President Obama continues to take criticism for his preemptive attack on the Supreme Court on Monday, when he claimed that if the justices found his health care law to be unconstitutional it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
AFP writes today, “Barack Obama’s health care blast at the Supreme Court is provoking an inquisition into whether a law professor turned president unwisely trashed political and constitutional convention. Few court watchers can recall a recent precedent for Obama’s public warning Monday to the nine top justices in America that his legacy-boosting health reform legislation should stand. Presidents generally avoid comment on cases before the court, to avoid prejudicing proceedings and infecting the respected body with the polarized political stew swamping the rest of Washington.”
CBS News adds, “President Barack Obama has been running against Congress for a while, but as the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of his health care overhaul, recent comments appear to have put him at odds with the courts as well. . . . [Tuesday] was the second straight day the president gave his take on what the high court should do. On Monday, he seemed to suggest the court didn’t even have the power to strike down the law.”
Even the Washington Post editors were taken aback by Obama’s initial comments, writing, “President Obama’s comments Monday about the Supreme Court were jarring. If the court were to strike down the health-care law, Mr. Obama said, it would be a blatant example of judicial activism. That ‘an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,’ the president said, would be ‘an unprecedented, extraordinary step.’ Well, not exactly, and the comments strayed perilously close to a preemptive strike on the court’s legitimacy if it were to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional.”
The Wall Street Journal put it more bluntly in an editorial yesterday: “Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the Justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law.”
Governor Nixon’s opposition research team is in full overdrive. Last week it was Reliance Bank and TARP funds, this week it’s personal and business taxes. Here’s an excerpt from today’s KC Star article from Steve Kraske.
Examples of Spence’s tax problems:
In June 1995, the state of Missouri sued Alpha Packaging for unpaid manufacturers’ taxes and personal property taxes totaling $10,071. The court dismissed the case the next month. Craighead did not know whether the case was dismissed because the taxes were paid.
In 2003 and 2009, Alpha Packaging was late in paying business personal property taxes in St. Louis County and was assessed interest and penalties. The 2003 taxes were paid on June 15, 2004, and included $63 in interest and $14 in penalties. The 2009 taxes were paid on Dec. 29, 2010, and included $42 in interest and $5 in penalties.
Craighead said Alpha Packaging had no record of interest or penalties paid in 2003. In 2009, Alpha failed to include one truck/tractor on its property tax declaration. Craighead called it an oversight.
In 2007, Spence and his wife were penalized $1,609 for past-due property taxes on their St. Louis County home, which campaign officials did not dispute.
In 2007, Spence and his wife were about six months late in paying taxes on their three vehicles and wound up paying $86 in interest and $16 in penalties. Craighead said confusion over whether Missouri taxes applied to a vehicle brought to the state from Utah caused the problem. “They were under the impression they did not have to pay it because it came from Utah,” he said.
Alpha Packaging went more than three years — 2007 to part of 2010 — without paying a “local business tax” on a Jacksonville, Fla., plant. Craighead said the company discovered the issue itself and paid the tax.
In 2007, a lien was filed against one of Spence’s businesses, Big Sky Properties, for more than $280,000 in unpaid bills related to building improvements. Craighead said a tenant was responsible for making the payments for the improvements, and the contractor filed a mechanic’s lien on the property. Spence wound up making the payments and was later reimbursed by the tenant.
Big Sky Properties paid more than $23,000 in penalties and interest for late St. Louis County property taxes in 2008 and 2009. Craighead explained that “the renter (of the property) did not pay the taxes he was obligated to pay under the lease, and Dave had to step in and pay the taxes and was reimbursed.” Read more…
The AP reports that President Obama is going to push his Buffet tax and attack the house-passed budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) later today at “a luncheon of 900 editors and publishers following The Associated Press’ annual meeting.” Senate Democrats want to vote on this tax hike when the Senate returns from recess. According to Roll Call, Democrats are eager to return to their “theme of income inequality,” which they think attacking the Ryan budget and pushing yet another tax hike will “underscore.”
So with unemployment still over 8% and gas prices approaching an average of $4 per gallon nationwide, the president is instead going to spend time attacking House Republicans for producing a budget that attempts to seriously reform entitlements and tackle the deficit. Of course, the president won’t be mentioning what a contrast this is to his own budgets, which have so far failed to attract a single vote from either party in either the House or Senate. Not to mention that Senate Democrats have failed to produce a budget for 3 years running now.
Not only that, President Obama is doubling down on his Buffet tax, something that will do nothing to lower gas prices nor will it create jobs. It’s worth recalling that the AP reported just a few weeks ago, “A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press. That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.”
Roll Call adds, “A senior GOP aide questioned Democrats’ decision to move the Buffett Rule while the chamber has done nothing to address rising gas prices. ‘Who thinks the Senate has finished its work on gas prices or jobs?,’ the aide asked. ‘It’s like they don’t even care about either topic. If one job was created every time Democrats tried to change the subject, America would be well on our way to full employment.’”
Polls consistently show that the economy and gas prices dominate Americans’ concerns. Just last week, Gallup found that “[a] variety of economic-related issues dominate Americans’ top concerns on a list of 15 issues facing the country today. The economy and gas prices lead the list, with 71% and 65% of Americans, respectively, saying they personally worry ‘a great deal’ about each. These are followed by federal spending and the budget deficit (60%), the availability and affordability of healthcare (60%), unemployment (55%), Social Security (48%), and the availability and affordability of energy (48%).”
