Archive for May 15th, 2010

epic fail obama rides the Greek saddle: Cavalry to the rescue?

May 15, 2010

After crusading for an $800 billion “stimulus” bill in 2009 and ramming through a trillion-dollar health care overhaul in 2010, the Obama administration wants to spend yet more of your money — in Greece. Entitlement-mania in that nation has cost more drachmas than it could raise in the next 50 years, and the U.S. Spender-in-Chief wants to lend a hand — yours. Here’s how: Of the $145 billion Greek bailout passed early this month, $40 billion will come from the International Monetary Fund. And guess where the IMF receives a big chunk of its money? You, again. Economist Stephen Moore writes, “Last year, the Obama administration muscled through a new authorization of $100 billion in funding for the IMF.” So first, the Obama administration pushed to fund the IMF; then, it pushed to bail out Greece using IMF funding. Welcome to Obamanomics.

Fed up with the fiscal insanity, 45 House Republicans have signed a letter urging Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to prevent American tax dollars from supporting the bailout. Tellingly, no Democrats signed the letter.

The spendthrifts in Washington may not “get it,” but our friends across the Pond apparently do. Explaining Britain’s refusal to help fund the bailout, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling stated, “When it comes to supporting the euro, that is for the eurogroup countries.” What a thought.

Then we have…

Like the Sword of Damocles hanging over our collective heads, the national debt stands ready to cleave the central government’s fiscal credit ratings. It’s no longer a question of “if” the government’s credit rating will be reduced to the same junk bond level as Greece’s, but merely a question of “when.” While there is no bright line to notify the government how much debt is too much, what is certain is that investors will soon command higher yields for holding risky U.S. debt instruments. When that happens, the federal government will be forced to pay much, much more to continue borrowing more money than it takes in.

Moody’s Investors Service sovereign ratings analysis is shining much needed sunlight to disinfect our government’s spending problem. Their analysis suggests that the federal government’s credit score will be severely downgraded somewhere between 2013 and 2018. The key indicator for Moody’s is the point at which the interest paid by the government for existing debt hits 18 to 20 percent of federal revenue, the government will lose its AAA rating. Under the rosiest of scenarios predicted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for Barack Obama’s budget, interest will top 18 percent of revenue by 2018 and 20 percent by 2020. Under more adverse scenarios than the narrow factors CBO considered, including higher interest rates, Moody’s projects interest may hit 22.4 percent by as soon as 2013.

Rather than waiting for re-evaluation by Moody’s, investors may instead choose to punish the government and trigger an increase in rates in advance of any ratings changes. As long as Democrats remain in charge of the government, we can predict their response will be no different from what precedes: Raise taxes instead of cut spending. That and regulating with newly introduced legislation independent credit rating agencies like Moody’s so that they can’t downgrade the U.S.’s rating.

SOURCE

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: drinking the obama kool aid

May 15, 2010

It has always been the Left’s dream to disarm the United States and redistribute to their various constituency groups the money thus “saved.” That dream is apparently coming true. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is responsible for ensuring that the U.S. military can protect the nation from all potential enemies, recently told the Navy League that we “don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs.” Which would be true, if rowdy teenagers were the only naval threat. But sadly, it appears that Gates, at one time a highly respected intelligence and defense official, has drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. Unbelievably, Gates also said, “At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers.” Since when has the Obama regime, which tosses around trillions of dollars like Monopoly money, cared how much something costs?

Following on the heels of the canceled F-22 Raptor program, a stripped-down missile defense program, and cancellation of nuclear arsenal modernization, this is another clear signal that Obama intends to gut constitutionally mandated defense spending in order to fund his vision of an unconstitutional and socially “just” utopia. The Chinese dragon must be licking its chops.

SOURCE

Mullah Omar: Why so quiet MSM..?

May 15, 2010

Here’s some news that may not have reached you: Mullah Omar has been captured. Omar is a Taliban founder and leader, and a top ally of Osama bin Laden, but based on the lack of national news coverage, you might think he was just a low-level grunt. The State Department had a bounty of up to $10 million on Omar for sheltering bin Laden before, during and after 9/11. As Jed Babbin, a former Air Force officer who served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H. W. Bush administration, writes, “The reported Pakistani capture of Taliban founder and overall leader Mullah Omar is potentially a game changing event in the Afghanistan war, with profound implications for the stabilization of Pakistan.”

Not only could Omar provide information that would decimate — at least temporarily — the Taliban, but he also could reveal the extent to which Iran has supported it. However, as Babbin argues, “[W]e need to get the Pakistanis to delay giving him into US custody. That is contrary to our normal instincts, but this man — taken alive and brought to any US detention facility other than Guantanamo Bay — would be Mirandized and pushed into the civilian criminal justice system where he, and his ilk, manifestly don’t belong. We would be forfeiting months of probable success in interrogating him.” Actionable intelligence is key, so we have little time to lose.

SOURCE

The Side Effects of ObamaCare

May 15, 2010

The true scope of ObamaCare’s side effects continued to be divulged this week with the revelation of some little-known provisions in the law. The lab tests are back, and the prognosis isn’t good.

