President Obama and Senate Democrats have decided that they’re going to use the week leading up to Tax Day to push yet another tax hike designed with politics in mind. The president is even flew to Florida to give a speech about. Last month, Democrats spent weeks demanding a tax increase on American energy producers, a tax hike designed to produce a political talking point, not lower gas prices. Now, Obama and his fellow Democrats have returned to their Buffett Tax idea, which, again, is designed for political headlines and won’t do anything to help Americans who are out of work or struggling with high gas prices.
In an analysis piece, titled “The Buffett Rule Won’t Get You a Job,”National Journal cuts to the heart of the matter, writing, “On the seventh and final page of its background report on the Buffett Rule, out this morning, the Obama administration finally dives into what it calls ‘the economic rationale’ for imposing a new minimum tax rate on millionaires. If you’re an unemployed American, that placement should be your first red flag. The second should be the rationale itself. Once you read it, you’ll realize the Buffett Rule has nothing to do with helping you, or 13 million other Americans looking for work as of March, find a job.” The article points out, “Voters want overwhelmingly for the presidential election to focus on jobs and the economy. In Florida today and on the campaign trail for months to come, Obama will attempt to narrow that focus to the idea that wealthy Americans should pay at least the same effective income tax rates as their middle-class counterparts. That’s not a jobs plan in anything but the most abstract, long-run terms.”
And of course, even the Obama administration admits this tax hike will do almost nothing to reduce this president’s serial trillion dollar deficits or pay down the over $15 trillion debt. Politico reports, “Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires ‘was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,’ Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon.”
Meanwhile, in a article headlined “Buffett Rule: Could it backfire on Democrats?,”
The Christian Science Monitor writes, “[P]olling suggests that taxing the rich might not be a winning issue for Obama in November.” Indeed, “the larger economic argument centered around ‘fairness’ may be problematic for the independent voters who are often crucial in presidential elections.” CSM explains, “Among voters without a strongly held opinion of either Mr. Romney or Obama, 80 percent said they’d be more likely to support a candidate focused on economic growth and opportunity, while 15 percent said they would choose one emphasizing income inequality, according to a poll released Monday by the centrist Democratic group Third Way. Asking a similar question, the poll found that 51 percent of so-called swing independents favored a candidate arguing for an economy based on opportunity, while 43 percent opted for one making the case for an economy based on fairness.” Reuters adds, “Obama’s push on tax fairness may be falling on deaf ears in the swing states where the November 6 election will likely be decided. In 12 battleground states, 80 percent of independent voters lacking strong views on either Obama or Romney said they prefer a candidate who focuses on creating economic opportunity rather than reducing income inequality, according to a poll by the moderate Democratic group Third Way released on Monday.”
The National Journal analysis concludes, “If the Buffett Rule was a serious pitch to help the jobless, it would deal with one of those main drivers of unemployment. It would boost persistently weak aggregate demand or incentivize business investment. It does neither. Instead, it tells America’s job-seekers, don’t worry, we’re going to make the tax code look more fair to you. Lots of polls suggest that’s a good political argument. But that’s what it is: a political pitch.”
President Obama’s preemptive criticism last week of the Supreme Court as it considers the constitutionality of his health care continues to face scrutiny. In a post Monday on its fact-checking blog, The Washington Post examines the arguments Obama made and finds them particularly misleading. The piece points out, “It’s clear that Obama’s ‘unprecedented’ comment was dead wrong, because the Supreme Court’s very purpose is to review laws that are passed by the nation’s democratically elected Congress — regardless of how popular or well-intentioned those laws may be.” Further, “Congress didn’t pass the Affordable Care Act with a strong majority.
The vote in the House of Representatives, for instance, was 219 to 212, with no Republicans supporting and 34 Democrats opposing the measure.” Also, The Post adds, “It’s worth noting that the White House keeps changing its tune on how the public should interpret Obama’s comments. On Friday, a spokesman told us the president was referring to ‘major economic legislation.’ So now we’ve gone from altogether ‘unprecedented,’ to ‘economic issues’ to just ‘major economic legislation.’”
