Saturday, November 10, 2012

Economy: Post-Election Firings and Layoffs Surge!

Market Daily News ^ | November 10, 2012 | Michael Snyder

The victory by Barack Obama on election night has resulted in a huge wave of firings and layoffs all over America. A large number of businesses seem to have suddenly shifted into panic mode. The number of layoff announcements that we have seen in the last 48 hours has been absolutely shocking. So why is this happening? Well, the truth is that the federal government is absolutely suffocating small businesses all over America with rules, regulations and taxes. If you have never tried to run a small business, then you have no idea how oppressive this system actually is for people that are trying to run small businesses successfully. It has steadily gotten worse over the years no matter who has been in the White House and no matter who has controlled Congress. So we shouldn’t put 100% of the blame on Obama. Bush massively expanded government and made things harder on small business people too. But what many small business people were looking for on this election day was just a little bit of help. Many were desperately holding out hope that Obamacare would be repealed so that they would not have to get rid of some of their employees. Many were hoping to get a little bit of relief from the crippling regulations and taxes that are absolutely crushing them. But now that Barack Obama has been given another four years, they understand that there is no hope on the horizon and that things are only going to get worse. So they are making the hard decisions that they feel are necessary in order to survive in this economic environment.
And I certainly don’t blame them. You only want to have employees if you can make a profit on them. And in this environment it is getting harder than ever to make a profit on an employee. You see, the truth is that what you cost your employer goes far beyond your salary or your hourly wage. I think many of you would be absolutely shocked if you learned how much it actually costs your employer to employ you. And now thanks to Obamacare, that cost is going to go up even more.
Many businesses are not even feasible at all in this economic environment. Many small businesses had been holding out hope that somehow this election might turn things around and make it possible for them to keep going, but when Obama won it was kind of like the straw that broke the camel’s back.
You can’t do what the federal government and the state governments are doing to us and expect to have a thriving economy. They are choking the life out of us.
New businesses and small businesses are supposed to be at the heart of our economic system. Unfortunately, the environment that has been created is absolutely killing them. This is a recipe for disaster.
In a previous article, I noted that the number of jobs created at new businesses in 2010 in the United States wasless than half of what it was back in the year 2000.
Now we can expect that number to get even worse and we can expect large numbers of small businesses to shrink in size or close their doors completely.
The following is a list of some of the post-election firings and layoffs that we have seen since Tuesday night…
#1 Utah
"A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners.
The layoffs at the West Ridge Mine are effective immediately, according to UtahAmerican Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. They were announced in a short statement made public Thursday, two days after Obama won re-election.
The layoffs are necessary because of the president’s “war on coal,” the statement said. The slogan is one used frequently during the election by Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, who was an ardent supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down “204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014″ and for drastically reducing the market for coal."
#2 Ohio
"I work for the oldest and largest health insurer in the state of Ohio in the underwriting department. At 9 a.m.this morning, my department (about 50) were called into a meeting in the executive boardroom. We were informed that due to a provision in the healthcare ‘reform’ effective 2014 called guarantee issue, our services would no longer be needed, and we were offered severance So Obama got to keep his job, and we lost ours. It is maddening that some tyrant 400 miles away can have such a ruinous effect on peoples lives."
#3 Nevada
"A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.
“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”
Here’s an excerpt from the interview. Click the audio tab below to hear even more from this compelling conversation:
“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees."
#4 Posted below is a list of layoff headlines from the past few days that was posted on AmericanThinker.com…
Obama was “fired up” and so were the voters, and so now, the mass firings begin. Here’s a collection of today’s headlines. Please say a prayer for the families who will be suffering. Had Romney won, many of these companies would now be hiring.
Teco Coal officials announce layoffs
Momentive Inc plans temporary layoffs for 150
Wilkes-Barre officials to announce mandatory layoffs
600 layoffs at Groupon
More layoffs announced at Aniston Weapons Incinerator
Murray Energy confirms 150 layoffs at 3 subsidiaries
130 laid off in Minnesota dairy plant closure
Stanford brake plant to lay off 75
Turbocare, Oce to lay off more than 220 workers
ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills
SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100
Providence Journal lays off 23 full-time employees
CVPH lays off 17
New Energy lays off 40 employees
102 Utah miners laid off because of ‘war on coal’, company says
US Cellular drops Chicago, cuts 640 jobs
Career Education to cut 900 jobs, close 23 campuses
Vestas to cut 3,000 more jobs
First Energy to cut 400 jobs by 2016
Mine owner blames Obama for layoffs (54 fired last night)
Canceled program costs 115 jobs at Ohio air base
AMD trims Austin workforce – 400 jobs slashed
100 workers lose jobs as Caterpillar closes plant in Minnesota
Exide to lay off 150 workers
TE Connectivity to close Guilford plant, lay off 620
More Layoffs for Major Wind Company (3,000 jobs cut)
Cigna to lay off 1,300 workers worldwide
Ameridose to lay off hundreds of workers
#5 According to the Blaze, the following major corporations have all announced layoffs in just the past two days…
Energizer
Exide Technologies
Westinghouse
Research in Motion Limited
Lightyear Network Solutions
Providence Journal
Hawker Beechcraft
Boeing (30% of their management staff)
CVPH Medical Center
US Cellular
Momentive Performance Materials
Rocketdyne
Brake Parts
Vestas Wind Systems
Husqvarna
Center for Hospice New York
Bristol-Meyers
OCE North America
Darden Restaurants
West Ridge Mine
United Blood Services Gulf
You can get the rest of the details right here.
#6 The following is a list of companies that will be laying off workers just because of Obamacare that was compiled by FreedomWorks…
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing “$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses”. After laying off several white collar staffers,company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could “lead to significant job losses” for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas – to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Others
A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare: •Smith & Nephew – 770 layoffs •Abbott Labs – 700 layoffs •Covidien – 595 layoffs •Kinetic Concepts – 427 layoffs •St. Jude Medical – 300 layoffs •Hill Rom – 200 layoffs
A lot of other businesses are going to reduce the number of employees they have or reduce the average work week in order to avoid the Obamacare insurance coverage mandate that will soon be implemented.
This is how CNSNews.com describes the choice that many employers will be facing…
That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees. In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.
Thus, by cutting employees’ hours to ensure they average less than the 30 per week, employers could potentially avoid the cost of providing the minimum insurance levels mandated by Obamacare.
So if your company trims the number of workers to just under 50 or starts going to “29 hour work weeks”, then you will know who to blame.
All of this is complete and utter insanity. We are committing national economic suicide.
But perhaps we deserve this. After all, Americans willingly chose their leaders on election day. It is getting harder and harder to deny that our politicians are truly a reflection of who we are as a nation.
The American people chose this path, and now we get to see where it leads us.

