Thursday, December 6, 2012

Jim DeMint tells Rush Limbaugh how to fix GOP, tweaks Boehner

Politico ^

In an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on Thursday, retiring Sen. Jim DeMint offered his take for how to get the Republican party back on track - and he joked about dumping House Speaker John Boehner.
DeMint’s resignation as South Carolina senator sent shock waves through the Beltway earlier in the day, when the tea party leader announced he was leaving the Senate to become Heritage Foundation president.
“I think it’s safe to say that [House Speaker John] Boehner is not forcing either of you guys out, right?” Limbaugh asked DeMint and now-former Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner, according to audio by The Right Scoop.
Quipped DeMint: “It might work a little bit the other way, Rush.”
DeMint also told Limbaugh he hopes to use his new role to help the GOP appeal to more Americans.
“After spending most of life in advertising and marketing and research, I know that we can do a whole lot better job of convincing the American people – winning their hearts and souls – and if we do that, then we’re going to be more effective inside of Congress and more effective at election time,” DeMint told Limbaugh,
DeMint said that Republicans should be looking at what they can do as opposed to only criticizing those across the aisle, such as Reid (D-Nev.).

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Harry Reid belongs in one of these over the Potomac River.

ANN COULTER TAKES APART THE NUMBERS . THEN SHE SHOWS US WHY WE LOST IN NOVEMBER.

ANN/S BLOG ^ | DEC, 5TH 2012 | ANN COULTER

AMERICA NEARS EL TIPPING POINTO December 5, 2012

I apologize to America's young people, whose dashed dreams and dim employment prospects I had laughed at, believing these to be a direct result of their voting for Obama.
On closer examination, it turns out that young voters, aged 18-29, overwhelmingly supported Romney. But only the white ones.
According to Pew Research, 54 percent of white voters under 30 voted for Romney and only 41 percent for Obama. That's the same percentage Reagan got from the entire white population in 1980. Even the Lena Dunham demographic -- white women under 30 -- slightly favored Romney.
Reagan got just 43 percent of young voters in 1980 -- and that was when whites were 88 percent of the electorate. Only 58 percent of today's under-30 vote is white and it's shrinking daily.

(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...


Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your “Fair Share”

Creators Syndicate ^ | December 7, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Message for wealth-bashing millionaire actor Ed Asner: Man up and take responsibility for lying to America's schoolchildren.
Confronted by a producer for Fox News Channel's "The Sean Hannity Show" this week, the left-wing celebrity claimed he couldn't remember "a thing (he) said" on a vile propaganda video produced and published by the California Federation of Teachers. Asner narrated the unforgettable eight-minute anti-capitalist screed geared toward children.
Think Occupy Wall Street meets Sesame Street. "Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don't want to pay taxes anymore," Asner warbles in a folksy grandpa voice. After education reform journalist Kyle Olson of EAGNews.org blew the whistle on the film's vulgar cartoon depiction of a "rich" man urinating on the "poor," the teachers union whitewashed the animated images from the video.
While the Occupy-cheerleading teachers have to concoct such fantasy scenes, informed Americans remember that it was the Occupiers themselves who openly defecated in the streets. What's even more grossly comical is the sight of pampered Asner shilling for the "progressive" war on prosperity while ignoring Big Labor's own self-serving evasion of their "fair share" in taxes.
The California Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO affiliate that rakes in an estimated $22 million in coerced dues, enjoys nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(5) status. So does CFT's larger counterpart, the California Teachers Association, which collects a whopping $300 million in annual dues. While they burn through mountains of dues lobbying for everyone else to pay higher taxes, these Democratic partisan heavies pay nothing in either federal or state income taxes. Zero, zip, nada. In theory, the unions are entitled to this special status because their "primary" purpose is to "secure better working conditions, wages and similar benefits" for their members.

Peaks and valleys

Higher Tax Rates Don’t Equal Higher Revenues!

