Shocker! Mitt Romney Credited Obama in 2009 for Protecting our Financial System

Last week Wednesday - the day he received Jeb Bush’s endorsement - Mitt Romney had said the following:

"I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."

Nice to hear Romney give credit to Bush, however, he’s said the contrary only a short while after Obama became president and was extremely popular across a majority of the electorate. In remarks Romney made at the National Republican Senatorial Committee Spring Dinner on 03/31/09 he said the following:

“But I also think it is important for us to nod with the President when he’s right. He will not always be wrong. And he’s done some things that I agree with…. I think it’s a good thing for him to protect our financial system. It took Secretary Geithner a long, long time to figure how he was going to do that, and actually he has zeroed in on the bank rescue plan.”

Admittedly, majority of his speech was “severely conservative” since he was addressing a conservative audience. We know, however, that Mitt can talk conservative talk in the morning and switch to a liberal message several hours later. 

Coincidentally, the above comments came on Etch-A-Sketch Day, further highlighting the only consistent thing about Mitt Romney; his inconsistency.

Critics of Senator Santorum’s Economic Plan are entitled to their Own Opinions but not their Own Facts

A considerable number of conservatives have expressed criticism at Rick Santorum’s manufacturing plan. Incidentally, many of them have a horse in the race – someone other than Santorum - and that’s pretty understandable and perfectly fine. It’s still a free country where people may publicly disagree with the president and anyone else they so much as desire. When taking someone’s plan to task, though, it would be most beneficial to be factual especially if attempting to promote a rival candidate. If one’s disagreement is full of falsehoods and non-factual information then not only won’t they be successful in convincing many that their argument is correct, they present themselves to the public as possibly uninformed and more likely to be purposely misleading.

For those unfamiliar with Santorum’s "Made in America" Plan it is one portion of his economic plan and is in itself a lengthy and detailed plan. The Plan includes but is not limited to pushing for a balanced budget amendment, removing unnecessary burdensome regulations, granting permission to increase of energy production, providing authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, simplifying the tax code, reducing taxes to the Reagan-era pro-growth top tax rate, and completely eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers from 35% to 0%. For the complete details please check out the link provided above.

It is the last item I’ve mentioned – the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers - at which many have expressed their opposition and for a variety of reasons. I’ve decided to review the criticisms and then explain the facts surrounding this one aspect of Santorum’s economic plan, since lots of untruths are circulating.

A popular argument is the notion that Santorum is playing class warfare by favoring one group over the rest of the country. A second misconception which has circulated widely is that his plan favors big unions. A third criticism often put out is that the problem manufacturers face is not increased taxes but burdensome regulations and that Santorum’s plan doesn’t address it. A fourth claim is that this is a minor tinkering of the tax code which will result in nothing but increased taxes in another sector to make up for the loss in federal income.

All of these complaints appear quite serious, except that none of them are based on the facts.

Firstly, Santorum’s plan is unrelated to class warfare. Class warfare is pitting the poor against the rich, employees against employers, and so forth. Class warfare is usually achieved through placing a strong emphasis on the bounty others have and comparing it to the state of those who have less in order to create strong emotions of envy and unfairness in those with less. The politician then promises to punish those better off – such as taxing the rich guys – while extending help to the little guy via handouts aka tax-cuts/tax credits by spending other people’s money in order to “make things fair.”

Secondly, Santorum’s plan doesn’t turn employees against employers or anything of a similar nature. It simply eliminates the corporate income tax for manufacturers of all sizes and stripes as an incentive for manufacturing companies which have left the USA and gone to countries with fewer burdensome regulations and lower taxes to return to American shores. His plan will once again make the USA a country where it is financially worthwhile to manufacture goods rather than making them elsewhere and then having the goods shipped over. The elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers thus benefits the owners of manufacturing companies in order to benefit the overall economy of the US. The economy will receive a much-needed boost since the creation of many businesses will lead to the employment of millions who’ve previously watched their jobs be shipped overseas.

Santorum has put forward an actual plan (and not a twitter hash-tag like Newt’s 2.50) for a sector of the economy that’s crumbling and shrinking at a time when million are unemployed and many have despaired of finding a job. Santorum has also clearly explained why manufacturing requires additional reductions over local retailers and other companies who will also watch their taxes being cut. This is because your local pharmacy isn’t disappearing to China and neither will your grocer. It is manufacturing and jobs that are disappearing from this country and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world one has to look at the global rate and adjust accordingly.

This is the exactly what Obama and the left so strongly oppose; the trickle-down theory which keeps government out of the lives of the people.

Those who describe Santorum’s plan as pro-Union have portrayed his plan as though he were out to specifically favor union workers/bosses over the rest. This is completely untrue and those using this argument are either uninformed or purposefully misleading. The only method for unions to benefit from Santorum's plan is if they are successful in signing up more workers into their membership. This may occur since Santorum’s plan will lead to a greatly increased number of American workers, yet is far from guaranteed to happen since Santorum has also promised as a president to push for “right-to-work” on a national level.

Even if unions do increase their membership levels, then that in its own right will be proof of the success of Santorum’s plan. It will provide clear data that removing government from the picture has led to business owners hiring many workers, thus creating a considerable number of new jobs and new union members. This may indirectly lead to benefit unions but so be it if that’s one of the results of an improved economy and millions of new jobs. Unlike Democrats who only seek to benefit specific voting blocs and political donors, Santorum is out to create equal opportunity for all Americans.

