<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; taxes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/taxes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What the Heck is Wrong with Mitt Romney?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-mitt-romney/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-mitt-romney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[career]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[randy-johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spring-training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supporters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-mitt-romney/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes &#8211; well, frankly, pretty often &#8211; Mitt Romney scares the crap out of me. I&#8217;m already on record saying that I think he&#8217;d be a much better President than Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, and nothing that has happened in the last month has changed that. Both Gingrich and Santorum are completely devoid of either the temperament or experience to handle the job of chief executive of the massive Federal government, a point which Newt Gingrich in particular seems determined to reinforce every single day between now and Super Tuesday (at least). Additionally, both Gingrich and Santorum have been C- candidates (at best) in terms of building a national campaign organization and raising money, both of which are necessary to have any chance to get  the job of President, if they want to prove that I&#8217;m wrong about their experience and temperament. I am as close to 100% certain as I can be that both would lose in a landslide to Obama. The problem is that I&#8217;m coming close to reaching that same conclusion about Mitt Romney. I don&#8217;t know what his problem is. I know there are some pretty serious questions about his ideological moorings, but that&#8217;s really less important (note that I did not say not important at all) in an executive than it is a legislator. That said, the number of people who have succesfully gained the nomination of either party without engaging in a substantial amount of flip-floppery is pretty small. The guy&#8217;s negatives, at least on paper, would seem to be clearly outweighed by his positives: he is clearly smart, clean cut, completely free of skeletons in his closet, able to self fund, and with a respectable dossier of executive experience. Furthermore, as I have explained before, he has spent the last 6 years ingratiating himself to conservative primary voters in a way that few previous candidates have (remember how McCain didn&#8217;t even bother to show up at CPAC in 2007 and in fact tried to set up a competing event down the hall?) Beyond the &#8220;on paper&#8221; aspect of Mitt Romney, however, he appears to be a terrible political candidate. I mean, just awful. In debates, he can undo two solid hours of snappy comebacks and intelligent points with a single bizarre and frightening attempt at a natural laugh. (&#8220;Are you going to release twelve years of your taxes?&#8221; &#8220;Maybe! HA HA!&#8221;) This quality was absolutely laid bare in spades last night when Romney came out to speak to his supporters in Colorado. The Colorado result was still up in the air at that point but it was clear already that his campaign wasn&#8217;t going to have a good night. Now, if there is one thing Mitt Romney should be used to by now, it is losing elections. By this point, he should have had enough practice at this that he could pull off at least a passable imitation of a leader rallying the troops. Instead, he wandered onto stage shellshocked and dazed, looking like a man who had physically taken a punch, and wandered aimlessly through almost the exact same speech he had given after his resounding victory in Florida. It was bad enough that I, as a Romney supporter, said to myself, &#8220;Holy cow, this guy is doomed.&#8221; The problem Mitt Romney has is that he is totally and completely unable to generate loyalty in a broad enough base. He certainly has a small core of diehards, but the vast majority of his support comes from people like me who can only manage a resigned, &#8220;Well, I guess he&#8217;s the best we have. Sigh.&#8221; In modern politics, no amount of looking like a central casting President can compensate for an ability to make people feel, even through the lens of a television camera, that you are a guy who is with them  and someone who they want to mount Pickett&#8217;s Charge with. Romney just can&#8217;t do it. If you will permit me a digression here, caused no doubt by my longing for Spring Training, into a baseball analogy that I think is apt here (non-baseball fans may skip this paragraph as it will likely cause your eyes to glaze over). Bill James has noted that throughout history, Hall of Famers have accounted for just over 10% of all at-bats in the major leagues. However, only about 1% of all major leaguers make it to the Hall of Fame. Now, some of this phenomenon is explainable by what constitutes a Hall of Famer &#8211; Hall of Famers tend to be talented enough that they are not subject to platoon duty, and by definition they are the players who have longer and relatively injury-free careers. However, at least some of the effect is due to the fact that a large number of humans (especially the sort who rise to become high level baseball executives) are highly risk averse. Thus, long after Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson were elite (or even average, in some cases) major league pitchers, MLB general managers continued to shell out huge money at least on the theory that they were safer bets than any of the prospects available in the minor league farm systems. Thus also, the Los Angeles Angels shelled out an ungodly amount of money on a 10-year contract to the 32-year-old Albert Pujols despite already having a 26-year-old first baseman who as a rookie hit 29 home runs and had a .768 OPS. Note that this risk aversion is entirely a function of perception, rather than reality. Is it really true that a 46-year-old Randy Johnson is less of a risk (particularly given the propensity for injury that comes with playing professional sports in your mid-40s)  in your starting rotation than your top AAA prospect? Probably not, but due to perception some GM is going to give the geriatric Big Unit a shot. If you charted the future expected careers based on expected career paths charted by age and experience of Albert Pujols and Mark Trumbo, Trumbo&#8217;s next 10 years should be superior in the aggregate to Pujols&#8217; &#8211; but that did not stop the Angles from spending a bazillion dollars on Pujols. Which brings us back to Mitt Romney &#8211; there is no evidence at all that he is any less of a risk (at least electorally speaking) than any of the other candidates. