Obamacare "Only" the 10th Biggest Tax Increase In History?
And virtually tied for the seventh biggest ever. Now, it's tempting to just let it go at that, because after all, getting the liberals to admit it's a very big tax increase is a win in itself. But let's take a harder look at the data. Note that the size of the tax increase is defined as a % of GDP. But what else do we note?
Seven of the nine previous largest tax increases in history came under Democratic presidents. And there's an asterisk next to the "Reagan" tax increase of 1982; it partially undid the Reagan tax decrease of 1981, so net between those two years, taxes were actually cut substantially. Realistically, the only tax increase by a Republican president that exceeds the Obamacare tax increase is the Bush I deal of 1990, and that only by a fraction of 1/100th of a percent.
It's pretty obvious, too, that if you look at it in raw dollar terms, the Obamacare tax increase is the largest ever, as the GDP was much smaller during those earlier tax increases. It may be the largest ever even in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. I haven't run the numbers, but it seems pretty likely just by eyeballing it.
The artist whose poster of Barack Obama became a rallying image during the hope-and-change election of 2008 says he understands why so many people have lost faith.
In an exclusive interview with National Journal on Thursday, Shepard Fairey expressed his disappointment with the president -- a malaise that seems representative of many Democrats who had great expectations for Obama.
Hah, gotta love this post from the Atlantic's politics editor:
In Fahrenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree. Today, as the nation's law enforcement agencies respond to an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as the cable news channels and news websites pull in reinforcements to cover the incident from all angles, President Obama has been silent.
In fact, he's been golfing. He received a counterterrorism briefing early this morning, Hawaii time, and moments later, left for the gym. The president's vacation activities might have become the subject of a fierce partisan fight -- but really, the only carping is coming from the usual suspects on the right.
Isn't that sort of the definition of partisanship? Does Ambinder feel that a fierce partisan fight is only partisan if the left joins in? Yes, because stooges like Ambinder are shilling for Obama. His decision to go to the gym and then later golfing is... wait for it... brilliant!
But an in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN'T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation).
Obama of course will say something at some point. Had the terrorist blown up the plane, it;s safe to assume that Obama would no longer be in Hawaii. In either case, the public will need presidential fortification at some point. But Obama is willing to risk the accusation that he is "soft" on terrorism or is hovering above it all, or is just not to be bothered (his "head's in the sand," or "golfing comes first,") in order to advance what he believes is the proper collective response to a failed act of terrorism.
This to me is the problem with the Democrat's formulation that terrorism can be treated as just another criminal matter. You know, someone gets killed, we investigate, indentify a suspect and have a trial. The problem with this is that instead of "someone" getting killed, we have hundreds killed (if the bomb had gone off), or even thousands killed (as on 9-11).
If I Were Shedding Pounds the Way Obama's Shedding Independents...
I'd be able to fit into my clothes from the 1980s. Scott Rasmussen talks about Obama's plummeting poll numbers:
A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president's efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.
In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That's one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.
The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn't a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.
This month's improvement in congressional approval is bipartisan, with approval among Democrats climbing from 36% to 47% and among Republicans edging up from 9% to 17%. Independents, however, buck that trend: moving from 16% to 14%, the percentage approving is the lowest it has been all year.
Not sure why Congress' approval rating jumped among the GOP, but that independent trend is quite noticeable; from 31% to 14% in about four months.
Well, with all the attention Obama's given lately to Dijon mustard on hamburgers, I thought I'd try it. After all, I'm an arugula-kind of guy and always willing to try something different. So I ordered one and when I looked at the way they'd spread the Dijon on the bun I was absolutely spooked:
I mean, it's he, it's the one, on a bun, no less. In Dijon! I mean, this could be worth millions on ebay. I've already got folks standing outside my house begging to see the Obama bun!
