Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama to Propose New Stimulus in Lame Attempt to Set Up Campaign
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081811/content/01125110.guest.html
" RUSH: What did I say in the previous hour? The president's jobs plan that everybody's awaiting in September. Just redo the stimulus. Just double it. The first stimulus was so good, it just wasn't big enough, all those jobs that were created and saved. Just do it again, especially since you know the Republicans won't go for it. Remember the president's jobs program -- I told you this yesterday -- the president's jobs program is not a jobs program. It is a campaign proposal. Everything the Bamster does from here on out is about reelection. It's not about substantive economic policy or foreign policy or anything of the sort."
" RUSH: What did I say in the previous hour? The president's jobs plan that everybody's awaiting in September. Just redo the stimulus. Just double it. The first stimulus was so good, it just wasn't big enough, all those jobs that were created and saved. Just do it again, especially since you know the Republicans won't go for it. Remember the president's jobs program -- I told you this yesterday -- the president's jobs program is not a jobs program. It is a campaign proposal. Everything the Bamster does from here on out is about reelection. It's not about substantive economic policy or foreign policy or anything of the sort."
Bad luck Obama?
- Charles Krauthammer
- Opinion Writer
Bad luck? Bad faith?
— President Obama,
1105
Comments
A troubled nation wonders: How did we get mired in 9.1 percent unemployment, 0.9 percent growth and an economic outlook so bad that the Federal Reserve pledges to keep interest rates at zero through mid-2013 — an admission that it sees little hope on the horizon?
Bad luck, explains our president. Out of nowhere came Japan and its supply-chain disruptions, Europe and its debt problems, the Arab Spring and those oil spikes. Kicked off, presumably, by various acts of God (should He not be held accountable too?): earthquake and tsunami. (Tomorrow: pestilence and famine. Maybe frogs.)
Well, yes, but what leader is not subject to external events? Were the minor disruptions of the current Arab Spring remotely as damaging as the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74? Were the supply disruptions of Japan 2011 anything like the Asian financial collapse of 1997-98? Events happen. Leaders are elected to lead (from the front, incidentally). That means dealing with events, not plaintively claiming to be their victim.
Moreover, luck is the residue of design, as Branch Rickey immortally observed. And Obama’s design for the economy was a near-$1 trillion stimulus that left not a trace, the heavy hand of Obamacare and a flurry of regulatory zeal that seeks to stifle everything from domestic energy production to Boeing’s manufacturing expansion into South Carolina.
He sowed, he reaps.
In Obama’s recounting, however, luck is only half the story. His economic recovery was ruined not just by acts of God and (foreign) men, but by Americans who care nothing for their country. These people, who inhabit Congress (guess which party?), refuse to set aside “politics” for the good of the nation. They serve special interests and lobbyists, care only about the next election, place party ahead of country. Indeed, they “would rather see their opponents lose than see America win.” The blaggards!
For weeks, these calumnies have been Obama staples. Calumnies, because they give not an iota of credit to the opposition for trying to promote the public good, as presumably Obama does, but from different premises and principles. Calumnies, because they deny the legitimacy to those on the other side of the great national debate about the size and scope and reach of government.
Charging one’s opponents with bad faith is the ultimate political ad hominem. It obviates argument, fact, logic, history. Conservatives resist Obama’s social-democratic, avowedly transformational agenda not just on principle but on empirical grounds, as well — the economic and moral unraveling of Europe’s social-democratic experiment, on display today from Athens to the streets of London.
Obama’s answer? He doesn’t even engage. That’s the point of these ugly accusations of bad faith. They are the equivalent of branding Republicans enemies of the people. Gov. Rick Perry has been rightly chided for throwing around the word “treasonous” in reference to the Fed. Obama gets a pass for doing the same, only slightly more artfully, regarding Republicans. After all, he is accusing them of wishing to see America fail for their own political gain. What is that if not a charge of betraying one’s country?
The charge is not just ugly. It’s laughable. All but five Republican members of the House — moderate, establishment, Tea Party, freshmen alike — voted for a budget containing radical Medicare reform knowing itcould very well end many of their careers. Democrats launched gleefully into Mediscare attacks, ha rdly believing their luck that Republicans should have proposed something so politically risky in pursuit of fiscal solvency. Yet Obama accuses Republicans of acting for nothing but partisan advantage.
This from a man who has cagily refused to propose a single structural reform to entitlements in his three years in office. A man who ordered that the Afghan surge be unwound by September 2012, a date that makes no military sense (it occurs during the fighting season), a date not recommended by his commanders, a date whose sole purpose is to give Obama political relief on the eve of the 2012 election. And Obama dares accuse others of placing politics above country?
A plague of bad luck and bad faith — a recalcitrant providence and an unpatriotic opposition. Our president wrestles with angels. Monsters of mythic proportions.
A comforting fantasy. But a sorry excuse for a failing economy and a flailing presidency.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Balancing "green energy" with reality.
It’s Time for a Balanced Approach to Deficits and Green Energy
We should raise revenue from green energy - to the extent that it exists.