Since 2009, right to work states created 4x as many jobs as forced union states!

American Enterprise Institute ^ | November 9 | Mark Perry

President Obama, speaking at an AFL-CIO conference in April this year, “I believe when folks try to take collective bargaining rights away by passing so-called right-to-work laws, which might also be called ‘right-to-work for less’ laws, that’s not about economics, that’s about politics.” Well, President Obama, you might want to consider that it was the disproportionate job creation in those “right to work for less” states that may have helped you get re-elected, here’s why:
From Stan Greer writing on the National Institute for Labor Relations Research blog:
Exit polling conducted by the Associated Press indicates one important reason the President was able to win at all was that four in 10 voters believed the national economy was improving, while only three in 10 believed it was getting worse.
To convince voters things were getting better, the Obama campaign pointed to the millions of jobs that have been created since the recession officially ended in June 2009. Household employment data for the 50 states and Washington, D.C., do show an overall net gain of 2.59 million jobs through this September.
Ironically, the bulk of the increase occurred in the 22 states that have had Right to Work laws on the books since June 2009. Their aggregate household employment grew by 1.86 million, or 3.4%. (Since Indiana did not adopt its Right to Work law until this February, the 19,000 jobs it added are not included.) Because Right to Work laws protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees, Big Labor bosses hate them. And the union hierarchy’s massive, forced dues-fueled campaign support is the single most important reason the President was reelected.
At the same time, Right to Work states (again excluding Indiana) were responsible for 72% of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012 (see chart above). If these states’ job increase had been no better than the 0.85% experienced by forced-unionism states as a group, the nationwide job increase would have been less than half as great. And the President wouldn’t have been able even to pretend the economy was in recovery.
During his first term, Barack Obama repeatedly expressed virulent opposition to Right to Work laws and enthusiastically supported “card-check” forced-unionism measures and other legislative and bureaucratic proposals designed to shove millions of additional workers under union control. Fortunately, Right to Work proponents generally thwarted him.
Now a genuine national recovery depends on the President calling off his administration’s guerrilla attacks on Right to Work states for the next four years. Will Obama, his congressional allies, and his political appointees at last step aside and allow the 23 Right to Work states to serve as the bulwark of U.S. economic recovery? Or will they continue trying to deter employers and employees from setting up shop and expanding in Right to Work states?
MP: The chart above shows just how important the 21 Right to Work (RTW) states have been to job creation during the economic recovery. Since the recession ended in June 2009, almost three out of every four jobs added to U.S. payrolls have been in Right to Work states (1.86 million out of 2.59 million), even though those 22 states represent only 38.8% of the U.S. population (120 million). In contrast, only about one of every four new jobs were created in forced-unionism states (730,000), even though more than 61% of Americans live in those 28 states (189 million). Relative to their population, the Right to Work states have been job-creating powerhouses during the recovery, and forced union states haven’t even come close to “carrying their weight” in terms of their share of the population. Adjusting for differences in population, Right to Work states created four new jobs for every one job added in forced union states, because those 21 RTW states created 2.54 times more jobs even though forced union states have 1.6 times as many people.
Ironically, it may have been the strength of job growth in the “right to work for less” states that helped President Obama get re-elected, despite his animosity to the labor laws in those states and his favoritism towards forced unionism. As we struggle to create jobs through another “jobless recovery,” maybe the president could be a little more open-minded in his second term towards the job-creating labor policies in the RTW states that have been creating jobs at four times the population-adjusted rate as the forced states. Wishful thinking….