Heheh, sometimes I can't believe what a buffoon he is. He shows us this graph, showing Obama's Approve/Disapprove ratings among independents: And then this among Republicans:
And claims that the trends are quite different. But in fact if you look at the graphs closely they are actually quite similar. Concentrate on the red lines (showing Obama's disapproval ratings), without looking at the black lines, and you'll see very similar trends with more and more people disapproving of Obama every day. Is Andrew that deluded that he can't see it?
Check out this interesting paragraph in an article discussing whether the enhanced interrogation techniques were successful in stopping terrorist attacks on the United States:
For both sides, the political stakes are high, as proposals for a national commission to unravel the interrogation story appear to be gaining momentum. Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.
But if he succeeds in discrediting the techniques, maybe folks won't blame him. Yes, indeed the "political" stakes are high. Some (but not the Times) might point out that the non-political stakes are high as well.
Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.
Obama Sucks Up to Teachers Unions, Drops Kids from Program
This stinks to high heaven. There seems to be no doubt the program was working:
What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.
Well, you can imagine how embarrassing that result was to the public schools. So Obama's team gutted the program:
And now Secretary Duncan has applied a sly, political check-mate for the D.C. voucher plan.
With no living, breathing students profiting from the program to give it a face and stand and defend it the Congress has little political pressure to put new money into the program. The political pressure will be coming exclusively from the teacher’s unions who oppose the vouchers, just as they oppose No Child Left Behind and charter schools and every other effort at reforming public schools that continue to fail the nation’s most vulnerable young people, low income blacks and Hispanics.
I asked McCain what might happen if Obama and Orszag get their way. First, the U.S. could have to print a lot of new money, "running the huge risk of inflation and returning to the situation of the 1970s, only far worse," McCain said. The second option is to raise taxes.
Just this week, former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin conceded that Obama's budget could present a "scary scenario" that would "raise deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers." The solution, she wrote, is higher taxes, and not just for the richest of the rich.
Of course, that's what McCain said during the campaign. And it's what the much-maligned Joe the Plumber said, too. Remember when he took so much flak for objecting to Obama's plan to raise taxes only on those Americans making more than $250,000 a year? Joe didn't make anything near that, the critics said, so why was he worrying?
But I'm sure Bob will tell me that McCain was wrong and Obama was right. He certainly seems to be quite the Obama fan.
Update: Quoth the Bob: "Nope McCain is wrong about nearly everything but when it comes to talking of printing money and raising taxes he takes a backseat to no one."
I've kind of been ignoring the initial fumbles of the Obama Administration, but it is getting to the point that you gotta wonder if these guys are ever going to get their act together. USA Today lays out the stark reality of the budgets:
This brings us to Wednesday's start of budget season on Capitol Hill, which featured an underwhelming display of short-term tinkering to whittle down the cost of President Obama's $3.7 trillion spending plan for 2010, coupled with some of the same old backsliding on the long-term problem.
Among other things, the Senate Budget Committee abandoned the useful discipline of laying out budget numbers for the next 10 years, opting instead for a five-year display that conveniently masks the fact that deficits are projected to rise after 2013.
There are limits to how much the government can borrow without consequence — a fact underscored Wednesday when the Treasury had unexpected trouble selling five-year notes to cover Washington's enormous borrowing. It might have been a hiccup, but it roiled the stock market and sent a worrying signal that Treasury might have to offer higher interest rates, which could throw a wrench into the recovery.
That's bad enough without the spectacle of the Secretary of the Treasury talking down the US dollar:
As if the dollar didn't have enough problems, Timothy Geithner took China's bait yesterday and said he was "quite open" to its suggestion this week to displace the greenback with an "international reserve currency." The dollar promptly fell and stocks followed, before the Treasury Secretary re-emerged to say "the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency. I think that's likely to continue for a long time."