After discussing some of the Supreme Court precedent and legal history, the fact-checking article concludes, “First of all, the president has a rather distorted view of what constitutes a ‘strong majority’ if he thinks the Affordable Care Act vote makes the cut. Not only was the victory achieved by a margin of just a few votes in the House, but the supporters were from only one political party—his own. Second, Obama’s remarks implied that the Supreme Court would be acting in extreme fashion by overturning the health-care law. That isn’t necessarily true. Some would say that invalidating an economic regulation isn’t extraordinary at all. . . . On balance, the president earns two Pinocchios—which means creating ‘a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people’—for his comments about the pending Supreme Court decision.”
“Several lawsuits have been filed over the establishment of the [trash] program. In one suit, a ruling is pending on how much in damages the county must pay three haulers that successfully argued they did not receive a state-required two years’ written notification before the trash districts’ establishment.”
You would think with this sorry history, a trash clean up photo op would be the last thing you would attend! This was probably one of his cronies ideas.
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley announced Thursday that he will seek re-election in 2014. “I love what I do, and I love my team,” Dooley said Thursday afternoon. “County voters have given me a great opportunity that few people get in a lifetime, and I want to continue to work for them to make this a great community.” Read more…
What a record to run on. Here’s a short list of Dooley’s “accomplishments.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the employment numbers for March today, but news reports suggest they’re disappointing. The Wall Street Journal writes, “U.S. job growth slowed in March, and the labor force shrank, signaling that the economy could be losing momentum. Jobs outside of agriculture grew by 120,000 last month—half the number that the economy added the prior month—the Labor Department said Friday, marking the first time since November that job growth fell below 200,000.” And the AP reports, “The job market slowed in March as companies hit the brakes on hiring amid uncertainty about the economy’s growth prospects. The unemployment rate dipped, but mostly because more Americans stopped looking for work.”
With today’s news, it’s worth recalling what Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration promised when they passed their nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill three years ago. Former White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicted that the unemployment rate with the stimulus bill would not exceed 8%. Yet the unemployment rate has been above 8% for over 36 months now. Shortly after President Obama signed the stimulus, Vice President Joe Biden boasted that the stimulus “literally drop-kicks us out of this recession” by, he claimed, creating “3.5 million jobs” in “18 months.”
President Obama’s expensive regulations, constant calls for tax increases, and his byzantine and unpopular health care law are all making it harder and more expensive to create private sector jobs in the United States. This country can do better.
The Coalition to Protect Missouri Jobs spoke to members of the media yesterday regarding their plans to build a broad based coalition that will educate candidates and citizens on important workplace issues during the upcoming election. The coalition will highlight facts surrounding job-killing legislation and regulation harming the workplace, and urge candidates for federal office to stand with employees and small businesses.
Yesterday during her so called “fairness tour,” in Columbia yesterday, the self proclaimed moderate and populist called for the president to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
“If we would release some oil from the strategic reserve it would cause the price of oil to go down, maybe not permanently, but temporarily, and it would catch those speculators kind of with their pants down”. Read more…
This statement points out two distinct things in our minds. One, Claire, like President Obama, doesn’t have a clue on how capitalism and free markets really work. And two, she must really believe that we’re down right stupid! The last time the strategic reserved was tapped in 2011, the president authorized the release of 30 million barrels of oil. The United States uses close to 19 million barrels a day. So releasing a day and a half supply of oil onto the market will “catch those speculators kind of with their pants down?” C’mon Senator, you’re insulting our intelligence.
U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill visited a Shell gas station on Interstate 70 Drive as part of her “Fighting for Fairness” tour, which came to Columbia on Wednesday. McCaskill, D-Mo., spoke to a handful of media at the gas station as part of her travels through Missouri focused on a discussion of her goals for a fairer tax code and more level playing field for Missouri residents of varying incomes. Read more…
“Speed is important…Debate starts at 10 in am. Votes late tomorrow aft or early eve. Holding flight home tomorrow night. Hope I make it.”– Sen. Claire McCaskill on Twitter discussing the stimulus vote
As she today embarks on a so-called fairness tour to fight for “struggling Missouri families,” Claire McCaskill should take this opportunity to explain to Missourians how she avoided similar struggles by helping write the $1.17 trillion stimulus bill which was used to line her own pockets.