Democrats No Longer Care

Coach is Right ^ | November 10th, 2012 | Jiim Emerson

The election revealed the true nature of the supporters of Barack Obama: they do not care about anyone but themselves. The Free Obama-phone Lady from Ohio is now the face of America. If you don’t give her free stuff you suck. After a hard day of ranting about how great Obama is and how evil conservatives are goes home to watch her flat screen TV she got with her Obama bucks EBT card.

Voter Suppression
The only Americans who were denied the right to vote were the men and women selflessly serving this nation overseas, Obama supporters and no—show Republicans don’t care. This weekend American celebrates Veteran’s Day. Obama supporters only think of it as a three day weekend if they had a job. For most entitlement leeches it a day the Post Office takes off so they have to wait an extra day to get the Bluetooth ear piece for their Obama Phones.
Obama supporters want to cut or eliminate veteran’s benefits so they can provide more freebees to the entitlement class aka the 47% who do not provide anything of value to society. You can pretty much bet they will complain about a Veteran’s Day parade blocking the street on their way get Chicken McNuggets with their EBT card in route to Costco’s to pick up their new flat screen TV. No appreciation for those who made sure that they can enjoy their life choices.
World Events
If Jon Stewart doesn’t lampoon a story, it never happened. Obama supporters never heard of Benghazi and don’t care. Nor do they know about American soldiers being killed by Afghans they are training to defend themselves. Out of sight, out of mind, Obama Democrats only want their handouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Shifts that have helped Obama can shift away!