Manufacturing currently costs over twenty percent higher in the USA than in other countries excluding labor costs because of regulations and taxes. This has caused and continues to cause many manufacturers to flee the country. Those who attack Rick’s plan to eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers as a worthless solution while explaining that the key to increasing manufacturing is cutting regulation, have proven that they are unable to walk and talk simultaneously. The argument displays their ignorance and lack of research in a day and age when information is available at one’s fingertips. Or worse yet, some are attempting to purposely omit Santorum’s heavy focus on regulation, somehow thinking that if they ignore it then it doesn’t exist.

For the sake of those truly uninformed, here’s a link to a video in which Rick Santorum speaks to voters in which he labeled the removal of all unnecessary regulations as Step Number One and only then continued to Step Number Two which is the reduction of the manufacturing tax to zero.

Additionally, Santorum is the only GOP candidate to have opposed from the start the burdensome regulations the government enforced on the people based on the bogus global warming facts. His support for increased energy production through additional drilling, nuclear energy plants, and all other forms of safe energy had never wavered. Newt and Romney, though, supported government regulation - as recently and to the far extreme as having supported Obama’s Cap & Trade.

As for the last misinformed case against Santorum’s plan, his Made in America plan does indeed eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers. In today’s topsy-turvy world where Obama “cut taxes” for people who pay no taxes, cutting taxes is seen as the government sending (back) a check to people/companies and thus thought of as a federal expense. This is not the case here and whenever true tax cuts occur. Tax cuts aren’t refunds. They simply allow the company to keep more/all of the money which they’ve earned. As for the government making up the money they’ve received until now through the raising of taxes of other groups, Santorum’s plan includes tax cuts for ALL as can be viewed here. He thus won’t raise the taxes of another group because he’s cutting everyone’s taxes.

The question of how the government will manage with fewer taxes is null and for two reasons: Firstly, lower taxes leads to increased government revenue since it jumpstarts the economy. Even though manufacturers will pay zero % on corporate income tax, the tremendous growth of newly employed people who will pay the new lowered rate of taxes, will lead to considerable federal income.

Secondly, and equally importantly, a large focus of Santorum’s economic plan is to cut government spending with five trillion in the next five years thus reducing the amount the government will require to operate. Santorum plans to shrink continuously the size of government while working with all states to accept a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt supporters who use this argument of “how will the government manage with reduced funding” when discussing Santorum’s plan is pretty ironic when considering their applause for Newt for similarly saying that he’ll cut taxes and reduce government expenses to match the money that comes in.

Santorum has had the guts in the past to create actual reform – he had written the successful welfare reform – and continues to present actual details in the actions he will take. He doesn’t just throw platitudes and empty promises, but addresses all the issues facing this nation including but not limited to the economy. Santorum focuses on the importance of energy Independence, the need to bring jobs back to America, and so much more including the freedom –grabbing Obamacare. The success of his campaign therefore isn’t hinged solely on the price of gasoline as Newt’s is, or the unemployment levels, as Romney’s is. He can successfully battle Obama on every topic since he’s the only one who provides the contrast to Obama we so desperately need. 



 

Obama and Reid Oppose a Bill which will provide national security, fiscal solvency, and decrease unemployment

President Barack Obama has shown true leadership cowardliness last week with his threats to veto the payroll tax cut extension since Republicans are adding on to it an approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which promises to employ more than 10,000 workers and decrease gasoline prices in the United States.

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama announced. Obama accused the Republicans for playing "politics and focusing on extraneous issues" instead of following his every whim.

If we thought Obama was the only one who cared more for his own reelection than the jobs of 10,000 unemployed Americans, think again. Harry Reid, senate Majority Leader and sidekick to Obama has announced last Friday that, “If the House sends us their bill with Keystone on it, they are just wasting valuable time because it will not pass the Senate.”

Approving the Keystone Pipeline will not only create many jobs, but will also lead to lower gas prices and increased national security since the oil originates from our ally, Canada, and will be processed within the U.S.

The only reason the Keystone Pipeline has not yet been approved, is actually the same reason why we aren't drilling in many oil-rich areas throughout the United States and that is none other than the environmentalists who have the Democrats sitting in their palms thanks to the grease they send their way.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a brilliant column which clarifies the importance and necessity for the country to become energy independent through the extraction of natural resources previously unknown or difficult to extract and cutting our dependence on foreign Arabic oil. New technology has made many oil wells previously thought inaccessible or too expensive, extremely doable – if only environmentalists would take a step back. Additionally, many new oil and gas wells have been discovered, thus greatly increasing our quantities.  

With expanded exploration and conservation, the United States could also eventually supply half its own petroleum needs. If we were to eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current daily 9 million barrels of imported petroleum, the annual savings could reach nearly $200 billion per year. Eventually, the new gas and oil could add another 1.6 million new jobs and add up to nearly $1 trillion in federal revenue.

That windfall would cut out about a third of our present annual trade deficit -- well apart from additional income earned by new natural gas exportation. "Investments," "shovel-ready jobs" and "stimulus" would finally become more than empty sloganeering.

Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.

Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.

The Obama administration's efforts to subsidize "green" energy so far have proved both uneconomical and occasionally corrupt -- as we have seen in the Solyndra affair. Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive -- without massive federal subsidies and a marked reduction in our standard of living.

Of course, there are sizable interests opposed to the new American gas and oil finds -- not all of them foreign governments, but instead reflected in the current Obama administration policy of halting new pipelines, placing moratoriums on offshore drilling, and putting lucrative federal lands off-limits. Yet if the United States does not produce much of the fuel that it uses, will the oil-exporting Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria or Iran better protect the world's environment than American-based oil companies? Would our oil dollars or theirs be less likely to fuel terrorism, illegal arms sales and rogue regimes?

For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?

