Liberals hail the Obama budget

Liberals got their man into the White House. He's spending money like never before, at the same time blaming that he "inherited" the economic troubles. Then he proposes a budget that'll dig a deeper hole for Americans.

But the liberals are ecstatic -- somebody like Robert Reich over at The American Prospect:

It's about time a presidential budget unequivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.

Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole. This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans, when fully employed, can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things as middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.

Do you notice the brazen endorsement of socialism? During the presidential campaign, Obama lost some points when Joe The Plumber confronted his income redistribution tendencies. But now that the man is at the Oval Office, liberals aren't even embarrassed to write "income redistribution."

Also notice the syndrome of wealth envy. Anytime a person mentions fairness in an economic context, you know you're talking to a liberal. It's not fair, as Mr. Reich points out, that the rich already have most of what they desire. Never mind exploring how much blood and sweat the rich had to pour out, how much sacrifice they had to make, how much failure they had to endure, etc., before becoming wealthy.

A victory for free speech

The Senate does something right by banning the FCC from reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.

The most-taxed nations are the wealthiest?

Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress.com makes the point:

For the record, however, the most-taxed countries on Earth (i.e., the countries where revenue is the highest percent of GDP) are in order:

1. Denmark
2. Sweden
3. Belgium
4. France
5. Norway

In terms of per capita GDP these are, respectively, the 4th, 9th, 14th, 15th, and 3rd richest countries on earth while the United States is 17th. Of course in part that’s an exchange rate phenomenon and if you use PPP adjustments rather than market exchange rates, the U.S. looks better. On the other hand, if you peer into the future it seems to me that exchange rate comparisons are likely to make us look even worse in years to come. The high-tax five also do very well on things like the U.N. Human Development index.

These countries have much less population than the USA. Their governments and people embrace all sorts of social programs. One thing socialism will do is level out the net wealth of the population because the incentive to excel becomes lower. Why bust your butt when most of your money goes to the government to support those who sit on their butts? There's also no argument from me that the folks in those countries are "happier" -- I'd be happy too if the government takes care of me for years, from my birth to my death.

But guess what? These nations aren't the most competitive in the world. Look at the Fortune Global 500 (2008) list. Look at the most recognized commercial brands: Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Toyota, etc. Look at the list of billionaires. Not many from the above listed countries, eh?

High taxes may not adversely affect per capita GDP, but it certainly diminishes the individual's will to exceed expectations and profit personally. In turn that spells trouble for the nation's industries and long-term prospects.

Obama's crazy budget

President Obama and his team delivers us a budget today: $3.55 trillion for 2010, and he's wanting to spend $3.94 trillion this year. Yes, trillions.

Starting in 2011 productive Americans will see tax increases like never before. Here's a brief breakdown from ABC News' Jake Tapper.

The WSJ also kindly points out how seriously bad this is:

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

That boggles the mind. There is no way we can catch up to this massive deficit and debt. What worries me even more is that we'll be down a spiraling path of careless spending without the will to repay. It's like those people who are in credit card debt for tens of thousands of dollars. They get depressed and hopeless, and to a point indifferent to their financial well-being as they give up any effort to pay back.

Are you scared yet?

Even Democrats are growing wary of Obama

President Obama and his team now has to worry about dissent within his own party. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen may join the handful of Republican governors to reject the federal stimulus for the state's unemployed. (It's interesting that so far these defiant governors are all from the South.)

Then there's Sen. Byrd (D-WV) voicing his opinion about Obama's appointment of White House czars:

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

The scholarly Senator is absolutely right! Obama's actions are indeed cause for concern, a potential breach of the Constitution.

Likely NIC pick connected to bin Laden family business

What's it with President Obama's candidates for his cabinet and inner circle? Charles Freeman, the likely appointee to the National Intelligence Council, had ties to the bin Laden family business even after the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, Freeman's Projects International gave more than $1,000 to the Obama presidential campaign. Pay to play?

Sen. Charles Schumer wants to force federal money into states

Hat tip to RedState for uncovering this.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) needs to re-read the Constitution and learn about Washington's boundaries. Feel free to contact his office to give him an education about it.

Commerce secretary pick #3 has skeletons in his closet

President Obama is said to be positioning former Washington Gov. Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary, his third choice after the withdrawal of Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).

But there's trouble brewing with Gary Locke, stemming from his brother-in-law in 2002:

LET'S SAY YOU'RE Gov. Gary Locke's brother-in-law. You bunk at the governor's mansion. You commute to your nearby job as an executive of a private technology firm.

During your two years with the firm, the governor signs a bill giving your company a tax break, personally intervenes in a dispute involving your company, shows up for a party there, and signs a federal loan application for your company, whose founders—your bosses—pay at least two visits to the mansion.