The Pioneer ^ | Saturday, November 10, 2012 | Ashok Malik

This time around, all the major voter consolidation processes appear to have worked to the advantage of Mr Barack Obama. Eight years earlier, those processes had favoured Mr George Bush
Right after President Barack Obama won his second term, there were the obvious questions about the wider implications of his mandate. At one level, these questions were lazy and misleading. In election after election, political pundits —and this writer is not excluded —faithfully identify long-term trends only to find that there is no long-term trend. That comment may sound facetious and overstated but, nevertheless, cannot be dismissed.
Take Mr Obama’s victory. He nosed ahead of Mr Mitt Romney, his Republican rival, due to the rainbow coalition of minorities and young, Liberal Whites that he built — encompassing Blacks (90 per cent of whom are believed to have voted for the President), Hispanics (70 per cent for Mr Obama) as well as those who support Liberal social policies and postures either because those directly affect them (gays) or as a matter of principle. Mr Romney and the Republicans were left looking like the party of old, white people, largely men.
The multi-ethnic and multicultural momentum in the US is unstoppable. More non-White babies are born in America every day than White babies. By the middle of the 21st century, the nation that George Washington founded will not have a White majority. The political appeal of groups such as the Hispanics —an umbrella expression that includes people of Mexican origin (about 50 per cent) as well as Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Southern American origin, and already comprising 10 per cent of all voters — will be enormous. Asian-Americans and, of course, Blacks, will also matter more and more as social coalitions will need to be stitched together much more adroitly.
The quick assessment would be that the minorities and the young White Liberals now hold an absolute veto in the US, and that the mainstream White population — whatever the word ‘mainstream’ may mean in this context, and it will no doubt be contested — cannot hope to impose its choice on them. As such, the Democrats will keep winning as the party of social liberalism and enough economic freedom not to rock the boat. This is an accurate analysis of US politics and electoral demography as it stands in November 2012. It is prudent to note that it may not be true forever. As the old line goes, nothing lasts forever — and certainly not political coalitions.
In 2004, President George W Bush won a big mandate that was described, at the time, in the same sweeping and definitive terms as Mr Obama’s victory this month. Three years after 9/11, in the midst of two wars, a society roused by its sense of itself had backed the Republicans that year. A Christian current was evident, as was an urge of national identity. It linked Whites, Hispanics and sections of Blacks.
Mr Bush, who has a Hispanic sister-in-law and had advocated a more rational approach to immigration than many others in his party, made a stronger impact on Hispanic voters than almost any other Republican in history. He tapped the social and fiscal conservatism of Hispanics — opinion polls suggest second and further generation Hispanics are among the population groups most sceptical about large welfare Budgets.
After the Democrats were smashed in that election in 2004, many had suggested that the US was a naturally Right nation, and the American creed — to borrow Samuel Huntington’s expression — encompassed more than just White citizens. This creed, it was said, was better represented by the Republicans, and they would not lose for decades to come. Today, it is said that the Democrats will rule for decades to come. Obviously both assertions can’t be right.
What went right for Mr Obama this time? First, he successfully portrayed Mr Romney as a patrician, Wall Street type who lacked the common touch. Second, he attacked the social conservatism of the Republicans as being outmoded. Both these statements made sense to different, sometimes contradictory sets of voters. It helped that Mr Romney seemed to lack the folksy, roll-up-your-sleeves persona that, say, Mr Bush — and this comparison is being made only because he was the last successful Republican candidate — had.
Blue-collar Whites in the rust belt of the American Midwest see themselves as the losers of globalisation, of outsourcing (of manufacturing to China and southeast Asia) and of new business strategies of the big corporations. This group is instinctively anti-free trade. In 2000, it backed Al Gore and for two elections has voted for Mr Obama. This group, however, is also among the most patriotic, ‘my country, right or wrong’ segments of American society. In 2004, when national security trumped economic concerns, these blue-collar Whites voted overwhelmingly for Mr Bush.
Socially and economically, and in terms of how they see the world, rust-belt, working class Whites have little in common with the more prosperous Whites from richer southern and western States, or the East Coast. The latter see globalisation as an opportunity and not a challenge, and could well have voted for Mr Romney. However, they were clearly repelled by some of the anti-gay, anti-immigrant and plain misogynist rhetoric coming out the Republican Party. Mr Romney didn’t have the authority to repudiate this, and it was easy for the Obama team to paint him as unable to take on such extremism.
Take a third group — southern Blacks, who are strongly Christian. They were knitted together by the Baptists into a Black-White alliance that represented a post-Civil Rights era reconciliation. This coalition took Jimmy Carter (Democrat) to the White House in 1976 and swerved towards Mr Bush a quarter-century later. In 2012, it cracked. The White evangelicals couldn’t get themselves to back either a Black or a wishy-washy Mormon; the Blacks in the old southern coalition voted for a fellow African-American, as one template of identity surpassed another.
In 2012, all the major voter shifts (or consolidation processes) seemed to go in favour of Mr Obama. In a close election, it put him on top. It is worth noting that these shifts are not irreversible. To regain influence, the Republicans will need to put up a Centrist candidate who combines the platform of business freedom with a laid-back social attitude, and says he will get the Government out of both boardrooms and bedrooms. It requires a leader with the political capital and confidence to take on the evangelicals and the Tea Party and draw a line in the sand beyond which they can’t go. In time, such a leader will emerge. He has to.

Federal Workers Want Pay Raise in Obama's Second Term!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | November 9, 2012 | Michael Patrick Leahy

With President Obama safely re-elected to a second term, federal workers feel comfortable to make their demands known. As debate rages over lowering the federal deficit, they want a pay raise.
As CNN's Money magazine reports:
[Union president Colleen M.] Kelley said her No. 1 issue right now is getting federal worker salaries unfrozen on Jan. 1, even if that means working out a deal later in the year and making pay hikes retroactive to Jan. 1.
In the midst of that, federal workers are also nervous about the fiscal cliff , which includes $1.2 trillion worth of spending cuts over a decade if Congress fails to act by Jan. 1. Some 277,000 workers -- 14% of the federal work force -- could lose their jobs in the next 12 months if the U.S. cannot avoid the cliff, according to a study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University.
A recent study by two scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation showed that the average federal employee currently makes significantly more than their private sector counterparts. As the authors wrote in the Wall Street Journal this past April, two additional studies supported their analysis:
When the public pay debate began to simmer two years ago, we were among the few analysts to show that many public employees—federal, state and local, including public school teachers—are paid more than what their skills would merit in the private economy...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