In the current presidential campaign, three issues dominate: national security, fiscal solvency and high unemployment. Development of America's vast new gas and oil finds addresses all three at once.

The idea of vastly expanding American gas and oil production in the 21st century is almost as unbelievable as the present administration's apparent reluctance to capitalize on its windfall.

You can read here the entire column .

When Schools and Bridges are Collapsing, the Philanthropist Barack Obama comes to the Rescue

 
Throughout his jobs speech last Thursday, Obama demanded from both houses of Congress over two dozen times to immediately pass his nonexistent bill.

Obama laid out grandiose plans which included rebuilding this country’s crumbling infrastructure in order to finally get those shovel-ready moving. As for plans to pay for all this restorations of bridges, roads, and school buildings, Obama has proclaimed it wouldn’t cost us a single additional dime. It’s sort of like Obamacare which we know it achieved the status of saving money only after lots of false mathematical gimmicks.

The American Jobs Bill of 2011 which will be presented to Congress tonight, will supposedly be paid for in advance via spending cuts a committee will discover and implement within the next ten years. Yeah, right. It’s more likely to be paid for with future new taxes, via the hardworking hordes of new IRS employees, or will simply be further piled onto the backs of future generations. After all, the bill’s only $447 billion which is pretty small in comparison to the over $14 trillion of which we are currently in debt.

I found the sums mentioned pretty surprising. The White House announced the odd figure of 447 billion and not 450, 445, or 448 billion as the exact figure necessary to turn the economy around. The large figure was broken down into two smaller figures of 253 billion in supposed tax cuts and 194 billion in federal spending. Note again, 250 billion wouldn’t have done the job while 254 was one billion too many in tax cuts. Same for the spending; 200 billion must’ve come across as too large while 193 billion was one billion too short.

These figures must’ve been designed to appear real for the cool-aid drinking crowd for it is known that all government spending bills end up costing way more than originally promised.

By the way, does anyone remember the urgency of this jobs bill? So vitally urgent that Obama originally demanded to present his speech (without the actual bill) the very first night Congress came back from vacation which was “coincidentally” the same night as the debate of the Republican Presidential Candidates.

Well, surprise, surprise!

Most of the $447 billion package will be spent in 2012. Hmm. What else will be occurring in 2012?

Hint: think of November 2012.

Obama’s also promised in his speech to provide employers with a tax credit for hiring anyone unemployed over six month. This will be discriminating against those who’ve recently lost their jobs or those yet to be laid off. Instead of possibly regaining employment, unemployed individuals will automatically spend the next half a year on unemployment benefits without a chance in being hired. Why should a business hire them when they could receive four thousand dollars for hiring someone which meets the administrations’’ qualifications as someone considered to be truly in need of a job?

Obama’s passion for philanthropic endeavors paid for with taxpayer funds is an old story, as old as Obama’s presidency.

The day Obama took office the national debt had been at 10.6 trillion dollars. In the less-than-three years since Obama has become president, our national debt has increased with over four trillion dollars, currently standing at over 14.69 trillion U.S. dollars. Obama is constantly blaming the debt as an inheritance of Bush while he has added in a half a term more than half of what Bush added in 8 years! In Obama’s first 57 days, (not states) 400 billion dollars debt was added! The national debt is currently increasing at the rate of 2.95 million per minute.

Where do the all these green dollars disappear to?

Fear not my friends. Obama seems to have a generous streak in his personality, and has given and promised support for many in need. There hasn’t been enough focus on his giving nature, perhaps because of his humility, so I decided to compile a list focusing on his generosity.

Disclaimer: This list is incomplete since Obama’s humility has kept him from broadcasting his every kind deed, thus making this search extremely tedious and difficult. Any additional items discovered worthy to join the list are welcomed in the comments. 

• Stimulus:

Obama has stimulated the Chinese economy with his generous tax cuts aka handouts to all American citizens.

Now that you’ve all been made aware that you too have gotten at least a couple of bucks of the over four trillion spent in under one thousand days and owe Obama a heartfelt thanks, we can proceed down the rest of the list. 

• Acorn:

Acorn was given federal grants and stimulus money for their humanitarian efforts in bringing as many dead people as possible back to life in the voting booths.  

• Union Brotherhood:

Obama issued Executive Order 13502 which went into effect May 2010. It encouraged the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects thus promoting the construction trade union.

Additionally, at the start of his presidency Obama overturned a policy which forbade airport screeners from organizing, thus creating a future 63,000 new union members.

These acts are a small token of thanks to the unions for the sixty million dollars they’ve spent to get Obama into office. Of course their contributions to Obama were in appreciation of his promises before the election that “their agenda is his agenda” and that “he wants to paint the nation purple.” 

• Bailouts for the car companies:

The Republicans were outraged at the eighty five billion dollars Obama gave to car companies without requiring them to make any serious reforms such as touching employee pension plans amongst other issues which have put them into the red to begin with.

Now, after two years, Obama has declared the bailout a success because they actually returned a few billion of the eighty five billion dollars they had received!! To understand how this can be considered a true success, your name has got to be Barack Obama. How and when will they repay the rest? That doesn’t matter. Union Brotherhood is draining them from any profit they could hope of, while the endless environmental regulations squeeze the breath out of them.

Not to worry. The government will promote their cars by giving each individual purchasing the Volt, a car on batteries, a 10,000 dollar subsidy! This is but another example of the philanthropy of Obama, and this time he’s not even singling out who qualifies-race wise, income wise, party wise… as long as the buyer is an environmentalist. 

• Supporting Business in Foreign Countries:

Brazil is on the receiving end from the Obama administration for billions of dollars to explore offshore drilling. At the same time, the Obama administration is forbidding companies to drill in the United States even with their own money; never mind taxpayers’ money!

