Obama Breaks Another Campaign Promise

Like I was sayin… I hope you all really didn’t believe what I was sayin…

The Obama administration is pulling back on another campaign promise.  During the campaign, Obama promised to post bills on-line for 5 days before signing them.

However, just like many other promises he made during the campaign, he is pulling back from this one.

Shortly after swearing in, the administration started talking about posting non-emergency bills for 5 days.  Now they are talking about posting before they pass congress.  This is somewhat a hollow gesture as you can go to the congress web sites now and see the bills.

There is a good post and link about this over on the Conservative Patriot HQ.

Once again, hope and change are falling very short of the mark.

Global Warming and Truth in Advertising

As congress moves closer to drafting and passing a cap and trade bill, Americans need to understand that they are the victims of a giant hoax.

There is a great post over at the Conservative Patriot HQ discussing this topic.  Our media and government seem to want to ignore that fact that man made global warming claims are dubious at best.  Most of the studies ignore evidence to the contrary or skip the peer review process all together.

Soon, Americans will be burdened with a massive energy tax that will cripple our economy.  The question is, are we going to let this happen?

More Bad News from the Most Ethical Congress Ever

Like I was sayin… if this is the most ethical congress ever, we are in trouble.

Not long ago, Nancy Pelosi promised the most ethical congress every.  Before and since then, there have been all sorts of issues some ignored by the MSM like this story commenting on Chris Dodd’s ethical lapses.

Interestingly enough, I haven’t heard much about this.  As the referenced post indicated, when Sen. Ted Stephens got some construction work for favors and didn’t disclose it, the story was front page news.

Thankfully, we all have blogs that we can follow to keep up with stuff like this.

Obama was for the Bridge to Nowhere before he was for it.

Like I was sayin… people in glass houses…

The Obama campaign has been making a lot of noise recently about Gov. Palin’s support for the infamous bridge to nowhere before seeing the light and taking a stand against it.

The interesting thing is that both Senators Obama and Biden were for it even when given a chance to shift the funds from the bridge to Katrina relief.  Why on earth would the Obama campaign be pushing this story when they can be tied to being for it and even voted to keep it when given the chance to move the funds to help the victims of hurricane Katrina?

Given that most of the media won’t put this information out there, I believe that the Obama campaign believes that they won’t be called on it.  It will be interesting to see what the discussion happens in all the blogs.

It’s Time to Soak the Rich

Like I was sayin… sometimes less is more.

You have been hearing it all the time lately.  John Edwards spoke of two Americas and Barack Obama is promising to make the rich “pay their fair share” of taxes.

Recent data from the IRS shows an interesting way to make this happen.  In 1990, long before the dreaded Bush tax cuts that allowed millions of Americans pay less in taxes to a bloated government, the top 1% of earners only paid 25% of the taxes.  Since the Bush tax cuts, what do you think they pay now?  21%? 19%? 15%?  In 2005, the total share of the tax burden on the evil 1% has changed from 25% in 1990 to 39% in 2005.  That’s right, since the tax cuts, the top 1% has seen their tax burden increase.

Ah, but surely the tax breaks must have gone to the rich as we hear our democrat leaders declare all the time.  Perhaps the top 5% got all the tax break…  Well, in 1990, the top 5% paid 44% of the total tax burden and in 2005, they paid 60%.  You are reading that correctly.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of the taxes.

Surely the poor got soaked in all this because the media and the democrats keep telling us that is what happened.  However, the bottom 50% of earners paid only 2.9% of the taxes which is the lowest percentage ever.  That means that the top 50% of earners pay 97.1% of the taxes.

It seems that when you cut taxes across the board, “the rich” end up paying more of the total tax burden.  I for one say we stick it to them again by another round of tax cuts.  Heck, let’s really show them by cutting taxes across the board AND cutting spending.

Dems Fail to Place Cap on Profits

Like I was sayin… you can’t put a ceiling on success.  Today, the Dem run congress failed to get enough votes to push forward a tax on oil company profits that go above a certain level.

According to Dick Durbin the No. 2 Dem in the Senate, “The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy”.  My question is, who sets that limit?  The government?  Aside from the obvious issues, there are several things that need to be considered with this effort.

First, the cost of taxes are passed on to the consumer.  The tax would not take away from the oil companies, but take away from the gas buying public.  Do we really need to pay more for gas?

Secondly, the taxes wouldn’t lower oil company profits (which the government doesn’t have the right to do), but rather would most likely lower production which would also increase prices.  A basic tenet of economics is that when demand goes up and supply goes down, price goes up.

The other scary thing about this thinking is who is the next target?  Do I make too much profit?  Can my excess money somehow help the economy if they take it away from me?  The congress does have the right to levee taxes, but does not have the right to determine how much profit a company can make.

The Dems do have one thing right in this fight.  Durbin indicated that if something isn’t done to bring down prices, “we’re going to find ourselves in a deep recession.”  Perhaps he should consider increasing supply by allowing domestic drilling and expanding processing capacity.  Going back to economics 101, if supply goes up, the price goes down. 

With all the push to bring down prices, you would think that they would stop blocking efforts to increase supply.  We haven’t substantially expanded a refinery or built a new one in decades due to government interference.  It has gotten to the point that foreign countries have started drilling off of our coasts since we won’t.

America does need to have a long term strategy to move away from oil and other fossil fuels.  But taxing oil companies doesn’t move us in this direction. 

Carter to Support Obama?

(April 05, 2008) – Like I was sayin… when it rains it pours.  Former President and super delegate Jimmy Carter has hinted that he will support Obama for the next president.