OPEC acknowledges shale oil supply may be significant

Reuters ^ | November 8, 2012 | Alex Lawler

OPEC acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that technology for extracting oil and gas from shale is changing the global supply picture significantly, and said demand for crude will rise more slowly than it had previously expected.
In its annual World Oil Outlook, OPEC cut its forecast of global oil demand to 2016 due to economic weakness and also increased its forecast of supplies from countries outside the 12-nation exporters' group.
"Given recent significant increases in North American shale oil and shale gas production, it is now clear that these resources might play an increasingly important role in non-OPEC medium- and long-term supply prospects," the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said in the report.
OPEC has been slower than some to acknowledge the impact that new technologies such as hydraulic fracturing - known as "fracking" - may have on supply. Conoco's Chief Executive Ryan Lance has gone so far as to predict North America could become self-sufficient in oil and gas by 2025.
In OPEC's new forecast, shale oil will contribute 2 million barrels per day (bpd) to supply by 2020 and 3 million bpd by 2035. For comparison, 2 million bpd is equal to the current output of OPEC member Nigeria, which is Africa's top exporter...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

Fiscal Cliff? Tax the Rich?

Townhall.com ^ | November 10, 2012 | John Ransom

Barack Obama wants you to know that the rich are out of control.

And I partially agree. It’s a matter of fairness.

After thinking about it for a few years, he has finally figured out that our economic problems have a very simple explanation: There are too many rich people.

I know of at least one too many. The one occupying the White House? Way too rich.

Too many rich people are causing a jobless “recovery.” Having too many rich people caused gas prices to go up, the stock market to go down and the housing bubble to burst. Too many rich people meant that a peaceful demonstration against America in Benghazi turned into terrorism.
The rich, Obama would have you believe, are probably responsible for the next ice age too.
Rich people, it seems, run up huge budget deficits on silly things like entitlement spending disguised as healthcare reform, green energy swindles disguised as “jobs programs” and road projects that benefit the Illinois Asphalt Contractors Association -bada-bing!
Rich people demand trillions in stimulus spending, huge mortgage entitlements for people who can’t make house payments and bloated pension programs for public workers.
Rich people get special treatment from banks that they are supposed to be regulating; they encourage the Federal Reserve Bank to print more money and they borrow gigantic sums from the Chinese.
The rich people are out of control, Obama tells us.
In order to get them back under control, they have to be taxed.
Obama and his friends want to tax impose a super-tax on the 4 million household making more than $250,000 per year to solve the so-called "fiscal cliff" where tax cuts expire and the federal government is forced to cut spending, just as they agreed to.
Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes: “From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.”
And that’s just not fair, say liberals.
“Fair” can also be called the Obama Doctrine.
The Obama Doctrine says that we have to tax the rich in the interest of fairness. We’d all have less money, for sure. We’d all get to wait in line for rationed toilet paper, rationed food and rationed healthcare but fairness would rule the land.*
Sure, the whole Land of Opportunity thing worked for 300 years, but what about the next 300 years?
Maybe instead America can be the Yeah, We’re the Land of Opportunity, But Don’t Get Carried Away With It, O.K.?
Or maybe we can be the Land of Fairness.
Certainly if those darn rich people would just stop being rich, then we’d have no budget problems at all.
Some of the rich are guiltily admitting as much. They’ve banded together into United for a Fair Economy. They’ve signed a pledge pleading with the government to tax the rich more.
“Seattle-based Judy Pigott, one of the heirs to her grandfather’s company that builds Peterbilt trucks and other heavy equipment, was one of the first people to sign the Pledge,” said a press release from the organization last year.
“’If we even kept what was in place from the end of the Reagan years and into those of Bush I,’” says Pigott, “’I suspect we’d not be in a budget crisis now. Let’s do what it takes to support all of us, since it takes all of us to keep this nation going.’”
You see, it takes a village to tax the rich.
Of course, Ms. Pigott is probably relying on her considerable economic experience as an heiress to come to that conclusion.
Economists and historians disagree with Ms. Pigott: “The historical evidence suggests that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue,’ says Shahira ElBogdady Knight an economist with the Congressional Joint Economic Study Committee.
“When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.”
But what about fairness? asks Obama.
Oh, well here’s the answer:
In the interest of fairness, there is one guy who needs to be taxed, and taxed at the same rate they he has taxed our patience for nearly four years long.
Because the rich guy in the White House is out of control.
I say tax him. And then tax him again, until he stops taxing us.
That seems fair to me.
*Actual Fairness to be determined by the executive office under paragraph 5, subsection 2 of the U.S. Citizens Fairness Act also known as ObamaFair. 