Recently, two luxury buses were purchased from a Quebec based company Prevost, courtesy of “The Citizen of the World.”

• Islamic fundamentalists:

The U.S. at the G8 conference together with the other nations have pledged 40 billion dollars for Arab Spring occurring in the Middle East and North Africa to stabilize Egypt and Tunisia, and help fight for rights in Libya, Syria, Yemen and other nations in the region. Additionally Obama has given for Egypt, which is under partial control of the Muslim Brotherhood two billion dollars, by waiving a previous one billion dollar loan and promising an additional billion dollars! All this is despite the fact that all this money can very possibly fall into our enemies hands. In fact, it has been reported that there are currently over 400 Al Qaeda terrorists in Sinai.

Never mind the fact that we have to borrow this money from China in order to fulfill his generous gesture.

• Illegal Immigrants:

Free health care, an amazing deed, indeed.

All the citizens struggling to pay their own insurance policies are positively thrilled to have their tax money and future tax money be used to pay interests for borrowed money which is then handed over to illegals that don’t even pay taxes. These illegals kids also get free education thrown into the package, from taxpayer money of course, crowding up the classrooms and creating a disadvantage to citizens and legal immigrants.

And if he’s so generous already, he might as well give them housing, food stamps and any other program available to Americans in the lower earning bracket. Forty seven million Americans are currently on food stamps and Gingrich dares call Obama “The food stamps president”?

Obama declared in El Paso that Republicans would never be satisfied with his actions to secure the border, even if he’d put a moat with alligators. As though Obama has done even a single act so that it would be less worthwhile or more difficult for illegals to smuggle across our borders. Obama has also told Latinos before the 2010 midterms to remember to punish our enemies and reward our friends.

Indeed, Obama has given them so much, but at whose expense? At the expense of the citizens’ in whose interest he’s supposed to be focused at! Obama seems to be of the mindset that no one minds his handouts and the endless stream of illegals pouring into this country, besides for those evil Republicans. Sure. All those looking for job, which amounts to over 10% of this country must be so excited to have another 20 million illegals to undercut them and compete with for jobs.

In the ultimate act of generosity; Obama has officially announced that illegals won’t be held accountable for their illegal action if they don’t commit any additional crimes or join an education center. 

• Health Care Reform:

Obama put his neck on the line in ensuring health care for all … at the expense of their employers, neighbors, and grandchildren who are already funding the healthcare of the illegals.

• Savior:

Non-leader of the war in Libya, Obama has saved thousands of lives while barely costing us anything since Bush is still paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Worldwide Contraception:

Obama signed an executive order, overturning Bush’s previous order, to fund abortion groups worldwide. Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, defended its inclusion in the stimulus explaining that fewer people born is equivalent to fewer dependents on programs listed above. Additionally, fewer people will result in less pollution to destroy the environment.

Now that a partial list of Obama’s great deeds has been compiled, surely Congress will jump to please His Majesty, while the rest of us will be cheering them on in approval.

Although it may seem to us that the decisions of how the country’s taxes shall be spent should focus on our needs, Obama’s focus on his reelection campaign is actually for the people’s benefit. For if Obama won’t win, who will continue his path of philanthropy?The fact that Obama’s philanthropy comes not only at the expense of the over 300 million citizens, but at the expense of their grandchildren and grandchildren’ grandchildren who will be paying off all the debt this country has accumulated in the spirit of his generosity, is simply irrelevant to him and the left.


This article has been cross-posted from Conservatives4Palin.

Mr. President, if Jobs are so urgent, why wait Six Days to present your Plan?

 
Obama requested to speak before a joint session of Congress at September 7th at eight p.m. for the unveiling of his latest jobs plan. “Coincidentally” the time he requested collides with a scheduled debate between the Republican presidential candidates sponsored by NBC, Politico, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

Mr. President, if your jobs plan is so vitally necessary for the wellbeing of the economy, why wait until congress is back so that a joint session in congress can be arranged? Why not come out today and present your plan? Surely it must be complete after all the time you and your team spent preparing for this major presentation. If it’s bipartisanship that you truly seek, why don’t you present your plan today so that both sides will have a complete week to review and discuss it? This way you will also have the opportunity to at least partially fulfill the promise you’ve made to the public during the 2008 campaign; that every bill will be available online five days before congress votes so that everyone will be able to see what is in it.

Thankfully, Boehner had the courage to politely turn down the president’s request, reminding the president that congress wasn’t scheduled to be back in session until the 7th of September with voting starting at 6:30 pm. Since both, a vote in both houses plus a three hour security sweep is required to take place before a joint session could take place, the timing Obama has chosen simply could not work. Boehner ended with an invitation to Obama to join the congress anytime the following day – on the eighth.

Obama acquiesced to Boehner’s proposal and Obama announced that he’ll be presenting his jobs plan next Thursday from 7 pm until 8 pm so that his speech won’t conflict with the NFL openings. Is it a campaign speech or circus at which the larger the audience the merrier, or is it a serious jobs plan which should be put into effect asap? If it is so urgent, why wait until the following night? Why not do it first thing in the morning? 

Obama's speech will have to begin punctually or else he won’t be able to keep his audience captive for a complete hour due to the NFL pregame which begin at 8:00. Since I can’t imagine him being willing to give up a single moment of the teleprompters and cameras combination, this might be remembered as the record-breaking speech at which Obama actually began his speech at the time officially scheduled!

Although not much is known about Obama’s plans, some basics have been released including extending unemployment benefits and focusing on infrastructure.