McCaskill’s husband operates or has direct financial interest in various projects which received payments totaling $966,270 in stimulus funds. McCaskill admits that she and her husband “share everything – assets, children, and a house. Some have implied that the assets of my family don’t belong to me. That notion is pretty archaic.”
Shepard Has Served As President Of Milan Manor Development, Which Received $403,200 From The Stimulus Bill:
According To McCaskill’s PFD From 2005 To 2010, Shepard Had Assets In Milan Manor Associates. (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Personal Financial Disclosures For Year 2005-2010, Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/21/12)
According To USASpending.gov, Milan Manor Was Awarded $403,200 From Stimulus Funds In March 2009:
Federal Award ID: IL060044017-09Z
Recipient: MILAN MANOR APTS, 2000 W 4TH ST, Milan
Program Source: 86-0303:Project-based Rental Assistance
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
CFDA Program: 14.317 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Special Allocations – Recovery Act Funded
Description: Contract Svs S8 Funds
Date Signed: March 20, 2009
Obligation Amount: $403,200
(USASpending.Gov, Accessed 1/14/12)
Sunset Hills Apartments Ltd, Which Is Located At Shepard’s 17 West Lockwood Property, Received $293,501 From The Stimulus Bill:
According To McCaskill’s PFD From 2005 To 2010, Shepard Had Assets In Sunset Hills Apartments, Ltd. (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Personal Financial Disclosures For Year 2005-2010, Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/21/12)
According To USASpending.gov, Sunset Hills Apartments Was Awarded $293,501 From The Stimulus Bill In May 2009.
Federal Award ID: NM160001001-09I
Recipient: SUNSET HILLS APTS, UNITED NEW MEXICO BANK BOX 1081, Albuquerque, NM
Program Source: 86-0303:Project-based Rental Assistance
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
CFDA Program: 14.317 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Special Allocations – Recovery Act Funded
Description: Contract Svs S8 Funds
Date Signed: May 11, 2009
Obligation Amount: $293,501
(USAspending.gov, Accessed 1/14/12)
Shepard Is A Limited Partner In Marston Apartments, Which Received $98,553 From The Stimulus Bill:
According To McCaskill’s PFD From 2005 To 2009 Shepard Had Assets In Marston Associates I, LP. (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Personal Financial Disclosures For Year 2005-2009, Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/21/12)
According To USASpending.gov, Marston Associates I LP Was Awarded $98,553 From The Stimulus Bill In March 2009.
Federal Award ID: MO36R000042-09Z
Recipient: MARSTON ASSOCIATES I LP, 111 North Main St, Clarkton
Program Source: 86-0303:Project-based Rental Assistance
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
CFDA Program: 14.317 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Special Allocations – Recovery Act Funded
Description: Contract Svs S8 Funds
Date Signed: March 20, 2009
Obligation Amount: $98,553
(USASpending.gov, Accessed 1/14/12)
Shepard Has Assets And Provided Consulting To Saddlewood Apartments, Which Received $90,880 From The Stimulus Bill:
According To McCaskill’s PFD From 2005 To 2010 Shepard Had Assets In Saddlewood I LP. (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Personal Financial Disclosures For Year 2005-2010, Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/21/12)
According To USASpending.gov, Saddlewood Apartments Received $90,880 From The Stimulus Bill In March 2009.
Federal Award ID: MO168023004-09Z
Recipient: SADDLEWOOD APTS, 3201 WEST 10TH, Sedalia
Program Source: 86-0303:Project-based Rental Assistance
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
CFDA Program: 14.317 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Special Allocations – Recovery Act Funded
Description: Contract Svs S8 Funds
Date Signed: March 20, 2009
Obligation Amount: $90,880
(USASpending.gov, Accessed 1/14/12)
Shepard’s Lockwood Group Owns Applegate Apartments, Which Received $80,136 From The Stimulus Bill:
According To McCaskill’s PFD From 2005 To 2010 Shepard Had Assets In Kansas Rural Housing Of Atchison LP. (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Personal Financial Disclosures For Year 2005-2010, Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/21/12)
According To USASpending.gov, “KS Rural Hsg / Atchison” Was Awarded $80,136 From The Stimulus Bill In March 2009.