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that almost every time he actually faces the voters, he loses. His polling, several months out, always projects him to do much better than he actually does when the rubber hits the road. This is because, while picking people based on risk aversion may work to some extent in baseball, it is a recipe for failure in politics (see also Kerry, John). For the fans of Moneyball , Mitt Romney is the Billy Beane of political candidates. If he doesn&#8217;t show sometime soon that he can figure out how to actually connect with people, I&#8217;m going to lose any hope of winning this Presidential election. And I just don&#8217;t know, at this point in his career, how Mitt Romney can be taught new tricks. Romney took a punch in the mouth yesterday, even if it was mostly a completely symbolic punch. This really is his last chance to get back up and prove to his supporters that he&#8217;s not as bad of a candidate as he has looked so far. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-mitt-romney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alert: Senate Republicans Vote to Raise Taxes With Highway Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/alert-senate-republicans-vote-to-raise-taxes-with-highway-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/alert-senate-republicans-vote-to-raise-taxes-with-highway-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baucus-chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beneficiary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distributions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grandchild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/alert-senate-republicans-vote-to-raise-taxes-with-highway-bill/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We’ve directed a lot of attention to the deficiencies of the House version of the highway bill ( here and here ).  We must also work to defeat the Senate version, which is even worse.  The 2-year $109 billion Senate bill ( S.1813 ) offers no reform to mass transit and continues to mandate that states use 10% of their funding for wasteful “enhancement projects.”  As bad as the House bill is for conservatives, the Senate bill is absolutely indefensible.  Yet, amazingly, it was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with unanimous support from Republican members last year.  Last night, it was approved by the Finance Committee. The Senate bill will spawn even larger deficits in the long-run.  Even for the two-year authorization period of the bill, there will be a $35 billion deficit between trust fund outlays and gas tax revenue.  Both the House and Senate versions rely on drawing down all existing funds in the trust fund to cover some of the gap ( to the extent that those funds really exist outside of an accounting gimmick).  However, there will still be a $13 billion shortfall over the next two years (and much more in the long-term).  The House bill relies on new royalties from oil exploration (that will never be approved by Democrats), but the Senate bill relies on phantom savings (from revenues that are already used to offset other expenditures) plus…you guessed it; tax increases. After the EPW committee approved the underlying provisions of the bill, the Senate Finance Committee voted last night to approve $7 billion in sundry tax increases to fund this terrible bill.  One of those provisions includes a tax hike on inherited “stretched” IRAs and 401(k)s. Here are the details from the horse’s mouth ( Baucus Chairman’s Mark ). Require Distributions of Inherited IRAs within 5 years .  Under current law, holders of IRAs and 401(k)-type accounts are required to begin taking taxable distributions from those accounts once they reach age 70-1/2.  However, they can stretch those distributions over many years if they leave their account to a very young beneficiary.  When the account holder dies, the taxation of the account is then spread over the life of the beneficiary.  The Chairman’s Modification would require the retirement savings accounts to be treated, for tax purposes, as distributed within five years of the death of the account holder, unless the beneficiary is the account holder’s age, a child with special needs or older than 70.  This provision is estimated to raise $4.648 billion over ten years. Hence, if someone bequeaths a retirement savings account to his grandchild, the beneficiary will have to liquidate the fund within 5 years and pay full taxes on the distributions.  This applies irrespective of how young the grandchild would be at the time of the grandparent’s death. This ridiculous bill also transfers some revenue on tariffs from imported cars to plug the hole in the trust fund.  The problem is that this revenue is already accounted for and is used for other purposes.  This bill merely spread the same money around and uses the savings for multiple expenditures; not unlike the effort to use “war savings” as pay-fors. The committee report passed with 17 ayes, 6 nays, and 1 present vote .  Here is the breakdown of the vote: Ayes: Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad (proxy), Bingaman, Kerry (proxy), Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Carper, Cardin, Snowe, Crapo (proxy), Roberts (proxy), Thune Nays: Hatch, Grassley (proxy), Enzi, Cornyn (proxy), Coburn (proxy), Burr (proxy) Present : Kyl (proxy) Snowe, Crap, Roberts, and Thune were the 4 Republicans who voted for this travesty. The full Senate will vote for cloture on the tax hiking, deficit-spending highway bill on Thursday afternoon.  We must defeat both bills, especially the Senate version.  Nevertheless, the House bill is almost as offensive.  Once we agree to the premise that we must overspend the level of gas tax revenue purveying the trust fund, we will always be exposed to future tax increases and bailouts to bridge the gap. Call your Senators and tell them to vote no on cloture for S.1813 &#8211; the highway bill with tax increases. Cross-posted from The Madison Project   [ Follow @RMConservative ] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/alert-senate-republicans-vote-to-raise-taxes-with-highway-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tech at Night: France fines Google for giving away free maps, FCC reform, Pastrami</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/tech-at-night-france-fines-google-for-giving-away-free-maps-fcc-reform-pastrami/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/tech-at-night-france-fines-google-for-giving-away-free-maps-fcc-reform-pastrami/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compact-marches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[france]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[french]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pastrami]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rick santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech-at-night]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/tech-at-night-france-fines-google-for-giving-away-free-maps-fcc-reform-pastrami/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Good news? I had a great Pastrami Burger tonight from a place called The Hat . Seriously: the pastrami itself is great, and I&#8217;ll probably go for the Pastrami Dip next time. Bad news? It was a busy evening and now I&#8217;m tired. The good news that wins out? Not much to cover tonight, so let&#8217;s go. In France it&#8217;s illegal to give away free maps . Yes, Google is reportedly having to pay €500,000 because a French cartographer didn&#8217;t like the competition. Insane. Reminds me of one of the times Rick Santorum made a point to stand up for big government: when he tried to get government out of the business of providing &#8220;free&#8221; taxpayer-funded competition to private weather services. Of course, Google&#8217;s free services are under fire in the US, too , so we can&#8217;t get too smug yet. The push for a sales tax compact marches on . I still say it needs more safeguards against ever-higher taxes, double taxes, a national sales tax, and other forms of expansion. And yes, Republican FCC reform plans are pro-growth by checking the runaway FCC. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/tech-at-night-france-fines-google-for-giving-away-free-maps-fcc-reform-pastrami/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Governors Branstad and Brownback Spew Hot Air for Big Wind</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/governors-branstad-and-brownback-spew-hot-air-for-big-wind/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/governors-branstad-and-brownback-spew-hot-air-for-big-wind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earned-income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-repeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terry branstad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/governors-branstad-and-brownback-spew-hot-air-for-big-wind/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ After billions in stimulus funding failed to transform impotent green energy sources into profitable endeavors, even Obama has taken a break from promoting Wind and Solar.  He is even talking more about oil and gas exploration, although his sincerity is in serious doubt.  Unfortunately, some Republicans have not relinquished their affinity for using public funds to prop up their local wind industry. Yesterday, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback sent a letter to the 20 members of the payroll tax cut conference committee imploring them to extend the Production Tax Cut (PTC) for Big Wind, set to expire at the end of the year.  They warned that &#8220;wind development will grind to [a] halt due to the uncertainty of a PTC extension.&#8221; The PTC is among 51 ‘tax extenders’ that have either expired last December or are slated to expire this December.  It grants a 2.2 cent/per kilowatt-hour refundable credit for wind, solar, or geothermal.  Believe it or not, that is a large sum of money.  According to the Heritage Foundation , if the oil industry received a commensurate subsidy, they would get a $30 check for every barrel produced.  The PTC is tantamount to an Earned Income Tax Credit for corporations. As such, the governors are probably correct to assume that Big Wind will grind to a halt without the credit.  And that’s how it should be in our free-market economy.  Why is this any different than Obama’s attempt to pick winners and losers?  Actually, in this instance, we would be picking losers as winners.  While ending the tax credit will probably bring down Big Wind, it’s not like the subsidy actually helped Wind become prosperous.  In 2010, wind accounted for 0.9% of our energy supply, geothermal 0.2%, and solar 0.1% .  Many states offered their own tax credits to the wind industry, and lost money.  In Texas, the property tax break alone cost the state $1.6 million per job created. What we really need to do is to let all targeted tax breaks expire, especially to those industries that have no tax liability to begin with.  Last year, Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced legislation ( HR 3308 ) to sunset all non-universal energy tax credits and grants, including those for fossil fuels and nuclear power .  The bill would use the savings from the repeal of these credits (roughly $90 billion over ten years) to lower the corporate tax rate on everyone, including green energy companies (to the extent that they pay taxes at all). HR 3308 has 18 co-sponsors, including Paul Ryan.  It should garner the support of the entire caucus. Yesterday, Senators DeMint and Lee introduced the bill in the Senate .  We should urge everyone to cosponsor the bill. When we’re trying to draw bold contrasts to Obama on the issue of venture socialism, the last thing we need is members from our party muddling the distinction by offering their constituents an echo, instead of a choice. Cross-posted From The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/governors-branstad-and-brownback-spew-hot-air-for-big-wind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right &amp; What’s Not…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/a-former-union-thugs-take-on-right-to-work-whats-right-whats-not-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/a-former-union-thugs-take-on-right-to-work-whats-right-whats-not-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ballot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statehouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/a-former-union-thugs-take-on-right-to-work-whats-right-whats-not-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka &#8220;union thug&#8221;) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it&#8217;s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and  the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation. However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation&#8217;s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio&#8217;s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his &#8220; Ohioans for Workplace Freedom &#8221; to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio&#8217;s November ballot, perhaps it&#8217;s time we explore what&#8217;s right and what&#8217;s wrong with Right to Work. What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn&#8217;t. Very simply, Right-to-Work laws outlaw a union&#8217;s ability to require employees to pay union dues (or agency fees) as a condition of employment. In states without Right-to-Work laws (known as Non-Right-to-Work states ), it is legal for a company and a union to agree to a contract that requires every employee in the bargaining unit to pay dues or be fired . For a union, the ability to collect union dues is the lifeblood of the union; it is how unions function, it is how they get paid. Therefore, the inability to require dues for their services (whether good or bad) threatens their very existence which is why, very often, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states will strike over their ability to collect dues . As importantly, it should be noted that, since Right-to-Work laws only came about as a result of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, Right-to-Work laws apply only to companies and employees covered under the NLRA . They do not apply, for example, to airline and railroad companies and employees, since they are covered under the Railway Labor Act. This is why airline workers in Texas (or any other Right-to-Work state) can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Note: Even in Non-Right-to-Work states, it is possible to removed forced dues from a union contract through a &#8216; Deauthorization Election .&#8217; The Union Argument. For unions, there is a legitimate issue that arises with Right-to-Work laws and that is the requirement to represent so-called &#8220;free loaders&#8221;—those employees who pay nothing to the union, but are &#8220;entitled&#8221; to union representation as well as &#8220;enjoy&#8221; (or suffer ) the union-negotiated wages and benefits. This, however, is part of the problem with the foundation of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the enactment of both the RLA and NLRA, unions have been granted &#8220; monopoly bargaining power &#8221; privileges, or the ability (or right) to represent entire bargaining units (even those who don&#8217;t want the union). However, this fundamental problem cannot be addressed unless federal labor laws are entirely re-written or eliminated. The double-edged sword of monopoly bargaining power is that unions in Right-to-Work states are required to represent non-members as well as well as dues-paying members. To a union representative, it is frustrating to have a &#8220;free loader&#8221; demand a grievance be filed on his behalf over something as benign as a vending machine continually being broken and taking his money, all the while knowing that this individual will never join the union or pay union dues, not out of ideology, but because he is cheap. [Yes,  this actually happened .] The Upside of Right to Work. The economic impact of enacting Right-to-Work laws has been largely beneficial to those states as they do attract more business and incomes do rise. In that regard, because there is less union density in Right-to-Work states, unions decrying the fact that Right-to-Work entices companies to leave Non-Right-to-Work states is accurate. In Indiana&#8217;s case, according to one study : &#8230;if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, by 2008 per capita income would have been $2,925 higher—equating to $11,700 higher for a family of four.  Another way to put it: Indiana’s personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana’s lack of a right to work law. Related:   Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update Just as importantly, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states often use union dues to fund political activities to elect anti-business politicians [mostly Democrats] who, in turn, chase more businesses away by creating more burdensome regulations and higher taxes. Ironically, the more unions are successful in Non-Right-to-Work states, the more it hurts them by making &#8220;union states&#8221; less attractive to business investment and, as a result, less jobs are created (if not lost). [See California , for example.] The Downside to Right-to-Work. While Right-to-Work laws do have real economic benefits, unionized workplaces in those states are often rife with division between union dues payers and non-members. Very often, non-members in those workplaces are subject to harassment or harangued by union members and, occasionally, a &#8220;bounty&#8221; is placed upon them by union officials to try to get members to sign up non-members. In the 80s, our union paid between $15 and $25 per new member, although other unions pay more today. Legislative Action Vs. Ballot Initiative With Indiana&#8217;s passage of Right-to-Work legislation yesterday, the Hoosier State&#8217;s AFL-CIO boss, Nancy Guyott, shouted from the Statehouse steps , “We’ll take our state back, one citizen at a time! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” It is worthwhile to note this because, in Indiana&#8217;s case, the Right-to-Work legislation was passed over and above the tantrums of union-bought Democrats. During the fight inside the Statehouse, union-bought Democrats attempted to have Right-to-Work placed on the ballot in November. The purpose of this effort was simple. Union-bought Democrats like to ignore the fact that the United States is a Republican-form of Democracy. If given the opportunity to have Right-to-Work placed on November&#8217;s ballot, unions would spend tens of millions of their members&#8217; money on deceptive advertising to defeat the legislation, as well as to turn out votes for Barack Obama and against &#8220;those evil Republicans.&#8221; In effect, it is running two campaigns for the price of one. This brings us back to Ohio. Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio&#8217;s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio. With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November. In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again). Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio&#8217;s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton&#8217;s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years. Even though Ron Paul has been cagey on stating he would not run as a third-party candidate, his son, Rand Paul, has stated that it would be impractical, knowing that it would ensure an Obama victory. Hopefully, his Ohio supporters are as practical in that regard when it comes to placing Right-to-Work on November&#8217;s Ohio ballot. As the saying goes: &#8220;Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.