I can’t speak for others but hey, I’m perfectly fine waiting another week and even another year to hear what he proposes, since I doubt he’ll do anything to really free up the private sector and allow the economy to grow. In fact, I have this creepy feeling that his plan involves more of the same; expansion of government, payback to cronies, and promotions of liberal ideology.

For instance, we probably won’t be forced to once again listen to the great potentials in bringing the Gitmo prisoners to Michigan in an attempt to boost their collapsed economy. Obama attempted killing two birds with one stone; he wished to pacify the left demanding the closure of Gitmo and at the same time create employment for the people of Michigan as prison wardens and other related work in the up keeping of the new location. As expected, the stone didn’t hit its intended targets and Gitmo remains in Gitmo.

On the other hand, Obama’s advocacy for “green jobs” might be repeated, though with care to its past failures.

At the Jobs Programs Speech which was held in Solyndra, a San Francisco based solar panel company, Obama waxed about the potential of green jobs. Why, the company even received a $535 million loan guarantee for “leading the way” and the future hiring of 4,000 additional employees. Well, guess what? They just shut their doors for good! Wait — there’s more!

Here’s the report from Big Government:

Just a few months ago, ABC News revealed that one of the major financial backers for Solyndra is also a major donor to the Obama campaign.

The donor, Steve Westley, has subsequently been named to the President’s Energy Advisory Board. Solyndra was supposed to have produced 4,000 jobs with the loan guarantee. Now all of the company’s employees have been laid-off. Mr. Westley is still on the advisory board.

Congressman Cliff Stearns, Chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight Subcomittee, released the following statement this afternoon:

“In an apparent rush to push stimulus dollars out the door, the Obama Administration wasted $535 million in taxpayer funds in guaranteeing a loan to a firm that has proven to be unviable in the global market,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. “For months, we have been investigating how and why nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money was committed to this financially troubled company.”

According to The Center for Public Integrity, one of Solyndra’s major investors was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised large sums of money for Obama during the 2008 election. This raised concerns that politics may have played a role in putting taxpayer dollars at risk in making this loan guarantee. In addition, last year the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department’s loan program, concluding that the department had “treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others.”

Using stimulus funds to promote job creation, the Department of Energy awarded a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra and the Obama Administration was supposed to review the loan to ensure that taxpayer money was not put at risk. Stearns has been investigating this loan program, and specifically the loan to Solyndra, and was forced to subpoena the Administration for records involving this loan guarantee.

“Although the Administration has been uncooperative with this investigation, this decision by Solyndra does not end our inquiry and we will continue to look into how this loan guarantee was approved and why the American taxpayers are mostly likely out $535 million,” added Stearns. “In addition, this brings up concerns if taxpayers were adequately protected during the restructuring of the loan to Solyndra.”

Surprised anyone?

One second thought, since no one’s actually forcing me to yawn through the jobs speech, I think I might just skip it.  

This article is cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin.

 

 

Perry Waited 10 Years to Cut Spending – Sorry, Rick, Presidents Can Only Serve 8 Years

Rick Perry jumped into the field last Saturday waving his ten years of experience as governor of Texas proudly in the air.

If the Republican field were complete at this time and consisted only of a bunch of RINOs with Rick Perry as the only Conservative, conservatives would obviously support him as the candidate closest to their camp.

However, although Perry might not like it, this is far from the current scenario. Palin, who has close to a decade of executive experience including her time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission chairwoman, and governor of Alaska, will likely be joining the race within the next month or two. Besides the fact that she will overshadow him and the rest of the field, Palin will bump Perry from “the most conservative” candidate to the second or third seat.

With the downgrading of our credit rating the entire country was shaken out of its slumber and the number-one priority for all Americans is once again the economy. The candidates will thus have to prove their prowess to the public.

Although Rick Perry is selling himself as a through and through conservative especially fiscally, and has begun to tout his alliance to the Tea Party, the facts show otherwise.

Perry has served as the governor of Texas for over a decade with the overall spending increasing ever since he took office in December 2000 up until the current fiscal year of 2011 at an average of 16.8 percent every two years. Even after adjusting the figures in consideration of population growth and inflation, spending has still increased by 4.2 percent every two years Perry governed.

Suddenly, after an entire decade of increased budgets, and with a presidential bid looming in the horizon, Perry found it necessary to reign in the spending slightly in an attempt to get the economy into some semblance of control. He announced with great pomp that the upcoming two fiscal budgets will be smaller than the current one. Hey, I know Obama always talks about what will take place ten years down the road, but in reality the presidential term is only four years long with a maximum of two terms. Waiting ten years in order to take action is a red flag on a resume for a potential presidential candidate. Such behavior should be unacceptable.

In direct comparison, during Perry’s growth of debt, Palin defeated the corrupt Murkowski and in less than three years cut spending, reduced future debt, and created policies which spurred tremendous growth in the private sector.

When faced with Perry vs. Palin the choice should be obvious. Yes, Texas is far more populated and has a larger economy than Alaska, but you know what? Many small business owners are successfully turning in a profit year after year, while quite a few multi-billion dollar corporations such as GM are heavily in debt with their executives clueless in how to turn things around. Perry may be the one governing the larger state, but his record doesn’t seem to be the more impressive of the two. Palin has led first Wasilla and then Alaska with business acumen, stopping frivolous spending. The economy boomed under her watch, yet she made sure to spend wisely and plan for the future.

Palin CUT spending during her years as Governor of Alaska. The budget of 2010 was 9.5% lower than the budget of 2007 and a decrease of 16.8% from 2009! These figures don’t include inflation or population increases which only make her accomplishments so much greater.