NICE TRY Barry: 'Timley' Petraeus Resignation Won't Keep Him Off the Witness Stand, You Snake!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 10 November 2012 | Reaganite Republican


Trey Gowdy: 'He will be subpoenaed'

Attempting a buck-up-the-troops post in the wake of unexpected and disheartening GOP defeat, I prioritized battle cries of 'Impeach Obama over Benghazigate' and 'NO tax increases'. This seemed to be what a lot of other people were thinking too- alas, most doubted the resolve and determination of what 'leadership' we still retain in this party- and wondered
-as we always do- if anybody's even listening.

Yet lo-and-behold, here we are three days later and BOTH seem on the path to realization: to the surprise and delight of conservatives, Boehner and McConnell stepped-right-up to the mike yesterday and proclaimed 'NO new taxes'- *music* to
my ears and yours.

But the ignorance and stupidity of so many Americans that gave Obama a pass on Benghazi (+ all the rest of this lawless crew's shenanigans) has surely emboldened an already power-mad president, and with no more elections they have zero problem with screwing-over or completely destroying anybody that might nudge them in the direction of justice or any form of accountability.

Now that others who know-way-too-much (Hillary/Benghazi, Holder/Fast-n-Furious) look to be about to fall victim to Obama's post-election purge, Hero of Baghdad General David Petraeus has been hustled out the door (on a Friday, typical) just a week before he was slated to appear before Congress and testify re. the Benghazigate cover-up. The agency then immediately announced that acting CIA director Mike Morrell will take his place at the congressional hearings- isn't that special.

But that fishy-smelling dog won't hunt for South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy: he says that if the Obama regime thinks they can keep Petraeus from answering long, long overdue questions re. Benghazi under oath, they've got another thing coming:
_______________________________________________________________________

I hope we don't have to subpoena a 4-star Gen, a former CIA Director; I hope he'll come voluntarily. If not, he will be subpoenaed-Trey Gowdy (R- SC)
_______________________________________________________________________
Unsettlingly, it seems socialism and central planning are not the only elements of the Soviet system Bronco Bamma finds admirable: much as the KGB spied on their own citizens (and the Kremlin kept dirt on entire politburo/Communist Party, so as to be utilized in their political [or paranoia-driven] dismissal and/or arrest), Obama used the FBI to spy on Petraeus' personal life... does that bother anybody?

Yep, President Obama's got plenty of reason to fear David Petraeus: a principled, competent, and eminently practical man, he's likely to horror-of-horrors speak the truth about Benghazi. Perhaps Obama should have kept him at arm's length, where he had at least a modicum of control, but I do hope and pray the good general hangs Obama out to dry: just last week Petraeus appeared to be bus-chucking Obama over the Benghazi debacle/cover-up, so why would he show any more loyalty now? He's loyal to the country, law, and Constitution, not some metro-sexual Castro wannabe personally. But would Obama use Executive Privilege or attempt to classify the testimony in order to avoid impeachment?



As dismayed as patriots were at the election result and Obama's ceaseless luck-of-the-devil, there's still reason to believe justice will eventually catch up with this moral black hole, if for no other reason than the incredibly lengthy record of bad behavior.

Be glad knowing that if the Republicans had not retained the House, this guy wouldn't even have to think about Benghazi again -the media can't forget it fast enough. BUT Republicans are still here, while our ossified leadership seem to be waking-up and have already deduced that Romney defeat =
TEA Party ascendance. It appears that they are attempting to dance to our tune- encouraging to see, that.

With the election behind us, there's still a scandal brewing that rivals Watergate: recall that Nixon also won re-election in '72, only to be brought down by his own tangled web of lies soon afterwards.

A forced resignation within 12 months would be superb, and it shouldn't take long after that before Biden's locked-away in the rubber room, safely away from the levers of power. President Boehner could then make Rubio or Michelle Bachmann VP and Paul Ryan Speaker of the House... right?