At the same time, your company rakes in millions in state aid, lands a fat state technology contract, and is allowed to use government credit authority to float new loans (an authority illegally granted, as a state auditor's report will reveal this week).

Are you getting gubernatorial favors that average citizens don't get?

Come on, President Obama. You can do better than this?!

House Democrats on new spending spree

Here we go again... Hot on the heels of the $787 billion stimulus package, House Democrats are now proposing a $410 billion spending bill to "keep the government running."

More like to keep the government running up in debt.

I have an idea. How about let's just stop the government from running for a few months to see how things go? We may actually be better off that way.

Human rights matter less in global economic crisis

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't mention a word about human rights when she visited China, which is somewhat unusual traditionally. Instead she claimed that by pressing Beijing on human rights issues, she might tick the Communists off and risk them to abandon U.S. treasuries. That would be terrible in the current economic meltdown, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, the lack of vocal support for human rights on her first visit to China since taking office has a deafening effect, especially to those jailed and harassed because of their dissent. America, land of the free, is more concerned about Wall Street than championing human rights around the world.

The Socialist States of America

That's what America is turning into. The federal government is dangling a $150 billion gigantic carrot in front of the governors to lure them into becoming the big spending, big government monsters Washington has already turned into.

Thankfully, there are a few Republican governors with enough sense to tell Washington to "talk to the hand":

These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

These governors deserve applause for thinking long term. The "free money" from the federal government may seem like sweet relief in the short run, but it's really a trap to make states more dependent on Washington. Just like an addictive drug, as Gov. Perry puts it succinctly.

Kowtowing to China

Seriously, are we this desperate?

Our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just short of begging Beijing to keep on buying up U.S. debt in order to finance President Obama's massive, high fat, high cholesterol pork plan.

Soon China will not only produce your TVs, computers, shoes, shirts, utensils, etc., but also American roads, bridges, school buildings, and broadband access!

Obama auto team has no interest in saving Detroit

The Detroit News exposes:

Among the eight members named Friday to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department's special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.

The Detroit News reviewed public records to discover what many of the task force and staff members drove, but information was not available on all of the officials, and records for some states were not complete.

At least two task force members don't own a car, and there are still two open slots on the 10-member panel that will be filled by the secretaries of labor and commerce, who have not yet been appointed.

Congress humiliated bank CEOs and asked them to sell their corporate jets. Now let's see if public scrutiny will have these task force members replace their foreign cars with Detroit ones.

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.

The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:

The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.

Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

Rick Santelli is my hero

Rick Santelli of CNBC is upset about the President Obama mortgage rescue plan, and rightly so. He and the traders at CBOE working around him are certainly the faces of good ol' American capitalism!

Rahm Emanuel's dirty closet

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's W.H. Chief of Staff, has some explaining to do.

He failed to disclose the gift of living rent-free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-CT).

Even more troubling is the fact that he'd served on the board of Freddie Mac when it lied about its earnings, a contributing factor of today's economic meltdown.

It's a good thing that his position doesn't require a Senate confirmation hearing. Otherwise, we'd have seen another nominee withdrawal. One cannot help but wonder: What type of people is President Obama surrounding himself with?

Burris in ethics probe

And you thought the Blagojevich show is over?

As Burris was vying for the Senate seat, he tried to raise money for then-Gov. Blagojevich. Sen. Burris is now under investigation by the state and Republicans are calling for actions to dig deeper into the situation.

When is Chicago style politics going to be cleaned up???

New blog on blogroll: Keen To Convene

Dear Readers, I want to invite you to visit Keen To Convene, a conservative blog by two fine young bloggers, Lisa and Aaron. Why am I highlighting their particular blog? First, I am very impressed by the content. They write well, their posts are good essays about their ideology and experiences. Second, they deserve some attention because they represent a rare voice: Generation X Asian conservatives in southern California. It's re-assuring to know that in deep blue California there are young people who stand firm in their conservative principles.

Please take time to visit Lisa and Aaron's blog regularly or subscribe to it. You will not be disappointed!

House passes stimulus without GOP support again

The House passes the final stimulus bill, and again without the support of Republicans as well as seven Democrats. Now the bill moves to the Senate, and that's where things could get more interesting as Democrats hold a majority but still need a few Republicans' support in order to pass the bill.

Spending $900B without knowing the details

The 1,071-page stimulus bill is up for a final vote in Congress, yet it's unlikely that any Congressman and Senator would have the chance to read the whole document before taking action. In fact, these politicians even agreed to delay the publication of the bill on the Internet to be searched by everyone.