And yet inexplicably Democrats return over and over to “inequality” and tax hikes. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said today, “This is yet another proposal from the White House that won’t create a single job or lower the price at the pump by a penny, but may have the opposite effect. Just as with the President’s proposal to raise taxes on American energy manufacturers and increase the cost of energy, this is yet another sign that the White House is out of ideas and is simply focused on tax hike show-votes rather than pushing for the dozens of jobs and energy bills that have passed the House but are stalled in the Democrat-led Senate.”
Political newby Mr. Spence needs to learn how to stall or ask for clarification on a question when he’s unfamiliar with that question. Not good to draw a blank on constitutional questions.
ClaycomoPolitics:
I will be voting for Bill Randles in the Missouri Gubernatorial Primary. I came across this video recently. I was FLOORED at Mr. Spence’s response to a question about the national popular vote. We need to elect people that actually understand the CONSTITUTION and our government!
Last week, Democrats and President Obama spent the week pushing a bill to raise taxes on American energy producers, even though not a single one could explain how this was supposed to help Americans feeling the pinch of high gas prices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) held a vote on the measure on Thursday and it was rejected on a bipartisan basis.
The Hill noted, “The outcome of the vote was not a surprise, given that a similar plan failed 52-48 last May. . . . Obama has sought to deflect blame for high gas prices, in part by casting Republicans as allies of big oil companies. He used a Rose Garden speech to urge lawmakers to back [Democrats’ tax bill]”
Despite the president’s attempts to shift blame, the Senate has now rejected Democrats’ calls to raise taxes on American energy producers twice. When Democrats were pushing this same tax increase last year, the Congressional Research Service weighed in and explained that such tax changes “would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence.” And of course, Democrats have continually admitted that raising taxes on American energy companies won’t do anything to decrease the price of gas at the pump.
The Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday, “The White House and its Democratic allies are doing what they can to shift Americans’ frustration with high gasoline prices from President Barack Obama to another group: oil and gasoline companies. Senate Democrats pressed for a vote Thursday to end some $20 billion in federal subsidies to the largest oil and gas companies. The vote failed, as Democrats knew it would. The effort was a political gesture . . . .” ABC News added, “A last minute entreaty by President Obama wasn’t enough to convince senators to strip the oil and gas industry of billions in tax incentives.” And The Hill noted, “Four Democrats — Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.) — voted against the bill. The outcome of the vote was not a surprise, given that a similar plan failed 52-48 last May. But the decision to take another shot at passing the bill— and the decision by the White House to wade into the fight — underscore the political salience of rising gasoline prices in an election year. Obama has sought to deflect blame for high gas prices, in part by casting Republicans as allies of big oil companies.”
Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News last night, “I think any objective observer would look at what the president said today in the Rose Garden on this and conclude as I did: it is truly staggering cynicism.” Indeed, Senate Democrats have repeatedly acknowledged that their attempts to raise taxes on American energy producers would have “no impact on gasoline prices” and “will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.” Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) lamented this week, “We should have a real energy debate, not this show and tell for campaigning purposes.” And previously Begich and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have called this tax proposal “a gimmick” and “laughable,” respectively.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that “the price of gas has risen for 20 consecutive days” and yet the president and Democrats put forward this tax hike that news reports called “a political gesture.” As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday, “Is this really the best we can do? Is this the best we have to offer folks who are staring at $4 a gallon gasoline? A bill that even Democrats admit won’t do anything to lower the price of gas? And a process that blocks any other idea from even coming to the floor for a vote? Does anybody think the Senate’s really done its job on this issue?”
GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Randles released a written statement today calling for a federal investigation into recent reports of Governor Nixon engaging in “pay-to-play” activities. The Nixon administration awarded an exclusive $1.1 billion contract to insurance company Centene after receiving campaign contributions from both the company and its CEO.
Here is an excerpt from today’s statement:
“Rod Blagojevich must be scratching his head. He is sitting in federal prison for attempting to do what Jay Nixon has seemingly already done. Jay Nixon has apparently awarded a $1.1 billion exclusive contract to a major donor to his campaign who is not even licensed to operate an HMO in Missouri. Insurance company Centene and its CEO, Michael Neirdorff, have contributed $66,500 to Jay Nixon. In exchange Centene has been awarded a contract that prohibits anyone else from even competing to provide services to 450,000 of Missouri’s poorest citizens.
Centene is not new to the pay to play game. In 2008, it received $8 million in state tax credits to remain in St. Louis County. Last year a $5.5 million state contract with Syncare, a “variable interest entity” of Centene’s, ended in disaster. SynCare failed so miserably it was fired, or withdrew depending on who you ask, from a state contract to provide Medicaid services. Unsurprisingly, that Centene-controlled company’s chief lobbyist is a long-time political advisor of Jay Nixon. Oh, and the Nixon administration official who approved the contract went to work for SynCare six months later.
As an attorney, I can see no legal distinction between what Jay Nixon has already done and what Rod Blagojevich tried to do. The U.S. Attorney’s office should open an immediate investigation of Jay Nixon’s actions.”