Although Title 31, Sec. 5103 USC prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S., the President has the power to engage foreign governments in treaties, and the President is principally responsible for the interpretations and implementation of those treaties according to the Constitution. As a result, legislation prohibiting the President and Treasury from issuing or agreeing that the U.S. will adopt an international currency would need to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment differentiating a treaty used to implement an international currency in the U.S. from other types of treaty agreements.
Of course Geithner was not talking about replacing the dollar, he was talking about changing the dollar's status as the reserve currency. It was a boneheaded mistake, but Bachmann's now trying to conflate that with replacing the greenback inside the United States.
The administration is in a fully fledged staffing crisis: having lost a record ten high-profile picks, it has scores of senior executive jobs unfilled—including every single treasury position below the department’s top job. The head of Britain’s civil service, Gus O’Donnell, has complained about the trouble he’s had finding key administration personnel ahead of the G20 conference in April. “There is nobody there,” he said. “You cannot believe how difficult it is.” Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner looks terrified before executives and television cameras alike. Five months after the election he has yet to deliver a plan for the banking system, much less restructure a single financial asset.
Update: Here's more of Bachmann's finest:
She's looking for constitutional provisions from Geithner? Look, Geithner's an amateur as has become clear to everybody. But Bachmann's grandstanding with her "where in the Constitution" nonsense and she deserves to be called out on it. And her performance with Bernanke is absolute conspiracy nuttery and I'm not going to apologize for slamming her for it.
Update II: No kidding, these are defenses of Bachmann from purportedly responsible conservative blogs:
However, Greg Sargent spoke with Debbee Keller, Bachmann's spokesperson, and she said that the resolution only applied to the introduction of a foreign currency unit inside the United States. The proposal has no implications for limiting the introduction of a new international reserve currency to replace the dollar as the premiere unit of global finance.
Oh, okay. Glad we've banned the use of Pesos or Ameros or Whateveros in America, but we're happy to have it as the reserve currency for the world? Remember, this is another conservative blog supporting Bachmann.
Yeah. It must be that old conspiracy theory that Mexico is going to take over the United States using NAFTA and impose the “Amero” as a currency replacement while also (gasp!) constructing roads!!!!
It appears Ron Paul finally has a fellow traveler in the loony wing of the U.S. Congress.
Michele Bachmann is the Republican Representative of Minnesota’s 6th congressional district. She really dislikes the ideal of a global currency! You can read her biography below, see photos and watch a video.
The point is that we should be fighting Obama about the obvious, which is the insane spending he's proposing, the carbon taxes, the universal health insurance. Idiots like Bachmann fighting Obama over a global currency are just diverting attention from the real battle, and making us look like idiots precisely at a time when we need to be disciplined.
And that could be an issue in a nation where seven of the last eight presidential elections have been won by the candidate widely perceived as cooler, more likable, more popular: Reagan, Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Bush (arguably primarily for these reasons), Bush, and Obama. (I consider the 1988 election a draw in terms of uncoolness.)
Let's think about this for a second. Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who finished sixth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, or the guy who was the president of Harvard Law Review? Who's more likely to be cool, a fighter jet pilot or a "community organizer"? Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who married the daughter of the local beer distributor, or the guy who married a lawyer?
Heck, I didn't vote for the guy, but one of the things I found endearing in him was that he acknowledged his geekiness. Remember this photo of him?
Now that's some major geekage there. And that's okay; a forty-something dad out for a ride with his family (that metal contraption at the back was attached to his daughter's bike) is not supposed to be cool.
I apologize for the light posting lately; none of the hot stories has inspired me to have a take. But over at Marathon Pundit, my longtime blog-buddy John Ruberry has been all over the Rod Blagojevich story. John's an Illinois resident and has been tracking Obama and Blago for years, so you know you'll get more insight over there. Check it out!
If you remember, that was the question for most of the winter and spring of this year. Despite having a mathematical advantage over Hillary, Obama found himself unable to seal the deal until after the primaries were over.