Under Perry’s watch, federal funds amounted to approximately a third of Texas’s state’s budget for the last decade.

On the other hand, Palin slashed the federal funding for the state of Alaska in three years by 80 percent! For the fiscal year of 2007, Governor Murkowski had requested and received federal funding for 63 projects to the tune of $349,497,000. In 2010, for FY2010, Governor Palin’s federal funding requested and received was a mere $69,100,000 for only 8 projects!

And although most of you probably saw the PA4Palin article Whitney re-posted, now that Perry officially joined the race it’s worth repeating.

During Sarah Palin’s governorship (December 2006 – July 2009)

• Alaska ranked 2nd in the nation for job growth.

• Alaska ranked 3rd in the nation for change in the unemployment rate relative to the national average.

During Rick Perry’s governorship (December 2000 – May 2011)

• Texas ranked 4th in the nation for job growth.

• Texas ranked 23rd in the nation for change in the unemployment rate relative to the national average.

One more interesting tidbit: Texas and Alaska both don’t collect personal income tax, although Texas makes up for it by having the tenth highest sales tax at 6.25% while Alaska is one of only two states which collects neither personal income tax nor sales tax.

As Palin had said in Iowa last week, she’d support ABO (Anyone but Obama) – and Perry is definitely a better alternative than Obama. However, Perry’s record is still a far cry from the fiscally prudent conservative whose mask he’s recently donned, especially in comparison to Governor Palin’s record. Palin’s gubernatorial record is proof of her ability to prioritize expenses, shave away all wasteful programs, and turn a lack of cash to an overflow of funds.

Conservatives, after discovering the facts, will turn to Palin to unseat Obama and stop the reckless spending.

A Glimpse at the "Everyone But Me Is To Blame" Bus Tour

Obama’s three day bus tour has come to an end, costing you and me only a coupla million dollars and change.

Yes, I dare to question Obama’s use of our money when “meeting” Americans because of Obama’s record.

You see, Obama has already passed one stimulus and repeatedly expresses his desire to pass an additional stimulus bill in order to create those jobs the first one failed to do. This is because Obama believes that the president and the government are the only ones capable of stimulating the economy and creating employment for the unemployed. Obama’s bus tour which is both, government funded and led by the president is therefore deserving of an analysis of its effectiveness in stimulating the economy. 

Stimulating the economy? But of course! 

Isn’t a bus tour the ultimate boost the economy has been waiting for all this time? Even the mantra surrounding the trip is so noble and selfless; talking about economy growth and job creation. What, is talking about jobs not good enough for you, you bitter folks? You want His Highness to actually do that which he preaches? Well, it just so happens to be, that while he’s been talking the talk he’s been simultaneously doing the deed! Just take a look at how many enterprises have benefited from the campaign jobs tour. The bus company, the drivers, the secret service agents working overtime, gas stations, restaurants, and numerous others too lengthy too list. Why, the result will be felt within ten years from now in an earsplitting boomerang echoing from coast to coast. 

How is it possible for someone other than a racist to speak negatively of the jet black bus Obama used on his trip? What difference does it make to anyone that the two buses Obama and his team traveled around with, which cost us taxpayers a whopping 1.1 million each, were made in Canada by a Canadian company? Hasn’t he created enough jobs with the tour? And the fact that he headed specifically to the Midwest, flying with Air Force One to Michigan in order to begin his tour there rather than taking the bus straight from the White House is totally unrelated to some election occurring in a little over a year. The White House clearly responded to all critics that the president wished to meet "real folks in real places” who unfortunately don’t seem to exist anywhere between D.C. and Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa. My apologies to those of states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, or Tennessee.

Obama’s non-stimulus tour thus explains why the left was so outraged at Palin’s “One Nation” tour. You see, every single penny surrounding Palin’s bus tour consisted of private sector funds with no government funding whatsoever! How can anyone possibly expect to stimulate the economy effectively without using taxpayer funds? The private sector is incapable of producing jobs without any governmental aid. (For clarification read paragraph one again.) 

Additionally, how can crowds show up and help stimulate the economy without revealing one’s itinerary? Keeping the public (and the media) in suspense doesn’t leave room for the coordination of crowds to be bussed in which would boost more bus companies (American ones), gas stations, and all local shops within the square 100 mile range, similar to what the unions and Democrats masterfully arrange for Obama’s visits.

Besides, Palin’s bus emitted global warming carbon, instead of running on ethanol or electricity. It’s true that Obama’s bus ran neither on ethanol nor on battery, but it was impossible to do so because of security issues as per the commands of the secret service.

 

Palin’s bus had made stops at many local eateries encouraging obesity and unhealthy eating habits, while Obama’s deliberation’s over which pie to choose, (final decision: one whole coconut pie and two slices each of three other pies) was a pretense, sacrificing his personal health solely to please the shop owner and boost the economy. 

Many of the right have criticized Obama’s bus for not having the USA flag displayed on it. Don’t you remember Palin’s One Nation Bus Tour being criticized by NBC for politicizing the flag which is unconstitutional? If Palin, a private citizen, and her bus which was paid for by the private sector were lambasted, could you imagine the outrage if the president himself would use taxpayer money to put the image of the flag on a jobs bus? Besides, just think of the disgrace to the flag located on Palin’s bus which is unshielded during harsh weather.

One last note to some taxpayers still grumbling for having to foot the bill for Obama’s latest photo-op bus tour: If Obama’s buses would’ve been sponsored by private donations, the luxury buses would’ve been placed in the same category of the luxury jets -- which we all know deserve additional taxes, thus further necessitating the vital needs of federal funds which are exempt from being taxed by the U.S. government. 

