posted October 04, 2011 07:44 AM            

Problem:

Not a single demoscat House member or Senator has agreed to co-sponsor O'Bomber's latest disaster for America.

To leftist demoscats, it's not the fact raising taxes in a down economy is bad.

Nope, not at all. But, raising taxes in an election year is bad...very bad for demoscat reelection chances.

So now, O'Bomber is touring America...on the taxpayer's dime campaigning for reelection while screeching..."I want my bill back from Congress NOW...so I can sign it".

Poor O'Bomber, not even their very own leftist Messiah, THE ONE is as important to leftist demoscats as their own reelection.

House Majority Leader Cantor: Obama’s Jobs Package is Dead
By Matt Cover
October 3, 2011

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that President Barack Obama’s $447-billion American Jobs Act was dead, adding that Obama’s “all or nothing” approach would not work.

At a Capitol Hill briefing on Monday, a reporter asked Cantor whether the "jobs package as a package [was] dead?"

Cantor said, "yes," and shortly thereafter said, “It seems as if the president is in full campaign mode. The president continues to say ‘pass my bill in its entirety.’ As I’ve said from the outset, this all-or-nothing approach is just not acceptable.”

Cantor also questioned whether Obama had the votes for his jobs bill in the Democrat-controlled Senate, saying that the president had some “whipping” to do.

“I think – from a purely practical standpoint – the president’s got some whipping to do on his own side of the aisle,” said Cantor. “Clearly, I think comments made by Democrats on both the House and Senate side indicated they’ve got problems with the president’s bill.”

One of those Democrats is Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate Majority Whip. Durbin told Chicago-area radio station WLS last week that there would not be “100 percent” Democratic support for the bill in the Senate.

President Barack Obama speaks about the American Jobs Act, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2011, at Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School in Columbus, Ohio. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak)
“The oil-producing state senators don't like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies,” Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say I'm never gonna’ vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people. So, we're not going to have 100 percent Democratic senators.”

posted November 03, 2011 08:45 AM            

O'Bomber Stimulus 1 was an abject failure AND...O'Bomber wants to do a rerun; Son of Stimulus!

This is the reason Socialism and it's illegitimate spawn Communism always fails. Socialists and Communists just aren't intelligent enough to run anything efficiently; plus the fact there's a broad streak of insanity running through their psyches which compels them to endlessly repeat failure; always expecting a different result.

Socialism and Communism are parasitic in nature and cannot exist for long without a host body..Capitalism to fund their insane schemes.

DOE Inspector General: Over 100 Criminal Investigations Of Obama Stimulus Spending
Clearly we need a bigger government to spend all this money
by John Hayward
11/02/2011

The Inspector General of the Energy Department, Gregory Friedman, has been investigating the fate of the $35.2 billion his department received from the Obama “stimulus” disaster in 2009. Today he submitted his report to the House Oversight committee.

As the Washington Post reports, Friedman concluded that shoveling out $8 billion more than DOE’s annual budget “was more challenging than many had originally envisioned.” This was, in no small part, due to the unfortunate discovery that while “the concept of ‘shovel ready’ projects became a Recovery Act symbol of expeditiously stimulating the economy and creating jobs,” it turned out that “in reality, few actual ‘shovel ready’ projects existing.”

Sorry about that, America. No, you can’t have your trillion dollars back. Or the interest you’ve been forced to pay on the trillion dollars you were forced to borrow so we could learn Barack Obama has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to “job creation.” Instead, you need to pay more taxes, so he has more money to spend on history's most expensive, and least successful, course in remedial economics.

The Post offers this gem of darkly comical analysis:

Most of the delays in distributing stimulus spending stemmed from local, state and federal entities unable to quickly spend the money — in some cases because state government personnel charged with distributing the federal dollars had been furloughed as part of state budget crunches, Friedman said.

In several of his investigations, Friedman has noted that the political push to quickly create jobs and spur economic development didn’t match up with economic realities on the ground. And while he credits the department for making significant progress in distributing the federal aid, 45 percent of stimulus dollars distributed by Energy still hadn’t been spent by state and local government as of Oct. 22.