Of course, eventually he became the nominee and must currently be considered the most likely next President. But are there cracks in that confident, self-assured demeanor? Over at Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat dismisses recent polling:
DKos/R2000 has Obama by 7, 50-43. This is down significantly from Obama's consistent double digit leads in this poll. Rasmussen has Obama steady - with a 5 point 50-45 lead for the fourth consecutive day. Hotline actually trends towards Obama, up 2 for a 10 point 50-40 lead, UPDATE - Hotline today - narrows to 7. IBD/TIPP has Obama by 5, 46-41. Battleground has Obama by 4.
The question is the spread now. Obama will win. The last debate did nothing significant for McCain. Downticket should be our focus now.
Translation: There's no real reason for McCain to be rallying right now, so it doesn't matter. Really? I think the fact that there's no specific reason could be quite a cause for concern for Obama partisans. Note that most of the polls have not shown Obama breaking the 50% barrier. I've talked about this a lot in the past but this is a systemic problem for the Democrats. Do you know who the last Democrat was to get 50.1% of the general election vote or better?
Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Carter got 50.08%, and Clinton never managed 50% (partly because of Ross Perot). In that same period of time, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I and Bush 2004 all managed better than 50%.
"I want you to believe," said the candidate, clad in an open-necked shirt and barn jacket. "Not so much believe just in me but believe in yourselves. Believe in the future. Believe in the future we can build together. I'm confident together we can't fail."
There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: "I promise you. We won't just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we're going to change the country and change the world."
Oh, Lord. A barn jacket? Anybody remember Kerry in the barn jacket?
For the silly article of the day, check out this suggestion that what the GOP needs in 2012 is North American Union fruitcake Lou Dobbs:
This suggests that if Obama wins, the real political energy in the country over the next several years may come from a new populist political force. Would someone challenge Obama from the left? Unlikely. But already there are arguments from such political theorists as Michael Barone and Steve Sailer that the cheap mortgages, which led to the housing crisis, which precipitated the financial crisis, were directly related to the immigration boom. Such arguments are made-to-order for someone like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who has recently been railing against the lackluster efforts to solve the financial crisis with gusto, much as he attacks the government's failures to enforce immigration laws.
In other words, Dobbs -- or a counterpart -- is likely to be a "third party" political force to watch after November 4. That's not politics as usual. But neither is the era we're now facing.
"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.
Gosh, the AP reports, there's no evidence they were pals. Just because they served on some board together, just because Obama launched his political career at their home, why would anybody think they are pals. As for the racial angle:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
Yeah, I don't get it either. Apparently you're not allowed to criticize a black presidential nominee.
As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
And yet he would not vote for it. Un-freaking believable.
And what they mean for his potential presidency are covered here:
As a young college graduate immersed in the world of tax-bankrolled activism, Obama adopted the big-government ethos that prevailed among neighborhood organizers who viewed attempts to reform poverty programs as attacks on the poor. Speaking to an alternative weekly on the eve of his 1995 run for state senate, Obama said—in language that his wife, Michelle, would echo years later—that “these are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress.” He derided the “old individualistic bootstrap myth” of American achievement that conservatives were touting. Self-help strategies “have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda,” he wrote in a chapter that he contributed to a 1990 book, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. (He also depicted leftist community organizing as a harder task than similar efforts by the Christian Right, telling a reporter in 1995 that “it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness and false nostalgia.”)
This will be a continuing watch on the efforts by the denizens of loony leftville to raise Obama to the level of Jesus Christ. It's easily the creepiest thing I've seen in politics as yet, and it's everywhere.
Consider this tee shirt:
What would Obama do? He'd probably buy up a million of these posters and blanket the sky with them:
What's next, little statuettes of Obama's mother for the dashboard of the car?
Here's one of my favorites:
See, Obama's got this drawer where his stomach is supposed to be and when he pulls it open, doves and butterflies fly out. Note the hands of the girl at the left are in the praying position.