The Democrats think the American people are stupid. Throughout the debt ceiling imbroglio, Obama and every single elected Democrat have regurgitated their talking points about a balanced solution to the debt crisis. They have insulted the intelligence of every voter by intimating that the budget can be balanced by eliminating a few tax credits. No, they don’t want to talk about the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security. They refuse to confront the ballooning cost of all the welfare programs. The only thing they want to discuss is eliminating a few tax credits for oil companies and corporate jets.
In May, the Senate took up a bill to eliminate $2 billion worth of tax credits for the gas and oil industry. Let’s overlook their fallacious charges that these are unique handouts to the industry – and treat them as if they are expenditures. We are slated to spend over $3.7 trillion this year, yet the Democrats are obsessing over $2 billion in tax credits. Here are some of the major expenditures for this fiscal year, including the so-called handouts to big oil (in billions):
Yes, these tax credits barely register among our major expenses.
During the debate over the oil tax credits, Democrats tossed around the $21 billion figure that we will supposedly gain from increased revenues, if these credits are eliminated. Again, let’s assume they are correct. Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion. Democrats claim that their bill would have saved us $21 billion over 10 years. That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.
What about the much beleaguered corporate jet tax deduction? That would save $3 billion over ten years!
So in the spirit of bipartisanship, let’s forge a deficit reduction deal that will truly achieve balance. Since the Democrats hold these tax loopholes on the same level as the largest expenditures, let’s agree to terminate them. In return for our acquiescence to “revenue increases,” they must accede to our demands for free market healthcare reform, private Social Security accounts, and welfare reform.
But there is one more component to the deal.
If logic dictates that we should cut subsidies to a profitable industry which delivers a product that is the lifeblood of our prosperity, shouldn’t we cut the billions in subsidies to industries that produce ineffectual energy that barely registers on our energy consumption map? We should implement a full balanced approach to revenue by eliminating all green credits, both to consumers and producers. Here are some points to consider:
1) If we are looking to save $2-3 billion in revenue from tax breaks to oil and natural gas companies, we should save much more from ending our life support for the so-called green energy companies. According to a brand new EIA study, commissioned by three conservative congressmen, the renewable energy sector received $14.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax credits, research, and loan guarantees in 2010. This is an astronomical increase from the $5.1 billion they received in the pre-stimulus year of 2007. The study doesn’t even include the egregious $5.7 billion Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) because it only accounted for those fuels used for electricity. I’m wondering how much we can save over 10-years, if we would apply the balanced approach to the third rail of energy policy?
2) The green energy sector is even more parasitic when scrutinized by performance. Consider this chart detailing our energy usage by source for 2009; solar, wind, and biomass are barely on the map, even though they are almost completely subsidized. Here is a chart from the Institute for Energy Research comparing federal subsidies per unit of production of different energy sources:
As you can see, Solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while Wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash. The reality is that no amount of subsidy can compensate for the impotence of green energy.
3) While most of the government’s investments in green energy are in the form of direct subsidies, Oil and Gas companies don’t receive subsidies; they enjoy universal credits and deductions that are afforded to all businesses. Moreover, the oil industry generates almost $100 million of revenue per day in income taxes, excises, and royalties for the federal government. Additionally, oil and gas companies pay an effective corporate tax rate about 55% higher than that of most other industries. All the while, the renewable-energy sector is ostensibly kept afloat by the taxpayer, offering nothing in terms of revenue.
4) Renewable-energy companies are subsidized, even though they benefit from the tailwinds of government mandates and consumer tax credits for patronizing their services. Oil and Gas exploration, on the other hand, incur the full wrath of government headwinds daily. They spend billions of dollars complying with analysis, paperwork, planning, and development of potential drilling wells, in order to satisfy the EPA and DOI. They must risk large sums of capital, even before a drop of oil is recovered and pumped into the hungry markets. And in the case of Shell Oil’s attempt to drill in the Arctic, they were rebuffed by the federal government, thereby losing everything from their investment. It is a no-brainer that they should be able to utilize some tax deductions for well production and exploration.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of Tea Party compromise, Republicans should call Obama’s bluff on a balanced approach – and demand dollar-for-dollar cuts to green energy subsidies, in exchange for elimination of oil tax credits. Then, once we have settled the revenue issue, there will be no excuses for shirking their responsibilities on the expenditure side of the ledger. We should reboot Cut, Cap, and Balance. Or, is a single-level downgrade not a sufficient motivator to get serious about cutting spending?
In May, the Senate took up a bill to eliminate $2 billion worth of tax credits for the gas and oil industry. Let’s overlook their fallacious charges that these are unique handouts to the industry – and treat them as if they are expenditures. We are slated to spend over $3.7 trillion this year, yet the Democrats are obsessing over $2 billion in tax credits. Here are some of the major expenditures for this fiscal year, including the so-called handouts to big oil (in billions):
Yes, these tax credits barely register among our major expenses.
During the debate over the oil tax credits, Democrats tossed around the $21 billion figure that we will supposedly gain from increased revenues, if these credits are eliminated. Again, let’s assume they are correct. Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion. Democrats claim that their bill would have saved us $21 billion over 10 years. That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.