Warren Buffet, Just Another Dishonest Liberal Elitist

Dishonesty from the left is the norm, however many assume it to only involve the leftist politicians and not necessarily the liberal business tycoons who support the leftist politicians.

Warren Buffet’s claim in an op-ed in The NY Times that he pays less tax percentage-wise than his secretaries proves the dishonesty of the left which runs from the very top to the very bottom.

William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has done a great piece exposing his lies.

Warren Buffett bemoaned the fact that he and other super-wealthy investors pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than their secretaries and other lower-paid staff members. This is an argument frequently heard from Democrats.

But in making that argument Buffett misleadingly lumps federal income taxes in with that he calls “payroll taxes.” Payroll taxes are known as FICA (the Federal Income Contributions Act), and it is the percentage employees and employers pay on wages with a limit to fund social security and Medicare.

As I have posted before, FICA is not a tax in the way other income taxes are taxes; FICA is supposed to be a pay-in to the mythical social security “lock box” which will provide funding for social security payments. The reason there is a cap on the amount of wages subject to FICA is that there also is a cap on social security benefits (by contrast, there is no cap on the smaller portion of FICA used to fund Medicare).

You can read the rest here.

Buffet ended his op-ed with a suggestion to increase taxes on anyone making over a million dollars a year, with an additional hike for those making over ten million dollars a year.

How nice of him to throw into one lump those making one million a year with himself, who makes close to a million a week! Remember that many of those making one million are small businesses which file as individuals. Instead of helping small businesses expand and add jobs, Buffet proposes raising their taxes which is akin to shutting them down.

Here’s a better solution to Buffet’s complaints of being “coddled”, “spared”, and excluded from those who are forced to “share sacrifices.”

What law prohibits you -- Warren Buffet, your friend Bill Gates, or anyone else from donating, say, a coupla million or even tens of million dollars to the U.S. Treasury to help pay off a miniscule percent of our debt? You’re whining that you’ve got to much money and don’t mind parting with it. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

One may wonder why someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates should wish to pay more taxes.

Is it possible that Buffet’s intentions are slightly colored and not as pure as he pretends to be?

Raising taxes on all millionaires equally will be equal to a death blow to many of the small guys, while just an annoying splinter for the big guys like Buffet. Essentially, it will ensure that no one will be able to threaten the security of the companies and standings of the Buffet guys, creating a socialist state where the rich remain rich with the rest of the nation forbidden of leaving their economical bracket.

Entitlements have already ensured that the poor will remain poor; stifling businesses and the middle class will ensure they never rise to the top but either remain stagnant or sink. 


  

Does Obama's Math differ from the rest of the World's?

Obama, the brilliant law professor and graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School has created amongst many other  great achievements, a new Math.

No matter what mathematical equation is placed before him, Obama plugs into the variables positive figures for his programs. When his solution is marked with a big red "x" by the public and experts, Obama changes the equation so that his response remains in the right.

Obama declared his health-care bill as a deficit reducer although it's increasing entitlements with tremendous proportions thus raising spending with trillions of dollars. To straighten out the math, Obama set the start button for spending several years down the line so that until the spending kicks in nothing is spent. Proper math indeed!

Obama's team has now announced that the S&P have miscalculated and are short two trillion dollars. How about looking into Obamacare and your other great achievements? Sorry to burst your bubble but credit ratings also include future spending, and don't include phony savings.

The Spender-in-Chief has shelled out trillions of dollars in his endless deficit reducing programs, but alas. For some odd reason instead of shrinking our debt, it ballooned out of control with several additional trillions of dollars in debt! Gee, imagine where we'd have been without Obama's world-saving efforts. 

Why, we'd  still have our AAA credit rating and a booming economy!

The Audacity of Chutzpa; the Arrogance of Washington

First Obama demands his bluff not be called, next he wants us to ignore Reid’s bluff, and now he blames the Republicans for the circus? 

Obama endorsed yesterday Harry Reid’s plan which is so mind-bogglingly absurd, any student handing in such a report would’ve received a big bold F.

Reid basically wants to raise the debt ceiling with 2.5 trillion dollars, to be available for immediate spending. This would last for less than two years since our current yearly debt is about 1.5 trillion. 

To balance these two and a half trillion dollars which are on top of our current 14 trillion dollar debt, he proposed a 2.7 trillion dollar spending cut which will occur throughout the next ten years.

Anyone with a calculator or pen and paper can see the ludicrousness of this proposal, but we’ll spell it out anyways.

If we continue spending at the current pace, our federal debt will increase with approximately 15-20 trillion dollars in the next ten years – depending on what the interest rates are. So in other words, Reid proposed that the entire spending cuts of these ten years amount only to a tenth of the amount of increased spending. That will leave us with an additional 13-18 trillion dollars of debt on top of the 14 trillion we currently owe.

What sort of solution is this?

It’s sort of like a kid who has a weekly allowance of twenty bucks and spends most of it on candy. The kid begs his dad for his allowance to be increased to fifty bucks and assures his dad that he’ll put aside every week a dollar so that at the end of the year he can pay his dad back over fifty dollars.

If his father would agree, this deal would amount to an additional thirty bucks a week time 52 weeks equaling $1,560 and the entire amount he’d get back at the end of the year would be fifty two bucks!

Obviously no parent would agree!

Why should our childish president receive any different treatment?

How can our leaders in Washington even propose such a ridiculously unbalanced deal?

How can Reid, Obama, or any individual tell us what policies Congress will pass in the next ten years?

Senators and congressmen are constantly voted out of office and replaced with new people as seen in 2010 causing the decision-making power to constantly shift hands.