&#8221; Or, in the case of Ohio, another way to put this is: Forego the battle for now, if it helps you win the war later. With the nation nearing $16 trillion in debt and owing $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, despite the legislature in Indiana winning Right to Work, putting a Right-to-Work initiative in Ohio is not worth the risk. Not now. Not this year. Related: Right-to-Work is a Bandaid &#8216;Collective Bargaining&#8217; is Compulsory Bargaining __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/a-former-union-thugs-take-on-right-to-work-whats-right-whats-not-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Give Me Your Money in the Name of Jesus</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fulfillment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ promoted from the diaries &#8220;Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program. It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.&#8221; This morning, in the middle of his campaign  National Prayer Breakfast speech, President Obama delighted those of us who love irony by quoting C.S. Lewis.  It was an interesting moment in a speech that put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. I mean, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right?  The idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of Jesus&#8217; teaching on charity is a common misconception that many people make, Christians included, and it&#8217;s the main reason that liberals believe conservatives are Christian hypocrites. Perhaps if the president visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might not be so confused. See, not only do we spend time praising God in church, we also gain insight from our pastors who have surely spent more time in the word of God than we have. While Obama may have been correct in saying that government mandated, shared responsibility is equal to the Islamic belief that those who&#8217;ve been blessed have an obligation  to use those blessings to help others, he is incorrect to group in Jesus&#8217; teaching, &#8220;for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.&#8221;  Aside from the fact that Jesus was discussing requirements from God, not the government, he was actually teaching his disciples that they were stewards of God’s gift of Revelation. Their requirement was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It&#8217;s the crux of Christianity that Obama seems to miss. Jesus came because we are imperfect.  We could never fulfill all the requirements that the pharisees loved to lord over the people. Jesus&#8217; coming ended the rule of law and the began the acceptance that our only way to God was through Him. Yes, Jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the poor, but as a reaction in joy to what we&#8217;ve been given; not because of a law. Giving out of obligation is not truly giving, it&#8217;s merely following the rules.  Just ask anyone who&#8217;s ever written a check to pay their taxes, I doubt you&#8217;d find them excited. The Bible also teaches that everything we have, including money, belongs to God. We are called to be good stewards with His money.  The government is the epitome of  mismanaging money. If you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out charities; but that would require a bit of work on the part of the giver and a great many find it easier to just let the government run every aspect of their lives. So it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club ATMs, and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder why government hasn&#8217;t solved the issue. Perhaps they should ask the 27 Democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores. Another highlight in Obama&#8217;s speech was his proud proclamation that his administration has partnered with Catholic charities to help those in poverty. I wonder if those charities are among the ones begging the Obama administration, to no avail, to change the recent ObamaCare edict requiring them to cover birth control costs in their healthcare even though it is against their religious beliefs to do so. Really, slapping them across the face would take less time and probably hurt less. I also really enjoyed when the president mentioned the half a million Americans who exercised their religious freedom to March for Life recently. Oh wait, he didn&#8217;t mention that. Overall, the president&#8217;s National Prayer Breakfast speech was much of what we have become quite familiar with hearing, but sprinkled with some Bible quotes that ultimately fail to give credibility to Obama&#8217;s socialist leanings.  Thankfully, President Obama did get it right in the end &#8211; God will continue to lead our nation, even after those that wish to tax us all into poverty use His word to do so. Follow @BreeanneHowe ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Give Me Your Money in the Name of Jesus</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fulfillment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-prayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ promoted from the diaries &#8220;Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program. It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.&#8221; This morning, in the middle of his campaign  National Prayer Breakfast speech, President Obama delighted those of us who love irony by quoting C.S. Lewis.  It was an interesting moment in a speech that put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. I mean, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right?  The idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of Jesus&#8217; teaching on charity is a common misconception that many people make, Christians included, and it&#8217;s the main reason that liberals believe conservatives are Christian hypocrites. Perhaps if the president visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might not be so confused. See, not only do we spend time praising God in church, we also gain insight from our pastors who have surely spent more time in the word of God than we have. While Obama may have been correct in saying that government mandated, shared responsibility is equal to the Islamic belief that those who&#8217;ve been blessed have an obligation  to use those blessings to help others, he is incorrect to group in Jesus&#8217; teaching, &#8220;for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.&#8221;  Aside from the fact that Jesus was discussing requirements from God, not the government, he was actually teaching his disciples that they were stewards of God’s gift of Revelation. Their requirement was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It&#8217;s the crux of Christianity that Obama seems to miss. Jesus came because we are imperfect.  We could never fulfill all the requirements that the pharisees loved to lord over the people. Jesus&#8217; coming ended the rule of law and the began the acceptance that our only way to God was through Him. Yes, Jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the poor, but as a reaction in joy to what we&#8217;ve been given; not because of a law. Giving out of obligation is not truly giving, it&#8217;s merely following the rules.  