National Review ^ | 12/06/2012 | Michael Barone

The fiscal-cliff negotiations seem to be foundering on Barack Obama’s insistence on higher tax rates on high earners and House Republican leaders’ insistence on opposing them. The president believes he has a mandate from voters for his position, and House Republicans believe they have a mandate from voters for theirs.
The real argument here is over the size and scope of government. Under Barack Obama, federal outlays — the technical term for federal spending — have increased to over 24 percent of gross domestic product.
That’s a higher level of federal spending than in any year since 1946, when we were demobilizing after World War II. And the Obama budgets envision federal spending continuing at such levels more or less indefinitely.
This is an inevitable result, some Obama backers argue, of our aging population. Spending for entitlement programs for the elderly — Social Security and Medicare — are on a rising trajectory, and so the federal government simply must absorb a higher percentage of the economy than in the last two-thirds of a century.
Let’s adjust the trajectory, House Republicans argue, by reforming the entitlements. Obama has given lip service to this idea — but has offered no specifics.
He seems to be paying attention to those Democrats who oppose any changes in entitlements. Just raise taxes, they seem to say, and entitlements can keep rising as scheduled.
The problem is that, as historian Paul Rahe wrote earlier this year, “we no longer have the resources to support the entitlement state. We can certainly raise taxes, as President Obama and the Democrats intend to do, but that does not mean that in the long run we will take in more revenue — and it is massively increased revenue that the entitlement state needs.”
Rahe seems to have history on his side. To see why, take a look at the Economic Report of the President 2012, Appendix B, Table B-79, on page 412, which shows federal receipts — the technical term for revenues — and outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product for every year from 1939 to 2011, with estimates for 2012 and 2013.
Over that period of nearly three-quarters of a century, federal receipts have never exceeded 20.9 percent of gross domestic product. That was the number for the war year 1944.
The highest number since then was the 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000, the climax of the dotcom boom. In the Obama years, federal receipts have hovered at 15 percent of GDP.
That’s just because tax rates are too low, Obama backers reply. Just raise the rates on high earners, and the problem will be solved.
Actually, high earners don’t make enough money to close the current budget deficit. You’d need to raise taxes on middle-income earners too.
But we have had higher income-tax rates in most of the years since World War II. What history and Table B-79 show is that even much higher rates — like the 91 percent marginal rate on top earners imposed from the 1940s to the 1960s — have never produced federal receipts higher than 20 percent of GDP.
Why is that? As the late Jack Kemp liked to say, when you tax something, you get less of it. When the government took 91 percent of what the law defined as adjusted gross income over a certain amount, not many people had adjusted gross income over that amount.
According to a Congressional Research Service study, the effective income-tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of earners in the days of nominal 91 percent tax rates was only 45 percent. Others have pegged it at 31 percent.
In the 1970s, when the top rate on wage and salary income was 50 percent, and 70 percent on investment income, high earners spent much of their time and energy seeking tax shelters. The animal spirits of capitalists, to use John Maynard Keynes’s term, were directed less at productive investment and more at tax avoidance.
But don’t European nations extract more in taxes from their citizens? Yes, but through consumption taxes like the value-added tax. Those taxes tend to be regressive, and in this country sales taxes have been the province of states and localities.
Barack Obama and the Democrats may well get higher tax rates. But it’s not likely that high tax rates can ever generate enough revenue to fund unreformed entitlement programs.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.

Who elected Obama?

American Thinker ^ | 12/06/2012 | Paul Murphy

Many Republicans seem ready to agree to Obama's demands for tax increases -- after all, elections have consequences, and he won, right?

Maybe, but before agreeing to anything, the GOP should probably look a little more carefully at just who elected Obama.



Dr. Robert Vanderbei, a professor of Operations Research at Princeton, developed the visualization shown above by combining Democrat blue with GOP red according to popular vote proportions taken at the county level and printing the result as a 3D map in which apparent vertical height is a stand-in for the number of voters counted.

Nationally, Obama won the popular vote by 4,452,910 -- but because 4,516,701 of those came from California and New York, Romney and the GOP can reasonably argue that he won the rest of the country by just about 64,000 votes.

Across the country, Obama won by large margins in a relatively small number of counties -- and, within those counties, by overwhelming majorities in some, but usually not all, precincts. More than 40% of Obama's California margin came, for example, from about 90% of the precincts in Los Angeles County alone.