If any in the Grand Old Party care to rise to the occasion on Benghazigate, there's history to be made, boys.. call it
'David vs. Goliath':


Obama's impeachable offenses:

7 Things The GOP Needs To Do To Start Turning It Around

Townhall.com ^ | November 10, 2012 | John Hawkins

Let's not sugarcoat it: we got our teeth kicked in on Tuesday. Sure, we added governorships and held our ground in the House, but we went backwards in the Senate and lost to an out-of-touch, incompetent, petty man who centered his campaign around Mitt Romney's bank account and Big Bird. We didn't get beaten by Bill Clinton in a great economy; we got beaten by another Michael Dukakis in the midst of a terrible economy. On the upside, if people have ever wondered what Jimmy Carter's second term would have looked like, then they're about to find out.
Since that's where we're at, we have two choices. We can sit in the dirt for a couple of years, nursing the boo-boo on our collective knee while we moan about freeloaders and wonder what went wrong with America or we can stand up, brush ourselves off and get back in the game.
"Oh, but it's over, Hawkins! We've reached the tipping point! We're done!"
Really? It's done? It's over? What if the soldiers in George Washington's army who were suffering through a winter without shoes had that attitude? Suppose Andrew Jackson had looked at the ragtag band of pirates and mercenaries he had to defend New Orleans during the war of 1812 and said, "Screw this, it's too hard!" You think the Americans driving state-to-state, looking for work during the Depression had it easy? How about the American soldiers fighting for their lives in Korea against limitless waves of Chinese soldiers who were determined to push them into the sea so they could enslave South Korea? Remember when Reagan said, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose?" They laughed at him -- but, nobody's laughing now.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have a very simple goal: I want to kick their ass.
We do that by taking back the Senate in 2014 (which is doable if we have a good year) and then, in 2016, we're going to beat whomever they run like a rented mule and step over their political corpse into the White House.
However, if we want to do that, the first thing we have to accept is that what we're doing right now isn't working and isn't likely to work if we keep doing it. There's a reason Albert Einstein said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." It's time for the Republican Party to stop the insanity and go in a different direction. 1) We need a better get out the vote campaign: Did you notice that Romney's crowds were bigger than Obama's audiences down the stretch? Yet, Obama still won. What does that tell you? That tells me that Obama did a much better job of turning out low interest voters than Romney. It was well known that Obama had an incredibly sophisticated, well staffed GOTV campaign but the Romney campaign was supposed to match up to that with its own system, Project ORCA. Unfortunately, Project ORCA turned out to be the biggest disaster since the Hindenburg. Tens of thousands of volunteers sat idle all day because the system wasn't working and eventually it just crashed. It seems entirely possible at this point that the Romney campaign lost multiple states because of the complete and utter failure of his get out the vote campaign. This one factor alone could be the difference between victory and defeat in 2016.
2) The primary system needs to be reformed: Here's a thought: Maybe allowing our nominee to be chosen by two moderate, lily white states that seem to choose their favorite Republican candidates based on who shakes the most hands in diners and county fairs isn't the best idea. There are a lot of other workable suggestions that would break the tyrannical hold New Hampshire and Iowa have over the Republican Party's presidential nominations and it's time to start pursuing other options.
Additionally, Mitt Romney's dirty, overly negative campaign created an extremely poisonous atmosphere in both the 2008 and 2012 primary campaigns. Eventually, the other candidates and their supporters became tired of Romney's sleazy campaigning and fired back even harder, which made the entire primary season look like a piranha tank at feeding time. As primary voters, we need to punish candidates that do that in future elections instead of taking an "All's fair in love and war" approach. We also need to consider whether the long campaign season is to our advantage or whether we'd be better off having a candidate wrap it up early so he can begin defining himself and raising money for the general election.
3) The establishment doesn't get to choose the next GOP nominee: What have we been hearing over and over again from the D.C. establishment and the Old Guard in the Republican Party? We have to choose a moderate candidate who runs a bland, safe campaign and doesn't talk about social issues. Well, guess what? We just lost two straight elections against a weak opponent with candidates who fit that mold perfectly. Next time around, we need a full spectrum conservative who can actually inspire people to turn out to vote FOR HIM instead of just AGAINST the Democratic nominee.
4) Stop losing votes to fraud and count those military ballots: We have such a third grade, stick your vote in the shoebox style voting system in this country that it's hard to even figure out how much fraud is occurring. While it's important to make sure every eligible American has a right to vote, it's JUST AS IMPORTANT to insure that no one has his legitimate vote cancelled out by fraud. Making sure that both Democrats and Republicans are confident in the integrity of our elections needs to be a higher priority than leaving the system open to fraud in order to make it as easy as possible to vote.