Just ask anyone who&#8217;s ever written a check to pay their taxes, I doubt you&#8217;d find them excited. The Bible also teaches that everything we have, including money, belongs to God. We are called to be good stewards with His money.  The government is the epitome of  mismanaging money. If you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out charities; but that would require a bit of work on the part of the giver and a great many find it easier to just let the government run every aspect of their lives. So it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club ATMs, and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder why government hasn&#8217;t solved the issue. Perhaps they should ask the 27 Democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores. Another highlight in Obama&#8217;s speech was his proud proclamation that his administration has partnered with Catholic charities to help those in poverty. I wonder if those charities are among the ones begging the Obama administration, to no avail, to change the recent ObamaCare edict requiring them to cover birth control costs in their healthcare even though it is against their religious beliefs to do so. Really, slapping them across the face would take less time and probably hurt less. I also really enjoyed when the president mentioned the half a million Americans who exercised their religious freedom to March for Life recently. Oh wait, he didn&#8217;t mention that. Overall, the president&#8217;s National Prayer Breakfast speech was much of what we have become quite familiar with hearing, but sprinkled with some Bible quotes that ultimately fail to give credibility to Obama&#8217;s socialist leanings.  Thankfully, President Obama did get it right in the end &#8211; God will continue to lead our nation, even after those that wish to tax us all into poverty use His word to do so. Follow @BreeanneHowe ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/give-me-your-money-in-the-name-of-jesus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Government is Playing Hide and Seek With Airfare Taxes</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BrennanShawna20</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tom graves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[travel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ When purchasing a product or service, we all like to see the itemized list of charges – one that separates the cost of the purchase from the share going to Uncle Sam through the form of taxes and fees.  Needless to say, government bureaucrats don’t like that.  They desire that we remain blissfully ignorant of government’s burden on our everyday lives.  This is one reason why they concocted the withholdings scheme for income tax collection.  Now, they are expanding their tentacles into commercial taxes so they can obfuscate the magnitude of taxes and fees on airfare purchases. Without much fanfare, the Department of Transportation (DOT) enacted a rule which requires airlines to ensconce all government taxes and fees in a single total advertised price with the fare.  For example, if you purchase a $350 plane ticket with $50 of taxes and fees, the DOT is demanding that the airline advertise the price as $400.  Airline passengers pay over a dozen taxes and fees on any given airplane ticket, but the government doesn’t want us to know that.  The rule was finalized last April, but only took effect last week. The timing of this rule is very fortuitous.  This week, Congress will finalize negotiations for a long-term FAA funding bill.  This bill authorizes the collection of all taxes – including taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and cargo –directed to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which provides the bulk of FAA funding.  As usual, Democrats want to spend more money on wasteful projects, and are all too hungry to increase aviation taxes.  What better way to leverage tax increases than by forcing airlines to hide their cost and to shoulder the blame for the perceived higher price tag at the top! This is yet another insidious plan to raise taxes and place unconstitutional mandates on private enterprise – all by administrative fiat.  It must be stopped in its tracks.  Today, conservative Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) is introducing a bill, the Travel Transparency Act, which will void the DOT rule, and demand that passengers have the right to view all the aviation taxes in separate line items for each ticket purchased.  Graves asserted that “the federal government should not be inserting itself in the private sector to limit consumers’ ability to see how much they’re getting taxed. If the American people can’t see these costs clearly, I fear it will be easier these fees and taxes to be raised without their knowledge.” Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who used to be a Republican, defended the rule as a necessary means to ensure that passengers are treated with &#8220;dignity and respect.&#8221;  The only thing this rule will accomplish is ensuring that passengers retain their &#8220;respect&#8221; for government, while blaming the airlines for perceived increases in ticket prices. At present, airline passengers are on the hook for at least 16 different taxes and fees on the average airline ticket.  Additionally, they must incur the most harmful backdoor tax; the high cost of jet fuel resulting from decades of anti-energy growth policies.  We must ensure that the existing taxes remain transparent so that Congress will have a harder time sneaking through new tax increases.  Please ask your member of Congress to cosponsor Tom Graves’s Travel Transparency Act. Cross-posted to The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/the-government-is-playing-hide-and-seek-with-airfare-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CBO’s Budget Report: Perennial Debt for Generations</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/cbos-budget-report-perennial-debt-for-generations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/cbos-budget-report-perennial-debt-for-generations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payroll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social-security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/cbos-budget-report-perennial-debt-for-generations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ “The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline.” The budget season has officially commenced today with CBO’s release of its annual budget and economic outlook.  Here are some of the major takeaways from the report: FY 2012 Budget The topline figure that the media will focus on is the projected $1.070 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, down from $1.3 trillion last year.  