What about the much beleaguered corporate jet tax deduction? That would save $3 billion over ten years!
So in the spirit of bipartisanship, let’s forge a deficit reduction deal that will truly achieve balance. Since the Democrats hold these tax loopholes on the same level as the largest expenditures, let’s agree to terminate them. In return for our acquiescence to “revenue increases,” they must accede to our demands for free market healthcare reform, private Social Security accounts, and welfare reform.
But there is one more component to the deal.
If logic dictates that we should cut subsidies to a profitable industry which delivers a product that is the lifeblood of our prosperity, shouldn’t we cut the billions in subsidies to industries that produce ineffectual energy that barely registers on our energy consumption map? We should implement a full balanced approach to revenue by eliminating all green credits, both to consumers and producers. Here are some points to consider:
1) If we are looking to save $2-3 billion in revenue from tax breaks to oil and natural gas companies, we should save much more from ending our life support for the so-called green energy companies. According to a brand new EIA study, commissioned by three conservative congressmen, the renewable energy sector received $14.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax credits, research, and loan guarantees in 2010. This is an astronomical increase from the $5.1 billion they received in the pre-stimulus year of 2007. The study doesn’t even include the egregious $5.7 billion Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) because it only accounted for those fuels used for electricity. I’m wondering how much we can save over 10-years, if we would apply the balanced approach to the third rail of energy policy?
2) The green energy sector is even more parasitic when scrutinized by performance. Consider this chart detailing our energy usage by source for 2009; solar, wind, and biomass are barely on the map, even though they are almost completely subsidized. Here is a chart from the Institute for Energy Research comparing federal subsidies per unit of production of different energy sources:
Source: IER
3) While most of the government’s investments in green energy are in the form of direct subsidies, Oil and Gas companies don’t receive subsidies; they enjoy universal credits and deductions that are afforded to all businesses. Moreover, the oil industry generates almost $100 million of revenue per day in income taxes, excises, and royalties for the federal government. Additionally, oil and gas companies pay an effective corporate tax rate about 55% higher than that of most other industries. All the while, the renewable-energy sector is ostensibly kept afloat by the taxpayer, offering nothing in terms of revenue.
4) Renewable-energy companies are subsidized, even though they benefit from the tailwinds of government mandates and consumer tax credits for patronizing their services. Oil and Gas exploration, on the other hand, incur the full wrath of government headwinds daily. They spend billions of dollars complying with analysis, paperwork, planning, and development of potential drilling wells, in order to satisfy the EPA and DOI. They must risk large sums of capital, even before a drop of oil is recovered and pumped into the hungry markets. And in the case of Shell Oil’s attempt to drill in the Arctic, they were rebuffed by the federal government, thereby losing everything from their investment. It is a no-brainer that they should be able to utilize some tax deductions for well production and exploration.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of Tea Party compromise, Republicans should call Obama’s bluff on a balanced approach – and demand dollar-for-dollar cuts to green energy subsidies, in exchange for elimination of oil tax credits. Then, once we have settled the revenue issue, there will be no excuses for shirking their responsibilities on the expenditure side of the ledger. We should reboot Cut, Cap, and Balance. Or, is a single-level downgrade not a sufficient motivator to get serious about cutting spending?
Obama focuses on Jobs… or not.
Create more regulation, more government bloat and expenditure, and fewer jobs. Way to go Mr. President.
Lacking any accomplishments, Obama slings mud.
Whatever happened to hope and change? Backroom deals, bills rushed into law before they are read or even seen, slinging mud on opponents, sounds like the worst of the same old Washington to me.
Liberals talking crap.
“The most logical response to the cheating scandals in Atlanta, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and elsewhere is to dial back the emphasis on testing.” Really? I thought the answer was to get off our asses and teach the children, closely followed by firing any teacher or administrator who thinks it’s better to fake tests than teach children.
Electoral College
The point of our election system was to provide the people, via the house, and the states, via the senate, a voice in the federal government. The states voices have effectively been cut out, and the result has been a trampling of states’ rights. Do we really want to follow the lead of several blue states and see what happens to the people’s rights? Better that we reverse the decision that cut the states voices.
Obama says it’s all Bush’s fault.
Obama now claims he inherited all of the economic problems.
Reagan inherited worse, with inflation, and by the three year point was doing much better. Obama’s choice was to expand government, print money and raise taxes, the opposite of Reagan. Obama is a failure at economic policy, and he knows it. This is the Obama economy.
Let’s also not forget, Obama was in congress voting for massive spending with the other democrats since 2006. His first move as president was to spend more than any president ever in the history of the United States. Obama is wrong, and he knows it. This is the Obama debt.
Obama wants to continue these failed policies, trash his opponents in the media, provide little leadership, and go back to fund raising and campaigning on taxpayer dollars. Obama wonders why government can’t fix the economy. It’s because government is the problem in the economy, and the markets have specifically pointed that out. This is the Obama downgrade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)