Additionally, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of military votes aren't being counted every year because the same military that can coordinate a bombing run anywhere on earth within twenty four hours can't manage to get our troops' ballots to the polls in time for an election. It's a disgrace that the same soldiers who risk their lives to ensure our freedom can't even be sure that their own votes will be counted. The Democrats may not care about that because the military leans heavily to the right, but it's time for the GOP to start caring, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because we're leaving tens of thousands of votes on the table in every election.
5) We need to start doing some REAL minority outreach: For the Republican Party to continue to be viable over the long term, we're going to have to do better with minority voters. Period. Unfortunately, the primary way most people seem to be suggesting that we do that is by backing amnesty to bring in Hispanics or Affirmative Action to draw black voters.
Let me be extremely blunt: That is a desperate and stupid argument that flies directly in the face of reality.
Take an issue that conservatives care about dearly -- like the 2nd Amendment. If the Democrats suddenly became a pro-2nd Amendment party, would half of conservatives vote for them en masse? Of course not. Do Jews vote for the GOP because we're the pro-Israel party? No, they don't. So, why would anybody think Hispanics are going to go for the GOP if we support amnesty? The Democrats certainly don't think that. The reason they support amnesty is because they think it will bring in millions of new Hispanic votes for them. They're right about that.
The reason some Republicans take this dumb position is because the real fix would be playing the same game that Democrats do with minority voters and they've had decades to get ahead of us at it. The fact of the matter is that we need to create, fund, and support our own La Raza, our own NAACP, and our own NOW. Groups like that already exist, but they get minimal amounts of support. What we need are Hispanic Republicans on Hispanic radio shows making our case, black Republicans pointing out racism in the Democratic Party and prominent conservative women's groups slamming the Democrats as sexist for reducing them to nothing more than the sum of their "lady parts." The truth is that no matter how much Republicans may cherish the notion that we should all be "judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin," a lot of Americans don't agree and the GOP is going to die in the political wilderness waiting for everyone to come around to our way of thinking.
6) It's time to refresh our agenda and messaging: Principles may stay the same over time, but agendas should change.
For example, it may make sense to oppose tax increases for middle class Americans, but it no longer makes political sense to push tax cuts. The 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes certainly aren't going to be swayed by that and although we should certainly defend the rich on principle, fighting tooth and nail to make sure the wealthy never pay a dime more in taxes when we have a trillion dollar deficit is a dead dog loser of an issue.
Also, although I believe we should be doing more to promote our stands on social issues, not less, it's time to ask whether candidates that oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest are making perfect the enemy of the good. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock both lost on that issue and there's a better chance that the American people will make the cockroach our national bug than there is that they will go along with banning abortions after rape or incest. So, why shouldn't politicians focus on what's politically possible instead of taking a position based on what we'd like to see happen in a perfect world?
Last but not least, our messaging has gotten way too wonky as a party. We talk about Supreme Court cases to people who've never heard of Antonin Scalia, free trade issues to people who think NAFTA is a government agency, and we talk about the size of the debt to people whose eyes glaze over when they try to figure out how to split a check at a restaurant. We need to get back to basics with a much more simple premise when we pitch a voter: Here's what we're going to do to make your life better and here's what they're going to do to make your life worse.
7) We don't spend our money wisely: The GOP spent over a billion dollars on the 2012 campaign just to flip North Carolina and Indiana, hold our ground in the House, and lose seats in the Senate. Meanwhile, we're doing a mediocre job of voter registration, we do almost no minority outreach of consequence, we're doing very little to reach out to young voters and much of the conservative new media is withering away and dying for lack of funds. Consultant Sean Hackbarth and I don't see eye-to-eye on some issues, but his advice for conservative groups is spot-on.
Specifically to conservative groups here’s some additional advice: * Hire consultants who want to transform current campaign approaches. Don’t accept tried-and-true. Or better yet, bring them in-house and let them play to their heart’s content.
* Create an environment where talented people want to join you in taking big risks and be willing to pay them.
* Scour America for savant tech-heads willing to work for the cause. Visit MIT, Stanford, and other top schools. Go to tech conferences and read tech weblogs to find top-notch talent.
* Quit expecting great content to be delivered for free from supporters. Pay people to write, tweet, make videos, make infographics, develop apps, etc. With the millions spent by super PACs we know the money is out there.
* Be willing to give credit to other groups. Don’t let your egos stop you from cooperating. We’re all on the same team.
* Share ideas that work.
* Find ways to amplify what allied groups are doing.
Maybe instead of expecting grassroots conservatives to produce miracles out of whatever pocket change they can pull out of their couch cushions, some of the deep pocketed donors could try funding them. After all, isn't it time that donors start demanding to see results out of conservative organizations, think tanks and TV ads just as they do out of government?