However, as CBO notes several times throughout the report, the reduction in this year’s deficit is predicated on several assumptions. 1)      Revenues :  The entirety of this year’s deficit reduction comes from higher projected revenues, roughly $220 billion.  CBO is forced to score current law, which assumes that the payroll tax cut will expire at the end of February.  Another 10-month extension, which is almost a forgone conclusion, would cost over $100 billion.  Also, the CBO baseline does not include a likely AMT patch, and extension of many annual “tax extenders,” such as the credit for research and development.  It’s very likely that the extensions will wipe out the entire revenue gain from this year over 2011, thereby eliminating the reduction in the deficit. 2)      Outlays :  CBO is projecting $3.601 trillion in spending, up just $3 billion from last year.  Obviously, this projection does not account for a full-year extension of unemployment benefits and doc fix, which could add as much as $70 billion to this year’s spending total. 3)      Defense :  Outlays for defense will be reduced by another $20 billion. When these factors are accounted for, it is clear that non-defense discretionary spending will not decrease significantly, while mandatory spending will continue to rise.  If you assume the alternative scenario, in which most of the temporary tax and spending measures are extended, the deficit should be about the same as last year; around $1.3 trillion.  In other words, there will be slightly more revenue this year, but increased spending as well. 10-Year Budget Frame: 2013-2022: Over the next 10 years, CBO is projecting $41.179 trillion in spending and $44.251 trillion in revenue, for a deficit of $3.072 trillion.  The $3 trillion figure is a real lowball estimate of our projected debt for several reasons.  Under that scenario, our annual deficits would dip to $450 billion in just two years, and stay below $400 billion indefinitely.  They are assuming rosy pictures of revenue increases, along with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.  Furthermore, CBO notes, that Medicare and Medicaid spending have always increased above expectations, and with Obamacare taking effect, the real cost of healthcare spending will blow out the budget deficits – way beyond $3 trillion. Another important long-term factor is interest on the debt.  At present, interest rates are at historic lows, but they will eventually revert back to their historic norms.  That could add several trillion more to the 10-year deficit. The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline. Economic Outlook CBO is projecting more stagnation for the next few years.  For 2012, they are seeing 2% GDP growth and 8.9% unemployment.  For 2013, they are projecting a pullback to just 1.1% growth and a spike in unemployment to 9.2%.  With these bleak economic figures, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which revenues increase substantially and spending on welfare programs decline (as projected by the report).  How can revenues go from 16% of GDP to 20% in just two years, even without the extension of tax cut provisions?  Then again, it’s all a moot point.  Budget deficits tend to be much higher than the figures projected in CBO reports, in part, due to some of the aforementioned factors. Social Security Social Security is, by far, the largest expenditure for the foreseeable future.  This year, SS outlays will top $770 billion, accounting for 21.3% of the entire federal budget for FY 2012.  From 2013-2022, SS spending will top $10.5 trillion, almost 24% of the budget.  On the revenue side, Social Security taxes will only rise $627 billion this year and $8.9 trillion over 10 years.  Once again, this projection does not factor in any future payroll tax cuts. Another noteworthy point is that the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2016. Remember that the Social Security Trust Fund is a notional accounting gimmick and is nonexistent.  Consequently, every penny of SS benefits that is not covered from the payroll tax will augment our deficit.  The real question is why one quarter of the budget is consumed by a program that should be controlled by the individual.  Why are we bankrupting our future for a program that offers a worse rate of return than private accounts, which would not cost the government and future generations of Americans a penny? Medicare Gross Medicare spending, the second largest domestic spending program, will reach $560 billion this year and $7.8 trillion over 10 years.  Net Medicare spending (subtracting $1.2 trillion in offsetting revenues from premium payments from seniors) will be about $6.55 trillion.   This year’s outlays would have been higher if not for a shift in certain payments from fiscal year 2012 into fiscal year 2011 because the first scheduled date for payments to health plans in 2012 fell on a weekend.  Revenues from the Medicare payroll tax will only bring in roughly $2.8 trillion – and that is including the payroll tax increases under Obamacare.  As such, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, which is funded by payroll taxes, will be exhausted in 2022. Now that it is incontrovertibly clear that government has failed at controlling healthcare and retirement costs, is it too much to ask that we allow personal ownership and the free-market to get a bite at the apple? Liberals always complain that seniors will be left to their own devices under our policies.  Judging by the future debt figures, I think we would all rather be on our own, as opposed to shouldering the burden of crushing debt payments. Cross-posted to The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/cbos-budget-report-perennial-debt-for-generations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>All the President&#8217;s Props</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/all-the-presidents-props/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/all-the-presidents-props/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ebliversidge</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital-gains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ener1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pepsi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warren buffett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealthiest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/all-the-presidents-props/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Last week's State of the Union address was a sad and pathetic affair, full of transparent rhetoric and demagoguery, brimming with incandescent hypocrisies, variegated with an expansive assortment of half-truths and lies, palled by a mediocrity that almost seemed intentional, detached from reality like an unmoored hot-air balloon