Attention Harry and Obama: If you want a raise in the debt ceiling now than you’ve got to be ready to make cuts now. Not in ten years from now when you’ll no longer be in power.

Another thing; has anyone noticed that the entire left, starting with Obama and Reid down to every Democrat senator, congressmen, and spokesperson responds when questioned about budget cuts in affirmative but when pressed for specifics, the reply is along the lines of domestic and defense?

Domestic is not specific.

This leaves them with Defense.

Defending this country is one of the only explicit rights the federal government is granted by the constitution. Despite this fact, defense is what the Democrats wish to cut and put first on their list.

Does the left think we are so naive to believe that this country simply won’t cope without the EPA, the Housing Administration, or The Department of Education and there’s no room for their funding to be slashed, while the military has too much dough lying around?

Why should expenses the first cut on their list be that which should be the federal government’s priority in spending? Especially while we are still smack in middle of two – oops -- three wars.

It can only be one of two things: Either our leaders can’t complete simple mathematical equations, or that they couldn’t care less what happens to our country ten years down the road as long as their seat remains safe because they took some sort of action.

And after Obama’s campaign speech press conference last night, it appears to be the latter.

At the press conference last night Obama, as expected, blasted the Republicans for presenting solutions he didn’t like while offering nothing of his own except for a demand for a blank check.

Of course, he began his speech by blaming Bush.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

Here are three issues with his very first paragraph:

• Since when are tax cuts money spent? Did Bush send these people checks? Did it come from other people’s money? Or perhaps Bush simply let people keep money belonging to them and invest it where they saw fit?
  
  It seems like Obama forgot about the third war the U.S. has entered without the approval of Congress, is not in the interest of the United States, supports unknown groups, and has been added on top of two ongoing wars and a deficit of 14 trillion dollars!

And here’s the surprise of all surprises! The timetable president has no timetable for withdrawal of the troops from Libya!

• This expensive prescription drug program Obama’s blaming for the debt happened to have been drafted by Ted Kennedy, pushed for by the Democrats, and passed with the votes of the left plus several RINO’s.

If Obama is so incensed with this program, why didn’t this man/child/president confront Ted Kennedy while slobbering for Ted’s support for his presidential campaign?

This guy is totally delusional!

A ten page article wouldn’t be long enough to do justice to all the outright lies, discrepancies, and twisted facts Obama presented to the people in this one speech. And neither you nor I have the time and patience for his nonsense, so I’ll stop right here.

Instead here’s a piece of advice to Obama: You seem to have a difficult time handling people who don’t bow to your demands; so here’s my suggestion to you.

When 2012 rolls around, demand a vacation from this stressful job and we’ll surprise you with total bipartisan support to fulfill your request. 



 

Obama wants to tax Jet Owners; how about taxing Jacuzzi Owners?

The president has in an underhanded manner just set a new tone in the country.

Until now, there have been dozens of debates over the merits of flat tax versus fair tax, or income tax versus sales tax.

Of course the liberals promoted both a sales and income tax, so as not to discriminate between consumers and business owners.

Obama however brought taxing to a new level. Regardless of the amount of income, sales, and all other taxes people pay; those that own a certain luxurious item such as a private jet should be required to pay additional taxes because of that item.

The hilarity of Obama’s new dream tax is the notion that owning certain (supposedly) luxury item throws all its owners in one category.

How about, besides for the private jet owners Obama hasn’t stopped criticizing, he should add additional luxury items and its owners to the waiting-to-be-taxed list? It’s getting kind of boring to hear him repeat the same argument so many times.

How about waging war against individuals with Jacuzzi’s built into their homes?

All Jacuzzi owners must be millionaires, billionaires or at least executives who sit in their Jacuzzis all day while the rest of the country is struggling to pay their grocery bills. Why not tax them an additional two or three percent on top of what they’re already paying? They can afford to help eliminate America’s fourteen trillion dollar debt. There, that might even get them out of their Jacuzzis.

How about luxury car owners?

Come to think of it, who will decide what’s considered luxurious? Obama can set a tax on every type of car.

Who else should pay for the Arab nations which supply us with the oil if not those that use it to drive their cars? It doesn’t matter whether you’re rich or poor, homeless or own ten homes, if you own a Honda, no matter how beaten up it is, you should be required to pay an extra -- say 2.8 percent. The same is to those with a Lexus jeep; even if you’re on food stamps and Medicaid. If you can afford the car you’ve got to be able to pay your taxes. He can demand from BMW owners an additional – say 2.4% in taxes while anyone with Aodi’s should pay 2.6%. And so on and so forth.

Especially tax worthy can be gas guzzling vehicles or large jeeps and vans that are polluting the planet according to bogus scientists. Isn’t it only logical that these people should be forced to chip in even more because the government bans drilling and opts instead to hands out two billion dollars to Brazil so they can drill there? Why shouldn’t an American driving a beautiful BMW pay for that donation?

For those of you who consider yourselves as the real middle class or even unemployed and don’t own any luxury items so there’s no need for concern from your part...I bet you didn’t think of this one!

On the census sheets we were all required to fill out last year, one of the questions struck me as funny; does this house, apartment, or mobile home have a flush toilet?

Perhaps the real reason the government needs the answer to this question is to figure out whether flush toilets can be considered a luxury item and what percentage the tax can be set at.

Sounds ludicrous? How are individuals that own private jets any different? In the left’s attempts to make all equal, they are simply trying to force everyone to give up all their valuables and luxuries until everyone will be equally poor and consider their toilets a luxury.

Notice also, that no matter the type of home, the question lumps all toilet owners into one category. Imagine a real estate broker trying to pull this onto a potential buyer.

Until then, enjoy life and enjoy flushing.