High taxes will turn NYC into a dump

New York City is a great place to visit and to live. It's one of the top American cities which attracts millions of tourists per year. The Big Apple, in some ways, embodies what many others think of America.

But all that greatness may soon disappear as Gov. Paterson and the state legislature prepare to increase taxes, especially for those earning over $250,000 annually. Talk show giant Rush Limbaugh has already voiced his displeasure with this and contemplates relocating to Texas for a backup studio (he spends only a few days in NYC per year). The governor doesn't seem to mind the negative publicity Limbaugh has inflicted on the city.

Does the governor think New York is so great that people simply won't leave the state because of high taxes? Hopefully he knows that there are 49 other states competing against N.Y., and a few of them without state income taxes. When the wealthy decides to leave the state, they take with them not only the tax revenues, but also job creation and consumption power.

When the next election is up we'll find out how Gov. Paterson fare with this move. My prediction: a new governor.

Next target: Sarah Palin

The Democrats are leaving Rush Limbaugh alone now, perhaps after realizing that targeting him only helped him gain more listeners. Who's their next target? Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, of course!

I'm predicting another Democratic backfire. People are tired of this crap from the Democrat "strategists." Stop wasting time "strategizing" and start doing something productive, like fixing the economy or something. The majority of Americans know that this is just a way to divert attention away from the real issues, and they will not fall for it. No matter how people view Gov. Palin, they still know that their immediate needs are: pay mortgage, job security, and feed the family. And hearing the Democrats blabber about Palin this and Palin that does not help them.

Please move on, you Democrat strategizermeisters.

Cramer unloads on the White House

Uh oh, I think the White House, especially Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, is going to regret ever picking on Rush Limbaugh and Jim Cramer. In his latest column, Cramer gives the W.H. a piece of his mind, even disclosing that he'd previously contributed to the Democratic Party and had voted for Obama. Now he's a vocal critic of Obama and his economic policies, and it's not pretty...

Is the White House wise to target Limbaugh?

The Democrats think they've got Rush Limbaugh where they want him. Apparently this all started when James Carville and Stanley Greenberg ran an poll in October to discover that Limbaugh was hugely unpopular among the younger voters. The conservative talk show host continued his criticisms against Obama even after his election, and now top Democrats and the White House see a golden opporunity to paint him as the leader of the GOP, while brushing aside RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

First I got to ask: Why are the Democrats marginalizing Mr. Steele, a fine black politician who's worked his way up to earn the respect of his peers to lead the Republicans during these troublesome years for the party? The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves!

While the Leftosphere is cheering on the latest assaults on Limbaugh, the Rightosphere is welcoming this classic battle of Liberalism vs. Conservatism. On the liberal corner of the ring, there is the mainstream media, the White House, the Democratic Congressmen and Senators, and all the crazies who start their day with coffee and Huffington Post. The other corner of the ring sits one of radio's giants, commanding an audience of millions on a daily basis, and not to mention his great contribution to the conservative movement.

Will it be a fair fight? Of course not. But that doesn't matter. Battles are never fought fairly, and only the strong will survive.

Most conservative bloggers are betting on Limbaugh crushing the opposition like an ant. If the Obama White House was a business, then it'd probably suffer the same fate as Air America. To me this pick-on-Rush strategy is a miscalculation on the White House's part, and the Democrats are just going to convert more folks into Rush's army. The economy hasn't gotten better and probably won't get any better during the Obama presidency, and people are going to realize that perhaps wanting Obama to fail was a valid point...

White House picks a fight with Limbaugh

The fact that W.H. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is commenting on Rush's remarks at CPAC shows that the Obama team is still afraid of the conservative radio talk show host. Okay, either that or Gibbs is trying to stir up the liberals and their media outlets to paint conservatives as hardcore anti-Obama nuts.

Yes, we are!

Economy, preprare to be stimulated... or not

The bad news? The House passed the nearly $900 billion stimulus package.

The good news? Not one Republican voted for it. That ought to send a clear message.

Conservative talk show master Rush Limbaugh offers his version in the WSJ:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

"Then," he writes, "we compare." Sounds fair to me! After all, it is my money which Obama wants to spend. Shouldn't I have some say-so in how it's used?