that slowly ascends to the heavens, stuffed with dense and infuriating arrogance, and draped over our nation like a several-sizes-too-small coat with promises and ideas rendered diminutive in the shadow of the historical moment. All this was clear last Tuesday night. And yet somehow over the past week, the address actually grew worse. The president's speech was less a factual information session about the current American condition than it was a mawkish parade of political images and symbols, meant to make us identify with the president's vision and feel at safe harbor with his leadership. It was less a speech than a play, lavish with props and masquerading actors tasked with immersing the audience in an alternate version of reality. But over the past week, key scenes of the drama have fallen apart. The president now looks less like a seasoned political actor than like Quince at the end of A Midsummer Night's Dream , farcically fumbling his lines. One of the supporting thespians was the Indiana-based electric car battery-maker Ener1, whose subsidiary EnerDel received a $118.5 million grant under the stimulus bill. EnerDel was also showered with more than $4 million in federal gifts under the Bush Administration. The scrappy little green boutique was meant to symbolize the flowering benefits of the sort of business-government handshaking that the rest of the civilized world calls "crony capitalism." "In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries," Obama declared last Tuesday. Precisely two days later, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company had been an encore actor in the president's campaign theatrics. Almost one year ago, Vice President Joe Biden visited the Ener1 facilities, effervescent about the administration's promise to airlift 1 million electric cars onto the road by 2015. That pledge has since crashed on the shoals of reality and the cardboard prop that is Ener1 has blown over. Watching Ener1 fold, it's hard not to recall that last great monument to the progress of the green revolution: Solyndra. President Obama lauded that company in his 2010 State of the Union and it promptly imploded last year. One imagines executives at Pepsi placing urgent phone calls to the White House, encouraging the president to mention Coca-Cola in next year's address. If you're employed by a business receiving checks from the Department of Energy, you may want to dash off a few copies of your résumé this afternoon. But the star of the State of the Union show, the leading lady, was Warren Buffett's Secretary. "Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary," Obama declared. "Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else -- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans?" So central was Warren Buffett's Secretary to the performance, she attended as the special guest of the president and belle of the ball, standing in the audience as a quiet testament to the grinding, Dickensian class divide that darkens the backstreets and alleys of modern America. Warren Buffett's Secretary was played by Debbie Bosanek, who is Warren Buffett's actual secretary, and who makes between $200,000 and $500,000 per year, according to the calculations of Paul Roderick Gregory over at Forbes . It was a brilliant dramatic portrayal. While Bosanek herself is a creature of the upper classes, she effortlessly slipped into the part of Warren Buffett's Secretary, a downtrodden proletarian exploited by the tax code, reminiscent of Peggy Olson in Mad Men . This, by the way, presents a knotty conundrum for progressives. If Gregory's deductions are correct, then Bosanek is likely a member of that charter club known as the "wealthiest 2%," a coven of blackhearted plunderers and blue-blooded aristocrats that looted the country for all it was worth in 2008. Progressives have demanded higher taxes on the wealthiest 2%, yet hailed Bosanek as an overtaxed hero. They've blamed the wealthiest 2% for all the nation's ills, but hoisted up this secretary as an emblem of justice in the class wars. Well, which is it? Should we add her image to the Two Minutes Hate tape, or no? And should we raise her taxes? Lower them? Maybe we should just raise everyone's taxes. The overarching themes pervading the president's State of the Union drama were America's greatness and stifling inequality. America was great when it allowed for the president's accomplishments, like killing Osama bin Laden. But when it came to the president's failures, most notably three years of a doldrums job market, it was all the fault of that yawning canyon of economic class. Wealthy Americans -- for whom Debbie Bosanek's membership application is still pending -- were cast as the villains, cackling all the way to their banks with insufficiently punitive Treasury receipts. The only solution was to sock it to them, specifically with a 30% net tax on millionaires. This (along with solar batteries) was the Big Idea, the great glowing light bulb of the president's address. And according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times , it would raise $30 billion in revenue -- and that's assuming that the sledgehammer of adding yet another tax didn't further stall the economy. Of course, $30 billion isn't immaterial, but the Tea Party Caucus could cut that much from the federal budget during a bad hangover. Meanwhile, the national debt is $15.2 trillion . And Democrats have already booby-trapped the tax code for the wealthiest Americans. With current tax rates set to expire at the beginning of 2013, taxes on capital gains will shoot up from 15% to 20%. And thanks to a pernicious little slice of the Obamacare legislation, taxes on capital gains will further increase to almost 24% in 2013. All this will happen unless the federal government takes action to prevent it. It's piquantly fitting, isn't it? If the president wants to see tax rates tighten for millionaires, his easiest course is simply to get reelected. But I regret that I've disposed of two paragraphs trying to refute the president's numbers when the numbers are nugatory here. Obama is fully aware that his tax increase would do little to arrest the deficit and less to catalyze the economy. His purpose is to blacken the wealthy into villains and portray himself as the eminently reasonable hero; to siphon all the laws and details of politics and economics into a simple, dramatic dichotomy and cast himself on the side of good. He is, with total self-awareness, jousting with phantoms and trying to bring the rest of us along for the ride. It may make for a spectacular show, but at the end of the day, that's all it is: cheap lines and theatrics cluttering the stage floor. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/31/all-the-presidents-props/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