Hey, cut Obama some slack! How was one level of government supposed to know that another level of government wasn’t ready to handle a tidal wave of taxpayer money, because budget crunches had forced them to cut staff?

Let us pause to appreciate the business acumen displayed by the statists who paid years of interest on sixteen billion borrowed federal dollars they haven’t even spent yet.

Besides having insufficiently large armies of bureaucrats ready to spend the money, state governments also ran afoul of federal regulations that clogged their stimulus plumbing. “One state had only spent 30 percent of its State Energy Program funds two years after they had become available,” explains the Inspector General. “We found that this was due to the time needed to comply with regulatory requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act – issues that affected other jurisdictions as well.”

The Davis-Bacon Act forces the government to pay union-scale wages to contractors, even if they don’t employ unionized workforces. It’s supposed to prevent non-union shops from stealing all those tasty government construction jobs from union shops that can’t compete with them on labor costs.

When work did get done, the results were not impressive. The Weatherization Program enjoyed a one thousand percent increase in funding, but Friedman reports that “weatherization work was often of poor quality,” and “9 of the 17 weatherized homes we visited failed inspections because of substandard workmanship.” Loans were not documented properly, money was wasted left and right, and one weatherization recipient “gave preferential treatment to its employees and their relatives for weatherization services over other applicants, thus disadvantaging eligible elderly and handicapped residents.” Nice!

You’ll be delighted to know that more than a hundred criminal investigations were launched into Energy’s handling of its mere 4% of the Obama stimulus. Friedman says “these involve various schemes, including the submission of false information, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, and other improper uses of Recovery Act funds.” Five criminal prosecutions have resulted, and over $2.3 million in stolen “stimulus” loot has been recovered.

Even when it wasn’t beset by scam artists, the “stimulus” mandarins found themselves so paralyzed by bureaucracy and paperwork that they couldn’t effectively give money away. Their “efforts were complicated by the nature of the bureaucracy,” Friedman explains, including the burden of dealing with “literally thousands of state and local jurisdictions, community action organizations in every state and territory, universities and colleges, contractors, and other private sector entities.” Furthermore, recipients complained about “overly complex and burdensome reporting requirements.”

Whew! That sounds a lot more complicated, wasteful, abuse-prone, and inefficient that letting people keep and spend their own money, on whatever products and services they desire. But we can’t have that, can we? Clearly, what we really need is a much larger government bureaucracy, which can more efficiently spend the huge amounts of money it seizes from the private sector.

posted November 25, 2011 09:08 AM            

As I said, "We've seen the script of this play before".

The tax increases are immediate but the federal government "spending reductions" never happen.

No thanks, we'll pass on that!

O'Bomber and his Socialist cronies in Congress have such a dismal record they can't run for reelection on those records.

The demoscat reelection plan revolves around lying to the American people. "How can we fool them this time".

America doesn't have a tax structure that's too low. Instead, federal spending is totally out of control and demoscats don't want to cut a thin dime of federal spending...in spite of their constant caterwauling about..."the balanced approach".

I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today
by Ann Coulter
11/23/2011

Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn't implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist​'s "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they'd refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it's Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait -- first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan​'s statement in his autobiography, "An American Life​," that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted -- implying that today's Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they'd refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes "in return for (the Democrats') agreement to cut spending by $280 billion," but, Reagan continues, "the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

Maybe that's why Republicans won't agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats' history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans' opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That's why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan​ succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 -- which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats' subsequent caterwauling -- he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion -- only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan's tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years -- as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan's tax cuts couldn't pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats -- more than twice as much as Reagan's spending on defense.

Reagan's defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O'Neill's domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush​ made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit -- created exclusively by their own profligate spending -- Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn't care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush's defeat in the next election.

On CNN's "Crossfire," then-congressman Charles Schumer​, D-N.Y., gloated: "All the spin control in the world can't undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes."

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that "with his three words, ('tax revenue increases') Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign."

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a "Reagan Democrat," who said: "Bush says, 'Read my lips.' Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt."

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party's central defining issue -- low taxes -- and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton​ taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, "He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don't have to read his lips; we can read his record."

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats' record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It's been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it's time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47750&s=rcmp