help people care for their elderly parents and get support for themselves as well. AP (via WBAL)
Some of these things are more government intervention and will cost more money. The doubled tax credit will lower the tax burden of those who, for the most part, pay little, if any, taxes and it might not even help them. The credit will not result in more of a refund if the person pays no taxes so those on the lower end are not likely to receive much more. But those who do benefit will increase the tax burden on those who pay taxes, including those who have no children in the first place.
Capping loan payments will extend the life of the loan though it might make it easier to pay back. There will be a trade off for this but it might benefit those who are having trouble making the loan payments. One problem I see is they will be paying for a longer period after they graduate.
Pumping more money into a fund to help people pay for child care will cost taxpayers. The insult is that other taxpayers will be paying for their cildren’s care and the care of someone else’s children. Those with no children will also pay for the care of those with children. This is another redistribution plan that Obama loves so much.
Requiring employers to offer IRAs is more government intervention in the private sector. So long as employers only have to offer the plan and don’t have to fund (and are not forced to provide it) then it should not be an issue. The problem is that government does not belong being involved in private business. What a company offers should be between the company and its employees. We will need to watch this one to see how much government creeps into the issue.
Spending more money for people to take care of elderly relatives will cost money and means that we will get to support the parents of other people. They did not raise us, clothe us, feed us or provide us with a house when we were growing up but we will be expected to pay for their care.
Obama is in trouble a year and a week into his term and he is pandering to the middle class to try and soothe their fears. The Brown victory in Massachusetts was a wake up call and Obama knows he must appease the minions by giving them trinkets or his party will be in very serious trouble come November.
None of these things will create jobs (something Obama will note) and none of them reduces spending. They are nothing more than shiny beads given in an attempt to appease the masses and make them think dear leader loves them.
Here is an idea. Get rid of the capital gains tax for a year and eliminate the corporate tax for a year and then raise it to 50% of what it was. Cut government spending by going line by line (where have I heard that before) and eliminating waste. And for now, focus solely on job creation and the economy and forget the grandiose, pie in the sky things.
The liberal leaning website Wonkette has a great take on this issue.
How is that hope and change working out for ya?
[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: lies, middle class, Obama, scott brown, state of the union, tax credits, trinkets
Obama To Abandon Cap And Trade?
Nov 13, 2009 Political
Politico reports that in Obama’s next State of the Union Address he will indicate that he will focus on cutting the federal deficit (now that he ran it up) and will pay less attention to other issues except job creation. The thought is that this will put Cap and Trade on hold.
What Obama wants to do is give Democrats cover for the 2010 election. Cap and Trade is unpopular and Obama does not want to have the record show that Democrats voted for this unpopular legislation though we already have the names of those in the House who voted for it.
The recent elections have driven home a few points, one of which is that Democrats could be vulnerable in 2010 because of the spending spree they have been on. This is a political move designed to lessen damage from the midterm election.
Make no mistake, Cap and Trade will be back if Obama maintains majorities in both chambers of Congress. He knows that if he puts the Democrats out there on this issue, whether it passes before the next election or not, he is likely to lose a lot of seats. If Cap and Trade has not passed and he loses the Senate, it never will and even if it does pass and he loses one chamber, his legislative agenda will be dead. He will also have a harder time being reelected.
This is a stalling tactic. Obama wants people to forget about the Cap and Trade issue so he can keep both chambers. If he is successful, Cap and Trade will be back and a number of other liberal/socialist items will be introduced.
Regardless of what he does next year we need to vote as many of them out of office as possible.
We saw what a mess was created when Republicans held all the power and now we are seeing it to an even greater degree with the Democrats.
We need to bring some sort of sanity back to DC and we can do that by shaking up the Congress.
Vote them all out in 2010.
[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: cap and trade, election, Obama, stalling, state of the union
Presidential Words I Agree With
Jan 21, 2008 Political
These are the words the president stated in a State of the Union speech nd I agree with them:
“Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq’s arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. Washington Post
Saddam Hussein was perceived as a threat and it was acknowledged, in more than 16 words, that he had a viable nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program. This speech was from 1998, long after the time that the left keeps saying that Hussein got rid of weapons. Ten months later, then President Clinton, signed HR 4655 into law. This law instituted a policy of regime change in Iraq. True to form, the law explicitly stated that it did not address the use of military force. I guess he was saving that option for when another scandal popped up.
There is little difference between what Clinton said and what Bush said and there is little difference between their policies. The major difference is that Bush took action while Clinton was getting a little action.
Let this also serve as notice to those who say I never find anything good to say about Bill Clinton.
Tags: Clinton, hussein wmd, regime change, state of the union