First, Section 9006 will force businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. Currently Forms 1099 are received by independent contractors and freelancers to document income beyond wages and salaries for work they perform for businesses and clients. Starting on Jan. 1, 2012, these forms will have to be issued not just to individuals, but to corporations as well. If a freelancer purchases any good or service worth more than $600, they must issue a 1099 to the business from which they made the purchase. This provision encompasses just a few lines in the 2,400-page law, but it will add millions of new tax documents to each year’s reporting.

Democrats defended the move based on their belief that it will put an end to some $300 billion per year in unreported income. Just think of all the tax revenue! Demos claim that this revenue will help fund continued tax cuts for small businesses. What they purposefully ignore is that the more complex the tax system grows, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to do business.

Meanwhile, the provision that allows adult “children” to remain on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26 has a surprise of its own. An estimated 1.2 million young adults are expected to join these plans after Sept. 23, and the Health and Human Services Department noted that premiums for the employers of those parents would rise about one percent in 2011 as a result. That’s on top of the 6 to 7 percent hike that employers are already expecting next year. Furthermore, coverage for young adults must be offered at the same level as for that of other dependents. They can neither be charged more, nor receive a lower level of benefits. Parents who purchase insurance for their adult children in the open market can expect to pay an additional $2,300 in premiums next year.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the health care plan will actually cost at least $115 billion more than estimated when it was signed into law. This pushes the law’s total cost well above $1 trillion over 10 years (though “unofficial” estimates are as high as $3.5 trillion) and erases the $100 billion in deficit “savings” that Barack Obama bragged about during the legislative debate. The CBO’s adjustment is necessary because Democrats didn’t include real numbers in various portions of the law that include administrative costs for actually implementing the program. Any figures the bill’s authors didn’t know at the time were simply replaced with the phrase “as needed.” The CBO has since had a chance to score these nebulous elements, and the president’s own budget office has told Congress to offset these new costs with spending cuts or tax increases. Gee, which option will they choose?

Obama audaciously issued a veto threat for any portion of the bill that comes in above the original cost estimate. Since we surely couldn’t believe him when he claimed that his health care takeover would actually save the country money, why would we begin to believe that he would veto any portion of legislation upon which he staked his political future?

Given all this, and given the many as-yet undiagnosed side-effects sure to come, we humbly suggest that the following FDA-type warning be read each time an Obama official mentions its crowning legislative achievement: Taking Hope ‘n’ Change may cause bloated budgets, irritated politics, nausea and heartburn. Unexplained costs could be a sign of a common but serious side effect of unbridled socialism.

SOURCE

The climate change bill: Another stupid bill on the hill, and more

May 15, 2010

The climate change bill, better known as cap-and-tax, was unveiled this week in the Senate. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are still determined to push this idiocy even though South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham recently walked away from the compromise they had crafted over the course of several months. The bill would tax large emitters of carbon emissions at $12 per ton, and it includes a mish-mash of regulations and subsidies for industries and transportation systems. Kerry and Lieberman yanked out the provision that called for expanding offshore drilling, hoping to make it more attractive in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. Investor’s Business Daily has a chart of new programs, studies and reports created by Kerry-Lieberman. It’s extensive. Without Graham on board, though, the bill won’t find nearly the support it could have previously received, so chances for passage are much slimmer.

Barack Obama has called for legislation that would raise the cap on damages for which oil companies such as BP would be responsible in the event of a spill or other accident. Currently at $75 million, bills in the House and Senate would raise the cap to $10 billion. Fortunately, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) blocked the Senate bill Thursday. But the president also wants to punish BP and other oil companies with an unconstitutionally retroactive one-cent-per-barrel tax hike to help pay for the cleanup of the Gulf. Of course, we all know who will pay that tax in the end — consumers at the gas pump.

Republicans are vigorously fighting Democrat attempts to restrict free speech by nullifying the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision that struck down certain corporate restrictions on political campaign advertising. The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, seeks to force corporations and major donors to make on-air endorsements of political ads they fund. The bill would also place new measures on coordination of candidates and outside supporters.

In a frightening assault upon law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech and assembly, the Terrorist Expatriation Act (and here we thought TEA stood for “Taxed Enough Already”) was introduced in the House and Senate, stirring a vigorous debate that blurs the customary partisan lines on the issue. The bill, which has bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of Americans who ally themselves with “terrorist organizations.”

Supporters indicate that any American who signs up with a “terrorist group” basically rescinds his rights as a citizen in any event. Of course, why then should they be Mirandized? Revoking citizenship would block American “terror suspects” from (legally) re-entering the United States, and it would also make them eligible for military rather than civilian prosecution just when the Obama administration is moving real non-citizen terrorists into civilian courts. Concerns have arisen about the constitutionality of the measure, and skeptics believe that suspects would need to be convicted of a crime before their citizenship could be revoked. Since the Obama administration has already labeled conservative groups as “terrorist organizations,” TEA partiers and the like should check their visas.

SOURCE