As the Clinton campaign fights to maintain a lead in PA, convince “super” delegates to support her, and looks to find ways to steal some of Obama’s pledged delegates, there are more and more indications that it just might be over soon.

While speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Jimmy Carter indicated that he might be an Obama supporter.  Carter indicated that his children and grandchildren are all pro-Obama.  He went on to say that as a “super delegate“, he won’t say who he supports, but that the reporters could probably make a guess.

Clinton has indicated that she will continue to fight on even to the dem convention floor if needed.  Based upon recent trends, I would venture to say that the dems will have a very interesting primary on their hands.

Every Vote Counts, Unless You Voted for Obama

(April 4, 2008) – Like I was sayin… some people will do anything to win.  Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is looking to pick up a few more votes.  The problem is these votes already belong to Obama.

As the Dem party tries to avoid a fracture, Hillary Clinton looks to push the party over the brink.  Not only does she believe that she legitimately won Michigan when she was the only candidate on the ballot, but now she believes that she is entitled to some of the delegates that Obama won in other states.

In a fund raiser the other day, Clinton indicated that she might look to persuade some Obama pledged delegates to switch to voting for her.  When Dem voters cast their ballots in the primary elections, the percentage of votes are split among the delegates.  So if Obama wins a state 60% to 40% and a state has 10 delegates, 6 delegates go to the convention to vote for Obama and 4 go to vote for Clinton.

However, the rules don’t state who the delegates must vote for.  The delegates are however, selected on their loyalty.  The way it is supposed to work is that you are basically voting for who you want to go to the convention and vote for the nominee. 

The same thing happens in the general election.  If the Dems win your state, then the Dem party selects a number of people equal to the number of electoral college delegates to officially cast their votes for president.

Clinton hinted that since the rules don’t state who they must vote for, she can go after them and get them to switch.  So if Obama won your state 60/40 getting 6 of the delegates, Hillary would like some of those 6 to vote for her at the convention overturning the will of the voters.

In her remarks, she indicated that the delegates should support who they think is the best person to win regardless of what the voters want.  Is this the type of person we want leading our country? 

Does she feel the same about the general election?  If the dems win the White House by a slim electoral margin, is it ok for some of the delegates to switch to McCain because they believe he might be able to better answer the phone at 3:00 a.m.?

For those of you that lean toward supporting democrats, is this they type of country you support?  Your party has a process in place to overturn your votes by having super delegates.  Now you have a candidate that could win that believes it doesn’t matter what the voters want, but what a select few believe is best.

This calls Clinton’s character into question as it is doubtful that she believe that if she wins the white house, it would be ok for the delegates to cast their votes for McCain and overturn the election.  However, she probably believes that it would be ok if McCain wins that the delegates switch to her or Obama putting the dems in the white house.

I do not believe that this is the kind of “experience” we want in the White House.

More calls for Hilliary to drop out

(March 29, 2008) – Like I was sayin… it ain’t over until the lady sings.  More and more prominent democrats are calling for Hillary Clinton end her campaign for the dem nomination.

In the last few days, several prominent democrats have urged Clinton to bow out clearing the way for an Obama nomination.  Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Patrick Lehey have both indicated that they believe there is no way for Clinton to secure the nomination and have called for her to end her campaign. 

This week, speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi urged the “super delegates” to back whomever has the most popular votes.  The DNC chairman, Howard Dean, has called for the “super delegates” to declare which candidate they support by July 1st in an effort to avoid a nasty convention floor battle.

Clinton has vowed to keep up the fight even to the floor of the DNC convention.  The DNC would like to avoid a nasty fight which would turn off independents as well as some dem voters.  However, Clinton will not bow out so easily.

John McCain seems to be benefiting from this the most.  As the two dem candidates continue to take shots at each other, they unwittingly provide McCain ammunition for the general election.  This week, Clinton put forth the argument that Obama has received the most cash from companies involved in the sub-prime mortgage business.  That is debatable depending upon how you slice the data, but in any case, McCain received the least cash from those companies compared to Clinton and Obama.

It will be interesting to see how far the dems are willing to drag their party down in order to secure the nomination.

Clinton and Obama spar over Sub-Prime Donations

(March 28, 2008) – Like I was sayin… the devil is in the details.  Yesterday, Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of taking more cash from the companies involved in the current sub-prime mess.

 However, it depends on how you slice the list of donors.  Here is a great article from the WSJ that breaks it down.  Apparently, if you limit the list to the top 10 issuers of sub-prime mortgages on different dates, either Clinton or Obama received the most.

The problem that the Clinton Campaign overlooked is that over all, Clinton has received slightly more money from the sub-prime industry with $2.8 million for Clinton and $2.67 million for Obama.  On a side note, John McCain only received $1.28 million.

It is almost unbelievable that the Clinton Machine would make such a mistake by trying to point this out.  Firstly, they have received more money from sub-prime players than Obama.  Do they really still believe that people will just take what Clinton says as the truth without checking it out?  In the past this may have been the case, but will the popularity of Obama, the Clintons can no longer rely on the MSM to push the Clinton agenda across the board.

Secondly, with either Obama or Clinton facing McCain in November, this is a gift to McCain as if taking donations from companies that make bad financial decisions is wrong, McCain comes out the best.

This just seems to be another miscalculation by the Clinton Campaign that will hurt them in the end.  It will also end up hurting the eventual Dem nominee.  Clinton has been accused of being willing to do anything to win and this seems to be the case even if it drags down her party.