This effect is clearer in states like Ohio, where Obama's 150,891 overall vote margin came mainly from the 256,581-vote surplus he amassed in just 900 Cuyahoga county precincts. Similarly, he counted 588,781 votes to beat Romney by nearly five to one in Philadelphia County, but he won Pennsylvania by a net of only 309,115 votes.

What's going on is that big numbers from a relative handful of precincts can swing statewide totals to democratic presidential and senatorial candidates despite widespread popular support for GOP policies in congressional and other district races.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


According to this link :

Romney won about 2/3 of the county-level contests in the country, but he lost state wide counts to high turnouts and virtual unanimity in precincts where decades of redistricting have made most residents virtual WARDS of the state.

Redundant!

That's nice

Time to man up

Mistaken

Solving Problems

Can't be serious

Details

The Enemy

Mirror Image?

Doin' Great!

Obviously

Cradle to grave

Income Taxes

The majority

Eyes on the prize!

Fight for your right!

Christmas for Obama Bundlers

GOP USA ^ | 12/5/2012 | Michelle Malkin

Merry Crony-mas! It's time to pass out the goodies. While President Obama's lips champion the middle class, his administration's old hands are preparing to lavish rewards on the creme de la campaign creme: his wealthiest political donors.
Several media outlets reported this week that the White House is considering fashion doyenne Anna Wintour for a possible appointment as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain or France.
The rumored short list also includes Obama campaign finance chairman Matthew Barzun and investment banker Marc Lasry. The three share one common, er, "qualification": Each raked in more than $500,000 for Team Obama 2012.
As previously reported in this column, Wintour held multiple million-dollar fundraisers for Obama in Hollywood, New York, London and Paris -- raking in the fourth highest amount for the Man of the (Glamorous) People. Wintour's $40,000-per-plate dinners attracted Hollywood's biggest leftist celebs.
She went further than just passing around the fashion plate, though. Before Election Day, the fashion world buzzed over the British-born Vogue editor's behind-the-scenes campaign to intimidate designers into spurning GOP women. Such Chicago-style diplomacy will fit in perfectly with the brass-knuckle-wielder-in-chief.
If Wintour snags the plum British ambassadorship as rumored, she will succeed another top Obama bundler known as "the vacuum cleaner." Chicago lawyer and banking mogul Louis Susman (who worked for Salomon Brothers and retired as a Citigroup vice chairman in February 2009) had no diplomatic experience. But he vacayed and sashayed with the Kennedys and the Kerrys in Hyannis Port and Nantucket, siphoned up a total of $240 million for Democrats over the past several decades, and bundled upward of $500,000 for Team Obama.
Ambassadorships have long been used as patronage rewards for deep-pocketed donors, of course. Clinton did it. The Bushes did it. And Hopey McChangey immediately followed suit. In his first term, Obama awarded ambassadorships to California bundler John Roos, who was dispatched to Japan; California bundler and campaign finance co-chair Charles Rivkin, who took up the ambassadorial post in France; law partner and bundler Laurie Fulton, who was sent to Denmark; and Boston money man Alan Solomont, who won the appointment to Spain.
Moreover, a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Institute found that more than half of the most politically active 50 campaign bundlers for Obama won appointments to a presidential council, committee, board or other White House post.
Shameless defenders of Obama's business as usual are now floating the sexism card to defend Wintour's possible appointment. "The snark directed at the idea of Anna Wintour as ambassador to the UK seems to be 99 percent sexism. The bundler-to-embassy route isn't new," sniffed lefty writer Matthew Yglesias.
Silly "progressive." It would be sexist not to heap deserved scorn onto the naked back-scratching at play here.
"It is no coincidence that the best bundlers are often granted the greatest access, and access is power in Washington," a vocal critic of the practice once said. "Special interests," the critic thundered, have "turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."
Who said it? Candidate Barack "Do as I say" Obama, circa 2007-08.
Forget the "forward" rhetoric. Cut the populist crap. Retro access peddling never goes out of style in Washington: To the victor's elitist bundlers go the spoils.